Jump to content

Salyan

Moderators
  • Content Count

    4,355
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    54

Posts posted by Salyan


  1. “Looking into Jesus, the Author and Finisher of our faith...”

    “For ye are all the children of God by faith in Christ Jesus.”

    Also John 3:16; 6:35; 11:25-26.

    We are saved by faith in Jesus, specifically. Faith must have an object. 


  2. To be honest, your writing sounds rather like you have been convinced of their doctrine. I'd encourage to you to look at their claims more critically and compare it to Scripture. 

    Regarding the so-called passage about Peter (we're all saints in Christ, so it's silly to call him Saint Peter anymore than I'd call you Saint Angel), let's take a look at the passage in context.

    "When Jesus came into the coasts of Caesarea Philippi, he asked his disciples, saying, Whom do men say that I the Son of man am? And they said, Some say that thou art John the Baptist: some, Elias; and others, Jeremias, or one of the prophets. He saith unto them, But whom say ye that I am? And Simon Peter answered and said, Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God. And Jesus answered and said unto him, Blessed art thou, Simon Barjona: for flesh and blood hath not revealed it unto thee, but my Father which is in heaven. And I say also unto thee, That thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it." Matthew 16:13-18

    The context shows that Jesus had asked His disciples a question, and Peter had answered it with a statement of faith - "Thou art the Christ, the Son of the Living God." This is the 'it' that Jesus later told him had been revealed to Peter by the Father. He follows that up with a play on words. You see, 'Peter' in Greek is 'Petros'. The word Christ used for 'rock' is 'petra'. 'Petros' refers to a pebble; a small stone, while 'petra' refers to a large rock; bedrock. Peter himself was only a pebble, but the statement of faith he spoke was to be the bedrock of Christ's church - the fact that Jesus is the Christ (Messiah), and Son of God. You see? Jesus wasn't establishing Peter as the rock of the church (unstable Peter? that would be a poor foundation indeed). Rather, it was the illustrated faith and confidence in Jesus the Son of God that would be the bedrock of all believers. 

    Furthermore, the Gentile Church (which  is what the first church established in Rome would be primarily comprised of) was largely evangelized and led by Paul. Peter stayed in Jerusalem and was a chief elder to the Jewish believers.

     

    As far as Mary, she is called a co-mediatrix by the Catholic organization. This means they believe that she is a co-mediator between God and man. This is blasphemy. 1 Timothy 2:5 says: "For there is one God, and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus." Also, Hebrews 1:2-3 says: "...his Son, whom he hath appointed heir of all things, by whom also he made the worlds; Who being the brightness of his glory, and the express image of his person, and upholding all things by the word of his power, when he had by himself purged our sins, sat down on the right hand of the Majesty on high:"

    The co-mediatrix doctrine is also where they get the idea of Mary praying for us. But as we see from 1 Timothy, the only mediator between God and man is Jesus - not Mary, not the saints.  Only Jesus. 

    As far as that passage in John, let's take a look at the wording:

     "When Jesus therefore saw his mother, and the disciple standing by, whom he loved, he saith unto his mother, Woman, behold thy son! Then saith he to the disciple, Behold thy mother! And from that hour that disciple took her unto his own home." John 19:26-27

    First, a grammar lesson. The translators of the KJV were attempting to translate languages that used both singular and plural second-person pronouns (unlike modern English, which uses the generic you/your/yours for both singular and plural uses). In order to translate the sense of the words accurately, they chose to use thy/thine to translate singular pronouns, and you/your for plural pronouns. For this reference to be applicable to all of us, Jesus would have had to say 'behold your mother' (as you incorrectly quoted). Rather, he said 'behold thy mother'. The use of the word 'thy' indicates that he was speaking to a singular person - the disciple He loved (i.e. John). The Catholic understanding that she was given to all of us is thus grammatically inaccurate. 

    The Catholic organization also teaches that Mary was herself immaculately conceived (i.e. of a virgin) and without sin. This extrabiblical teaching would make her the promised Messiah, not Jesus - you see the doctrinal problem with this? They call her 'mother of God' - but God by definition has no parent - only the human body of Christ had a mother. They also call her Queen of Heaven. The Bible references a Queen of Heaven. She was a false goddess sinfully worshipped by the Israelites in the time of Jeremiah (Jeremiah chapters 7, 44). The Catholic representation of Mary thus traces back to an ancient false religion that provoked God's wrath against the Israelites. 

