Results 181 - 200 of 1928
|
||||||
Results from: Notes Author: Reformer Joe Ordered by Verse |
||||||
Results | Verse | Author | ID# | |||
181 | Why would someone get rebaptised? | Bible general Archive 1 | Reformer Joe | 42090 | ||
Thanks for providing a CLEAR answer to the question! :) The main issue to be resolved is whether infant baptism "counts" or not. Most that hold that baptism is for believers and their covenant children would say that you should not be re-baptized because the sacrament was not meant merely as a response to faith in the adults, but a marking of the infant child much in the same way circumcision worked in the Old Testament (since that was administered to infants as well). Those who hold that baptism is only for those who have professed faith in Christ would argue that re-baptism is appropriate, because the first one they consider invalid (since there was no personal faith on the part of the child). The fascinating thing about this for me is the fact that there are many solid teachers of the Word of God (both in church history and in the present day) who differ on this issue. Obviously, one side or the other has to be right; but you normally do not see such wonderful fruit borne by both groups who differ so much on any one major doctrinal issue such as this. --Joe! |
||||||
182 | Why would someone get rebaptised? | Bible general Archive 1 | Reformer Joe | 42091 | ||
"Behold, I was brought forth in iniquity, And in sin my mother conceived me." --Psalm 51:5 "But the free gift is not like the transgression. For if by the transgression of the one the many died, much more did the grace of God and the gift by the grace of the one Man, Jesus Christ, abound to the many. The gift is not like that which came through the one who sinned; for on the one hand the judgment arose from one transgression resulting in condemnation, but on the other hand the free gift arose from many transgressions resulting in justification. For if by the transgression of the one, death reigned through the one, much more those who receive the abundance of grace and of the gift of righteousness will reign in life through the One, Jesus Christ. So then as through one transgression there resulted condemnation to all men, even so through one act of righteousness there resulted justification of life to all men.For as through the one man's disobedience the many were made sinners, even so through the obedience of the One the many will be made righteous. --Romans 5:15-19 Here we see the comparison between Adam and Christ. Very emphatically Paul presents the truth that our sinful nature is inherited by ONE trangression, that of Adam. Sin comes to us through Adam's sin; grace comes to us through Christ's sinless life and substitutionary death. If we say that Adam only served as a "bad example" for everyone else, then we also must conclude that Jesus was no more than a "good example" for Christians. the parallel here is unmistakeable. Paul says it very clearly: Adam's sin MADE us sinners. Condemnation of all human beings resulted from ONE transgression. Original sin and total depravity are indeed very biblical concepts. --Joe! |
||||||
183 | Why would someone get rebaptised? | Bible general Archive 1 | Reformer Joe | 42113 | ||
You wrote: "Are you implying, by your response, that the Bible even hints of baptismal regeneration as the norm...?" Not at all. But Protestants who baptize infants do not hold that the baptism regenerates the infant, either. Those in the Calvinist tradition who believe in infant baptism, for example (and there are Calvinists who do not, incidentally), hold that the baptism is a sign and seal of God's covenant promises. Here is teh way the Heidelbeg Catechism interprets Scripture on this: "Infants as well as adults belong to God's covenant and congregation. Through Christ's blood the redemption from sin and the Holy Spirit, who works faith, are promised to them no less than to adults. Therefore, by baptism, as sign of the covenant, they must be grafted into the Christian church and distinguished from the children of unbelievers. This was done in the old covenant by circumcision, in place of which baptism was instituted in the new covenant." All classical Protestants believe that we are saved by God's grace alone through faith alone in Christ alone. However, Calvinist paedobaptists look at passages like the passages below and conclude that God's normal operation is to regenerate the covenant children in time as well, and baptism marks them as covenant children just as circumcision marked the male children of Israel as part of the covenant. "For the promise is for you AND YOUR CHILDREN and for all who are far off, as many as the Lord our God will call to Himself." --Acts 