There was a reason that Maccabbees was not included in the Scripture and I will say that it is no more a proof of God's Word than any other non-canonical writer at that time.
We are not told that Onesiphorus is dead at all - just that he is separated from his family. We cannot base a whole doctrine on something that is just not in Scripture at all. I will clearly say "May God have mercy on those men and women who are helping the needy in Haiti right now" and not be saying that they're dead and that I'm praying for God to do something for them after they die. It is appointed once to die and then the judgment. No amount of praying for a dead person will change their judgment because God is just and will judge the person rightly whether we ask Him to or not.
Not to bring up the Catholic thing again, but...
Discussion in 'Other Christian Denominations' started by Emily25069, Jan 25, 2010.
Page 3 of 16
-
BTW, apocryphal books were to be part of the OT. The OT was completed by 400 B.C. and all books to be canonical had to be written before that date. They also had to be written in Hebrew. Maccabees fails on both accounts. All of the Apocryphal books were written between 100 B.C. and 60 A.D., well after both the Hebrew canon was finished and even the Septuagint (250 B.C. was translated). And they were written in Greek. It would have been impossible for these books to be accepted by Jews into the OT canon.
Besides that they contained unbiblical doctrine as stated above.
2 Timothy 1:16-18 The Lord give mercy unto the house of Onesiphorus; for he oft refreshed me, and was not ashamed of my chain:
17 But, when he was in Rome, he sought me out very diligently, and found me.
18 The Lord grant unto him that he may find mercy of the Lord in that day: and in how many things he ministered unto me at Ephesus, thou knowest very well.
2 Timothy 4:14 Alexander the coppersmith did me much evil: the Lord reward him according to his works:
--Was Alexander dead also? Paul "prays" that the Lord reward him as well.
He remembers the good that Onesiphorus had done for him and wishes for the Lord to bless him for it. It really isn't a prayer in the true sense of the word at all, as 1Tim.4:14 would not be considered one either. -
JohnDeereFan Well-Known MemberSite Supporter
She's dead, Lori. She can't hear you.
Why would they let it languish for almost 1700 years before finally ratifying it at the Council of Trent? -
The fact is that Mary can't pray for you. She can't see you. She can't hear you. She is not God. She is not omnipresent. She is not omniscient. For her to hear your prayers, as well as all other Catholics all over the globe she would have to claim these attributes, attributes which belong only to God. Therefore you make Mary god. -
Paul never calls the act of praying to God for the success of the Gospel mission of an evangelist (for example) - an act of "mediation".
In 2Cor 5 Paul says "WE BEG you on behalf of Christ be reconciled to God" and even in that extreme case Paul says his role is that as "an ambassador" -- not as a "mediator between God and man".
Therefore Paul is consistent in stating that in all of his writings he has only ever identified ONE mediator between God and man.
Instead Rom 8 says -
26 In the same way the Spirit also helps our weakness; for we do not know how to pray as we should, but the Spirit Himself intercedes for us with groanings too deep for words;
27 and He who searches the hearts knows what the mind of the Spirit is, because He intercedes for the saints according to the will of God.
28 And we know that God causes all things to work together for good to those who love God, to those who are called according to His purpose.
It is God the Holy Spirit that is working to intercede for us in Romans 8.
It is God who causes all THINGS to work together for good - TO THOSE who love God.
There is nothing there about "God working along side US to help OTHERS" much less "God mediating for OTHERs along side our own work in mediating between God and man on behalf of OTHERS".
2 Corinthians 6
1 And working together with Him, we also urge you not to receive the grace of God in vain
We are in that case NOT appealing to God for them - we are appealing to MAN along side God's own work in appealing TO MAN to make a choice in favor of perseverance (in this case).
Instead of the much needed "We work together with HIM in his role MEDIATING between God and man" -- we have something more like "we work with him in URGING YOU to persevere".
It is exactly the opposite kind of "working together with" objective than what the Catholic argument needed.
There is nothing at all in Heb 12 about the "cloud of witnesses cheering us on" found in the text being quoted. The Catholic argument simply makes that up - at that point.
Never does Peter or any other NT writer talk about "presenting Christ's sacrifice to God on behalf of others" or "mediating as Priest between God and Man along side Christ".
in Christ,
Bob -
1. It is VERY significant that you could find NO example of what you were looking for -- in the actual Bible itself. Surely as a non-Catholic prior to joining the RCC - you had to have noticed this glaring problem.
