Posted on 02/05/2011 11:07:42 AM PST by Gamecock
as is often the case, your non-answers say more than your answers.
order to obey the Great Commission we will aggressively seek to evangelize Trinitarians to the truth of the Oneness of God, Jesus Name Baptism, and the Infilling of the Holy Ghost. The Great Commission commanded by our Lord Jesus Christ includes baptism in Jesus Name and the promise of the power of the Spirit. Wherefore, all those who have not been baptized in Jesus Name or who have not received the gift of the Holy Spirit with the initial sign of tongues are included as part of our evangelistic field of outreach.
the above is from the doctrinal statement of what bear sent shock waves that i am not a part of, “truegospelofjesus.org”
Your getting a little obsessed dude.
You and I have gone around about Baptism before, and historicity and historic tenets (traditions) aside, it is the Biblical foundation for infant baptism which I find to be lacking...
In this I align with the Baptists most closely, finding the general tenor of the Biblical text to be declaring quite plainly that the "Circumcision Made Without Hands" is a better circumcision because it is personal, and does not rely upon the obligations of one's parents, nationality, or of one's gender.
This precludes an infant, because the infant cannot participate knowingly, and following, replaces the act of true Baptism with profession of faith in those churches which practice infant baptism. That is not correct form according to the Word.
But infant baptism aside (I do not consider that particular discussion a salvation issue; Christ's directive was to be baptized. Period. But even without baptism, a man who believes in Christ as Lord, King and Savior will be saved, according to His word.)
Agreed. Though in my view, the Baptism of Fire (the indwelling of the Spirit), to borrow from my charismatic/pentecostal friends, is the confirmation of faith... So while we agree that the "getting wet" part is not the point, I suppose there is a difference in reason.
I do not conclude, in any way, that Calvinists (or others) are therefore excluded, as "Spirit-filled" is the final conclusion and proof - And many Calvinists are indeed, Spirit-filled.
I'm a postmillennial Calvinist, but nobody's perfect.
A good time to note, for the reader, that I was raised Calvinist, and still associate with a Calvinist church - I criticize my own - Something our FRiends in the Roman church suggest we are incapable of doing.
As a semi-dispensational mid-trib (sorta), sabbath observing, charismatic Presbyterian (you think you've got it bad), when I converse with you, I find myself in the best of company. :D
And a trend in some reformed/Christian circles to deny that the papacy may well be the antiChrist is, IMO, a mistake. (This also illustrates the fact that everyone can be deceived about something and no visible church on earth is perfect.)
Almost to a one, EVERY reformer of the Reformation believed that the papacy was the antiChrist.
In this we are in total agreement, at least in form. I am loathe to put my finger on it, as it were, as prophecy is a slippery fish at best... It could go another unforeseen way... But no other organization on earth matches the prophecies as exactly.
Such perseveration!
Thanks for your kind reply.
However, I respectfully remain unconvinced.
And, I think I could gather dozens of penguins who’d agree with me.
So there!
“This is not allowed on the Religion Forum. “
Nor are your mindreading antics. But you knew that, right?
Honor to y’all
Honor to whom honor is due
The Book says.
(NOT the rubberized
Vatican Alice In Wonderland School Of Theology, Reality Mangling, Chronic Professional Blaming, Wailing and Whining Institute one—they give honor to all manner of creatures.)
The REAL Bible that they seem to know little about.
Re: baptism, it's my opinion that for a Christian to refuse to baptize his children in the name of the Triune God grew out of a stealth movement of the RCC through Grebel and his priest buddies disrupting Zwingli's study group. What better way to undermine the Reformation than to deny an historic tenet of the Christian faith?Which it certainly did.
But infant baptism aside (I do not consider that particular discussion a salvation issue; Christ's directive was to be baptized. Period. But even without baptism, a man who believes in Christ as Lord, King and Savior will be saved, according to His word.)
Can I point you to yet another book? J. V. Fesko, Word, Water and Spirit, a Reformed Perspective on Baptism.
And a trend in some reformed/Christian circles to deny that the papacy may well be the antiChrist is, IMO, a mistake. ...Almost to a one, EVERY reformer of the Reformation believed that the papacy was the antiChrist.
They had their reasons. An instantiation of Antichrist, able and willing to wage war on the saints with real physical troops.
Very good point. Thank you.
Probably my favorite Book... It would be fun to have an FR study of the major and minor prophets, wouldn't it?
[...]and Ezekiel 38-39 which will probably happen before the Rapture one can easily see where Islam is either wiped off the earth or greatly diminished prior to the Tribulation which would/could exclude it from being the whore.
Agreed, at least generally... But Islam is being raised as a sword against apostate Christianity - Whether that falls on Europe or America (or both) is not yet clear - It SEEMS to be ready to conquer Europe on the ground, and is far away from doing so with Britain's daughters (US, Canada, Australia, New Zealand, etc)
I think the brunt of establishing the Caliphate will fall upon Europe, and quite likely, the Roman church, which is within their grasp (think Constantinople, the seat of the Orthodoxy).
