Jump to content
Online Baptist

Infant Baptism? Might As Well.


Recommended Posts

  • Independent Fundamental Baptist

I know of some that seem to think in order to get to Heaven all you do is die, as long as your not as bad as Hitler.

That's a very common false belief. One way or another, many have been taught that God will weigh their good and bad and so long as the good outweighs the bad, they will go to heaven. Naturally, most people think they are more good than bad.
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 143
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

As far as sprinkling goes, I believe baptism was displayed the way it was supposed to be by Jesus' example: Matt 3:16 And Jesus, when he was baptized, went up straightway out of the water: and, lo

Sad. No matter what church history states, the Bible is to be followed, if you go by church history & not the Bible, them you are no longer following Christ. The Bible is our instruction book, it

Thanks, John, Jerry, and others, for describing what kob must have meant by "baby dedication." In our church, the focus is not on the baby at all--that's why I said I had never been a part of a "baby

  • Advanced Member

KoB, you're just as lost as before. Willful membership in a state run church shows us your condition and lack of understanding of God's Word. On the plus side, you have a desire to know God and follow Him, but in rebellion have thus far refused to accept each biblical Gospel message presented to you.

If your wife is in the same spiritual condition as you, if either of you died today, you'd wind up in hell for all eternity. There's no chance of getting out. Nobody can pray a prayer or pay a priest to get you out. You rejected Christ and that's it, you're going to burn in hell for eternity. Don't like what I wote? Those who live in the flesh hate it when we say it. Hopefully you're children will not follow the same path but what chance have you given them?

Wise up KoB, and folks, please pray for this man and his family until he makes repentance towards God and puts his trust in Jesus Christ.


I am honestly confused by you. So what do you say a man must do to have eternal life? My faith is in Jesus Christ. It is his death and Resurrection that have provided salvation. I clearly remember hearing the call of God to follow through the Holy Spirit and answering that call. So I am honestly confused by your response here. Do you say a man who says a prayer and walks an aisle is saved? Is that not a works based salvation? Nothing we can do can save ourselves. But God will call all men to himself at some point. We must decide to listen to and follow that call to follow Christ.

And while I appreciate your concern, my salvation is secure. I am at peace with God, through his grace provided through Christ.

And like I have said, I am not arguing for or against infant baptism. Each person must follow what he or she have been led by God to do, through prayerful reading of the Scripture. Devout Christians can and do read the Scriptures differently. All have a foundation build upon Christ, his death and resurrection. All believe essentially what is in the apostles Creed.

Beyond that, the question of when to baptize, well, Christians, well meaning, devout and sincere, on both sides of the issue have debated that for centuries. Calvinism v. free will....same thing. People have debated it for years, and they come down on different sides of the issue, reading and fervently studying the same Scriptures. How can this be? IT can be because the mysteries of faith run deep. We will always try to figure it all out, but will never by 100% successful. What is important is that we place our faith in Christ and follow him.

Faith is obedience and obedience is faith. You cannot have one without the other. Many will say they have faith, but do they really? My daughter tells me she has faith in me to catch her when she jumps into the swimming pool, yet she does not jump. Does she have faith? No. She has faith when she jumps, knowing I will catch her. Faith in Christ is the same way. We receive a call to follow Christ. To follow we must believe and act. Faith without works is nothing, it is dead. Read the book of James. Look at every example where Jesus calls people to follow. Faith and obedience are married. They cannot be torn apart. Having said that, it is not works that brings salvation. It is the grace of God. Without his call, without his work through Christ, non could be saved.

So, I am very confused by your statement. I am curious to know what you believe it takes for a man to receive salvation. How is that different than what I believe?

And to defend my church, we are very solidly built upon the Scripture. In fact, we study the Scripture more in depth in this church than any other church I have ever attended. It was one of the things that led me to this church. That and I felt the strong presence of the Holy Spirit at work, and saw the evidence of this work in the way people were being transformed into the image of Christ.
Link to post
Share on other sites

If baptism of babies has no merit, then whey do some churches dedicate babies? That is nowhere to be found in Scripture either. Either baptism or dedication, the parents commit to bringing the child up in the Christian faith with the hopes that the child will choose to follow Christ when he or she is old enough.

I haven't ever been a member of a church which "dedicates babies" (and I don't recall even witnessing a ceremony like that). I'm curious about this practice. Can you elaborate on it?
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Independent Fundamental Baptist

I haven't ever been a member of a church which "dedicates babies" (and I don't recall even witnessing a ceremony like that). I'm curious about this practice. Can you elaborate on it?


Methodist are into this big time, dedicating babies & sprinkling them, their founder instituted this along with several other false teachings. Of course he brought these thing from the Anglican Church. Many people thinks Methodist are much like Baptist, but they are not even close to being cousins. They're more like the Anglican Church, which seems to be cousins with the RCC.

