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?
|
You cannot conceive of a person who professes faith in Christ without possessing it? Who follows Christ with their words but not their actions? Who professes with their lips while their hearts are far from Him?
No, I can't imagine calling an unbeliever a Christian.
Nor can I imagine calling a believer a non-Christian.
Since neither of us see their hearts, then we're sort of stuck with their words.
Since neither of us see their hearts, then we're sort of stuck with their words.
Apparently you don't see the inherent problem between these two statements. If you don't know their heart, how do you know their words reflect a true saving faith and not a mere profession?
Who said anything about following creeds and not the Bible? I have to concur with needlenose (great post n_n, BTW!) - the creeds and confessions are a useful means of codifying and focusing in on key Biblical doctrines, and by extension are very useful in matters of church membership (covenants) or forming definitions of heresy. I would never suggest they are a substitute for Scripture, nor would I suffer accusations that they are fabrications of doctrine. Creeds are excellent summaries of where Scripture speaks to certain subjects, and exist as historic documents as to who took what side in prior ecclesiastical/doctrinal disputes. IMO they were wisely formed to "redeem the time" (Eph. 5:16) when testing or investigating the confessions of a professing believer.
A refusal to use a creed/confession/doctrinal statement of some kind, means that every time you want to investigate a brother's doctrine you must go through the Bible with that individual - all of it - and see how they agree with your reading, point-for-point, of:
66 books
1,189 chapters
31,373 verses
775,693 words
...in the Authorized Version, of course. Will they agree with your beliefs and doctrines point-for-point? How much error will you permit, before separating yourself from them? By refusing to profess/acknowledge a creed, or publish/profess an "articles of faith" / "doctrinal statement", the believer and his/her church functionally accomplishes five things:
- rejecting a priori every prior study and/or codification of doctrine formulated by any church body at every point in church history.
- practicing (if not outright believing and teaching) that Wisdom ended when special revelation and supernatural gifts did, dismissing any wisdom acquired by any bible-believing Christian in church history, contrary to Proverbs 2:6-9,
- allowing minor points of doctrine (eschatology, worship forms and practices, ecclesiastical government forms, etc) to be granted equal status with major points of doctrine (the Trinity, nature of salvation, etc),
- leave the door open for doctrinal stances to shift unknowingly from moment to moment, congregation to congregation, pastor to pastor, or even from week to week,
- willfully sequesters yourself from examination and correction by any congregation, visitors, friends, fellow believers and unbelievers, preventing all from discovering your full doctrinal beliefs without forcing a long, arduous and mandatory investigation.
That should be framed and hung, brother.
In a bizarre sort of way that's what I was getting at. I just didn't quite get there.
Just about any church has "creeds" in some sort or fashion. Whenever we've investigated churches to attend we often review their "statement of faith". These are nothing other than a simplified "creed". I'm sure Full Court's church has a statement of faith.
The problem today is that many of these "statement of faith" are so wide and so loose they don't mean a whole heck of a lot in trying to figure out what a church believes. I would suggest that FC read through the London Baptist Confession of Faith, a creed that is just about forgotten by the Baptists.
Can I put your homepage on my homepage?
I put it on my blog. Feel free to link. :)
Never. I stick to Scripture.
Well then, I guess you never sing hymnns then either.
I guess you should do nothing but cite Scripture every single time you talk about God, Jesus, Christianity, religion, philosophy, the legal system, politics, charity, patriotism, work and anything else.
It's amusing that Paul cited pagan poets in Mars Hill when preaching to the Greeks in Athens, and not once cited the OT.
Should Paul have followed your premise?
Fru, I understand the distinction you're trying to make. It is even legitimate scripturally....wheat/tares.
However, a believer is a real Christian when one is using "believe" in it's John 3:16 definition.
The relevance of the question is whether the children of believers are "born Christian." From a covenantal standpoint, the answer is yes. From a soteriological standpoint, the answer is presumably no.
I agree with you.
They are legitimate members of the church except if they reject the faith.
The question is, what does it mean, "to believe"?
You don't have to correct my post since it was already correct. Thanks.
Unless your name is Jim Robinson or
Admin Moderator I'll post what ever I want
to. Thanks
You wrote: "The point I was making was...circumcision of an eight day old infant was not a voluntary thing. It was a requirement of God. It was to be a sign of his covenant with Abraham and his descendants......some of which were Jews."
True, but irrelevant. Baptism is also obligatory. Christ sent the apostles out to preach and baptize.
"God could have seen to it that Jesus would have been baptized as an infant. He did not, and the the fact that Jesus set his example, as an adult, speaks volumes."
It speaks volumes, but not about baptism. Jesus set an example by being baptized. He was going to sent the Apostles out into a Jewish and Gentile world, not a Christian world already possessing infant baptism. The vast majority of people to be baptized therefore would be adults -- just like Christ. Again, this is related to circumcision. Since most converts, that is most new Christians, were adults they were not inclined to accept the teachings of the Judaizers who demanded that the Gentile men who wanted to be Christians had to be circumcised. Again, the Christians were going into a world made up mostly of non-infants to say the least.
"There is no mention or example of infant baptism in scripture. It is a myth perpetuated by the mainstream church."
Nonsense. It is reality. I posted the writings of the early Church fathers that attest to this.
"This verse by itself should be justification for adult baptism."
No, it isn't.
Believe means "to have faith in."
Faith is defined in Hebrews 11
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.