What that does to Rome (the affliction) may well wear her out. If she is destroyed (or repents), and is no longer capable as a city-state, she drops off the map as the Whore, and a re-interpretation would be necessary.
NOTHING compared to the RC NONANSWERS
to THESE FACTS!:
only 26% of [Roman et al] Catholics strongly agree that The Bible is totally accurate in all that it teaches
only 33% of American [Roman eg al] Catholics strongly affirm that Christ was sinless on earth
" . . . only 9% of [Roman et al] Catholics strongly DISAGREE that if a person is generally good, or does enough good things for others they will earn a place in Heaven [salvation on the basis of merit]."
" . . . only 17% of [Roman et al] Catholics strongly DISAGREE that Satan is just a symbol of evil [rather than a real being]"
" . . . only 43% of [Roman et al] Catholics said they were absolutely committed to Christianity,"
"Volunteer church work (during past 7 days): Assemblies of God were highest at 30%, with the lowest going to Catholics at 12%.^8"
72% of Protestants vs 42% of [Roman et al] Catholics affirmed that homosexual sexual activity was sinful.
79% of [Roman et al] Catholics affirmed "Many religions can lead to eternal life."
"40% of Roman Catholics see abortion as "morally acceptable"
"88% of [Roman et al] Catholics believe that they can practice artificial means of birth control and still be considered good [Roman et al] Catholics."
"Only 30% of Catholics affirmed they believe they are really and truly receiving the body, blood, soul and divinity of the Lord Jesus Christ under the appearance of bread and wine."
Only "26 percent of [Roman et al] Catholics polled strongly agree with the Church's unequivoval position on abortion. Catholic World Report; Roper Center for Public Opinion Research at the University of Connecticut."
"Only 20 percent strongly agreed with the Church teaching that only men may be ordained. ^Roper Center for Public Opinion "
"Catholic women have an abortion rate 29 percent higher than Protestants. Alan Guttmacher Institute http://www.catholicleague.org/research/Catholic_women_and_abortion.htm
The above gathered from:
http://peacebyjesus.witnesstoday.org/RevealingStatistics.html#Sec4
OK, RC'S start your ENGINES
. . . errr start your WEASEL WORDS AND RATIONALIZATIONS!
I gather you borrowed your definition of
“little”
from the
Vatican Alice In Wonderland School Of Theology, Reality Mangling, Chronic Professional Blaming, Wailing and Whining Institute DAFFYNITIONARY.
To a degree, it is a matter of focus - There is no doubt that Pentecostals have a different focus (or perhaps approach is a better word) than your average Presbyterian - That is a good thing, in my mind, as both roads lead to New Jerusalem... And to the King.
The early Christian Churches were very independent and their services were varied.
I expect that process to result in a worship of YHWH which is more Biblical, and more detested by the worldly, as the years roll on (what few there are left). Many sacred cows need to be gored.
If we look at the House Church movement in repressive countries you find a very humble, reflective non ritualistic service. It is a gathering of believers with no elevated clergy. In the end this may be how we are forced to worship if evil controls the planet.
And to what degree is discernment leveraged by Bible teaching? IOW, Do traditions of men prevent or diminish discernment? No doubt... But by what degree?
One of the great things the came from the Reformation was Bible literacy. In the prior 1,200 years Christians had become enslaved to pagan worship dressed up as Christianity in large part under the authority of "tradition". So I believe the historical record shows where "tradition" leads, to a Dark Age.
I fully expect the Roman church to be at the head of that profane ecumenical community - if it can survive Islam.
I don't doubt that it will survive. At heart it is a political entity and they have made clear that they believe muslims worship the same god as them. Their ultimate goal is control of Jerusalem and the muslims might be able to give it to them.
That reminds me. I have yet to get back to my commentary on the shorter prophets. Sigh.
Lots of priorities.
Though that would be far better than pontificating on so much RC garbage.
You are a classy individual IrishCatholic!
But only with permission of the hierarchy. Producing a Bible and reading WITH permission was never forbidden.
“According to c. 825, #1 of the 1983 Code of Canon Law, translations of the Bible into English or any other modern language cannot be published without the approval of the conference of bishops or the Apostolic See and must be “annotated with necessary and sufficient explanations.”
(www.ewtn.com/library/CANONLAW/VIORIGHT.HTM)
So the “access to Sacred Scripture” is through the narrow gap of the approval of the hierarchy, not so “wide open” at all! And hasn’t been for the last thousand years.
Is that original material or was it lifted from another source?
I don’t mean to stick my nose in here but when the jailor asked “what must I do to be saved”, the answer was “believe on the Lord Jesus and you will be saved-and your house”.
The thought process on baptizing children stems from that and other verses which indicate a “covering” by the professing parent. The children are baptized into the faith that the parents have. The personal confession of the individual after the age of accountability along with the personal relationship with Jesus is a different matter.
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.