Comments?

And is there [b]really[/b] a difference between sprinkling and immersion, if you're sincere?  [:D]

I'm only serious about the first question...

never too young to get rid of Original Sin, eh?

don't wanna go around with a case of OrigSin for too long.  they won't let you into certain places with it anyway.

You have certainly come to the right place! [:D]

If you think that a child is of sufficient discernment that he or she completely understands the nature of the act of baptism, then that child is old enough.

But I would always let the child tell me that he or she wanted to be baptized.

Then you will know that it is the Holy Spirit that is drawing the child to Jesus, and not you pushing the child to Jesus!

It would never be [u]my[/u] suggestion!

Well, now, if they were 29 and still living at home,  might bring it up! [:D]

If you're in a church that practices weekly communion, the child will understand that he or she will not partake of the communion until he or she is baptized.

Now, you must understand that I am coming from a background in a very fundamentalist church, and a lot of mainline Christian churches will say that infants should be baptized, so....

And insofar as 'sprinkling' versus 'immersion' is concerned, I best make my beliefs known offline, as this could get quite contentious!

Eric The(NothingLikeBeatingEachOtherToDeathOverTheLord!)Hun[>]:)]

Baptism?

Just say NO!

;-)

- CD

Man allot of religious threads on a gun forum this is cool. My suggestion read more don't take someone word for gospel.

With that said I'll add, LOL.

Immersion is taught, nothing else.

Age of accountability, or age of knowledge, your dads little sister was saved w/o baptism due to her age of accountability. And doesn't it make common sense, how can we be judged if we didn't know from right to wrong (sin) you make a concise choice to choose where and who you'll serve. For me and my house I'll serve the Lord Jesus Christ, and defend my house
via AR-15, shot guns, hand guns, etc, LOL.

Man I love my 2nd amendment right

How can one tell for [u]sure[/u], that a child fully understands the nature of the act, or if they're simply repeating what they've been told?  Is that fair enough a question?



This happened.



What if a friend of the child, let's say, around 8 years old was going to be baptized?  How does one seperate the Holy Spirit's leading, from a child wanting to "jump on the bandwagon" with a friend?  I'm serious here...honest question.



Nor would it be mine.



I put that in there specifically for you & g-man.  I guess I'm in a half dead serious, half trolling kind of mood today...[:D]

It's about time I was baptized, being 20.  I want to be baptized in a river like your grandfather...it just seems like the way to do it.  The problem is that there is only a small window of opportunity for outdoor baptisms in minnesota [:D]

so what happens to an aborted fetus?
does it have original sin?
is it going to hell?
I guess the question is what if it dies in the womb where does it go?

where does the soul lie?
what about the particular abortion procedure where the baby's body is pulled from the womb but the head is left in and the skull is collapsed killing the baby before it can take it's first breath.  

do they have machine guns? if i offer to help guard the wire, will they let me in?

[:D] Just when it's getting good?

no dude read your bible. they have flaming swords

If we are serious, I will attempt to give a serious reply.

Well?

Are we serious?

Eric The(Baptist[:D])Hun[>]:)]

You forgot the part about the guards telling everybody "[b]Shhh![/b]  That's the Southern Baptists over there..."(on the [i]other[/i] side of the wire..) "..they think they're the only ones up here."

[:D]

I'm serious Eric, with my [b]first[/b] question.  Which would be the better mistake to make?  To tell a child [i]wait[/i] until you're a little older, with the possiblity existing that they might have a full understanding of baptism on a spiritual level?  Or, to go ahead now when there is also the possiblity that the child might not yet understood baptism on a spiritual level?

Serious question.  If a parent wants to "err on the conservative side" when in doubt, which one is the "conservative side"?

This is the correct answer to 308wood's question.  Now, what is the "age of accountability"?  

if you don't mind please provide book chapter and verse to support this age of accountability.
because I have never heard of it before.  as I understand it you are born with original sin and you will go to hell unless your baptized.
so PLEASE change my mind with scripture.

