babtiso is roughly translated into immersion, that is what the greeks said to meen emersion,
infants have never sinned, and as peter said in 1 peter 3:21 it is not the putting away of filthy flesh but an answer to a good consience and the remission of sins, until someone has reached the age of reasoning, and have sinned they should not be babtized, if they do, they are just getting wet.
ever heard of a non-practicing catholic? they were "crisonned" as a child, yet, they are not saved, or dedicated to the church, just because they were crisonned doesnt meen they are going to heaven.
Great Sermon! I find it interesting that so many comment on the fact that this is a great sermon, which i agree it is. My question is, why is it that we as the 'church' have so few who preach this way. If this is true and we are prone to say that it is, then why do we not live like it and why do we still listen and follow those who do not believe the same word of truth? If you listened and agreed you must also be changed. Are You? Have I?
What scripture says that the KJ is the "received text"? The version I used was the ESV. Do a study on this text before you make another uneducated response.
Copping out is one of your many skills isn't it?
What I quoted deals with it all buddy boy? Whether it be drinking or eating.
deal with the text. Please go back and read the whole chapter. Please go back and read the scriptures I posted. I dealt with the scriptures you took out of context, deal with the scriptures I posted. If I'm wrong, show me where my interpretation is wrong.
It appears that the Jews are in a bit of a pickle. They can't sacrifice animals, because they have no temple, and they can't build a temple, because God won't sanction it. And they can't have forgiveness of sins without the shedding of the blood(Hebrews 9:22).
That's not a good position to be in. Then you have the dispensationals thinking their is going to be some kind of temple being restored during the millenium, so there can be some kind of homage sacrificing.
So then I can still drink because I'm not around you to offend you?
Why be so stuck in this weakness when you have been shown from scripture that it's not sin to drink?
And if you are going to quote Romans 14, quote all of it.
How about even the first part? Rom 14:1-4 As for the one who is weak in faith, welcome him, but not to quarrel over opinions. One person believes he may eat anything, while the weak person eats only vegetables. Let not the one who eats despise the one who abstains, and let not the one who abstains pass judgment on the one who eats, for God has welcomed him. Who are you to pass judgment on the servant of another? It is before his own master that he stands or falls. And he will be upheld, for the Lord is able to make him stand.
Rom 14:14 I know and am persuaded in the Lord Jesus that nothing is unclean in itself, but it is unclean for anyone who thinks it unclean.
So, if we were together, I wouldn't drink around you, but I really don't think it's an issue of you being weak.
Honestly, I don't see the attraction of men dressed in black suits with bow ties out on the street in the middle of July selling bean pies as all that attractive.
What is attractive is the social gospel that religion plays, even "Christians" appeal to it. You know, the whole idea of bettering this world or effecting the communities that we live in is more attractive to people that want to place the fate of their soul in their own hands. It's attractive to those who don't want the true God, so they set up images, yes, even human sinners as their own god, or pathway to god.
Brandon: I don't disagree with your last point. However, I think it humorous that you didn't provide Scripture to back up your point that everyone needs to provide Scripture. Again, I am in agreement, just amused as well.
Not sure what point you're referring to? And have you changed your notion that the original language of scripture and proper exegesis are actually very important when arguing a point. Based on the thread about beer I still haven't seen that reverance for God's word.
And that's not amusing.
And for some strange reason I get the feeling you're trying to mock me. Weird huh? It's like, you take some stuff from another thread, then try to call me on it(though failing entirely). Odd I know.
Is this all because you can't back up what you were saying with scripture, and when scripture trumps your opinion you get all kiddy on me? Is that what you were doing? Awww, you try so hard. But I give you an A for effort.
People like their ears to be tickled. Black or white, it's the same. Here's the issue. In the black church, since the beginning has been about temporary needs. During slavery, whites didn't want to worship with the blacks, then, they'd worship with them, but they didn't want to sit with them. So the blacks were forced to begin their own churches. What do you think the topic would be? Abolition and freedom right? Then, let's shift to equality in the civil rights era. It gave rise to a social gospel in MLK Jr. It was due to the injustices of their "brethren". Who can blame them for preaching for those felt needs? Now it's the impoverished turn. People are poor, atleast in relation to the people around them, so now, it's about having "your best life now", or health and wealth. They are giving them what their tickling ears want.
