Warning

 

Close

Confirm Action

Are you sure you wish to do this?

Confirm Cancel
Member Login
Site Notices
9/22/2017 12:11:25 AM
Posted: 8/10/2005 7:57:09 AM EDT
Some religious denominations practice the baptism of infants. I see no harm in this, but I think it is NOT the baptism that Christ commanded of His followers. To be baptized into Christ requires that one have faith in Christ first. Infants do not have brains developed enough to have faith in anything.

So, in my opinion, a person isn't "baptized into the body of Christ" unless they are old enough to make that decision for themselves.

Anyone agree, disagree?
Link Posted: 8/10/2005 8:00:11 AM EDT

Originally Posted By axmurderer:
Some religious denominations practice the baptism of infants. I see no harm in this, but I think it is NOT the baptism that Christ commanded of His followers. To be baptized into Christ requires that one have faith in Christ first. Infants do not have brains developed enough to have faith in anything.

So, in my opinion, a person isn't "baptized into the body of Christ" unless they are old enough to make that decision for themselves.

Anyone agree, disagree?



I completely, totally agree.

Baptism (full immersion in water, please!) is mere ceromony if it is not done as a conscious, willful act of obedience.

Having said that....others disagree.




<--dons flamesuit.
Link Posted: 8/10/2005 8:03:48 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 8/10/2005 8:05:18 AM EDT by WildBoar]
This could easily turn into a flame fest if folks are not careful. This topic may even get ETH to come and slum in the religious forum for a bit.

I am a Baptist and we dont baptise infants. I dont think its inherently evil to do so but I wouldnt say it does anything but get them wet.

There are many interpretations regarding baptism, especially infant baprism. Some say its regenerative, some say its not. I used to get into arguments with my Presbyterian bretheren about it and decided its not something we should let divide us. As long as we agree that WE as believers should be baptised, then I am not too worried about others baptising infants.

My children have been inquiring about it and they will be baptised soon. My nefew was baptised recently as an infant but my sis in law is a Roman Catholic in tradition but a new ager in reality. She thought it best to keep the tradition going and had him baptised. It was interesting to watch and as his godfather I got to play a special part in it. I do hope when he is older that he makes a profession of faith and lives it.
Link Posted: 8/10/2005 8:34:55 AM EDT
Catholci Baptize their children for two reasons.

1 is to protect them from original sin.

2 is so they become members of the church and the parents are acting as their representative. The parents and god parents are promising the Church that they will raise the child as a chirstian.

Later around 12 the child take confirmation which is when they are re-affirming their own baptism but this time type are making the choise for themselves. That is when the baptism is complete.

And rarely do we do full immersions.

Sgat1r5
Link Posted: 8/11/2005 8:05:13 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 8/11/2005 8:08:41 AM EDT by FMD]
Sorry I found this topic a little late.


Originally Posted By WildBoar:
This topic may even get ETH to come and slum in the religious forum for a bit.



Unfortunately, I think you're wrong about brother 'hun showing up anywhere near this forum.

On to the original Q:


Originally Posted By axmurderer:
Some religious denominations practice the baptism of infants. I see no harm in this, but I think it is NOT the baptism that Christ commanded of His followers. To be baptized into Christ requires that one have faith in Christ first. Infants do not have brains developed enough to have faith in anything.

So, in my opinion, a person isn't "baptized into the body of Christ" unless they are old enough to make that decision for themselves.

Anyone agree, disagree?



I disagree to an extent, and here's why:

In answer to the highlighted text. Faith only comes about through God's grace. Who are we to say when God's grace is bestowed?

I believe it the position of the Orthodox, RC, and Reformed churches is that infant baptism is a kind of "insurance", in one form or another, as we are commanded to be baptized. They find justification for the practice in the "household" baptisms of Acts.

On a personal level, I'm partial to the Reformed "Solas"; and while there is no "Sola Baptisma" (sorry, that was a joke only a Calvinist will get ), I don't think any of us trully diagrees with the need to be baptised.

As for what form that baptism takes, I would prefer immersion, but can not find a supporting verse to require it.

I also find it interesting that much of (non-Reformed/Orthodox/RC) opinion on this subject necessarily revolves around the notion the "age of accountability". Unfortunately, that is a docrine that I can find no good basis in Scripture for. Not for lack of trying (I grew up in dispensational churches), I just cant find a good argument for it.
Link Posted: 8/11/2005 12:10:31 PM EDT

Originally Posted By axmurderer:
Some religious denominations practice the baptism of infants. I see no harm in this, but I think it is NOT the baptism that Christ commanded of His followers. To be baptized into Christ requires that one have faith in Christ first. Infants do not have brains developed enough to have faith in anything.

So, in my opinion, a person isn't "baptized into the body of Christ" unless they are old enough to make that decision for themselves.

