The True Church

[Darkness]

Charity is a much deeper word, with much deeper meaning.

Love is the ultimate, universe consuming, morality bending word.

 

[Luke_17:2]

Especially if you are not keen on the masses understanding it. Before this they kept the services in Latin for the same reasons. Pretty sad.

The Catholic Church did. The Anglican church and minority churches in Britain quit doing this with the reforms of Henry VIII

Peak? I dare say that MORE people speak English than at any other point in history. That would make THIS point in time English's zenith, and there may be more to come!

In the number of people speaking it, yes, this would be the peak. In the actual purity and evolution of the language, the era 1500-1700 is most definitely the peak.

What is "ridiculous" is the absence of the Spirit when you EXCLUSIVELY use the Scriptures.

Absence of the Holy Spirit? Where exactly has the Holy Spirit been absent on my side?

And what should I use in addition to the Scriptures?

There was no "Bible" at the time the Psalms were written. Again...Timeline.

No, but God's word most definitely did exist. Hence the many references to His word. The Torah, for example, did exist; and that was His word.

So, yes, timeline.

In what way do rebuke and retort "balance out" love?

Read II Timothy 2.

That's why I surmised that you'd never been in love. Anyone who's experienced deep love has experienced that aspect of love.

As you wish.

Love can most certainly be a consuming fire.

Read the context. It said God, not love, is a consuming fire. It wasn't referring to His love, it was referring to Him. And don't say "God is love" because I've already made clear that while that's true, it doesn't negate His other attributes.

What more can there be? What is **more** than love?

Stop twisting my words. I said that God is more then love. And I proceeded to tell you how He is. The Bible, for example, calls Him a God of war -it also calls Him a God of peace. He's balanced. That was the point of this entire exchange.

No. You're saying what you think the Bible says about God. You're saying your interpretation of what the Bible says about God.

I'm saying what the Bible says. Period.

I'm not saying that discussion of the Bible is legalism. I'm saying that your treatment of the Bible is legalistic.

My treatment of the Bible is such that I belief it is the ultimate authority.

Not everything we know about God comes from the Bible. What do you suppose early believers did before things were written down? How do you suppose illiterate people come by their revelation of God? How does God reveal God's self to prophets?

Those early people heard the word of God right out of the mouth of the apostles. God reveals Himself in the Bible to us. What is written in the Bible was also spoken by the apostles, and that's how it spread.

it's not all that matters in a theological discussion, since theology is about relationship. Theology should also include revelation about humanity, as well as God.

Theology is not about relationship. It is a study of God. "Theo" means God "logy" means study of.

Altruism will get you nowhere. "Setting people straight" isn't an acgt of compassion. It's an act of hubris.

The Bible says to rebuke and retort.

Primarily because it takes advantage of better scholarship in the translation process. The texts used are much older, actually, than the texts used to translate the KJV. The NRSV comes largely from the LXX, (supplemented by other ancient texts). The KJV used the Masoretic text, which was much newer than the LXX. Developoments in cultural anthropology and etymology have enabled translation to be both tighter and more reader-friendly.

More reader friendly? That's exactly the problem. The translators of the AV had no agenda to push; no lobbys to consider. They wrote what the Bible says. The new ones say what we want the say. They're reader friendly.

 

[Scuba Pete]

In the number of people speaking it, yes, this would be the peak. In the actual purity and evolution of the language, the era 1500-1700 is most definitely the peak.

What a backward opinion! Somehow, the more evolved language is somehow "less"? That's elitism at it's worst!

Absence of the Holy Spirit? Where exactly has the Holy Spirit been absent on my side?

And what should I use in addition to the Scriptures?

THAT'S THE POINT! You HAVE to use the Spirit to understand the Scriptures. Scriptures by themselves can NOT bring you to God! You have successfully made the scriptures into some sort of graven image and NOT what God intended. They call themselves USEFUL, and somehow you have twisted this into them being PERFECT. Why? Because you are NOT following the Spirit of God, but the spirit of theological legalism which is predicated on extra-scriptural beliefs such as this.

