Posted on 01/14/2011 5:57:52 PM PST by topcat54
Evangelical book catalogs promote books such as Planet Earth: The Final Chapter, The Great Escape, and the Left Behind series. Bumper stickers warn us that the vehicle’s occupants may disappear at any moment. It is clear that there is a preoccupation with the idea of a secret rapture. Perhaps this has become more pronounced recently due to the expectation of a new millennium and the fears regarding potential Y2K problems. Perhaps psychologically people are especially receptive to the idea of an imminent, secret rapture at the present time. Additionally, many Christians are not aware that any other position relative to the second coming of Jesus Christ exists. Even in Reformed circles there are numerous people reading these books. Many of these people are unaware that this viewpoint conflicts with Scripture and Reformed Theology.
(Excerpt) Read more at reformed.org ...
Regardless of whatever explanation, to put ones faith and trust in church leadership is not wise, especially considering the historical background of those offices. But it is far worse to give them the kind of power the catholics do their leadership.
There are more ways than one to get information out of people. Just like you're doing in posts 985, 989, 996, 997 and this one. I though you had been warned about that. Perhaps I was mistaken.
This is a religion forum and it is perfectly natural to ask someone where they stand on a religious point. For example, to ask metmom on her stand on infant baptism makes sense in a debate ON infant baptism. To ask her her stand on the Trinity makes sense in any discussion on the Trinitarian nature of Christ.
There's a difference between ASKING for information and PRESUMING information and asking someone to deny or confirm it. It falls into the category of the *Have you stopped beating your wife yet?* kind of question.
My silence on an issue does not mean I either agree or disagree. I see presuming my answer based on my *silence* is an underhanded way of trying to manipulate information out of me. Finding out information by the process of elimination (as I see this as being) rather than asking would IMO, qualify as finessing the guidelines. I will not play those games.
One is an honest inquiry, the other taints the image others have of that person for someone who is not familiar with the discussions. I've made my positions very clear in the past. A lurker would not necessarily know that and come to erroneous conclusions about what I believe. It leads to confusion and misunderstanding.
To ask her her stand on the Trinity makes sense in any discussion on the Trinitarian nature of Christ.
If that were the what the discussion were about in the first place, yeah. However, to throw it in to the mix for NO good reason makes it a red herring and of suspicious motive.
I am not the only one on the receiving end of that kind of behavior, hence the courtesy ping to others who have been involved.
As for said mentioned poster, to ping or not to ping, that is the question. Whether 'tis nobler to ping out of courtesy or not to ping as per RM's instructions......
I'll let the RM decide.
Cronos: So do you then agree with that conclusion by J Smith? Or don't you? It's a simple answer -- yes or no.
Both.
He was off by a few centuries. It was fourth century.
And it wasn't the true church that went into apostasy. It was organized religion, of which that is an ultimate natural end result when a state religion is created.
And the following history of immorality and corruption and power grab by that which calls itself the Catholic church bears witness to that fact.
But it is one thing for any man in leadership to be tempted and fail...it's another when he gives little if any evidence he's interested in anything more than advancing his own selfish gain.
Like politics there are too many assuming /appointed to leadership which have no business being there in the first place. Corruption of those offices and how they are appointed is often overlooked or excused. It's in your church and others today. We see the evidence.
Jesus is our Shepherd, Cronos, and it is He who directs, cares and feeds us. It is to Him we look and as we do He warns us of wolfs beforehand, and He did do just that saying they would even come from within the fold...some heed...some will not or cannot for they are not His to begin with.
But when you consider the politics of these offices, which is always included as well..then one needs to especially take heed of just who and what leadership is about and doing. Who is appointing them is perhaps even more important...and how do they themselves reflect Christ.
I still say if a church I attended had a long history of appointing bad leadership, I would in time simply go to another church...and have the freedom to determine that. Unfortunately that option is seldom available to catholics without a whole host of issues and loops to jump thru.
So I do wonder how it is that for so long the people endured such tyrants....the fact of the matter is God has great patience with the church leadership, but in time He will act 'thru His people'...appoint a spokesman to inform...and thus... in that time...the Reformation. Enough was enough and God moved His people to act.
Well that is great. That means he (Quix) believes many of the the theological statements declared by Catholic Pope and Bishops that are not expressly stated in the Bible.
This means that he could theoretically be open to the Assumption of Mary.
