Posted on 02/05/2011 11:07:42 AM PST by Gamecock
OTOH, if we’re to take the John 6 passage literally, and eat the literal body and blood of Christ, then we must never become hungry or thirsty again.
Cronos.
When did you eat last?
Why?
My husband is the spiritual and literal head of our household.
I don’t see that in most RC families. I see the wife taking the lead and the husband trotting along behind her.
Sometimes, not even that.
That’s just one of the many reasons why the RCC is such a feminized organization.
So, tell us. Does YOUR group follow that?
Exactly.
Christ said He was the door we must walk through.
Is Christ made of wood and nails, and does His rib cage literally separate for us to pass through when we come to faith?
Rome concocted the mass in order to keep men tied to the papacy which it warns men is the only dispenser of God’s grace.
If they would read the Bible, they’d know the lies they’ve been sold, God willing.
The first command is to PREACH ...the 2nd command is that the men MUST BELIEVE only then are they baptized..
The saving act is the believing
Jhn 3:36 He that believeth on the Son hath everlasting life: and he that believeth not the Son shall not see life; but the wrath of God abideth on him.
Jhn 6:29 Jesus answered and said unto them, This is the work of God, that ye believe on him whom he hath sent.
Jhn 11:26 And whosoever liveth and believeth in me shall never die. Believest thou this?
Baptism was a symbolic Jewish rite of conversion ..it symbolized repentance and cleaning
READ IN CONTEXT, CRONOS. Paul said he was sent to preach THE GOSPEL, NOT TO BAPTIZE.The GOSPEL that the 12 were sent to preach INCLUDED BAPTISM for remission of sins. The Gospel of the Kingdom.
If Paul did not preach and perform baptism for the remission of sins, then he was NOT preaching the same Gospel that the 12 were commissioned to preach. And INDEED he preached the GOSPEL OF THE GRACE OF GOD.
And if you will allow me, I shall include 1 Cor. 1:18 for CONTEXT. The verse you left out.
"For the preaching of the cross is to them that perish foolishness: but unto us which are saved, it is the power of God."
You see, baptism for remission of sins was not part of the Gospel of the Grace of God that was given to Paul. He preached Christ's finished work on THE CROSS as our remission of sins. Paul was sent to preach THAT GOSPEL, the Gospel of the Grace of God. NOT TO BAPTIZE FOR THE REMISSION OF SINS. That's part of the Kingdom Gospel.
Romans 1:16,17 tells you where our righteousness and remission of sins comes from. And it's NOT water baptism.
"For I am not ashamed of the gospel of Christ, for IT (the gospel of Christ) is the power of God unto salvation to every one that believeth...
For therein is the righteousness of God revealed.."
It seems that when most RC's read the word baptism they automatically assume its water baptism.
Matt 3:11 "As for me, I baptize you with water for repentance, but He who is coming after me is mightier than I, and I am not fit to remove His sandals; He will baptize you with the Holy Spirit and fire.
This is the one true baptism with Holy Spirit. We are immersed into His body and given the Holy Spirit. Water is the symbol of what has ALREADY taken place.Mark 10:38 But Jesus said to them, "You do not know what you are asking. Are you able to drink the cup that I drink, or to be baptized with the baptism with which I am baptized?" Another non water reference to baptism.
They do not rightly handle the Word of God. Spiritual things can only be understood by the regenerate.
Matthew 26:29 I tell you I will not drink again of this fruit of the vine until that day when I drink it new with you in my Father’s kingdom.”Believe it or not in reference to those verses, I had one Catholic who thought Jesus would be drinking His own Blood with us in Heaven!Mark 14:25 Truly, I say to you, I will not drink again of the fruit of the vine until that day when I drink it new in the kingdom of God.”
Luke 22:18 For I tell you that from now on I will not drink of the fruit of the vine until the kingdom of God comes.”
Funny, RC's are free to privately interpret the scriptures, just as long as their interpretation is not against the several verses the magesterium has infallibly defined, but Jesus, drinking His own blood was probably not what the Gospel writers intended.
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.
I understand exactly where the rite comes from... My contention is that the context is inferred in the Scripture - not ordained. IOW, there is no place where we are commanded to baptize children, nor is there a single instance of an infant (or a child) being specifically baptized.
There is much to say about whole houses being baptized, but that may well mean (probably does mean) those in the house capable of taking the decision.
