| Welcome to The New Coffee Room. We hope you enjoy your visit. You're currently viewing our forum as a guest. This means you are limited to certain areas of the board and there are some features you can't use. If you join our community, you'll be able to access member-only sections, and use many member-only features such as customizing your profile, sending personal messages, and voting in polls. Registration is simple, fast, and completely free. Join our community! If you're already a member please log in to your account to access all of our features: |
| If the rapture really happens tomorrow . . .; AKA . . . the Good Bye Thread | |
|---|---|
| Tweet Topic Started: May 20 2011, 01:21 PM (12,105 Views) | |
| John D'Oh | May 26 2011, 08:59 AM Post #676 |
|
MAMIL
|
As far as I'm concerned, the distinction is meaningless. Men wrote the Bible, and the Church is made up of men. Isn't it conceivable that some of the scripture is wrong? That Matthew mis-remembered the details of Jesus' teaching, or that Paul actually made a mistake or two? If you begin with the assumption that Jesus was God, and therefore never wrong, it doesn't automatically follow that the Bible is 100% correct in all matters. |
| What do you mean "we", have you got a mouse in your pocket? | |
![]() |
|
| Larry | May 26 2011, 09:08 AM Post #677 |
![]()
Mmmmmmm, pie!
|
Well, yes it does. And your inability to see that causes me to think that perhaps it is you who lacks the ability to comprehend. Perhaps you don't know what "entry into eternal beatitude" means. Perhaps you don't know what salvation means.
There is no scripture which says that, and I have given you a whole string of scripture which says it is not.
I didn't say a thing one way or the other about hell. I said to notice that you get your views from the Church instead of scripture. |
|
Of the Pokatwat Tribe | |
![]() |
|
| Kincaid | May 26 2011, 09:13 AM Post #678 |
|
HOLY CARP!!!
|
I admit it hurts a bit to think that people you like and respect, and who probably like you and respect you in return, on this one issue quietly think you a whack job or a doddering fool. |
| Kincaid - disgusted Republican Partisan since 2006. | |
![]() |
|
| ivorythumper | May 26 2011, 09:19 AM Post #679 |
|
I am so adjective that I verb nouns!
|
So you agree with the Catholic Church that scripture does not say that anyone is in hell. Good. |
| The dogma lives loudly within me. | |
![]() |
|
| ivorythumper | May 26 2011, 09:21 AM Post #680 |
|
I am so adjective that I verb nouns!
|
I'm not concerned with that, Kincaid. Kenny thinks I am a liar and a deceiver. That has nothing to do with the subject we discuss. |
| The dogma lives loudly within me. | |
![]() |
|
| Larry | May 26 2011, 09:36 AM Post #681 |
![]()
Mmmmmmm, pie!
|
I have never said the Catholic Church is wrong on everything it teaches. I have said that the Catholic Church teaches that what it comes up with is equal to scripture, and that you default to the Church teaching rather than scripture. I was merely pointing to another example of that. |
|
Of the Pokatwat Tribe | |
![]() |
|
| Moonbat | May 26 2011, 09:37 AM Post #682 |
![]()
Pisa-Carp
|
People are not so simple. You can be friendly with people whilst thinking they aren't completely honest with themselves and hence with others about certain topics. Afterall most of us aren't intellectually honest about every topic (e.g. we present rationalisations as if they are our reasons for thinking something because we are emotionly tied to particular ideas). Edited by Moonbat, May 26 2011, 09:41 AM.
|
| Entia non sunt multiplicanda praeter necessitatem | |
![]() |
|
| Larry | May 26 2011, 09:40 AM Post #683 |
![]()
Mmmmmmm, pie!
|
Then you aren't understanding the discussion. Whether or not someone "misremembered" something in scripture and caused a mistake is beside the point. What's in it is in it, and putting what every pope wrote over the last 2,000 years as equal to scripture is just going to give more opportunity for error. |
|
Of the Pokatwat Tribe | |
![]() |
|
| Dewey | May 26 2011, 09:43 AM Post #684 |
![]()
HOLY CARP!!!