The current POTUS does not claim divine appointment and divine authority over the whole earth and men's souls.....yet.
The Catholic church takes the moral high ground and claims to be the only mechanism by which men must come to God. The current POTUS has not done that......yet....
With those kinds of claims, the historical background of the church condemns it mightily. They claim the higher standard, they are obligated to live it. As it is, the RC church's hands are stained with the blood of martyrs.
This excusing by Catholics of the heinous sins perpetrated by the Catholic church is disgusting.
Whatever happened to COURTESY pings?????????
You’ve been here long enough to know.
Yes indeed, and I think there are some in other denominations who assume this position as well, though they may mask this is there. What I have also noted is the 'close' affiliation the Catholic Church has had and continues to have politically. They never seemed to have shaken off that alliance...and in fact appear to have solidified this in many respects on the International stage. Similar to the World Council of Churches is a political force now, the Catholic church has their's within the Leadership body and known to the International powers that be.
Post 985, Metmom's group is not Christian. The starting point is seeing what one has or has not in common. If a group denies the basic dogmas of Christian faith, then debating details with a member of said group is futile. Now, if you want to see "Inquisitional Fervour", you just have to pick up some of said poster's post calling us Christians names tossed in with every allegation. The posts smack of hatred.Now, asking a person if you believe in Jesus Christ as Lord, God and Savior is not asking for personal information.
No asking for personal info here
Post 989 --> question to RM, no question to you and not asking you or the RM for any personal information
Post 996, --> let's see, the original post of yours made incorrect statements about the history and you were then asked "What about the history of your group? The PCA, LCMS, etc have their catechisms that define what they believe, but your groups? --> No asking for personal info here. I didn't ask for your personal history but for your group's history AND beliefs. Even the Jehovah's witnesses have their beliefs available to peruse.
Post 997 --> question to you on whether you THINK that the church went into apostasy in the 1st century -- no personal information here. I'm asking you what you t h i n k, not for any personal information
I’m happy to say that doctrine is thoroughly repudiated directly by all we read in the NT, specifically in Ephesians 2 and Galatians 3.
11 Therefore remember that you, once Gentiles in the flesh --who are called Uncircumcision by what is called the Circumcision made in the flesh by hands--Any honest reading of this passage in light of the rest of the Bible must result in the truth that former gentiles, as Paul refers to his readers, are now full up citizens of the commonwealth of Israel, thus being entitled on an equal basis to any blessings available to members of the commonwealth.
12 that at that time you were without Christ, being aliens from the commonwealth of Israel and strangers from the covenants of promise, having no hope and without God in the world.
13 But now in Christ Jesus you who once were far off have been brought near by the blood of Christ.
14 For He Himself is our peace, who has made both one, and has broken down the middle wall of separation,
15 having abolished in His flesh the enmity, that is, the law of commandments contained in ordinances, so as to create in Himself one new man from the two, thus making peace,
16 and that He might reconcile them both to God in one body through the cross, thereby putting to death the enmity.
17 And He came and preached peace to you who were afar off and to those who were near.
18 For through Him we both have access by one Spirit to the Father.
19 Now, therefore, you are no longer strangers and foreigners, but fellow citizens with the saints and members of the household of God, (Eph. 2)
Further, in Galatians, we read:
16 Now to Abraham and his Seed were the promises made. He does not say, "And to seeds," as of many, but as of one, "And to your Seed," who is Christ.All that God promises to Abraham through His Seed, Jesus Christ, is granted to all the children of Abraham. That means all former Jews and former gentiles who now make up one body, the body of Chirst, the Church of the living God.
17 And this I say, that the law, which was four hundred and thirty years later, cannot annul the covenant that was confirmed before by God in Christ, that it should make the promise of no effect.
18 For if the inheritance is of the law, it is no longer of promise; but God gave it to Abraham by promise.
19 What purpose then does the law serve? It was added because of transgressions, till the Seed should come to whom the promise was made; and it was appointed through angels by the hand of a mediator.
20 Now a mediator does not mediate for one only, but God is one.
21 Is the law then against the promises of God? Certainly not! For if there had been a law given which could have given life, truly righteousness would have been by the law.
22 But the Scripture has confined all under sin, that the promise by faith in Jesus Christ might be given to those who believe.