There is also much to say about YHWH saving persons and their children, but these examples do not seem to be limited to direct children only, but to a whole progeny; and the linkage - the saving grace of YHWH being directly linked to the act of baptism by proxy (baptizing a child) - That linkage is simply not made.
It also creates some problems: particularly, salvation coming from the act of immersion or pouring of water. If YHWH means that dunking in water saves the child, then why not the same thinking for the adult?
If that holds true, The position of the Roman church in this issue must needs be correct, and there IS some magical ability inbuilt within their sacrament for the remission of sin... Nay, moreover, it must be salvific. Either YHWH saves by baptism or He does not.
We KNOW that ain't how it works.
The general method promoted by the Word is to repent, be baptized, and receive the Holy Spirit...
I believe the promises "to you and your children" can more easily be explained as YHWH promising to draw those raised up in Him, to Him, in their time. I believe that a House, raising up it's children in the Lord, benefits it's children in YHWH's traditions, and enables those children to be drawn close to Him... That is the way of those promises.
There is nothing in the words of Jesus that tells us the Gospel is a comprehensive set of laws, legal ordinances and commandments. Jesus did not give us a Book, or a set of stone tablets, or command a posse of scribes and clerks to transcribe and record His every utterance. He gave us something much more perfect than that. Christianity is a philosophy in which there are governing principles against which we must make the infinite and unique decisions that affect our path to Salvation.
Discussions and debates that attempt to leverage single passages or Books of the Bible and ignore their relationship to the Synoptic Gospels and the Beatitudes are both vain and empty.
I am a restorationist, I believe it is God’s desire that true Christians be brought back to the original Apostolic faith.
I most heartily concur. I believe this is where the true unity Yeshua longed for will be found - Not only among ourselves, but with our brothers, the Hebrews... It will not be found in the falsity and compromises of ecumenicism.
No, not back to a Judaized under-the-law Christianity, as the Hebrew Roots and Noahide people promote, but back to the Jerusalem council of Acts 15, and the form of Christianity that is reflected in almost every line that the apostle Paul wrote.
That, FRiend, depends upon what the term "Judaized" means. I will suggest that "Judaizing" is expressed, almost perfectly, in the Roman church, and in the traditions retained from her in the Protestant strains. It is there, hidden in the greater paganism, but there, all the same.
I believe we must go back beyond Constantine where Christianity went terribly wrong trusting in the arm of flesh (the state), where Christianity was compromised, the RCC being the eventual result of it. Back to the Jerusalem council, Acts 15, and the Christianity of the book of Acts.
BRAVO! HEAR! HEAR!
I agree with you, but everyone is missing what I think is a greater point: There are SEVEN churches which form the Church. What does that mean?
And if yes, no or maybe, please send private reply with your account and pin number (I won’t tell anyone..promise).
>> My contention is that the context is inferred in the Scripture - not ordained. IOW, there is no place where we are commanded to baptize children<<
Then look at your justification for you position.
>> but that may well mean (probably does mean) those in the house capable of taking the decision.<<
You can’t do one thing in the first instance then use what you discredited in your second.
>> It also creates some problems: particularly, salvation coming from the act of immersion or pouring of water. If YHWH means that dunking in water saves the child, then why not the same thinking for the adult?<<
Salvation doesn’t come from baptism in either instance. The salvation is from Jesus perfect sacrifice. Baptism is the symbol of the being washed by His blood. The salvation of children is tied to the covering of the parent.
Praise God!!!
Well, yes... but long ago. I would have to brush up a bit. I use AutoIT, which I would not recommend, as it is AutoHotKey on steroids, with advanced scripting and form building tools. The AutoHotKey guys are a great forum... they will straighten you out... Or try Xah Lee's page, which is very beginnery. :)
Right, and the Holy Spirit chose the Roman Catholic Church as the only reliable place for the Bible.
In which regard?
I’ve asked him that several times as well; nothing but crickets.
I suppose when faced with the absurdity and illogic of their own position it takes a little time to wrangle up a twisting of scripture that can be used to “explain” or support it. Or maybe a church father has to be dug up to find some warped explanation.
Not to mention the fact that Christ would have been cannibalized. But wait; I forget... there’s the Mass thing that takes care of that.. right?
Hoss
“Discussions and debates that attempt to leverage single passages or Books of the Bible and ignore their relationship to the Synoptic Gospels and the Beatitudes are both vain and empty.”
Just as are appeals to silence.
Hoss
Now let me guess who told you that... the Roman Catholic church right? LOL
Lets say they kept it SO SAFE that no one could see it or read it except the priests..
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.