• Welcome to Christian Forums
  1. Welcome to Christian Forums, a forum to discuss Christianity in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to be able to join in fellowship with Christians all over the world.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!

  2. The forums in the Christian Congregations category are now open only to Christian members. Please review our current Faith Groups list for information on which faith groups are considered to be Christian faiths. Christian members please remember to read the Statement of Purpose threads for each forum within Christian Congregations before posting in the forum.
  3. Please note there is a new rule regarding the posting of videos. It reads, "Post a summary of the videos you post . An exception can be made for music videos.". Unless you are simply sharing music, please post a summary, or the gist, of the video you wish to share.
  4. There have been some changes in the Life Stages section involving the following forums: Roaring 20s, Terrific Thirties, Fabulous Forties, and Golden Eagles. They are changed to Gen Z, Millennials, Gen X, and Golden Eagles will have a slight change.
  5. CF Staff, Angels and Ambassadors; ask that you join us in praying for the world in this difficult time, asking our Holy Father to stop the spread of the virus, and for healing of all affected.

Featured Doctrine that Adds to Scripture

Discussion in 'Denomination Specific Theology' started by ScottySAM, Aug 11, 2017.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. DeaconDean

    DeaconDean γέγονα χαλκὸς, κύμβαλον ἀλαλάζον

    +2,583
    Baptist
    Married
    US-Republican
    Can you point out to me in scripture where Jesus is told by God to go get baptized?

    God Bless

    Till all are one.
     
  2. DeaconDean

    DeaconDean γέγονα χαλκὸς, κύμβαλον ἀλαλάζον

    +2,583
    Baptist
    Married
    US-Republican
    I shall not answer that as I, a Baptist, do not accept or believe in "the baptism of desire".

    God Bless

    Till all are one.
     
  3. DeaconDean

    DeaconDean γέγονα χαλκὸς, κύμβαλον ἀλαλάζον

    +2,583
    Baptist
    Married
    US-Republican
    Show me in the New Testament where any of the disciples were baptized.

    God Bless

    Till all are one.
     
  4. Major1

    Major1 Well-Known Member

    +2,494
    United States
    Christian
    Married
    US-Republican
    No I can not. I do not know of any one verse that says that. I also do not know of a verse that confirms the Rapture or even the Trinity but we accept them based on what is called "Implied Truth".

    Isaiah 53 was his life mission. And here is what he read in verse 11: ..................
    “By his knowledge shall the righteous one, my servant, make many to be accounted righteous.”

    The righteous one will cause many to be counted righteous.

    We see it in Matthew 3:9. He says to the Pharisees who had come out to the river...........
    “And do not presume to say to yourselves, ‘We have Abraham as our father,’ for I tell you, God is able from these stones to raise up children for Abraham.”

    What does that mean? It means there is no salvation and no security in claiming your lineage from Abraham.

    God is free in choosing who will be in his people. He can make saints of his own, out of rocks if he wanted to. So the new people of God that are being gathered by this baptism being prepared for the coming Messiah, Jesus, are marked by repentance and the fruit that comes from repentance, and they are not, like the Pharisees, depending on their ethnicity or their religious pedigree by saying, “We have Abraham as our father.”

    Now, Jesus comes into that situation and John says to him: Whoa. “I need to be baptized by you, and do you come to me [to be baptized]?” Matt. 3:14.

    In other words, he makes crystal clear that Jesus does not need this baptism. He does not need to repent. He does not need to confess any sins. So why are you here?

    Jesus gives one sentence in answer, and it is massively important. He says,
    “Let it be so now, for thus it is fitting for us to fulfill all righteousness” .

    It is fitting. That is why he is doing it. It is fitting. Well, what is fitting? Fulfilling all righteousness is fitting. Evidently Jesus saw his life as the fulfillment of all righteousness. And the fact that participating in a baptism of repentance even though he had no sins to repent of is part of that shows that the righteousness he wanted to fulfill was the righteousness required not of himself, but of every sinful man.
     
  5. Major1

    Major1 Well-Known Member

    +2,494
    United States
    Christian
    Married
    US-Republican
    By correct Bible exegesis my dear friend. You only used that verse and made your comment because that is what YOU deep down want to believe.