Anyone agree, disagree?



only the faith that Jesus Christ sacrificed himself to remit your sins is required for you to be admitted into heaven.

what did Jesus say to the thief on the cross?
he didn't say "sorry, but you need to be fully submerged to be with me in paradise".
Link Posted: 8/11/2005 12:19:06 PM EDT

Originally Posted By axmurderer:
Some religious denominations practice the baptism of infants. I see no harm in this, but I think it is NOT the baptism that Christ commanded of His followers. To be baptized into Christ requires that one have faith in Christ first. Infants do not have brains developed enough to have faith in anything.

So, in my opinion, a person isn't "baptized into the body of Christ" unless they are old enough to make that decision for themselves.

Anyone agree, disagree?




But parents act "on behalf of" their children in many decisions. Including this one.

Most churches have a re-affirmation or "confirmation" later in life.

And you are right, if this older child refuses to re-affirm his baptism, then that's that.
If this older child thinks that it's the right thing to do, then he is fully baptized.

You used to see the word "christened" used a lot in the baptizing of infants, that might
have been a better term. It is a ceremony that, in addition to baptism, introduces the
child to the congregation or witnesses and places a responsibility on God-parents
to help with the raising of the child in a Christian manner.

That ceremony also "re-baptizes" the participants in a way by reminding them of their
own baptism and obligations.

So, it's a lot more than dunking a kids head in a tank of water....

Is it the exact same way Christ was baptized? No,but it is a "substitute" for those too young,
because the Bible allows for parental decision making on behalf of a child.
Link Posted: 8/12/2005 7:42:10 AM EDT

Infant baptism is actually a dedication at my church. While dedicating your child to God is biblical, infant baptism isn't and is purely symbolic.

Shok
Link Posted: 8/12/2005 9:19:35 AM EDT
I have a limited understanding of the Catholic viewpoint, so I respect SgtAR15's views. However, I respectfully disagree for a few reasons.

Original sin: While we all experience the consequences of Adam's and Eve's transgression (subject to mortality and carnal urges), we are not accountable for the transgression. A newborn baby is guilty of no sin.

There is a scripture that explains my beliefs very well. It comes from a letter written between 400 and 421 AD. Mormon is writing to his son Moroni concerning infant baptism and the words of the Lord on the matter:

From Moroni Chapter 8:

5 For, if I have learned the truth, there have been disputations among you concerning the baptism of your little children.

6 And now, my son, I desire that ye should labor diligently, that this gross error should be removed from among you; for, for this intent I have written this epistle.

7 For immediately after I had learned these things of you I inquired of the Lord concerning the matter. And the word of the Lord came to me by the power of the Holy Ghost, saying:

8 Listen to the words of Christ, your Redeemer, your Lord and your God. Behold, I came into the world not to call the righteous but sinners to repentance; the whole need no physician, but they that are sick; wherefore, little children are whole, for they are not capable of committing sin; wherefore the curse of Adam is taken from them in me, that it hath no power over them; and the law of circumcision is done away in me.

9 And after this manner did the Holy Ghost manifest the word of God unto me; wherefore, my beloved son, I know that it is solemn mockery before God, that ye should baptize little children.

10 Behold I say unto you that this thing shall ye teach—repentance and baptism unto those who are accountable and capable of committing sin; yea, teach parents that they must repent and be baptized, and humble themselves as their little children, and they shall all be saved with their little children.

11 And their little children need no repentance, neither baptism. Behold, baptism is unto repentance to the fulfilling the commandments unto the remission of sins.

12 But little children are alive in Christ, even from the foundation of the world; if not so, God is a partial God, and also a changeable God, and a respecter to persons; for how many little children have died without baptism!

13 Wherefore, if little children could not be saved without baptism, these must have gone to an endless hell.

...

18 For I know that God is not a partial God, neither a changeable being; but he is unchangeable from all eternity to all eternity.

19 Little children cannot repent; wherefore, it is awful wickedness to deny the pure mercies of God unto them, for they are all alive in him because of his mercy.
Link Posted: 8/12/2005 2:23:09 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 8/12/2005 2:27:07 PM EDT by Dramborleg]
The sprinkling of infants is at its heart a policy of indoctrination, having nothing at all to do with what Christ has commanded of His followers.

There is no black mark of original sin on a perfectly pure child. When the child reaches an age where there is UNDERSTANDING of the nature of what sin is or is not... then and only then can sin occur. How can one who has no true self knowledge be held responsible for any type of act that we as adults might find sinful??? The sin of Adam only allows us to have a sinful nature when we are aware enough to make choices between that which is light and that which is dark. To think otherwise is patent blasphemy.

Lets listen in on Christ:

M't:18:3: And said, Verily I say unto you, Except ye be converted, and become as little children, ye shall not enter into the kingdom of heaven.

