Standing Firm In Christ

From another citizen of Mississippi... welcome to OB!

Comment deleted - stop pushing your agenda. OB staff

The Psalmist once said, "If I regard iniquity in mine heart, the LORD will not hear me." I believe that those who "love their lifestyle" too much to be willing to trun from it, have no chance of Salvation until they come to the place that they understand that they are totally lost in that lifestyle. God resists the proud, but gives more grace to the humble.

I believe that, had Simon been saved, he would not have asked Peter to pray for God to forgive him. He would instead have heeded Peter's instruction and prayed himself. Surely, the Spirit would have convicted him to pray. But instead, when told to pray that God forgive him, he tells Peter to pray instead.

I disagree. the Greek used in Acts 8:20 is only used in conjunction with the destruction of the lost. Romans 14:16 uses an entirely different Greek word for "Destroy" and does not mean the same as in Acts 8:20.

I have to do with what the text of Acts 8:20 says. Simon was heading toward destruction. If he did not repent,, he certainly would find it.

The Greek word used for "perish" in Acts 8:20 is translated as "damnable" and "destruction" in 2 Peter 2:1. It is translated "pernicious ways"; "of perdition" and "waste" in other verses. I don't see the word being attributed to the saved of God.

Not totally sold on that, since the Apostle Paul makes a distinction between those who perish and those who are saved. 1 Corinthians 1:18 For the preaching of the cross is to them that perish foolishness; but unto us which are saved it is the power of God. And every post-crucifixion verse that uses the word "perish" is attributing it with the lost.

I find Peter's reply to Simon when asked to sell the gift of the Holy Spirit somewhat interesting. "Thy money perish with thee..." This is and interesting statement, since, those who are saved aren't truly "perishing". Why those exact words by Peter? Shouldn't Peter have known whether Simon was saved or not? If Simon was saved, why the statement? Why not just, "Thou canst not purchase this gift"? The text seems to imply Salvation (he believed) but then seems to imply Salvation was not acquired after all.

Simon wasn't saved until he heard Philip's message and believed. Nor were the people that had previously had high regard for Simon. They were bewitched by Simon,'s sorceries and believed them to be a power from God. When PHilip preached to them, they believed. At that point they were saved and were subsequently baptized.

If we're going to take the qualifications of the Bishop to the extreme that I am reading, then we have to ask... "At what point do a Pastor's children cease being his chillren?" The truth is, they do not cease being the Pastor's children even if they move out and/or get married. A child that leaves his father and mother does not cease being the child of his father and mother. So, must a Pastor step down from being a Pastor just because his married son, who lives miles away from the Pastor got drunk, or committed some other sin? Of course not! But that seems to be the only logical end to the argument that children MUST be in subjection. ps... I like the point about Colossians 3:20 saying ""children" are to obey their parents, so a single "child" doesn't have to obey" It sheds some perspective one what Paul acutally means when he spoke of "children".

You must not be using the KJV. My KJV only uses the word "church 79 times. By the way, the fact that the word "churches" is used 36 times proves the church is "universal" and not a singular local body.

Jesus baptized with the Holy Ghost and fire. Why would He tell His Apostles to baptize any other way contrary to the way He baptized? Nothing in the Gospels say that Jersus baptized with water. Nor dows Matthew 28 say to baptize with water. People read "water" into the text. By the way, if the church I was a member of was "heterodox", then I would say that is a good thing. They call them "Independent" for a reason.

According to Matthew 3:11, John baptized with water, but Jesus baptized with the Holy Ghost and fire. Which baptism was Jesus commanding His Apostle's to observe? His? or John's? Seems to me the Apostles, as followers of the Lord, would have taught the baptism of the Lord, i.e; baptism with the Holy Ghost and fire. They obviously did not accept John's baptism in water as being proper in Acts 19, but baptized with the Holy Ghost. Just sayin'

Your "suggestion" that Acts 2:41,47 is speaking of water baptism ignores the context. I haven't "twisted a thing. Show me in Acts 2:41 where Peter said one has to be baptized in water in order to be a member of the Church. It's not there. Your "twist" puts it there though. Acts 2:47 says that the saved were added to the Church. The Adult Sunday School Teacher, Keith Kendall, was a member of VHBC for thirty years before being baptized in water.