2:39 'And when she AND HER HOUSEHOLD had been baptized, she urged us, saying, "If you have judged me to be faithful to the Lord, come into my house and stay." And she prevailed upon us.' --Acts 16:15 "And he took them that very hour of the night and washed their wounds, and immediately he was baptized, HE AND ALL HIS HOUSEHOLD." --Acts 16:33 "and in Him you were also circumcised with a circumcision made without hands, in the removal of the body of the flesh by the circumcision of Christ; having been buried with Him in baptism, in which you were also raised up with Him through faith in the working of God, who raised Him from the dead." --Colossians 2:11-12 Now, mind you, I am not suggesting that you must run and embrace infant baptism to be a true Christian. Nor am I necessarily saying that I agree with the conclusion of Protestants who baptize infants as a covenant sign. But it is not very wise to just off-handedly dismiss infant-baptizing Protestants as Catholic "wannabes" who believe that baptism regenerates. That is what I mean when I say that one needs to examine the arguments more closely on both sides, looking at their biblical support before just attacking a strawman that you think represents the "other side of the fence." And before you start painting every infant baptizer as part of some "mixed-up religion," you had better realize that for at least 1200 years, the vast majority of Christians were baptized as infants, as were the first Reformers. No, Martin Luther and John Calvin and John Knox were NOT re-baptized as adults. That doesn't mean that they were right on the issue, but I would certainly hate to call them and our brothers and sisters in Christ who came before us, through whom God preserved Christ's bride, as merely mixed-up religious addicts. --Joe! |
||||||
184 | Why would someone get rebaptised? | Bible general Archive 1 | Reformer Joe | 42114 | ||
No it's not. I am not a member of the house of David. Where do you go to church? --Joe! |
||||||
185 | Why would someone get rebaptised? | Bible general Archive 1 | Reformer Joe | 42167 | ||
CDBJ: You write: "Joe, explain if you would how an infant can have a good conscience toward God by believing in the resurrected Christ?" That is a good question. I'll ask someone knowledgeable who is much more passionate about the issue than I, and then get back to you. I bet it has something to do with what I mentioned below, that the sanctifying efficacy of baptism only accompanies regeneration by grace through faith in Christ, no matter when the sacrament is administered. Don't quote me on that yet, though! :) "Baptism doesn't do any more for the (so-called) Christians that are trusting in their baptism then did circumcision for the Jews who put their confidence in the removal of a little flesh instead of trusting in the coming Messiah." One hundred percent correct. However, God commanded circumcision as a sign and seal to be given to infants of God's covenant promises. The circumcision itself did not save, as almost every male of Jacob's line was circumcised, but many of them were bitter enemies of God. Not to mention the fact that if "circumcisional regeneration" were true, then females were in a lot of trouble! The parallels that Protestant paedobaptists draw between circumcision and baptism are the following (keep in mind that I am only explaining here, not necessarily defending the view): 1. Both are given to infants, who obviously cannot exhibit saving faith. 2. While neither circumcision or baptism save in themselves, they mark the infant as a member of God's covenant community and a rightful candidate to receive the promises of God. 3. The efficacy of the rite of circumcision and baptism only exists if the child becomes a believer in Jesus Christ. In other words, both circumcision and baptism are meaningless if saving faith is never possessed by the recipient of the sign. However, according to paedobaptists, both circumcision and baptism are "retroactively beneficial" (my term, probably insufficient) to the regenerate person, even though they were infants when they received them. 4. Just like a person is not re-circumcised after regeneration, neither is a professing Christian who received a Trinitarian baptism. 