We knew there were problems with our baby. We went to the research university town for my wife to give birth in the university center.
I had gotten my law degree there, and our pastor from our church in that town was in the suite when my wife gave birth. He baptised him as they were putting the tube in, within one minute of birth.
As it turned out he lived for the rest of the day, but better safe than sorry.
I would say as soon as possible, just in case.

A3Kid,

I'm not sure that "being safe" really matters.

If a child ever makes the decision not to follow in their spiritual upbringing, then no amount of Baptism is ever going to save their soul.
I personally know many people who were baptised as infants and they have no memory of it.  I also know people who were Baptised at a very young age because the whole family was doing it.  These people had little or no concept of what was happening.
These folks grew up with the knowledge that this ceremony took place, therefore never considered Baptism as somthing that they could experience.

I was Baptised when I was 22 years old at my request.  We had a private ceremony.  I am extremely glad that I did this.  I am not sure if I ever would have done this had my parents decided to Baptise me when I was little.

The experience was very meaningful for me.

I would recommend that people allow their children to determine the time and place of their Baptism.



As to the method?

Isn't Baptism a symbol of Christ drawing us out of sin, as a new person?  Drawing out of water has been a 2000 year old sacrament for Christians the world over.  Why then should we trivialize the act of "drawing out" by simply "sprinkling"?  Are we then not "Symbolizing the Symbol"?

If I want to get Baptised, I want to go all the way.  Dunk me!

Amen [b]Brother[/b]!

To my knowledge, in every instance in the Bible, the person was saved, then baptised.  Only exception was Jesus, who didnt need to be saved.  Since a very young person is incapable of being saved (i.e., having the cognitive ability to accept Christ), I think the very young should not be baptised.

As for sprinkle v. immersion, the greek "baptizo" means to immerse; and the Bible refers to people coming up out of the water.  Plus, the symbolism of total immersion representing being "born again" (Jesus' words in the book of John).  

JMHO.

Us Catholics often baptize the kid in the hospital, Limbo was always a scary place to us.

In Jesuit high school, we were even taught how to do it if we ever were present at a difficult birth. Same thing with final rites, I gave it to my father-in-law.

The Doctrine of original sin is a doctrine of man, not a doctrine that is scriptural. The early catholic church only baptized adults and they used immersion baptism as the Word called for it. When the doctrines of man were raised to the level of the Word in the catholic church... they fell away from the Truth and baptized infants calling them sinful. The origins of this are purely political and meant to enslave those who are not even old enough to understand what they being put through. Then they are indoctrinated through catechism. It is a beautiful psyops program. I live in a predominantly catholic area and even though they know nothing of the Word or the Lord, they can still regurgitate a few things from catechism and will hold like the devil to being catholic but really not know why they do so, and this is a result of their catechism indoctrination. Not a slam on catholics in general, they just plainly are not aware of what they follow or are supposed to believe.... most have NO clue. None. Try finding the original sin doctrine in the old or new testament as preached by the catholic church. You cant and wont find it, they wrote it and they enforce it. Simple.

ETH hit it on the head with the age of accountability issue. When that child is fully capable of understanding the nature of sin, and that they need to repent and be baptized in order to be saved.... added to the Church which is Christ's.

A3kid, try this... if she can give a proper discourse on the nature of sin and why it is that she needs to be buried with Christ into the likeness of his death to rise again and walk in the newness of life.... then she is of the age of accountability. Otherwise .... no. Children will perform a monkey see monkey do activity when adults are bestowing attention and admiration on those who are obeying the Lord and doing his will. I am afraid it will profit those too young... nothing. An 8 year old is not capable of knowing what a sinful nature is... the developmental stage is still very primitive Im afraid.

YMMV it is my opinion on long study and research of the scriptures, especially on this topic.

Dramborleg out!

