Jump to content
Online Baptist Community

Billy Graham's Sad Disobedience to the Word of God

Rate this topic


PastorMatt
 Share

Recommended Posts

  • Replies 65
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

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

  • Independent Fundamental Baptist

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

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

  • Independent Fundamental Baptist


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


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.


You've completely lost me. I have no idea what you're talking about.


Maybe these will remind you.

RE: Religion Responsible for Abuse of Women?


On this one just scroll down, you will see the post I made, them a few posted below it you will see yours on how much better you like John Rice than Curtis Hutson.

RE: John R. Rice

But please, read those articles I posted by John Rice, seems from what you've posted on this message board that you disagree with him.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Advanced Member



:umno:


Here you go:

Colossians 2:11-12 (King James Version)

11In whom also ye are circumcised with the circumcision made without hands, in putting off the body of the sins of the flesh by the circumcision of Christ:
12Buried with him in baptism, wherein also ye are risen with him through the faith of the operation of God, who hath raised him from the dead.

And how about a little of this:

15And they brought unto him also infants, that he would touch them: but when his disciples saw it, they rebuked them.
16But Jesus called them unto him, and said, Suffer little children to come unto me, and forbid them not: for of such is the kingdom of God.

Also, consider this:

Origen wrote in the 3rd century that "the Church received from the apostles the apostles the tradition of giving baptism also to infants." Origen, Commentarii in Romanos 5,9.

Further in 252, the Council of Carthage condemned the opinion that infants should not be baptized until they are eight days old and, rather, stated that infants should be baptized as soon as reasonably possible. Cyperian, Epistulae 64 (59), 2.

As you can see, the early Church baptized infants from the beginning. Cute and petty remarks are no match for scripture and facts.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Advanced Member



Here you go:

Colossians 2:11-12 (King James Version)

11In whom also ye are circumcised with the circumcision made without hands, in putting off the body of the sins of the flesh by the circumcision of Christ:
12Buried with him in baptism, wherein also ye are risen with him through the faith of the operation of God, who hath raised him from the dead.

And how about a little of this:

15And they brought unto him also infants, that he would touch them: but when his disciples saw it, they rebuked them.
16But Jesus called them unto him, and said, Suffer little children to come unto me, and forbid them not: for of such is the kingdom of God.

Also, consider this:

Origen wrote in the 3rd century that "the Church received from the apostles the apostles the tradition of giving baptism also to infants." Origen, Commentarii in Romanos 5,9.

Further in 252, the Council of Carthage condemned the opinion that infants should not be baptized until they are eight days old and, rather, stated that infants should be baptized as soon as reasonably possible. Cyperian, Epistulae 64 (59), 2.

As you can see, the early Church baptized infants from the beginning. Cute and petty remarks are no match for scripture and facts.


The bolded portion is from Luke 18.
Link to comment
Share on other sites




Maybe these will remind you.

RE: Religion Responsible for Abuse of Women?


On this one just scroll down, you will see the post I made, them a few posted below it you will see yours on how much better you like John Rice than Curtis Hutson.

RE: John R. Rice

But please, read those articles I posted by John Rice, seems from what you've posted on this message board that you disagree with him.

lol. Still lost. That has nothing to do with what we're talking about. We're talking about infant baptism and you're bringing up Curtis Hutson and John Rice. :icon_confused:
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Advanced Member

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


Jerry, I checked out the link to jesus-is-savior.com and for all my soul cannot believe a man who claims the anointment of God would endorse such filth. From 9/11 conspiracy theories to an interpretation of scripture that one would expect from a person with a learning disability, that website is full of lies. It is so dirty that I had to take a bath after reading it.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Independent Fundamental Baptist


Here you go:

Colossians 2:11-12 (King James Version)

11In whom also ye are circumcised with the circumcision made without hands, in putting off the body of the sins of the flesh by the circumcision of Christ:
12Buried with him in baptism, wherein also ye are risen with him through the faith of the operation of God, who hath raised him from the dead.



