Call No Man Father

[Rodger]

That is correct.

Instead of rewriting my posts, why not just hit "ENTER" immediately after my sentence or paragraph, to respond to it ?

Why not just ask or post one question at a time as you were asked????

 

[Hopeful 2]

You said........
"Sin occurs when we give in to temptation. (James 1:14-15)"
My dear friend..........THAT IS EXACTLY WHAT I SAID!

Great, we are in agreement.

You said..........
"The "flesh", in this case, is mind of the unrepentant and unregenerated."
NOPE! Again, your understanding of theology is suspect.
The Greek word for “flesh” in the New Testament is sarx, a term that in Scripture refers to the physical body. However, A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament and Other Early Christian Literature describes the word this way: “the physical body as functioning entity; in Paul’s thought esp., all parts of the body constitute a totality known as flesh, which is dominated by sin to such a degree that wherever flesh is, all forms of sin are likewise present, and no good thing can live.”

I disagree.
MY skin and bones could never commit a sin, even before I was reborn of God's seed.

YOU in another post pointed out that fruit produces the same kind of fruit.
Matthew 7:18....“A good tree cannot produce bad fruit”, and I agree 100%.

Wonderful !

So then both Adam and Eve were created good and without sin. But, when Adam and Eve sinned, their nature was corrupted, and that nature was passed along to their offspring:
Genesis 5:3...."When Adam had lived one hundred and thirty years, he became the father of a son in his own likeness, according to his image, and named him Seth".

I disagree.
No man will be condemned for the sins of his daddy.
Seth had his own "row to hoe".

The fact of the sin nature is taught all through the Scriptures, such as David’s declaration in Ps. 51:5.....
"Behold, I was brought forth in iniquity, and in sin my mother conceived me”.

You misinterpret it so as to cause the the false doctrine to thrive.
"Sin nature" is not in the bible.

David does not mean he was the product of an adulterous affair, but that his parents passed along a sin nature to him. In theology, this is sometimes called the “Traducian” (from the Latin term meaning “from a branch”) view of human nature The Traducian view is that a person’s soul is created via his parents, with the child inheriting their fallen nature in the process or as YOU pointed out......fruit produces fruit of the same kind.
FLESH in the Bible refers to the SIN NATURE!

Please differentiate between "skin and bones", and the "worldly oriented mind", when you say "flesh".

Then you said.............
"Pride is the means of attaining something."
NOPE. According to the Bible, pride is sinful and displeasing to God because it represents self-idolatry and self-sufficiency apart from God. Pride is an excessive preoccupation with self and one’s own importance, achievements, status, or possessions and when YOU say that you are without sin, that is exactly what you are doing.. It is considered rebellion against God because it attributes to one’s self the honor and glory that only God is due.

I agree that pride in something sinful is not pleasing to God.

What do I get out of being perfectly obedient to God ?
YOU are not perfectly obedient to God and YOU will never be perfectly obedient to God until you are dead or Raptured.

Then Christ died for nothing.

If YOUR or my testimony is anything other than what Jesus did for you, it is then selfishness and pride.

Then I am good !

You are what YOU are because of what Christ did !!!

Just as I have bene saying, for 3000 posts !

 

[Rodger]

I didn't ask a question.

You do know that Paul is citing scrips' written in the OT...right ?

I know that Paul was using those citings to show the Jews that even though they had the Law of Moses, they still needed the Redeemer's intercession.
That they were no better than any Gentile.
I like how he brought it home too, with Rom 3:21-22..."But now the righteousness of God without the law is manifested, being witnessed by the law and the prophets;
22 Even the righteousness of God which is by faith of Jesus Christ unto all and upon all them that believe:"
The "righteousness of God without the Law" is what you fight against, when you say nobody can be sinlessly perfect.

No Law, no sin is imputed.
No death, no sin.

My dear friend, I do not mean to challege your Bible education and it is not personal in any way. But, Dadgummed!

Please do the Bible work. Read, study. YOu can not possibly believe that there was NO sin before the Law was given.

Did Adam and Eve disobey God?
Did Cain kill Abel.

I understand what you are saying, but you have to realize that in that people sinned even before the law was given. But it was not counted as sin because there was not yet any law to break.

In Romans 5:13, Paul adds that sin existed in the world before the Law came into existence.

