Posted on 01/14/2011 5:57:52 PM PST by topcat54
Most groups who do not baptize their infant children instinctively feel the need to do something, so they have invented and many practice the non-biblical notion of infant “dedication.” It's like baptism without the water.
>>“But though we, or an angel from heaven, preach any other gospel unto you than that which we have preached unto you, let him be accursed.<<
If the Apostles didn’t teach it…………nuff said.
I’m not Mormon, never have been, not considering it and the Beckite part of the Freeper name has nothing to do with the Mormon you mention, The Beckite part comes from a village name in England next to an Air Force Base I was stationed at, click on name. My Freeper name is pretty stupid, some day I plan on changing it, but I’ve said that for probably over a decade now, when I get a little round toit I might get it done.
If you look beyond Gen. 12:3, you can see that this promise was indeed made for the Jewish people. Take a look at Gen. 27:29 (promise to Isaac):
Then you might as well take the advice from Job's wife "Curse God and die." I am well aware of passages where one person passes on his blessings on to another. The passages I was interested in were those where the one making the blessing was God Himself. I can say "Bless those who bless you and curse those who curse you" to anyone, or I may even be selective, but the fact remains, the only one to have the power to make that alive is God.
So you see, this is not only a personal promise to Abraham, but to his descendants as well.
Sorry. I don't see. Quite literally I don't see it for the historical and empirical record don't support this bolt thrown down from heaven paradigm. The US has been Israel's best friend and from your associates, we only have a future of misery and failure. On the other-hand, have you been to Dubai? I have had the pleasure of being there a few times and if that is cursing, bring it on.
While speaking of the Middle East, and Islam in particular, it has long been a tradition of that culture to see success and failure directly a component of Allah's [capricious] Will. When I heard that message by TM, the mechanics, inspiration and consequences sounded remarkably similar to what the Muslims believe; replace "God" with "Allah" and swap the beneficiaries and you have Islamic doctrine. Just saying.
I think what we would be more appropriate here is to get to the heart of the matter, and that is to recognize that the LORD protects His own:
Zech 2:8-9 "For thus says the Lord of hosts: "He sent Me after glory, to the nations which plunder you; for he who touches you touches the apple of His eye."
Now to where we would disagree is to whom does God claim as His own. Dispensationalists have no love for the Church of God and thus do not see God caring for the Church, rather that love and affection is attributed to ethnic Jews who hate God and blaspheme His Son. The rest of Faith see the Church as the "apple of God's eye". So where the ethnic sons of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob benefited until the promises were fulfilled in His Son in the first century, the apple of God's eye has always been those of Faith in His Son since Abel.
Recognizing the differences in opinion, I ask how do you square your God as Zeus theology with this passage:
Matthew 5:44-45 But I say unto you, Love your enemies, bless them that curse you, do good to them that hate you, and pray for them which despitefully use you, and persecute you; That ye may be the children of your Father which is in heaven: for he maketh his sun to rise on the evil and on the good, and sendeth rain on the just and on the unjust.
Your theology runs smack dab against God's NT Law to bless those who curse you. Now you may say that this is only for Christians and not for God, but the next passage says that the LORD causes the sun to rise and rain to fall on both the evil and the good. In fact, reading the second chapter of Romans and elsewhere we know that God stores up His Wrath for the Day of Judgment, rather than having it come out in drips and drabs unexpectedly.
Therefore Dispensationalist theology is similar to Islam in that God deals out judgments spontaneously, against the innocent at times, without warning, and without the opportunity for repentance. Christian theology easily shows a God of Mercy who stores up His Wrath has set a Day for Judgment, will do so according to His Justice, and has provided messengers to convey a means of escape through Repentance. That is God's M.O.
Yet another reason why Dispensationalism is fully incompatible with God's Word and His Church.