    But lets look closer at that verse shall we?

    When we read it we see that Mark does NOT say that is you are not baptized you will be damned does he. He did not say and is not saying that baptism is necessary for salvation, but he is saying that the person who is saved will then want to be baptized.

    My dear friend, it is the rejection of Christ which brings eternal damnation, not baptism.

    John 3:36 says..........
    He that believeth on the Son hath everlasting life; and he that believeth not has the wrath of God on him".

    Now 1 Peter 3:18-22, again it is EXEGESIS not what we want it to say.

    What Baptism do you think Peter is talking about????? Again YOU will say water because that is what you want it to say and that is what the Catholic church has taught you.

    But that is not the case at all. The BAPTISM that Peter is speaking of the Baptism of the Holy Spirit which is the real baptism because water baptism is nothing more than a ritual.
    It is the Baptism of the Holy Spirit which places us into the body of believers.

    Now, read the verse and it says......."Not the putting away of the filth of the flesh"----
    it is not just by water for water will not put away the filth of the flesh.

    "but the answer of a good conscience toward God by the resurrection of Jesus Christ-------
    that is a faith in Christ's resurrection which brought the work of the Holy Spirit into our lives and regenerated us unto salvation because we are saved by "Grace through faith and not of ourselves".

    Acts 2:38 is then used.

    As with any single verse or passage, we discern what it teaches by first filtering it through what we know the Bible teaches on the subject at hand. In the case of baptism and salvation, the Bible is clear that salvation is by grace through faith in Jesus Christ, not by works of any kind, including water baptism. So, any interpretation which comes to the conclusion that baptism, or any other act, is necessary for salvation, is a faulty interpretation and incorrect exegesis of the Scriptures.

    Those who hold to the belief that baptism is required for salvation and have taught you to believe baptism is required to be saved are quick to point to this verse and the fact that it says “be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins,” assuming that the word translated “for” in this verse means “in order to get.”
    However, in both Greek and English, there are many possible usages of the word “for.”

    As an example, when one says “Take two aspirin for your headache,” it is obvious to everybody that it does not mean “take two aspirin in order to get your headache,” but instead to “take two aspirin because you already have a headache.”

    Now in the Original Greek there are three possible meanings of the word “for” that might fit the context of Acts 2:38...........
    1). “in order to be, become, get, have, keep."
    2). “because of, as the result of.”
    3). “with regard to.”

    Now I am not going to spend my time doing it but I encourage you to do the study on the Greek words used and you will see that your assumption is incorrect.

    The Greek gramatics can not be changed to meet what we want but rather we must change to correctly understand what was actually said and not something that we have been told.The grammatical evidence surrounding this verse and the preposition "eis" are clear and the majority of the evidence is in favor that the best possible definition of the word “for” in this context is either “because of” or “in regard to” and not “in order to get.”

    Therefore, Acts 2:38, when interpreted correctly, does not teach that baptism is required for salvation.
     
  6. Major1

    Major1 Well-Known Member

    +2,494
    United States
    Christian
    Married
    US-Republican
    I am not claiming anything at all my friend.

    I am simply pointing our to you that there is NO Biblical record of their baptism.

    It has nothing to do with free will and I did not imply that. That is a "smoke screen" thrown up to confuse.

    They all knew about baptism as it was a Jewish tradition used for cleaning and they were all Jews.
    John the Baptist had been baptizing for years in the Jordan River, do you think that they did not know about him?

    Your theology on this is based on "Assumption" and that my friend will get you killed.

    If I "assume" that the path through the jungle is clear and there are no enemy waiting for me, I am dead and so are all of my men if I do not properly investigate.
     
  7. Erose

    Erose Newbie

    +1,177
    Catholic
    Married
    US-Others
    Was or was not St. Paul baptized? Did or did not the Apostles baptize?
     
  8. Erose

    Erose Newbie

    +1,177
    Catholic
    Married
    US-Others
    And you guys claim that you don't have your own Sacred Tradition. How one twists the word of God to fit what they believe instead of what it just says.

    I don't have time to go through the whole thing, but lets just go with Mark 16:16. Question, if you do not believe why on earth would you get baptized? That would be like getting circumcised even though I have no intention of believing in Judaism.
     