That is true because sin began with Adam. Then we are told that sin is not imputed when there is no law. The word “imputed” in Romans 5:13 is a most confusing word. The Greek word that is translated as imputed means “to lay to account.” In an ancient writing, this word was used in the statement, “earnest money to be reckoned in the price.” Imputed is translated here as “reckoned.” That is, imputed refers to monies counted in the price in this illustration. That is, sin was not counted against the people who lived from Adam to Moses, before the Law. Why? Because they had not been given the Law, a list of sins or laws to obey. After the Law, they finally had names for specific sins to avoid. For example, in Romans 7:7, Paul illustrates his point. He says

. . . I would not have come to know sin except through the Law; for I would not have known about coveting if the Law had not said, “YOU SHALL NOT COVET.” Romans 7:7 (NASB)

Romans 5:13 is not teaching that the people from Adam to Moses were not responsible for their sins. We must remember that Romans 2:14-16 tells us that God’s moral standard is written in our conscience. Our thoughts convict or defend our behavior. It also says that on the day of judgment, God will judge people according to their secret thoughts. That seems to imply that God will condemn people based on their conscience warning them to not commit sin. Thus, when they ignore their conscience and sin anyway, that will be used to demonstrate they deserve hell.

 

[Hopeful 2]

YES. Correct.

Adultery is the breaking of God's Law.

YES....we can absolutly resist and say NO to the temptation of the sin of adultry.

You said.........
"Adultery isn't a sin until the temptation is acted on."

NO! You are incorrect Biblically!
The Lord Jesus who YOU said YOU obey perfectly disagrees with you as He said in Matthew 5:27-30....
“You have heard that it was said, ‘ Do not commit adultery.’ But I say to you that whoever looks at a woman to desire her has already committed adultery with her in his heart. 29 If your right eye causes you to sin, tear it out and throw it away!"

I agree, but was only focusing on the act, and not the prelude to the act.

Do not see why I have challenged so hard on your sinlessness???? In the Sermon on the Mount where Matthew 5 is located, the sermon from Jesus was not given so that we have new rules to follow but to show us that it is impossible for us to fulfill God's law.
That is why YOU can not be sinless!

Had the world ended right after Jesus sermon, you would be right.
But by His death and resurrection, Jesus introduced the means of our own dealt and resurrection with Him in order to "walk in newness of life". (Rom 6:3-7)
The means of our regeneration and rebirth from God's incorruptible seed.
He provided the means of our circumcision done without hands. (Col 2:11-12)
Now, we can walk in and after the Spirit instead of in and after the "flesh" !

 

[Hopeful 2]

Why not just ask or post one question at a time as you were asked????

You usually add other things to your posts besides a simple question.
They too need a response.

 

[Rodger]

You usually add other things to your posts besides a simple question.
They too need a response.

That would only be if you have asked several questons.

 

[Hopeful 2]

My dear friend, I do not mean to challege your Bible education and it is not personal in any way. But, Dadgummed!

Challenge all you want.
I have lots of experience defending the doctrine which is according to Godliness. (1 Tim 6:3)

Please do the Bible work. Read, study. You can not possibly believe that there was NO sin before the Law was given.

Agreed, as it is written..."(For until the law sin was in the world: but sin is not imputed when there is no law." (Rom 5:13)

Did Adam and Eve disobey God?
Did Cain kill Abel.

Yes, to both questions.

I understand what you are saying, but you have to realize that in that people sinned even before the law was given. But it was not counted as sin because there was not yet any law to break.

Correct.

In Romans 5:13, Paul adds that sin existed in the world before the Law came into existence.
Why? Because they had not been given the Law, a list of sins or laws to obey. After the Law, they finally had names for specific sins to avoid.

Agreed.

Romans 5:13 is not teaching that the people from Adam to Moses were not responsible for their sins. We must remember that Romans 2:14-16 tells us that God’s moral standard is written in our conscience. Our thoughts convict or defend our behavior. It also says that on the day of judgment, God will judge people according to their secret thoughts. That seems to imply that God will condemn people based on their conscience warning them to not commit sin. Thus, when they ignore their conscience and sin anyway, that will be used to demonstrate they deserve hell.

That is right.
Thank God we can always heed our consciences, now that we can walk in and after the Spirit instead of in and after the "flesh".

 

[Rodger]

I agree, but was only focusing on the act, and not the prelude to the act.

Had the world ended right after Jesus sermon, you would be right.
But by His death and resurrection, Jesus introduced the means of our own dealt and resurrection with Him in order to "walk in newness of life". (Rom 6:3-7)
The means of our regeneration and rebirth from God's incorruptible seed.
He provided the means of our circumcision done without hands. (Col 2:11-12)
Now, we can walk in and after the Spirit instead of in and after the "flesh" !

Brother, you have made the comment of...........
"The means of our regeneration and rebirth from God's incorruptible seed."

The idea of being born of an incorruptible seed theology is from Pentacostalism and rooted in the teachings of Andrew Womack. He is also the one who claims to have risen a man from the dead but that is for antother thread.

Any way, I am pretty sure that I am much older than you are. I say that YOU or no one else is in a position of sinlessness because of my Observation of people who claim sinlessness absolutely reinforces that fact.