I don't believe in the concept of "original sin."  There are a few scriptures that basically say that you should be like the children, not in mind but in malice.  Their basically not evil nor good.  Don't know right from wrong.  Be humble, etc.  And they already belong in heaven.  God wouldn't have wanted us to be like the children if their already sinners.

And that it shouldn't be done until their in their youth, to where they do know right from wrong because a child needs a certain level of maturity to know the difference.

Also, I believe I recall my pastor commenting on how in the baptisms (the ones where there were a bunch at once) there is not one mention of children being baptised with them.


Ezek. 18:20
Rom. 14:12
Gen. 8:21
Jer. 3:25
Isa. 7:15, 16
Matt. 18:3; 19:14
1 Cor. 14:2O


Don't feel like going into the immersion thing today but yeah I believe thats the way it should be...

A3Kid, There your serious answer!
If your son is requesting it I would let him. that's impressive you should be proud as
a parent.

I am going to abstain from this topic....


I cannot think of any response that would not be REAL insulting to the religious types around here.....

JESUS H CHIRST!!  What is this place??  Assaultweb.net?????

Ezek. 18:20
The soul who sins is the one who will die. The son will not share the guilt of the father, nor will the father share the guilt of the son. The righteousness of the righteous man will be credited to him, and the wickedness of the wicked will be charged against him.
Rom. 14:12
12   So then, each of us will give an account of himself to God.
Gen. 8:21
 The LORD smelled the pleasing aroma and said in his heart: "Never again will I curse the ground because of man, even though [1] every inclination of his heart is evil from childhood. And never again will I destroy all living creatures, as I have done.
Jer. 3:25
Let us lie down in our shame, and let our disgrace cover us. We have sinned against the LORD our God, both we and our fathers; from our youth till this day we have not obeyed the LORD our God."
Isa. 7:15, 16
He will eat curds and honey when he knows enough to reject the wrong and choose the right.
16   But before the boy knows enough to reject the wrong and choose the right, the land of the two kings you dread will be laid waste.v  (this is a specific scripture about Jesus)
Matt. 18:3; 19:14
And he said: "I tell you the truth, unless you change and become like little children, you will never enter the kingdom of heaven.
Jesus said, "Let the little children come to me, and do not hinder them, for the kingdom of heaven belongs to such as these."

1 Cor. 14:2O
Brothers, stop thinking like children. In regard to evil be infants, but in your thinking be adults.


Looks like a mixed bag sone yes some no. with no definitive.

Gonna say this once. Drambor, do you believe that Christ spoke not a word other than what's contained in the Bible? Do the traditions, oral and practiced, of the people who were there with Christ count for nothing?
there!

You wouldn't insult me, and you [i]might[/i] want to consider being careful about insulting [b]HIM[/b].



We've successfully infiltrated the ranks, and pray nightly for all of you guys, whether you like it or [u]not[/u].  

[:D]

Peace.

-kid

No problem a3.....

You can join ranks with my parents...they have been praying for years [rolleyes]

In the meantime I will be....reloading!!

I'm glad it's not.  Wouldn't want [b]me[/b] to be a problem to you.



Where ever I'm needed...



[b]What?[/b]  You let yourself run low on ammo??????  Where do we start with you?  Low on ammo - talk about problems...

[:D]

[kiddin']

-kid

Thought I would jump in real quick with both a short and long answer.

First, The short answer.
1. When to baptize,
It has been my general practice when a young person tells me they want to be baptized to ask them this simple question. What would you do if I said no. (The answer I am looking for is along the lines of, I would find someone who will). The has generally weeded out the young or uncommitted.

As a side not to "gravitynoodle" I think you may have things turned around

Jesus said in Mark 16:16 "He who has believed and has been baptized shall be saved..."

Notice he did not say what you implied. "He that believes is saved and is then baptized"

2. What does Baptism mean (immersion or sprinkling) Aside from the simple fact that the word means to immerse.
Consider Romans 6:3-4. The picture is shown to tie baptism with burial. I am sure that we would all agree that we would not consider someone buried if they had simply been dusted with some dirt.

