When do you think the Church got corrupted?

Wrong.
Now read church history for the first time: i.e. what it says, not what you would rather it said.

You do not have a new testament canon but for church decisions. Not just what is in it, but what was left out. So either those who chose it and wrote such as the creed, were inspired, or ithe New Testament is not inspired - and they believed much as Catholics do, including such as intercession of Mary.

And that too is a fact.

So Accept church authority and doctrine , or lose the New Testament and creed, (and church decisions on many heresies such as Arianism or Gnosticism ) take your pick, accept the true church or no New Testament - the horns of an impossible dilemma for reformationists.

If you disregard church authority, you have no basis to reject all the heresies such as modalism either, and many other books that claimed apostolic origin,

You are hijacking this persons thread with anticatholic sentiment, so this is my last post on it. I didn't even raise Catholicism, only the undeniable history of early church, as documented by many including iranaeus.

In that context - I stated rightly that the "bad guys" often nominated by some as apostasizing the church, like Constantine - simply do not stack up in history, and that too is a fact.

PeaceByJesus said:

And your argument is that you must accept this tradition and thus on that basis you also conclude that then we must "stay true to tradtion we taught you" as in whatever else Rome sanctions, which fallacy I addressed and your ignored in order to simply reiterate your fallacy. Which refutation is that, besides the names of the unnamed writers not being essential (and many RCs disagree on who the unnamed writer of Hebrews was), based upon your logic 1st century souls should have submitted to the Jews and its magisterium.

For they did occupy the seat of Moses over Israel, (Mt. 23:2) who were the historical instruments and stewards of Scripture, "because that unto them were committed the oracles of God," (Rm. 3:2) to whom pertaineth" the adoption, and the glory, and the covenants, and the giving of the law, and the service of God, and the promises" (Rm. 9:4) of Divine guidance, presence and perpetuation as they believed, (Gn. 12:2,3; 17:4,7,8; Ex. 19:5; Lv. 10:11; Dt. 4:31; 17:8-13; Ps, 11:4,9; Is. 41:10, Ps. 89:33,34; Jer. 7:23)

Yet the church actually began in dissent from them, and instead they followed an itinerant Preacher and preachers, whom the magisterium rejected, and whom the Messiah reproved them Scripture as being supreme, (Mk. 7:2-16) and established His Truth claims upon scriptural substantiation in word and in power, as did the early church as it began upon this basis. (Mt. 22:23-45; Lk. 24:27,44; Jn. 5:36,39; Acts 2:14-35; 4:33; 5:12; 15:6-21;17:2,11; 18:28; 28:23; Rm. 15:19; 2Cor. 12:12, etc.)

Which is another fallacy, that of the Catholic belief that one cannot discover the contents of Scripture and discern the difference apart from her, even faith in her.

However, long before an autocratic church presumed this, common souls assuredly ascertained both men and writings of God as being so. And so by the time of Christ a canon of authoritative writings has been established. Which is why the itinerant Preacher and preachers of the "sect of the Nazarenes" could so abundantly invoke them.

Therefore contrary to how the NT church began, then a said, consistent to your logic 1st century century souls should have submitted to the Jews and its magisterium who passed traditions and Scripture onto others. Which means you have effectively nuked the NT church.

If they do say so themselves. Which includes the tradition that whatever they say is tradition/the word of God, is so. For Rome has presumed to infallibly declare she is and will be perpetually infallible whenever she speaks in accordance with her infallibly defined (scope and subject-based) formula, which renders her declaration that she is infallible, to be infallible, as well as all else she accordingly declares.

However, the premise of ensured perpetual magisterial infallibility as per Rome is novel and unScriptural, never being essential to provide Truth or preserve it or faith. Instead, God actually often raised up wholly inspired men from without it in correction, and to provide Truth and help preserve faith. Which is why the church was built upon apostles and prophets, not the valid historical magisterium, who they opposed. (All valid authority has a claim for submission, but it is always conditional apart from God, and never is to require implicit obedience as Rome presumes.)

Then you should read what this means in the light of the the only wholly inspired substantive authoritative record of what the NT church believed, including how they understood the OT and gospels, which is Scripture, especially Acts thru Revelation.