5. In short, baptism of infants is not seen by Protestants as only a picture of what happens when we receive Christ in faith, but also a sign of the promise that God makes to His covenant people. So there you have it. You may dismiss it as incorrect, but it is not baptismal regeneration. Where I definitely agree with Calvin is that baptism (and the Lord's Supper) are not merely "pictures" of something. While they do not bring justification, since that is by grace alone through faith alone, in Christ alone, I cannot help but conclude from Scripture that they are so significant that they actually "do something" in the life of the believer. While baptism does not save, I do think there is reason to question whether someone who refuses to be baptized is really possessing saving faith. And I have attended churches which have distanced baptism from justification to such an extent that it is hardly mentioned at all. "Pray the prayer, and get baptized whenever." While baptismal generation is not Scriptural, neither is the "whatever" attitude toward baptism. Water baptism is linked to salvation in Scripture, even though the two are not one and the same thing. You wrote: "I'm not saying that it is wrong, just don't call it baptism because biblically speaking baptism always follows faith in Christ." So how do you interpret the "household baptisms" cited from Acts in my previous posts? Only the head of the household is recorded as believing, and yet the whole household (which some reasonably assume would include slaves, spouses, and all children--even infants) was baptized, with no indication of saving faith on their parts. One last passage paedobaptists use in support of their covenant model is this one: "But to the rest I say, not the Lord, that if any brother has a wife who is an unbeliever, and she consents to live with him, he must not divorce her. And a woman who has an unbelieving husband, and he consents to live with her, she must not send her husband away. For the unbelieving husband is sanctified through his wife, and the unbelieving wife is sanctified through her believing husband; for otherwise your children are unclean, but now they are holy." --1 Corinthians 7:12-14 Now obviously this doesn't mean that anyone is "saved by proxy," but the words "sanctified" and "holy" mean "set apart." How do you fit this passage into your theology? I am definitely not here to wage a baptism war, because, like I said before, great people of God have stood divided on this issue. You may find the paedobaptist argument to be completely wrong. What I do hope you understand, however, is that it is not merely a case of someone believing something because their minister said it is true. --Joe! |
||||||
186 | Why would someone get rebaptised? | Bible general Archive 1 | Reformer Joe | 42299 | ||
You wrote: "Now since you started with the word assume, lets assume that since they were all baptized, in the verses in Acts, they must have all believed." And, of course, this is the assumption made by those who hold to believer's baptism alone. Since these passages do not refer to whether there was belief on the part of all who received baptism of not, we simply have to assume one or the other, based on other texts which address baptism. You have very adequately given the argument for believer's-only baptism. I hope that even though you disagree with those who hold to infant baptism that you now realize that it is not as simple as it seems to dismiss them as "putting tradition over Scripture." You wrote: "I Corinthians 7:12-14 points emphasis to word Holy, which as you correctly stated means set apart; Jesus himself tells us how this is done. John 17:17 Sanctify them through thy truth: thy word is truth." The antecedent of "them" in John 17:17 is the eleven disciples who did not betray Him. Start at John 17:6 and work your way down to see who is being referred to up until this point. Nothing in Jesus' high priestly prayer refers to unbelievers. You wrote: "It is not true today in the U.S.A. but in most of the Middle East today, according to missionaries that I have talked to, believing in Jesus Christ is one thing but confessing him by the act of baptism is like signing a death warrant. The new believers are being baptized and as a result many they say, and not a few have been killed as a result, even by family members." This doesn't support one side or the other. Those who baptize infants say that adult converts who have never been baptized need to be baptized. I would presume that most Muslims in the Middle East were not baptized as infants. You wrote: "The whole key here is exposure to God word through the believing spouse. i.e. exposure to the Word of God through instruction form the believer. Where do you see in the context of 1 Corinthians 7 that it is instruction from the believer which sets family members apart? Since John 17:17 wasn't spoken in reference to non-believers, how do you make that claim with absolute ceratinty? You wrote: "Put the shoe on the other foot what if both parents are unbelievers, now what happens to the children are the clean or unclean?" Unclean, which is why Protestants don't baptize the children of two unbelieving parents. "It is the action of