Read the context. It said God, not love, is a consuming fire. It wasn't referring to His love, it was referring to Him. And don't say "God is love" because I've already made clear that while that's true, it doesn't negate His other attributes.

God = Love = Consuming Fire works for me. Just because God says Vengeance is HIS, does not make him vengeful! It means that vengeance isn't OURS to take. The problem is that you buy the hype of the OT that somehow God is sitting up in heaven like some prepubescent kid with a magnifying glass on an ant hill, just itching to obliterate any ant that gets out of line! ALL of the OT was handed down orally for GENERATIONS, which is why the OT time lines are so out of kilter with reality. Like our present administration, they try to use GOD to justify their horrible, horrible actions. God isn't amused by this as he wants us to be known for OUR LOVE and not our hate. If you want to understand Scriptural "balance", go read about TURNING the other cheek. There's your balance! Give the poor schlep your coat at the same time. Yeah, that's balance alright! I certainly don't buy into this WWJB mentality.

Of course, the opposite end of this spectra is the pseudo-evangelical view of God as some sort of Cosmic Bell Hop, just waiting to bring them any temporal blessing they so desire. BOTH of these views are counter to a Loving God. BUT, if you won't use the Holy Spirit to discern these things, you will continue to try and be a literalist when you should be a lover instead!

The translators of the AV had no agenda to push; no lobbys to consider.

You probably wrote this with a straight face, and that is disturbing! These writers had a HUGE Agenda which is why it was NAMED AFTER A KING! Dude, it's ALL about control. Why is it called the "authorized version"? So people, such as yourself, can exert CONTROL with AUTHORITY over the timid masses. You have exchanged LOVE for LEGALISM and can't even see that you have done so! Read Galatians 5, and don't stop reading it until you can FEEL what it means when he writes about our spiritual FREEDOM.

They wrote what the Bible says. The new ones say what we want the say. They're reader friendly.

Where did you find this? I Opinions 4:3? Maybe it was from Fallacies 10:5? A translation is only useful as it is current. The KJV and AKJV are incredibly dated and almost useless in terms of rendering the Greek in an easy to understand format for MODERN English Speaking people. But that's the deal, isn't it? If everyone UNDERSTOOD the scriptures, then you wouldn't have as much control over their meaning.

 

[sojourner]

No, but God's word most definitely did exist. Hence the many references to His word. The Torah, for example, did exist; and that was His word.

So, yes, timeline.

The Torah is not the whole corpus of what you consider to be scripture. Therefore, there is a discrepancy between what the author refers to as "God's Word," and what you refer to as, "God's Word." That's why I say that

You're saying what you think the Bible says about God. You're saying your interpretation of what the Bible says about God.

Read the context. It said God, not love, is a consuming fire. It wasn't referring to His love, it was referring to Him.

If God is love, and love can be a comsuming fire, then the statement makes perfect sense in that context.

Stop twisting my words. I said that God is more then love. And I proceeded to tell you how He is. The Bible, for example, calls Him a God of war -it also calls Him a God of peace. He's balanced. That was the point of this entire exchange.

Jesus predicates all the Law and the Prophets upon love of God and love of neighbor. There is nothing that is "more" than love.

I'm saying what the Bible says. Period.

"God said it, I believe it, that settles it." Fine. That attitude may "settle it" for you. But there's a whole big world full of folks who are just as ardent, just as sincere, just as faithful, for whom that attitude settles nothing. These are people who are more interested in what the Bible says about God than they are in their own hermeneutic.

Those early people heard the word of God right out of the mouth of the apostles. God reveals Himself in the Bible to us. What is written in the Bible was also spoken by the apostles, and that's how it spread.

Again...timeline. What about after the apostles died? Who did the people hear the
Word of God from then?

Theology is not about relationship. It is a study of God. "Theo" means God "logy" means study of.

Who do you suppose does the studying? What do you suppose that study is with regard to? Read your Bible, since you claim to revere it so much as a final authority. The Biblical story is a story of relationship.

The Bible says to rebuke and retort.