So, if we are to believe in that odious doctrine of children being steeped in sin... then Christ Himself is a liar, eh? For we are to change our natures to that of a child, who is without a sinful nature.

Original sin forsooth. Bah.

Though infant baptism as a recruiting tool for indoctrination is priceless as a way to inculate methodology and behaviour into the empty vessel that is a child.

Now back to the specifics of the question:

What is the baptism of which the followers of Christ are required to participate in order to be "born again"???

Lets listen to the Word here:

Ro:6:3: Know ye not, that so many of us as were baptized into Jesus Christ were baptized into his death?
Ro:6:4: Therefore we are buried with him by baptism into death: that like as Christ was raised up from the dead by the glory of the Father, even so we also should walk in newness of life.
Ro:6:5: For if we have been planted together in the likeness of his death, we shall be also in the likeness of his resurrection:
Ro:6:6: Knowing this, that our old man is crucified with him, that the body of sin might be destroyed, that henceforth we should not serve sin.
Ro:6:7: For he that is dead is freed from sin.
Ro:6:8: Now if we be dead with Christ, we believe that we shall also live with him:
Ro:6:9: Knowing that Christ being raised from the dead dieth no more; death hath no more dominion over him.
Ro:6:10: For in that he died, he died unto sin once: but in that he liveth, he liveth unto God.

One cannot be buried in a sprinkle or a pour or a rubdown. The call for burial in water is unequivocal here to meet those requirements that Christ has laid out.

There are those who falsely claim to have been born again without baptism. How is this so? We are here given the utmost in specifics as refers to spiritual rebirth of our sinful nature, and the role that baptism plays in uniting us in Christs death that we might rise up a new creature in Christ.

How that might be interpreted otherwise is a constant source of wonder to me.


So, in the end, by reading the Word and letting It speak to us, we know what baptism is FOR.

Children patently obviously do NOT NEED BAPTISM. Those who are aware of sin and its nature are REQUIRED to be baptized if they wish to be born again.

Simple as pie, yet the world would have you believe that the Word is too complicated to understand for a layman. I assure you fine folk who read this, I am a but a humble plumber... not a seminary graduate, yet I have the wit to read and understand that which is written for me, a lowly plier of wrenches.

Dram out



Link Posted: 8/12/2005 2:28:01 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 8/12/2005 2:28:46 PM EDT by TexasSIG]

Originally Posted By Dramborleg:

Though infant baptism as a recruiting tool for indoctrination is priceless as a way to inculate methodology and behaviour into the empty vessel that is a child. Pound it into their heads early and you have a robot for life generally




Although I agree somewhat with your diatribe on original sin, I'm not sure how you can call
the baptism of a 2 month old infant a "recruiting tool". I'm pretty sure the 2 month
old hasn't the slightest clue what is going on.

What are parents to do if not teach their children their beliefs and moral values? If the parents
are not going to do it who do you suggest is?

If I teach my child not to shoot puppies am I indocrinating him somehow?

Sounds like someone has issues with his parents and is confused about the world.

Also sounds like someone hasn't read ANY of what was posted before him.
Link Posted: 8/12/2005 7:20:28 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 8/12/2005 7:22:01 PM EDT by MRW]
Link Posted: 8/12/2005 8:52:26 PM EDT
Texsig

In the use of infant baptism I am referring strictly to those who follow the dictates of Rome and its offshoots.

Instead of being the personal relationship that baptism truly is with your creator... the use of infant baptism is to mark a person from birth as part of a sect, drill it in with catechism and its endless repetitions and fables... and before they know what they are doing, have them sponsored by an adult and "confirmed" as inextricably part of a religion. How this has ANYTHING to do with Christ I am at a dead loss to come up with as it is NOT IN THE BIBLE. And if it isnt written there... then it is NOT from God.

Issues with his parents? Please... grow up.

And yes, I read the posts before mine... what is that supposed to mean?? I left my secret decoder ring in my other cape today.

Dram out
Link Posted: 8/13/2005 11:35:11 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 8/13/2005 11:36:22 AM EDT by arowneragain]
edited.....

<--picking battles...
Link Posted: 8/13/2005 12:07:16 PM EDT

Originally Posted By Dramborleg:
Texsig

In the use of infant baptism I am referring strictly to those who follow the dictates of Rome and its offshoots.

Instead of being the personal relationship that baptism truly is with your creator... the use of infant baptism is to mark a person from birth as part of a sect, drill it in with catechism and its endless repetitions and fables... and before they know what they are doing, have them sponsored by an adult and "confirmed" as inextricably part of a religion. How this has ANYTHING to do with Christ I am at a dead loss to come up with as it is NOT IN THE BIBLE. And if it isnt written there... then it is NOT from God.

Issues with his parents? Please... grow up.

And yes, I read the posts before mine... what is that supposed to mean?? I left my secret decoder ring in my other cape today.