I will add this, there many be individual Methodist Churches around the country that hold to mostly Baptist teachings & not to the United Methodist teachings. I say this for years ago I preached in a Methodist Church for a few months, & I preached only Baptist teachings. Once on the subject of baptizing, I stated baptizing was the only way, & that baptizing was only for those of age to understand how to be saved, that baptizing, sprinkling of babies was a no no. Everyone present agreed.

Our local United Methodist Church in town airs their morning services on the local TV. I watched them once while they were dedicating an infant, & sprinkling him.

I notice they also have what they call children's church. Prior to preaching services a woman goes down with all the young children setting on the alter telling them some story or sorts. I have no idea who started children's church.

One local Baptist Church in town recently started having children's church after they called a man to be their pastor who was a liberal member of a local SBC church.
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Independent Fundamental Baptist

At my former IFB church, couples with newborns were asked to the front of the church, where everyone would pray over the baby. As I recall, I did that with all three of mine. I see nothing at all wrong with that as it was done and I've never heard of anyone basing their salvation on being 'dedicated' as a baby, in this manner. I look at that as simply a public 'testimony' of one's intentions to raise their children for Jesus.

Edited by heartstrings
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Advanced Member

At my former IFB church, couples with newborns were asked to the front of the church, where everyone would pray over the baby. As I recall, I did that with all three of mine. I see nothing at all wrong with that as it was done and I've never heard of anyone basing their salvation on being 'dedicated' as a baby, in this manner. I look at that as simply a public 'testimony' of one's intentions to raise their children for Jesus.


The best way to dedicate a baby is for at least one of the parents to live for God.

I Corinthian 7:14- For the unbelieving husband is sanctified by the wife, and the unbelieving wife is sanctified by the husband: else were your children unclean; but now are they holy. Edited by Wilchbla
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Advanced Member

I have heard those who support infant baptising say it is based on Acts 16:15 where "her household," would include children, and Acts 16:32-33 where "all that were in his house." and "he and all his" would include children.

Dedication of babies seems to be based on 1 Sam. 1:11 where Hanna gave, or dedicated, Samuel to the Lord.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Independent Fundamental Baptist

I am honestly confused by you. So what do you say a man must do to have eternal life? My faith is in Jesus Christ. It is his death and Resurrection that have provided salvation. I clearly remember hearing the call of God to follow through the Holy Spirit and answering that call. So I am honestly confused by your response here. Do you say a man who says a prayer and walks an aisle is saved? Is that not a works based salvation? Nothing we can do can save ourselves. But God will call all men to himself at some point. We must decide to listen to and follow that call to follow Christ.

And while I appreciate your concern, my salvation is secure. I am at peace with God, through his grace provided through Christ.

And like I have said, I am not arguing for or against infant baptism. Each person must follow what he or she have been led by God to do, through prayerful reading of the Scripture. Devout Christians can and do read the Scriptures differently. All have a foundation build upon Christ, his death and resurrection. All believe essentially what is in the apostles Creed.

Beyond that, the question of when to baptize, well, Christians, well meaning, devout and sincere, on both sides of the issue have debated that for centuries. Calvinism v. free will....same thing. People have debated it for years, and they come down on different sides of the issue, reading and fervently studying the same Scriptures. How can this be? IT can be because the mysteries of faith run deep. We will always try to figure it all out, but will never by 100% successful. What is important is that we place our faith in Christ and follow him.

Faith is obedience and obedience is faith. You cannot have one without the other. Many will say they have faith, but do they really? My daughter tells me she has faith in me to catch her when she jumps into the swimming pool, yet she does not jump. Does she have faith? No. She has faith when she jumps, knowing I will catch her. Faith in Christ is the same way. We receive a call to follow Christ. To follow we must believe and act. Faith without works is nothing, it is dead. Read the book of James. Look at every example where Jesus calls people to follow. Faith and obedience are married. They cannot be torn apart. Having said that, it is not works that brings salvation. It is the grace of God. Without his call, without his work through Christ, non could be saved.

So, I am very confused by your statement. I am curious to know what you believe it takes for a man to receive salvation. How is that different than what I believe?

And to defend my church, we are very solidly built upon the Scripture. In fact, we study the Scripture more in depth in this church than any other church I have ever attended. It was one of the things that led me to this church. That and I felt the strong presence of the Holy Spirit at work, and saw the evidence of this work in the way people were being transformed into the image of Christ.

The thing is, Scripture is very clear with regards to baptism, it's for believers only, a baby can't be a believer therefore infant baptism is unscriptural.