The Bible also says to kill homosexuals, to stone adulterers. It also says that you, who probably wear 50/50 cotton/poly shirst, are an abomination. That's why exegesis -- not eisegesis is so important when interpreting "what the Bible says."

More reader friendly? That's exactly the problem. The translators of the AV had no agenda to push; no lobbys to consider. They wrote what the Bible says. The new ones say what we want the say. They're reader friendly.

Your understanding of the process of translation is abysmal.

 

[Darkness]

The Bible, for example, calls Him a God of war -it also calls Him a God of peace. He's balanced. That was the point of this entire exchange.

Perhaps He is also evil and the Devil as well.

 

[Luke_17:2]

The Torah is not the whole corpus of what you consider to be scripture. Therefore, there is a discrepancy between what the author refers to as "God's Word," and what you refer to as, "God's Word."

No... What makes the Bible God's word is the words written in them. The Torah proceeded directly from the mouth of God. But that wasn't the point. God's word existed then: that was the point. There is more to God's word then there was then, but all of it was God's word then regardless of what God has gone to included in it

That's why I say that If God is love, and love can be a comsuming fire, then the statement makes perfect sense in that context.

But that wasn't the context, was it? The context was that we should fear God with a Godly fear, "For our God is a consuming fire."

Come out from under your rock.

"God said it, I believe it, that settles it." Fine. That attitude may "settle it" for you. But there's a whole big world full of folks who are just as ardent, just as sincere, just as faithful, for whom that attitude settles nothing. These are people who are more interested in what the Bible says about God than they are in their own hermeneutic.

If you're so interested in what the Bible says, why don't you accept what it says? If God said it, that ought to be enough for anyone.

Again...timeline. What about after the apostles died? Who did the people hear the Word of God from then?

Are you serious? I'm thinking the people whom the apostles saved in their lifetime...

Who do you suppose does the studying? What do you suppose that study is with regard to? Read your Bible, since you claim to revere it so much as a final authority. The Biblical story is a story of relationship.

True. The Bible is about God's relationship to His creation, the events leading up to the crucifixtion and resurrection, and the revelation of Himself to His creation. That doesn't change the fact that a study of God centers on God, not us.

The Bible also says to kill homosexuals, to stone adulterers. It also says that you, who probably wear 50/50 cotton/poly shirst, are an abomination.

You will notice that the commandments to kill homosexuals was in the Levitical law that is not applicable to Christians. Now, the Bible calls it an abomination, but the Levitical law was put aside when Jesus died and resurrected.

The same with adultery. It's still wrong, and God hates it, but the commandment to stone adulterers died with Jesus' sacrifice. The Levitical law was a law for a Theocratic nation, but Christianity is not a theocracy.

I wear 100% cotton.

That's why exegesis -- not eisegesis is so important when interpreting "what the Bible says."

It might help you to actually read and study it before you start interpreting.

Your understanding of the process of translation is abysmal.

During my brief stint is apostate school (aka Christian college), we started to translate the New Testament from the original Greek. That's when I realized the corruption involved in translation in the modern era.

 

[Luke_17:2]

What a backward opinion! Somehow, the more evolved language is somehow "less"? That's elitism at it's worst!

That's not what I said. I said the more evolved language is more. Shakespear wrote his plays in the Elizabethean period -that was not in the 21st century.

What does this have to do with elitism?

THAT'S THE POINT! You HAVE to use the Spirit to understand the Scriptures. Scriptures by themselves can NOT bring you to God! You have successfully made the scriptures into some sort of graven image and NOT what God intended. They call themselves USEFUL, and somehow you have twisted this into them being PERFECT. Why? Because you are NOT following the Spirit of God, but the spirit of theological legalism which is predicated on extra-scriptural beliefs such as this.

I have not made them into a graven image: I'm using them for what they're for. Getting to know God, to know what is right, how to be saved, etc. What do you use them for? And I ask you, as they claim divine inspiration and say they're sound for doctrine, shouldn't they be perfect? If they're not perfect, maybe all it says about forgiving our enemies, loving our neighbor is imperfect too.

God = Love = Consuming Fire works for me.