Given the vast amount of praying to the dead that goes on in the RCC today - it is very VERY surprising that not ONE case of it can be found in the actual Bible.
2. The other "inconvenient detail" to keep in mind here - is that 2Macc 12 is ALSO NOT a place where we see someone praying TO THE DEAD!
Nobody in 2Macc 12 addresses a now-dead or then-dead person in prayer!
No not even once!!
What a shocker - that this reference that is supposed to be the ONE example - does not do - the very thing ASKED -- !!!
May I say again -- and I quote -- "!!!"
(Ok that last bit was just for humor ;) )
2Macc 12 -- coming up!
in Christ,
Bob -
They come across fellow Jews - fellow soldiers who died - in a state of mortal sin - (worship of false gods). And the text clearly says that it was KNOWN to Jews that this violation of the first Commandment was punishable by death. It was the WORST mortal sin that could be committed against God.
Now what is facinating is that EVEN today under the Catholic system - you go straight to hell if you die with unforgiven mortal sin. Purgatory is not even an option!!
And so betaking themselves to prayers, they besought him [God], that the sin which had been committed might be forgotten...And making a gathering, he [Judas] sent twelve [al. two] drachms of silver to Jerusalem for sacrifice to be offered for the sins of the dead, thinking well and religiously concerning the resurrection (for if he had not hoped that they that were slain should rise again, it would have seemed superfluous and vain to pray for the dead), and because he considered that they who had fallen asleep in godliness, had great grace laid up for them. It is therefore a holy and wholesome thought to pray for the dead, that they may be loosed from sins."Click to expand...
40 “Then under the tunic of every one of the dead they found sacred tokens of the idols of Jamnia which the law forbids the Jews to wear. And it became Clear to ALL this was why the men had fallen.
41 “so they all blessed the ways of the Lord, the [b]righteous Judge,[/b] who reveals the things that are hidden;
42 and they turned to prayer, beseeching that the sin which had been committed might be wholly blotted out. And the noble Judas exhorted the people to keep themselves free from sin, for they had seen with their own eyes what had happened because of the sin of those who had fallen.
43 He also took up a collection, man by man, to the amount of two thousand drachmas of silver, and sent it to Jerusalem to provide for a sin offering. In doing this he acted very well and honorably, taking account of the resurrection.
44 For if he were not expecting that those who had fallen would rise again, it would have been superfluous and foolish to pray for the dead.
45 But if he was looking to the splendid reward that is laid up for those who fall asleep in godliness, it was a holy and pious thought. Therefore he made atonement for the dead, that they might be delivered from their sin.Click to expand...
2. The text is clear that NO BENEFIT - was to be realized by the dead - UNTIL (or apart from) they were resurrected. So no "instant purgatory benefit" is even possible to INSERT here.
3. The act of praying for the dead - included a sin offering in the form of cash. A collection.
So the opening question "can you provide even ONE example of praying TO the dead in all of the bible" remains unnanswered - except for an implied "no" by virtue of no example at all being given in the affirmative.
in Christ,
Bob -
FriendofSpurgeon Well-Known MemberSite SupporterThinkingstuff said: ↑Catholics! Sheeesh. I think from reading the most recent post that there is a disparity on what the gospel actually is. the New comer to the debate and Matt have alleged they've heard the gospel at mass. The others like DHK and Alive have claimed that all their many years in the CC they never heard the gospel. So how does each side define "Gospel"?Click to expand...
-
lori4dogs said: ↑Passing over the well-known passage, I Cor., iii, 14 sq., on which an argument for purgatory may be based,Click to expand...
attention may be called to another curious text in the same Epistle (xv, 29), where St. Paul argues thus in favor of the resurrection: "Otherwise what shall they do that are baptized for the dead, if the dead rise not again at all? Why are they then baptized form them?" Even assuming that the practice here referred to was superstitious, and that St. Paul merely uses it as the basis of an argumentum ad hominem, the passage at least furnishes historical evidence of the prevalence at the time of belief in the efficacy of works for the dead;
Click to expand...
I fully agree that IF you interpret the text to identify some pagan ritual of baptism -- where living person-A is baptized for dead-person-B (a very Mormon-esk concept) THEN in that case you have the notion of person-A changing the SALVATION status of person-B.