In which Catholic distinctives are not manifest , and the power to "bind and loose" spiritually applied to all believers of fervent holy faith, apart from judicial judgments in union with them, but flowed from the OT magisterium.

Click to expand...

Well everyone, looking over this lengthy thread, we have a multitude of answers from which you can choose.

(1) No date, as the Church has never been corrupted.
(2) (About 50 AD) Some say that Paul taught things that were contrary to Jesus' teachings.
(3) 135 AD, when the final separation took place between Church and synagogue.
(4) (About 306), when Constantine became Emperor.
(5) 325, when the Council of Nicea banned Jewish Christians from attending.
(6) 1054, the date that the Eastern Orthodox and Catholics excommunicated each other.
(7) 1517, the date when Luther broke away and when most say that the Reformation began.

However, since we are on this discussion, I believe that a few other dates need to be considered.

(8) 1098, when Pope Urban called for the first Crusade.
(9) 1184, the date that the first Inquisition began.
(10) 1252, the date that Pope Innocent IV issued a Papal Bull which authorized the use of torture to secure confessions from heretics, under the control of the Holy Office of the Inquisition, aka the Holy Inquisition.
(11) 1618, the date that the Thirty Years War began in Central Europe, when Protestants and Catholics killed each other in war for 30 years.
(12) 1965, the date that the Vatican II Council ended. For some Ultra Traditional Catholics, they believe that this Council issued some decrees which were not in accord with the teachings of previous Popes and Early Church Fathers. Some also blame Vatican II for a decline in the number of priests and nuns, lower Mass attendance, the sex abuse crisis, etc.

I am personally torn as I look over this long list, as one can make a case for pretty much every one of the dates listed, if you try hard enough anyway. However, if I had to pick just one which stands out above the crowd, I would choose 1252, as it seems to me that the authorization and use of torture from the mid 1200's to the early 1800's (when a school teacher was the last person put to death by the Holy Inquisition in Spain), surely corrupted the heart and soul of Christianity, when one compares torture to what Jesus taught in the Gospels.

The one I would contest of those is the date of convenience of orthodox schism. The reality of some dissent was earlier, actual schism later, and part of that problem was difference in language and isolation. 14th century orthodox writings exist in which those who studied the Latin writings said there were no great differences, and what their were were accentuated for political reason, as was the culture of antipathy. Orthodox who dared read Latin writings to explore differences were insulted and shunned such was the temperature of those times,

Arguably the sack of Constantinople in the fourth crusade did much to fuel simmering tensions between Roman and eastern churches, and inflamed the rhetoric between them.

The difficulty some orthodox churches had / have is they were bound to the views of local rulers who deemed what was acceptable, and fomented arguments against the Roman church for political reason,

It is not as black and white as later revisionist and reductionist history now makes it seem, and the ecumenical dialogue of such asKallistos Ware anticipates ultimate reunion. Seemingly unbridgeable matters of theology he states can be reconciled - for example viewing purgatory as less of a prison and more of a hospital.

It is also true that on some matters we cannot know for certain, the Catholic Church embraces alternative views. Such as accepting either thomist or molinist views of predestination, telling both groups they can dissent provided they do it in a Christian way! and that may go some way to bridging points of non critical difference, between us and orthodox.

Basil the Great said:

Well everyone, looking over this lengthy thread, we have a multitude of answers from which you can choose.

(1) No date, as the Church has never been corrupted.
(2) (About 50 AD) Some say that Paul taught things that were contrary to Jesus' teachings.
(3) 135 AD, when the final separation took place between Church and synagogue.
(4) (About 306), when Constantine became Emperor.
(5) 325, when the Council of Nicea banned Jewish Christians from attending.
(6) 1054, the date that the Eastern Orthodox and Catholics excommunicated each other.
(7) 1517, the date when Luther broke away and when most say that the Reformation began.

However, since we are on this discussion, I believe that a few other dates need to be considered.

(8) 1098, when Pope Urban called for the first Crusade.
(9) 1184, the date that the first Inquisition began.
(10) 1252, the date that Pope Innocent IV issued a Papal Bull which authorized the use of torture to secure confessions from heretics.
(11) 1618, the date that the Thirty Years War began in Central Europe, when Protestants and Catholics killed each other in war for 30 years.
(12) 1965, the date that the Vatican II Council ended. For some Ultra Traditional Catholics, they believe that this Council issued some decrees which were not in accord with the teachings of previous Popes and Early Church Fathers.

