Jump to content
  • Welcome Guest

    For an ad free experience on Online Baptist, Please login or register for free

Billy Graham's Sad Disobedience to the Word of God


Recommended Posts

  • Members
The dedication of a baby is neither biblical or unbiblical(IFB's practice it, too) and whether they choose to use water or not may be an error on their part but is extremely different from praying to saints. Simply no comparison.


The comparison was that the catholics took the practices of the heathen and renamed it, likewise the the Presbyterians keep the practice of infant baptism which the catholics teach saves a child, and now claim it's just being done as a dedication of the child instead of being done for the child's salvation. This is a corruption of biblical baptism either way.







So you're saying that your faith is so weak that if you work with people who practice infant baptism, you'll eventually want to do the same thing? I went to a Pres. church for a year and have been friends with them for years and still have zero desire to have my future babies baptized.


I would like to think that by God's grace it wouldn't affect me but there is no reason to play around with or excuse dangerous teaching.

Proverbs 4:13-15 Take fast hold of instruction; let her not go: keep her; for she is thy life. Enter not into the path of the wicked, and go not in the way of evil men. Avoid it, pass not by it, turn from it, and pass away.

1 Corinthians 10:12 Wherefore let him that thinketh he standeth take heed lest he fall.

1 Corinthians 15:33 Be not deceived: evil communications corrupt good manners.

Those Christians of other denominations may have a few errors in their doctrinal line-up, as well, but they shouldn't separate us from them any more than the NT churches with their innumerable errors caused Paul to separate from them. He wrote to them, he reasoned with them, and he encouraged them, but never did separation ever occur except on the occasion that someone had rejected their faith.


Paul had not yet reached the point of rejection in his letters, he reasoned with them but if they had refused to accept sound doctrine and persisted in sin he would have separated eventually. The various denominations crossed the line where reasoning was still possible long ago. Now reasoning is only possible on a individual level and if through reasoning out of the scriptures someone in that denomination understands the truth they themselves will then face the biblical requirement to separate from false teachers.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 65
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

  • Members



The only reason they baptize infants is because they held on to the baggage of the catholic church. They kept the same practice of infant baptism but now claim it is for dedication instead of for salvation. That is little different then when the catholic church moved into an area and adopted the heathens feasts and Gods but re-named them after various "saints" to "Christianize" them. If we joined those that turn wickedness into "dedication" so that they might keep their traditions we risk becoming entangled in that yoke of bondage.

1 Corinthians 5:6-7 ....Know ye not that a little leaven leaveneth the whole lump? Purge out therefore the old leaven, that ye may be a new lump, as ye are unleavened...


The historical record of Christianity evidences that the earliest Christians were baptizing infants. The Bible even alludes to the baptism of infants.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

The Bible even alludes to the baptism of infants.


No such thing. I am sure that you are speaking of places that say that someone was baptized "and their house" which just means everyone was old enough to understand, got saved, and were baptized. It certainly does not mean infants were baptized.

The bible says:

"Acts 8:35-38 Then Philip opened his mouth, and began at the same scripture, and preached unto him Jesus. And as they went on their way, they came unto a certain water: and the eunuch said, See, here is water; what doth hinder me to be baptized? And Philip said, If thou believest with all thine heart, thou mayest. And he answered and said, I believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God. And he commanded the chariot to stand still: and they went down both into the water, both Philip and the eunuch; and he baptized him."

You can see that it was necessary to believe with all your heart before baptism. A infant cannot do that.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

Revelation, there is a vast difference between rejecting the principals of God's Word and sincerely believing that you are following Scripture and are yet in error. I can say with 100% certainty that there are things in Scripture that both you and I have made an error in interpretation on or have misunderstood and therefore are in error in that area. That doesn't mean that I have to separate from you or you from me. The same could be said for LuAnne, Matt, Clarence Sexton, you name it. We are all human and are fallible and subject to error. Being in error is not a sin, choosing to be in error may be a different story.

