NationStates Jolt Archive

There seems to be alot of love for Catholics on this forum lately, mainly because of the idiotic ramblings of The Redemption Army. So, I was just wondering which denomination of Christianity the people of NSG like, or are willing to put up with. For me it would have to be Catholics, and not just because I am a Catholic. I live in the Baptist Bible Belt, and God I hate Baptist. They are the most ignorant most self serving, just ugh. They're the denomination with the most fundies too.

So how about you guys, which denomination do you like or can put up with?

I am Southern Baptist, I have a major problem with the current convention but there isn't much we can do until some of the older people die........it's morbid but true. Within the next 3-5 years there will be a huge shake-up in the convention and it will be better.

I don't tend to have a problem with other denominations other than I find some of them to be far too legalistic in their beliefs. I guess it's really none of my business though.

Assemblies of God

Any and all of them who don't knock on my door or try to get the government to enforce their religious laws are fine with me.

Any that don't;

make too much noise on Sunday mornings
knock on my door
compromise with regard to Islam

attempt to impose their morals on me

try to convert me in the street

digress from the bible and make up more stuff to go on top of the other fabrications

I am Southern Baptist, I have a major problem with the current convention but there isn't much we can do until some of the older people die........it's morbid but true. Within the next 3-5 years there will be a huge shake-up in the convention and it will be better.

I don't tend to have a problem with other denominations other than I find some of them to be far too legalistic in their beliefs. I guess it's really none of my business though.

It's not just the leaders that are the problem, it's some of the followers too.

Presbyterian

There seems to be alot of love for Catholics on this forum lately, mainly because of the idiotic ramblings of The Redemption Army. So, I was just wondering which denomination of Christianity the people of NSG like, or are willing to put up with. For me it would have to be Catholics, and not just because I am a Catholic. I live in the Baptist Bible Belt, and God I hate Baptist. They are the most ignorant most self serving, just ugh. They're the denomination with the most fundies too.

So how about you guys, which denomination do you like or can put up with?
I "put up with" all Christians, regardless of denomination, as long as they aren't directly messing with me. I also like a great many people who happen to be Christian. I don't like Christianity itself, nor do I like the institutions of the various Christian denominations. Some of these denominations are less objectionable, like the moderate and liberal churches, but they're all still organized superstitions.

...but they're all still organized superstitions.

That's like saying that a great deal of human behavior is rooted in primal instincts and urges.

It's not just the leaders that are the problem, it's some of the followers too.

I could say the same about Catholics. (or any other group religious or not)

You can read up on Baptists here (http://www.apologeticsindex.org/b89.html), if you want to seperate the truth about what we believe from the idiots who claim it on the eveing news.

Presbyterian - PCUSA to be exact. But they're heading for a split soon, and I'll most certainly be going with the conservative group.

That's like saying that a great deal of human behavior is rooted in primal instincts and urges.
Yes, that's true. So?

So how about you guys, which denomination do you like or can put up with?Every denomination has its idiots. Maypole and that one racist were good examples of bad catholics. It's not so much of a problem with denominations.

Yes, that's true. So?

You're not far from my personal belief that most humans are idiots then.

Presbyterian - PCUSA to be exact. But they're heading for a split soon, and I'll most certainly be going with the conservative group.what a surprise :rolleyes:

I very much admire the Amish as a group, and have for years. Most other denominations (including my own) don't get wholesale admiration from me. Often I very much like some of the individuals within those denominations, however.

For example, a poster on this forum from long ago, Berkylvania, a Quaker, is someone I have the highest respect for. The pastor of the Assembly of God I used to attend when I was younger also has my highest respect, and my grandfather who is the pastor of his local Church of Christ I also have the highest respect for, and he is my role model in many ways. A Sister (read: non-cloistered nun) who works at my local parish has also earned my highest respect.

in the abstract (meaning theologically not going by individual members) there are only 3 denominations that one should reasonably be as a christian, in my over-inflated opinion.

eastern orthodox

roman catholic

baptist

what a surprise :rolleyes:

I love how I'm never able to do anything to surprise you.

I love how I'm never able to do anything to surprise you.Well, I'd call that ability limited then.

in the abstract (meaning theologically not going by individual members) there are only 3 denominations that one should reasonably be as a christian, in my over-inflated opinion.

eastern orthodox

roman catholic

baptist

That's a wide range. What about all the stuff in between? Plus baptists are a wide group of their own. The Conventions are all different from one another. The only thing all baptists really agree on is credo-baptism and full immersion baptism.

So, I guess my question is: Why these three?

The gnostics.

All these squabbles about what mythical being to follow and how to worship it seem pointless to me. Although if you insist on believing in something silly then I don't really care about what it is in particular. I don't know or care about what the differences are between these branches of Christianity. Just as long as you're not religionist/sexist/homophobic or such in the name of your religion then I'll be tolerant.

The only thing all baptists really agree on is credo-baptism and full immersion baptism.

not true, there are a number of truths that Baptists agree on, other than those it's understood that you will come to answers to your own questions using prayer, scripture, and the brain God gave you.

There seems to be alot of love for Catholics on this forum lately, mainly because of the idiotic ramblings of The Redemption Army. So, I was just wondering which denomination of Christianity the people of NSG like, or are willing to put up with. For me it would have to be Catholics, and not just because I am a Catholic. I live in the Baptist Bible Belt, and God I hate Baptist. They are the most ignorant most self serving, just ugh. They're the denomination with the most fundies too.

So how about you guys, which denomination do you like or can put up with?

I like the Catholics, being one myself, although admittedly the Chuch has a lot of housecleaning to do.

I also like the Greek Orthodox--time to put 1054 behind us!

I respect the Quakers.

As for Baptists, especially Southern Baptists, I had quite a few friends in that denomination when I was living down South, and a lot of them were Saturday night sinners and Sunday morning saints, so I don't take a lot of the more self-righteous rantings of some of them very seriously. There was one girl in particular I remember who was a slut on Saturday and then (literally) went to sing in the church choir on Sunday.

Jimmy Swaggart, the Westboro Baptist Church, and other loons mostly just give me a laugh, although with respect to the WBC, if I ever get the chance to counter-protest one of their idiotic protests at a military funeral (and I live near a national military cemetary) I would love to participate.

in the abstract (meaning theologically not going by individual members) there are only 3 denominations that one should reasonably be as a christian, in my over-inflated opinion.

eastern orthodox

roman catholic

baptist

The heretic roman catholics were rightly expelled from the church of england for their blasphemy. One day, hopefully, they will see the error of their ways and rejoin the one true church.

Everyone else is hellbound.

I dunno.

As for Baptists, especially Southern Baptists, I had quite a few friends in that denomination when I was living down South, and a lot of them were Saturday night sinners and Sunday morning saints, so I don't take a lot of the more self-righteous rantings of some of them very seriously. There was one girl in particular I remember who was a slut on Saturday and then (literally) went to sing in the church choir on Sunday.

Jimmy Swaggart, the Westboro Baptist Church, and other loons mostly just give me a laugh, although with respect to the WBC, if I ever get the chance to counter-protest one of their idiotic protests at a military funeral (and I live near a national military cemetary) I would love to participate.

You do realize that WBC is not Southern Baptist right? That's like saying that Jim Jones represented the entire Christian Church.

In addition using a few hypocrites that you have known to paint an entire denomination is low, and not Christian like at all.

I dunno.

What I mean is..

Every religion has it's very own extremist assholes, then there are the cool people in that same group, so how do you decide?

not true, there are a number of truths that Baptists agree on, other than those it's understood that you will come to answers to your own questions using prayer, scripture, and the brain God gave you.

Ummm, I'm pretty sure that there are Baptist denominations who would disagree.

But either way, the point still stands that Baptists cover a wide range of theological traditions.

You do realize that WBC is not Southern Baptist right? That's like saying that Jim Jones represented the entire Christian Church.

I never said they were. I was referring to exemplary fringe elements within the Christian religion.

In addition using a few hypocrites that you have known to paint an entire denomination is low, and not Christian like at all.

You're missing the thrust of my comment. I was observing that I can put up with SB anti-Catholicism from some of them because I know a lot of other SB's are pretty normal. For the record, I'd put myself in the Saturday night sinner/Sunday morning saint category, so it's not much of a knock. When you get down to it, we are all sinners, aren't we?

The heretic roman catholics were rightly expelled from the church of england for their blasphemy. One day, hopefully, they will see the error of their ways and rejoin the one true church.

Everyone else is hellbound.

ROFLMAO :p

That's a wide range. What about all the stuff in between? Plus baptists are a wide group of their own. The Conventions are all different from one another. The only thing all baptists really agree on is credo-baptism and full immersion baptism.

So, I guess my question is: Why these three?

because either you accept the authority of "man" or you dont.

so the catholic church has existed for about 2000 years. most of that time it had the biggest smartest thinkers in the western world working for it. there is no aspect of theology that they havent considered and made a decision on. even down to the number of angels that can dance on the head of a pin.

for more than 1000 years they kept the teachings of christ alive in the world

so why arent you a catholic?

i would suggest that it comes down to not accepting the authority of the pope (and thence the church which he rules over) to tell you what christianity is and what you should believe about it.

you look at catholic belief and practices and you decide that it is incorrect

so why would you ever accept the authority of anyone else on the subject? besides yourself based on your own theological study.

who is john calvin to tell you to the finest detail what christianity is? who is martin luther? who, for that matter, are the heads of the *southern* baptist church to tell you what you should believe?

at least the POPE can claim to be the representative of jesus on earth. you may well reject that, but the archbishop of canterbury (for example) has zero claim to that notion. (as does every non-catholic christian leader)

if you are going to accept someone else's authority over your own conscience, it should be the pope, not some elected religious bureaucrat.

if you reject the idea that someone else can tell you what to believe, you should be a baptist. or any other denomination that believes in freedom of conscience and that you dont need an intercessor or interpreter between you and jesus.

same for the orthodox church, just different details because they have an equally ancient tradition that is authoritarian but rejects the pope as the representative of jesus on earth.

Ummm, I'm pretty sure that there are Baptist denominations who would disagree.

But either way, the point still stands that Baptists cover a wide range of theological traditions.

There are huge differences within the Baptist church because of the belief in the autonomy of the church.

Baptists in general believe in a few things that hold them together as a denomination.

One core Baptist conviction is the concept of a believer's church. The basis of membership in a Baptist church is a voluntary and conscious commitment to Christ as Lord. Because the church should be composed only of believers, Baptists have opposed infant baptism, affirmed baptism by immersion for believers only, and utilized evangelism energetically as a means of encouraging belief in Christ.

