I called in at the Steve Gregg radio show

  • Thread starter Thread starter Adamski
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Radio talk shows still exist? I haven’t heard one in years. At least not local, most talk shows today are national, pre-recorded, and tightly controlled.
Years ago there was a real “out there” talk show on a Pittsburgh Christian radio station. I was still Baptist at the time.
He said “What did Jesus do that I can’t do?”
I responded “Resurrection pops to mind”. That response never got on the air.
 
TertiumQuid said:
I think I found the show links for Friday, but they haven’t been uploaded yet. There are two shows listed, a morning and evening program. Which were you on?
Click to expand...
Can you post the link? I think I and othes would like to listen in to…thanks.
 
SteveVH said:
It’s incredible to me how far into error some fall concerning the most fundamental beliefs of Christianity. Your description of the purpose of Baptism is completely contrary to both Scripture and Church teaching (at least for the first 1500 years of its history):

"And Peter said to them, "Repent, and let each of you be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins; …" (Acts 2:38)

Baptism, as Paul tells us, is for the forgiveness of our sins. One does not get into heaven unless their sins have been forgiven. I have not seen a single verse that says that the purpose of Baptism is to make a public declaration. Maybe you could provide that.
Click to expand...
If you think the Anabaptists are in error…and their beliefs are contrarry to scripture and the teachings of your church…you might “vapor lock” due to the absolute “Incrediblity” of the Quaker position…we don’t practice ritual water baptism at all.🙂
 
Publisher said:
If you think the Anabaptists are in error…and their beliefs are contrarry to scripture and the teachings of your church…you might “vapor lock” due to the absolute “Incrediblity” of the Quaker position…we don’t practice ritual water baptism at all.🙂
Click to expand...
Uhhhh…“your church” teachings? Ah no! The church founded by Christ clearly written in the NT. More like contrary the teachings of the “Johnny-come-lately” churches doing it their way. Denial can be hard to overcome.
 
Nicea325 said:
Uhhhh…“your church” teachings? Ah no! The church founded by Christ clearly written in the NT. More like contrary the teachings of the “Johnny-come-lately” churches doing it their way. Denial can be hard to overcome.
Click to expand...
You see, I too am a member of the Church that Jesus founded…just not a member of your ecclesial community.🙂
 
SteveVH said:
Your description of the purpose of Baptism is completely contrary to both Scripture and Church teaching (at least for the first 1500 years of its history):

"And Peter said to them, "Repent, and let each of you be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins; …" (Acts 2:38)
Click to expand...
Don’t get me wrong, I (and the Lutheran church) place an almost penultimate importance on Baptism. But I think what Publisher is saying is that it’s not the water or the ritual that’s important, but the intent and act of becoming one in the Body of Christ.

In that, I think Lutherans would agree is some measure - in that we acknowledge Baptisms of desire and even Baptisms of blood. I don’t think Publisher is denying a transformative change in the soul of the believer, only that it may not have to necessarily occur during the receiving the Waters of Baptism.

If I’ve misunderstood, I invite correction.
 
Nicea325 said:
By virtue of what? The CC is not merely an ecclesial community.
Click to expand...
He’s being a stinker 🙂

The CC uses the term ecclesiastical community for those who lack what the CC considerers valid sacraments. Turn about is fair play. 😛

Those with any training in liturgical Greek probably find the distinction between the phrase"ecclesiastical community" and the word “church” rather amusing.
 
benjohnson said:
He’s being a stinker 🙂

The CC uses the term ecclesiastical community for those who lack what the CC considerers valid sacraments. Turn about is fair play. 😛

Those with any training in liturgical Greek probably find the distinction between the phrase"ecclesiastical community" and the word “church” rather amusing.
Click to expand...
“Ecclesia” means “community”…it was used as the term for…well…lack of a better term…“town hall meeting” in Greek and Roman times. And it is the word we use for “church”…“eccleiastiacl community” could and can be simply another way of saying “church church”.

