F
fullofzeal
Guest
I hope to enjoy your company one day.
- Status
H
holy_wood
Guest
This statement is not entirely accurate, under Church law any baptized christian (father, son, holy spirit) can baptize anyone else. It goes into our being part of the royal priesthood thing
Actually, we can do everything Priest can do except absolve sins and consecrate the Eucharist.
For administrative reasons we obviously do not encourage it though.
D
Don_Hepler
Guest
I am not interested in your church Law, but what is truth, and where did you get this royal priesthood thing? And do you still have people pay money so you can forgive them of Sin, or keep a child out of hell. And tell me,where in scripture do you get this anyone can baptize you. Why did Christ go to John the Baptist, instead of the Priests, Because Jesus knew they did not have the authority, and that John did. Again, where did you get your authority was it from heaven or of Men.
D
Don_Hepler
Guest
So you shall
D
Don_Hepler
Guest
Full of Zeal, yes you are,
G
GKL
Guest
Don Helper,
I have been a Protestant my entire life. It is true that contraception is between an individual and God – in the same sense the adultery and murder are between an individual and God. As David prayed long ago:
"Against you, you only, have I sinned
and done what is evil in your sight,
so that you may be justified in your words
and blameless in your judgment.
Luther and Calvin both condemned contraception in no uncertain terms. From the late 19th century through the first three to four decades of the 20th century, when popular movements were begun in Britain and the U.S. to legalize and promote the use of artificial contraception, PROTESTANT opposition was at least as strong and vocal as the opposition of pro-life Protestants to abortion today and as opposition of openly practicing homosexual clergy and same-sex marriage in most evangelical denominations and non-denominational congregation. Orthodox Judaism (those who have held most closely to the ancient teachings of their faith) has traditional permitted contraception only for the most serious health reason related the mother or any prospective child, otherwise condemning it as sinful.
The fact is that NO Christian body of any tradition, be it Protestant, Catholic or Orthodox, endorsed the use of artificial contraception until the Anglican Communion did in 1930, which aroused vehement opposition by some clergy in the communion and among many other Protestant denominations. When in 1931 a committee within the Federal Council of Churches of Christ in America (predecessor of the National Council of Churches) proposed endorsing contraception, it was opposed vigorously by Protestants from many denominations and the proposal was dropped. Luther and Calvin provide considerable exegesis to support the Biblical case against contraception and many evangelicals today still oppose it for those same reasons.
I have researched this thoroughly. Christians from the earliest days of the faith have opposed the use of contraception, following the Jewish position. I would welcome your citing me even one Christian who died before 1900 who endorsed the use of artificial contraception. I’ll believe you will find none because there were none. History is clear on this issue. Please look for yourself. Protestants who accept it now are accepting a new teaching less than 80 years old, a tradition of man.
I have been a Protestant my entire life. It is true that contraception is between an individual and God – in the same sense the adultery and murder are between an individual and God. As David prayed long ago:
"Against you, you only, have I sinned
and done what is evil in your sight,
so that you may be justified in your words
and blameless in your judgment.
Luther and Calvin both condemned contraception in no uncertain terms. From the late 19th century through the first three to four decades of the 20th century, when popular movements were begun in Britain and the U.S. to legalize and promote the use of artificial contraception, PROTESTANT opposition was at least as strong and vocal as the opposition of pro-life Protestants to abortion today and as opposition of openly practicing homosexual clergy and same-sex marriage in most evangelical denominations and non-denominational congregation. Orthodox Judaism (those who have held most closely to the ancient teachings of their faith) has traditional permitted contraception only for the most serious health reason related the mother or any prospective child, otherwise condemning it as sinful.
The fact is that NO Christian body of any tradition, be it Protestant, Catholic or Orthodox, endorsed the use of artificial contraception until the Anglican Communion did in 1930, which aroused vehement opposition by some clergy in the communion and among many other Protestant denominations. When in 1931 a committee within the Federal Council of Churches of Christ in America (predecessor of the National Council of Churches) proposed endorsing contraception, it was opposed vigorously by Protestants from many denominations and the proposal was dropped. Luther and Calvin provide considerable exegesis to support the Biblical case against contraception and many evangelicals today still oppose it for those same reasons.
I have researched this thoroughly. Christians from the earliest days of the faith have opposed the use of contraception, following the Jewish position. I would welcome your citing me even one Christian who died before 1900 who endorsed the use of artificial contraception. I’ll believe you will find none because there were none. History is clear on this issue. Please look for yourself. Protestants who accept it now are accepting a new teaching less than 80 years old, a tradition of man.
G
GKL
Guest
What I fear as an evangelical Protestant is the 80 years hence most Protestants will accept abortion and homosexuality just as they today accept contraception, being as ignorant of the history of our time and their great-grandparents’ opposition to those practices as we are of our great-grandparents’ time and their opposition to contraception when liberals were promoting its use 80 years ago. We need a Josiah to teach us again the ancient truths of our faith.
S
Sina
Guest
Aren’t there some non denom Christians who baptise more than one? Like, you can be baptised again and again. Born again?
What is the thinking behind that?
What is the thinking behind that?
H
holy_wood
Guest
Dude, you seem so angry, not very fitting for a child of christ.
I really hope you consider that the things you listed were actions taken by people abusing there power. If your intention is to convince me the Catholic Church is wrong based on the actions of its sinners then I hope I can convince you of its truth based on its saints.
As for where I got the whole royal priesthood things. Its from scripture.
Also John the Baptist was a messenger of Christ coming he was special. And baptism was new at the time.
It also was imperfect for it was not done in the name of the father, son, and the holy spirit.
As for the authority of the Pharisees, Christ supported that as well.