3. To those who wonder about "original sin" it's origins come from the traditions of the catholic church and were refined by John Calvin.

I will include a short note from a good friend of mine from Texas (Larry Ray Hafley)

Calvinism tells us three things. (1) Man is born in sin. This is the doctrine of total, hereditary depravity. Total means all, whole or complete. Hereditary means one receives it from his parents, which in this case means from Adam, hence, adamic, original sin. Depravity means bad, wicked, evil. Thus, every person born into this world is, at birth, thoroughly, utterly sinful. (2) The Holy Spirit regenerates the sinner directly. Man can do nothing to effect his deliverance from his unhappy state of depravity. Man is wholly passive in his redemption. The "enabling power" of the Spirit must regenerate the totally wicked sinner before he can respond to the call of the gospel. This "direct operation of the Holy Spirit" is performed without the subject's will or choice. Since one is totally dead, he must be given life before he can act. Therefore, the Holy Spirit, without means or agency, regenerates, gives life, to the soul. (3) Those regenerated cannot die. Once the Spirit infuses life, that life cannot be lost — "once saved, always saved." As man cannot undo his fleshly birth, so he cannot surrender his spiritual birth, says Calvinism. Once born of the flesh, one cannot be unborn; so, once born of the Spirit, one cannot be unborn — "once in grace, always in grace."

The above analysis and description is a fair representation of the creeds and beliefs of denominationalism. Our line of attack in this chapter shall be focused on the events in the garden of Eden from whence this theology allegedly, initially sprang. Because of Adam's sin, we are all born in sin, utterly disposed to all evil, totally foreign to all good, and in need of the generation of the Spirit in our dead hearts to give us life which cannot be forfeited. So, we shall go to the root of it all, to Adam, Eve, and the bowers of their paradise.

The creeds explain to us our sin, but they do not tell us why or how the first pair was led to sin. Let us look at it from a parallel perspective.

Continued below...

Part 2

First, "Total Hereditary Righteousness." Adam was created, body, soul, and spirit, by Jehovah himself. He did not experience a human or animal birth. He came directly from God. We may safely assume, therefore, that he was totally, hereditarily righteous. His parent, his Creator, had no sin, and he was sinless at his birth. Later, we learn that he sinned, but how did he come to sin? If we are born totally, hereditarily depraved, and, consequently, can do no good, how could Adam, born totally, hereditarily righteous, do any evil? That question must be addressed by the Calvinist. When he answers it, he will answer himself and dissolve his position, but answer it he must.

Second, "The Direct Operation of the Devil." Did the devil's unholy spirit perform a direct operation on the heart of Adam, this totally, hereditarily righteous man, to give him death and enable him to sin? That is what we should expect. If a totally depraved man requires a direct working of the Spirit on his heart to give him life and empower him to obey God, why would not a totally righteous man require a direct work of the devil on his heart to give him death and empower him to obey the devil?

The sinner is "dead in trespasses and sins" (Eph. 2:1; Col. 2:13), and as a dead man cannot act until he is given life, so the sinner cannot respond to God until the Spirit gives him life. So Calvinism says. Keep the parallel in mind — Adam was just as "dead to sins" (cf. Rom. 6:2; Col. 3:3; 1 Pet. 2:24) as the sinner is said to be "dead in sins." Now, did it take a direct work of the devil on Adam's heart to enable or to empower him to sin? If one dead in sins is unable to effect righteousness until the Spirit gives him spiritual life, is one who is dead to sin unable to effect unrighteousness until the devil gives him spiritual death? Adam was "dead to sin," yet he was able to sin without a miraculous act of the devil's unholy spirit on his heart. So, one who is "dead in sins" is able to obey God without a miraculous act of the Holy spirit on his heart. If not, why not?