     


  3. it was good of you to warn them away from dangerous locations, and has nothing to do with chauvinism.... except in this case, you're behaving that way. The comments on their looks and your play on the word Mormon are downright rude. I think the Bible has something to say about that too...


  4. That specific section relates to Paul's opinion that it's  better to stay single rather than get married, but that in the end, it's not a sin to get married. 'Trouble in the flesh' is just a fact of binding two sinful people together (in that everyone is a sinner, not that those two in particular committed fornication). This passage doesn't refer at all to fornication and the consequences. 


  5. 2 hours ago, JimR said:

    Salyan, i understand. The consensus is clear and the reasons for it.

     But somehow I doubt Cornelius and the folks in other house churches had big water tanks or even a bathtub big enough to lie down in.  Something is going to stick up out of the water, which violates your full-immersion requirement.

    Just to be clear, my 'full immersion requirement' is not based on consensus. It's based on Scriptural example and the Biblical explanation for the picture that baptism is to provide. Are you able to provide a Scriptural reason to back up your idea of not-fully-dunking?

    I don't see why they would have needed tanks in their houses...  considering the early examples for baptism (John the Baptist, Philip) utilized external bodies of water, I would have expected the early churches to continue with the same example.  Hey, i know a church that still uses a lake for baptism, since they haven't got a tank in their rented building. They're located in the Canadian mountains, so it's a tad cold (even in July), but it's very Biblical! 😄

    That being said, it was not uncommon in the era for villas to have their own private baths (which included several large water basins), so it wouldn't have been out of the question for a wealthy Roman (like Cornelius) to actually have his own thermae.

    This isn't directly related, but it's a picture I love. This shows the baptismal font in a Catholic building in Rome, San Giovanni in Laterno, commissioned by Constantine. The current font is on a platform in what was original the baptismal pool... back when the building was originally built and they still practiced baptism by immersion! 😄  (Not intending to open a debate on catholic doctrine and what's wrong with it/how it's different/Constantine. I just love how this picture shows so clearly that they used to immerse - their little bitty font (okay, it's kind of a big font) is literally located in a swimming pool!)

    Image result for san giovanni in laterano baptismal font"


  6. Forwards or backwards doesn't matter... it's the immersion that matters. And immersion by definition means full coverage. Fully buried, fully raised. Not just the head. I think that's what Dave's getting at. I know some a church that uses a stock tank too small for a full backwards layout... I'm sure they use some kind of crouching in the process, but they still get fully wet! 😉


  7. 5 hours ago, JimR said:

    Some weeds end up mixed with the wheat.  That cannot be helped.

    If i was going to baptize/dip/immerse someone, i would want them to get down on their knees in front of tub filled with water,  Their heads would be submerged three times, once in each name.  When that was over, they would definitely feel like they had died and rose again.  

    Maybe folks who were less sincere would not be willing to submit to a triple dunk.

    My German Dunker forbears did it three times forward,

    How many times did Jesus die and rise again? If he died once, then we should be baptized once. To add anything more destroys the picture.  
    Also, I'd really like to see your cemetery if you only bury people's heads... :15_1_63:  :laugh:


  8. On 12/7/2019 at 10:42 AM, JimR said:

      Honestly, I would be more comfortable in a church that does not baptize at all than in one that baptizes babies or small children.    

    This is a bit of a straw man... I doubt any here would argue in favour of baptizing babies. The definition of children too young to be baptized can (and is being) debated. IMO, both of the choices mentioned here are equally inappropriate. A church that does not baptize is just as doctrinally in error as one that baptizes babies. 

    On 12/7/2019 at 10:42 AM, JimR said:

    When ten-year-olds are baptized in baptist churches, we must conclude that the difference between catholic churches and baptist churches is only  10 (10 minus zero is 10).  

    10... what? The difference between catholic and baptist churches is good doctrine vs bad. 5, 10, or 20 are just numbers that mean nothing.

     

    I would probably hold toward baptizing children cautiously, and not too young (whatever that means). But let's base this decision on true facts/doctrine and not poor arguments.


  9. On 3/19/2019 at 10:38 AM, Jerry said:

    So for a quick summary, what does the book teach? I don’t believe any “aliens” are abducting anyone, but that it is a demonic delusion people are falling for.