Dram out



I don't remember the 12 sitting around with Christ exchanging presents on December 25th either.

The Bible tells us to instruct others and to lead others to faith. How would you suggest we do that
with children? Keep them out of church and from exposure from any religious teachings until
their 18th birthday and then let them pick one, or none?

The reason I asked if you'd read what was above was that I posted the Protestant reasoning for
infant Baptism, which has nothing to do with original sin, but you still see all infant Baptism
as "marking" or "brainwashing".

And, it does sound like perhaps your parents did that to you and as you grew up you decided
that was not what you wanted. That may not be the case, but that is what it sounds like.

It sounds as though you mean to be on an anti Roman Catholic thing here, and that's fine,
but understand there are MANY Protestant faiths that practice infant Baptism and teaching
of catechisms, or doctrines of faith. I'm not sure you can have a church that DOESN'T teach
some doctrine of faith besides saying "Here is a Bible, do this".
Link Posted: 8/13/2005 9:06:24 PM EDT
Alrighty then Tex,

Lets start here:

No problem with the parents, God bless them. Flush out your headgear please.

Not catholic, not now not ever. Not protestant either.

Know why?

Protestant means what? Pro-test-ant... say it slowwwly. That means a protesting catholic. Christs Church has NEVER had anything to do with rome and its adherents. They fully believe and practice catholocism, which is a doctrine with its own rules, regulations and clergy that have NOTHING to do with SCRIPTURE. It is based on their own writings and interpretational doctrines based on bastardizations of pagan ritual. This is historical fact backed by the cath church itself. If a protestant religion chooses to be catholic light and sprinkle babies, then hoo-ra for them.

None of the above for me.

Back to catechism my man:

First off is my contention that it is naked indoctrination. Bald fact right there friend. The scriptures warn us about vain repetitions in prayer:

M't:6:7: But when ye pray, use not vain repetitions, as the heathen do: for they think that they shall be heard for their much speaking.

Gee, who is this scripture talking about?????? Ummmmm.... oh thats right, rome. Canned prayers and rituals drilled into childrens heads by rote and repitition. Dont think or understand kids, only a priest can do that for you. Just repeat after me .......

Do you wonder where my understanding comes from my man? The area I grew up in and still live in is 80% catholic or thereabouts. My best and lifelong friends are catholic. Gee, how would I ever know what goes on or what the thought process of a common standard issue catholic is... hmmm... let me see ...hmmm... oh I dont know, why dont you tell me ?

Catholics, by and large are great people, it is rome with which I have an axe to grind.

Dram out
Link Posted: 8/13/2005 9:16:32 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 8/13/2005 9:21:46 PM EDT by TexasSIG]

Originally Posted By Dramborleg:

M't:6:7: But when ye pray, use not vain repetitions, as the heathen do: for they think that they shall be heard for their much speaking.

Gee, who is this scripture talking about?????? Ummmmm.... oh thats right, rome. Canned prayers and rituals drilled into childrens heads by rote and repitition. Dont think or understand kids, only a priest can do that for you. Just repeat after me .......

Dram out



Little of what you said makes sense anyway, but I found this particular statement to be the MOST
wacky of the things you've said. Let me make sure I get this straight.

Matthew, who was one of the 12, wrote this before there was a Roman Church, and this line was translated
and included in both the King James and Authorized (Catholic) versions of the Bible.

So you're telling me that scripture was written warning of something that would not exist for
several hundred years, and the very people it warned against, that performed the Bible translations,
left that passage in there anyway even though in your opinion it clearly goes against everything
they stand for?

And you should probably look up the word catechism. It's not a prayer, it's a list of things
a particular church believes. It's not required that it be memorized or spoken out loud.
A catechism is a list of questions and answers prepared for the education of a sects
members as they decide to join. Notice that this is voluntary, and conducted well
after the infantile stage. It's clear you have never studied this, or you would know.

You might have grown up around Catholics and Protestants, but you clearly didn't pay any attention
to what they were doing.

The word "catholic" you also misuse. You dont practice "catholicism". The word means Universal or all embracing.
Both the Roman Catholic and Anglican churches (which are Protestant) are also apostolic, which means
a direct connection to one of the 12 in an unbroken succession. There is CLEAR Biblical evidence
that Christ placed both powere and trust in these 12 to make the rules and doctrine going forward
after His acsension.

I'll bet your church can't draw that direct line to the 12, and that makes it's authority dubious at best.

Oooooo K.......

Link Posted: 8/14/2005 7:57:56 AM EDT
Txsig,

Hmm... wacky eh. Yeah.

Little of what I said makes sense. Yes, obviously to you, as it is scripture that is quoted and a priest is not standing by your elbow to explain to you what it means.