Adam was led to sin by the spoken word of the devil. By means of lying, through incentive, inducement, and enticement, Adam was led to sin (Gen. 3:1-6; Jas. 1:13-15). The word of the devil allured this totally righteous man, this man who was dead to sins, to commit sin and die. The word of God can allure, therefore, totally depraved man, the man dead in sins, to obey God and live (John 5:25), or else the word of the devil is more powerful than the word of God (Rom. 1:16; Heb. 4:12). From this conclusion there is no escape.

Third, "Once Lost, Always Lost." Once Adam sinned, he should have been lost, irretrievably lost, if the parallel holds true. He should have been unable to hear the word of God and respond to it after he died spiritually, but is that what we find? Notice that Calvinism says that when the totally depraved sinner receives life, he is impervious to the call of the devil; he cannot be led by the devil to eternal ruin. What was the state of Adam? He could hear and obey God after his sin (Gen. 3:7f), but we are told that the regenerated child of God cannot hear and obey the devil after his regeneration. But since Adam could hear, reason, and follow God after his fall, then, the saved one can hear, reason and follow the devil after his salvation (2 Pet. 3:17; Heb. 3:12).

Thats wierd, your Genesis is different from mine.  Mine says mans heart is evil from his youth.  But other than that the others are more or less the same.  Not sure which Bible your using...doing a quick search through online bibles I think it might be NIV (possibly youth for the translators for them was childhood *shrug*).

Anyhow, like I said this is why I believe the kids (and I think you were the one that asked the fetus/abortion question) are ok (ie. saved, or heavenbound).

G-D...??

Are you some sort of Southern Baptist Plant??

No offense intended but......

I have a sneaking feeling that you might be....

Do you actually own a gun??  

Even a 10/22 and a .38 would be fine!

Now, here is a Brother with whom I am in complete agreement!

You, Sir, are a godsend![:D]

I fear that mainline Christianity has adopted or arrogated unto themselves the same old lie that [b]garandman[/b] frets about so much - they are now the 'Chosen People' who [u]cannot[/u] be damned. That [u]cannot[/u] lose their salvation!

So many televangelists will tell their audience, 'put your hand on the t.v., claim Jesus as your personal Savior, and BOOM!, you are in Brother/Sister.'

'And Brother/Sister, now that you are in, you will never be out! You can go and sin to your little heart's delight, and you will still be in. You know why? Once saved, always saved.'

'Praise the Lord! Now take out your checkbooks and prepare to show the Lord, through me, just how much being $aved means to you...'

Would that it was so simple. What idiot would not do that?

But Jesus told us to pick up our cross and follow Him. Not our crown, not our trophies, but our [b]cross[/b].

Eric The(WorkingOutMyOwnSalvationWithFearAndTrembling)Hun[>]:)]

Garmentless,

You have hit in the x ring my good man. Correct are you sir, The Word is IT. Anything that is not of the Word is suspect and of man, profiting you and anyone else.... nothing.

These traditions of man, vague superstitions and corruptions of foul religions whose roots are in Babylon.... these are the underpinnings of the rites and superstitions that the catholic faith call the "writings of the holy fathers". Where did I learn this? From a pamphlet from the cath church itself. In order to win over the pagans to the new and govt. approved faith, they incorporated their feasts and observances and goddesses, mary and babyjesus, into a newfound mythology based on the Word, but wholly and completely at odds with the teachings of Christ. Look it up, it is not hidden of which I speak.

Also, I am going to infer from your post that you refer to the traditions etc that the catholics "claim" came from the very infancy of the Church which is Christ's. Correct?? I think so. Now whom do you say was with Christ and was given "special" stuff that was not included in his Word. Who? Come now, I am waiting .... for this special dispensation from the Son of God himself to someone, anyone, in particular.

Oh, ... Im sorry, I think Paul wants to speak to you... remember him? The Apostle Paul? Lets hear what he is saying to you Garmentless... on this very subject of divergent and... ahem... new teachings. I am persuaded that he knows infinitely more than your most humble servant Dram on this very subject... seeing as Christ saw fit to speak to him personally and not me (better believe Im not worthy!).