Great. That may work for you, but that's not the context in Hebrews 12.

Just because God says Vengeance is HIS, does not make him vengeful! It means that vengeance isn't OURS to take.

Nahum 1:2- God is jealous, and the Lord revengeth; the Lord revengeth, and is furious; the LORD will take vengeance on his adversaries, and he reserveth wrath for his enemies.

Where do you get your ideas? Obviously not from the Bible...

The problem is that you buy the hype of the OT that somehow God is sitting up in heaven like some prepubescent kid with a magnifying glass on an ant hill, just itching to obliterate any ant that gets out of line!

I'd consider what you're saying. The Bible says what God does. If He does it, there's something to it.

And about that "hype"; Jesus quoted that hype more then once, as did the apostles.

You buy into the modernistic idea that the OT is irrelevant. At least my hype is biblical.

ALL of the OT was handed down orally for GENERATIONS

Let's see... The Torah was obviously dictated to Moses, the prophets were prophecying directly from the mouth of God... What do you want? You want the Biblie to echo liberalism, but it doesn't. It echoes God's word, whether you like it or not.

which is why the OT time lines are so out of kilter with reality. Like our present administration, they try to use GOD to justify their horrible, horrible actions. God isn't amused by this as he wants us to be known for OUR LOVE and not our hate. If you want to understand Scriptural "balance", go read about TURNING the other cheek. There's your balance! Give the poor schlep your coat at the same time. Yeah, that's balance alright! I certainly don't buy into this WWJB mentality.

Aside from your statement that God does horrible things, I see nothing in this rant...

Of course, the opposite end of this spectra is the pseudo-evangelical view of God as some sort of Cosmic Bell Hop, just waiting to bring them any temporal blessing they so desire. BOTH of these views are counter to a Loving God. BUT, if you won't use the Holy Spirit to discern these things, you will continue to try and be a literalist when you should be a lover instead!

I agree. God will not give you your every heart's desire.

Stop accusing me of not being guided by the Holy Spirit.

You probably wrote this with a straight face, and that is disturbing! These writers had a HUGE Agenda which is why it was NAMED AFTER A KING! Dude, it's ALL about control. Why is it called the "authorized version"? So people, such as yourself, can exert CONTROL with AUTHORITY over the timid masses.

No. They named it the Authorized Version. We named it the King James Version.

It was called the Authorized Version because it was the only Bible that was allowed in Britain after Bloody Mary seized all the Bibles and tried to kill all the evangelicals and non-Catholics.

You have exchanged LOVE for LEGALISM and can't even see that you have done so! Read Galatians 5, and don't stop reading it until you can FEEL what it means when he writes about our spiritual FREEDOM.

Would Galatians 5 be in the Bible?

Where did you find this? I Opinions 4:3? Maybe it was from Fallacies 10:5? A translation is only useful as it is current. The KJV and AKJV are incredibly dated and almost useless in terms of rendering the Greek in an easy to understand format for MODERN English Speaking people. But that's the deal, isn't it? If everyone UNDERSTOOD the scriptures, then you wouldn't have as much control over their meaning.

If you can't understand 6th grade English then there's something wrong with you.

And why do you keep going about control?

A translation is only useful as it is current.

How so? Which part of that statement do you wish me to blow a hole through first?

 

[Muffled]

If God is love than love is God. Can you not see this simple truth? Let's try this in mathematics. If God = Love than Love = God. See how easy it is.

1 John 4 does not say God is loving does he? No! He says GOD IS LOVE.

God is love because He defines what love is. Love is not God because it is our understanding of it which falls short of God's definition and our understanding of it can't define God.

If all you were talking about were the number of letters in the word or the exact sequence of letters then your math works out ok. The meaning of the words could be equated but most often people load up the word "love" with their own definitions and the two become unequal.

 

[Darkness]

God is love because He defines what love is.

Love is a human construct. You and I both know what love is. It is a Father taking care of his daughter or a couple being tender with each other. God hijacking the definition is irrelevant. It does absolutely nothing and changes nothing. Love is still love and not God's sadistic corruption of the word. For the very concept of what the English word "love" means cannot be changed.

