Baptism of babies & infants

[placido]

Yes! Good.

Now: How is one to know that he has correct interpretation? I mean, if it’s up to me being lead by some spirit, and my conclusion differs from yours, so what? We both have the same bible, right? Why is your interpretation better than mine, or mine better than yours? Who is the judge?

Who is the judge? Of course Kcmekim is the self-appointed judge !!!

placido

 

[placido]

Hi Hosemonkey, thanks for your reply. Don’t you at least have one Scripture so that I know that you read the Bible? 30,000+ sets? It’s up to 40,000 now. This is how the 40,000 Protestants denominations was explained to me. In the New Testament, from Romans to Thessalonians there are seven churches listed. God’s perfect number. In the book of Revelation there are seven more churches listed. Also God’s perfect number.

And the were in fact One Church (John 17:22) because they were of one mind (Philippians 2:1).

Over the next 2,000 years, God’s church grew, as you say, from 14 to 40,000 churches.

And those churches are no longer of one mind, and thefore are no longer One Church, but different sects.

placido

 

[placido]

Hi Hosemonkey, thanks for your reply. If you consider Peter being the rock over Christ being the Rock, you’ll sink like Peter did when he tried to walk on water.

Peter is not rock over or apart from Christ. That is a fallacy no Catholic believes.

Even your Catholic catechism #424 disagrees with you. ED O.

And CC # 881 disagrees with you.

placido

 

[placido]

Source, please.

The same you got your falsifying skills from.

placido

 

[placido]

For a couple of reasons. It’s true that some denominations have split into two because of doctrine, but if you look at those doctrines, they’re almost always non-essential doctrines or matters of adiaphora.

So when one Protestant church believes in the Divinity of Christ and the other doesn’t it is non-essential? When one protestant church believes in infant baptism and the other doesn’t it is non-essential? When one protestant church believes in soul sleep and the other doesn’t it is non-essential? Who determines what is non-essential by the way?

In some cases, a split may be necessary because one group is being disobedient to the word of God in doctrine or practice and so the other group can salvage the local assembly. My own church, for instance, was born because the pastor and much of the leadership in our old church had fallen into heretical doctrines and Unbiblical preaching.
Should we have stayed in the name of unity? Of course not! The Bible is very clear that we are to flee false teaching.

Are you 100 % sure you did not in any way falsify (yes, falsify) the doctrines of your former church to find a reason for split?

placido

 

[hosemonkey]

In some cases, a split may be necessary because one group is being disobedient to the word of God in doctrine or practice and so the other group can salvage the local assembly. My own church, for instance, was born because the pastor and much of the leadership in our old church had fallen into heretical doctrines and Unbiblical preaching.

 

[kcmekim]

So when one Protestant church believes in the Divinity of Christ and the other doesn’t it is non-essential?

What Protestant church denies the deity of Christ? If a church denies the deity of Christ, then they are, by definition, not a Christian church.

When one protestant church believes in infant baptism and the other doesn’t it is non-essential?

Correct.

When one protestant church believes in soul sleep and the other doesn’t it is non-essential?

What Protestant church believes in soul sleep?

Who determines what is non-essential by the way?

The Bible. There are eight doctrines defined by scripture as essential. They are:

The Deity of Christ
Salvation by Grace
The Resurrection of Christ
The Gospel
Monotheism
The exclusivity of Christ
Jesus’ virgin birth
Doctrine of the Trinity

Are you 100 % sure you did not in any way falsify (yes, falsify) the doctrines of your former church to find a reason for split?

Yes, I am 100% sure that we did not in any way falsify the doctrines of our former church to find a reason for the split. There was no reason to falsify anything. Besides, we were not even the ones who initiated the process. The leadership of the church made no secret of their loyalty to these doctrines, even after being approached by other local pastors and our denomination, as well as us.

 

[kcmekim]

So, because Baptists pride themselves on their autonomy, who decides what are “heretical doctrines and unbiblical preaching?”

For the umpteenth time, the church decides these things. The local Baptist assembly is autonomous in its practices, but is still bound to scripture and to the authority of the church.

What is wrong with my preaching as opposed to your preaching?

Don’t know. Never heard you preach.