__________________________________________________________________

Quote

So you're telling me that scripture was written warning of something that would not exist for
several hundred years, and the very people it warned against, that performed the Bible translations,
left that passage in there anyway even though in your opinion it clearly goes against everything
they stand for?
__________________________________________________________________________

Wow, the true lack of understanding of the scriptures by people amazes me. The Word is Christ. You remember Him right? You know, Emmanuelle, which means "God with us", the Son of God... I quoted this for you.

Joh:1:1: In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.

So, you apparently fail to understand, nay to even comprehend the premise that the Word is God and that encompasses all knowledge ie: that which was, that which is, and that which shall surely be.

Dont grasp it yet? The Old Testament of the Bible was a predictive document of Christ and his coming. It accurately predicted his coming, his death, his resurrection and his rejection. HUNDREDS OF YEARS BEFORE IT WAS TO OCCUR.

And yet you dont think that God did not know what would come to pass this afternoon, tomorrow or next Wednesday at 3:32 pm ? That would be denying the nature and being of God Himself to do so. He would no longer be God but some sort of demi-god with limited powers.

Maybe now you get the picture, I would like to hope. Yes, God knew people were to come that would twist and pervert the message of His Son in the days that were to come. Lets listen:

Ac:20:29: For I know this, that after my departing shall grievous wolves enter in among you, not sparing the flock.
Ac:20:30: Also of your own selves shall men arise, speaking perverse things, to draw away disciples after them.

Here is more:

1Tm:4:1: Now the Spirit speaketh expressly, that in the latter times some shall depart from the faith, giving heed to seducing spirits, and doctrines of devils;
1Tm:4:2: Speaking lies in hypocrisy; having their conscience seared with a hot iron;
1Tm:4:3: Forbidding to marry, and commanding to abstain from meats, which God hath created to be received with thanksgiving of them which believe and know the truth.

Hmm... sound familiar to you? Whooo could that be .... hmm...?????
And yet more:

1Tm:4:7: But refuse profane and old wives' fables, and exercise thyself rather unto godliness.

Oh, would that mean NOT INCLUDING pagan worship rituals into the simple and unadorned belief in the Son of God?????????

Why, yes it would! (I was given a pamphlet from an old girlfriend from her cath church that declared JUST THAT THING TO BE TRUE, about inclusion of pagan rituals, just with different names of saints and mary and what-not.

__________________________________________________________________________

Misuse of catholic? WHAT?

You do not believe in the fully and singular authority of the Bible. You believe in the writings of your holy fathers, the hierarchy of your church... and the declarations of the papacy and its infallibility in matters both spiritual and temporal. THEY are your guide and staff.

So, yes, simply put... you are a follower of catholo-cism. The rules, the regulations, the clergy, and any and all supernumerary and impedimentia that they have imposed on their adherents.

NONE of the above can be found in the bible save the office of a bishop. Care to hear what a bishop and his qualifications are? Are you waiting?

1Tm:3:1: This is a true saying, If a man desire the office of a bishop, he desireth a good work.
1Tm:3:2: A bishop then must be blameless, the husband of one wife, vigilant, sober, of good behaviour, given to hospitality, apt to teach;
Ti:1:7: For a bishop must be blameless, as the steward of God; not selfwilled, not soon angry, not given to wine, no striker, not given to filthy lucre;

Yep, must be married there sport. Dont see any married bishops round rome though. Hmm..


Link Posted: 8/14/2005 8:25:43 AM EDT
Everyone loves to go after the big dogs.........................


Sgatr15
Link Posted: 8/14/2005 8:32:42 AM EDT
The word "catholic" you also misuse. You dont practice "catholicism". The word means Universal or all embracing.
Both the Roman Catholic and Anglican churches (which are Protestant) are also apostolic, which means
a direct connection to one of the 12 in an unbroken succession. There is CLEAR Biblical evidence
that Christ placed both powere and trust in these 12 to make the rules and doctrine going forward
after His acsension.
______________________________________________________________________________

ENDQUOTE

Christ reserved all power unto HIMSELF. There is NO SUCH THING AS APOSTOLIC SUCCESSION.

So to test out your theory on direct apostolic succession, lets give er' the ol' acid test shall we, eh?
Lets.

If the power of the apostles was passed on there would be by the papacy the following things going on in rome:

Raising the dead.

Healing the sick, the lame, and the blind.

Popes being bitten by poisonous snakes and not dying.

Hmmm.... the apostles had these "apostolic" powers. Direct succession you say, eh? Hmmm...

NOPE IT JUST IS NOT SO.

Christ is the cornerstone of His Church, and the rock upon which it is founded. NOT PETER. Not even. He was not even the chief disciple for crying out loud!!

Here are the scriptures saying WHO the real cornerstone of Christs Church IS. It is Christ Himself! He here "PREDICTS" that the jews will reject Him, and that he will be the cornerstone.