And for some of the greatest words ever uttered:
"I care not whether what I do is good or evil. The worlds and labels mean less than nothing to me." -- Lucifer

 

[Scuba Pete]

What does this have to do with elitism?

I am not surprised that you don't see this! Elitism seems to deceive itself on a regular basis.

I have not made them into a graven image: I'm using them for what they're for.

This is not true! You worship them as perfect, when ONLY GOD is perfect. You assign them to be something they were never intended to be, looking to them to do things that the Spirit was designed to do, like getting to know God!

shouldn't they be perfect?

Why SHOULD they be? Where do they CLAIM to be? This is part and parcel of deifying the scriptures that is unholy. How can a man understand God? The Spirit of God must be within him!

Nahum 1:2- God is jealous, and the Lord revengeth; the Lord revengeth, and is furious; the LORD will take vengeance on his adversaries, and he reserveth wrath for his enemies.

Ever wonder why the NT God is so much more loving than the OT God?

I'd consider what you're saying. The Bible says what God does. If He does it, there's something to it.

Where do the Scriptures claim to do this? You say you believe in the scriptures and yet you keep EXCEEDING them.

And about that "hype"; Jesus quoted that hype more then once, as did the apostles.

Yeah, the Scriptures are USEFUL for instructing others! Look at the Scriptures he DIDN'T quote!

You buy into the modernistic idea that the OT is irrelevant. At least my hype is biblical.

I buy into the Christian concept of FREEDOM from the Law and being guided by the Spirit. Do you have a problem with this concept?

Let's see... The Torah was obviously dictated to Moses, the prophets were prophecying directly from the mouth of God.

Obviously? Only to someone who has deified the Scriptures. Do the Scriptures claim this?

Aside from your statement that God does horrible things, I see nothing in this rant...

Again, you twist my words as easily as you twist scripture! God is LOVE and his actions are loving. He has nothing to do with wars, even those waged in his "NAME".

Would Galatians 5 be in the Bible?

Given some of your earlier responses, it doesn't surprise me that you are not familiar with this chapter.

And why do you keep going about control?

It's the prime motivation here. Denying it won't make it any different.

How so? Which part of that statement do you wish me to blow a hole through first?

If you could have, you would have. Saber rattling does little to impress me or others. I triple dog dare you to even try.

 

[sojourner]

No... What makes the Bible God's word is the words written in them. The Torah proceeded directly from the mouth of God. But that wasn't the point. God's word existed then: that was the point. There is more to God's word then there was then, but all of it was God's word then regardless of what God has gone to included in it

What makes the Bible "God's Word" is our accedptance of it as such. I'd be willing to bet that you don't accept any of the books in the Orthodox Canon (which are not included in the Protestant Canon) as "God's Word."

But that wasn't the context, was it? The context was that we should fear God with a Godly fear, "For our God is a consuming fire."

That word, "fear" is closer in meaning to "healthy respect." I have a healthy respect for love, because I know that love can consume me...like a fire..."

Come out from under your rock.

Christ is the only "rock" I acknowledge. And I'm proud to build my faith upon that rock...not under it.

If you're so interested in what the Bible says, why don't you accept what it says? If God said it, that ought to be enough for anyone.

What does it say? Once I know what it says, I accept what it says.

I didn't say "God said it." You said "God said it." I say that human beings said it.

Are you serious? I'm thinking the people whom the apostles saved in their lifetime...

What about the people who lived between the time the apostles lived, and the NT was written?

That doesn't change the fact that a study of God centers on God, not us.

That doesn't change the fact that a study of God centers on how God interacts with us.

You will notice that the commandments to kill homosexuals was in the Levitical law that is not applicable to Christians. Now, the Bible calls it an abomination, but the Levitical law was put aside when Jesus died and resurrected.

The same with adultery. It's still wrong, and God hates it, but the commandment to stone adulterers died with Jesus' sacrifice. The Levitical law was a law for a Theocratic nation, but Christianity is not a theocracy.

You will note that, for Jews, there is no New Covenant that fulfills the Law. I have yet to hear of any Jews stoning homosexuals.

