I knew a Pentecostal man and his wife 19 years ago; they shunned me when I became a Catholic. Is it the norm for Pentecostals to hold such strong anti-Catholic sentiments? I am guessing that you hold such views yourself.
Upvote
0
Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
I knew a Pentecostal man and his wife 19 years ago; they shunned me when I became a Catholic. Is it the norm for Pentecostals to hold such strong anti-Catholic sentiments? I am guessing that you hold such views yourself.Sorry, but unlike many people on here defending their particular church, I'm not going to lie to that person.
Take it however you wish.
I knew a Pentecostal man and his wife 19 years ago; they shunned me when I became a Catholic. Is it the norm for Pentecostals to hold such strong anti-Catholic sentiments? I am guessing that you hold such views yourself.
My glass is about 1/4 full.
Consider referring to me as your brother and refrain from any implied insults; it's a suggestion worth considering, wouldn't you agree?
My brother???
Not genetically, no. But I thought you may understand the Christian brethren reference, perhaps not?
I'll be very honest with you,.....If you don't have your robe washed in the blood of The Lamb, you are not one of His,..... and that keeps you from being my brother in Christ.
All Gospel statements. No Law.The Bible says that one is born again by water and the Spirit (John 3:5). The Bible says that we are united to Christ's burial, death, and resurrection by baptism (Romans 6:3-4). The Bible says that we are clothed with Christ in baptism (Galatians 3:27). The Bible says that we cleansed by the washing of water with the word (Ephesians 5:26). The Bible says that that baptism now saves us (1 Peter 3:21).
Indeed. . .which baptism is not, hence my response.I see you are already missing the point.
You made it about this. As a tangent. But the conversation in this thread is about regeneration viz-a-viz God's word. You objected to baptism being brought up in relation to regeneration.
Then it falls to you to Biblically demonstrate their error.I am completely unaware of the unreasonable claims in your post. However, since your most recent post merely repeats previously refuted arguments, there is nothing more to add, so let's proceed.
There are worse things on this earth than the AOG.I would disagree.
For me, as an AOG Pentecostal, I don't hate catholics, I just don't have a lot of time to deal with all the lies they've been told. Probably the people you knew before had a similar stance. Hard to say.
Joining any church can have an indoctrination aspect about it if you're not careful. I feel that traditional type churches have a much greater indoctrination aspect associated with them. It's not about scripture and Jesus, it's about their church teachings and submission.
Sorry, I'm not interested in that. Even if my current AOG church suddenly came out with some ridiculous stuff like that, I would immediately look for another and start going there. I'm not loyal to any church, only Jesus.
That explains a lot. . .The Key to Understanding Paedobaptism: Romans 6:3-4
3 Or do you not know that all of us who have been baptized into Christ Jesus have been baptized into His death? 4 Therefore we have been buried with Him through baptism into death, so that as Christ was raised from the dead through the glory of the Father, so we too might walk in newness of life. 5 For if we have become [a]united with Him in the likeness of His death, certainly we shall also be [b]in the likeness of His resurrection….Baptism is a Christological event. Because Baptism has its foundation in Christ’s death and resurrection (Ro. 6:3-4),
it must be Gospel.
I do not think that it does. It is always the case that the onus of proof is with the side that makes the assertion.Then it falls to you to Biblically demonstrate their error.
Indeed. . .which baptism is not, hence my response.
Regeneration is a sovereign, as-unaccountable-as-the-wind operation of the Holy Spirit, governed by nothing but his sovereign unaccountable choice (Jn 3:3-8).
Likewise, "sacrament" is not in the Greek text. The word in the Greek text is "mystery," which the NT specifically specifies as
God's promise to sum up all things in Christ (Eph 1:9),
inclusion of both Jews and Gentiles in the NT church (Eph 3:3-6),
the change that will take place at the resurrection (1 Co 15:51),
the plan of God by which a remnant of both Jew and Gentile will be included in his kingdom (Ro 11:25),
the secret wisdom (1 Co 2:7) of the death of Christ (1 Co 2:1),
the incarnation (1 Tim 3:16).
Man does not have the authority to change the nomenclature and its application (above) in the word of God written.
Nowhere in the Greek NT is baptism referred to as mysterion.
That is an invention of man.
Taking such liberties with the word of God written results in erroneous doctrine, such as baptism is regeneration.
There is no faith without the new birth, for one can't even see the kingdom of God without the new birth (Jn 3:3-5).
Baptism follows regeneration, the new birth, it does not cause it.
Just as circumcision followed one's birth as a descendant of Abraham, it did not cause it.
Baptism is not the cause of regeneration, just as circumcision is not the cause of being a descendant of Abraham.
Just as circumcision was a symbol of being in the descendants of Abraham, so Baptism is a symbol of being in the body of Christ.
As being in the OT people of God by descendancy from Abraham was not caused by circumcision,
so being in the body of Christ by faith is not caused by baptism.
As circumcision was a cutting off of the flesh, so baptism is a putting off of the flesh (sinful nature),
paralleled in Col 2:11-12, they being signs thereof, not causes thereof, respectively.
That is the meaning of baptism as presented in the NT.
The person making the assertion is in no position to know that someone else's objection is.I do not think that it does. It is always the case that the onus of proof is with the side that makes the assertion.
No, the assertion stands until it is Biblically demonstrated to b false.
Have you ever read Jn 3:3-8?So regeneration just happens spontaneously? A person, in the middle of no where, never having heard the Gospel may just
spontaneously become born again because of a sovereign choice God made?
Does that prohibit the Holy Spirit from making a sovereign choice to quicken the heart of someone who hears the preaching?What do you do with Romans 10:14-17?
And Paul obsessing over adding circumcision to faith as necessary for salvation. . .Still obsessing over this I see.
Which Covenant (Ge 9:8-17, 15:9-21)--to which was later added (Gal 3:19) the Sinai covenant (Ex 19-24)--was made only with Abraham and his descendants, with no one else apart from the faith of Abraham, and of which descendency circumcision was the necessary sign, without which one was cut off (Ge 17:10-14).You seem to have things a little backward. It was never about being a physical descendant of Abraham, it was about Covenant--and circumcision was the sign and seal of the Covenant.
Contraire. . .It was circumcision that made one an Israelite,
So how many women were circumcised?not race, biology, or pedigree. Ruth was a Moabite, and yet she became part of the Covenant people,
Contraire. . .her sons and grandsons and great-grandsons were circumcised, Israelites. From her came Jesse, and David, and eventually Jesus Christ our Lord.
It was circumcision that made one a child of Abraham in the Covenant God established in ancient times.
Correct. . .and complete the analogy.In the New Covenant there is a new circumcision, one made without hands, it's Baptism.
Scripture being the final authority for faith and doctrine, this assertion is found nowhere in Scripture and therefore enjoys no Biblical authority.Jesus had a childhood best friend named Jerry. Jerry of Nazareth.
Biblically demonstrate that this is false. As you just said "The assertion stands until it is Biblically demonstrated to be false."
Scripture being the final authority for faith and doctrine, this assertion is found nowhere in Scripture and therefore enjoys no Biblical authority.
< sigh >It's sounding a lot like you get to make an assertion without biblical support and require others to demonstrate it is false using the Bible, but other people have to demonstrate their position from the Bible while you get to just dismiss it.
Turns out the final authority for Clare73 is Clare73.
The FINAL AUTHORITY is always God. Specifically, God the Holy Spirit speaking the Word of God from the Father.Scripture being the final authority for faith and doctrine, this assertion is found nowhere in Scripture and therefore enjoys no Biblical authority.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?