Galatians 1: 8-9
"But even if we, or an angel from heaven, should preach to you a gospel contrary to that which we have preached to you, let him be accursed.
As we have said before, so now I say again, If any one is preaching to you a gospel contrary to that which you received, let him be accursed."

So, from that we can see, if an angel suddenly came down and handed me a book of flaming gold tablets that only I could see.... what does Paul say? Something about being accursed I think. Well, for me and those who believe as I do, in the infallible nature of the Word.... our path is clear. As per Paul, you know, the guy that Christ spoke to.... he is NOT AMBIGUOUS on this subject. Verstanze? Comprende?

If the Word is not sufficient for you, as it is for me, then you have left the path of wisdom and seek destruction.

There is no book other than The Book that can guide you to eternal salvation. "neither a fool nor a wayfarer may err therein"

Make your choice, I will stick with he who is my namesake, the apostle Paul. Follow whom you will, to your eternal regret sir.

Dramborleg(IwhoamnotworthytobearthenamePaul)

Nope I am not a Southern Baptist, Nor am I some sort of shrub [:D]



Hey What's wrong with my 10/22 It's good cheap Fun.[:D]

Really I do have a Ruger 10/22, A few Handguns one Hungarian infantry Rifle (circa the 1950's) and I am in the process of trying to decide on my first AR (that is why I joined AR-15.com)

If money were no object, I would currently get a SR-15, But since I am not rolling in cash these days, I am currently looking at a DPMS lo-pro classic or something similar.

Where did you read your Church history???  The early Church baptized more than just infants.  Origen (one of the early Catholic Church fathers from185-253AD) stated "The Church received from the Apostles the traidition of giving baptism even to infants."  Even the Apostles baptized infants.

Setting aside your Catholic-bashing and the implications that the only Christian church around (Catholic) apostasized, you are quite WRONG.    NOWHERE does the Bible say that baptism is to be restricted to adults.  It says that entire households were baptized (it doesn't say that entire households except the infants were baptized).  Considering the makeup of families at the time, there were probably children of varying ages involved.  The baptisms we read about in the Bible are there because they were notable adults and Christianity was just getting started, thus it made sense to focus on adults.  However, that does NOT mean that infants were excluded.


Sadly, that is sometimes the case.  Many Catholics do not know the Faith as well as they should.  That's why folks like me are working to educate them.

This entire argument is due to different understandings of what Baptism is and does and what Original Sin is and does.  If Baptism is nothing more than a public statement of a person's belief in Christ, then there is no need to baptize infants.  HOWEVER, if Baptism actually incorporates us into the Body of Christ and makes us coheirs with Him, then it is necessary, and no one should be denied it because of age. Original Sin is a deprivation of God's life in us (aka grace) that Adam lost for all his descendants (didn't have it to pass on).  We are born without it, and through Baptism, God gives it back to us.

In the OT, circumcision was the covenant sign of belonging to God's people.  It was necessary, and done to INFANTS, who could not make the decision to belong to God's people on their own.  Their parents made that choice for them.  Baptism replaces circumcision as the sign of membership and entrance into the New Covenant of God's people.  If circumcision was acceptable for infants, then so is baptism.  A conscious choice of the will to belong to God is not now, nor has it ever been necessary to receive baptism (getting to heaven is a different matter).



I'm glad you've been studying.  Study the early Church fathers and what they have to say about it and the scriptures you've looked at for a different perspective.

loonybin,

Lets look up stuff in the Word shall we, I already made it quite clear where I stand, on the Bible, and where you stand... on a group of writings that man created and claim to be on a level equal to the Holy and Revealed Word of God. Refer to what Paul tells us about you please. Dont worry, I am not some holier than thou type, trust me sir... there is much that he has to say about me too, the only difference between you and I.... is accepting and obeying the Truth.