A second core Baptist conviction has to do with the local church. While affirming the universal Church of Christ, Baptists believe that each local church is competent under Christ to shape is own life and ministry. Therefore, Baptists believe the affairs of each local church are in the hands of that congregation, allowing no outside ecclesiastical interference, civil intervention, or clergy domination. Most Baptist churches practice two ordinances, baptism and the Lord's Supper, and these are interpreted usually as symbols rather than sacraments.

Freedom of conscience is a third cardinal Baptist conviction. The promotion of "soul liberty" has meant that Baptists have been champions of religious liberty and separation of church and state.

you will be hard pressed to find a Baptist church that doesn't agree with those basic things, and even further one who doesn't agree with the fundamental truths outlined in the reformation.

There are huge differences within the Baptist church because of the belief in the autonomy of the church.

Baptists in general believe in a few things that hold them together as a denomination.

you will be hard pressed to find a Baptist church that doesn't agree with those basic things, and even further one who doesn't agree with the fundamental truths outlined in the reformation.


Don't forget the "once saved, always saved" thing that most Baptist churches embrace.

at least the POPE can claim to be the representative of jesus on earth. you may well reject that, but the archbishop of canterbury (for example) has zero claim to that notion. (as does every non-catholic christian leader)


Actually the episcopacy of the church of england in synod does claim that - along with apostolic succession.

Lord's resistance army. Those guys are hardcore christian

Don't forget the "once saved, always saved" thing that most Baptist churches embrace.

It's not as widespread as most are lead to believe.

I do believe in eternal security though. ;)

There are huge differences within the Baptist church because of the belief in the autonomy of the church.

Baptists in general believe in a few things that hold them together as a denomination.



you will be hard pressed to find a Baptist church that doesn't agree with those basic things, and even further one who doesn't agree with the fundamental truths outlined in the reformation.

what i dont understand is why do southern baptists submit themselves to the authority of the southern baptist council (whatever they are called) on issues like female ministers, among others?

shouldnt they tell those leaders to buzz off, that its their choice to have female ministers or not?

I went to a Catholic high school (and did all that confirmation jazz) and a good part of my family are practicing Catholics. I don't approve of or really like the religion anymore (certainly wouldn't consider myself Catholic today - the idea of the papacy irks me in particular) but I can at least claim to understand the structure of that particular branch and put up with it. I don't claim the same for most protestant faiths since I comparatively rarely come across them and when I do, they seem a lot more extreme in both social and economic views. I hardly ever hear Catholics calling for the death of homosexuals, atheists, and muslims, for example (past injustices excluded), even though there is certainly that attitude of condescending superiority.

Actually the episcopacy of the church of england in synod does claim that - along with apostolic succession.

oh thats just sad

how did the succession jump from rome to england when henry the 8th decided he needed a divorce?

It's not as widespread as most are lead to believe.

I do believe in eternal security though. ;)

whats eternal security?

I'm a big fan of:

Episcopals
Quakers

And a mild fan of:

Catholics
Lutherans

And I like most people, given a chance to see them outside of their constricting religious shell (which tends to be why I really like Episcopals and Quakers, since they seem to be the most dedicated to using the brains God gave them).

I also like any Christian who follows what Jesus was really concerned with ahead of the sillier aspects of the church, and concerns themselves with love, compassion, and charity.

I personally just have faith without a structured religion (due to past experiences).... But I guess I don't care what you believe in, if it doesn't harm anybody or anything and helps you get through the night...

what i dont understand is why do southern baptists submit themselves to the authority of the southern baptist council (whatever they are called) on issues like female ministers, among others?

shouldnt they tell those leaders to buzz off, that its their choice to have female ministers or not?

the SBC has no control over local churches, they come out with BS all the time and it doesn't affect my local church, we are not in any way forced to accept their interpretation of the Bible, the BF&M, or their "statements" of faith, we are independent, we do whatever we want, they can't kick us out of the convention it's in the bylaws.

There is this misconception that the SBC is the Baptist version of the Vatican and it's just not true.

oh thats just sad

how did the succession jump from rome to england when henry the 8th decided he needed a divorce?

Same bishops. They just decided that all the other bishops - including rome - who wouldn't sign on to the 'new' articles of religion were clearly heretics, and therefore expelled them.

whats eternal security?

it's the new flashy term for once saved always saved. ;)

it's the new flashy term for once saved always saved. ;)

I've heard it as after-life insurance, but eternal security is a cool way to put it too.

it's the new flashy term for once saved always saved. ;)

So... Predestination? Or is more like Anne Hutchinson's whole "I'm saved so I can act how I want" thing?

it's the new flashy term for once saved always saved. ;)

lol

oh

it sounds too much like something an insurance saleman would pitch over the phone.

but it guess it doesnt matter so much what you call it.

So... Predestination? Or is more like Anne Hutchinson's whole "I'm saved so I can act how I want" thing?

not predestination at all.

Eternal security says that if you have made a commitment to Christ you are saved and will not lose your salvation over sins commited after the fact. There are people who believe that you have to make the commitment and then never sin again, which is impossible so then you have to "get saved" again or you will go to hell.

not predestination at all.

Eternal security says that if you have made a commitment to Christ you are saved and will not lose your salvation over sins commited after the fact. There are people who believe that you have to make the commitment and then never sin again, which is impossible so then you have to "get saved" again or you will go to hell.

Ah.

Sorry, totally misunderstood you then.

lol

oh

it sounds too much like something an insurance saleman would pitch over the phone.

but it guess it doesnt matter so much what you call it.

hubby learned it in seminary. ;) 'once saved always saved' has been passed around so much that the phrase has a negative connotation to it now.

I can "put up" with just about every denomination, so long as they

- Walk their talk (i.e. no preaching God's love and then say how so-and-so's gonna "burn)
- Don't try to "sell" me anything.
- Respect people's rights and dignity

I am Southern Baptist, I have a major problem with the current convention but there isn't much we can do until some of the older people die........it's morbid but true. Within the next 3-5 years there will be a huge shake-up in the convention and it will be better.

I don't tend to have a problem with other denominations other than I find some of them to be far too legalistic in their beliefs. I guess it's really none of my business though.

The world neds more people like you, Smunkee. I do hope that the next gneration of leaders of SBC are different from the ones they have now. Now, to address the OP. Well, I am (or was) Catholic; so while I have some problems with certain Church teachings *cough* birth control *cough* *cough* female priests *cough* and certain Church leaders *cough* Benedict XVI *cough*, I think fairly highly of Catholics. I also have no problems with Anglicans/Episcopalians. The Amish are kind of cool, in their own way.

because either you accept the authority of "man" or you dont.


if you are going to accept someone else's authority over your own conscience, it should be the pope, not some elected religious bureaucrat.

if you reject the idea that someone else can tell you what to believe, you should be a baptist. or any other denomination that believes in freedom of conscience and that you dont need an intercessor or interpreter between you and jesus.

same for the orthodox church, just different details because they have an equally ancient tradition that is authoritarian but rejects the pope as the representative of jesus on earth.

Westminster Confession of Faith, the outline for Presbyterian theology
Chapter XX: Of Christian Liberty, and Liberty of Conscience

1. The liberty which Christ hath purchased for believers under the gospel, consists in their freedom from the guilt of sin, the condemning wrath of God, the curse of the moral law; and in their being delivered from this present evil world, bondage to Satan, and dominion of sin, from the evil of afflictions, the sting of death, the victory of the grave, and everlasting damnation; as also in their free access to God, and their yeilding obedience unto him, not out of slavish fear, but a child-like love, and willing mind. All which were common also to believers under the law; but under the new testament, the liberty of Christians is further enlarged in their freedom from the yoke of the ceremonial law, to which the Jewish Church was sujected, and in greater boldness of access to the throne of grace, and in fuller communications of the free Spirit of God, than believers under the law did ordinarily partake of.

2. God alone is lord of the conscience and hath left it free from the doctrines and commandments of men which are in any thing contrary to his word, or beside it, in matters of faith or worship. So that to believe such doctrine, or to obey such commandments out of conscience, is to betray true liberty of conscience: and the requiring of an implicit faith, and an absolute and blind obedience, is to destroy liberty of conscience, and reason also.

3. They who, upon pretence of Christian liberty, do practice any sin, or cherish any lust, do thereby destroy the end of Christian liberty; which is, that, being delivered out of the hands of our enemies, we might serve the Lord without fear, in holiness and righteousness before him, all the days of our life.

4. And because the powers wich God hath ordained, and the liberty which Christ hath purchased, are not intended by God to destroy, but mutually to uphold and preserve one another; they who, upon pretence of Christian liberty, shall oppose any lawful power, of the lawful exercise of it, whether it be civil or ecclesiastical, reisist the ordinance of God. And for their publishing of such opinions, or maintaining of such practices, as are contrary to the light of nature, or to the known principles of Christianity, whether concerning faith, worship, of conversation; or to the power of godliness; or such erroneous opinions or practices, as either in their own nature, or in the manner of publishing or maintaining them, are destructive to the external peace and order which Christ hath established in the church; they may lawfully be called to account, and proceeded against by the censures of the church, and by the power of the civil magistrate."

What I wanted to say is in the 2nd section, but I gave the whole chapter for context.

not predestination at all.

Eternal security says that if you have made a commitment to Christ you are saved and will not lose your salvation over sins commited after the fact. There are people who believe that you have to make the commitment and then never sin again, which is impossible so then you have to "get saved" again or you will go to hell.

Then there are people who believe that you commitment to Christ is only the beginning of a long journey as a Christian, and that you can definitely stray from the path and be lost again. Not that you can't get back on the path - but personally, I can't reconcile someone "being saved" and then axe murdering their family - and then having them say, "well, good thing I have eternal security..."

Same bishops. They just decided that all the other bishops - including rome - who wouldn't sign on to the 'new' articles of religion were clearly heretics, and therefore expelled them.

that reminds me of those groups who claim that the united states is the promised land and that white americans are god's chosen people.

without associating the CofE with the racist nutcases described above.

There are huge differences within the Baptist church because of the belief in the autonomy of the church.

Baptists in general believe in a few things that hold them together as a denomination.



you will be hard pressed to find a Baptist church that doesn't agree with those basic things, and even further one who doesn't agree with the fundamental truths outlined in the reformation.

Really? Well, I guess I'm wrong about the amount of differences. But I know that they do not all agree on Calvinism/Reformed theology vs. Arminianism, which is a defining difference.

I put up with all of them, regardless of how I feel about their beliefs or behavior.