Anyway, One would think that if sinlessness was possible, the Bible would give us an example of someone who achieved it. But the facts are just the opposite just to name a few.........
“Surely there is not a righteous man on earth who does good and never sins” (Ecclesiastes 7:20).
“…and forgive us our debts, as we also have forgiven our debtors” (Matthew 6:12).
“If we say we have no sin, we deceive ourselves, and the truth is not in us” (1 John 1:8).
"ALL have sinned and come short of the glory of God (Rom.3:23)

You have actually pointed to Jesus’ instructions to “go and sin no more” in John 5:14 and 8:11 as evidence for the possibility of sinlessness. But there is a difference between what is supposed to be our goal and what the reality of our existence tells us. Of course, sinlessness is supposed to be our goal. Obedience is something we strive for!
May I say to you brother that The people in my life whom I would describe as the most spiritually mature would never claim sinlessness. In fact, part of true spiritual maturity is being cognizant of the subtle sins in your life. True progress in the Christian life is honestly and humbly recognizing how much further you must go.

If you think you have arrived at sinlessness, think again. Unless you have arrived in heaven at the feet of Jesus, you still have work to do.

“Beloved, we are God’s children now, and what we will be has not yet appeared; but we know that when He appears we shall be like Him, because we shall see Him as He is.” (1 John 3:2)

 

[Hopeful 2]

Brother, you have made the comment of...........
"The means of our regeneration and rebirth from God's incorruptible seed."

The idea of being born of an incorruptible seed theology is from Pentacostalism and rooted in the teachings of Andrew Womack. He is also the one who claims to have risen a man from the dead but that is for antother thread.

What does this mean to you? "Whosoever is born of God doth not commit sin; for his seed remaineth in him: and he cannot sin, because he is born of God." (1 John 3:9)

Any way, I am pretty sure that I am much older than you are. I say that YOU or no one else is in a position of sinlessness because of my Observation of people who claim sinlessness absolutely reinforces that fact.

I'll be seventy this month.
My observations of those who introduced me to Godliness have proven the doctrine is real.

Anyway, One would think that if sinlessness was possible, the Bible would give us an example of someone who achieved it. But the facts are just the opposite just to name a few.........

All the bibles writers were still living when their writings were made.
Which of them was charged with sin or repented of sin again after their writings ?

“Surely there is not a righteous man on earth who does good and never sins” (Ecclesiastes 7:20).
“…and forgive us our debts, as we also have forgiven our debtors” (Matthew 6:12).
“If we say we have no sin, we deceive ourselves, and the truth is not in us” (1 John 1:8).
"ALL have sinned and come short of the glory of God (Rom.3:23)

You like to use scriptures to accommodate sin.
Why not use scripture to show sin has been vanquished ?
Like...“I in them, and thou in me, that they may be made perfect in one; and that the world may know that thou hast sent me, and hast loved them, as thou hast loved me." (John 17:22-23)
“Knowing this, that our old man is crucified with him, that the body of sin might be destroyed, that henceforth we should not serve sin.For he that is dead is freed from sin.” (Rom. 6:6-7)
"Being then made free from sin, ye became the servants of righteousness." (Rom 6:18)
"But now being made free from sin, and become servants to God, ye have your fruit unto holiness, and the end everlasting life." (Rom 6:22)
"There is therefore now no condemnation to them which are in Christ Jesus, who walk not after the flesh, but after the Spirit." (Rom 8:1)
That is just 5, but I have dozens more !

You have actually pointed to Jesus’ instructions to “go and sin no more” in John 5:14 and 8:11 as evidence for the possibility of sinlessness. But there is a difference between what is supposed to be our goal and what the reality of our existence tells us. Of course, sinlessness is supposed to be our goal. Obedience is something we strive for!

So why keep saying it is impossible ?

May I say to you brother that The people in my life whom I would describe as the most spiritually mature would never claim sinlessness.

That isn't worth answering.

In fact, part of true spiritual maturity is being cognizant of the subtle sins in your life.

All men are born with a conscience even before rebirth.
Men know what is a sin.

True progress in the Christian life is honestly and humbly recognizing how much further you must go.

Starting from a perfect beginning makes it possible.
We are exhorted to grow in grace and knowledge, but I see no exhortations to "get closer".

If you think you have arrived at sinlessness, think again. Unless you have arrived in heaven at the feet of Jesus, you still have work to do.

I was reborn sinless.
Weren't you ?

“Beloved, we are God’s children now, and what we will be has not yet appeared; but we know that when He appears we shall be like Him, because we shall see Him as He is.” (1 John 3:2)

Not all will be like Him at His return.
Some will still be sinners.

 

[donadams]

If YOU are not concerned then why in the world did YOU post Matthew 23 to support your opinion????