|
That may be the case with some. It isn't with me. Personally, while my beliefs regarding baptism are closer to IT's than Larry's, I don't really completely agree with either of them. Having said that, I respect IT for having studied the scriptures and for being able to make a reasoned argument from scripture for his position ("pro-infant baptism"). And I respect anyone who has made a similar study of scripture, and who can make a reasoned argument from scripture to support "believers-only baptism." There is no question that there are scriptures which can be understood to support both interpretations, along with variations within those two main categories. The truth is that in practice, there's really little or no difference in the outcomes of the two theologies: 1. (Infant baptism) Baptism marks you as part of God's covenant people and is a seal and a sign of God's action and promise to us. Baptize the infant or child as a recognition of God's promise to us and our children, and as a sign of the parents covenant to raise the child in the faith, and at which time sin is cleansed and the Holy Spirit is received. The child is covered under God's grace during this time when they are unable to decide to profess the faith or not, and if s/he dies, they will enter heaven (personally, I believe this is the case with or without the infant baptism - others may disagree). The child is raised in the church family, being educated in the faith, and when the child is at the age of reason, the child goes through Confirmation classes and at that time, chooses whether to profess the faith or not. 2. (Believers-only baptism) Baptism is not a seal or a sign of God's action, but is rather a sign that a person has decided to profess faith in Christ. Therefore, infants should not be baptized because they are not able to make such a decision. Rather, the parents may have a "Christening," in which the parents present their child before the body of believers and commit to raise the child in the faith. The child is covered under God's grace during the time when they are unable to decide to profess the faith or not, and if s/he dies, they will enter heaven. The child is raised in the church family, being educated in the faith, and when the child is at the age of reason, s/he will choose whether to profess the faith or not. If they do, then the child is baptized. I believe option A is more correct and consistent with the totality of scripture. But I also understand that there are scriptures that can be understood to support option B, and I don't think anyone who holds that understanding, or any other understanding, for that matter, is a fool, doddering or otherwise - as long as they can show that they've studied the scriptures and have reached their decision accordingly, as they are guided by their conscience, and they can scripturally support their views to others. When it comes to differences within the faith, that's all that matters to me. |
|
"By nature, i prefer brevity." - John Calvin, Institutes of the Christian Religion, p. 685. "Never waste your time trying to explain yourself to people who are committed to misunderstanding you." - Anonymous "Oh sure, every once in a while a turd floated by, but other than that it was just fine." - Joe A., 2011 I'll answer your other comments later, but my primary priority for the rest of the evening is to get drunk." - Klaus, 12/31/14 | |
![]() |
|
| ivorythumper | May 26 2011, 09:46 AM Post #685 |
|
I am so adjective that I verb nouns!
|
once again you show your lack of reading comprehension. The obvious point here is that "The Church does not know of any means other than Baptism that assures ..." I think it fascinating that you have only focused on the last part, failing to understand what relevance the last part has in the sentence. So show me, Larry, what other means are found in Scripture that incorporate us into the Body of Christ, and by which we receive the Holy Spirit, and by which we "put on Christ" and by which we participate in the death and resurrection of Jesus? What other one event does all these things by the promise of the bible??? Yes, there is; Jesus said: Unless a man is born of water and the spirit, he cannot enter the kingdom of God. You think he means water signifies natural birth. But that is completely trivial. Everyone who was born was born in water. So why does Jesus use this phrase "water and the spirit" when it already has a OT context that does not allude to natural birth, and the NT writers use it in ways that do not allude to natural birth, but specifically to baptism? You have a preconceived meaning of that term "water" as used in John 3, which you have to maintain in order to hold the rest of your understanding of baptism. And you have to ignore all the NT evidence that infants were baptized. And you have to ignore the fact that there are NO records in the early Church or the NT of any children or young adults who were the children of Christians being baptized at a later date. This is key, Larry -- the NT period spans abut 70 years -- two generations of Christians -- and NO record of the children of any Christians being later baptized. Why not? If that were what God wanted, rather than the parents baptizing their whole household (as we repeatedly read in the Bible) why was that not mentioned? Why is there not a prohibition in the Bible against infant baptism? If it is wrong for the Catholics to do it, then it would have been wrong for anyone in the 1st century to do it. Of course in the Jewish and pagan culture of the 1st century, it would have been COMPLETELY UNTHINKABLE that a child not be raised in the religion of his parents -- going back to the Mosaic laws. It would be COMPLETELY UNTHINKABLE that anyone who became a Christian would not also ensure that his whole family were Christian -- as Jesus said: "a house divided against itself shall not stand". Matthew 12:25 So you have to ignore everything that does not support your view about baptism. The Catholic Church teaches the complete Bible. You teach only those parts that suits your preconceptions. |
| The dogma lives loudly within me. | |
![]() |
|
| kenny | May 26 2011, 09:47 AM Post #686 |
|
HOLY CARP!!!