It's called "Tolerance", many a "christian" may wanna look that up.

Ah.

Sorry, totally misunderstood you then.

that's okay, my husband's family still doesn't understand it, they are CoC and believe that if you were "really saved" you would never sin again. If you sin again they assume you were never serious about the whole thing and were going to hell anyway.

I tried to explain to them the difference between lip service (which is what they assume) and being human.......nobody is perfect, nobody can be, that's the whole freaking point of Christ's sacrifice, we couldn't handle it on our own so He helped us out, if you can be perfect then His death was for nothing, if His death was for the cleansing of your sins but, you can "sin enough" to negate that then He was not the perfect sacrifice.........

that's about when one of them turns bright red with smoke coming out of their ears and calls me a heathen.

Really? Well, I guess I'm wrong about the amount of differences. But I know that they do not all agree on Calvinism/Reformed theology vs. Arminianism, which is a defining difference.

yes, through prayer and scripture truth is found. I don't trust anyone who tells me that I have to believe something because they say I have to.

So... Predestination? Or is more like Anne Hutchinson's whole "I'm saved so I can act how I want" thing?

No, that's the perversion of predestination. True predestinarians believe that if you are truly saved, you will want to follow the Law.

Westminster Confession of Faith, the outline for Presbyterian theology
Chapter XX: Of Christian Liberty, and Liberty of Conscience

1. The liberty which Christ hath purchased for believers under the gospel, consists in their freedom from the guilt of sin, the condemning wrath of God, the curse of the moral law; and in their being delivered from this present evil world, bondage to Satan, and dominion of sin, from the evil of afflictions, the sting of death, the victory of the grave, and everlasting damnation; as also in their free access to God, and their yeilding obedience unto him, not out of slavish fear, but a child-like love, and willing mind. All which were common also to believers under the law; but under the new testament, the liberty of Christians is further enlarged in their freedom from the yoke of the ceremonial law, to which the Jewish Church was sujected, and in greater boldness of access to the throne of grace, and in fuller communications of the free Spirit of God, than believers under the law did ordinarily partake of.

2. God alone is lord of the conscience and hath left it free from the doctrines and commandments of men which are in any thing contrary to his word, or beside it, in matters of faith or worship. So that to believe such doctrine, or to obey such commandments out of conscience, is to betray true liberty of conscience: and the requiring of an implicit faith, and an absolute and blind obedience, is to destroy liberty of conscience, and reason also.

3. They who, upon pretence of Christian liberty, do practice any sin, or cherish any lust, do thereby destroy the end of Christian liberty; which is, that, being delivered out of the hands of our enemies, we might serve the Lord without fear, in holiness and righteousness before him, all the days of our life.

4. And because the powers wich God hath ordained, and the liberty which Christ hath purchased, are not intended by God to destroy, but mutually to uphold and preserve one another; they who, upon pretence of Christian liberty, shall oppose any lawful power, of the lawful exercise of it, whether it be civil or ecclesiastical, reisist the ordinance of God. And for their publishing of such opinions, or maintaining of such practices, as are contrary to the light of nature, or to the known principles of Christianity, whether concerning faith, worship, of conversation; or to the power of godliness; or such erroneous opinions or practices, as either in their own nature, or in the manner of publishing or maintaining them, are destructive to the external peace and order which Christ hath established in the church; they may lawfully be called to account, and proceeded against by the censures of the church, and by the power of the civil magistrate."

What I wanted to say is in the 2nd section, but I gave the whole chapter for context.

i can only understand theology written in small easy to read bits.

so does this mean that if im a presbyterian and i realize that ... oh i dont know...predestination is limited in some way.. am i free to get together with those presbyterians who agree with me and start the 2nd presbyterian church of socorro (newmexico) based on this doctrinal difference?

yes, through prayer and scripture truth is found. I don't trust anyone who tells me that I have to believe something because they say I have to.

Well, you shouldn't. That's putting their word next to God's and that's blasphemy.

i can only understand theology written in small easy to read bits.

so does this mean that if im a presbyterian and i realize that ... oh i dont know...predestination is limited in some way.. am i free to get together with those presbyterians who agree with me and start the 2nd presbyterian church of socorro (newmexico) based on this doctrinal difference?

If you truly felt that the Bible supported your beliefs, then yes, you would not only have the right, but the responsiblity to leave. After trying to correct the church, of course.

But, I would say that you are no longer Presbyterian. Still a Christian, just not Presbyterian.

Then there are people who believe that you commitment to Christ is only the beginning of a long journey as a Christian, and that you can definitely stray from the path and be lost again. Not that you can't get back on the path - but personally, I can't reconcile someone "being saved" and then axe murdering their family - and then having them say, "well, good thing I have eternal security..."

Only God knows the heart of a person, it's not our place to judge their salvation or lack of.....

however, I do believe that Christianity is a journey, but not in the same sense that you mentioned. I believe that you are justified at the point of committment and spend the rest of your years growing.

No, that's the perversion of predestination. True predestinarians believe that if you are truly saved, you will want to follow the Law.

No offense, Ed, but I don't trust the predestinarians much on the subject. Given what the Congregationalists were guilty of in their time of power, I am very wary of American predstinarian movements.

But I understand where you are coming from.

No, that's the perversion of predestination. True predestinarians believe that if you are truly saved, you will want to follow the Law.

If you are truely saved you will want to follow the law, that doesn't mean you will always succeed.

Well, you shouldn't. That's putting their word next to God's and that's blasphemy.

I agree. And so does Catholic teaching. But anyway...

That sounds awfully like what the folks who conflate marriages issued by the state with those issued by God are doing, putting the word of the state next to the word of God.

Oh, the looks on my parents faces when I accused them of blasphemy because of their position opposing gay marriage. :D

that's okay, my husband's family still doesn't understand it, they are CoC and believe that if you were "really saved" you would never sin again. If you sin again they assume you were never serious about the whole thing and were going to hell anyway.

I tried to explain to them the difference between lip service (which is what they assume) and being human.......nobody is perfect, nobody can be, that's the whole freaking point of Christ's sacrifice, we couldn't handle it on our own so He helped us out, if you can be perfect then His death was for nothing, if His death was for the cleansing of your sins but, you can "sin enough" to negate that then He was not the perfect sacrifice.........

that's about when one of them turns bright red with smoke coming out of their ears and calls me a heathen.

do your inlaws count themselves amongst the people who are saved and will never sin again? or do they get continually saved after every sin?

If you are truely saved you will want to follow the law, that doesn't mean you will always succeed.

Oh, of course, not. Look at David, a man after God's own heart. He commited adultery and then had the husband of his lover killed. Seems like a pretty big stumble. But, he wanted to folllow God's commands more that He wanted to sin.

that's okay, my husband's family still doesn't understand it, they are CoC and believe that if you were "really saved" you would never sin again. If you sin again they assume you were never serious about the whole thing and were going to hell anyway.

I tried to explain to them the difference between lip service (which is what they assume) and being human.......nobody is perfect, nobody can be, that's the whole freaking point of Christ's sacrifice, we couldn't handle it on our own so He helped us out, if you can be perfect then His death was for nothing, if His death was for the cleansing of your sins but, you can "sin enough" to negate that then He was not the perfect sacrifice.........

that's about when one of them turns bright red with smoke coming out of their ears and calls me a heathen.

Smoke of the ears? You should tell him he may want to quit smoking like that. Who knows what kind of damage it could do to him in the future. ;)

Oddly enough, my father has talked about much of that as well (although he's of the opinion that it is making an effort to do right, and not necessarily faith, that is most important to being saved, but that may have to do with the fact that his eldest son is an ignostic), so I really should have understood the concept.

No offense, Ed, but I don't trust the predestinarians much on the subject. Given what the Congregationalists were guilty of in their time of power, I am very wary of American predstinarian movements.

But I understand where you are coming from.

Well, for what predestinarians believe, it's best to ask them. For whether they live up to their doctrines, it's best to watch.

I agree. And so does Catholic teaching. But anyway...

That sounds awfully like what the folks who conflate marriages issued by the state with those issued by God are doing, putting the word of the state next to the word of God.

Oh, the looks on my parents faces when I accused them of blasphemy because of their position opposing gay marriage. :D

Well that's another topic of what the role of the civil government is to be.

If you truly felt that the Bible supported your beliefs, then yes, you would not only have the right, but the responsiblity to leave. After trying to correct the church, of course.

But, I would say that you are no longer Presbyterian. Still a Christian, just not Presbyterian.

which is why you should be baptist.

who are the leaders of the presbyterian church to tell you what you should believe? they put their pants on one leg at a time just like you do.

which is why you should be baptist.

who are the leaders of the presbyterian church to tell you what you should believe? they put their pants on one leg at a time just like you do.

I believe in Paedo-baptism (baptism of infants) which is a no-no for the baptist. Also (speaking of freedon of conscience) I don't believe that the Bible require immersion for baptism. And I think the presbyterian church government is more Biblical than the congregationalist system.

do your inlaws count themselves amongst the people who are saved and will never sin again? or do they get continually saved after every sin?
of course they never sin........I however am a big huge sinner.
Oh, of course, not. Look at David, a man after God's own heart. He commited adultery and then had the husband of his lover killed. Seems like a pretty big stumble. But, he wanted to folllow God's commands more that He wanted to sin.
yes, and people who believe that anyone who is saved must never sin again to futher secure their own salvation are arrogant and discount Christ's sacrifice.


Smoke of the ears? You should tell him he may want to quit smoking like that. Who knows what kind of damage it could do to him in the future. ;)

Oddly enough, my father has talked about much of that as well (although he's of the opinion that it is making an effort to do right, and not necessarily faith, that is most important to being saved, but that may have to do with the fact that his eldest son is an ignostic), so I really should have understood the concept.
it's a big debate around here.
which is why you should be baptist.

who are the leaders of the presbyterian church to tell you what you should believe? they put their pants on one leg at a time just like you do.
that's what I always thought.

I tend to dislike any Christians who act like they are superior to me or try to enforce their beliefs on me in any way.

There is a girl in my college who is an evangelist (I think), and seems to believe that since she has 'been saved' she can do whatever she likes and can get into heaven regardless. She considers herself better than us and is also one of the most naive and hypocritical people I have ever met. For example she believes that christians shouldn't be vegetarian because the bible tells them they have to eat meat (apparently), and she can't read horoscopes but thinks it's OK to make us read hers out to her (and often agrees with it too). People like this of any religion seriously piss me off.

