Barnsweb

Canton, OH

#182 Jul 6, 2013
Mike Peterson wrote:
<quoted text>
To believe in the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church which is the pillar and foundation of Truth.
The Bible is sufficient for teaching but is not the complete word of God.
And here I thought the message of the Bible is that we believe upon the One and Only begotten Son of God...

you follow who you desire, and I'll follow who I desire.

Revelation 12:17; "And the dragon was enraged with the woman, and he went to make war with the rest of her offspring, who keep the commandments of God and have the testimony of Jesus Christ."

13:5-10; "And he was given a mouth speaking great things and blasphemies, and he was given authority to continue for forty-two months. Then he opened his mouth in blasphemy against God, to blaspheme His name, His tabernacle, and those who dwell in heaven. It was granted to him to make war with the saints and to overcome them. And authority was given to him over every tribe, tongue, and nation. All who dwell on the earth will worship him, whose names have not been written in the Book of Life of the Lamb slain from the foundation of the world. If anyone has an ear, let him hear. He who leads into captivity shall go into captivity; he who kills with the sword must be killed with the sword. Here is the patience and the faith of the saints."

14:12,13; "Here is the patience of the saints; here are those who keep the commandments of God and the faith of Jesus. Then I heard a voice from heaven saying to me,'Write: "Blessed are the dead who die in the Lord from now on." "Yes," says the Spirit, "that they may rest from their labors and their works follow them."
Mike Peterson

Jackson, MS

#183 Jul 6, 2013
R-oman C-atholic SPROUL wrote:
<quoted text>The reason I ask if the Pope is man or God is because if he is man this verse must also apply to him.
<quoted text>
I am Protestant. You never answered my question , Is the Pope man or God? He should be one or the other and it should not be a hard question.
What are you protesting then? All the other other Protesters?

There is one God. The Pope is the Pope, The Vicar of Christ.
Bobby

Fort Worth, TX

#184 Jul 6, 2013
Mike Peterson wrote:
<quoted text>
The Psalms you quoted were for Jewish children after circumcision. They were part of the old covenant.
Does it mean the same for non-christian children in the fundamentalist protestant churches who are not part of the new covenant yet?
Your belief is brand new in the history of Christianity. 200 years old out of 2000.
For 1800 years there is no historical evidence of children having to wait to baptized.
Jesus said to bring the children to him but you want to keep them pagans.
Prots teach the kids the song "Jesus loves the Little Children" but he must not love them too much if he doesn't want them yet.
Paul notes that baptism has replaced circumcision (Col. 2:11–12). In that passage, he refers to baptism as "the circumcision of Christ" and "the circumcision made without hands." Of course, usually only infants were circumcised under the Old Law; circumcision of adults was rare, since there were few converts to Judaism. If Paul meant to exclude infants, he would not have chosen circumcision as a parallel for baptism.
Here is your problem Mike-it's baptismal regeneration. What you want to do is baptize babies with the idea that they are saved by water/h20 without any faith being involved. Catholicism believes there is original sin, I agree with you there. Original sin does not mean the baby has sinned, it means he was born into a fallen/corrupted world. Calvinism says that we are chosen by god and man/babies has no choice in the matter and that God will save them by his faith not theirs. In a sense you are saying the same thing, only you want to add Judaism to the mix.

http://www.gotquestions.org/baptism-circumcis...
R-oman C-atholic SPROUL

Los Angeles, CA

#185 Jul 6, 2013
Mike Peterson wrote:
<quoted text>
The Vicar of Christ.
Aren't we all? Each and every disciple is a vicar of Christ. Then you acknowledge the Pope is just a man.

Since: Jun 11

Location hidden

#186 Jul 6, 2013
R-oman C-atholic SPROUL wrote:
<quoted text>Aren't we all? Each and every disciple is a vicar of Christ. Then you acknowledge the Pope is just a man.
And I acknowledge you are an idiot.
Mike Peterson

Jackson, MS

#187 Jul 6, 2013
R-oman C-atholic SPROUL wrote:
<quoted text>Aren't we all? Each and every disciple is a vicar of Christ. Then you acknowledge the Pope is just a man.
Just like Apostles were all men. The Pope is the successor of St Peter. He has the Keys.
R-oman C-atholic SPROUL

Los Angeles, CA

#188 Jul 6, 2013
This will explain the changes in the wording between Vatican I and Vatican II and the start of the usage of the word Vicar. As usual it involves deception and even here the Catholics will not state the Pope is a man or give their definition of Vicar. We are all Vicars if it means representative of Christ. If it means head of the church then the scriptures teach differently. They will not state their beliefs, clear denial and deception. Or in Protestant terms "dodgeball".
R-oman C-atholic SPROUL

Los Angeles, CA

#189 Jul 6, 2013
This was the link I forgot that explained the changes of Vatican I and Vatican II and Vicar usage.
http://www.oneplace.com/ministries/renewing-y...