  9. concretecamper

    concretecamper Member of His Church

    +1,617
    Catholic
    Married
    US-Republican
    I checked a new version of the bible and Mark 16:16 now says:

    “He that believeth will want to be baptized and so shall be saved; but he that believed not shall be damned.”


    You've got to be kidding me, now we have protestants talking about implied truth in the Bible to justify their error^_^ Not only do we have individual interpretation, we now can use the rule of implied truth
     
  10. DeaconDean

    DeaconDean γέγονα χαλκὸς, κύμβαλον ἀλαλάζον

    +2,583
    Baptist
    Married
    US-Republican
    And therein lies the answer.

    1) Jesus as our perfect sacrifice needed to be washed.

    Why?

    2) To "fulfill all righteousness" that the Law required.

    God Bless

    Till all are one.
     
  11. DeaconDean

    DeaconDean γέγονα χαλκὸς, κύμβαλον ἀλαλάζον

    +2,583
    Baptist
    Married
    US-Republican
    Other than myself, you are the only other person who has argued from this.

    You are correct, there are many different ways "eis" can be rendered. Acts 2:38 just so happens to render it as "for".

    However, must it be so rendered in this instance?

    We see from the Greek that the word "eis" is also used in Mt. 12:41:

    "The men of Nineveh shall rise in judgment with this generation, and shall condemn it: because they repented at the preaching of Jonas; and, behold, a greater than Jonas is here."

    "ἄνδρες Νινευῖται ἀναστήσονται ἐν τῇ κρίσει μετὰ τῆς γενεᾶς ταύτης καὶ κατακρινοῦσιν αὐτήν: ὅτι μετενόησαν εἰς τὸ κήρυγμα Ἰωνᾶ, καὶ ἰδοὺ πλεῖον Ἰωνᾶ ὧδε." -Mt. 12:41 (GNT)

    B. H. Carroll wrote:

    "To illustrate the power of the general context in determining the meaning of a word in a specific case, we say, scripture must interpret scripture. The trend of the Bible must govern a literal, grammatical construction of a single passage. The passage must harmonize with clear, abundant passages elsewhere. If the book teaches in a thousand passages that only the blood of Christ, apprehended by faith, can take away sin, we are not warranted in attributing to an external rite the same power, merely on the ground or literal, grammatical construction in a few passages. These few detached passages concerning external rites must be interpreted in harmony with the spiritual trend of the entire revelation. That is an unquestioned principle of interpretation.

    To illustrate the power of the local context in determining the meaning of the Greek preposition, eis (here we have the preposition with the accusative case after it), we now cite most pertinent New Testament examples: Matthew 12:41: "They repented eis the preaching of Jonah." Because eis ordinarily means in order to, must we so render it here? It is a fact, according to chapter 3 of Jonah, and did our Lord so mean it? If so, they failed in the object of their repentance, because Jonah never preached to them after they repented -- not a word. The only preaching he did preceded the repentance, and was the cause of the repentance. Therefore, Dr. Broadus teaches in his Commentary on Matthew that eis here must have its rare meaning - because of. They repented because of, eis, the preaching of Jonah. But they say we must make the ordinary meaning the meaning in every case."

    The Theory of Baptismal Regeneration, B. H. Carroll

    So, if it has a rare meaning of "because of" in Mt. 12:41, it also must have the rare meaning also in Acts 2:38.

    We also can make the argument from the Ethiopian that Phillip explained the Gospel message to.

    We read:

    "Then Philip opened his mouth, and began at the same scripture, and preached unto him Jesus. And as they went on their way, they came unto a certain water: and the eunuch said, See, here is water; what doth hinder me to be baptized? And Philip said, If thou believest with all thine heart, thou mayest. And he answered and said, I believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God. And he commanded the chariot to stand still: and they went down both into the water, both Philip and the eunuch; and he baptized him." -Acts 8:35-38 (KJV)

    Here, there is no mention of baptism "for" "in order to" remission of sins. Only: "If thou believest with all thine heart, thou mayest."

    God Bless

    Till all are one.
     