God's Word that does the cleaning." Well, the way you state this is very close to the Protestant paedobaptist view. According to that view, it is indeed the Word, working together the visible and tanglible ("sensible") element of water, is indeed what sets the covenant child apart. The water is simply water and represents nothing apart from the Word, just like in the Lord's Supper we have the bread and the cup which have no special significance apart from the Word. Together, however, the water and the Word have very special significance, and like you said, "points to" the Living Word (Reformed folk use exactly this terminology. I do hold that in a very real way that there is spiritual benefit to the recipient of baptism. Whether one believes in infant baptism or not, I do not think it is reasonable to conclude biblically that baptism amounts to nothing more than a "bare sign." I want to thank you for engaging in this dialogue with me. I think it is very good for believers to dig deep into the Word of God to wrestle with these issues. This is definitely an issue I have wrestled with myself! There are such wonderful examples of godly, biblically-grounded people who hold to either view that one really cannot help but respect those among them with whom you disagree. --Joe |
||||||
187 | Why would someone get rebaptised? | Bible general Archive 1 | Reformer Joe | 42304 | ||
It is quite a challenging passage, isn't it? I think it causes problems for the Baptist because there is a clear indication that the belief of the parent has some effect on the child's standing before God (i.e. that the child is "set apart"). I think it causes problems for the paedobaptist Protestants because there is no specific mention of baptism as the instrument by which the child of the believer becomes "holy." I think it causes problems for the Roman Catholic and the Anglo-Catholic wing of the Church of England for the same reason above, as well as the fact that if baptism is regenerative "ex opere operato" (i.e. that original sin is washed away simply by the performance of the ritual), how does one explain the "consecration" of the unbelieving spouse? They certainly are not set apart in any special way because of baptism, since no professing church of Christ that I know of baptized unbelieving adults. Quite a quandry! How does the Catholic respond to the "consecration of the unbelieving spouse" problem, since that cannot possibly mean baptism in the context that Paul is describing (I think it is safe to assume that the pagans being addressed in Corinthians had never received a Trinitarian baptism in infancy)? --Joe! |
||||||
188 | Why would someone get rebaptised? | Bible general Archive 1 | Reformer Joe | 42578 | ||
"I can see there is no need in debating this with you because you have been blinded by the Calvinist viewpoint." Well, we can't all be like you, enlightened with the "truth" of Pharisaical works-righteousness, RAVEN. By the by, what do you make of our resident Arminian's approval of my post. Certainly you don't accuse Tim of being under the influence of "the evil John Calvin." Now away from the ad hominem attacks and back to the Scripture passage in question I was wondering why you stopped at verse 13. You also avoided any discussion of the verses I cited from the same passage. You can't just pick the verses you like and say "case closed." You wrote: "We are not judged by what Adam and Eve did! You cannot show me a verse that says this." Paul wrote: "The gift is not like that which came through the one who sinned; for on the one hand the judgment arose from one transgression resulting in condemnation, but on the other hand the free gift arose from many transgressions resulting in justification." --Romans 5:16 and "So then as through one transgression there resulted condemnation to all men, even so through one act of righteousness there resulted justification of life to all men." --Romans 5:18 ONE transgression (Adam's) results in condemnation/judgment for ALL. There's your verses. But Paul goes on: "For as through the one man's disobedience the many were made sinners, even so through the obedience of the One the many will be made righteous." --Romans 5:19 We were made sinners, not because we sinned, but because Adam sinned. Can't be much clearer than that. We may be held accountable for only our sins, but the human race became sinful by nature because of Adam. Look at the process: Adam sinned, and therefore we were MADE sinners. Pretty cut-and-dried to me. But let's back up to the previous verse you cited: "for until the Law sin was in the world, but sin is not imputed when there is no law." --Romans 5:13 One thing we can conclude from this verse is that sin did not originate with