As far as Paul goes, you don't have any evidence to conclude that he would ever separate from those churches and no historical reference to go by that would indicate he ever did it at all. The Bible is pretty clear about separation from sin, not from sinners, from Christians who dive into sin, not from Christians of differing beliefs.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members



No such thing. I am sure that you are speaking of places that say that someone was baptized "and their house" which just means everyone was old enough to understand, got saved, and were baptized. It certainly does not mean infants were baptized.

The bible says:

"Acts 8:35-38 Then Philip opened his mouth, and began at the same scripture, and preached unto him Jesus. And as they went on their way, they came unto a certain water: and the eunuch said, See, here is water; what doth hinder me to be baptized? And Philip said, If thou believest with all thine heart, thou mayest. And he answered and said, I believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God. And he commanded the chariot to stand still: and they went down both into the water, both Philip and the eunuch; and he baptized him."

You can see that it was necessary to believe with all your heart before baptism. A infant cannot do that.


We're getting quite a following of those who don't know the Bible and follow another gospel.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

Where, pt?


Many places. This article sums it up nicely.

http://www.opc.org/new_horizons/NH00/0007c.html

The best response I can give to Revelation's post is that the verse he is quoting is dealing with someone converting from one faith to Christianity, not someone being born to Christian parents and raised in the Church from birth. It's kind of like circumscision. If you are born to Jewish parents, you are circumsized eight days after birth. If you convert to Judahism as an adult, you are circumsized after going through their rite of conversion. The Bible is very clear in the relation between circumscision and baptism

- good grief I am having trouble spelling today but in to big of a hurry to correct. Please forgive.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

Actually, the Bible never links circumcision and baptism. The first was part of Israel's covenant with God, the second is only taught as believers' baptism in the Word of God.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members


Enlighten me, what is "another gospel?"


Kevin, With all you claim to know by stating difference churches, denominations, do not teach different paths to heaven, and calling me a liar, I would think at least you would be familiar with another gospel.

Maybe you need to search the Scriptures a little bit more.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members
Kevin, With all you claim to know by stating difference churches, denominations, do not teach different paths to heaven, and calling me a liar, I would think at least you would be familiar with another gospel.

Maybe you need to search the Scriptures a little bit more.

Um...there's really no correlation between the two but I understand if that's your way of trying to make a dig on me.

I was asking you what your interpretation of what "another gospel" is since you seem to think that people who disagree with you believe that other gospel now. You never cease to amaze me. Which doesn't happen often, so well done.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

Kevin, Go check it out. The majority of denominations teach a work base salvation, with some of them adding baptizing to the equation. Some even add church membership as a must.

The Bible only teaches one way to be saved, that is by grace through faith in Jesus Christ.

I don't expect you to believe me, for most everything I post you disagree with.

Here while back I stated I like Curtis Hutson best, you said you like John Rice the best. Actually I don't like Curtis Hustson best because of their teachings, I like him best because of the way he words and explains things, their teachings are mostly identical.

Plus there be very few things that you would agree John Rice on, I really don't believe you have any knowledge of his teachings.

I'm posting some articles by him, try reading them and see how much you his teachings you really agree with.

Answers from John Rice


Dear Catholic Friend



What Must I Do To Be Saved

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members
Kevin, Go check it out. The majority of denominations teach a work base salvation, with some of them adding baptizing to the equation. Some even add church membership as a must.

The Bible only teaches one way to be saved, that is by grace through faith in Jesus Christ.

We aren't talking about this anymore so I have no idea why you brought it back up.

I don't expect you to believe me, for most everything I post you disagree with.

I NEVER said that there were many ways to get to Heaven and never even came anywhere close to implying that so I think you're way off base here.

Here while back I stated I like Curtis Hutson best, you said you like John Rice the best. Actually I don't like Curtis Hustson best because of their teachings, I like him best because of the way he words and explains things, their teachings are mostly identical.

Plus there be very few things that you would agree John Rice on, I really don't believe you have any knowledge of his teachings.

I'm posting some articles by him, try reading them and see how much you his teachings you really agree with.

You've completely lost me. I have no idea what you're talking about.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.


×
×
  • Create New...