  12. DeaconDean

    DeaconDean γέγονα χαλκὸς, κύμβαλον ἀλαλάζον

    +2,583
    Baptist
    Married
    US-Republican
    "The Westminster Study Edition of the Holy Bible (Philadelphia: Westminster Press, 1948).

    vv. 9-20. This section is a later addition; the original ending of Mark appears to have been lost. The best and oldest manuscripts of Mark end with ch. 16:8. Two endings were added very early. The shorter reads: "But they reported briefly to those with Peter all that had been commanded them. And afterward Jesus himself sent out through them from the East even to the West the sacred and incorruptible message of eternal salvation." The longer addition appears in English Bibles; its origin is uncertain; a medieval source ascribes it to an elder Ariston (Aristion), perhaps the man whom Papias (c. A.D. 135) calls a disciple of the Lord. It is drawn for the most part from Luke, chapter 24, and from John, chapter 20; there is a possibility that verse 15 may come from Matthew 28:18-20. It is believed that the original ending must have contained an account of the risen Christ's meeting with the disciples in Galilee (chs. 14:28; 16:7).

    A Commentary on the Holy Bible, edited by J.R. Dummelow (New York: MacMillan, 1927), pages 732-33.

    9-20. Conclusion of the Gospel. One uncial manuscript gives a second termination to the Gospel as follows: 'And they reported all the things that had been commanded them briefly (or immediately) to the companions of Peter. And after this Jesus himself also sent forth by them from the East even unto the West the holy and incorruptible preaching of eternal salvation.'

    Internal evidence points definitely to the conclusion that the last twelve verses are not by St. Mark. For, (1) the true conclusion certainly contained a Galilean appearance (Mark 16:7, cp. 14:28), and this does not. (2) The style is that of a bare catalogue of facts, and quite unlike St. Mark's usual wealth of graphic detail. (3) The section contains numerous words and expressions never used by St. Mark. (4) Mark 16:9 makes an abrupt fresh start, and is not continuous with the preceding narrative. (5) Mary Magdalene is spoken of (16:9) as if she had not been mentioned before, although she has just been alluded to twice (15:47, 16:1). (6) The section seems to represent not a primary tradition, such as Peter's, but quite a secondary one, and in particular to be dependent upon the conclusion of St. Matthew, and upon Luke 24:23f.

    On the other hand, the section is no casual or unauthorised addition to the Gospel. From the second century onwards, in nearly all manuscripts, versions, and other authorities, it forms an integral part of the Gospel, and it can be shown to have existed, if not in the apostolic, at least in the sub-apostolic age. A certain amount of evidence against it there is (though very little can be shown to be independent of Eusebius the Church historian, 265-340 A.D.), but certainly not enough to justify its rejection, were it not that internal evidence clearly demonstrates that it cannot have proceeded from the hand of St. Mark.

    Bruce Metzger, A Textual Commentary on the Greek New Testament (Stuttgart, 1971), pages 122-126.

    16:9-20 The Ending(s) of Mark. Four endings of the Gospel according to Mark are current in the manuscripts. (1) The last twelve verses of the commonly received text of Mark are absent from the two oldest Greek manuscripts (א and B), from the Old Latin codex Bobiensis (it k), the Sinaitic Syriac manuscript, about one hundred Armenian manuscripts, and the two oldest Georgian manuscripts (written A.D. 897 and A.D. 913). Clement of Alexandria and Origen show no knowledge of the existence of these verses; furthermore Eusebius and Jerome attest that the passage was absent from almost all Greek copies of Mark known to them. The original form of the Eusebian sections (drawn up by Ammonius) makes no provision for numbering sections of the text after 16:8. Not a few manuscripts which contain the passage have scribal notes stating that older Greek copies lack it, and in other witnesses the passage is marked with asterisks or obeli, the conventional signs used by copyists to indicate a spurious addition to a document.

    (2) Several witnesses, including four uncial Greek manuscripts of the seventh, eighth, and ninth centuries (L Ψ 099 0112), as well as Old Latin k, the margin of the Harelean Syriac, several Sahidic and Bohairic manuscripts, and not a few Ethiopic manuscripts, continue after verse 8 as follows (with trifling variations): "But they reported briefly to Peter and those with him all that they had been told. And after this Jesus himself sent out by means of them, from east to west, the sacred and imperishable proclamation of eternal salvation." All of these witnesses except it k also continue with verses 9-20.