the Law. The verse itself says that sin existed before the Law. That is why God could justly destroy the world and everyone in it (with the exception of Noah's family). Obviously judgment existed before the Law of Moses. We see it in Genesis 6. Looking at the next verse reveals a lot as well: "Nevertheless death reigned from Adam until Moses, even over those who had not sinned in the likeness of the offense of Adam, who is a type of Him who was to come." --Romans 5:14 People had not sinned in the likeness of the offense of Adam, and yet death reigned. If we do not suffer the consequences of Adam's sin, why are all people detined to die? It even goes so far as to say that "death reigned" during the period of time between Adam and the Law of Moses. Notice again in this verse that it doesn't say that man didn't sin. It says that they didn't sin in the likeness of Adam. Since the passage refers to Adam violating a direct, verbal command from God, and the Law being a direct set of moral commandments, I would think that "sinning in the likeness of Adam" probably refers to sinning against God's special revelation verbally, through prophets, and through Scripture. Those who sinned not in the likeness of Adam only sinned against God's general revelation in nature (Romans 1:18-20) or against the moral sense imbedded iby God in our psyche (Romans 2:11-16). Your reference to David's infant son is one of the passages used to support the "age of accountability" argument, which even many of us "blinded Calvinists" accept. Lastly, you wrote: 'Anybody that can look into the eyes of their newborn baby and believe that it is "defiled" ,"depraved", covered in sin and utterly without hope unless they are sprinkled with a few drops of water has got some serious issues and needs to seek guidence!!' Well, since you are attacking a point of view I have not given, I will only say that while your sentiment is really "warm and fuzzy," the cute, little baby you hold in your arms is God's enemy by nature (Ephesians 2:3) and cannot submit to God's law or please Him (Romans 8:7; Hebrews 12:2). Calvinists do not believe in baptismal regeneration. That error is part of your theology. --Joe! |
||||||
189 | Why would someone get rebaptised? | Bible general Archive 1 | Reformer Joe | 42581 | ||
Well, apparently God had regenerated Noah, since it is imopossible to please God without faith in Him (Hebrews 12:2). Noah walked with God, so God had enabled him to do so. You don't think that Moses earned a place on the ark on his own initiative, with all of the bad influence in the world around him and no Law to show him right and wrong, do you? And lest we forget, Noah was not perfect, which is God's standard of righteousness. We only see what he does after the Flood to come to that conclusion. --Joe! |
||||||
190 | Why would someone get rebaptised? | Bible general Archive 1 | Reformer Joe | 42602 | ||
I noticed that mistake as soon as I posted, but rather than correct myself right away, I wanted to give the joy to someone else. Glad it was you! :) --Joe! |
||||||
191 | Why would someone get rebaptised? | Bible general Archive 1 | Reformer Joe | 42609 | ||
Actually, I was wondering for the longest time how Moses carried that big old boat around on those poles in the wilderness! :) --Joe! |
||||||
192 | Pretribulation or slightly after ? | Bible general Archive 1 | Reformer Joe | 42880 | ||
"This gospel of the kingdom shall be preached in the whole world as a testimony to all the nations, and then the end will come." --Matthew 24:14 There are a few more things Jesus said about the Second Coming. --Joe! |
||||||
193 | Pretribulation or slightly after ? | Bible general Archive 1 | Reformer Joe | 42893 | ||
"This rumor that the pre-trib view started in the 19th century is not accurate. I have numerous books in my library that reference the doctrine of a generation of saints that are changed in a moment and rise and meet the Lord and then afterwards an ongoing time of judgement upon those that remain that date back to the middle ages. I have a book that is one of the best and most scholarly expositions on Revelation by a man named James A. Siess titled "The Apocalypse" that was written in the 18th century (late 1700s) and he even used the word rapture. Siess cites numerous rescources in his book of ancient writers that held similar views based on the same verses we use today to explain the rapture." Joseph Augustus Seiss (1823-1904) is the author of _The Apocalypse: Exposition of the Book of Revelation_. The book was first published in 1865. Look at the years of his life. This is most definitely a 19th-century, post-Darby work. --Joe! |
||||||
194 | Lord of the Sabbath is he not | Bible general Archive 1 | Reformer Joe | 42968 | ||