I am personally torn as I look over this long list, as one can make a case for pretty much every one of the dates listed, if you try hard enough anyway. However, if I had to pick just one which stands out above the crowd, I would choose 1252, as it seems to me that the authorization and use of torture from the mid 1200's to the early 1800's (when a school teacher was the last person put to death by the Holy Inquisition in Spain), surely corrupted the heart and soul of Christianity, when one compares torture to what Jesus taught in the Gospels.

Click to expand...

truefiction1 said:

But it does. Because it instructs that all believers are to be baptized, and all infants believe God:

At that time the disciples came to Jesus and asked, “Who then is the greatest in the kingdom of heaven?”

Jesus called a little child to stand among them. “Truly I tell you,” He said, “unless you change and become like little children, you will never enter the kingdom of heaven. Therefore, whoever humbles himself like this little child is the greatest in the kingdom of heaven. And whoever welcomes a little child like this in My name welcomes Me.

But if anyone causes one of these little ones who believe in Me to stumble, it would be better for him to have a large millstone hung around his neck and to be drowned in the depths of the sea."

Click to expand...

“Among whom also we all had our conversation in times past in the lusts of our flesh, fulfilling the desires of the flesh and of the mind; and were by nature the children of wrath, even as others.” (Ephesians 2:3)

Mountainmike said:

Wrong.
Now read church history for the first time: i.e. what it says, not what you would rather it said.

You do not have a new testament canon but for church decisions. Not just what is in it, but what was left out. So either those who chose it and wrote such as the creed, were inspired, or ithe New Testament is not inspired - and they believed much as Catholics do, including such as intercession of Mary.

And that too is a fact.

So Accept church authority and doctrine , or lose the New Testament and creed, (and church decisions on many heresies such as Arianism or Gnosticism ) take your pick, accept the true church or no New Testament - the horns of an impossible dilemma for reformationists..

You are hijacking this persons thread with anticatholic sentiment, so this is my last post on it. I didn't even raise Catholicism, only the undeniable history of early church, as documented by many including iranaeus.[/COLOR] [/i][/FONT]

Click to expand...

Which response reiterates the very same fallacious premise that was just soundly refuted, as well as going beyond what even Catholicism teaches! Again, if we must assent to the magisterial authorities on what is of God, whose judgments are binding, then 1st century souls should indeed have submitted to those who sat in the seat of Moses, dissent from whom was a capital offense, (Deuteronomy 17:8-13) and who clearly implicitly affirmed the established body of inspired writings that Jesus of Nazareth and men as Paul often appealed to them with. (John 5:39; Acts 28:23)

And you are indeed arguing for RC authority and doctrine, Rome being the elephant in the room, unless you mean your EO competition which rejects some substantial beliefs of R. Catholicism as not being of Tradition. And R. Catholicism does not hold that even infallible papal or conciliar pronouncement are wholly inspired of God as Scripture is. And as men like the apostles could be in preaching valid Tradition, and also provide new public revelation thereby, which Rome also does not claim to do.

Inspiration signifies a special positive Divine influence and assistance by reason of which the human agent is not merely preserved from liability to error but is so guided and controlled that what he says or writes is truly the word of God, that God Himself is the principal author of the inspired utterance; but infallibility merely implies exemption from liability to error. God is not the author of a merely infallible, as He is of an inspired, utterance; the former remains a merely human document...not that either the pope or the Fathers of the Council are inspired as were the writers of the Bible or that any new revelation is embodied in their teaching. CATHOLIC ENCYCLOPEDIA: Infallibility

If you disregard church authority, you have no basis to reject all the heresies such as modalism either, and many other books that claimed apostolic origin,

Click to expand...