Their are many black pastors out there, whether they be reformed, or not. They are well educated and articulate, so it's not a rarity for us even to mention it as if it's a shocker. Dan, I know that's not what you were trying to say, but that's how it came across.
Now you are responding back to the very same people that you said were unloving. I don't care much for going back and forth without scripture, but cbc presented scripture for what he believed. You said that they are painting an incorrect picture of God, that's fine, now show them.
To all in here, I'm new here, but if you present an point, you need to be able to back it up with scripture. And when scripture is presented, deal with the scripture, leave the emotions out.
And it appears there have been several people who have built strawmen to make a point. Those who see nothing wrong with drinking period have been argued against as if they were advocating drunkeness, which no one has.
Also, when did this thread change to the doctrines of grace.
John, the God of the OT, is the same God of the NT. He doesn't change.
"True, just as much as there is nothing stopping anyone African or descended from wherever from returning to their 'roots' if they find it such a big deal and such a loss"
I don't think this has anything to do with anything. As all races make something a "big deal" and "a loss". And it wouldn't only be the slavery era in America that would turn blacks from Christianity. What you read about in newspapers and history books is only scratching the surface to some of the crap so-called Christians have done in the name of Christ.
In the civil rights era, the hippocrite Christians forced blacks to turn to a new saviour, whether it be Allah, or themselves. It gave birth to the Nation of Islam, a sect of Islam, though heretical to Islam, it's influence among blacks was great. Malcom X, Muhammed Ali, were very influential to the movement. Many young blacks, especially within the culture of Hip-Hop embrace something similar to NOI, calling it 5% Nation. The Black man has become god, and the white man the devil.
The Birth of this Nation(USA), gave birth to a nation of people who sought out their own god. Is it because of whites? No, it's because of satan, working through so-called christians. At the end of the day, there is no excuse to reject Christ, but His name is mocked.
How does the burden of proof lie on me? What another cop out. If the english says wine, then why not leave it at that, but it is you who say it wasn't fermented wine, when the text says no such thing. So my friend, the burden is on you.
Opinion? What opinion? Stop being so lazy and go look it up. The greek is very important. What school of thought do you come from that thinks that proper exegesis is not important? This is no opinion, and that's not a defense, it's a cop out.
If oinos is grape juice, then what sense does it make for Paul to say, don't be drunk with it, what sense does it make for Paul to tell elders and deacons to not be taken to grape juice. It doesn't make sense, it is your opinion that it's wrong, because you refuse to believe God's word, over man's opinion. Be a berean.
I gave the evidence that the wine at the wedding was fermented wine. Remember you said that you din't care for the greek. Probably because it shows where you err.
But since you don't have scripture to prove your point, why keep on going on in ignorance? I could post Rom. 3:4, Romans 16:17-18 and Titus 3:9-10 about you as well. But then that would just be a cop out, trying to avoid the actual argument because you have no support. I think it's obvious, I'll let the reader decide.
1 Kings 2:19-20 doesn't make any mention of a future Mary, nor is there any hint in scripture to give warrant that this woman is a type of Mary.
Rev 12:2 also says nothing of a mediating Mary.
Luke 1:28? This also says nothing of Mary's mediatorship. Does this also mean that Stephen is a mediator since he is said to be full of grace in Acts 6:8? Are we our own mediators since we are righteous as well? We share in the righteousness of Christ don't we?
Matt. 16:19? Not sure what you proof is here. This is about church discipline.
Nothing in scripture gives anyone the warrant to claim that the saints are pleading on our behalf.
I think that when scripture says that there is only one mediator, that that "precludes" anyone, including Mary, from acting as a mediator to Christ. You wouldn't say that about the roads to Christ. There is only one way to God and that is through Christ, you wouldn't say that this doesn't preclude anyone, especially Buddha, from acting as the way to God?
1 Cor. 11:27-28 27Whoever, therefore, eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord in an unworthy manner will be guilty of profaning the body and blood of the Lord. 28Let a person examine himself, then, and so eat of the bread and drink of the cup.
Yes, Christian Values. They claim to be Christians, they even live according to the Ten Commandments. So I would say that, yes, they try to hold to Christian Values. Same thing with all the unbelievers in the church. They fancy themselves Christian because they went to church as a child, or even go now. None of that makes them a Christian, but they still try to live by them, thinking themselves to be on God's goodside.