As you say, Jesus broke TRADITION, but did he break the LAW of God by what he did on the Sabbath? There is a difference, in that tradition may or may not be consistent with the law of God. The biggest problem I have with "abolishing the Sabbath" mentality is that we are then saying that the Sabbath was not part of the changeless moral law of God. If the Ten Commandments are a summary of the moral will of God, why would he change his mind about one of them (and only one, for that matter)? Here are a few well-articulated, yet opposing views on the Fourth Commandment and the Christian: http://capo.org/sermons/Luke4.html http://web2.airmail.net/billtod/ch10.txt http://www.gty.org/Curiosity_Shop/sabbath.htm --Joe! |
||||||
195 | Pretribulation or slightly after ? | Bible general Archive 1 | Reformer Joe | 43006 | ||
Scribe: Please do get the book when you can and cite those sources. I have never heard of any theologians prior to Darby's Dispensationalist explosion that have embraced a pre-tribulational rapture. --Joe! |
||||||
196 | Pretribulation or slightly after ? | Bible general Archive 1 | Reformer Joe | 43099 | ||
You wrote: 'What if the understanding of the "glorification and rising of the saints" (see why we use 'rapture') was clearly laid out in the 19th century. Would that make it unbiblical?' Not necessarily, but I think it makes it suspect. Do you think that a sovereign God would make his revelation so obscure that the greatest teachers in the church, gifted by the Holy Spirit as they were, would completely overlook something like a pre-tribulational rapture for 1800 years? You wrote: "I mean do you think all things eschatological has been explained prior to recent time." Of course not. People have been debating about the timing and nature of the Milennium throughout all of church history, for example. However, if a novelty comes up like pre-tribulationalism, with no historical basis whatsoever (even from those who were themselves taught by the apostles), then we have to wonder if that interpretation of the Bible is truly reflective of the apostolic tradition that we see in Scripture. Another problem I have with it is that it is tied so heavily to Darby and his dispensationalism, which is fraught with all kinds of theological problems, so much so that one has to start playing the "what-part-of-the-Bible-is-for-us-and-what-part is-for-Israel" game. Darby just didn't teach the secret rapture; he denied the very understanding of Scripture the church has had since its earliest days. Can it really be that a sovereign God let ALL of His people get so far off track, from the word "go"? Nope. "So it stands to reason that there are many truths buried in the Scripture that were not dealt with by your favorite teachers. :)" Actually, most of my favorite teachers spoke at length about the end times. It was far from ignored in antiquity and in Reformation theology. They just didn't make up something completely new like Darby and Scofield and company. "but there are many truths in the Bible, especially the prophets of the OT that have been ignored by the ignorant masses of the church who are too busy to study the Bible." I agree with you there, Scribe. But to say that the masses have ignored them is not to say that they have been ignored completely by the church. You can go all throughout the history of the church and find commentary and exposition of the major and minor prophets. I would even argue that a big reason why those books are so neglected today is that so many people are taught that the OT is "not for us." You wrote: "Some of these truths are waiting to be rediscovered, not because they are new truths but becuase they have been ignored while men squabble over whether they have free will or not, or because they have been lost when once they were embraced prior to the age of the Catholicsim which lasted hundreds of years. We are still having to recover that fervency of spirit seen in the Book of Acts." First of all, men "squabbling," as you put it, is how we got definitions of every major doctrine that is considered orthodox today. They were called "church councils," and they go back as far as Acts 15 at least. See? The way you put this is one of the reasons I dislike the "end-times fever" we have seen in the last century and a half. Everything else but receiving Christ through faith alone has taken a back seat to the supposedly "important" doctrines of figuring out when and how Jesus is coming back to get His bride. Paul thought that a lot of issues such as the role of God in salvation were important enough to elaborate upon at length (read Romans and see how much eschatology you see there). But what is on the best seller list as Christian