Now, child baptism... crack open the bibles folks... I am not going to type out the whole scripture for you.... I am gonna get carpal tunnel if I keep this up....Eric how do you do it sir? : )

Confessed Sins:
Mark 1:5, do infants confess sins?

Made and baptized Disciples:
John 4:1 Are infants disciples?

Teach and Baptize:
Mathew 28:19, Do you teach infants?

Received Word-Baptized:
Acts 2:41 Do infants receive his Word gladly?

Repent and be Baptized:
Acts 2:38 Do infants repent?

Men and Women:
Acts 8:12 No infants there either.
Acts 8:38 Nope, theres none here.

Saul of Tarsus (apostle Paul):
Acts 9:18 None here.

Lydia and her household:
Acts 16:40 Were Paul and Silas comforting infants? No.

Answer of a good conscience:
1 Peter 3:19-21 How can an unconscious infant have a "good conscience" ? Cant.

So Mr Loonybin, no infants.... nor is that non scriptural stuff you wish to push acceptable to those who hold the Bible to be the revealed Word of God. Sorry.

Dram out

Oh and catholic bashing? No, I love my catholic neighbors... and one girl in particular sadly.

To be a catholic basher I would be saying all kinds of nasty things about THEM. I have not. I preach against catholocism itself... not its adherents. Heavens no. Some of my BEST friends are catholic, and there are a bunch of them mind you, and they are top notch individuals too.

My issues are with the teachings of an institution that is not interested in scriptural Truth. Historically it is NOT. It is a political institution plain and simple. Read some history for yourself and the footsteps of catholocism ring down through history with the iron heel of despotism... nothing less. When they speak of the bloody history of christianity... they speak not of Christ or His Church but of catholocism... which itself means universal.

Sorry, no catholic basher here. I love them, but they are not my brothers in Christ. And you really have no clue as to the depth of sorrow I feel when I say that sir. No clue. I sit here typing alone, because of one who loves the praise of her parents more than the admonition of Christ. Tar me not with that ill timed epithet sir.... it likes me very little.


Dram

Post from Garmentless -

I'll give you my answer to that question - No.
The last thing that Christ said to His Church is quoted in the end of the gospels and is referred to as 'The Great Commission.'  The last thing that Christ said to any of His followers is what was said to Paul, and quoted by him, in his epistles and in Acts.

Period. After that, nothing.

There are some nice traditions that we know, but they are superfluous for salvation, and, in any event, the traditions do not take the place of plain, direct commandments of the Lord.

By the close of the First Century, AD, and the death of the Beloved Apostle, John, we are left with only the Words of Life that are contained in John and the Synoptic Gospels, and the letters of Paul and the others.

Soon thereafter, the church began to accept a lot that was based upon the traditions of men and [u]not[/u] the commandments of God.

Finally, when the church got into the position of being the great social-political power of the 4th Century AD, it was no longer the church of the Good Shephard, it had become the Church of the Unconquered King.

Soon, it then began to kill other Christians who did not think the same as it did.

Imagine that!

It had come full circle, and could act as a Pontius Pilate whenever it felt the need, or a threat, or a desire.

Eric The(TheMore'sThePity)Hun[>]:)]

Garmentless,

My answer may differ with Drambor, and the Hun,
But I believe mine to be the right one [:)]

John 20:30-31 "Many other signs therefore Jesus also performed in the presence of the disciples, which are not written in this book; but these have been written that you may believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God; and that believing you may have life in His name."
John 21:25 "And there are also many other things which Jesus did, which if they were written in detail, I suppose that even the world itself would not contain the books which were written."

While Yes there were obviously other signs and things done by Christ, It is those that were written down by inpsired hands that produce a life giving faith.

Paul wrote the wisdom him "2 Pet 3:15" and noted in 2 Tim. 3:16-17 All Scripture is inspired by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, for training in righteousness; that the man of God may be adequate, equipped for every good work."

Just like a good AR will equip you for every good shoot, [b]All Scripture[/b] will equip you for every good work.