#385 Sep 5, 2013
Taking this literally is trouble.
I would also say that those outside the city are in torment. Not in some state of in between paradise and punishment.
#386 Sep 5, 2013
And here I thought He said:
Again, the kingdom of heaven is like a dragnet that was cast into the sea and gathered some of every kind, which, when it was full, they drew to shore; and they sat down and gathered the good into vessels, but threw the bad away. So it will be at the end of the age. The angels will come forth, separate the wicked from among the just, and cast them into the furnace of fire. There will be wailing and gnashing of teeth."
Revelation 22:14; "Blessed are those who do His commandments, that they may have the right to the tree of life, and may enter through the gates into the city."
22:2 is one verse I don't have as much understanding of as others... so I'll just say I'm sure whatever it actually means is fine with me. Not one to contend for at this time anyway.
#387 Sep 5, 2013
Well, let's not forget that big condition of 'repent' before forgiveness.
#388 Sep 5, 2013
(just a reminder for Bobby;-)
#389 Sep 5, 2013
Could be. I certainly don't know it all!
#390 Sep 5, 2013
Except for original sin. An infant has committed no sin. The child only has the stain of original sin and baptism washes that away.
In a few weeks, we will have another Christian added to the Church. A new granddaughter.
Like Joshua said "As for me and my household, we will serve the LORD."
Infants are part of a household.
#391 Sep 5, 2013
Jesus taught from the Torah, Psalms and Prophets. Looking through the Torah, particularly Leviticus, which gets into a lot of detail on what God considers sin - I didn't see that one is defiled before they do something condemned or are declared unclean for touching a leper or something. There are the laws about female matters, but time seems to be the period of uncleanness - not that they are declared unclean forever. All the sins lists are pretty detailed and I didn't see where they included being born as something to be repented of;-)
There is the one passage about 'in sin did my mother conceive me' from David in Psalms, but where do we find a universal teaching that all men are born sinners? So far as an example of what age God would condemn someone for knowing better - an age of accountability to Him, the example of most of Israel not having the faith to do what He said to take the land of Caanan, the age specified was 20 years and older, wasn't it? Is this addressed elsewhere with different parameters?
The only 'harm' I can see with the Catholic position is they don't also call for immersion into the Name once they are old enough to believe in the Lord from their heart and want to set into the next level of faith beyond being born. I don't want to sound brash, but it just makes sense to me. We have no info on the ages of the converts families where they and their whole household are baptized - but is that a statement of everyone in the house believing? There is nothing recorded to say otherwise.
#392 Sep 6, 2013
Agree with BW here. The danger of the catholic position I see is the lack of a "born again experience" for those born into catholicism. They grow up never knowing they were lost, never realizing why they need a Savior.
The OT does provide evidence of an "age of accountability" as does Romans.
#393 Sep 6, 2013
My granddaughter was born physically into this world last week. In a few weeks she will be born again just like Jesus told Nicodemus.
You are talking about some made up emotional experience by Protestants in which the preacher gets everybody gets worked up and if you don't respond to the call, you are going to hell.
I tell you the most emotional experience you will see when a new member of the Church receives the body and blood of Jesus Christ for the first time. There is no more personal relationship you can have with Jesus.
Jesus said to them,“Amen, amen, I say to you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you do not have life within you.
Whoever eats* my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise him on the last day.
For my flesh is true food, and my blood is true drink.
Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood remains in me and I in him.
Just as the living Father sent me and I have life because of the Father, so also the one who feeds on me will have life because of me.b
This is the bread that came down from heaven. Unlike your ancestors who ate and still died, whoever eats this bread will live forever.”
For those who want to reply it is a symbol. How do you profane a symbol? How do you eat Ritz crackers unworthily?
For as often as you eat this bread and drink the cup, you proclaim the death of the Lord until he comes.
Therefore whoever eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord unworthily will have to answer for the body and blood of the Lord. 12
#394 Sep 6, 2013
Will the new born know about repentance and faith in Jesus? As Paul warned the Galatians, you are preaching another Gospel. Your Church is false and man-made. Babies cannot obey Mark 16:16 nor can they heed Peters words “repent” and baptized. Pouring water over them is something invented by your false Church.
#395 Sep 6, 2013
The Roman Catholic church admits baptism by immersion was practiced till 1311 AD:
"Baptism took place by immersion in ancient times." (New Interpretation of the Mass, p. 120).
"Catholics admit that immersion brings out more fully the meaning of the sacrament, and that for twelve centuries it was the common practice." (Question Box, p. 240).