M't:21:42: Jesus saith unto them, Did ye never read in the scriptures, The stone which the builders rejected, the same is become the head of the corner: this is the Lord's doing, and it is marvellous in our eyes?
M'r:12:10: And have ye not read this scripture; The stone which the builders rejected is become the head of the corner:
Lu:20:17: And he beheld them, and said, What is this then that is written, The stone which the builders rejected, the same is become the head of the corner?
Ac:4:11: This is the stone which was set at nought of you builders, which is become the head of the corner.
1Pe:2:7: Unto you therefore which believe he is precious: but unto them which be disobedient, the stone which the builders disallowed, the same is made the head of the corner,

_____________________________________________________________________

So, when you speak of direct line succession... I just flat feel bad for you. You have fallen for those who have preached things they have NO AUTHORITY to preach. You follow those who have allowed an admixture of profane and pagan rituals into the purity of Christ Jesus. Lets listen to what the bible says about mixing the two:

1Co:10:20: But I say, that the things which the Gentiles sacrifice, they sacrifice to devils, and not to God: and I would not that ye should have fellowship with devils.
1Co:10:21: Ye cannot drink the cup of the Lord, and the cup of devils: ye cannot be partakers of the Lord's table, and of the table of devils.

You cannot mix pagan with that which is of Christ. Period. The cath church HAS DONE JUST THAT.

__________________________________________________________________________

Anyhow, just an ensample for you txsig of the raging hypocrisy that IS the cath faith. It is at massive loggerheads with The Word, The Bible.

2Tm:3:15: And that from a child thou hast known the holy scriptures, which are able to make thee wise unto salvation through faith which is in Christ Jesus.
2Tm:3:16: All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:
2Tm:3:17: That the man of God may be perfect, throughly furnished unto all good works.


So, Christ wants us to read the Scriptures that can tell us how to be saved????

So that ANY MAN can be find God???

Yeppers. Dont need your full on human doctrine.. that poisonous doctrine of devils.

The beauty and SIMPLICITY unadorned that is Christs message, is TOO SIMPLE for some. The cath faith is a CONSTRUCT to the vanity of man. Its mysticism and pseudo saints and pseudo miracles are hilarious middle ages CONSTRUCTS that fall FLAT ON THEIR FACE here in the twentieth century.

Anyroad.

In the final analysis, TxSig... here is the final diff between you and I, and the gulf that lays between us as far as doctrine:

Catholic doctrine is fed to its young... its youth through catechism. Whereas with Christians, we teach the young to read and understand the simple message that Christ brings through the SCRIPTURES...THE WORD unadorned.

There is the difference TxSig.

DOCTRINE OF MAN vs THE WORDS OF CHRIST JESUS thru the Holy Spirit

Guess which one I would rather you followed?

Dram out


Link Posted: 8/14/2005 8:53:52 AM EDT
I guess that whole peter upon this rock comment by Jesus was just a lie then.

Along with when Jesus told the apostles to "do this in rememrance of me" was also a lie.

And all those accounts of the apostles healing people in the Bible was also a lie.

And I don't know about you, but I have seen MANY examples of prayer healing people, so it is not only Jesus that the Holy Spirit appears too or works thru.

Sgatr15
Link Posted: 8/14/2005 8:59:27 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 8/14/2005 9:03:19 AM EDT by TexasSIG]

Originally Posted By Dramborleg:

Misuse of catholic? WHAT?

You do not believe in the fully and singular authority of the Bible. You believe in the writings of your holy fathers, the hierarchy of your church... and the declarations of the papacy and its infallibility in matters both spiritual and temporal. THEY are your guide and staff.

So, yes, simply put... you are a follower of catholo-cism. The rules, the regulations, the clergy, and any and all supernumerary and impedimentia that they have imposed on their adherents.





Once again you prove yourself illiterate and uneducated. The word catholic and the Roman Catholic
Church are not the same. I am not a member of the Roman Catholic Church, I am a member
of the Anglican church, a catholic and apostolic church.

Our priests and bishops are for the most part married and have children.

You need to become a little better aquainted with theology and Christian history
if you are going to preach your beliefs. If you are going to attack or condemn another
church, be SURE you have your facts straight first.

What IS important, and the thing you keep leaving out, is the CLEAR instruction from Christ
to the 12 before his acscention.

You are most certainly not a member of an apolstolic church, and again, Biblicly speaking,
that gives little of what you say any credibility with those that DO understand the Bible,
and not just take one line or 2 here and there to justify whatever it is they are selling
that week.

Read about the importance of Apostolic Succession.

The ones that constantly talk about how it doesn't matter are usually the ones belonging
to a church with no firm footing.

Now, I do have a particular beef with the Roman Catholic Church in that the church believes that the Anglican
Church's ordinations are invalid because of changes made to the rite of ordination under Edward VI, thus
denying that Anglicans participate in the apostolic succession.