1. However this does not help the RCC argument for praying TO the dead -- since this is not a case of praying TO the dead person in question -- even if we grant the explanation offerred above!!. Thus the initial project remains unfulfilled.
2. This further is conflicted EVEN with RCC doctrine - because there is NO RCC doctrine stating that the unbaptized state of a lost person can be CHANGED via vicarious baptism of the LIVING on behalf of the dead!! So this means that EVEN in RCC terms and contexts -- NOTHING is actually HAPPENING here that would benefit the dead!
To this very day the RCC would argue (as the quote above shows) that all such a pointless act does - is exercise meaningless superstition.
3. What we have left is the RCC proposel that we interpret 1Cor 14 to reference "meaningless superstition" and that such is somehow to be taken as a "valid Bible argument in favor of the resurrection" - which is highly doubtful at best.
4. It is far more likely that the text itself is talking about people who are being baptized - where baptism is the Romans 6 "symbol" of death-burial-resurrection, and Paul argues that it is pointless to enter into the symbol of full water baptism by immersion that symbolizes resurrection - if in fact the dead are not raised. For in that case - not even Christ is raised (and Christ's resurrection is the one being identified with - in the believers participation in baptism according to Romans 6).
and the Apostle's reserve in not reprobating this particular practice is more readily intelligible if we suppose him to have recognized the truth of the principle of which it was merely an abuse. But it is probable that the practice in question was something in itself legitimate, and to which the Apostle gives his tacit approbation.Click to expand...
In his Second Epistle to Timothy (i, 16-18; iv, 19) St. Paul speaks of Onesiphorus in a way that seems obviously to imply that the latter was already dead: "The Lord give mercy to the house of Onesiphorus" -- as to a family in need of consolation. Then, after mention of loyal services rendered by him to the imprisoned Apostle at Rome, comes the prayer for Onesiphorus himself, "The Lord grant unto him to find mercy of the Lord in that day" (the day of judgment); finally, in the salutation, "the household of Onesiphorus" is mentioned once more, without mention of the man himself. The question is, what had become of him? Was he dead, as one would naturally infer from what St. Paul writes? Or had he for any other cause become separated permanently from his family, so that prayer for them should take account of present needs while prayers for him looked forward to the Day of Judgment? Or could it be that he was still at Rome when the Apostle wrote, or gone elsewhere for a prolonged absence from home? The first is by far the easiest and most natural hypothesis; and if it be admitted, we have here an instance of prayer by the Apostle for the soul of a deceased benefactor.Click to expand...
Which still leaves us without even a single example of the one asked for -- which was a request for even ONE actual case of "prayer TO the dead".
in Christ,
Bob -
FriendofSpurgeon Well-Known MemberSite SupporterDHK said: ↑I am happy for you if your pastor preaches the Word. The fact that you are in a Lutheran Church confirms my suspicion about you connecting "worship" to "emotions." You chose a Lutheran Church because it is liturgical and appeals to the emotions. If it is an evangelical Lutheran Church it will still preach the gospel. The liturgical aspect of it appeals to the emotions. Baptist services tend to be quite a bit more informal, but that doesn't mean there is no worship in them. True worship is not based on emotion.Click to expand...
If anything, "emotional" worship tends to be in the Baptist churches around here. Music that "stirs the soul" (eg makes you feel good), positive preaching, catchy sermon titles, etc. Then, you get to have an invitation at the end of the service. Not quite Joel Osteen, but not that far off either. -
DHK
I actually find it interesting that you think liturgical worship appeals to the emotions. I had a really hard time with liturgy at first actually. It seemed so dry and silent. It took a while to grow on me, and I cant really say that my emotions are provoked. At least not as much as they were when in my baptist church singing songs that sounded like marches and hearing jokes in the sermons. That was very entertaining actually. Liturgy is very serious.
I attended 3 baptist churches.
The first was a Southern Baptist church that started to head towards the whole seeker friendly thing. They used contemporary worship style (of which hubby played the drums) and they didnt mind alcohol at their weddings. It was very non-legalistic. I was very uncomfortable at the time, but my hubby loved it, so we stayed. Looking back, its the church I missed the most. My son plays Upwards basketball there and its nice to see old church family.