I also dislike people who think its OK to impose their beliefs on others, such as those who want to prevent same-sex marriages even amongst non-christians, just because the bible says so. Obey the bible by all means, but it's not our holy book so we shouldn't be forced to take up your seriously outdated agenda. Also hate those who think it's a good idea to teach only their beliefs and not others, such as the creationism/evolutionism debate in schools, and those who are extremely narrow minded, as many of the younger christians in my area are.

That being said, there are very few true christians in my area, most are atheists, agnostics, sikhs or muslims, and those who are christian tend to have beliefs and morals that seem a little strange to me, but maybe just because I don't know many of them.

On a brighter note, I like any christian who believes that the bible is open to interpretation, puts its teachings into practice without being snobbish or hypocritical about it, and generally cares about others. Virtually all of the older-generation christians I know (who seem a little more moderate) are genuinely good people and I get on well with them in most cases.

I believe in Paedo-baptism (baptism of infants) which is a no-no for the baptist. Also (speaking of freedon of conscience) I don't believe that the Bible require immersion for baptism. And I think the presbyterian church government is more Biblical than the congregationalist system.

why do you believe in baptism of infants? what is it's purpose?

the thing with immersion is that Baptism (according to Baptists) is symbolic and there is great symbolism with immersion.

and what Biblical backing do you have for your church government?

I believe in Paedo-baptism (baptism of infants) which is a no-no for the baptist. Also (speaking of freedon of conscience) I don't believe that the Bible require immersion for baptism. And I think the presbyterian church government is more Biblical than the congregationalist system.

maybe you should be eastern orthodox...

yes, and people who believe that anyone who is saved must never sin again to futher secure their own salvation are arrogant and discount Christ's sacrifice.

Anyone who believes they are even able to gain salvation once (much less secure it) are arrogant.

As for discounting Christ's sacrifice, I wouldn't say that so much as they are discounting the work of the Holy Spirit.

of course they never sin........I however am a big huge sinner.


wow. just that attitude is a sin, isnt it?

it would be in the catholic church.

Anyone who believes they are even able to gain salvation once (much less secure it) are arrogant.
Salvation is a gift, we are able to accept that.

As for discounting Christ's sacrifice, I wouldn't say that so much as they are discounting the work of the Holy Spirit.

Either Christ's sacrifice is sufficient to cleanse you of all sins or it isn't.

wow. just that attitude is a sin, isnt it?

it would be in the catholic church.

you know I pointed that out once and it didn't go over well.
:p

the current problem is that I am "taking the kids to hell with me" by letting them make up their own mind about what they believe.

why do you believe in baptism of infants? what is it's purpose?

the thing with immersion is that Baptism (according to Baptists) is symbolic and there is great symbolism with immersion.

and what Biblical backing do you have for your church government?

if i studied the bible and prayed on it and came to the conclusion that infant baptism is the more correct belief, would i be booted out of the baptist church?

Oh, of course, not. Look at David, a man after God's own heart. He commited adultery and then had the husband of his lover killed. Seems like a pretty big stumble. But, he wanted to folllow God's commands more that He wanted to sin.Right, I always thought David was gay... as well as a traitor of course.

I guess I would choose Unitarian Christianity:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unitarian_Christianity

Unitarian Christianity (not to be confused with the Unity Church) is a form of Unitarianism that promotes the teachings and example of Jesus Christ, as found in the New Testament. Unitarian Christians believe that the exemplar model of how men and women should live was lived by Jesus of Nazareth, who was a man and a prophet of God. Unitarian Christianity encourages open-minded, freethinking views of God, Jesus, the world and purpose of life as revealed through reason, scholarship, science, philosophy, scripture and other prophets and religions.

Unitarian Christians believe that reason and belief are complementary and that religion and science can co-exist and guide them in their understanding of nature and God. Unitarian Christians would be considered Rationalist Unitarians in terms of the various schools of thought of Unitarianism. Unitarian Christians follow the teachings and example of Jesus Christ and view him in the same regard as Jews view Moses and Muslims regard the Prophets Mohammed and Jesus.

...

still - religion just isnt for me.

maybe you should be eastern orthodox...

Or church of scotland.

you know I pointed that out once and it didn't go over well.
:p

the current problem is that I am "taking the kids to hell with me" by letting them make up their own mind about what they believe.

i know lying and manipulation is a sin but...


tell them you and the kids are going to catholic conversion classes

after they get out of the hospital from the stroke they will calm right down on the minute differences between southern baptist and church of christ.

if i studied the bible and prayed on it and came to the conclusion that infant baptism is the more correct belief, would i be booted out of the baptist church?

probably not. We don't boot people out for thinking for themselves.

why do you believe in baptism of infants? what is it's purpose?


Something to do with original sin I would imagine. We all know what happens to unbaptized infants when they die.

Something to do with original sin I would imagine. We all know what happens to unbaptized infants when they die.They are eaten?

Or church of scotland.

better accent...

but no, if you dont accept the authority of man, you shouldnt be in any denomination that tells you what to believe.

if you DO accept it, you should either be roman catholic or orthodox. why play with the little boys instead of going with the big boys?

wait a minute...isnt the church of scotland presbyterian?

Something to do with original sin I would imagine. We all know what happens to unbaptized infants when they die.

Edwardis lead me to believe elsewhere today that he see's baptism as a outside symbol of an inner commitment to Christ.

Infants are not able to make a commitment to anything, so why baptise them?

probably not. We don't boot people out for thinking for themselves.

it was just a thought. after all, one can be baptist and not be southern baptist.

why do you believe in baptism of infants? what is it's purpose?

They are part of the covenant. Jesus called them to Him (Matthew 19, Luke 18) and Paul says that they are made holy through the believing parent(s) (7:12-16)

the thing with immersion is that Baptism (according to Baptists) is symbolic and there is great symbolism with immersion.

Nothing wrong with it, but the Bible doesn't require it.

and what Biblical backing do you have for your church government?

Christ alone is head of the Church (Ephesians 5:23; Colossians 1:18)

Elders are chosen by the congregation over whom they are to rule (Acts 6:1-6)

All ruling officers are equal in authority (Acts 20:17-38; Titus 1:5-16)

Each particular church must have a plurality of elders (Acts 14:23)

Church officrs are ordained by the presbytery (I Timothy 4:14)

The right to appeal from the smaller group of elders to the larger (Acts 15)

The names of the officers and bodies are not so important, but their functions are the focus.

I guess I would choose Unitarian Christianity:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unitarian_Christianity

Unitarian Christianity (not to be confused with the Unity Church) is a form of Unitarianism that promotes the teachings and example of Jesus Christ, as found in the New Testament. Unitarian Christians believe that the exemplar model of how men and women should live was lived by Jesus of Nazareth, who was a man and a prophet of God. Unitarian Christianity encourages open-minded, freethinking views of God, Jesus, the world and purpose of life as revealed through reason, scholarship, science, philosophy, scripture and other prophets and religions.

Unitarian Christians believe that reason and belief are complementary and that religion and science can co-exist and guide them in their understanding of nature and God. Unitarian Christians would be considered Rationalist Unitarians in terms of the various schools of thought of Unitarianism. Unitarian Christians follow the teachings and example of Jesus Christ and view him in the same regard as Jews view Moses and Muslims regard the Prophets Mohammed and Jesus.

...

still - religion just isnt for me personally

wait a minute...isnt the church of scotland presbyterian?

Yes. But it's authorized by the Church of England (the confession of westminster or something; to be honest I never paid much attention to all this when I was growing up), so it's completely legit. Unlike all those non-church of england authorized groups.

maybe you should be eastern orthodox...

Presbyterian government? No.
Sola Scriptura? No.
Covenantal theology? I don't know, but I doubt it.
Predestination? Of course, all Christians have some doctrine of that (the word's in the Bible) but they don't agree with Calvin's defintion, which I think is the most Biblical.

Edwardis lead me to believe elsewhere today that he see's baptism as a outside symbol of an inner commitment to Christ.

Infants are not able to make a commitment to anything, so why baptise them?


ed's a legalist who believes in a very strict and literal interpretation of the bible. if baptism is necessary to get into heaven, then it is necessary for babies as much as it is for adults. his faith has no room for a god who would let a baby slide.

Infants are not able to make a commitment to anything, so why baptise them?

So they don't go to hell when they die.

Salvation is a gift, we are able to accept that.

W are able to accept it because the Holy Spirit makes us able.

Either Christ's sacrifice is sufficient to cleanse you of all sins or it isn't.

Surely they believe it's sufficient to all cleanse sins! I thought we were talking about sanctification (sinning less and less atfer conversion).

I'm 'Baptist' in the fact that I believe in baptism by immersion, but I'm not really active in a church so much anymore... I'm sick of hearing how horrible all Bpatists are. Yes, we have some obnoxious fundies, but there are some decent baptists, so please don't lump us all together.

As for groups of people, I can tolerate anyone of any religion that doesn't shove their beliefs down my throat- this includes athiests, I'e been preached too many a time by people who ironically complain about being preached to by other religions. I'm fine with whatever anyone believes, and as far as denominational splits, I tend to think they're petty arguments over doctrine and have little to do with the more important aspects of the faith.

Presbyterian government? No.
Sola Scriptura? No.
Covenantal theology? I don't know, but I doubt it.
Predestination? Of course, all Christians have some doctrine of that (the word's in the Bible) but they don't agree with Calvin's defintion, which I think is the most Biblical.

hey, if you are going to do your own thinking, why be in a denomination that tells you what to think at all?

if the form of government is important, then the orthodox churches have government in spades, they have had a consensus on what to believe for 2000 years. if calvin was right, they would believe it already. who are you to think you (or calvin) know more than the fathers of the church for the past 2000 years?

it was just a thought. after all, one can be baptist and not be southern baptist.
yes it's true. ;)

They are part of the covenant. Jesus called them to Him (Matthew 19, Luke 18) and Paul says that they are made holy through the believing parent(s) (7:12-16)
he isn't talking about Salvation being passed down, if you go back to the original languages what is meant is that the parents are able to raise the child in a home that supports their faith.



Nothing wrong with it, but the Bible doesn't require it.
and Baptists don't believe that baptism is required for salvation.



Christ alone is head of the Church (Ephesians 5:23; Colossians 1:18)

Elders are chosen by the congregation over whom they are to rule (Acts 6:1-6)

All ruling officers are equal in authority (Acts 20:17-38; Titus 1:5-16)

Each particular church must have a plurality of elders (Acts 14:23)

Church officrs are ordained by the presbytery (I Timothy 4:14)

The right to appeal from the smaller group of elders to the larger (Acts 15)

The names of the officers and bodies are not so important, but their functions are the focus.