Which is absurd. On what infallible authority did noble OT souls sometimes reject the judgment of their leadership and follow prophets who reproved them, including John the baptist? Your attitude is akin to those who sat in the seat of Moses, "Have any of the rulers or of the Pharisees believed on him? But this people who knoweth not the law are cursed." (John 7:48-49) And demanding of (what was to them) an itinerant Preacher, "By what authority doest thou these things? and who gave thee this authority to do these things?," (Mark 11:28) only to be faced with the question of the authority of another itinerant preacher,
The baptism of John, was it from heaven, or of men? answer me. (Mark 11:30)
Talk about the horns of an impossible dilemma.

And rather than being wholly dependent on magisterial leadership to discern btwn "him that serveth God and him that serveth Him not," (Malachi 3:18) while magisterial judgment is Scriptural (and upheld in the Westminster Confession as synods, etc., but not as above Scripture and possessing ensured infallibility), we have the words of Christ to grown in maturity in character and doctrine, and "strong meat belongeth to them that are of full age, even those who by reason of use have their senses exercised to discern both good and evil." (Hebrews 5:14)

Thus believers are told to discern, as in "prove all things," (1 Thessalonians 5:21) to "try the spirits whether they are of God: because many false prophets are gone out into the world." (1 John 4:1) "But he that is spiritual judgeth all things, yet he himself is judged of no man." (1 Corinthians 2:15) But are "not to think of men above that which is written," (1 Corinthians 4:6) which includes the novel and unScriptural premise of ensured perpetual magisterial infallibility as per Rome (and basically in primary cults).

And that souls can even discern if they are of saving faith and presently posses eternal life. "These things have I written unto you that believe on the name of the Son of God; that ye may know that ye have eternal life, and that ye may believe on the name of the Son of God." (1 John 5:13)

And thus while liberal churches have a lower esteem of Scripture, those who most strongly affirm its integrity as the accurate and wholly inspired of God, and its literal understanding of historical accounts (unlike so much of RC scholarship ), are those who strongly contend for the core beliefs shared with Catholicism. And such attest to stronger unity in basic conservative beliefs then Catholics.

Meanwhile, the words of your interpreter, the magisterium, are themselves subject to the need for an interpreter, and rather than solving the problem of division, their interpretation has fostered it.

As one poster wryly stated,

The last time the church imposed its judgment in an authoritative manner on "areas of legitimate disagreement," the conservative Catholics became the Sedevacantists and the Society of St. Pius X, the moderate Catholics became the conservatives, the liberal Catholics became the moderates, and the folks who were excommunicated, silenced, refused Catholic burial, etc. became the liberals. The event that brought this shift was Vatican II; conservatives then couldn't handle having to actually obey the church on matters they were uncomfortable with, so they left. ” Nathan, Against The Grain

truefiction1 said:

There isn't anything being read into Christ's words that isn't in fact contained within them. You're choosing to overlook the fact that Christ Himself, by these very words about children, testified of the existence of the presence of the virtue of humility in the young children. If the children are humble, and we know that Jesus does not lie, then they are believers, because the Kingdom of Heaven belongs to the "poor in spirit" (that is, the truly humble).

Click to expand...

Which is simply a false correlation, for being humble is a quality that means one is not prideful, thinking of oneself above what he is, which goes along with honesty, but which does not equate to having chosen to believe.

This is the truth: They don't need to comprehend Who they need to believe in, because God is incomprehensible to all anyhow.

Click to expand...

Which makes a mockery of Scripture, since it speaks of coming to know God by faith, which comes by hearing, and of two distinct states, of not knowing God and then of knowing Him by faith in the gospel.

Now Samuel did not yet know the Lord, neither was the word of the Lord yet revealed unto him. (1 Samuel 3:7)

Then shall we know, if we follow on to know the Lord...(Hosea 6:3)

Knowing God occurs when we become, by grace, what God is by nature.
It is not about intellectual comprehension, it is about becoming.

Click to expand...

Which is a false either/or dichotomy. One does not come to know the Lord while he is comatose, but by being given revelation from God and choosing, by the grace of God, to believe the author of it. This could happen even in the womb by a special work of grace, but that is not a norm.

And when there had been much disputing, Peter rose up, and said unto them, Men and brethren, ye know how that a good while ago God made choice among us, that the Gentiles by my mouth should hear the word of the gospel, and believe. (Acts 15:7)

But these are written, that ye might believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God; and that believing ye might have life through his name. (John 20:31)

God is humble. The Child is humble. The child knows God in the child's very own being, and the child believes, without question.