It might help you to actually read and study it before you start interpreting.

In order to read (once again) one must engage in interpretation.

During my brief stint is apostate school (aka Christian college), we started to translate the New Testament from the original Greek. That's when I realized the corruption involved in translation in the modern era.

Obviously, your "brief stint" in Bible school was neither comprehensive, nor long enough to help you realize that translation is better now than it was in antiquity.

 

[astarath]

Regardless of better translations or not the messages found within the texts can not all be called the Word of God because of the infallability of God. Some messages clearly contradict others. More specifically many of the teachings of Paul are contrary not only to the OT tenets but to teachings of Christ himself!

 

[logician]

Regardless of better translations or not the messages found within the texts can not all be called the Word of God because of the infallability of God. Some messages clearly contradict others. More specifically many of the teachings of Paul are contrary not only to the OT tenets but to teachings of Christ himself!

That's because Paul never knew of an earthly Christ(in his legitimate epistles), and thus never used the supposed Jesus' teachings as examples.

 

[JamBar85]

Marks of the True Church

1. Believes that Jesus Christ is God. John 1:1

2. Has no Head of the church but Jesus. Ephesians 5:23

3. Teaches truth not Denominationalism. Mark 7:7-8

4. Teaches that The Bible is the True Word of God, and is without error. 2 Timothy 3:16-17

5. Teaches that Authority comes from the word of God not leaders in the Church. 1 Thessalonians 4:2, Acts 2:42

6. Teaches Believers Baptism. Mark 16:16

7. Teaches that Repentance and Baptism is for the Forgiveness of Sins and the way to receive the Holy Spirit. Acts 2:38, Romans 6:3-4

8. Teaches that Jesus is the only way to heaven. Acts 4:12

9. Teaches that Sinners will go to Hell. Revelation 21:8, 20:11-15

10. Takes care of the Poor. James 1:27

11. And does the Great Commission. Matthew 28:18-20

I have a couple of questions.

What exactly is the point of being baptised? I myself am not. If a baby is born into the world free of sin then why baptise it to rid it of sin that they don't have? Also, is anyone allowed to get baptised at any point in thier life? I'm sure that they can but could someone confirm this for me please?

What does number 8 mean? Teaches that jesus is the only way to heaven. It's a bit vague.

Can someone explain? Cheers.

 

[roli]

What exactly is the point of being baptised? I myself am not.

Before Jesus died and ascended on high, baptism was a means to show that one repented and received remission of sins. It was a baptism of repentance
Mar 1:4John did baptize in the wilderness, and preach the baptism of repentance for the remission of sins.
...but, baptism never removed sin, it was only an outward act of obedience symbolically showing one was serious about turning from their sin
Jesus had to die to shed his sinless blood the atonement of man's sin that those who beleive in the sacrifice of Jesus shall receive the forgiveness of their sins.
Believing ,in Jesus ,reading the bible ,going to church ,acting relgious never atoned for anyone's sin, but only the sacrifice of the spotless lamb of God was received by God as full payment for ,man's sin, those who receive this gift, receive eternal life
Mat 26:28For this is my blood of the new testament, which is shed for many for the remission of sins.
It is the blood that removes the stain of sin.
Hbr 9:22And almost all things are by the law purged with blood; and without shedding of blood is no remission.

If a baby is born into the world free of sin then why baptise it to rid it of sin that they don't have?

Baptism of infants was merely a dedication in the eyes of God, although many beleive it saves a child or free's them of si, they are contrary to God's word.
Another thing is, we are all sinners, all are under sin and the curse thereof, which is death ,physical and spiritual.

Also, is anyone allowed to get baptised at any point in thier life? I'm sure that they can but could someone confirm this for me please?

Baptism today is an act that cause many to beleive they are saved from sin or made righteous in God's eyes, but salvation is first by God's grace through our faith and conversion is not in the flesh, it is one done in the heart of man ,when and only when the Holy Spirit enters the heart of someone who believes, receives and trusts Jesus as Savior.