Christ is the head of the church, our local church body has deacons who are ordained by the church, I don't see a difference.

So they don't go to hell when they die.

I don't believe that baptism has anything to do with whether or not someone would go to heaven or hell.

So they don't go to hell when they die.

But in a Baptist's beliefs, baptism has nothing to do with salvation. It's symbolic. So therefore by baptising a baby, you're not preventing anything as it's just a public symbol.

Anyways, I'm a fan of letting people grow up and then decide what they believe. By baptising an infant, aren't you forcing something on them that they may later resent?

ed's a legalist who believes in a very strict and literal interpretation of the bible. if baptism is necessary to get into heaven, then it is necessary for babies as much as it is for adults. his faith has no room for a god who would let a baby slide.

GAH! :eek:

No! Baptism is not necessary for salvation. It does not save. It is a ritual: an outward sign of an inward reality. Because the child is made holy by the parents faith (until the child is old enough to understand for him/herself), we can baptize them. It reflects Old Testament circumcision.

W are able to accept it because the Holy Spirit makes us able.
we could get into a whole long discussion about the differences between what you mean by that and what I mean by that.

Surely they believe it's sufficient to all cleanse sins! I thought we were talking about sanctification (sinning less and less atfer conversion).
we will always be sinners, they believe that one sin after conversion means that you didn't actually convert.

hey, if you are going to do your own thinking, why be in a denomination that tells you what to think at all?

if the form of government is important, then the orthodox churches have government in spades, they have had a consensus on what to believe for 2000 years. if calvin was right, they would believe it already. who are you to think you (or calvin) know more than the fathers of the church for the past 2000 years?

Why do you assume that the Presbyterian church is telling me what I must believe any more than the Eastern Orthodox church is?

And what makes you think that haven't changed in the 2000 years? We see it with the Roman Catholic Church. There was never an idea of papal infalliblity. Then slowly it crept in and it wasn't until the late 1800s (1871?) that it became established doctrine.

GAH! :eek:

No! Baptism is not necessary for salvation. It does not save. It is a ritual: an outward sign of an inward reality. Because the child is made holy by the parents faith (until the child is old enough to understand for him/herself), we can baptize them. It reflects Old Testament circumcision.

so you get the baby wet for what exacly?

Presbyterian government? No.
Sola Scriptura? No.
Covenantal theology? I don't know, but I doubt it.
Predestination? Of course, all Christians have some doctrine of that (the word's in the Bible) but they don't agree with Calvin's defintion, which I think is the most Biblical.

Hey Ed. Question for you. Where's Sola Scriptura in the Bible?

I don't believe that baptism has anything to do with whether or not someone would go to heaven or hell.

That's what you believe. Many people believe othewise however. Hence the point of infant baptism for them.

That's what you believe. Many people believe othewise however. Hence the point of infant baptism for them.

I am totally aware of that, I was questioning Edwardis specifically.

so you get the baby wet for what exacly?

In A/G, we don't baptize babies.

The A/G does not teach a requirement of double baptism. To get into heaven all one needs is to be Baptized by Holy Spirit into the Body of Christ. Which is the same as being born again. Since that event is not visible to our fellow humans, water baptism is a physical event which represents the Spiritual re-birth or being born from above as described in John 3:3 and John 3:5. In this area, A/G is very similar to what most other Evangelical Christians believe. The A/G has never taught that all who disagree go to hell. In fact the A/G has been a very prominant member of the National Association of Evangelicals ( www.nae.net ) for over 50 years.

If you go to the NAE web site, you'll see a list of over 50 denominations which agree with the A/G about salvation.

Yes, we like for adults who make the committment to perform a symbolic immersion in water - but what we're really hoping for is the baptism of the Holy Spirit - not a bath.

And if you disagree with us, you disagree. We're not going to give someone grief because they don't do it our way.

he isn't talking about Salvation being passed down, if you go back to the original languages what is meant is that the parents are able to raise the child in a home that supports their faith.

Umm, I have to disagree. Maybe you're right. I used to agree. But right now, I think the Paedo-baptism stance makes more sense. Maybe I'll have to repent of that.

and Baptists don't believe that baptism is required for salvation.

Neither do Presbyterians. In fact we reject that.



Christ is the head of the church, our local church body has deacons who are ordained by the church, I don't see a difference.

Every individual church is not required to have plurality of elders: they can have one.

Church officers may not be ordained by a higher governing authority. They can be, but they don't need to be. Churches can just call people.

The right to appeal does not exist. There is no one to enforce anything beyond the level of the particular church. There is more accountability in the episcopalian and presbyterian governments.

we will always be sinners, they believe that one sin after conversion means that you didn't actually convert.

Well that's bunk.

Why do you assume that the Presbyterian church is telling me what I must believe any more than the Eastern Orthodox church is?
isnt the presbyterian church in the midst of its own crisis that might lead to schism?

that reflects a lack of tolerance of alternate views.


And what makes you think that haven't changed in the 2000 years? We see it with the Roman Catholic Church. There was never an idea of papal infalliblity. Then slowly it crept in and it wasn't until the late 1800s (1871?) that it became established doctrine.

of course its changed in the past 2000 years. different circumstances, new theological perspectives, better thinking, whatever. the orthodox church changes slowly as the fathers of the church come to a consensus of a new understanding of theological issues.

same with the catholic church except that the pope is the ultimate authority, no consensus necessary.

Im a Lutheran (ELCA) WHOO!!!

In A/G, we don't baptize babies.

The A/G does not teach a requirement of double baptism. To get into heaven all one needs is to be Baptized by Holy Spirit into the Body of Christ. Which is the same as being born again. Since that event is not visible to our fellow humans, water baptism is a physical event which represents the Spiritual re-birth or being born from above as described in John 3:3 and John 3:5. In this area, A/G is very similar to what most other Evangelical Christians believe. The A/G has never taught that all who disagree go to hell. In fact the A/G has been a very prominant member of the National Association of Evangelicals ( www.nae.net ) for over 50 years.

If you go to the NAE web site, you'll see a list of over 50 denominations which agree with the A/G about salvation.

Yes, we like for adults who make the committment to perform a symbolic immersion in water - but what we're really hoping for is the baptism of the Holy Spirit - not a bath.

And if you disagree with us, you disagree. We're not going to give someone grief because they don't do it our way.
that sounds pretty in line with what I believe about baptism. I just wonder about Edwardis and his double speak.

Umm, I have to disagree. Maybe you're right. I used to agree. But right now, I think the Paedo-baptism stance makes more sense. Maybe I'll have to repent of that.
I have to ask though if you don't believe that babies are going to go to hell, and you don't believe that baptism is required for salvation then why do you baptise babies?

Every individual church is not required to have plurality of elders: they can have one.

Church officers may not be ordained by a higher governing authority. They can be, but they don't need to be. Churches can just call people.

The right to appeal does not exist. There is no one to enforce anything beyond the level of the particular church. There is more accountability in the episcopalian and presbyterian governments.
We are accountable to God and not man.
isnt the presbyterian church in the midst of its own crisis that might lead to schism?

that reflects a lack of tolerance of alternate views.
the SBC is heading for a split again soon too......it's because of the nutjobs that get into office (not sure how they manage that)

that sounds pretty in line with what I believe about baptism. I just wonder about Edwardis and his double speak.


I have to ask though if you don't believe that babies are going to go to hell, and you don't believe that baptism is required for salvation then why do you baptise babies?


We are accountable to God and not man.

the SBC is heading for a split again soon too......it's because of the nutjobs that get into office (not sure how they manage that)

My church did a good job ticking off the SBC this summer, but I don't think we've been officially kicked out. It had to do with views concerning the requirement of baptism to join the church.

so you get the baby wet for what exacly?

First, God calls whom He wills. This can include children (meaning they will have faith as children). Jesus said that God's saving work was to be found in children (Matthew 19:14 "....for to such [the children] belongs the kingdom of heaven.")

It therefore cannot be argued that they are incapable of that which baptism signifies: an inward change. God commanded that the sign of grace be given to the children of believers in the Old Testament (Genesis 17:1-14). And it is an everlasting requirement. (....Every male throughout your generations...."). And the apostles say that baptism is the New Testament circumcision (Colossians 2:11,12). The words are used as synonyms.

God changed the sign, but did not change the requirements surrounding it.

My church did a good job ticking off the SBC this summer, but I don't think we've been officially kicked out. It had to do with views concerning the requirement of baptism to join the church.

yeah, one of our sister churches did the same thing, the fact is the SBC can't really kick you out......you can leave, but they don't really have the recourse to sever ties unless you are a whack job, like when they kicked out Pat Robertson.

the SBC is heading for a split again soon too......it's because of the nutjobs that get into office (not sure how they manage that)

i think it probably needs to. its not good for a religious person to have too much worldly power (meaning its not good for them religiously). the sbc is so big that its very size is corrupting for the leadership.

First, God calls whom He wills. This can include children (meaning they will have faith as children). Jesus said that God's saving work was to be found in children (Matthew 19:14 "....for to such [the children] belongs the kingdom of heaven.")

It therefore cannot be argued that they are incapable of that which baptism signifies: an inward change. God commanded that the sign of grace be given to the children of believers in the Old Testament (Genesis 17:1-14). And it is an everlasting requirement. (....Every male throughout your generations...."). And the apostles say that baptism is the New Testament circumcision (Colossians 2:11,12). The words are used as synonyms.

God changed the sign, but did not change the requirements surrounding it.

so you believe that baptism is required for salvation then?

Hey Ed. Question for you. Where's Sola Scriptura in the Bible?

It's notexplicitly, but we can learn from the commandments and all the statements about Man's sinful condition and God's perfection.

If not Sola Scriptura, you are putting Man's word next to (or even above!) God's perfect Word which is blasphemy and proabably also idolatry.

isnt the presbyterian church in the midst of its own crisis that might lead to schism?

that reflects a lack of tolerance of alternate views.

Yes, because of issues regarding the esentials of Christianity: the infalliblity of Scripture being the big one. But that's one denomination, not all of them. There are some very stable Presbyterian denomination.

of course its changed in the past 2000 years. different circumstances, new theological perspectives, better thinking, whatever. the orthodox church changes slowly as the fathers of the church come to a consensus of a new understanding of theological issues.

same with the catholic church except that the pope is the ultimate authority, no consensus necessary.

Then it all comes back to Sola Scriptura.

The denomination I like best is probably the Episcopal denomination. It was the one I belonged to before my conversion to Islam, and it is also the most liberal.

so you believe that baptism is required for salvation then?