You really don’t want understanding!

Your mot seeking truth!

 

[Rodger]

You really don’t want understanding!

Your mot seeking truth!

I am not seeking Catholic teachings......That is correct!

As for truth, THat is found in the Word of God and the difference here between us is that YOU are rejecting the Word of God and I am accepting it.

God bless you my friend and I do pray that you will find the truth of the Word of God.

 

[Rodger]

What does this mean to you? "Whosoever is born of God doth not commit sin; for his seed remaineth in him: and he cannot sin, because he is born of God." (1 John 3:9)

I'll be seventy this month.
My observations of those who introduced me to Godliness have proven the doctrine is real.

All the bibles writers were still living when their writings were made.
Which of them was charged with sin or repented of sin again after their writings ?

You like to use scriptures to accommodate sin.
Why not use scripture to show sin has been vanquished ?
Like...“I in them, and thou in me, that they may be made perfect in one; and that the world may know that thou hast sent me, and hast loved them, as thou hast loved me." (John 17:22-23)
“Knowing this, that our old man is crucified with him, that the body of sin might be destroyed, that henceforth we should not serve sin.For he that is dead is freed from sin.” (Rom. 6:6-7)
"Being then made free from sin, ye became the servants of righteousness." (Rom 6:18)
"But now being made free from sin, and become servants to God, ye have your fruit unto holiness, and the end everlasting life." (Rom 6:22)
"There is therefore now no condemnation to them which are in Christ Jesus, who walk not after the flesh, but after the Spirit." (Rom 8:1)
That is just 5, but I have dozens more !

So why keep saying it is impossible ?

That isn't worth answering.

All men are born with a conscience even before rebirth.
Men know what is a sin.

Starting from a perfect beginning makes it possible.
We are exhorted to grow in grace and knowledge, but I see no exhortations to "get closer".

I was reborn sinless.
Weren't you ?

Not all will be like Him at His return.
Some will still be sinners.

1st John 3:9 says ........
" “whoever has been born of God does not sin” (NKJV)."

Do you know what John had previously warned believers of in 1 John 1:8......
"that anyone who claims to have no sin is lying".

Therefore, 1 John 3:9 cannot mean that whoever is born of God will be perfectly sinless. It means that whoever is born of God will no longer continue to sin willfully or habitually.

Those who are born again will desire to live for God, not for the flesh.

The NIV translates 1 John 3:9 this way: “No one who lives in him keeps on sinning.”

The Amplified Bible also brings out this meaning: “No one who is born of God [deliberately, knowingly, and habitually] practices sin.”

I still have 10 years on you!

I like to use the Scriptures to teach the Word of God correctly to those who are not learned or knowingly ignorant of them.

You said.......
"All men are born with a conscience even before rebirth.
Men know what is a sin."

Exactly why and what I posted for you. You just repeated what I said!!!!!

You said.............
I was reborn sinless.
Weren't you ?
I asked you once before and I will again.....Do you read and think about what you post before you post????

This statement right here validate your ignorance of the Bible. THis is why your theology is so messed up my friend. Again.........I apologize for such harsh words but my goodness......this is Bible 101.

I have children and teenagers in Sunday School who understand how wrong your comment is.

Allow me to properly teach you yet another Bible truth as seen IN THE SCRIPTURES........

Isaiah 53:6 (ESV)​

"All we like sheep have gone astray;we have turned — every one — to his own way;and the Lord has laid on him the iniquity of us all."

Romans 7:14 (ESV)​

"For we know that the law is spiritual, but I am of the flesh, sold under sin."

​

Romans 5:12 (ESV)​

"Therefore, just as sin came into the world through one man, and death through sin, and so death spread to all men because all sinned —".

Proverbs 22:15 (ESV)​

"Folly is bound up in the heart of a child,but the rod of discipline drives it far from him."

Psalms 51:5 (ESV)​

"Behold, I was brought forth in iniquity,and in sin did my mother conceive me."

Psalms 58:3 (ESV)​

"The wicked are estranged from the womb;they go astray from birth, speaking lies".

Before we were saved, “we were by nature deserving of wrath” (Ephesians 2:3). Note that we deserved God’s wrath not only because of our actions but because of our nature. That nature is what we inherited from Adam.

We are born sinners, and for that reason we are unable to do good in order to please God in our natural state, or the flesh: “Those who are in the realm of the flesh cannot please God” (Romans 8:8). We were dead in our sins before Christ raised us to spiritual life (Ephesians 2:1). We lack any inherent spiritual good.

No one has to teach a child to lie; rather, we must go to great lengths to impress upon children the value of telling the truth. Toddlers are naturally selfish, with their innate, although faulty, understanding that everything is “mine.” Sinful behavior comes naturally for the little ones because they are born sinners.