What does number 8 mean? Teaches that jesus is the only way to heaven. It's a bit vague.

I don't know what your referring to, but "8 " in the bible means, new beginnings. It is the end of 7 meaning completion,fulfilment and the beginning of something new.

 

[Darkness]

What does it say? Once I know what it says, I accept what it says.

I didn't say "God said it." You said "God said it." I say that human beings said it.

Sojourner, you have more wisdom than all of the Fundamentalist Pastors and Preachers put together. You truly get it.

Frubals!!!

 

[athanasius]

Before Jesus died and ascended on high, baptism was a means to show that one repented and received remission of sins. It was a baptism of repentance
Mar 1:4John did baptize in the wilderness, and preach the baptism of repentance for the remission of sins.
...but, baptism never removed sin, it was only an outward act of obedience symbolically showing one was serious about turning from their sin
Jesus had to die to shed his sinless blood the atonement of man's sin that those who beleive in the sacrifice of Jesus shall receive the forgiveness of their sins.
Believing ,in Jesus ,reading the bible ,going to church ,acting relgious never atoned for anyone's sin, but only the sacrifice of the spotless lamb of God was received by God as full payment for ,man's sin, those who receive this gift, receive eternal life
Mat 26:28For this is my blood of the new testament, which is shed for many for the remission of sins.
It is the blood that removes the stain of sin.
Hbr 9:22And almost all things are by the law purged with blood; and without shedding of blood is no remission.



Baptism of infants was merely a dedication in the eyes of God, although many beleive it saves a child or free's them of si, they are contrary to God's word.
Another thing is, we are all sinners, all are under sin and the curse thereof, which is death ,physical and spiritual.




Baptism today is an act that cause many to beleive they are saved from sin or made righteous in God's eyes, but salvation is first by God's grace through our faith and conversion is not in the flesh, it is one done in the heart of man ,when and only when the Holy Spirit enters the heart of someone who believes, receives and trusts Jesus as Savior.


I don't know what your referring to, but "8 " in the bible means, new beginnings. It is the end of 7 meaning completion,fulfilment and the beginning of something new.

I guess we just get out the black marker and erase those passages we do not want to read. Passages like,

"And now why do you wait? Rise and be baptized, and wash away your sins, calling on his name."(Acts 22:16):yes:

 

[Scuba Pete]

"And now why do you wait? Rise and be baptized, and wash away your sins, calling on his name."(Acts 22:16):yes:

It's almost as bad as ADDING infant baptism to the Scriptures, eh?

 

[Luke_17:2]

I am not surprised that you don't see this! Elitism seems to deceive itself on a regular basis.

I am not an elitist, and even if I were, it has nothing to do with this.

This is not true! You worship them as perfect, when ONLY GOD is perfect. You assign them to be something they were never intended to be, looking to them to do things that the Spirit was designed to do, like getting to know God!

I revere them as perfect because they proceeded from the mouth of God, who is perfect. My view is that if they're not perfect, you throw them out. If one part of the Bible is deficient, there's something wrong with it altogether. What you do is throw away parts you don't like. I read it ALL, and follow it ALL.

Why SHOULD they be? Where do they CLAIM to be? This is part and parcel of deifying the scriptures that is unholy. How can a man understand God? The Spirit of God must be within him!

Aside from II Timothy, look at it this way. IF they're not perfect, then what good are they? Would you use a math textbook that says 5+5=10? So what if it says in another place 1+1=2, the fact is that it made a mistake. As a matter of fact, the author and publisher made a mistake, and therefore you wouldn’t trust them. And in the case of the Bible, God allows the Bible to be used for the guidance of His people. If it’s wrong in any place, why does He allow us to use it?

Ever wonder why the NT God is so much more loving than the OT God?

The OT God is the Father, and the NT God is the Son. At least that's how many interpret it.

But God is God no matter when or where He is. He doesn't change. That passage in Nahum 1 is just as applicable today as it was then.

Where do the Scriptures claim to do this? You say you believe in the scriptures and yet you keep EXCEEDING them.

Are you suggesting that you know better then God? Are you suggesting that God makes mistakes?