The second was a very fundamentalist baptist church. We did a 180 when we started going there. Hymns.. women in skirts only.. KJV only.. strong preaching which I loved at the time. It certainly effected my emotions to hear all that hard preaching. Man did it make me a judgemental woman though! I still have a soft spot for the Pastor there. We only lived in that city 8 months, but they did make us feel so welcome and hubby and I learned to play the part very well.
The third was sort of a middle ground. It was independent fundamental, but they used the NASB. They had high standards, but no legalism. Good preaching much of the time. When I started to go through my dark period, I met and emailed with the Pastor quite a bit actually. He did his best, but I think I was already turning the other way. There were too many things that I was reading in my bible that he (and other baptists) was telling me were not so. (various topics include alcohol consumption, baptism, and the Lords Prayer).. Well, I should say that when I started meeting with him, I really wanted the baptists to be right. I first met with him to talk about how I can know I am saved. We talked about how easy the gospel was.. if it was so easy, why are people that I know getting saved 2 and 3 times in their adult life? How can I be sure that I really meant it when I made that decision, since I fail so often? I struggled a lot with judgementalness. I thought for sure that if i had the Holy Spirit within me, that that would be gone.
Anyhow, he did his best. Honestly.. he was a good man who spent a lot of time with me, but I just couldnt really get past the fact that "making a decision" is in fact adding something to my salvation-a work. People didnt make decisions in the bible. They were either given faith, or they werent. They were cut to the heart. They fell on their knees. They didnt make a decision. It was a gift.
Once I realized that it wasnt me or my decision for Christ, I finally had peace and assurance of salvation. Its all there in my bible. I finally get it that it is not by works and that my works are filthy rags. I know this is all taught in baptist churches, but for some reason, it didnt get explained to me well there..., and then the whole emphasis on making a decision just got in the way because I was leaning too much on my ability. .. also, the law/gospel/law sandwich that is present in many of those churches also muddies it up. It really should be more of a gospel/law/gospel sandwich, which is how the Lutherans do it. I appreciate it so much. I know I am forgiven for much. I love God much now.
I also understand what being "born again" means. It doesnt mean "making a decision". It means that God does something to you. Just like I couldnt choose to be born the first time, I cant choose it the second time. It is a gift from God. .. and I do believe that baptism is partly attatched to that.
Baptism is a work, but it is not our work to God. It is Gods work to us. Look at all the scriptures on baptism. They all have forgiveness and washing sins away attatched to them. Nowhere is it something we do for God to show what has already taken place. God is not bound to baptism as we see many believers who believed without and made it to heaven, but for our sakes, he attatches His promises of forgiveness to it, so that we can have a pledge of a good conscience. I can look at my baptism, and have an assurance that God put his name on me in baptism. It really is a beautiful thing, and I wont ever trade it for the empty "obedience" version ever again. It makes no scriptural sense. -
FriendofSpurgeon Well-Known MemberSite SupporterEmily25069 said: ↑DHK
I actually find it interesting that you think liturgical worship appeals to the emotions. I had a really hard time with liturgy at first actually. It seemed so dry and silent. It took a while to grow on me, and I cant really say that my emotions are provoked. At least not as much as they were when in my baptist church singing songs that sounded like marches and hearing jokes in the sermons. That was very entertaining actually. Liturgy is very serious.
I attended 3 baptist churches.
The first was a Southern Baptist church that started to head towards the whole seeker friendly thing. They used contemporary worship style (of which hubby played the drums) and they didnt mind alcohol at their weddings. It was very non-legalistic. I was very uncomfortable at the time, but my hubby loved it, so we stayed. Looking back, its the church I missed the most. My son plays Upwards basketball there and its nice to see old church family.
The second was a very fundamentalist baptist church. We did a 180 when we started going there. Hymns.. women in skirts only.. KJV only.. strong preaching which I loved at the time. It certainly effected my emotions to hear all that hard preaching. Man did it make me a judgemental woman though! I still have a soft spot for the Pastor there. We only lived in that city 8 months, but they did make us feel so welcome and hubby and I learned to play the part very well.