That's a different argument, but the MAJOR religions of the world most certainly adhere to
the doctrine of Apostolic Succession. The ones that don't do so because the can't.
Link Posted: 8/14/2005 6:38:40 PM EDT
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAHA!!

Illiterate and uneducated?!?

AHAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!

STOP youre killin' me!

whoo, man are you off the beaten track.

I have posted endless scripture to back up my statements and you have posted.......wait for it........ NOTHING!

See now fella, you are basing your beliefs off of the writings of MAN. I am NOT. My beliefs have their bedrock in the WORD.

Apostolic my aching dying cuticle.... what a farcical laugh-fest you are young man. Hee hee! Har ... oh man!

Church history? You bet I know it fella.

Oh man this is rich.. you base your Christianity off of what your brand name is and NOT the content.... oh this gets even better!!

I dont sell anything! Not a bit! I quote scripture IN CONTEXT and you have NO USE FOR IT!!

Oh man you are killin' me here sport.

Lets get your premise straight here:

Unless you are in a church that is catholic or protestant ... then you have no "footing" , is that your "theory" there fella' ?

Oh man, the world is not great enough to contain the sum of your ignorance were it made physical.

I did make one mistake though, in thinking you to be roman cath, when in fact you are catholic lite. Half the clergy and a 1/3 less guilt.

You are buried in a morass of beliefs that have no basis in the WORD, but in a supposed belief that the political organization that is the cath faith was in ANY WAY a descendant of the first century Church started by Christ Himself.

There is no apostolic succession boy. When they died ... that was it. Were the powers of the apostles passed on to successors, all the miracles I listed would be happening today.

THEY ARE NOT HAPPENING.


So you also rant about MAJOR religions. Thats a hoot too fella'.

Christ says:

M't:7:21: Not every one that saith unto me, Lord, Lord, shall enter into the kingdom of heaven; but he that doeth the will of my Father which is in heaven.
M't:7:22: Many will say to me in that day, Lord, Lord, have we not prophesied in thy name? and in thy name have cast out devils? and in thy name done many wonderful works?
M't:7:23: And then will I profess unto them, I never knew you: depart from me, ye that work iniquity.

So, that right there tells me plainly and clearly, there will be MANY that claim to be doing great big things for the Lord and He will turn His back on them.

Sounds like your "MAJOR RELIGIONS" there sport. Lots of smoke, lots of mirrors, lots of press... but a non starter for the race.


Sarge I will get to you and your claims later.

I am fighting an unarmed man in this battle of biblical knowledge, and someone who would make some of the ridiculous claims TxSig has is just not in the ballpark. He is out past left field somewhere wandering around.

Imagine, thinking there is no predictive power in the hand of God, or that no predictions were made in the bible, both old and new testaments.

I should have realized right there you are not a scripture reader and not tried to argue any points with you. Arguing a point with ignorance is like trying to teach a pig to sing... you waste your time... and you annoy the pig. Neither of which is a worthwhile pursuit.

You just wade around in that apostolic pool there fella'. Dont pick up the Bible, it will just confuse you... stick to what you know.... not what Christ has given us.

I will leave the last comment on this thread for you Tex... I am out of this one. You have NOT addressed ONE element I have posted.... and I know you CANT.

Oh well, .... NEXT.

Dram out!
Link Posted: 8/14/2005 6:42:40 PM EDT

Originally Posted By Dramborleg:
See now fella, you are basing your beliefs off of the writings of MAN. I am NOT. My beliefs have their bedrock in the WORD.

Dram out!



Manwqrote the Bible with the guidance of the Holy Spirtit.

An Texas Sig is right. The word "Catholic" means universal, always has and always will.

Some Catholics consider other Christian relkigions as members of our church, they just don't know it yet.


Sgat1r5
Link Posted: 8/14/2005 7:20:29 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 8/14/2005 7:22:50 PM EDT by TexasSIG]
I'm not sure why I waste my time other than someone else might be reading this
that has some bit of open mind and intelligence about themselves.

So, I'll wade through this mess once more, but no more.


Originally Posted By Dramborleg:

See now fella, you are basing your beliefs off of the writings of MAN. I am NOT. My beliefs have their bedrock in the WORD.




Unless you speak Hebrew and some ancient languages, the Bible you are reading is a translation of
a translation of a translation. In all probability you are reading a Bible that was taken from the
King James version. King James and the 54 person committee that translated this Bible were
members of the Anglican community, one you say has no relevance. If there was scripture
to lay a cloud of doubt on their doctrine, they would not have included it, or altered the translation.
The Bible was inspired writing, but it was inspired by God certainly, to men, especially 12 very important men
that Christ DIRECTLY interacted with and spoke to, and left His instructions with.

You cannot take the Bible as "The Word Of God" in an English translation. It was not originally
written in English. You need to understand the context of the world in which it was written,
and open your heart to God speaking to you THROUGH the Bible, rather than directly FROM it.