23 But before faith came, we were kept under guard by the law, kept for the faith which would afterward be revealed.
24 Therefore the law was our tutor to bring us to Christ, that we might be justified by faith.
25 But after faith has come, we are no longer under a tutor.
26 For you are all sons of God through faith in Christ Jesus.
27 For as many of you as were baptized into Christ have put on Christ.
28 There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free, there is neither male nor female; for you are all one in Christ Jesus.
29 And if you are Christ's, then you are Abraham's seed, and heirs according to the promise. (Gal. 3)
Any other doctrine is foolishness, which is what you end up with when you read the Old Testament in complete isolation from the fuller revelation of the New Testament.
Ping to 1012
” Is it just a symbol or does it actually communicate grace?”
In the case of John the Baptist the baptism was to show the recipients repentance hence it was a symbol or outward manifestation of that inward repentance for breaking God's law.
Christian baptism differed in that it showed the person baptized had become a believer, one who put faith in Christ.
As Acts 2:41, for example, says that those who embraced the word heartily were baptized and 18:8 says those who Corinthians who “believed” were baptized.
Hence those whom John baptized were baptized again. (Acts 19:3-5)
“I think we both agree on the steps for an adult baptism which would be to believe, repent, and then be baptized — correct?”
Correct.
“next, is it regenerative or not?”
To avoid any confusion on my part you might have to define how you mean “regenerative”.
Anyway, it appears being baptized in water and being baptized with holy spirit are being treated by you as one and the same or occurring at the same time when you quote from John.
A bit further on in John Jesus says living water will flow from him and John explains (John 7:39) that Jesus spoke of the holy spirit that believers had not yet received since he had not yet been glorified.
That outpouring of spirit was to take place at Pentecost.
This was a quite different operation of the holy spirit from what had taken place before. Those at Pentecost were “born” of the holy spirit as Christ had told Nicodemus one must be.
(Acts 1:5-8)
There in Luke 18:15,16 it speaks not of baptism but of children for Jesus to touch (vs. 15). Even today parents often want an important person to hold their child. Those children coming to him were not being baptized and it is not analogous to Naaman’s situation.
He had leprosy and was told to wash seven times in the Jordan by Elisha to be cured. A curative bathing is not at all like baptism.
What 1 Peter 3 describes as analogous to baptism was Noah and his family surviving the Flood. With baptism our conscience is clear since with the resurrection of Christ we are forgiven.
“First the positive proof in scripture — now here, while we (Catholics, Orthodox, Lutherans, Anglicans, Methodists, Presbyterians etc.) say that the baptisal of entire households includes children, you would dispute that, correct?”
One had to be old enough to be a disciple to be baptized and I feel safe in saying that would exclude babies and infants.
Disciple first, then baptism.
” Paul indicates that baptism had replaced circumcision”
What replaced the circumcision of the flesh was what Moses had called “the circumcision of the heart. (Deut.10:16 and 30:6) Paul compares circumcision with baptism, that the old dead in their trespasses body was cut away as though with
circumcision but after being buried with Christ in his baptism they were raised up. (Col. 2:11-14)
“Next, take the negative proof (or the positive proof for non-infant baptism) — no where in the Bible does it say that infants were refused baptism, no where in Early Church history do we hear about this either”
Negative proof? Only those who are first disciples are baptized in the Scriptures. That was the order Jesus commanded no matter what others did, “make disciples...baptizing them...” or did not do. It was he that set the pattern for Christians.
I'm breaking here , back later.
I don't have the link, but I have asked Quix if he was a trinitarian before and he answered yes and that he acknowledged the message in the Nicene Creed.
If you follow the thread at the link provided (which may or may not work. FR's back end seemed a bit wonky yesterday), you'll note that certain parties professed trinitarian belief only after many pages of the usual bluster. The initial cause of my asking was the approval by certain parties of a mid-20th century faith healer who wasn't trinitarian.
Like pulling teeth, it was.
The Nicene Creed makes a handy filter. Anybody who can't affirm it beyond the pale, not to be looked to. To be prayed for but not with.
I'm about ready to bail on this thread. Worst signal to noise ratio and most interventions by the Religion Moderator, I've seen in a while, going unproductively in too many different directions. Ad hominem, ad infinitum. What was this thread about, anyway???
And it can not be changed or over-ruled...
Protestant ministers of the word and elders have always been considered Christ’s undershepherds in His flock.
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.