Posted on 08/27/2010 11:45:13 AM PDT by Hank Kerchief
The New Covenant was intended for the House of Judah and the House of Israel (Jews and Jews only).
The NT is revelation to the church.Christ NEVER gave authority over the OT to the church
Apparently Paul thought he did.
That would make a great tag line!
National holiday or just a Feast Day?
I haven't followed the question.
I think the Calvinists are right that there may be crispy critters in the deep fat fryer for reasons the justice of which we cannot see. So I think there's an appropriate theological humility in saying, "Well it sure seems to me that a just and loving God would just scoop the little ones up into heaven, but I'm not all THAT smart, so maybe I'm wrong. Maybe I need to study this for another 1,800 years or so. Get back to me."
LOL. Thanks for your kind reply. You are welcome to it.
I don't know whose church you are referring to, but it isn't my Church. Infant Baptism is an obligation on the parents, not on the infant. It is a time when we renew our Baptismal vows.
Confirmation is the Catholic sacrament of mature Christian commitment and a deepening of baptismal gifts. Like Baptism and Eucharist, it is a Sacrament of Initiation for Catholics and a Sacrament of faith in God's fidelity to us. It is a time where we, with adult minds and awareness of the difference between good and evil, make a conscious choice.
We call 'em "cafeteria Catholics." And I'd say "suits their whims" rather than "suits their lives."
So here's what seems wrong to me.
It's the "good" Arminians and Calvinists who disagree with one another. But it's the 'bad' Catholic (though not necessarily in their own eyes) who disagree with the good ones. Obedient and faithful Calvinists differ from obedient and faithful Arminians. Disobedient and unfaithful Catholics differ from obedient and faithful ones. So I think there's a difference there.
Certainly not this Catholic, nor any of the Catholics I interact with. Perhaps you are referring to some irreligious or former Catholics.
Baptist do not believe baptism saves and they don’t baptize babies to begin with.
They believe people are saved by
1) admitting they are a sinner
2) repenting their unbelief
3) believing that Jesus died on the cross to pay for their sins
4) confessing this belief to others
Only after this do they baptize
Something does not sound right about this story ? Are you sure the church was a Baptist church .
I was really glad to see you posting again and am sad that you feel you should stop posting again. Maybe this thread we should let die a natural death, but please continue to contribute your thoughts on the RF when you feel led. I sincerely missed your learned, loving and respectful posts. Don’t let ANYONE chase you away!
I knew you would say that. :-)
Even on this on thread, there are so many attempts to understand what God clearly seems to want to tell us when He’s good and ready to reveal all.
I just want to know why he didn’t make me smart and good-looking.
All that is hidden will be revealed.
What happens to an unbaptized baby?
Is it fair to say that there's a lot of "hostile witness" cross examination that goes on here?
Is it fair to ask what the purpose of such questioning is?
Yes they did. The Septuagint contained the "Apocrypha" as well and the Septuagint was used as scripture by the Alexandrian Jews as well as by the authors of the New Testament. No one ever dipsuted a single book of the Septuagint.
You speak as if there was one Septuagint. Though some Hellenized Jews may have read one or more versions of the Septuagint they were hardly the "Jews".
The latter copies available to Origen were written in 2nd century AD (mostly by converts or practicing Jews in an attempt to bring it in compliance with the Pharisaical scriptures), long after the Gospels have been written, and certainly way after Paul's Epistles.
I don't know who do you think you are or who gave you the authority to judge who is a Jew and who is not. Essenes were Jews, Sadducees were Jews, Samaritans were Jews, Alexandrian Jews were Jews as far as I know. And so are Orthodox Jews, the Reformed and Conservative Jews...they all share one thing in common: they reject Jesus as the messiah. On everything else they differ.
Do I understand you to be claiming that the present day Jewish Canon (Torah) of the Orthodox and Reformed Jews is nothing but a surviving sect?
Rabbinic Judaism in all its forms is the sole survivor of the Pharisaical sect. The essense, and Sadducees did not make it. The only other survivors are a few hundred Samaritans who still practice Temple Judaism.
Romans 3: [1] Then what advantage has the Jew? Or what is the value of circumcision? [2] Much in every way. To begin with, the Jews are entrusted with the oracles of God.
And your point is?
he=He
So if you detect some rancor, its probably because it gets really frustrating to see right in front of our eyes the fact that the counter Reformation has never ended. It continues to this day.
The Jesuits continue in their original task. My best friend in college fell in among Jesuits later, while in the Army. He ended up "swimming the Tiber".
(Didn't I tell you? The post you wanted me to comment on is already 800 postings from the end.)
I prefer belittling trashy destructive ideas and the horse they rode in on.
So the RCC teaches that unless and until a baby is baptized, they can never be "a child of God."
That's an error. Thank God.
But doesn't your theology teach that babies in the womb are pre-determined by God as either elect or reprobate. And this doesn't change?
lolol. And I’ve missed 90% of them. Nuts. 8~)
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.