Because we are born sinners, we must experience a second, spiritual birth. We are born once into Adam’s family and are sinners by nature. When we are born again, we are born into God’s family and are given the nature of Christ. We praise the Lord that “to all who did receive him, to those who believed in his name, he gave the right to become children of God—children born not of natural descent . . . but born of God” (John 1:12–13).

Now.....You can read what God says and grow and learn or you can deny the Word of God and live in ignorance.

What you can not say is............"God, I did not know "!

 

[donadams]

The 12 slots are filled. I don't hold to apostolic succession.

I hold to this:
Here is a trustworthy saying: Whoever aspires to be an overseer desires a noble task. 2Now the overseer is to be above reproach, faithful to his wife, temperate, self-controlled, respectable, hospitable, able to teach, 3not given to drunkenness, not violent but gentle, not quarrelsome, not a lover of money. 4He must manage his own family well and see that his children obey him, and he must do so in a manner worthy of full a respect. 5(If anyone does not know how to manage his own family, how can he take care of God’s church?) 6He must not be a recent convert, or he may become conceited and fall under the same judgment as the devil. 7He must also have a good reputation with outsiders, so that he will not fall into disgrace and into the devil’s trap.

8In the same way, deacons b are to be worthy of respect, sincere, not indulging in much wine, and not pursuing dishonest gain. 9They must keep hold of the deep truths of the faith with a clear conscience. 10They must first be tested; and then if there is nothing against them, let them serve as deacons.

You deny apostolic succession then approve of overseers which are the bishops who govern the church till Christ returns

 

[Randy]

Randy......for you to keep suggesting that I am "upset" or to "be calm" or "take a deep breath" is really very disingenuous.

I am an old retired, and tired country boy. I guess that they allow you to feel more in control, but they mean nothing to me.

I am so calm and relaxed that my dog has to wake me up to hit the enter button on the computer, so then can we move on to something else?

The use of Father in a religious context was shown. Is Paul being disobedient? If so, I believe God's grace overlooks such things as He knows the heart of everyone as in those who really love Him. Just like the people of today I have had nothing to do with establishing what is Catholic. It is what it is. I have not be sent as one in authority to tear anyone down. Personally, calling a Catholic priest Father does not offend me nor do I believe it offends the head of the body of Christ. Christ Jesus. Jesus usually states this is in your favor and this I have against you together when judging. At least He did with the 7 churches in REV. It's not all judgment as you seem to suggest in regard to what is catholic.

I am writing this not to shame you but to warn you as my dear children. 15Even if you had ten thousand guardians in Christ, you do not have many fathers, for in Christ Jesus I became your father through the gospel. 16Therefore I urge you to imitate me. 17For this reason I have sent to you Timothy, my son whom I love, who is faithful in the Lord. He will remind you of my way of life in Christ Jesus, which agrees with what I teach everywhere in every church.

 

[Rodger]

The use of Father in a religious context was shown. Is Paul being disobedient? If so, I believe God's grace overlooks such things as He knows the heart of everyone as in those who really love Him. Just like the people of today I have had nothing to do with establishing what is Catholic. It is what it is. I have not be sent as one in authority to tear anyone down. Personally, calling a Catholic priest Father does not offend me nor do I believe it offends the head of the body of Christ. Christ Jesus. Jesus usually states this is in your favor and this I have against you together when judging. At least He did with the 7 churches in REV. It's not all judgment as you seem to suggest in regard to what is catholic.

I am writing this not to shame you but to warn you as my dear children. 15Even if you had ten thousand guardians in Christ, you do not have many fathers, for in Christ Jesus I became your father through the gospel. 16Therefore I urge you to imitate me. 17For this reason I have sent to you Timothy, my son whom I love, who is faithful in the Lord. He will remind you of my way of life in Christ Jesus, which agrees with what I teach everywhere in every church.

Randy......please be civil!

How in the world do you think you can shame me for me simply defending the clear, simple Word of God???
Why then do you think you need to warn me?????

I was called to preach the Word of God 50 years ago.

Acts 20:28–29 Paul said, ....
“Pay careful attention to yourselves and to all the flock, in which the Holy Spirit has made you overseers. . . . I know that after my departure fierce wolves will come in among you, not sparing them.”

You said..........
"Personally, calling a Catholic priest Father does not offend me nor do I believe it offends the head of the body of Christ."

Why do you think that I care about what offends YOU. You seem to be offended by what I say about what some people do that offends God by disobedience but then you say those actions do not offend you.

I guess that you have not read that the disobedience of the commands of God is sin!!!

 

[Rodger]

You deny apostolic succession then approve of overseers which are the bishops who govern the church till Christ returns

Pastors and deacons are NOT Apostles and they are in fact commanded by the Word of God to be a part of the Church of God!