The Holy Spirit assured me that my preaching and interpretation was OK. Who are you to say me nay? That in a nutshell, is the great scandal of protestantism. You guys are all reading off of different sheets of music.

I disagree. We read and study the same scriptures, we submit to the authority of the same scriptures, we preach the same Gospel, we worship with the same hymns, we affirm the same creeds, confessions, catechisms, etc…

 

[placido]

What Protestant church denies the deity of Christ? If a church denies the deity of Christ, then they are, by definition, not a Christian church.

I did not know the Seventh-Day Adventist Church and the Jehovah’s Witnesses are not Protestant. BTW, what if those that deny the Deity of Christ disagreed with your “definition” of Christian and they went ahead and considered themselves Christians anyway?

What Protestant church believes in soul sleep?

The SDA, among others.

The Bible. There are eight doctrines defined by scripture as essential. They are:
The Deity of Christ
Salvation by Grace
The Resurrection of Christ
The Gospel
Monotheism
The exclusivity of Christ
Jesus’ virgin birth
Doctrine of the Trinity

I am not denying the eight doctrines are essential, but then, where exactly does the Bible enumerate them as the “G-8”? Can anyone reading the Bible find them, or is help from outside the Bible required? I mean, did you find them all by yourself or did your church help you along?

Yes, I am 100% sure that we did not in any way falsify the doctrines of our former church to find a reason for the split. There was no reason to falsify anything. Besides, we were not even the ones who initiated the process. The leadership of the church made no secret of their loyalty to these doctrines, even after being approached by other local pastors and our denomination, as well as us.

If you found it necessary enough to falsify a post in this thread, what guarantee is there you don’t do the same elsewhere?

placido

 

[tweetymom]

I question What is Faith?

 

[kcmekim]

I did not know the Seventh-Day Adventist Church and the Jehovah’s Witnesses are not Protestant.

Yep.

BTW, what if those that deny the Deity of Christ disagreed with your “definition” of Christian and they went ahead and considered themselves Christians anyway?

They’re free to consider themselves whatever they like. But it doesn’t matter how much they may consider themselves Christians if they don’t meet the Biblical definition of a Christian.

I am not denying the eight doctrines are essential, but then, where exactly does the Bible enumerate them as the “G-8”? Can anyone reading the Bible find them, or is help from outside the Bible required? I mean, did you find them all by yourself or did your church help you along?

The Bible defines them as essential. There’s nothing wrong with using outside sources, but I believe that if one is willing to do the work to study them, the Bible will show that they are essential.

what guarantee is there you [did not falsify the church’s doctrines that led to the church split]?

OK, first of all, I’m not going to give you the name of the church because (a) it’s already been resolved and (b) frankly, it’s a family matter and not really any of your business.

So you have no guarantee that I didn’t falsify those doctrines. However, you must be awfully naive if you believe I have the power to manipulate dozens of people, many of them more grounded in scripture than I and with far more wisdom than I, at least five churches of different denominations, and the largest Protestant denomination in the world.

Second, like I said, this started long before I got involved.

 

[placido]

Yep.

They’re free to consider themselves whatever they like. But it doesn’t matter how much they may consider themselves Christians if they don’t meet the Biblical definition of a Christian.

The Bible defines them as essential. There’s nothing wrong with using outside sources, but I believe that if one is willing to do the work to study them, the Bible will show that they are essential.

OK, first of all, I’m not going to give you the name of the church because (a) it’s already been resolved and (b) frankly, it’s a family matter and not really any of your business.

So you have no guarantee that I didn’t falsify those doctrines. However, you must be awfully naive if you believe I have the power to manipulate dozens of people, many of them more grounded in scripture than I and with far more wisdom than I, at least five churches of different denominations, and the largest Protestant denomination in the world.

Second, like I said, this started long before I got involved.