No. I don't understand what's so hard. I must not be being very clear.

It's a sign that is required to give to the children of believers as well as believers. That's the way God commanded it, and until you can show that He did not command it to be that way, I have to follow it. Freedom of conscience, remember?

I have to go. I'll be back in about an hour.

No doubt someone's already said this, but my favourite Christians are the ones who mind their own business and don't post about their religion on NSG :)

No doubt someone's already said this, but my favourite Christians are the ones who mind their own business and don't post about their religion on NSG :)

Actually, I think we were replying to the OP, and whether they are Christian or not, I don't know, and it doesn't really matter. We answered back with our opinions then it digressed to a debate about something sort of midly relevant, but not really, but you surely know that no NS topic can stay truly on track. ;)

It's notexplicitly, but we can learn from the commandments and all the statements about Man's sinful condition and God's perfection.

If not Sola Scriptura, you are putting Man's word next to (or even above!) God's perfect Word which is blasphemy and proabably also idolatry.

Hmm. You're contrasting putting Man's word next to God's with...scriptures written by men which you are equating with God's Word? It seems to me that you're just doing the very thing you're opposed to.

Unless God specifically came to you and said, "Yeah, man, that Bible. I wrote it."

In which case carry on.

It's notexplicitly, but we can learn from the commandments and all the statements about Man's sinful condition and God's perfection.

isnt that doing what the catholic church does? stretching the bible to cover concepts not explicity mentioned?


If not Sola Scriptura, you are putting Man's word next to (or even above!) God's perfect Word which is blasphemy and proabably also idolatry.

i think its a form of idolatry to limit god to what is written in the bible and to think that that is all we can know of him. it makes the bible a kind of god equivalent.

most of the disputed doctrines of christianity are not spelled out in the bible. even insisting on predestination is putting man's word (calvin's) next to the word of god in the bible since it is a matter of interpretation of various verses.

isnt that doing what the catholic church does? stretching the bible to cover concepts not explicity mentioned?The Catholic Church is the continuation of the community founded by Yeshua. They don't depend on a written Bible.

No. I don't understand what's so hard. I must not be being very clear.

It's a sign that is required to give to the children of believers as well as believers. That's the way God commanded it, and until you can show that He did not command it to be that way, I have to follow it. Freedom of conscience, remember?

you are not being very clear I guess because what I get from you is that you believe that baptism is an outward sign of a personal commitment and is not required for salvation, but that since infants are unable to make that commitement they are covered through their parent's commitement (which I disagree but that isn't the point here) and while being covered under their parent's commitment you think they are required to be baptised even though you reject that baptism is a requirement for anything.

Acts 16:15
15When she and the members of her household were baptized, she invited us to her home. "If you consider me a believer in the Lord," she said, "come and stay at my house." And she persuaded us.

She and the members of her house apparently had no babies?

1 Corinthians 1:15-16
15so no one can say that you were baptized into my name. 16 (Yes, I also baptized the household of Stephanas; beyond that, I don't remember if I baptized anyone else.)…

The household of Stephanas had no babies either?

Acts 16:33
At that hour of the night the jailer took them and washed their wounds; then immediately he and all his family were baptized.

He and his family had no babies either?

Acts 2:38
Peter replied, "Repent and be baptized, every one of you, in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins. And you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit.

It doesn’t say, every one of you except the babies now does it. No. Blessing and laying on of hands and anointing another is just fine, even for babies, all of a sudden it’s wrong to baptize a baby with water though? No, I don’t think so.

Baptized a baby, or not, it makes no difference. Dedicate them to the Lord and raise them with the Lords name always on your tongue though and you will do well.

Actually, I think we were replying to the OP, and whether they are Christian or not, I don't know, and it doesn't really matter. We answered back with our opinions then it digressed to a debate about something sort of midly relevant, but not really, but you surely know that no NS topic can stay truly on track. ;)

Oh, I was replying to the OP myself. Can't be arsed (there's that wonderful coloquialism again!) to read through other people's opinions! ;)

Acts 16:15
15When she and the members of her household were baptized, she invited us to her home. "If you consider me a believer in the Lord," she said, "come and stay at my house." And she persuaded us.

She and the members of her house apparently had no babies?

1 Corinthians 1:15-16
15so no one can say that you were baptized into my name. 16 (Yes, I also baptized the household of Stephanas; beyond that, I don't remember if I baptized anyone else.)…

The household of Stephanas had no babies either?

Acts 16:33
At that hour of the night the jailer took them and washed their wounds; then immediately he and all his family were baptized.

He and his family had no babies either?

Acts 2:38
Peter replied, "Repent and be baptized, every one of you, in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins. And you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit.

It doesn’t say, every one of you except the babies now does it. No. Blessing and laying on of hands and anointing another is just fine, even for babies, all of a sudden it’s wrong to baptize a baby with water though? No, I don’t think so.

Baptized a baby, or not, it makes no difference. Dedicate them to the Lord and raise them with the Lords name always on your tongue though and you will do well.

I never said it was wrong, I just wonder why Edwardis finds it "preferable" when he says that baptism is an outward sign of an inner commitment.

I just want to understand why someone who claims that the water baptism is nothing but symbolic is saying it's better to baptise babies, it seems to conflict.

I never said it was wrong, I just wonder why Edwardis finds it "preferable" when he says that baptism is an outward sign of an inner commitment.

I just want to understand why someone who claims that the water baptism is nothing but symbolic is saying it's better to baptise babies, it seems to conflict.

Is it preferable to anoint when laying on of the hands for prayer for another? Is it preferable to sprinkle or use full emersion for baptizing? Is it preferable to kneel and bow or just bow when praying in church? It is better to pray out loud or just inwardly speak to God?

An outward appearance of becoming a Christian seems to mean that one is to go out baptizing your entire household, from a strictly secular and patriarchal point of view, including the women and children (assuming it is done whether they like it or not). (I’m not advocating this, just pointing out that it is scriptural).

When I pray for my children, and I take them to the minister/priest/pastor/brother/leader of my church, and they lay on the hands and anoint with oil, does it benefit the Baby? Why would they then not also baptize with water when water has so many scriptural symbolisms about it?

Perhaps it is preferable to do many different things at different times and places? Including baptizing your baby and then allowing the child to decide for themselves when they come of age?

Is it preferable to anoint when laying on of the hands for prayer for another? Is it preferable to sprinkle or use full emersion for baptizing? Is it preferable to kneel and bow or just bow when praying in church? It is better to pray out loud or just inwardly speak to God?

An outward appearance of becoming a Christian seems to mean that one is to go out baptizing your entire household, from a strictly secular and patriarchal point of view, including the women and children (assuming it is done whether they like it or not). (I’m not advocating this, just pointing out that it is scriptural).

When I pray for my children, and I take them to the minister/priest/pastor/brother/leader of my church, and they lay on the hands and anoint with oil, does it benefit the Baby? Why would they then not also baptize with water when water has so many scriptural symbolisms about it?

Perhaps it is preferable to do many different things at different times and places? Including baptizing your baby and then allowing the child to decide for themselves when they come of age?
can you explain to me what you believe about baptism?

When we baptize we clothe, or mark, one covered by Christ.

Galatians 3 23-29
Before this faith came, we were held prisoners by the law, locked up until faith should be revealed. 24So the law was put in charge to lead us to Christ that we might be justified by faith. Now that faith has come, we are no longer under the supervision of the law.

26You are all sons of God through faith in Christ Jesus, 27for all of you who were baptized into Christ have clothed yourselves with Christ. 28There is neither Jew nor Greek, slave nor free, male nor female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus. 29If you belong to Christ, then you are Abraham's seed, and heirs according to the promise.

Baptizing ourselves into Christ we become heirs through him to the promises made to Abraham.

When we baptize we clothe, or mark, one covered by Christ.

Galatians 3 23-29
Before this faith came, we were held prisoners by the law, locked up until faith should be revealed. 24So the law was put in charge to lead us to Christ that we might be justified by faith. Now that faith has come, we are no longer under the supervision of the law.

26You are all sons of God through faith in Christ Jesus, 27for all of you who were baptized into Christ have clothed yourselves with Christ. 28There is neither Jew nor Greek, slave nor free, male nor female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus. 29If you belong to Christ, then you are Abraham's seed, and heirs according to the promise.

Baptizing ourselves into Christ we become heirs through him to the promises made to Abraham.
so you believe that the phsyical act of baptism has spiritual consequence?

i can put up with the catholics - they have a very very old religion.

I like Methodists. They're totally inoffensive and quiet.

so you believe that the phsyical act of baptism has spiritual consequence?

Peter seems to have said so.

Acts 2:38
38Peter replied, "Repent and be baptized, every one of you, in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins. And you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit.

What did John the Baptist do when he was baptizing the people before the people were even introduced to Christ Jesus yet?

Did they not think they were doing something useful?

Did the first born of the slaves in Egypt know that they were being protected by the blood marking their houses that their parents put on their doorways? I think the blood mark worked to protect them even when they were unawares.

Additionally,

1 Peter 3 18-22
For Christ died for sins once for all, the righteous for the unrighteous, to bring you to God. He was put to death in the body but made alive by the Spirit, through whom also he went and preached to the spirits in prison who disobeyed long ago when God waited patiently in the days of Noah while the ark was being built. In it only a few people, eight in all, were saved through water, and this water symbolizes baptism that now saves you also—not the removal of dirt from the body but the pledge of a good conscience toward God. It saves you by the resurrection of Jesus Christ, who has gone into heaven and is at God's right hand—with angels, authorities and powers in submission to him.

Matthew 28:18-19
And Jesus came and said to them, "All authority in heaven and on earth has been given to me. Go therefore and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit,

John 3:5
Jesus answered, "I tell you the truth, no one can enter the kingdom of God unless he is born of water and the Spirit.

even insisting on predestination is putting man's word (calvin's) next to the word of god in the bible since it is a matter of interpretation of various verses.

No, not really. I agree with Calvin's definition, because I see it in Scripture. If Calvin came up with it on his own or added to the Scripture, then you would be correct, but He doesn't do that. His whole argument is based on Scripture. And I agree with Calvin, only because I agree with his analysis of Scripture. And I agree with his analysis of Scripture only because I see that Scripture supports that analysis.

Peter seems to have said so.

Acts 2:38
38Peter replied, "Repent and be baptized, every one of you, in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins. And you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit.

What did John the Baptist do when he was baptizing the people before the people were even introduced to Christ Jesus yet?

Did they not think they were doing something useful?