Click to expand...

Which is also a false syllogism. Sharing a communicable attribute that God has simply does not mean one believes and knows God. Cornelius was a humble man, "A devout man, and one that feared God with all his house, which gave much alms to the people, and prayed to God alway." (Acts 10:2) And he shewed us how he had seen an angel in his house, which stood and said unto him, Send men to Joppa, and call for Simon, whose surname is Peter; Who shall tell thee words, whereby thou and all thy house shall be saved. (Acts 11:13-14)

There may not be anything that opposes faith in a little child, and little children are more disposed to believe in Christ, but that was also the case with Cornelius, but faith which comes by hearing the word of God, was required.

However, since the child is innocent, "before the child shall know to refuse the evil, and choose the good," (Isaiah 7:16) I see no reason what they must believe and find redemption thereby and be baptized.

It is not Scripture that forbids the baptism of infants. It is misguided grown ups, lacking in poverty of spirit and therefor the knowledge of God, who do this.

Click to expand...

It is not Scripture that forbids the baptism of cats and dogs or your Toyota either. But in Scripture repentant faith is the required precondition for baptism, (Acts 2:38; Acts 8:36,37) and nowhere are the subjects of baptism described as those who could not hear the word of God, while in any substantial description of baptism aside from a mere mention of it then it is always human believers. Such as,

But when they believed Philip preaching the things concerning the kingdom of God, and the name of Jesus Christ, they were baptized, both men and women. (Acts 8:12)

It seems that whenever the church becomes too powerful and/or gets in bed with the state/country/ government, it becomes corrupt. The church is not meant to be a political entity.

David Cabrera said:

I used to think only Muslims and Mormons thought that but I realized some Christians have this idea. Even I used to think the reason for the Reformation was that the Church became corrupted. So I want to know the date and reason that damaged the Church.

Click to expand...

Book of acts.

Dave L said:

“Among whom also we all had our conversation in times past in the lusts of our flesh, fulfilling the desires of the flesh and of the mind; and were by nature the children of wrath, even as others.” (Ephesians 2:3)

Click to expand...

The whole Gospel of Luke, Chapter One, is utterly discarded, or else forgotten about, in order for you to presume to imply that "children of wrath" children as spoken of by Christ when he says "suffer the little children to come unto me". God does not forbid little children coming to believe in Him, even from within the womb, where they can be filled with the Holy Spirit. If God does not, how shall I dare to? I will not.

That is all.

PeaceByJesus said:

Which is simply a false correlation, for being humble is a quality that means one is not prideful, thinking of oneself above what he is, which goes along with honesty, but which does not equate to having chosen to believe.

Which makes a mockery of Scripture, since it speaks of coming to know God by faith, which comes by hearing, and of two distinct states, of not knowing God and then of knowing Him by faith in the gospel.

Now Samuel did not yet know the Lord, neither was the word of the Lord yet revealed unto him. (1 Samuel 3:7)

Then shall we know, if we follow on to know the Lord...(Hosea 6:3)

Which is a false either/or dichotomy. One does not come to know the Lord while he is comatose, but by being given revelation from God and choosing, by the grace of God, to believe the author of it. This could happen even in the womb by a special work of grace, but that is not a norm.

And when there had been much disputing, Peter rose up, and said unto them, Men and brethren, ye know how that a good while ago God made choice among us, that the Gentiles by my mouth should hear the word of the gospel, and believe. (Acts 15:7)

But these are written, that ye might believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God; and that believing ye might have life through his name. (John 20:31)

Which is also a false syllogism. Sharing a communicable attribute that God has simply does not mean one believes and knows God. Cornelius was a humble man, "A devout man, and one that feared God with all his house, which gave much alms to the people, and prayed to God alway." (Acts 10:2) And he shewed us how he had seen an angel in his house, which stood and said unto him, Send men to Joppa, and call for Simon, whose surname is Peter; Who shall tell thee words, whereby thou and all thy house shall be saved. (Acts 11:13-14)

There may not be anything that opposes faith in a little child, and little children are more disposed to believe in Christ, but that was also the case with Cornelius, but faith which comes by hearing the word of God, was required.