    (3) The traditional ending of Mark, so familiar through the AV and other translations of the Textus Receptus, is present in the vast number of witnesses, including A C D K W X Δ Θ Π Ψ 099 0112 f 13 28 33 al. The earliest patristic witnesses to part or all of the long ending are Irenaeus and the Diatessaron. It is not certain whether Justin Martyr was acquainted with the passage; in his Apology (i.45) he includes five words that occur, in a different sequence, in ver. 20. (του λογου του ισχυρου ον απο ιερουσαλημ οι αποστολοι αυτου εξελθοντες πανταχου εκηρυξαν).

    (4) In the fourth century the traditional ending also circulated, according to testimony preserved by Jerome, in an expanded form, preserved today in one Greek manuscript. Codex Washingtonianus includes the following after ver. 14: "And they excused themselves, saying, 'This age of lawlessness and unbelief is under Satan, who does not allow the truth and power of God to prevail over the unclean things of the spirits [or, does not allow what lies under the unclean spirits to understand the truth and power of God]. Therefore reveal thy righteousness now — thus they spoke to Christ. And Christ replied to them, 'The term of years of Satan's power has been fulfilled, but other terrible things draw near. And for those who have sinned I was delivered over to death, that they may return to the truth and sin no more, in order that they may inherit the spiritual and incorruptible glory of righteousness which is in heaven.' "

    How should the evidence of each of these endings be evaluated? It is obvious that the expanded form of the long ending (4) has no claim to be original. Not only is the external evidence extremely limited, but the expansion contains several non-Markan words and expressions (including ο αιων ουτος, αμαρτανω, απολογεω, αληθινος, υποστρεφω) as well as several that occur nowhere else in the New Testament (δεινος, ορος, προσλεγω). The whole expansion has about it an unmistakable apocryphal flavor. It probably is the work of a second or third century scribe who wished to soften the severe condemnation of the Eleven in 16.14.

    The longer ending (3), though current in a variety of witnesses, some of them ancient, must also be judged by internal evidence to be secondary. (a) The vocabulary and style of verses 9-20 are non-Markan. (e.g. απιστεω, βλαπτω, βεβαιοω, επακολουθεω, θεαομαι, μετα ταυτα, πορευομαι, συνεργεω, υστερον are found nowhere else in Mark; and θανασιμον and τοις μετ αυτου γενομενοις, as designations of the disciples, occur only here in the New Testament). (b) The connection between ver. 8 and verses 9-20 is so awkward that it is difficult to believe that the evangelist intended the section to be a continuation of the Gospel. Thus, the subject of ver. 8 is the women, whereas Jesus is the presumed subject in ver. 9; in ver. 9 Mary Magdalene is identified even though she has been mentioned only a few lines before (15.47 and 16.1); the other women of verses 1-8 are now forgotten; the use of αναστας δε and the position of πρωτον are appropriate at the beginning of a comprehensive narrative, but they are ill-suited in a continuation of verses 1-8. In short, all these features indicate that the section was added by someone who knew a form of Mark that ended abruptly with ver. 8 and who wished to supply a more appropriate conclusion. In view of the inconcinnities between verses 1-8 and 9-20, it is unlikely that the long ending was composed ad hoc to fill up an obvious gap; it is more likely that the section was excerpted from another document, dating perhaps from the first half of the second century.

    The internal evidence for the shorter ending (2) is decidedly against its being genuine. Besides containing a high percentage of non-Markan words, its rhetorical tone differs totally from the simple style of Mark's Gospel.

    Finally it should be observed that the external evidence for the shorter ending (2) resolves itself into additional testimony supporting the omission of verses 9-20. No one who had available as the conclusion of the Second Gospel the twelve verses 9-20, so rich in interesting material, would have deliberately replaced them with four lines of a colorless and generalized summary. Therefore, the documentary evidence supporting (2) should be added to that supporting (1). Thus, on the basis of good external evidence and strong internal considerations it appears that the earliest ascertainable form of the Gospel of Mark ended with 16.8. At the same time, however out of deference to the evident antiquity of the longer ending and its importance in the textual tradition of the Gospel, the Committee decided to include verses 9-20 as part of the text, but to enclose them within double square brackets to indicate that they are the work of an author other than the evangelist.