 

[donadams]

That is a correct statement.

The phrase “blood of Christ” is used several times in the New Testament and is the expression of the sacrificial death and full atoning work of Jesus on our behalf. References to the Savior’s blood include the reality that He literally bled on the cross, but more significantly that He bled and died for sinners. The blood of Christ has the power to atone for an infinite number of sins committed by an infinite number of people throughout the ages, and all whose faith rests in that blood will be saved.

Its a covenant
The merits of christ the mediator must be applied to our spiritual souls

 

[donadams]

Those are solely Catholic teachings and are not found in the Bible.

I have no conflict with my friend here. My only focus is for those who read our discussion be aware of what is Catholic teaching and what Is Biblical teaching.

Having said that, when taken in the context of Scripture as a whole, there is no foundation for the belief that God ever intended these passages to be taken as support for rituals as a means of conveying grace. In other words, the whole idea of "sacraments" that convey saving grace upon people is unbiblical.

Two of the main sacraments specifically are said by the Roman Catholic Church to be necessary in order to gain eternal life:
1.baptism and
2.communion.

Because of the Roman Catholic Church belief that baptism is required for salvation, Catholics maintain that it is important to baptize infants. Please understand that there is nowhere in Scripture can you find even a single example or command to do so.

Some Roman Catholics use Acts 16:33 as a possible example, because it states that the Philippian jailor "and his family" were baptized. But, taking this verse in context, we note two things:...........
(1) When the jailor asked Paul what he must do to be saved, Paul did NOT say, "Believe on Jesus and be baptized and take communion." Rather, Paul said, "Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ, and you will be saved, you and your household" (v. 31). Thus, we see that it is faith that is the ingredient necessary for salvation. It was understood that one who believed would be baptized, but baptism was not necessary for salvation. If it were, Paul would have given it more weight in his missionary journeys (1 Corinthians 1:14-18).

(2) We see that the "family" could not have included infants or toddlers, as it states in verse 34 that the jailor had "believed in God with all his household." Infants and toddlers cannot exercise faith in God in such a fashion.

Again and again throughout Scripture, faith, not faith PLUS baptism, is seen as the means through which one receives salvation (John 1:12; 3:14-16; Ephesians 2:8-9; Romans 3:19-26; 4; 10:9-13; etc.).

Turning to communion, the Roman Catholic Church makes it clear that they take John 6:54 literally when Jesus says, "Unless you eat of the flesh of the Son of Man and drink His blood, you have no life in you."

That is called "Transubstanciation"! The problem is that their belief that Jesus is speaking literally here is not in keeping with the context of the passage in which Jesus repeatedly states the importance of faith in Him and His coming atoning death for their sins (see John 6:29,35,40,47 and consider the whole message of the gospel of John, as stated in John 20:31).

When one examines the remaining sacraments, one finds that the belief that they convey "sanctifying grace" is not in keeping with the context of the rest of the Bible.

Yes, all Christians should be baptized, but baptism does not infuse us with grace.

Yes, all Christians should partake of the Lord’s Supper, but doing so does not confer sanctifying grace.

Yes, we should confess our sins, not to a priest, but rather to God (1 John 1:9).

Having a formal training program and formal acceptance into the church is a good thing to do, but it does not convey saving grace. Being approved as a church leader is an honorable thing, but it does not result in grace. Marriage is a wonderful and blessed event in the life of a couple, but it is not the means of how God graces us. Praying for and with a person who is dying is a godly thing to do – but it does not add grace to our account.

All the grace we will ever need is received the moment we trust Jesus, by faith, as Savior (Ephesians 2:8-9). The saving grace that is granted at the moment of genuine faith is the only saving grace God’s Word calls on us to receive. This grace is received by faith, not by observing rituals. So, while the seven sacraments are “good things to do,” when they are understood in a biblical context, the concept of the seven sacraments as “conferring sanctifying grace” is completely unbiblical.

Now he says the New Testament scriptures are not the bible???

 

[donadams]

Those are solely Catholic teachings and are not found in the Bible.

I have no conflict with my friend here. My only focus is for those who read our discussion be aware of what is Catholic teaching and what Is Biblical teaching.

Having said that, when taken in the context of Scripture as a whole, there is no foundation for the belief that God ever intended these passages to be taken as support for rituals as a means of conveying grace. In other words, the whole idea of "sacraments" that convey saving grace upon people is unbiblical.

Two of the main sacraments specifically are said by the Roman Catholic Church to be necessary in order to gain eternal life:
1.baptism and
2.communion.

Because of the Roman Catholic Church belief that baptism is required for salvation, Catholics maintain that it is important to baptize infants. Please understand that there is nowhere in Scripture can you find even a single example or command to do so.