"circumcision made without hands" is not speaking of baptism, it is speaking of saving faith. If it were baptism it would not be "made without hands" would it? That requires a physical act.

"Romans 2:26-28 Therefore if the uncircumcision keep the righteousness of the law, shall not his uncircumcision be counted for circumcision? And shall not uncircumcision which is by nature, if it fulfil the law, judge thee, who by the letter and circumcision dost transgress the law? For he is not a Jew, which is one outwardly; neither is that circumcision, which is outward in the flesh: But he is a Jew, which is one inwardly; and circumcision is that of the heart, in the spirit, and not in the letter; whose praise is not of men, but of God."


And how about a little of this:

15And they brought unto him also infants, that he would touch them: but when his disciples saw it, they rebuked them.
16But Jesus called them unto him, and said, Suffer little children to come unto me, and forbid them not: for of such is the kingdom of God.


What about it? The children were neither being baptized or circumcised so I fail to see what your trying to say.

Also, consider this:

Origen wrote in the 3rd century that "the Church received from the apostles the apostles the tradition of giving baptism also to infants." Origen, Commentarii in Romanos 5,9.


From his many writings it is clear that Origen was a false teacher and I could care less what he says. On top of that by the third century he was nearly as far removed from the apostles as I am from the revolutionary war.


Further in 252, the Council of Carthage condemned the opinion that infants should not be baptized until they are eight days old and, rather, stated that infants should be baptized as soon as reasonably possible. Cyperian, Epistulae 64 (59), 2.

As you can see, the early Church baptized infants from the beginning. Cute and petty remarks are no match for scripture and facts.


If you will look in the bible, particularly in the book of revelation, you will see that "Christian" churches were engaging in horrible practices even before the apostles died. The fact that the apostate beginnings of the catholic church were baptizing babies a 150 years after the apostles died doesn't prove anything but that they were wrong.

If this was going on in churches while the apostle John was still alive:

Revelation 2:20-22 Notwithstanding I have a few things against thee, because thou sufferest that woman Jezebel, which calleth herself a prophetess, to teach and to seduce my servants to commit fornication, and to eat things sacrificed unto idols. And I gave her space to repent of her fornication; and she repented not. Behold, I will cast her into a bed, and them that commit adultery with her into great tribulation, except they repent of their deeds.

Then it isn't surprising to see that much of "Christianity" was corrupt from a very early date.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

"circumcision made without hands" is not speaking of baptism, it is speaking of saving faith. If it were baptism it would not be "made without hands" would it? That requires a physical act.

Baptism is not made with hands. Baptism is spiritual, dunking someone is a representation of that.

And I knew him not: but he that sent me to baptize with water, the same said unto me, Upon whom thou shalt see the Spirit descending, and remaining on him, the same is he which baptizeth with the Holy Ghost.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Independent Fundamental Baptist


Baptism is not made with hands. Baptism is spiritual, dunking someone is a representation of that.

And I knew him not: but he that sent me to baptize with water, the same said unto me, Upon whom thou shalt see the Spirit descending, and remaining on him, the same is he which baptizeth with the Holy Ghost.



You are wrong. Baptism is physical it is not spiritual. It is a picture by which we show that we are identifying with the death, burial, and resurrection of Christ. There is nothing spiritual about the water itself. No such thing as holy water. :icon_smile:

This assumes your not trying to go off on the "baptism of the Spirit" rabbit trail which is a whole different discussion than what is being discussed here.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Independent Fundamental Baptist



Jerry, I checked out the link to jesus-is-savior.com and for all my soul cannot believe a man who claims the anointment of God would endorse such filth. From 9/11 conspiracy theories to an interpretation of scripture that one would expect from a person with a learning disability, that website is full of lies. It is so dirty that I had to take a bath after reading it.


Yes, I know, you hate God's truths, but remember, this is not a Episcopalian message board, on this board we lived only by God's Word and we expose those who do not hold to God's truths.