Yeah, the Scriptures are USEFUL for instructing others! Look at the Scriptures he DIDN'T quote!

He didn’t quote many –it’s irrelevant. That’s not how you debate.

I buy into the Christian concept of FREEDOM from the Law and being guided by the Spirit. Do you have a problem with this concept?

Of course I believe in these concepts. We agree here.

The Spirit, though, speaks to us through the scriptures.

Obviously? Only to someone who has deified the Scriptures. Do the Scriptures claim this?

Let's see... How about the phrase "thus saith the Lord"... Does that kinda give it away?

Again, you twist my words as easily as you twist scripture! God is LOVE and his actions are loving. He has nothing to do with wars, even those waged in his "NAME".

Yes He does have to do with wars. The Bible calls Him a man of war.

Given some of your earlier responses, it doesn't surprise me that you are not familiar with this chapter.

I'm aware of the chapter. The point was that it was from the scriptures, which are according to you imperfect. More proof of the fact that you pick and choose.

It's the prime motivation here. Denying it won't make it any different.

How do you know this?

If you could have, you would have. Saber rattling does little to impress me or others. I triple dog dare you to even try.

The main problem with your statement was that the words will always mean what they mean. All you have to do is know the meaning of the words when it was written. The Bible says (KJV) "For God so loved the world..." -Tell me the problem with that passage. How is it somehow uninspired because it’s old? Does the Holy Spirit move out because He doesn’t like old translations? It’s like saying you hate Victorian architecture because it isn’t current.

Your statement simply won’t slide as an effective argument against Traditionalist Conservatives.

 

[Scuba Pete]

Aside from II Timothy, look at it this way. IF they're not perfect, then what good are they?

So we can boil it down to this...

You base your ENTIRE "the Scriptures are perfect" theology on this one verse. We can conclude one of two things here:

1) You have a penchant to ADD to these scriptures concepts which aren't there but are popular among humans who want deify the Scriptures. OR...

2) The Scriptures never claim (or imply) infallibility.

Are you suggesting that you know better then God? Are you suggesting that God makes mistakes?

I am suggesting that God works through imperfect men. Do you deny this?

The Spirit, though, speaks to us through the scriptures.

The Spirit does not need the Scriptures to speak to us, now does he? In fact, basing your relationship to God on the letter will kill you:

II Corinthians 3:6 He has made us competent as ministers of a new covenant—not of the letter but of the Spirit; for the letter kills, but the Spirit gives life. NIV

Let's see... How about the phrase "thus saith the Lord"... Does that kinda give it away?

That's when I would perk up and listen. However, people ascribe all kinds of things to God. Just look at Jim Jones!

Yes He does have to do with wars. The Bible calls Him a man of war.

MEN called him a God of war. Here we have a perfect inconsistency. Or are you going to show me that SOMEHOW war is love and black is white.

I'm aware of the chapter. The point was that it was from the scriptures, which are according to you imperfect. More proof of the fact that you pick and choose.

Of course I pick and choose and obviously, SO DO YOU! In fact, you not only pick and choose, but you hold on to many HUMAN precepts and pass them off as God's.

"For God so loved the world..." -Tell me the problem with that passage. How is it somehow uninspired because it’s old?

This is a red herring. We have had the PERFECT example in I Corinthians 13, where agape' is translated as "charity" in the KJV. UNFORTUNATELY, charity meant something FAR DIFFERENT back then. It really meant Godly Love. Man has let that word deteriorate to the point where it now means just giving. Like your other HUMAN based traditions, you deify the KJV as well, somehow giving it some superior status as the "inspired version". When will you stop relying on human tradition and get back to GOD'S tradition of love?

Your statement simply won’t slide as an effective argument against Traditionalist Conservatives.

Whatever... it's obvious that you have let human traditions dictate your belief in the scriptures. You have yet to demonstrate any scriptural validity for any of your human traditions. In fact, you have SUPPLANTED Godly precepts in favor of these human traditions and still you can't see it. Well, I tried. It's up to the Spirit to effect any change in you. But then, it always has been up to the Spirit to do that.