Bookstore, Inc.? Books which show how the President's coughing during a press conference fits into the Antichrist's plan to propel us into martial law. Of course, this book will contain detailed charts in full-color to show that the 70th week of Daniel will begin next Thursday at precisely 7:24 p.m. And you better not get left behind! That would be worse than...well, hell itself! Please excuse my hyperbole. I know that I am exagerrating, but only ever-so-slightly. But you are subscribing to the view that there was some view that everyone held, but then was lost. You have yet to show me where in the early church, before the "Catholic Age," whatever that means, began. Emmaus can attest to the fact that I am very much in opposition to a lot of Catholic theology, but it is simply a mistake of history to assume that the true church of Christ disappeared in the early fourth century, only to mystically be re-born centuries later. The errors of Rome came about very gradually (we are talking on the order of centuries here), and the people of God by and large were members of the church of Rome (and some still are), because in the West that WAS the visible church. --Joe! |
||||||
197 | Pretribulation or slightly after ? | Bible general Archive 1 | Reformer Joe | 43101 | ||
And regarding the book of Acts, we are constantly having to struggle with complacency, but that is not to say that the early church was the ideal. Take a look at the epistles and look at how much error was in the early church that needed to be corrected by the apostles! Heresy and false teaching and laziness and end-times craziness and sexual sin and abuse of authority and disorder in worship and legalism were all things that had to be attacked in the days of Acts. And that was when the apostles were alive! Yes, we do need to regain fervency based on TRUTH, but that was not limited to the first few decades after Pentecost. Fervency and zeal for the truth waxes and wanes. May it be that we are a people zealous for God, in keeping with his truth. Lastly, you wrote: "Many a protestant church still wears the grave cloths of tradition that was inherited from their fore fathers but not from the Word of God." This is the biggest problem of all. You are equating a lack of fervency with tradition. Jeus established a tradition, which the apostles not only wrote down, but also passed on verbally (how do you think the church received revelation before the completion of the writing of Scripture). The question isn't whether we should adhere to tradition or not, but rather WHICH tradition is to be adhered to. And lest we divorce fervency from tradition, you have to remember that the greatest revival in American history sprang from the preaching of a dyed-in-the-wool CALVINIST by the name of Jonathan Edwards. Apparently God doesn't hate all established traditions as much as do those who are making up new traditions of their own to compensate. In fact, God Himself is a tradition lover and a tradition establisher: "Listen, O my people, to my instruction; Incline your ears to the words of my mouth. I will open my mouth in a parable; I will utter dark sayings of old, Which we have heard and known, And our fathers have told us. We will not conceal them from their children, But tell to the generation to come the praises of the LORD, And His strength and His wondrous works that He has done. For He established a testimony in Jacob And appointed a law in Israel, Which He commanded our fathers That they should teach them to their children, That the generation to come might know, even the children yet to be born, That they may arise and tell them to their children, That they should put their confidence in God And not forget the works of God, But keep His commandments, And not be like their fathers, A stubborn and rebellious generation, A generation that did not prepare its heart And whose spirit was not faithful to God." --Psalm 78:1-8 And that is why we should be striving to adhere to the traditions of the fathers, as faithfully and infallibly recorded in the Scriptures! --Joe! |
||||||
198 | Do ALL demons have names? | Bible general Archive 1 | Reformer Joe | 43610 | ||
What about Congress?? :) Would you PLEASE inform the forum as to where you get your theology? Because it sure ain't the Bible! --Joe! |
||||||
199 | a new heaven and new earth. | Bible general Archive 1 | Reformer Joe | 43739 | ||
Then you are doomed. Romans 3:10-18. --Joe! |
||||||
200 | How did sin originate | Bible general Archive 1 | Reformer Joe | 43920 | ||
Genesis 4. Cain was the son of Adam and Eve. Another messed-up post from Judith! --Joe! |
||||||
Result pages: << First < Prev [ 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 ] Next > Last [97] >> |