Matt 23:1-3
D
Don_Hepler
Guest
Dude was it fitting for Christ when he threw the money changers out of the temple, and what tone of voice do you think he used sweet and gentle??? Do you think that the Christ was angry or do you think he spoke gently and asked please leave. You gave me your understanding of the scriptures I’ll add mine, first I am referring to the royal priesthood that you don’t have. The Royal priesthood was given to those chosen and ordained by him, the chosen race (people) where Israel, Not the gentiles. oh yes 1 peter 2:9 he was saying that the scribes and the Pharisees …that they took the authority by sitting in moses seat, and cause you to do their bidding, because you are subject to them, do it but do not their works. All through the chapter Christ tells Israel that these wicked men, (a wicked man would only have man given power), they held no royal priesthood, but by sitting on moses set they claimed authority by which man gave them. Christ didn’t tell anyone that they had the truth, and to follow them in their wicked ways. The baptism of John was perfect. For Christ set the example, and bowed, to fulfill the Law. forgive me for stepping on some toes. People seam to never move unless their hearts are moved, searching is good for the soul, don’t be complacent, and don’t be afraid to learn another point of view. That is how the Savior won so many. His point of view was different from those who were set in their ways.
Y
Yerusalyim
Guest
Don,
You cite the example of Jesus in being baptized as an adult as one reason to reject infant baptism…Jesus was also single his whole life…do we also follow that example?
What this comes down to is a basic difference of opinion of what baptism is.
What I draw from scriptures is that because of the sin of Adam we are stained at conception…the concept of Original Sin. Baptism fixes that problem for us…removes the stain of Adam., and if we are of the age of reason at baptism it also removes the stains we’ve made ourselves. We baptize infants because the sacrament confers the graces to grow as Christians.
The reason adult baptism is so prominent in scripture is because all the converts to Christianity were ADULTS…but then we see the example of “whole households” being baptized as well.
You mentioned indulgences earlier (not by name) when you talked about paying to have sin removed…the selling of indulgences was wrong…the practice is condemned…what more do you want?
I accept the church’s teaching on contraception but it has no impact on my life, my wife had a hysterectomy years ago…however…my personal belief is that, with the exception of abortificants…the real sin exists in the REASON rather than the METHOD of contraception. Natural family planning, when done for the wrong reason, is sinful…by the same token I believe there can be valid medical reasons outside of contraception for taking Birth Control pills…with Birth Control being a side affect.
You cite the example of Jesus in being baptized as an adult as one reason to reject infant baptism…Jesus was also single his whole life…do we also follow that example?
What this comes down to is a basic difference of opinion of what baptism is.
What I draw from scriptures is that because of the sin of Adam we are stained at conception…the concept of Original Sin. Baptism fixes that problem for us…removes the stain of Adam., and if we are of the age of reason at baptism it also removes the stains we’ve made ourselves. We baptize infants because the sacrament confers the graces to grow as Christians.
The reason adult baptism is so prominent in scripture is because all the converts to Christianity were ADULTS…but then we see the example of “whole households” being baptized as well.
You mentioned indulgences earlier (not by name) when you talked about paying to have sin removed…the selling of indulgences was wrong…the practice is condemned…what more do you want?
I accept the church’s teaching on contraception but it has no impact on my life, my wife had a hysterectomy years ago…however…my personal belief is that, with the exception of abortificants…the real sin exists in the REASON rather than the METHOD of contraception. Natural family planning, when done for the wrong reason, is sinful…by the same token I believe there can be valid medical reasons outside of contraception for taking Birth Control pills…with Birth Control being a side affect.
D
Don_Hepler
Guest
Thank you for your responses my opinion is that there is no proof that Jesus wasn’t married, Who did appear to him first, Mary, what did she say to him, MY LORD AND MASTER, My God and husband, or My husband and my God and a Rabbi Could not be one without being married, and since we weren’t there, we really don’t know about his private life. He did have a lot of women following him, odd since the High priest, would of really look for the wrong in that, but said nothing. Just don’t close you eyes to something you cannot prove, since you don’t know what he really did, at that time 2000 years ago with little information about him. Adam transgressed the Law for he knew no sin or right or wrong, he had to eat of the fruit first, before he had a knowledge that he was even naked. You will suffer for your own sins not for Adams transgressions. Baptism is to wash away your sins, read the scriptures, and one who sins has to know he has sinned, or why repent. John taught Repentance, then Baptism, for the remission of your sin. A child has to be accountable, and have a knowledge of sin in order to repent of it then understand the atonement, that by excepting what Christ has done, his atonement then brings us back for he paid for your sins, the Baptism washes them and you become apart of the God of Israel’s kingdom. When one takes the sacrament, he is renewing his covenants, at time of baptism, of course you need to know what covenants your taking at the time of baptism. And as for birth control. we agree… but on sin or baptism???, be prayerful the truth is at your door
L
LutheranDK
Guest
What the RCC has or does not have docmatic teachings on is hardly relevant to the questions you pose.
But I’ll just stick to the rest.
1: Those who oppose infant baptism do so because they have not read the Scriptures cohesively and in context.
2: I can think of no places in Scripture that even SPEAK, in any way, shape or form, of contraception, so I don’t see what you’re trying to prove?
Of course, contraception that works by hindering the newly created child in attaching itself in the uterus is another matter entirely (because that’s killing the baby = the same as “abortion”)
But I can’t see how contraception that works by hindering the conception in the first case is a problem. Until conception, all there is is sperm and egg, and if the sperm is prevented from reaching the egg, I can’t see the problem?
Please note that all of the above presupposes sex within marriage - as that is CERTAINLY the only place Scripture allows it.
- Status