Some Roman Catholics use Acts 16:33 as a possible example, because it states that the Philippian jailor "and his family" were baptized. But, taking this verse in context, we note two things:...........
(1) When the jailor asked Paul what he must do to be saved, Paul did NOT say, "Believe on Jesus and be baptized and take communion." Rather, Paul said, "Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ, and you will be saved, you and your household" (v. 31). Thus, we see that it is faith that is the ingredient necessary for salvation. It was understood that one who believed would be baptized, but baptism was not necessary for salvation. If it were, Paul would have given it more weight in his missionary journeys (1 Corinthians 1:14-18).

(2) We see that the "family" could not have included infants or toddlers, as it states in verse 34 that the jailor had "believed in God with all his household." Infants and toddlers cannot exercise faith in God in such a fashion.

Again and again throughout Scripture, faith, not faith PLUS baptism, is seen as the means through which one receives salvation (John 1:12; 3:14-16; Ephesians 2:8-9; Romans 3:19-26; 4; 10:9-13; etc.).

Turning to communion, the Roman Catholic Church makes it clear that they take John 6:54 literally when Jesus says, "Unless you eat of the flesh of the Son of Man and drink His blood, you have no life in you."

That is called "Transubstanciation"! The problem is that their belief that Jesus is speaking literally here is not in keeping with the context of the passage in which Jesus repeatedly states the importance of faith in Him and His coming atoning death for their sins (see John 6:29,35,40,47 and consider the whole message of the gospel of John, as stated in John 20:31).

When one examines the remaining sacraments, one finds that the belief that they convey "sanctifying grace" is not in keeping with the context of the rest of the Bible.

Yes, all Christians should be baptized, but baptism does not infuse us with grace.

Yes, all Christians should partake of the Lord’s Supper, but doing so does not confer sanctifying grace.

Yes, we should confess our sins, not to a priest, but rather to God (1 John 1:9).

Having a formal training program and formal acceptance into the church is a good thing to do, but it does not convey saving grace. Being approved as a church leader is an honorable thing, but it does not result in grace. Marriage is a wonderful and blessed event in the life of a couple, but it is not the means of how God graces us. Praying for and with a person who is dying is a godly thing to do – but it does not add grace to our account.

All the grace we will ever need is received the moment we trust Jesus, by faith, as Savior (Ephesians 2:8-9). The saving grace that is granted at the moment of genuine faith is the only saving grace God’s Word calls on us to receive. This grace is received by faith, not by observing rituals. So, while the seven sacraments are “good things to do,” when they are understood in a biblical context, the concept of the seven sacraments as “conferring sanctifying grace” is completely unbiblical.

Infant baptism is found in scripture and the early church fathers


Acts 2:38-39 Then Peter said unto them, Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins, and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost.

39 For the promise is unto you, and to your children, and to all that are afar off, even as many as the Lord our God shall call.

Promise is to you’re children! Vs 39

This promise made in ez 36
A promise from God is a sacred oath, and a sacred oath is a sacrament!

Ez 36:25 Then will I sprinkle clean water upon you, and ye shall be clean: from all your filthiness, and from all your idols, will I cleanse you.

26 A new heart also will I give you, and a new spirit will I put within you: and I will take away the stony heart out of your flesh, and I will give you an heart of flesh.

27 And I will put my spirit within you, and cause you to walk in my statutes, and ye shall keep my judgments, and do them.

Jn 3:5 born again by water and the spirit.

Acts 16:15 entire household baptized! Does not say adults only or except infants!

Ez 36:25 Then will I sprinkle clean water upon you, and ye shall be clean: from all your filthiness.

(It does not say adults only or except infants!)
(Scripture does not say anywhere “do not baptized infants”)

Baptism is the Christian initiation sacrament of the new covenant for all men. Matt 28:19 Jn 1:29 Jn 3:16

1 Corinthians 12:13
For by one Spirit are we all baptized into one body, whether we be Jews or Gentiles, whether we be bond or free; and have been all made to drink into one Spirit. (It does not say except infants!) (but it does say “all”)!

Lk 1:10-11 all people including infants

Thee faith is required for adult baptism.
Mk 16:16 acts 8:36-38

If it’s not possible (as in the case of infants) it’s not required.

But the promise of the parents to raise and educate the child in the faith is required, then the child is confirmed in thee faith at the age of reason.

Repentance is required for adult baptism. Acts 2:38

If there is no personal sin to repent of (as in the case of infants) then it’s not required.

For two thousand years the church founded by Christ on Peter and the apostles has always baptized infants!

Acts 1:8
Witness of Augustine!

