Posted on 05/17/2006 9:08:53 PM PDT by Full Court
font face="Georgia, Times New Roman, Times, serif" size="4" color="#990000">From Operation Rescue to Operation Convert
May 21-27, 2006 |
by TIM DRAKE |
Also in the Register: Randal Terry, CatholicRandall Terry has become Catholic. Tell me about your family. How did you come to know Christ? How did you first get started in pro-life work? What led to the founding of Operation Rescue? How many times were you arrested? When did you first take an interest in the Catholic Church? Which theological hurdles were the most difficult for you to jump? I understand that you are awaiting word on the annulment of your first marriage. Can you tell me why you chose to be received into the Church (without being able to receive the Eucharist), before the resolution of your annulment? Tell me how your reception into the Church came about. What was your greatest fear? How do you expect your evangelical colleagues will react to news of your conversion? Do you anticipate that your conversion could hurt you in your Senate race in a predominantly Protestant state?
|
No one knows the names of the elect except God, who ordained every one of them for His good pleasure. We, as Christian parents, believe that God will watch over our children, protect them and give them the same faith He has given us. Life is difficult enough without thinking our children are not firmly in His grasp, just like we are.
Re: unbelievers. Why would an unbeliever want to be baptized anyway?
I think Baptists balk at infant baptism as being a somewhat paltry sacrament compared to a Believer's Baptism. But for us baby-dousers, we see the insistence on adult baptism as some kind of an oath, a pledge, a work, a conscious decision to be saved, a requirement for salvation, when the truth is that the only requirement for salvation is the shed blood of Christ.
I think that last line is worth guarding with our lives. We preach Christ crucified. Nothing saves but Christ's payment for our sins, ordained by God from before the foundation of the world.
"I am the LORD, and there is none else, there is no God beside me: I girded thee, though thou hast not known me:
That they may know from the rising of the sun, and from the west, that there is none beside me. I am the LORD, and there is none else." -- Isaiah 45:5-6
I will praise thee; for I am fearfully and wonderfully made: marvellous are thy works; and that my soul knoweth right well. My substance was not hid from thee, when I was made in secret, and curiously wrought in the lowest parts of the earth. Thine eyes did see my substance, yet being unperfect; and in thy book all my members were written, which in continuance were fashioned, when as yet there was none of them." -- Psalm 139:13-16"For thou hast possessed my reins: thou hast covered me in my mother's womb.
There's no "hole" in Reformation theology. Just miles and miles between Reformation theology and today's churches.
We're gonna need more tape.
So all translators/translations are valid?
Then why follow the Romanist example of unbiblical infant baptism and not the Biblical example of believers baptism?
"Scripture derives its authority from Him who sent it. Would you know the reason why men believe in Scripture? It is Scripture. It is itself the instrument which outwardly leads men to believe, whilst inwardly, the spirit of God Himself, speaking through Scripture, gives faith to His children." "The man who throws off the worldly existence which he has lived far from God, and receives by a living faith the complete remission of his sins, which the death of Christ has purchased for him, is introduced by a glorious adoption into the very family of God.""The authority of Jesus Christ is independent of the authority of the Church...Holy Scripture is the first of the Apostles, and the ruler in the kingdom of Chrst."
Sola fide.
First: He maintains that faith alone justifies.
Second: He maintains that to believe in the forgiveness of sins and to embrace the mercy offered in the Gospel, is enough for salvation.
Third: He avers that human traditions cannot bind the conscience, except where their neglect might occasion scandal.
Fourth: He denies the freedom of the will.
Fifth: He denies that there is any purgatory.
Sixth: He affirms that neither the Virgin nor the Saints pray for us in their own person.
Seventh: He asserts that neither the Virgin nor the Saints should be invoked by us.
I have Sungenis' book, NOT BY BREAD ALONE.
You wrote:
"Why even bother with the Bible then??"
Simple. Because everything in it is true and from God.
The thing to do is not confuse that with everything that is true and from God is in the Bible.
Those are two different ideas. I don't confuse one with the other. You apparently do.
You're defending Calvinism?
:::snicker:::
Because we're not following the Romanist example. They believe baptism into their church is irrevocable and confers salvation.
The Reformed believe that God's decree is irrevocable and that only God's grace by faith in Christ's redemption of us confers salvation.
The fact that infants cannot intentionally embrace faith is righteousy emblematic of the fact that none of us can. Instead, if God has decreed that we are one of His sheep, then the Holy Spirit will work salvation in us. Through nothing in ourselves.
"For it is God which worketh in you both to will and to do of His good pleasure." -- Philippians 2:13
Infant baptism doesn't "insure" anything. Only God's grace insures salvation. We hope that all who are baptized into the congregation are saved, but only God knows. We hope and believe.
Here's a good link...
And this one looks interesting, too...
But there are plenty of Reformed Baptists who are solid in their understanding of God's will. Our disagreement is small compared to our shared understanding of Scripture. Charles Spurgeon is one of my favorites. God blessed him abundantly and his sermons include us in that blessing.
"When you go through a trial, the sovereignty of God is the pillow upon which you lay your head." -- Spurgeon
Then why do it and rob the child of a true Biblical baptism if he later becomes a Believer?
Full Court, I don't believe in/practice infant baptism either. But it's simply not correct to call it a "Romanist example."
Many, if not most, mainstream Protestant churches baptize infants.
What you care to discuss is irrelevant. You asked me a question. I answered it. The only rejoinder you can muster is a link to somewhere else where you say you won't discuss it. Irrelevant. You asked. I answered. Any comment from you after that is immaterial since there is nothing of any substance you can counter my comment with anyway.
Have a nice night!
That's why you all need to find a good independent Baptist church to call home!!
Are you through now?
But you really are.
There is no Scripture for baptizing an unbeliever of any age, only believers.
Only Rome introduced the practice of baptizing unbelieving babies.
You were through before you started.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.