The third was sort of a middle ground. It was independent fundamental, but they used the NASB. They had high standards, but no legalism. Good preaching much of the time. When I started to go through my dark period, I met and emailed with the Pastor quite a bit actually. He did his best, but I think I was already turning the other way. There were too many things that I was reading in my bible that he (and other baptists) was telling me were not so. (various topics include alcohol consumption, baptism, and the Lords Prayer).. Well, I should say that when I started meeting with him, I really wanted the baptists to be right. I first met with him to talk about how I can know I am saved. We talked about how easy the gospel was.. if it was so easy, why are people that I know getting saved 2 and 3 times in their adult life? How can I be sure that I really meant it when I made that decision, since I fail so often? I struggled a lot with judgementalness. I thought for sure that if i had the Holy Spirit within me, that that would be gone.
Anyhow, he did his best. Honestly.. he was a good man who spent a lot of time with me, but I just couldnt really get past the fact that "making a decision" is in fact adding something to my salvation-a work. People didnt make decisions in the bible. They were either given faith, or they werent. They were cut to the heart. They fell on their knees. They didnt make a decision. It was a gift.
Once I realized that it wasnt me or my decision for Christ, I finally had peace and assurance of salvation. Its all there in my bible. I finally get it that it is not by works and that my works are filthy rags. I know this is all taught in baptist churches, but for some reason, it didnt get explained to me well there..., and then the whole emphasis on making a decision just got in the way because I was leaning too much on my ability. .. also, the law/gospel/law sandwich that is present in many of those churches also muddies it up. It really should be more of a gospel/law/gospel sandwich, which is how the Lutherans do it. I appreciate it so much. I know I am forgiven for much. I love God much now.
I also understand what being "born again" means. It doesnt mean "making a decision". It means that God does something to you. Just like I couldnt choose to be born the first time, I cant choose it the second time. It is a gift from God. .. and I do believe that baptism is partly attatched to that.
Baptism is a work, but it is not our work to God. It is Gods work to us. Look at all the scriptures on baptism. They all have forgiveness and washing sins away attatched to them. Nowhere is it something we do for God to show what has already taken place. God is not bound to baptism as we see many believers who believed without and made it to heaven, but for our sakes, he attatches His promises of forgiveness to it, so that we can have a pledge of a good conscience. I can look at my baptism, and have an assurance that God put his name on me in baptism. It really is a beautiful thing, and I wont ever trade it for the empty "obedience" version ever again. It makes no scriptural sense.Click to expand... -
Emily25069 said: ↑DHK
The third was sort of a middle ground. It was independent fundamental, but they used the NASB. They had high standards, but no legalism. Good preaching much of the time. When I started to go through my dark period, I met and emailed with the Pastor quite a bit actually. He did his best, but I think I was already turning the other way. There were too many things that I was reading in my bible that he (and other baptists) was telling me were not so. (various topics include alcohol consumption, baptism, and the Lords Prayer).. Well, I should say that when I started meeting with him, I really wanted the baptists to be right. I first met with him to talk about how I can know I am saved. We talked about how easy the gospel was.. if it was so easy, why are people that I know getting saved 2 and 3 times in their adult life? How can I be sure that I really meant it when I made that decision, since I fail so often? I struggled a lot with judgementalness. I thought for sure that if i had the Holy Spirit within me, that that would be gone.
Anyhow, he did his best. Honestly.. he was a good man who spent a lot of time with me, but I just couldnt really get past the fact that "making a decision" is in fact adding something to my salvation-a work. People didnt make decisions in the bible. They were either given faith, or they werent. They were cut to the heart. They fell on their knees. They didnt make a decision. It was a gift.
Once I realized that it wasnt me or my decision for Christ, I finally had peace and assurance of salvation. Its all there in my bible. I finally get it that it is not by works and that my works are filthy rags. I know this is all taught in baptist churches, but for some reason, it didnt get explained to me well there..., and then the whole emphasis on making a decision just got in the way because I was leaning too much on my ability. .. also, the law/gospel/law sandwich that is present in many of those churches also muddies it up. It really should be more of a gospel/law/gospel sandwich, which is how the Lutherans do it. I appreciate it so much. I know I am forgiven for much. I love God much now.
.Click to expand...
Do Lutheran's believe in Once Saved Always Saved?
in Christ,
Bob -
annsni said: ↑Then she's not Baptist.Click to expand...
