Our mortal enemy has deceived the church with many lies!

[woundeddog]

1 hour ago, Judas Machabeus said:

10 For we are his workmanship, created in Christ Jesus for good works, which God prepared beforehand, that we should walk in them.

You continue to cherry pick verses and ignore all of scripture. 

you have to keep things in order--- salvation by faith not works-vs 8&9  then after salvation we do the goodworks VS 10 we were predestined to do-- by Power of Christ and Holy Spirit- we cant do those works to get the Holy Spirit- we can only do them by the Holy Spirit. God knew in advance what he wanted us to do-- but he had to save us first so we could do them

[Guest Judas Machabeus]

30 minutes ago, woundeddog said:

Natural first birth (by water -am bionic fluid, ) then second birth  Birth by the Leading of the Holy Spirit-- born, and born again

This is a great example of putting man made fallible tradition a head of scripture. There is no creditbility to the interpretation. It was created to reject baptism. 

34 minutes ago, woundeddog said:

If water baptism saved we should rent fire fighting helicopters with loud speakers and dump water on crowds, proclaiming the Father ,Son, and Holy Spirit.

This is a ridiculous statement.  

 

35 minutes ago, woundeddog said:

true- it was not their choice to be baptized but neither is it an infants choice-- so if baptism saves why don't we do that??

In Marks gospel we see a paralytic healed and his sins are forgiven because of his friends faith and not his own.  

Mark 2:5

5 And when Jesus saw their faith, he said to the paralytic, "Child, your sins are forgiven."

To enter the old covenant you did so as an infant at 8 days old. No where in scripture does it indicate that infants are to be excluded from the body of Christ. 

Can you show me where it prohibits young children from the body of Christ?

[RustyAngeL]

I said nothing about a  non believer being baptized.  I said that baptism does not save you. Only Jesus can do that.  As believers we want to follow Jesus in baptism, but again it does not save you and give you salvation.

[kwikphilly]

Quote

. their faith] The faith of all, of the paralytic himself and those that bore him. The Holy One did not reject this “charitable work” of theirs in bringing him before Him, any more than He does that of those who bring infants to Him in Holy Baptism.
http://biblehub.com/commentaries/mark/2-5.htm

Not just the faith of his friends.........

Quote

Mark 2:5. τὴν πίστιν α., their faith, that of the bearers, shown by their energetic action, the sick man not included (οὐ τὴν πίστιν τοῦ παραλελυμένου ἀλλὰ τῶν κομισάντων, Victor Ant., Cramer, Cat.).—τέκνον, child, without the cheering θάρσει of Mt.        

Is this what you are referring to?   

[woundeddog]

53 minutes ago, Judas Machabeus said:

This is a ridiculous statement.  

why? if its water baptism alone that saves?? and no one denys children in to the family of God if they believe-- but baptizing Infants is the same as hosing crowds- they are unknowing participants

 

56 minutes ago, Judas Machabeus said:

it indicate that infants are to be excluded from the body of Christ. 

Can you show me where it prohibits young children from the body of Christ?

Jesus said " Let the little children come unto me and forbide  them not"-- he did not say- drag them down the aisle and MAKE them come unto me- its their choice to come unto Him.

 

58 minutes ago, Judas Machabeus said:

This is a great example of putting man made fallible tradition a head of scripture. There is no creditbility to the interpretation. It was created to reject baptism. 

It is what the Bible says-- it is manmade tradition that attempts to twist scripture to make it conform to a man made doctrine-- and if it is there to reject water Baptism well done- because its Gods word on the subject. The belief in water baptism for salvation is sending untold multitudes to hell.

 

1 hour ago, Judas Machabeus said:

To enter the old covenant you did so as an infant at 8 days old. No where in scripture does it indicate that infants are to be excluded from the body of Christ. 

This was the covenant of the law-- not of grace, they where not being inducted into the Body Of Christ-- again you are twisting scripture ,and the child was circumcised not baptized-- Paul says in the new test. that circumsion was not needed for salvation--

[Guest Judas Machabeus]

Woundeddog, you can use inflamitory language (dragging infants) all you want. The end of the day scripture is clear on the topic of baptism. 

John 3:5, 1 Peter 3:21, all through acts. 

Your man made FALIBLE tradition has twisted scripture to fit your theology.  You can spine it around all you want. But at the end of the day all you have is a falible man made tradition. 

[Guest Robert]

36 minutes ago, woundeddog said:

why? if its water baptism alone that saves?? and no one denys children in to the family of God if they believe-- but baptizing Infants is the same as hosing crowds- they are unknowing participants

 

Jesus said " Let the little children come unto me and forbide  them not"-- he did not say- drag them down the aisle and MAKE them come unto me- its their choice to come unto Him.

 

It is what the Bible says-- it is manmade tradition that attempts to twist scripture to make it conform to a man made doctrine-- and if it is there to reject water Baptism well done- because its Gods word on the subject. The belief in water baptism for salvation is sending untold multitudes to hell.

 

This was the covenant of the law-- not of grace, they where not being inducted into the Body Of Christ-- again you are twisting scripture ,and the child was circumcised not baptized-- Paul says in the new test. that circumsion was not needed for salvation--

Excellent points, woundeddog. Nailed it.

Edited October 9, 2016 by RobertS

[Guest Robert]

double post.

Edited October 9, 2016 by RobertS

[woundeddog]

5 hours ago, Judas Machabeus said:

Your man made FALIBLE tradition has twisted scripture to fit your theology.  You can spine it around all you want. But at the end of the day all you have is a falible man made tradition. 

I think that is backward-- isn't one of the three legs of the stool tradition?-- and isn't tradition manmade?

I used to wrestle with questions about Roman Catholic- doctrine and the security of the relationship with God through Christ alone, but the more I study it and the more I talk to individuals who stake their eternal destiny of this belief system and ask practicing catholics what they believe the more convinced I am of the error and danger in it.

I am sure you are familiar with the verse when people say (paraphrase) didn't we cast out demons in your name- didn't we feed the poor- didn't we die as martyrs, didn't we do many wonderful works? and Jesus say "Depart from me you workers of iniquity- I never knew you"

[Guest Judas Machabeus]

4 hours ago, woundeddog said:

I think that is backward-- isn't one of the three legs of the stool tradition?-- and isn't tradition manmade?

You are incorrect. It's sacred tradition passed down from the apostles. Paul talks about the traditions he passed on both written and ORAL. 

4 hours ago, woundeddog said:

the more I talk to individuals who stake their eternal destiny of this belief system and ask practicing catholics what they believe the more convinced I am of the error and danger in it.

You are putting your soul into the hands of fallible men. What authority to do these "individuals" have? Can you say they are infallible? If you can't say that than you have to admit that they could be wrong. 

That is a serious gamble you are taking, one I refuse to take. I will stick with the teachings that were passed down by the apostles and the scriptures they used. I will also trust in the Church Christ built and left us to guide us. That's your three legs of the stool. Scripture, Sacred Tradition and the Church Christ built. 

You are putting your soul in a theology that was created by a man 500 years ago, based on a canon of scripture that he created. 

I would encourage you too look up a couple guys, Scott Hahn and David Anders. Both brillant men. 

Cheers