    (Wow - I'm sorry for forgetting to get back to this for so long!)

    That's it, in a nutshell - the demonic delusion. It talks about the history of UFO sightings (which date back hundreds if not thousands of years), and note that the descriptions of the UFOs mimicked current technology (a shield, a canoe, etc.). UFO light sightings often defy the laws of physics. The 'little grey men' phenomenon was really introduced by early sci-fi movies - aliens were never historically described as such previously. Satan is not creative; he uses the ideas already present in the world. Alien 'abductions' are always horrific, terrifying experiences, often with a sexual component ("The thief comes not but to steal, kill and destroy.").

    The most compelling part of the book is the same subject that saw the researchers get saved. Basically, they'd noted that alien abductions were reported in every people group, religion, country, you name it - except for people self-identifying as 'born-again Christians'. So the researchers got curious and tried to see if they could find any of these born-again folk who had been abducted. And they did find one or two who reported an experience like an abduction (woken in the night, feeling of weightlessness & leaving the body behind, a malignant presence, etc.) - but when these folks experienced this sensation, they called on the Name of Jesus. And in every case where someone called on the Name of Jesus the abduction experience immediately stopped. One account says that it seemed like the malignant presence gave a grunt, like it was in pain, before disappearing. When you read the accounts like this, the demonic influence is quite apparent. 


  10. I would add a note regarding birth control. It's one thing to keep conception from occurring, but another thing entirely to end a life that's already begun. Most commonly available methods of birth control act as an abortionaid either primarily, or in addition to the contraceptive properties. Often they will change the environment of the womb to prevent implantation. The problem with this is that the baby has already been conceived prior to attempting to implant, so preventing implantation forces an abortion. This, of course, is murder and obviously wrong. Do your research carefully!


  11. 2 hours ago, JimR said:

    You also wrote that per Ecclesiastes the dead are not conscious.  This contradicts the story about poor Lazarus and suggests it might be at least partly a parable.

    That's not what I meant to say... maybe it was unclear. I meant to say that the dead are conscious/self-aware (as per Lazarus), but not aware of what's going on in the living world (any more than I know what's going on in your house right now - i'm just not there).

    2 hours ago, JimR said:

     Most people seem to assume that after death believers go straight to heaven and others go straight to eternal damnation.  

    You're right - people do assume that! But we know that the dead do not go straight to eternal damnation... that part doesn't come until after the Judgement. 


  12. Hell/Hades/Sheol are the same thing.   'Sheol' is the old Hebrew word, 'adas' the Greek translation/equivalent, 'hell' the English translation (from Germanic etymology).

    Psalm 16:10 is talking about Jesus - he went down to Hades (the holding place of the dead before His resurrection, and the remaining holding place of all unrighteous dead until the End). He definitely did not go to the Lake of Fire.  In similar fashion, the account of Lazarus and the rich man, taking place as it did before the resurrection, also takes place in Hades (which had two parts; Abraham's bosom being the 'nice' side for the righteous dead).  

    There is torment in the unrighteous section of Hades - we know that from the account of the rich man - and it is likely hot (hell fire?) because the rich man wanted water. However, it is not the same place as the lake of fire, and it is not eternal. Notice that in Hell will eventually be cast into the lake of fire (Rev. 20:10). The Lake of Fire is part of the second death, while Hades/hell is only part of the first death. 

    My take on Ecclesiastes is that it's talking about the dead in context of what is going on in the living world. The dead have no portion in the living world. They don't know what's going on in it.  I don't think this precludes the dead from having consciousness (being self-aware) in the place where they are.

    I would suggest that just because we have a cultural understanding that hell=the ultimate lake of fire does not mean that is the correct understanding. The unrighteous dead are in Hades now, and will ultimately be in the lake of fire, so I can see where the connection has risen (I wonder whether Mark 9 is referring to this logical progression, rather than a single event).

    I don't see a disagreement here, and there's no reason to conclude the KJV is wrong.

Article Categories

About Us

Since 2001, Online Baptist has been an Independent Baptist website, and we exclusively use the King James Version of the Bible. We pride ourselves on a community that uplifts the Lord.

Contact Us

You can contact us using the following link. Contact Us or for questions regarding this website please contact @pastormatt or email James Foley at jfoley@sisqtel.net

Android App

Online Baptist has a custom App for all android users. You can download it from the Google Play store or click the following icon.

×
×
  • Create New...