Since: Jun 11

Location hidden

#190 Jul 6, 2013
R-oman C-atholic SPROUL wrote:
This will explain the changes in the wording between Vatican I and Vatican II and the start of the usage of the word Vicar. As usual it involves deception and even here the Catholics will not state the Pope is a man or give their definition of Vicar. We are all Vicars if it means representative of Christ. If it means head of the church then the scriptures teach differently. They will not state their beliefs, clear denial and deception. Or in Protestant terms "dodgeball".
You grow sillier by the day.
Mike Peterson

Jackson, MS

#191 Jul 6, 2013
Bobby wrote:
<quoted text>
Here is your problem Mike-it's baptismal regeneration. What you want to do is baptize babies with the idea that they are saved by water/h20 without any faith being involved. Catholicism believes there is original sin, I agree with you there. Original sin does not mean the baby has sinned, it means he was born into a fallen/corrupted world. Calvinism says that we are chosen by god and man/babies has no choice in the matter and that God will save them by his faith not theirs. In a sense you are saying the same thing, only you want to add Judaism to the mix.
http://www.gotquestions.org/baptism-circumcis...
Your belief to deny children the the Kingdom of the God is younger than the US has been a country.

I guess all of the Catholics and Protesters before 1800 were wrong and your are right.

It is heresy to prevent children from going to Jesus as he commanded.

From a Protestant website to prove how not baptizing infants is a new man made belief.

VII. Believer Baptism and Infant Baptism



The Campbells having been Presbyterians had known only infant baptism.
It was the universal practice among most Protestant denominations. For a long time the Campbells tried to avoid confrontations over infant baptism and immersion because Thomas thought religious unity was more important.



Alexander couldn’t ignore the subject any longer when he and his wife were expecting their first baby to be born to them. Before the baby’s arrival he ordered every available book favoring infant baptism. The more Alexander read, the more disappointed he became with his own justification of the practice. When he went straight to the source by studying the New Testament in the original Greek, he found only immersion and only believer baptism. Alexander was now firmly convinced.


They were not only going to be baptized by immersion, but in doing so they were rejecting infant baptism.

A large crowd gathered at Buffalo Creek at the announced time for this unusual occasion. Both Campbells felt compelled to explain their action and at the same time use the opportunity to try to convince others to make the same decision. Before they were baptized Thomas first spoke at length. Thomas admitted that he had overlooked the importance of baptism for too long in his quest for religious unity, but now he was forced by the Scripture to do what they were about to do. Alexander followed with another message on the matter. Their messages the baptisms lasted for
seven hours. Besides the two Campbell couples and Alexander’s sister one other couple joined them in being baptized. So a total of seven were baptized on that memorable day of June 4, 1812.
The following Sunday many of the listeners were baptized.



It is thought this was the first time on American soil for people to be baptized on the basis
of their confessed faith in Jesus Christ. When you read the “Declaration and Address” written in 1809 by Thomas Campbell, one might assume it was written by an immersed believer.
Yet it was three more years before Thomas rejected infant baptism and was baptized by immersion, and then only after being led to do so by his son Alexander.
R-oman C-atholic SPROUL

Los Angeles, CA

#192 Jul 6, 2013
MarkEden wrote:
<quoted text>
You grow sillier by the day.
Diversion by calling names but I do not see where you have refuted with facts a single thing I said. Is that a white flag I see waving?

Since: Jun 11

Location hidden

#193 Jul 6, 2013
The typical interior of a low end protestant church is displayed for all to see in this video. According to one of the commenters it is
Grace Life Community Church in Bristow, VA.

http://youtu.be/Dl29APBZu68

Since: Jun 11

Location hidden

#194 Jul 6, 2013
R-oman C-atholic SPROUL wrote:
<quoted text>Diversion by calling names but I do not see where you have refuted with facts a single thing I said. Is that a white flag I see waving?
If I'm waving a flag it's the yellow and white flag of Vatican City.
Mike Peterson

Jackson, MS

#195 Jul 6, 2013
MarkEden wrote:
The typical interior of a low end protestant church is displayed for all to see in this video. According to one of the commenters it is
Grace Life Community Church in Bristow, VA.
http://youtu.be/Dl29APBZu68
I would consider that Prot church in the medium range. They have banners and a cross.

Since: Jun 11

Location hidden

#196 Jul 6, 2013
Mike Peterson wrote:
<quoted text>
I would consider that Prot church in the medium range. They have banners and a cross.
Look a little closer...lots and lots of artifical flowers even ficus trees, drum set, garish lighting, gymnasium ambiance, big screens, piano and keyboard. All the major elements are there! And the name seals the deal.
Dave P