-
FriendofSpurgeon said: ↑If anything, "emotional" worship tends to be in the Baptist churches around here. Music that "stirs the soul" (eg makes you feel good), positive preaching, catchy sermon titles, etc. Then, you get to have an invitation at the end of the service. Not quite Joel Osteen, but not that far off either.Click to expand...
On a personal note, that is why I am against much of CCM. Its style would not have that same worshipful effect on the believer. But that is for another thread.
That is one type of emotion that I am sure you can relate to.
The other is carnal. As a former Catholic, and also a close relative of one who is deeply involved in the New Age movement, I speak of another type of emotion. This emotion is created by the environment not the hymns. Candles are burning. Incense often burns. It is quiet and meditative. Often the building if beautiful and ornate. Much is done to make the ceremony as pompous and yet as spectacular as possible. The cloths that decorate altars are made of the most extensive material--usually silk and often embroidery. Everything is always in place. It is the environment, the liturgy, that appeals to the emotion.
As I was growing up, it was even more impressive as it was all in Latin.
High Mass was even more impressive as it was all sung by the priests. (I would never have qualified because I can't carry a tune). But note that the "singing" was more chanting (just like new agers do). It adds to the effect. This all adds to the emotion that appeals to the carnal nature. -
A couple of observations:
Why baptize babies? What siginficance does that have?
Why pray to saints? Jesus is our only intercessor.
My former Pastor Chappell said quite often that "you could drown in
the baptistry and still go to hell" i.e. baptism doesn't save you.
The decision is this: you have to put your faith and trust in Jesus. He doesn't save you by osmosis - you must consciously accept the gift. I can hold a gift out to you all day, but if you don't take it from my hands, it is not yours. You are not saved just because he IS. You are saved when you believe and put your absolute faith and trust in him as the ONLY Saviour. No other name under Heaven.....
John 1:12-13 But as many as received him, to them gave he power to become the sons of God, [even] to them that believe on his name: Which were born, not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of God. -
lori4dogs said: ↑JDF posted: 'The true saving gospel of course is simply belief in Christ provision. Faith in Christ and faith in Christ alone".
Wow, this was the sermon we heard at Holy Family Catholic Church this weekend.
He even quoted Romans 10:9, and Ephesisan 2:8,9. So, yes he was preaching the Gospel message and about the same Jesus who died as a full sufficient sacrifice for the sins of the whole world and wants to redeem anyone who believes he died for their sins and was resurrected by God to prove His diety.
In the whole sermon, not one mention of having to do good works to accomplish that salvation He FREELY gives to those who trust and believe.
There are excellent books on why Catholics utilize the rosary as a method of meditation on the life of Christ. The objection always seems to come up 'the bible condemns vain repititions prayer.' It is the VAIN part of the repititious prayer you should object to. While we recite the ave Maria, we meditate the mystier of Christ life.Click to expand...
The doctrine of purgatory in and of itself shows that the Catholic church does not preach the gospel. -
lori4dogs said: ↑I ask the Blessed Mother of God to intercede for me. Not for special favors.Click to expand...
Mary is not our intercessor in heaven; to appeal to her is totally unbiblical. Why do you ask Mary for intercession when Jesus is the Intercessor and Mediator and Advocate? -
Emily25069 said: ↑DHK
I actually find it interesting that you think liturgical worship appeals to the emotions. I had a really hard time with liturgy at first actually. It seemed so dry and silent. It took a while to grow on me, and I cant really say that my emotions are provoked. At least not as much as they were when in my baptist church singing songs that sounded like marches and hearing jokes in the sermons. That was very entertaining actually. Liturgy is very serious.Click to expand...
As a former Catholic, the emotion in the liturgy is different than the emotion in most Bible-based churches. One is based on a carnal emotion; the other based on a Spirit-filled emotion. I explained that in another post. I had the accusation once (by someone unsaved) that they didn't like singing about the blood. It seemed like a horrible thing for them to sing about. But that is what the gospel is all about.
I attended 3 baptist churches.
The first was a Southern Baptist church that started to head towards the whole seeker friendly thing. They used contemporary worship style (of which hubby played the drums) and they didnt mind alcohol at their weddings. It was very non-legalistic. I was very uncomfortable at the time, but my hubby loved it, so we stayed. Looking back, its the church I missed the most. My son plays Upwards basketball there and its nice to see old church family.