Ah, I see. You can’t manipulate but you can try neverthereless. That is why you falsified one of my posts above. And did not even bother to apologize or to explain why you did that.

placido

 

[tweetymom]

Ah, I see. You can’t manipulate but you can try neverthereless. That is why you falsified one of my posts above. And did not even bother to apologize or to explain why you did that.

placido

Getting a little child like here on this post. He said no he said You people really are something else. Can’t agree well fine but don’t act like spoiled b rats

 

[guanophore]

Okay! Now my question, do these verses apply to Ed Osiecki or not? I would very much appreciate a Yes or No answer. 1 Cor.2:10, “But God has revealed it to us by His Spirit. The Spirit searches all things, even the deep things of God. v11 For who among men knows the thoughts of a man except the man’s spirit within him? In the same way no one knows the thoughts of God except the Spirit of God. v12 We have not received the spirit of the world but the Spirit who is from God, that we may understand what God has freely given us. v13 This is what we speak, not in words taught us by human wisdom but in words taught by the Spirit, expressing spiritual truths in spiritual words. v14,15, v16 For who has known the mind of the Lord that he may instruct him? But we have the mind of Christ.” ED O.

No. This passage refers to “us”. By “us” the Apostle means the college of the Apostles, their successors, and those who are in union with them. Those who have separated themselves from the faith of the Apostles are no longer part of the “us”.

 

[placido]

Getting a little child like here on this post. He said no he said You people really are something else. Can’t agree well fine but don’t act like spoiled b rats

Please go back and read post #708. Until then you won’t be in position to understand what I am talking about.

placido

 

[tweetymom]

No. This passage refers to “us”. By “us” the Apostle means the college of the Apostles, their successors, and those who are in union with them. Those who have separated themselves from the faith of the Apostles are no longer part of the “us”.

The us means ALL who beleive that Jesus was born of a Virgin died and rose again:clapping:

 

[guanophore]

Doesn’t that stand opposed to the Holy Spirit? Your rock is Peter, my Rock is Christ.

No, Ed, you are making divisions and separations that are unnecesasary. I understand that this is the birthright of Protestants, but please try to resist the urge for the sake of the unity of the Body.

Peter is not separated from Christ in his “rockness”. When Jesus renamed Simon to Peter (Rock) He grafted Peter into Himself. He later established the Church on the foundation (solid Rock) of the Apostles and Prophets. He is not separated from this Foundation which He built, and is Himself the Cornerstone.

 Eph 2:19 Paul states, ”Consequently, you  ( that means me) are no longer foreigners and aliens, but fellow citizens with God’s  people and members of God’s household v20 built on the foundation  of the Apostles and Prophets, with Christ Jesus himself as the chief cornerstone. v21 In him the whole building is joined together and rises to become a holy temple in the Lord.” This is the church that I‘m a member of!   ED O

The Catholic Church recognizes all the baptized as members of Christ’s One Church. None of the members of the Foundation are separated from Christ, and you are only in unity with that Foundation to the extent that you are in unity with the One Faith they preached and taught.

It seems clear from your posts that there is still some mortor work to be done.

 

[tweetymom]

Please go back and read post #708. Until then you won’t be in position to understand what I am talking about.

placido

I did read it and I didn’t point my finger only at you I said people are acting a little childish

 

[guanophore]

If you consider Peter being the rock over Christ being the Rock, you’ll sink like Peter did when he tried to walk on water. Even your Catholic catechism #424 disagrees with you. ED O.

You are correct, Ed, that it is not Catholic to consider Peter “over and above” Christ. Glad your are reading the Catechism! But hosemonkey never claimed any such thing. Peter does not replace Christ, but is grafted into Christ. You example of Peter is very apt, as it is clear that, when unified with Christ, nothing is impossible. Why do you desire to separate Peter from Christ in HIs “rockness”?

What would it mean for you if Jesus really did rename Simon to “Rock” because He wanted to use Peter to build His Church?

 

[Lilyflower]

Hi placido, thanks for your reply. My question wasn’t about the Ethiopian ( mabe he was dumb) I’m asking you why do you read the Bible if you can’t interpret what you are reading? ED O.

An agnostic friend once told me ‘the beauty of the bible is that it is open to individual interpretation and there as many interpretations as there are people so that no-one has the right to say that their particular interpretation is better or that anyone elses is wrong!’

Another friend some years before said that ‘it is ok to want to kill your enemies and those who hurt you as the bible says ‘an eye of an eye and a tooth for a tooth!’ No mention of forgiveness here!’

BOTH arguements about sum up the Protestant arguement that there is no need for a Pope to interpret [or direct interpretation] of Scripture!!!

Blessings and peace