|
I respect everyone equally. My views on religion apply only to me. Why do people think . . . Oh Kenny's view is X therefor he thinks I'm an idiot? That would be intolerance on my part, or assuming that I do not tolerate what I do not agree with. For all I know all religions are true and atheism is true too as are the agnostics. They can all be true simultaneously. ![]() It's a big universe. I don't go for XYX, and you do. What's wrong with being honest? No problemo amigo, let's play some piano, or guitar or go swimming together. I don't care if you are certain I'm going straight to Hell. I can look past that. You could be a wonderful person and still think that. People don't have to be like me. But why be sneaky and coy and lie? Mature people can withstand the truth. Since I respect all equally I feel free to be honest and be friends with people who vary. Honesty and variation between people is not an insult. It's beautiful. Diversity is beautiful. Now if someone wants to throw me in the garbage because I don't view things like they do that's sad. I'm a good guy. |
![]() |
|
| Copper | May 26 2011, 09:52 AM Post #687 |
|
Shortstop
|
Sure, some good honest ridicule between forumites is always appreciated. |
|
The Confederate soldier was peculiar in that he was ever ready to fight, but never ready to submit to the routine duty and discipline of the camp or the march. The soldiers were determined to be soldiers after their own notions, and do their duty, for the love of it, as they thought best. Carlton McCarthy | |
![]() |
|
| Larry | May 26 2011, 09:59 AM Post #688 |
![]()
Mmmmmmm, pie!
|
The point is *not* trivial. He is talking about two births - you are physically born, and then you are spiritually "born". It has absolutely NOTHING - NADA - ZIPPO - to do with baptism. He wasn't talking about baptism. He was talking about being "born" spiritually. That happens when you accept him, not when you are baptized.
Please show me the new testament scripture that says children were baptized. It doesn't exist. Don't give me the Catholic intepretation, show me scripture that says an infant was baptized.
No, I only talk about those parts that are actually there. The Catholic Church teaches things that aren't there, and you defer to the Catholic Church over scripture. Now - show me a verse of scripture where it talks about baptizing infants. |
|
Of the Pokatwat Tribe | |
![]() |
|
| ivorythumper | May 26 2011, 10:01 AM Post #689 |
|
I am so adjective that I verb nouns!
|
That's because the Church gave birth to the Bible, not the other way. You have this peculiar view that some group of Jewish Christians made up the true Church, not the Catholics. You never addressed the historical problem with your version of Christianity. |
| The dogma lives loudly within me. | |
![]() |
|
| ivorythumper | May 26 2011, 10:13 AM Post #690 |
|
I am so adjective that I verb nouns!
|
all you can do is deny, but I have given you a lot of scripture that support that understanding of the relationship between "water and the spirit" and the practice of baptism in the NT Church. You gave up on that point, and again all you can do is assert without any scriptural evidence to the contrary.
it is completely implied by the language used. And is it completely in accordance with everything we know about Jewish practices in the time of Jesus. There is NO doubt to the fact that the Jews dedicated their sons to God as infants. There is no reason to assume that they would not baptize their children, since the children are necessarily part of "the whole household". The "whole" must include all the parts. There is NO exclusion made in the term "the whole household". Show me how "the whole household" can exclude the children, and I'll concede. No, you ignore the parts about how baptism makes us members of the Body of Christ, and by which we "put on Christ". Are you saying that an infant CANNOT be a member of the Body of Christ? What is the scriptural justification for that? |
| The dogma lives loudly within me. | |
![]() |
|
| Larry | May 26 2011, 10:14 AM Post #691 |
![]()
Mmmmmmm, pie!