    Bruce Metzger, The Canon of the New Testament: its Origin, Development, and Significance (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1987), pp. 269-270.

    ... we may find it instructive to consider the attitude of Church Fathers toward variant readings in the text of the New Testament. On the one hand, as far as certain readings involve sensitive points of doctrine, the Fathers customarily alleged that heretics had tampered with the accuracy of the text. On the other hand, however, the question of the canonicity of a document apparently did not arise in connection with discussion of such variant readings, even though they might involve quite considerable sections of text. Today we know that the last twelve verses of the Gospel according to Mark (xvi. 9-20) are absent from the oldest Greek, Latin, Syriac, Coptic, and Armenian manuscripts, and that in other manuscripts asterisks or obeli mark the verses as doubtful or spurious.

    Source

    And B. H. Carroll was also correct when he wrote:

    "The first thing I have to say on Mark 16:16 is that it is very doubtful whether it is a part of the word of God. Certainly if you were in the Vatican library in Rome, and they were to hand you the old Vatican manuscript of the New Testament and you were to read Mark's Gospel you would not find in it the last twelve verses of chapter 16. And if you had before you the Sinaitic manuscript, discovered by Tischendorf, and which is supposed to be the oldest manuscript, you would find that this last paragraph of twelve verses is not in it. On that account I never preach from any part of those twelve verses. I never preach from a passage where it is really questionable as to whether or not it is a part of God's Word, and especially would I not attempt to build up a doctrine on it."

    Source

    God Bless

    Till all are one.
     
  13. DeaconDean

    DeaconDean γέγονα χαλκὸς, κύμβαλον ἀλαλάζον

    +2,583
    Baptist
    Married
    US-Republican
    What's really funny, is the Codex Vaticanus, the Codex in the library of the Vatican, does not include Mark 16:9-20.

    Classification: Majuscule
    Date: 4th Century
    Location: Vatican Library
    Shelf Number: Vat. gr. 1209, p. 1235-1518 (p. 1519-1536: 1957)
    Content: Gospels; Pauline; Acts and Catholic Epistles (Apostolos)
    Language: Greek

    GA03_0035a.jpg Mar 16:3/Mar 16:8

    (The Center for the Study of New Testament Manuscripts)

    The Codex is from the 4th century, has three (3) columns, and is in Greek.

    The center column contains Mark 16:3-8 and stops. There is no third column.

    The Next page starts like so:

    (1st column) Luke 1:1-9; (2nd column) Luke 1:9-18; (3rd column) Luke 1:18-35.

    It also strikes me that Protestants always appeal to scripture. Catholicism appeals to certain councils or catechisms.

    Like I said, funny, the Vatican's own Codex (scripture) does not support their own doctrine.

    God Bless

    Till all are one.

     
    Last edited: Sep 14, 2017
  14. Major1

    Major1 Well-Known Member

    +2,494
    United States
    Christian
    Married
    US-Republican
    Excellent thought brother.
     
  15. Major1

    Major1 Well-Known Member

    +2,494
    United States
    Christian
    Married
    US-Republican
    Sometimes some people forget that Jesus was a Jew and He said that He came "To fulfill the Law".
    The Jews used ceremonial washings (Baptism) as far back as anyone cares to look.

    So it was proper and lawful just as you said .
     
  16. Major1

    Major1 Well-Known Member

    +2,494
    United States
    Christian
    Married
    US-Republican
    WHY.............Because it is a process of identifying with the death, burial and resurrection of Jesus Christ.

    You are "crucified" (standing upright in water), you are "buried" (immersed into the water), and you are "resurrected into life" (raised out of the water). Water baptism then, is a picture of spiritual baptism as defined in Rom. 6:3-5 and 1 Corinthians 12:13. It is the outward testimony of the believer's inward faith. A sinner is saved the moment he places his faith in the Lord Jesus Christ. Baptism is a visible testimony to that faith but does not save anyone.