"Baptism used to be given by placing the person to be baptized completely in the water: it was done in this way in the Catholic Church for 1200 years." (Adult Catechism, pp. 56-57).
"The church at one time practiced immersion. This was up to the thirteenth century. The Council of Ravenna, in 1311, changed the form from immersion to pouring." (Our Faith and the Facts, p. 399).
If not sad, this would be funny. You wait till 1311 AD and “decide” to change the mode of Baptism yet call yourself the true Church. If immersion was “correct” then why change it? You guys are a walking contradiction
#396 Sep 6, 2013
This is just too funny. You have been shut down with fact after fact and your best is to twist my words. You did not come up with Scripture, God did. The letters were in Churches long before a they were put together. You know what is even more funnier. You cannot go to any of the bible and find your beliefs. I gave a long list that Mark glossed over. Mark misses the entire point and has the Church as a building of brick and clay. You guys can bring all of the history you want – guess what. There is just as much history to prove you wrong. Leave the harlot alone, she has corrupted the church of Christ.
#397 Sep 6, 2013
Even high end Prots believe this. Your belief started in 1800.
She is not a convert. She has nothing to repent of.
Whole households were baptized. Except for infants? Nope.
Let the children come to me.
The promise is to you and your children.
Catholic children are Christians. We don't keep them pagans like low end Prots.
#398 Sep 6, 2013
Tell me exactly how God came up with scripture. Only Revelation refers to God being the source.
Sure the scriptures were in Churches. Hundreds of scriptures. If that is your standard for being in the Bible, we are short a whole bunch of them.
Tell me what man represented your COC at the Council of Rome?
#399 Sep 7, 2013
"Man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word that proceeds from the mouth of God."
Can you open your Bible and find where God said something? Evidently Jesus did.
#400 Jan 6, 2014
The problem is in the translation. God (Elohim) is also translated Angel. Paul was correct and you are mistaken.
#401 Jan 7, 2014
It's been a long time since I saw the title "Elohim". This is what the hebrew language call he that is. Written by Moses himself.
#402 Jan 8, 2014
I think you'd best look beyond the Greek. Paul was wrong.
"The Complete Jewish Bible" has Exodus 20 saying:
Then God said all these words:
"I am Adonai your God, who brought you out of the land of Egypt, out of the abode of slavery."
Other places He identifies Himself as singular - not plural. Secondly, the angels in Revelation say to not worship them, but they are fellow servants of God, as are we who are men, and that worship belongs to God alone.
Paul was dead wrong. Paul a Hebrew scholar? More likely a liar.
#403 Jan 9, 2014
"Paul was dead wrong. Paul a Hebrew scholar? More likely a liar."
Then that would make Luke and Peter liars as well. Are you sure that you want to throw them under the bus too?
#404 Jan 9, 2014
Hebrews was also wrong, yes. But at least the author of Hebrews doesn't throw out the commandments of God - that I've seen. I've been wrong on it too, as there was a time I sided with the NT account until looking into things deeper, not realizing the depravity of the matter at the time. Finding out the truth of the matter has caused me to repent of false doctrines taught by Paul and others who sided with errors. As I find errors in what I was taught, there isn't much lingering to repent to the truth of God.
So far I think Luke has definite errors, and I've found Matthew and John to be adequate. Can you think of a matter that would cause Luke be necessary? If so, I'd like to know of it. The matter of his saying Jesus told them they had to hate family VS MT. saying not to love family more - is a marked difference. Another is in the sermon on the mount - Luke says we have to do something with what He taught - and Matthew says we have to take it all. Again, this is a marked difference. Matthews account matches the doctrinal need of where Peter quoted Moses in Acts 3, where Luke's account would bring it into question of how much can we reject and still be acceptable...?
And II Peter is likely and addition and not actually written by Peter. What does II Peter add to the faith not already there, other than to say Paul is a wise guy;-) Even at that, it doesn't call him an apostle either....
Add your comments below
|Lynne rosetto||8 hr||Pajournal||1|
|Catholics (Feb '14)||Mon||Mike_Peterson||3,159|
|Shawn Paden, is Johnny Robertson a false teache... (Apr '15)||Nov 23||William||163|
|AD 70 Doctrine Easily Refuted (May '15)||Oct 31||Mike_Peterson||173|
|last post wins! (Sep '12)||Oct '15||Leonhart||3|
|Roark Mocks Tony Jones in a SNL Style Parody (Jun '13)||Oct '15||ladygirl12||2|
|Review: S & T Towing And Recovery (Oct '14)||Oct '15||pissed off custoner||2|
Find what you want!
Search Martinsville Forum Now
Copyright © 2015 Topix LLC