Lexington, KY

#197 Jul 6, 2013
Mike Peterson wrote:
<quoted text>
Simple but completely 100% wrong and invented by men in 1800.
To keep your own children from God is parental neglect as far I am concerned, when Jesus specifically says bring them to me.
The following is from a Protestant website.
The proper question therefore, is not where does Scripture explicitly teach infant baptism, but rather where does it reverse God's command to Abraham to administer the covenant sign and seal to children of believing parents. For two thousand years God's people had been applying the sign of God's covenant to the children of believers. Every faithful Jew understood circumcision to be a visible reminder that he was a part of the people of God. To fail to circumcise one's sons, would be to declare them to be cut off from God's people, grace and promises. To fail to circumcise one's children was unthinkable.
Some argue that because the new covenant is new children should no longer receive the sign of the covenant. It is true that changes attend the institution of the new covenant. Formerly the sign of admission was applied to males only. Now, males and females receive the sign of admission. These are changes which flow from the change from typical, promissory signs (circumcision) to signs of fulfillment (baptism). Thus, the change from circumcision to baptism was a change in circumstances, not substance.
To exclude the children of believing parents from the sign of admission to the visible covenant people or to say that God no longer wishes children to be considered a part of the visible community of God's people is no mere change in circumstance but rather a radical change in God's way of dealing with his people.
To change God's clear command to Abraham, one would expect a clear Word from God on the subject, but nowhere does God's Word tell believers to stop applying the sign of the covenant to their children. Since the new covenant Scriptures never tell us not to apply the covenant sign to our children, we have every reason to believe that the children of believers must receive the sign of entrance into the covenant people.
http://clark.wscal.edu/baptism.php
The problem really quickly is this- baptism is NOT the seal of the new covenant. Ephesians 1:13-14 tells us that the Holy Spirit is the sign or seal of the covenant.

The above is proof that the old catholic/mainline prot theology has never really moved past Judaism. Judaism revived=catholicism.
Dave P

Lexington, KY

#198 Jul 6, 2013
And the cavalry worries about whether a church is low, medium, or high end.

Since: Jun 11

Location hidden

#199 Jul 6, 2013
To my Topix friends...I have recently installed a new anti-virus program, Avast. Everytime I come back to this site Avast goes crazy with Malware Blocked and Threat Has Been Detected warnings. Doesn't happen anywhere else I go. Are our computers under attack here?
Bobby

Fort Worth, TX

#200 Jul 6, 2013
Mike Peterson wrote:
<quoted text>
Your belief to deny children the the Kingdom of the God is younger than the US has been a country.
I guess all of the Catholics and Protesters before 1800 were wrong and your are right.
It is heresy to prevent children from going to Jesus as he commanded.
From a Protestant website to prove how not baptizing infants is a new man made belief.
VII. Believer Baptism and Infant Baptism
The Campbells having been Presbyterians had known only infant baptism.
It was the universal practice among most Protestant denominations. For a long time the Campbells tried to avoid confrontations over infant baptism and immersion because Thomas thought religious unity was more important.
Alexander couldn’t ignore the subject any longer when he and his wife were expecting their first baby to be born to them. Before the baby’s arrival he ordered every available book favoring infant baptism. The more Alexander read, the more disappointed he became with his own justification of the practice. When he went straight to the source by studying the New Testament in the original Greek, he found only immersion and only believer baptism. Alexander was now firmly convinced.
They were not only going to be baptized by immersion, but in doing so they were rejecting infant baptism.
A large crowd gathered at Buffalo Creek at the announced time for this unusual occasion. Both Campbells felt compelled to explain their action and at the same time use the opportunity to try to convince others to make the same decision. Before they were baptized Thomas first spoke at length. Thomas admitted that he had overlooked the importance of baptism for too long in his quest for religious unity, but now he was forced by the Scripture to do what they were about to do. Alexander followed with another message on the matter. Their messages the baptisms lasted for
seven hours. Besides the two Campbell couples and Alexander’s sister one other couple joined them in being baptized. So a total of seven were baptized on that memorable day of June 4, 1812.
The following Sunday many of the listeners were baptized.
It is thought this was the first time on American soil for people to be baptized on the basis
of their confessed faith in Jesus Christ. When you read the “Declaration and Address” written in 1809 by Thomas Campbell, one might assume it was written by an immersed believer.
Yet it was three more years before Thomas rejected infant baptism and was baptized by immersion, and then only after being led to do so by his son Alexander.
You keep forgetting I am ex-coc and have little use for the Campbells. However the campbells were water baptized "immersed" by a baptist preacher name Mathais Luce.

My issue with baptizing babies is the belief that water saves them=baptismal regeneration. They are certainly unaware of it. No where does scripture say that we can do that or baptize for the dead, it takes the power from the cross and gives it human acts/works.
Dave P

Lexington, KY

#201 Jul 6, 2013
It is heresy to prevent children from going to Jesus as he commanded.

*In your infant baptism theory, children aren't going to Jesus. They have no idea who He is. You're taking them to get sprinkled because of YOUR faith in the magic water.

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Bassett Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
Identifing the Early Church 2 hr Bobby 394
THE BLOOD of JESUS CHRIST Dec 19 Chayei Olam 3
Catholics (Feb '14) Dec 17 Bobby 1,996
keith inman Dec 14 Salem Girl 1
Sola Scriptura (Jun '13) Dec 10 Mike_Peterson 157
Indictments issued Sep '14 shannonsmith 1
hottest girl (Jan '14) Sep '14 me fartwhistle 3
Bassett Dating
Find my Match
More from around the web

Bassett People Search

Addresses and phone numbers for FREE

Bassett News, Events & Info

Click for news, events and info in Bassett

Personal Finance

Mortgages [ See current mortgage rates ]

NFL Latest News

Updated 9:22 pm PST