On the night he was betrayed our Lord Jesus Christ took bread, and when he had given thanks, he broke it and gave it to his disciples and said: Take, eat: this is my body”He took the cup, gave thanks and said: Take, drink: this is my blood” Since Christ himself has declared the bread to be his body, who can have any further doubt? Since he himself has said quite categorically, This is my blood, who would dare to question it and say that it is not his blood?St. Cyril's teaching about the Blessed Sacrament is of the first importance, On the Real Presence he is unambiguous: "Since He Himself has declared and said of the bread: This is My Body, who shall dare to doubt any more? And when He asserts and says: This is My Blood, who shall ever hesitate and say it is not His Blood?" Of the Transformation, he argues, if Christ could change water into wine, can He not change wine into His own Blood?
Therefore, it is with complete assurance that we receive the bread and wine as the body and blood of Christ. His body is given to us under the symbol of bread, and his blood is given to us under the symbol of wine, in order to make us by receiving them one body and blood with him. Having his body and blood in our members, we become bearers of Christ and sharers, as Saint Peter says, in the divine nature.
Once, when speaking to the Jews, Christ said: Unless you eat my flesh and drink my blood you shall have no life in you. This horrified them and they left him. Not understanding his words in a spiritual way, they thought the Savior wished them to practice cannibalism.
Under the old covenant there was showbread, but it came to an end with the old dispensation to which it belonged. Under the new covenant there is bread from heaven and the cup of salvation. These sanctify both soul and body, the bread being adapted to the sanctification of the body, the Word, to the sanctification of the soul.
Do not, then, regard the eucharistic elements as ordinary bread and wine: they are in fact the body and blood of the Lord, as he himself has declared. Whatever your senses may tell you, be strong in faith
Luther believed in the True Presence of Christ in the Eucharist. Lutherans today believe that Christ is REALLY present in the Eucharist, they reject any idea of this being just a symbol. This is quite different from CB’s interpretation (correct CB?) and since it is Christian is diametrically opposite to your, Metmom’s group’s position since we’re talking about Christ here, our Lord, Savior and God.
Thanks. CB — as you see, St. Cyril of Jerusalem’s words are twisted and excerpted badly by many of the anti-Catholic sites out there. They do the same with scripture etc. so can’t be trusted.
No, no lutherans — they prefer not to be associated with the mud-pit tactics of the non-Christian groups that jump on the anti-Catholic bandwagon. Also, many of those you classified as baptists are really “no church” folks
I’ve heard that the HS is taken out of the world, but that would preclude anyone becoming a believer during the tribulation.
My understanding is that the restraining power of the HS to hold back the evil one is what’s removed.
That makes more sense.
Well said.....
In the New Testament we read that Lydia was converted by Paul’s preaching and that "She was baptized, with her household" (Acts 16:15). The Philippian jailer whom Paul and Silas had converted to the faith was baptized that night along with his household. We are told that "the same hour of the night . . . he was baptized, with all his family" (Acts 16:33). And in his greetings to the Corinthians, Paul recalled that, "I did baptize also the household of Stephanas" (1 Cor. 1:16).Also, note that infant baptism is simply accepted by all early Christians, no debates whereas we have a lot of discussions about other aspects that were disputed, which shows that infant baptism just plainly WAS right from the Apostolic times
In all these cases, whole households or families were baptized. This means more than just the spouse; the children too were included. If this mean just the Philippian jailer and his wife, then we would read that "he and his wife were baptized," but we do not. The same applies to the other cases of household baptism in Scripture.
I don't believe you...Show some evidence that the early church fathers claim they got infant baptism directly from the Apostles and not scripture...
Is infant baptism correct or not? You don’t know, you by yourself can’t know, unless you believe yourself infallible!!
HaHa...The scriptures are infallible and I believe the scriptures...Make of it what you want...But I do know...
I can get a Lutheran say yes, a Baptist says no! Both will claim to follow “sola scriptura” no friend, Jesus is not the author of confusion, He left us a Church to teach!!
I don't believe you are correct on that either...
There are two positions...One is that someone was baptized and his/her whole house...Some people assume this to mean children are included...That is not sola scripture...
The other position is that no one ever got baptized without first repenting...That IS sola scripture...Babies can't repent, thus no baby baptism...
And then the stuff you guys make up about baby baptism apparently comes from another galaxy because it can't be found any where in this one...
YOu didn't give anything...You made a statement that you can't back up...Blowin bubbles...
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.