However, since the child is innocent, "before the child shall know to refuse the evil, and choose the good," (Isaiah 7:16) I see no reason what they must believe and find redemption thereby and be baptized.

It is not Scripture that forbids the baptism of cats and dogs or your Toyota either. But in Scripture repentant faith is the required precondition for baptism, (Acts 2:38; Acts 8:36,37) and nowhere are the subjects of baptism described as those who could not hear the word of God, while in any substantial description of baptism aside from a mere mention of it then it is always human believers. Such as,

But when they believed Philip preaching the things concerning the kingdom of God, and the name of Jesus Christ, they were baptized, both men and women. (Acts 8:12)

Click to expand...

The whole Gospel of Luke, Chapter One, is utterly discarded, or else forgotten about, in order for you to presume to imply from your above quoted Scriptural passages, that children cannot hear the word of God, believe, and keep it. God does not forbid little children coming to believe in Him, even from within the womb, where they can be filled with the Holy Spirit. If God does not, how shall I dare to? I will not.

That is all.

truefiction1 said:

The whole Gospel of Luke, Chapter One, is utterly discarded, or else forgotten about, in order for you to presume to imply that "children of wrath" children as spoken of by Christ when he says "suffer the little children to come unto me". God does not forbid little children coming to believe in Him, even from within the womb, where they can be filled with the Holy Spirit. If God does not, how shall I dare to? I will not.

That is all.

Click to expand...

John the Baptist was filled with the Spirit from the womb. But this does not mean all are. What about God's stern warning in the Ten Commandments?

“Keeping mercy for thousands, forgiving iniquity and transgression and sin, and that will by no means clear the guilty; visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children, and upon the children’s children, unto the third and to the fourth generation.” (Exodus 34:7)

Plus, scripture does not mention infant baptism or baptismal regeneration anywhere....

Dave L said:

John the Baptist was filled with the Spirit from the womb. But this does not mean all are. What about God's stern warning in the Ten Commandments?

“Keeping mercy for thousands, forgiving iniquity and transgression and sin, and that will by no means clear the guilty; visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children, and upon the children’s children, unto the third and to the fourth generation.” (Exodus 34:7)

Plus, scripture does not mention infant baptism or baptismal regeneration anywhere....

Click to expand...

The Holy Spirit blows wherever He does. God is doing things and who are we to ever know who is being touched by God withing their mother's wombs, if perhaps not all? I suggest that we do not know and cannot know, because God's Ways are higher, too much by far, than our ways, for us to understand.

I do know this, however: Scripture does not forbid infant baptism. I also know that vast numbers of Christians who received Baptism in the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, as infants, grew in knowledge of the Word and in the Holy Spirit, gave the whole of themselves and their lives to their Lord, Jesus Christ, and in many instances, even gave up their lives in the world as God's holy martyrs, in their Love for God and His Kingdom.

Therefor, since all the evidence of Scripture and in the history of the saints does not teach that infant Baptism is not of God. I don't see any point in discussing this matter further.

David Cabrera said:

It mentions "baptism now saves you" (1 Peter 3:21).

Click to expand...

“And this prefigured baptism, which now saves you—not the washing off of physical dirt but the pledge of a good conscience to God—through the resurrection of Jesus Christ,” (1 Peter 3:21)

truefiction1 said:

The Holy Spirit blows wherever He does. God is doing things and who are we to ever know who is being touched by God withing their mother's wombs, if perhaps not all? I suggest that we do not know and cannot know, because God's Ways are higher, too much by far, than our ways, for us to understand.

I do know this, however: Scripture does not forbid infant baptism. I also know that vast numbers of Christians who received Baptism in the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, as infants, grew in knowledge of the Word and in the Holy Spirit, gave the whole of themselves and their lives to their Lord, Jesus Christ, and in many instances, even gave up their lives in the world as God's holy martyrs, in their Love for God and His Kingdom.

Therefor, since all the evidence of Scripture and in the history of the saints does not teach that infant Baptism is not of God. I don't see any point in discussing this matter further.

Click to expand...