It is this one Spirit who makes it possible for an infant to be regenerated . . . when that INFANT is brought to baptism; and it is through this one Spirit that the infant so presented is reborn. For it is not written, "Unless a man be born again by the will of his parents" or "by the faith of those presenting him or ministering to him," but, "Unless a man be born again of water and the Holy Spirit." The water, therefore, manifesting exteriorly the sacrament of grace, and the Spirit effecting interiorly the benefit of grace, both regenerate in one Christ that man who was generated in Adam (Letters 98:2 [A.D. 408]).

“The sacrament of baptism is most assuredly the sacrament of regeneration” (ibid., 2:27:43).

“Baptism washes away all, absolutely all, our sins, whether of deed, word, or thought, whether sins original or added, whether knowingly or unknowingly contracted” (Against Two Letters of the Pelagians 3:3:5 [A.D. 420]).

“This is the meaning of the great sacrament of baptism, which is celebrated among us: all who attain to this grace die thereby to sin—as he himself [Jesus] is said to have died to sin because he died in the flesh (that is, ‘in the likeness of sin’)—and they are thereby alive by being reborn in the baptismal font, just as he rose again from the sepulcher. This is the case no matter what the age of the body. For whether it be a newborn infant or a decrepit old man—since no one should be barred from baptism—just so, there is no one who does not die to sin in baptism. Infants die to original sin only; adults, to all those sins which they have added, through their evil living, to the burden they brought with them at birth” (Handbook on Faith, Hope, and Love 13[41] [A.D. 421]).

 

[donadams]

Those are solely Catholic teachings and are not found in the Bible.

I have no conflict with my friend here. My only focus is for those who read our discussion be aware of what is Catholic teaching and what Is Biblical teaching.

Having said that, when taken in the context of Scripture as a whole, there is no foundation for the belief that God ever intended these passages to be taken as support for rituals as a means of conveying grace. In other words, the whole idea of "sacraments" that convey saving grace upon people is unbiblical.

Two of the main sacraments specifically are said by the Roman Catholic Church to be necessary in order to gain eternal life:
1.baptism and
2.communion.

Because of the Roman Catholic Church belief that baptism is required for salvation, Catholics maintain that it is important to baptize infants. Please understand that there is nowhere in Scripture can you find even a single example or command to do so.

Some Roman Catholics use Acts 16:33 as a possible example, because it states that the Philippian jailor "and his family" were baptized. But, taking this verse in context, we note two things:...........
(1) When the jailor asked Paul what he must do to be saved, Paul did NOT say, "Believe on Jesus and be baptized and take communion." Rather, Paul said, "Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ, and you will be saved, you and your household" (v. 31). Thus, we see that it is faith that is the ingredient necessary for salvation. It was understood that one who believed would be baptized, but baptism was not necessary for salvation. If it were, Paul would have given it more weight in his missionary journeys (1 Corinthians 1:14-18).

(2) We see that the "family" could not have included infants or toddlers, as it states in verse 34 that the jailor had "believed in God with all his household." Infants and toddlers cannot exercise faith in God in such a fashion.

Again and again throughout Scripture, faith, not faith PLUS baptism, is seen as the means through which one receives salvation (John 1:12; 3:14-16; Ephesians 2:8-9; Romans 3:19-26; 4; 10:9-13; etc.).

Turning to communion, the Roman Catholic Church makes it clear that they take John 6:54 literally when Jesus says, "Unless you eat of the flesh of the Son of Man and drink His blood, you have no life in you."

That is called "Transubstanciation"! The problem is that their belief that Jesus is speaking literally here is not in keeping with the context of the passage in which Jesus repeatedly states the importance of faith in Him and His coming atoning death for their sins (see John 6:29,35,40,47 and consider the whole message of the gospel of John, as stated in John 20:31).

When one examines the remaining sacraments, one finds that the belief that they convey "sanctifying grace" is not in keeping with the context of the rest of the Bible.

Yes, all Christians should be baptized, but baptism does not infuse us with grace.

Yes, all Christians should partake of the Lord’s Supper, but doing so does not confer sanctifying grace.

Yes, we should confess our sins, not to a priest, but rather to God (1 John 1:9).

Having a formal training program and formal acceptance into the church is a good thing to do, but it does not convey saving grace. Being approved as a church leader is an honorable thing, but it does not result in grace. Marriage is a wonderful and blessed event in the life of a couple, but it is not the means of how God graces us. Praying for and with a person who is dying is a godly thing to do – but it does not add grace to our account.

All the grace we will ever need is received the moment we trust Jesus, by faith, as Savior (Ephesians 2:8-9). The saving grace that is granted at the moment of genuine faith is the only saving grace God’s Word calls on us to receive. This grace is received by faith, not by observing rituals. So, while the seven sacraments are “good things to do,” when they are understood in a biblical context, the concept of the seven sacraments as “conferring sanctifying grace” is completely unbiblical.

All the holy sacraments of grace instituted by christ for salvation are included in the Christian faith