Yes…I was being a “stinker”…you know…“do unto others as you would have them do unto you.”…Since many Catholics refer to other Christian faith traditions as “ecclesial communities”…I was obliging…refering to them as they obviously enjoy refering to others…

I can embrace “ecclesial community” as an accurate term for any church(ecclesia)body. If it offends Catholics to be refered to by that phrase…why would anyone whom it offends want to offend others by it?🤷
 
Nicea325 said:
By virtue of what? The CC is not merely an ecclesial community.
Click to expand...
By virtue of my baptism into Christ by His Holy Spirit and receiving the forgiveness of sins. I understand YOU do not think is is an “ecclesial community”, but “we” weren’t responding to the statement concerning the Church which Jesus established…I was…and for me…and I dare say many others the Catholic church is just one of many ecclesial communites. What it claims for itself is not what I would claim for it because…well…I’m not Catholic.🙂
 
Publisher said:
By virtue of my baptism into Christ by His Holy Spirit and receiving the forgiveness of sins. I understand YOU do not think is is an “ecclesial community”, but “we” weren’t responding to the statement concerning the Church which Jesus established…I was…and for me…and I dare say many others the Catholic church is just one of many ecclesial communites. What it claims for itself is not what I would claim for it because…well…I’m not Catholic.🙂
Click to expand...
Yes…my friend, by virtue of baptism, through water and baptism (John 3:5).👍
 
Publisher said:
If you think the Anabaptists are in error…and their beliefs are contrarry to scripture and the teachings of your church…you might “vapor lock” due to the absolute “Incrediblity” of the Quaker position…we don’t practice ritual water baptism at all.🙂
Click to expand...
I’m aware.
 
The Ironic thing is that protestants like him owe alot of their theological knowledge and beliefs to you roman catholics. They think they just came up with it on their own without an inheritance? Its pure arrogance.
 
benjohnson said:
Don’t get me wrong, I (and the Lutheran church) place an almost penultimate importance on Baptism. But I think what Publisher is saying is that it’s not the water or the ritual that’s important, but the intent and act of becoming one in the Body of Christ.

In that, I think Lutherans would agree is some measure - in that we acknowledge Baptisms of desire and even Baptisms of blood. I don’t think Publisher is denying a transformative change in the soul of the believer, only that it may not have to necessarily occur during the receiving the Waters of Baptism.

If I’ve misunderstood, I invite correction.
Click to expand...
Quakers have no water Baptism. There is no correct form, regardless of the intent. They have made their “Baptism in the Spirit” the nromal means of Baptism. Baptisms by blood and desire are the extraordinary means and would apply to everyone, but we should not think that thie means a safe haven for everyone. There are very narrow circumstances under which the extraordinary means would apply.

There comes a time, when one becomes so separated from the Church Christ founded, from the Traditions and practices handed down from the Apostles, that certain communities just part ways with Christianity, as it was known for at least 1500 years, altogether. Quaker Baptism would not be considered valid in the Catholic Church, just as LDS Baptisms are not considered valid. Now I realize this makes absolutely no difference to Publisher, but to ignore what the Christian Church has done throughout its history seems unreasonable at best, and spiritually dangerous.

.
 
SteveVH said:
but to ignore what the Christian Church has done throughout its history seems unreasonable at best, and spiritually dangerous.

.
Click to expand...
Sadly true. Not only ignore the Historical Christian Church but History altogether…

The emancipation of man at any cost! There’s no truth, everything is corrupt, history is written by those in power only, etc, etc, etc… Exactly what the devil wants everyone to believe.

The emancipation of man from any and all authority is really the separation and isolation of man from the Body of Christ.

Regardless,

CHRIST IS RISEN!!!

Come, Oh Lord and claim your people and bring us together for your Glory!!!
 
Isaiah45_9 said:
Sadly true. Not only ignore the Historical Christian Church but History altogether…

The emancipation of man at any cost! There’s no truth, everything is corrupt, history is written by those in power only, etc, etc, etc… Exactly what the devil wants everyone to believe.

The emancipation of man from any and all authority is really the separation and isolation of man from the Body of Christ.

Regardless,

CHRIST IS RISEN!!!

Come, Oh Lord and claim your people and bring us together for your Glory!!!
Click to expand...
“For the time is coming when people will not put up with sound doctrine, but having itching ears, they will accumulate for themselves teachers to suit their own desires, and will turn away from listening to the truth and wander away to myths.” (2 Tim 4:3-4)
 
SteveVH said:
Now I realize this makes absolutely no difference to Publisher, but to ignore what the Christian Church has done throughout its history seems unreasonable at best, and spiritually dangerous.
Click to expand...
I certainly agree about being spiritually dangerous - especially given such a good example with Jesus and John the Baptist.

Only for myself, I guess I’m not comfortable circumscribing a line and declaring those outside of it in serious error and declaring that they are wrong - for I freely admit that I’m in serious error and I must hold to Christ’s love and forgiveness as my only source of salvation.

I will say, I’ve learned from Publisher to learn how to welcome the stranger, and for that I’m grateful.

He’s still is wrong about baptism though… So he better keep well away from my pastor as he can be quick to splash water from the baptism font. 🙂
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top