Scripture does not forbid lots of things. That doesn't mean it promotes all it does not forbid.

according to Paul from the beginning it was always fighting off corruption for all the warning of false prophets false doctrines and false gospels. The church fell into absolute corruption once all power was consolidated under one man.

The church was never intended to be lead by man. Christ was always the head of the church. We are meant to have direct contact with God. Not filtered exposure through priests and ceremony. We have sold our birth right for a bowl of lentil soup.

To get it back we must abandon what the holy Spirit has long ago abandoned and seek the Spirit on our own (or with like minded believers.)

Sure we will get alot wrong, but our hearts will finally be in the right place belonging to the right God.

You ask "Church"... are we talking about groups? Like you mentioned Mormons and Muslims? Whats the CHURCH to you mean? As if were driving and some got off the main road yet.. He is still going strong. "became corrupted" it has not.

When did you become corrupted? You/I are the Church. I think some would like to believe when some disagreement pops up that some how ..using your word.. corrupts the whole. Christ the way the truth and the life is being preached. What HE has started He will finish. No matter what was said who was there how they did it.. those words letters are now a book. It was how HE wanted it. We still look at flesh. Where we KNOW flesh is weak and will always fail yet.. He again proves ALL things are possible to them that believe.

I understand whats being asked yet..whats corrupt? Are we talking about some we do not agree with or do you some how believe the whole CHRUCH has somehow lost its way and ALL are corrupt? That would be a false statement

Maybe you me got off the main road and can't see it. So now the MAIN road is in our eyes is corrupt. Its a body..we focus on the one or two camps yet He does not. He is the vine we are the branches. Some maybe bright green others lite brown others dying. Yet HE is the vine we are the branches. What was started in homes is still today going strong. Some still do this meet in homes. Some go to a building. So raise there hands some don't some practice the gifts some do not. Yet YESHUA that came in the flesh died on the cross rose the 3rd day is being preached as the only way truth and life.

Its HUGE! See the Church through HIS eyes not flesh. I know I took a way some would not and would rather talk about a date and time and maybe the SUN worshipers blah blah blah.. He turns ALL of this for HIS glory. You have His words.. the Church is alive and well.

truefiction1 said:

The whole Gospel of Luke, Chapter One, is utterly discarded, or else forgotten about, in order for you to presume to imply from your above quoted Scriptural passages, that children cannot hear the word of God, believe, and keep it. God does not forbid little children coming to believe in Him, even from within the womb, where they can be filled with the Holy Spirit. If God does not, how shall I dare to? I will not.
That is all.

Click to expand...

Nothing is being ignored except some of what I say, and the problem is your reading into the text what you can only wish was there, and thus resorting to engaging in special pleading, as well as a logically fallacy. For the fact that God could do something or once did simply does not establish that He did do something that you want to claim.

God could have enabled Phillip to always travel supernaturally, but that is not the norm, and God characteristically reveals exceptions to the norm. And thus as said and ignored, "One does not come to know the Lord while he is comatose, by being given revelation from God and choosing, by the grace of God, to believe the author of it. This could happen even in the womb by a special work of grace, but that is not a norm."

And God not forbiding little children coming to believe in Him simply does not equate to baptizing them, which is not how Christ received children in the text, nor how they must come to Him as innocents.

Requiring them to be baptized is actually hindering children from coming to Christ, for your argument actually has Christ welcoming children in their innocence but then turning the same away if they were not baptized as infants.

And again, which exception to the norm the Holy Spirit nowhere actually described, despite the sppd cardinal importance so that children can come to Christ.

Of course, even adults can become born again by heart-purifying faith before baptism.

Dave L said:

Scripture does not forbid lots of things. That doesn't mean it promotes all it does not forbid.

Click to expand...

Except in Catholic tradition, unless Scripture does not forbid something then it might be said to be of God. With the Catholic thinking of their (not that of Scripture) Mary far far far far above that which is written being an example.

PeaceByJesus said:

Except in Catholic tradition, unless Scripture does not forbid something then it might be said to be of God. With the Catholic thinking of their (not that of Scripture) Mary far far far far above that which is written being an example.

Click to expand...

“And Nadab and Abihu died, when they offered strange fire before the Lord.” (Numbers 26:61)