Did the first born of the slaves in Egypt know that they were being protected by the blood marking their houses that their parents put on their doorways? I think the blood mark worked to protect them even when they were unawares.

Additionally,

1 Peter 3 18-22
For Christ died for sins once for all, the righteous for the unrighteous, to bring you to God. He was put to death in the body but made alive by the Spirit, through whom also he went and preached to the spirits in prison who disobeyed long ago when God waited patiently in the days of Noah while the ark was being built. In it only a few people, eight in all, were saved through water, and this water symbolizes baptism that now saves you also—not the removal of dirt from the body but the pledge of a good conscience toward God. It saves you by the resurrection of Jesus Christ, who has gone into heaven and is at God's right hand—with angels, authorities and powers in submission to him.

Matthew 28:18-19
And Jesus came and said to them, "All authority in heaven and on earth has been given to me. Go therefore and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit,
then you and I don't need to talk, I was talking to someone playing both sides.

Jesus seems to be fine with entry to paradise without baptism though, just in case you wanted to know that.

you are not being very clear I guess because what I get from you is that you believe that baptism is an outward sign of a personal commitment and is not required for salvation, but that since infants are unable to make that commitement they are covered through their parent's commitement (which I disagree but that isn't the point here) and while being covered under their parent's commitment you think they are required to be baptised even though you reject that baptism is a requirement for anything.

God commands us to be baptized, so it is required. But, baptism is not a requirement for anything, yes: it does not equal salvation, nor does it have any part in it.

God commands us to be baptized, so it is required. But, baptism is not a requirement for anything, yes: it does not equal salvation, nor does it have any part in it.

it's required but it's not required?

then you and I don't need to talk, I was talking to someone playing both sides.

Jesus seems to be fine with entry to paradise without baptism though, just in case you wanted to know that.

Do you have a quote (about not needing baptism, not a quote of Ed's) for that belief, or are you playing both sides?

As to infant baptism, we have the understanding that God prepares the way for us and our future faith before we request it or even know that we need the help to begin with. He loved me before I loved him.

John 3:5
Jesus answered, "I tell you the truth, no one can enter the kingdom of God unless he is born of water and the Spirit.

The heretic roman catholics were rightly expelled from the church of england for their blasphemy. One day, hopefully, they will see the error of their ways and rejoin the one true church.

Everyone else is hellbound.

...

You do know the Church of England was started solely because King Henry(Forget the number) wanted to get ONE(of his many) marriages anulled, solely on the basis that she wasn't producing an heir to the thrown, and so he "expelled" the Catholic Church from England, and set up his own, just to get a divorce. You do know that, right?

it's required but it's not required?

Okay.

Look at it this way. Civil law requires that you drive under the speed limit, correct? Civil law also addresses whether you can vote or not. But the fact that you may disregard the speed limit (a requirement) has no effect on whether you can vote or not. The requirements for voting do not include obeying the speed limit.

I'm using two different senses of the word required. God gave you a command to be baptized. You are required to do that. If you are able to (you didn't commit your life to Christ on your deathbed) and you do not, you are in sin. The same is with all the commands of God. He requires us to obey.

Now, when we are discussing salvation, we are speaking of a different set of requirements. The requirement for salvation is repentence and proclaiming Christ your Lord and Savior.

So, when speaking of our behavior and actions, baptism is required. When speaking of our salvation from our imperfect adherence to those first requirements, baptism is not.

There seems to be alot of love for Catholics on this forum lately, mainly because of the idiotic ramblings of The Redemption Army. So, I was just wondering which denomination of Christianity the people of NSG like, or are willing to put up with. For me it would have to be Catholics, and not just because I am a Catholic. I live in the Baptist Bible Belt, and God I hate Baptist. They are the most ignorant most self serving, just ugh. They're the denomination with the most fundies too.

So how about you guys, which denomination do you like or can put up with?

actually, TRA made mention somewhere that he thought Catholics were also going to hell, so i dont think anyone knows what he/she is.

Do you have a quote (about not needing baptism, not a quote of Ed's) for that belief, or are you playing both sides?

As to infant baptism, we have the understanding that God prepares the way for us and our future faith before we request it or even know that we need the help to begin with. He loved me before I loved him.

John 3:5
Jesus answered, "I tell you the truth, no one can enter the kingdom of God unless he is born of water and the Spirit.

One of the criminals who were hanged railed at him, saying, "Are you not the Christ? Save yourself and us!" But the other rebuked him, saying, "Do you not fear God, since you are under the same sentence of condemnation? And we indeed justly; for we are receiving the due reward of our deeds; but this man has done nothing wrong." And he said, "Jesus, remember me when you come into your kingdom." And he said to him, "Truly, I say to you, today you will be with me in Paradise." (Luke 23:39-43)

the entire conversation in John 3
1Now there was a man of the Pharisees named Nicodemus, a member of the Jewish ruling council. 2He came to Jesus at night and said, "Rabbi, we know you are a teacher who has come from God. For no one could perform the miraculous signs you are doing if God were not with him."

3In reply Jesus declared, "I tell you the truth, no one can see the kingdom of God unless he is born again.[a]"

4"How can a man be born when he is old?" Nicodemus asked. "Surely he cannot enter a second time into his mother's womb to be born!"

5Jesus answered, "I tell you the truth, no one can enter the kingdom of God unless he is born of water and the Spirit. 6Flesh gives birth to flesh, but the Spirit[b] gives birth to spirit. 7You should not be surprised at my saying, 'You[c] must be born again.' 8The wind blows wherever it pleases. You hear its sound, but you cannot tell where it comes from or where it is going. So it is with everyone born of the Spirit."

I don't think he was talking about baptism. ;)

No, not really. I agree with Calvin's definition, because I see it in Scripture. If Calvin came up with it on his own or added to the Scripture, then you would be correct, but He doesn't do that. His whole argument is based on Scripture. And I agree with Calvin, only because I agree with his analysis of Scripture. And I agree with his analysis of Scripture only because I see that Scripture supports that analysis.

its still not the word of god. its the analysis of the word of god by calvin and supported by you.

its the same thing that caused the catholic church to decide that there had to be a 3rd form of afterlife called purgatory. it isnt ever mentioned specifically in scripture but it is certainly implied by several passages. (no im not going to debate purgatory, its just an example)

its still not the word of god. its the analysis of the word of god by calvin and supported by you.

its the same thing that caused the catholic church to decide that there had to be a 3rd form of afterlife called purgatory. it isnt ever mentioned specifically in scripture but it is certainly implied by several passages. (no im not going to debate purgatory, its just an example)

which is one of the reasons I don't tend to read commentary. I think it's like sifting through vomit

which is one of the reasons I don't tend to read commentary. I think it's like sifting through vomit

there is too much that i dont understand without the aid of some kind of background. i need the help sometimes.

for example i checked the online catholic bible for the verses from john3 that you quoted to see if there was something that i missed in them. the most interesting comment was that the greek word that was used as "again" in born again also means "from above" making the question of nicodemus more understandable.

no i dont guess he was talking about baptism in that passage.

its still not the word of god. its the analysis of the word of god by calvin and supported by you.

its the same thing that caused the catholic church to decide that there had to be a 3rd form of afterlife called purgatory. it isnt ever mentioned specifically in scripture but it is certainly implied by several passages. (no im not going to debate purgatory, its just an example)

No, it's quite different. I say I support Calvin's analysis because of this Scripture. What people do when they place the Pope or Tradition or whatever word of Man next to or above Scripture is that they say this is just as good as or better than Scripture. What I'm saying (or at least what I had better be saying) is that Calvin (or whoever) agrees with Scripture.

The problem may be this: You might look at it as though when I set something beside, I am sitting at a table with the Bible and Calvin's Institutes sitting next to each other. I have no problem with that.

But what I'm talking about is a pole which reaches up to the sky with the books attached to it at their point of importance. The Bible should be at the top, alone. And that top should be reaching out of our solar system. The pole would have to be longer than that to acurately reflect how the Bible should be in importance compared to the othr books. Calvin's works might be higher up than most, but it will still be in the atmosphere.

Religious Society of Friends.

...
I don't think he was talking about baptism. ;)

Baptism prepares the slate, it marks the property, it defines who belongs in which flock, etc.

As to the two men, both men were marked by circumcision (which is no longer required, but was before the crucifixion) but both were already "marked " as dedicated to the God of Abraham and were heirs directly. Boys were circucismed to mark them, girls were sprinkled with water (baptized). Gentiles can be baptized into the fold, to become 'marked' and become a heir of Abraham.

If heaven requires a person to be pre-marked by baptism, I did not answer, I do know that all things are possible for God though, even for a rich man to get there. Marking the flock can be done by sprinkling the blessing of the blood.

Hebrews 10:22
let us draw near to God with a sincere heart in full assurance of faith, having our hearts sprinkled to cleanse us from a guilty conscience and having our bodies washed with pure water.

there is too much that i dont understand without the aid of some kind of background. i need the help sometimes.

for example i checked the online catholic bible for the verses from john3 that you quoted to see if there was something that i missed in them. the most interesting comment was that the greek word that was used as "again" in born again also means "from above" making the question of nicodemus more understandable.

no i dont guess he was talking about baptism in that passage.

When I talk about commentary I talk about the books you get to go along with the Bible that say "this is what that verse means to me" and for the most part I am not interested in what the verse means to someone else. I am fine with the study guides I have that talk about context, history, origninal languages, etc., but to read what someone else pulled from scripture is the same to me as trying to read someone's vomit, we eat the same food, they spit back up what happens after they digest it.

individual catholics have never bothered me whereas individual protestants frequently do. but institutionally all the high profile sects bother me greatly.

I live in the Baptist Bible Belt, and God I hate Baptist. They are the most ignorant most self serving, just ugh. They're the denomination with the most fundies too.


I'm also Catholic and live near or in the Bible Belt. But I don't think Baptists are "ignorant...self serving". Most I know are perfectly ordinary, kind people. I agree, people like Pat Robertson have ruined the Baptist name, but that's not reason to blame all Baptists. As a Catholic, I sure wouldn't want people to judge me based on certain other Catholics (cough cough Spanish Inquisition).

Do you have a quote (about not needing baptism, not a quote of Ed's) for that belief, or are you playing both sides?

This is yet another place where Paul contradicts Jesus. I'm not going to get into it any further, because I don't feel like having a debate (in which usually people just completely ignore the evidence against them, unfortunatly (but not all people, just most)). But, Paul says that "God saves us by grace alone" and that baptism is not necessary.