The second was a very fundamentalist baptist church. We did a 180 when we started going there. Hymns.. women in skirts only.. KJV only.. strong preaching which I loved at the time. It certainly effected my emotions to hear all that hard preaching. Man did it make me a judgemental woman though! I still have a soft spot for the Pastor there. We only lived in that city 8 months, but they did make us feel so welcome and hubby and I learned to play the part very well.
The third was sort of a middle ground. It was independent fundamental, but they used the NASB. They had high standards, but no legalism. Good preaching much of the time. When I started to go through my dark period, I met and emailed with the Pastor quite a bit actually. He did his best, but I think I was already turning the other way. There were too many things that I was reading in my bible that he (and other baptists) was telling me were not so. (various topics include alcohol consumption, baptism, and the Lords Prayer).. Well, I should say that when I started meeting with him, I really wanted the baptists to be right. I first met with him to talk about how I can know I am saved. We talked about how easy the gospel was.. if it was so easy, why are people that I know getting saved 2 and 3 times in their adult life? How can I be sure that I really meant it when I made that decision, since I fail so often? I struggled a lot with judgementalness. I thought for sure that if i had the Holy Spirit within me, that that would be gone.Click to expand...
Many of the things you were either confused or concerned about were "non-essential" or things that really didn't matter in the light of salvation. After coming out of the Catholic Church I wasn't baptized until two years later. I had always taken a stand on alcohol so that wasn't an issue with me. Things like the Lord's Prayer I would go to my pastor and he would teach me, or I would go straight to the Word of God, and find out what I could. I was blessed to have some good teachers shortly after I was saved. Thus I never doubted my salvation. This seems to have been one of your biggest problems, unfortunately.
Anyhow, he did his best. Honestly.. he was a good man who spent a lot of time with me, but I just couldnt really get past the fact that "making a decision" is in fact adding something to my salvation-a work. People didnt make decisions in the bible. They were either given faith, or they werent. They were cut to the heart. They fell on their knees. They didnt make a decision. It was a gift.Click to expand...
Thus I can point to a date and time when I put my faith and trust in Christ. I know for sure, based on the promises in His Word, that if I were to die right now, I would go to heaven.
Once I realized that it wasnt me or my decision for Christ, I finally had peace and assurance of salvation. Its all there in my bible. I finally get it that it is not by works and that my works are filthy rags. I know this is all taught in baptist churches, but for some reason, it didnt get explained to me well there..., and then the whole emphasis on making a decision just got in the way because I was leaning too much on my ability. .. also, the law/gospel/law sandwich that is present in many of those churches also muddies it up. It really should be more of a gospel/law/gospel sandwich, which is how the Lutherans do it. I appreciate it so much. I know I am forgiven for much. I love God much now.Click to expand...
I also understand what being "born again" means. It doesnt mean "making a decision". It means that God does something to you. Just like I couldnt choose to be born the first time, I cant choose it the second time. It is a gift from God. .. and I do believe that baptism is partly attatched to that.Click to expand...
After reading the story of Nicodemus, look at 1Pet.1:23 and then John 1:12,13:
John 1:12-13 But as many as received him, to them gave he power to become the sons of God, even to them that believe on his name: Which were born, not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of God.
Being born of God is still an act of receiving Christ and becoming God's child.
Baptism is a work, but it is not our work to God. It is Gods work to us.Click to expand...
Look at all the scriptures on baptism. They all have forgiveness and washing sins away attatched to them.Click to expand...
Nowhere is it something we do for God to show what has already taken place. God is not bound to baptism as we see many believers who believed without and made it to heaven, but for our sakes, he attatches His promises of forgiveness to it, so that we can have a pledge of a good conscience.Click to expand...
I can look at my baptism, and have an assurance that God put his name on me in baptism. It really is a beautiful thing, and I wont ever trade it for the empty "obedience" version ever again. It makes no scriptural sense.Click to expand...
"He that hath the Son hath life; he that hath not the Son hath not life."
It is that simple. -
Marcia said: ↑There is no biblical support for this. I posted on the other thread a statement about this that was ignored. The Bible tells us that the Holy Spirit intercedes for us and Jesus intercedes (Rom. 8).
Mary is not our intercessor in heaven; to appeal to her is totally unbiblical. Why do you ask Mary for intercession when Jesus is the Intercessor and Mediator and Advocate?Click to expand...
Page 3 of 16