|
And you have this peculiar view that Christianity began in Rome. I hate to break the news to you, but your church became what it is due to political fortune, not because it was "the one true church". Tell me IT - before Paul was converted to Christianity, he was known as Saul, and he persecuted Christians. Where, IT? Who, IT? Who were these Christians that Saul persecuted? Where did they come from? Remember - none of the churches had even been established yet. AH..... could they have been...... JEWS????????? |
|
Of the Pokatwat Tribe | |
![]() |
|
| ivorythumper | May 26 2011, 10:18 AM Post #692 |
|
I am so adjective that I verb nouns!
|
Once again you are wrong. My explicit view is that Christianity began in Jerusalem. Its in the Book of Acts. That is what the Catholic Church teaches. Please show me from any Catholic source where the Church herself claims that Christianity began in Rome. Or show me where I have ever indicated that Christianity began in Rome. Edited by ivorythumper, May 26 2011, 10:20 AM.
|
| The dogma lives loudly within me. | |
![]() |
|
| ivorythumper | May 26 2011, 10:21 AM Post #693 |
|
I am so adjective that I verb nouns!
|
Srsly, Larry -- you can't even get this conversation correct about what I am writing to you here and now. And I am supposed to trust your reading of Scripture when you can't even get TNCR correct?
|
| The dogma lives loudly within me. | |
![]() |
|
| Larry | May 26 2011, 10:22 AM Post #694 |
![]()
Mmmmmmm, pie!
|
Show me how you can prove that the "whole household" didn't first accept Christ. Show me proof that these "whole households" being referred to had infants involved.
You are so stuck in Catholic legalism that you can't even see the obvious. Scripture makes it clear that it is your unbelief that condemns you, and that those who haven't heard of "the body of Christ" are judged by their hearts, not by belief or unbelief. |
|
Of the Pokatwat Tribe | |
![]() |
|
| John D'Oh | May 26 2011, 10:22 AM Post #695 |
|
MAMIL
|
Wasn't Jerusalem part of Rome back then? OK, I admit I'm trolling. |
| What do you mean "we", have you got a mouse in your pocket? | |
![]() |
|
| Larry | May 26 2011, 10:23 AM Post #696 |
![]()
Mmmmmmm, pie!
|
I don't care what the Catholic Church teaches. Now answer my question - who were all those Christians Saul was persecuting? Where did they come from? |
|
Of the Pokatwat Tribe | |
![]() |
|
| Larry | May 26 2011, 10:25 AM Post #697 |
![]()
Mmmmmmm, pie!
|
Odd, that's the exact same questions I was having about you. |
|
Of the Pokatwat Tribe | |
![]() |
|
| ivorythumper | May 26 2011, 10:34 AM Post #698 |
|
I am so adjective that I verb nouns!
|
Actually your interpretation is legalistic. Mine is relational. God wants all of us to know and love him -- even from conception, before we were born. For you created my inmost being; you knit me together in my mother's womb. I praise you because I am fearfully and wonderfully made; your works are wonderful, I know that full well. My frame was not hidden from you when I was made in the secret place, when I was woven together in the depths of the earth. Your eyes saw my unformed body; all the days ordained for me were written in your book before one of them came to be. and The word of the LORD came to me, saying, Before I formed you in the womb I knew you, before you were born I set you apart; I appointed you as a prophet to the nations. The Catholic view is not legalistic. It is all about God wanting to give us his new life and to free us from the bondage of sin and to make us Children of God by the gift of the Holy Spirit in the waters of baptism. It's all there in the Scriptures I already shared with you. So answer the question: can an infant be a member of the body of Christ without baptism? Show me the Scripture -- as I have shown you the Scripture for the Catholic position. |
| The dogma lives loudly within me. | |
![]() |
|
| Renauda | May 26 2011, 10:34 AM Post #699 |
![]()
HOLY CARP!!!
|
Yes it was John and since its liberation from Semites in 1089 it has become a Frankish speaking Christian city. No, I do not admit to angling of any sort. |
![]() |
|
| ivorythumper | May 26 2011, 10:36 AM Post #700 |
|
I am so adjective that I verb nouns!
|
You are wrong to say that I believed the Church began in Rome. Show me where I have ever said that. Those early Christians were Jews. And then some pagans. What is your point? |
| The dogma lives loudly within me. | |
![]() |
|
| Go to Next Page | |
| « Previous Topic · The New Coffee Room · Next Topic » |












11:27 AM Jul 11