    This is the SCRIPTURAL basis for water baptism. It PICTURES and PROCLAIMS four important things:

    1. Scriptural baptism PICTURES and PROCLAIMS the believer's death, burial, and resurrection with Christ. "Buried with Him in baptism, wherein also ye are risen with Him, through the faith of the operation of God, who hath raised Him from the dead." Colossians 2:12
    2. Scriptural baptism PICTURES and PROCLAIMS the death of our old life to sin, and our resurrection to walk in newness of life. "As Christ was raised up from the dead, by the glory of the Father, even so we also should walk in newness of life." Romans 6:4
    3. Scriptural baptism PICTURES and PROCLAIMS our faith in the Trinity of the Godhead. "Baptizing them in the NAME of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost." Matthew 28:19
    4. Scriptural baptism PICTURES and PROCLAIMS our "putting on" of Christ. "For ye are all the children of God by faith in Christ Jesus. For as many of you as have been baptized into Christ have put on Christ. Galatians 3:26,27
    So then, water baptism is a picture of what transpired when you placed your faith and trust in the death, burial, and resurrection of Jesus Christ to save you from your sins (Romans 6:3-5). It does not atone for sin. Only the blood of Christ cleanses us from sin (I John 1:7; Colossians 1:14).
     
  17. Ignatius the Kiwi

    Ignatius the Kiwi Newbie

    +1,844
    Eastern Orthodox
    Single
    By that standard sermons ought be forbidden. Any words which are not direct quotes from the bible ought to be forbidden for fear we "go beyond" the "simple Gospel."
     
  18. Major1

    Major1 Well-Known Member

    +2,494
    United States
    Christian
    Married
    US-Republican
    There are several problems with your post.

    1. Who are you responding to?

    2. I for one do not know what a "standard" sermon is.

    3. How can we forbid anyone to say what is on their heart. How would that be policed?

    4. There is no such thing as a "simple gospel".

    People who speak words to others call them "speeches" and some call them "Motivational Seminars".
    People who expound and explain lessons based on the Scriptures are then called "Sermons".

    Gospel sermons should always be founded upon the person of the Lord Jesus Christ or they are not gospel sermons at all but actually fall under one of the other examples given.

    None of that however speaks to the subject of the thread in focus.
     
  19. Ignatius the Kiwi

    Ignatius the Kiwi Newbie

    +1,844
    Eastern Orthodox
    Single
    1. the first post.

    2. A sermon is a sermon. It can be standard.

    3. I;m not seriously suggesting ban people commenting on scripture but if we are unable to believe in doctrines or definitions (creeds, if they are good creeds have their roots in scriptural principles) then any words added to the bible are evidence of a lack of faith in the pure gospel. Hence sermons ought be forbidden.

    4. Depends.
     
  20. Major1

    Major1 Well-Known Member

    +2,494
    United States
    Christian
    Married
    US-Republican
    My dear friend, do you realize what you are saying?????

    You said.........
    " if we are unable to believe in doctrines or definitions (creeds, if they are good creeds have their roots in scriptural principles) then any words added to the bible are evidence of a lack of faith in the pure gospel. Hence sermons ought be forbidden.

    May I say to you that you as a Catholic do exactly that!!!!!!

    The Rosary is NOT in the Bible at all, in any form or even a thought but you follow it. It is an ADDITION!

    The act of crossing yourself is NOT in the Bible anywhere or is there even a hint of it being done.
    It is an ADDITION.

    You believe in Catholic teaching of Purgatory and it is NOT found any where in the Word of God.
    It is an ADDITION.

    You do not allow your bishops to marry and the Bible says that bishops MUST BE married. It is an ADDITION.

    You bow down to a Statue of a woman every time you enter your church but the Bible says that we are not to bow down to idols or images. It is an ADDITION.

    You believe that Mary was sinless all of her life. But the Bible says that ALL have sinned. That is an ADDITION!

    You believe that Mary went to heaven without dieing. But the Bible says that ALL people die. That is an ADDITION.

    With all due respect to you my friend, I think that you need to do some homework on your Catholic faith as you do not seem to know what it is that you believe.
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
Loading...