Apostolic my aching dying cuticle.... what a farcical laugh-fest you are young man. Hee hee! Har ... oh man!




So, you don't like it, but you offer no argument or proof against it. I pasted a link to an extremely
detailed description of the meaning of apostolic, with all of the scripture needed to back
up the belief. In fact, in some of the scripture you gave, you give credence to the argument.



Church history? You bet I know it fella.

Oh man this is rich.. you base your Christianity off of what your brand name is and NOT the content.... oh this gets even better!!




No, I base my Christianity off of the Bible and the history surrounding it, knowing as I do that it
is not the original copy, and somewhat depending on the opinions and thoughts of ancient
language scholars. Again, the tablet that God gave to Moses with the Ten Commandments
on it was not written in English. Neither then is the Bible that's printed in English
100% the Word of God. It is a translation, and an understanding of the language in use
at the time it was written is important to keep things in context. It becomes the Word
when God speaks to you THROUGH it, not FROM it, again.



Unless you are in a church that is catholic or protestant ... then you have no "footing" , is that your "theory" there fella' ?



Again, your lack of knowledge shows here. You do not have to be Roman Catholic or Protestant
to have the Apostolic link. But Christ himself set the precedence for apostolic succession
before he ascended into Heaven for the final time.




I did make one mistake though, in thinking you to be roman cath, when in fact you are catholic lite. Half the clergy and a 1/3 less guilt.



Well, that's just your stupidity showing.




You are buried in a morass of beliefs that have no basis in the WORD, but in a supposed belief that the political organization that is the cath faith was in ANY WAY a descendant of the first century Church started by Christ Himself.



Again, I am not Roman Catholic. Do not use words that you don't understand the definition of.
You keep saying catholic. Catholic is not a faith, Roman Catholicism is a faith. It is not my faith,
and I will agree with you that, in my opinion, the Roman Catholic Church in it's current form
is not the Church started by Christ. That's what the Protest was about.
But since you continue to misuse the term catholic, what you say here is not clear.




There is no apostolic succession boy. When they died ... that was it. Were the powers of the apostles passed on to successors, all the miracles I listed would be happening today.

THEY ARE NOT HAPPENING.



Don't call me boy. And again, your lack of information is not surprising. It's obvious you have
not read on the subject. Nowhere in the doctrine of Apostolic Succession is it claimed
that anyone other than Christ would work miracles. Whether or not Christ gave some
authority to the 12 to work miracles on His behalf has nothing to do with the fact that
the authority to develop a church was indeed given to the 12, who would certainly have
the authority to pass that on. Miralces are not supposed to happen as a result
of Apostolic Succession, and if you had read anything on the subject you would know that.
Since you are making this claim, I can safely assume, again, that you don't know what you
are talking about. You just have heard this somewhere and repeat it as if it were true.



Christ says:

M't:7:21: Not every one that saith unto me, Lord, Lord, shall enter into the kingdom of heaven; but he that doeth the will of my Father which is in heaven.
M't:7:22: Many will say to me in that day, Lord, Lord, have we not prophesied in thy name? and in thy name have cast out devils? and in thy name done many wonderful works?
M't:7:23: And then will I profess unto them, I never knew you: depart from me, ye that work iniquity.

So, that right there tells me plainly and clearly, there will be MANY that claim to be doing great big things for the Lord and He will turn His back on them.



Yes, thats exactly what Christ said. And he gave authority to the 12 to run the True Church. Any Church
that can not make a connection to the 12 is the type of church Christ is warning about, so again
you make my argument of Apostolic Succession for me. Thank you for your help.





Sounds like your "MAJOR RELIGIONS" there sport. Lots of smoke, lots of mirrors, lots of press... but a non starter for the race.




Any church that cannot support an apostolic lineage is smoke and mirrors, you are correct,
as you quoted the basis for that above.




Imagine, thinking there is no predictive power in the hand of God, or that no predictions were made in the bible, both old and new testaments.




I have no idea what you are talking about there. I never said there were no predictions made,
I said that just because YOU tell me what Christ was talking about does not make it so.




You just wade around in that apostolic pool there fella'. Dont pick up the Bible, it will just confuse you... stick to what you know.... not what Christ has given us.



What Christ gave us was His words and teachings, which were eye witnessed by 12 men.
These 12 men wrote down what they saw and heard. Their word is good enough for me.
These 12 men were told to build a church going forward. Why you have problems with the
churches that are directly linked to these 12 is completely beyond me. So yes, I will
wade in the Apostolic pool, as Christ has commanded, and continue to warn others
of false churches, those that did not receive their charter from "The Man Himself".

Since you made the argument for me in the scripture you quoted, I'll leave that as the last word.
And I'm done with you. If anyone else is reading that is interested in this, discussion is always
welcome.

Top Top