Joh
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Advanced Member



"circumcision made without hands" is not speaking of baptism, it is speaking of saving faith. If it were baptism it would not be "made without hands" would it? That requires a physical act.

"Romans 2:26-28 Therefore if the uncircumcision keep the righteousness of the law, shall not his uncircumcision be counted for circumcision? And shall not uncircumcision which is by nature, if it fulfil the law, judge thee, who by the letter and circumcision dost transgress the law? For he is not a Jew, which is one outwardly; neither is that circumcision, which is outward in the flesh: But he is a Jew, which is one inwardly; and circumcision is that of the heart, in the spirit, and not in the letter; whose praise is not of men, but of God."

This in and of itself shows that you have an unbiblical understanding of baptism. It's not just some physical act. It is spiritual. Everything of Christ is spiritual.



What about it? The children were neither being baptized or circumcised so I fail to see what your trying to say.

You'll continue to fail to see the truth if you don't take off those dirty gritty blinders. This passage alone shows that Christ intended for infants to be included in the Church in the same sense that adults are.



From his many writings it is clear that Origen was a false teacher and I could care less what he says. On top of that by the third century he was nearly as far removed from the apostles as I am from the revolutionary war.

Yeah, a false teacher. That little phrase has been thrown around so much here that it has totally lost its meaning. I don't agree with all of Origen's ideas. He was alive during a time when the Christian doctrine was still unsettled amongst the many Churches. However, he infant baptism is not his idea. His comment is just merely evidence that it was a practice of the early Church. And I'd be careful of what I said about a martyr. Anyone who dies for their faith deserves at least a little respect.



If you will look in the bible, particularly in the book of revelation, you will see that "Christian" churches were engaging in horrible practices even before the apostles died. The fact that the apostate beginnings of the catholic church were baptizing babies a 150 years after the apostles died doesn't prove anything but that they were wrong.

Again, you either fail to comprehend the discussion due to genetic or physical inability, or you are purposely misrepresenting my point. The Council of Carthage isn't proof that the Church was baptizing infants 150 years after the death of the apostles. It is proof that not only had infant baptism been in practice from a very early time, but that their wasn't any argument against it. Rather, the argument was that it should be performed EARLIER in infancy.

If this was going on in churches while the apostle John was still alive:

Revelation 2:20-22 Notwithstanding I have a few things against thee, because thou sufferest that woman Jezebel, which calleth herself a prophetess, to teach and to seduce my servants to commit fornication, and to eat things sacrificed unto idols. And I gave her space to repent of her fornication; and she repented not. Behold, I will cast her into a bed, and them that commit adultery with her into great tribulation, except they repent of their deeds.

Then it isn't surprising to see that much of "Christianity" was corrupt from a very early date.

If you want to see what the earliest Christians practiced, just read the letters of Clement, Polycarp, Ignatius and others. These men knew the apostles, received the laying on of hands from them, and continued their teachings.

If "believer's baptism" is so clear from scripture and was the practice of the apostles, then were is your proof? Where in the historical record can we find this? The fact is that the idea of "believer's baptism" did not arise until shortly before the reformation. It is an Anglo phenomenon that has its origins in England, not first century Palestine. And I know you won't believe me. You can't, because to do so would destroy what you have been taught to believe. So, I ask that you don't believe me. Go research it for yourself. Just try to find one instance in which the early Christians didn't endorse infant baptism. Better yet, find a single proponent of "believer's baptism" before the precursors of the Reformation.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Independent Fundamental Baptist

Wow, PTwild, you are seriously out to lunch here. Origen was a serious heretic and false teacher. He was as lost as lost can be. Infant baptism is not in the Word of God and is from the put of Hell. The Bible does not teach or even imply it. The passage you quoted says we are to be childlike to be saved - not that children need to be baptized. It does not even mention baptism in that passage!

Just because the same passages refer to both baptism and circumcision does not make the two equal in meaning, purpose, or in regards to the recipients of either.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...