He (Paul) doesn't (I don't think) say "baptism isn't necessary", but he says stuff along those lines and it is hard, if not impossible, to misinterpret them "by accident".

Religious Society of Friends.

Are they those who are commonly called the Quakers?

Are they those who are commonly called the Quakers?

Yes.

Yes.

Thank you.

...

You do know the Church of England was started solely because King Henry(Forget the number) wanted to get ONE(of his many) marriages anulled, solely on the basis that she wasn't producing an heir to the thrown, and so he "expelled" the Catholic Church from England, and set up his own, just to get a divorce. You do know that, right?

I think the original user quoted was joking. The Church of England broke away from the Roman Catholic Church, so when Lacadaemon said they will "see the error of their ways and rejoin the one true church", I assume he was being facetious, poking fun at the way the Catholic Church sees itself as one true church.

Thank you.

You're welcome.

Ok, I'll stop spamming now :D

I pretty much tolerate all of them, some less willingly than others.
The Southern Baptists really scare me. A lot.
Unitarians are pretty cool though.

The heretic roman catholics were rightly expelled from the church of england for their blasphemy. One day, hopefully, they will see the error of their ways and rejoin the one true church.

Everyone else is hellbound.
Hahahhhahah

Actually the episcopacy of the church of england in synod does claim that - along with apostolic succession.
Unfortunately for the Anglicans, no one else agrees with them.

Same bishops. They just decided that all the other bishops - including rome - who wouldn't sign on to the 'new' articles of religion were clearly heretics, and therefore expelled them.

No... the English church basically became very protestant, then very Catholic, then very protestant again and in history used invalid forms to ordain their bishops. At some point they decided to adopt Catholic ritual again but at this point I believe they no longer have an unbroken line of validly ordained bishops and priests; especially since any bishops who were validly ordained probably did not have the correct intention when ordaining other bishops in a schismatic AND heretical organization.

Today they ordain women as priests and despite any personal feelings on it, this is considered invalid and impossible by Eastern Orthodox, Oriental Orthodox, and the Catholic churches. This is another example of them doing what they want to do without taking into enough consideration what they should do and ordaining with invalid form and matter.

This is another example of them doing what they want to do without taking into enough consideration what they should do and ordaining with invalid form and matter.

AMEN!

This is yet another place where Paul contradicts Jesus. I'm not going to get into it any further, because I don't feel like having a debate (in which usually people just completely ignore the evidence against them, unfortunatly (but not all people, just most)). But, Paul says that "God saves us by grace alone" and that baptism is not necessary.

He (Paul) doesn't (I don't think) say "baptism isn't necessary", but he says stuff along those lines and it is hard, if not impossible, to misinterpret them "by accident".

Understanding "Grace alone", interestingly enough, actually leads us to a better understanding of why it is preferable to baptize infants instead of waiting for adulthood and their ability to be repentful in an adult manner, before allowing them to choose baptism for themselves. To assume that one must 'choose' to repent before they should be baptized is much like saying a person has to 'earn' salvation for themselves. How can it be both grace alone and because "I earned it," "I deserved it," by being able to answer the calling to repent? It cannot.

If God saves us by Grace alone and salvation in actuality can NOT be earned by us then we must humble ourselves and admit that undeserved salvation is the only kind of salvation no matter how repentful and sorry we were ourselves when we approached God and asked for our salvation and admitted Jesus as our Lord and Savior (assume I'm talking to Christians who deny infant baptism).

The infant suffers in the world of sin before they have understanding. The infant feels pleasure and pain, good and bad, happy and sad, injury and illness, health and growth, before they have understanding. They, like everyone else, are trapped in the world of sin that God can redeem them from. How then can I or anyone else determine that this child or that child is not 'introspective' enough to deserve salvation and thus refuse them baptism? Will they be denied heaven because they are not baptized by the stubborn and self-aggrandizing who refuse them baptism? No, probably not.

The infant is like everyone else, both hungry and thirsty, how then does Jesus not talk to them and offer them the water if life?

Revelation 21:6
He said to me: "It is done. I am the Alpha and the Omega, the Beginning and the End. To him who is thirsty I will give to drink without cost from the spring of the water of life.

This isn't reserved for only the ones that can earn it. It is for those that are covered by grace. If you are a Christian and you have and raise children, how does the promise not apply to them while you watch over them? In fact, the Good News IS promised to your Children.

Acts 2:38-39
Peter replied, "Repent and be baptized, every one of you, in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins. And you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit. The promise is for you and your children and for all who are far off—for all whom the Lord our God will call."

Who will deny them? Not Jesus.

Luke 10:21
At that time Jesus, full of joy through the Holy Spirit, said, "I praise you, Father, Lord of heaven and earth, because you have hidden these things from the wise and learned, and revealed them to little children. Yes, Father, for this was your good pleasure.

Luke 18:15-16
People were also bringing babies to Jesus to have him touch them. When the disciples saw this, they rebuked them. But Jesus called the children to him and said, "Let the little children come to me, and do not hinder them, for the kingdom of God belongs to such as these.

Who says they cannot be called simply because they are Children? Who are we to say they have not 'deserved' it yet? Do they not bleed and die? Then Jesus came for them to.

Understanding "Grace alone", interestingly enough, actually leads us to a better understanding of why it is preferable to baptize infants instead of waiting for adulthood and their ability to be repentful in an adult manner, before allowing them to choose baptism for themselves. To assume that one must 'choose' to repent before they should be baptized is much like saying a person has to 'earn' salvation for themselves. How can it be both grace alone and because "I earned it," "I deserved it," by being able to answer the calling to repent? It cannot.

If God saves us by Grace alone and salvation in actuality can NOT be earned by us then we must humble ourselves and admit that undeserved salvation is the only kind of salvation no matter how repentful and sorry we were ourselves when we approached God and asked for our salvation and admitted Jesus as our Lord and Savior (assume I'm talking to Christians who deny infant baptism).

The infant suffers in the world of sin before they have understanding. The infant feels pleasure and pain, good and bad, happy and sad, injury and illness, health and growth, before they have understanding. They, like everyone else, are trapped in the world of sin that God can redeem them from. How then can I or anyone else determine that this child or that child is not 'introspective' enough to deserve salvation and thus refuse them baptism? Will they be denied heaven because they are not baptized by the stubborn and self-aggrandizing who refuse them baptism? No, probably not.

The infant is like everyone else, both hungry and thirsty, how then does Jesus not talk to them and offer them the water if life?

Revelation 21:6
He said to me: "It is done. I am the Alpha and the Omega, the Beginning and the End. To him who is thirsty I will give to drink without cost from the spring of the water of life.

This isn't reserved for only the ones that can earn it. It is for those that are covered by grace. If you are a Christian and you have and raise children, how does the promise not apply to them while you watch over them? In fact, the Good News IS promised to your Children.

Acts 2:38-39
Peter replied, "Repent and be baptized, every one of you, in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins. And you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit. The promise is for you and your children and for all who are far off—for all whom the Lord our God will call."

Who will deny them? Not Jesus.

Luke 10:21
At that time Jesus, full of joy through the Holy Spirit, said, "I praise you, Father, Lord of heaven and earth, because you have hidden these things from the wise and learned, and revealed them to little children. Yes, Father, for this was your good pleasure.

Luke 18:15-16
People were also bringing babies to Jesus to have him touch them. When the disciples saw this, they rebuked them. But Jesus called the children to him and said, "Let the little children come to me, and do not hinder them, for the kingdom of God belongs to such as these.

Who says they cannot be called simply because they are Children? Who are we to say they have not 'deserved' it yet? Do they not bleed and die? Then Jesus came for them to.

I get what you are saying, but since I believe that baptism is symbolic it's not really an issue to deny someone the symbolic act when it's meaningless to them

Catholics of any rite (maronite ones are pretty interesting), and anyone who doesn't get into my science classroom uninvited...

I get what you are saying, but since I believe that baptism is symbolic it's not really an issue to deny someone the symbolic act when it's meaningless to them

I used to think that way too. But thinking about what the scripture is actually saying instead of interpreting through the doctrine of anticipating only adult immersion, I recognized that there are two different baptisms and that the adult immersion type is the lesser of the two.

Acts 19:3-5
So Paul asked, "Then what baptism did you receive?"
"John's baptism," they replied.
Paul said, "John's baptism was a baptism of repentance. He told the people to believe in the one coming after him, that is, in Jesus." On hearing this, they were baptized into the name of the Lord Jesus.
Adult repentance and baptism is good, and symbolic, and worthy, but it does not unite with the body of Christ.

I understand that you are not dogmatic about this and I honestly respect that, but there are those out there that are anti-infant baptism with a vengeance and their cause is earnest but misguided. Like this group and this quote:

We offer this discussion because we wish to move people away from the practice of Infant Baptism regardless of their reasons for performing the act. Roman Catholicism builds an entire apostate religion on her chief pillar that is the Sacrament of Infant Baptism. Christians should learn to avoid this practice and stay entirely clear of Rome’s ongoing error.
link (http://www.cwrc-rz.org/articles/article-010.php)

Although their intention is to steer us away from infant baptism, their argument for Infant Baptism (published for the attempt to debate them) I believe are stronger in the end then their long winded attempts to discredit them.

The scripture plainly says that Baptism in the name of the Father, Son and Holy Ghost, IS a unification of the person with the body of Christ, not the baptism of John and repentance to prepare us for Jesus. Baptism is more than repentance and a sign of our preparedness for Christianity.

Romans 6:3-5
Or don't you know that all of us who were baptized into Christ Jesus were baptized into his death? We were therefore buried with him through baptism into death in order that, just as Christ was raised from the dead through the glory of the Father, we too may live a new life.

If we have been united with him like this in his death, we will certainly also be united with him in his resurrection.

Baptism has meaning. Why should we deny baptism into Christ to the very children God honored us with and assigned to us the responsibility of raising them in his name? Putting his brand on them, if you will, even if they later choose to be lost sheep of the flock of their own free will – as some of them surely will be).

The sects that don't push on people are the ones I respect.

The Roman Catholic Church could use some revisions though, and the hardcore "We're good Christian lets go hate the fags and A-rabs" I definatly don't appreciate.

Catholics, partially because I am one but also because they aren't so loud about their opinions as other people I've met. Seriously, all the people at my church who went to the same high school as me, I always assumed they were atheists.

I dont mind catholics, episcopalians, C of E proper, eastern orthodox or unitarians.

I cannot tolerate baptists of any stripe, pentecostalists of any stripe, jesus jumpers of any stripe, mormons, jehovas or anyone who has church in a strip mall or a statdium.