There is no defense for your church or for anyone who professes to follow Christ to attend such a church. Any church yoked with accepting women and homosexual priests and homosexual "marriage" is an abomination and is not a church of Jesus Christ. A person who willingly attends such a church is way out of the will of God and is clearly not following Christ or the leading of the Holy Spirit.
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Independent Fundamental Baptist

I haven't ever been a member of a church which "dedicates babies" (and I don't recall even witnessing a ceremony like that). I'm curious about this practice. Can you elaborate on it?

Some churches do as Heartstrings mentions, where the parents will bring their baby/child before the congregation and make a public declaration before God and man to raise their child biblically with the aim of that child coming to Christ in the future. Often the congregation will join with them in promising their support through prayer and other means to help the couple in this. Sometimes there is a laying on of hands from the pastor and/or elders and prayer.

Some churches will also annoint the baby/child with oil and some will also use water in some fashion, but not baptism.
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Independent Fundamental Baptist

I have heard those who support infant baptising say it is based on Acts 16:15 where "her household," would include children, and Acts 16:32-33 where "all that were in his house." and "he and all his" would include children.

Dedication of babies seems to be based on 1 Sam. 1:11 where Hanna gave, or dedicated, Samuel to the Lord.

Yes, I've heard that argument but it's an argument from silence, which isn't a good argument. All clear examples of baptism in Scripture are of believers only, never any babies or little children.
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Independent Fundamental Baptist

I have heard those who support infant baptising say it is based on Acts 16:15 where "her household," would include children, and Acts 16:32-33 where "all that were in his house." and "he and all his" would include children.

Dedication of babies seems to be based on 1 Sam. 1:11 where Hanna gave, or dedicated, Samuel to the Lord.


I've been told by member of the RCC that those verses support infant baptizing, of course it doesn't.
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Independent Fundamental Baptist

Some churches do as Heartstrings mentions, where the parents will bring their baby/child before the congregation and make a public declaration before God and man to raise their child biblically with the aim of that child coming to Christ in the future. Often the congregation will join with them in promising their support through prayer and other means to help the couple in this. Sometimes there is a laying on of hands from the pastor and/or elders and prayer.

Some churches will also annoint the baby/child with oil and some will also use water in some fashion, but not baptism.


Excuse me John, But the Methodist considers sprinkling baptizing, or you could say they consider sprinkling the same as baptizing.

So they consider the infant having been baptized, if sprinkled. And so do the Catholics.
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Independent Fundamental Baptist

The best way to dedicate a baby is for at least one of the parents to live for God.

I Corinthian 7:14- For the unbelieving husband is sanctified by the wife, and the unbelieving wife is sanctified by the husband: else were your children unclean; but now are they holy.


I disagree about the best way, & I believe you do as well, the best way is for both parents to live for God.
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Independent Fundamental Baptist

Excuse me John, But the Methodist considers sprinkling baptizing, or you could say they consider sprinkling the same as baptizing.

So they consider the infant having been baptized, if sprinkled. And so do the Catholics.

Yes, that's true, but a dedication isn't a baptism. If a dedication becomes a baptism then it's no longer an actual dedication, it's an unbiblical baptism.

Those churches that practice sprinkling as baptism are not following Scripture.
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Advanced Member

I agree, churches practicing sprinkling on infants, or even adults, are wrong, & do not have a leg to stand on. Being sprinkled is not following Christ.

Sprinkling/pouring baptism is justified a valid method by Scripture. I won't address paedobaptism in this post. Baptism requires repentance & turning to Christ in faith.

There is no Scripture stating the necessity of immersion baptism. Immersion is inferred from Rom. 6 & Col. 2 (buried), the Ethiopian, & the fact that John & the Apostles baptised in the Jordan. It is also inferred from a meaning of baptizō - immerse. Like all doctrines, it's Christian meaning should be derived from its use in Scripture, rather than a dictionary definition.
Mat. 3:
11
I indeed baptize you with water u
nt
o repe
nt
ance. but he that cometh after me is mightier than I, whose shoes I am n
ot
worthy to bear: he shall baptize you with the Holy Ghost, and with fire:


John 1:
33
And I knew him n
ot
: but he that se
nt
me to baptize with water, the same said u
nt
o me, Upon whom thou shalt see the Spirit descending, and remaining on him, the same is he which baptizeth with the Holy Ghost.


Notice with water & also with the Holy Ghost. Immersion in water is easily understood, but how was baptism in the Holy Ghost realised?
Acts 1:
5
For John truly baptized with water; but ye shall be baptized with the Holy Ghost n
ot
many days hence.

...
8
But ye shall receive power, after that the Holy Ghost is come upon you:....


2:1
And when the day of Pe
nt
ecost was fully come, they were all with one accord in one place.

2
And suddenly there came a sound from heaven as of a rushing mighty wind, and it filled all the house where they were sitting.

3
And there appeared u
nt
o them cloven tongues like as of fire, and it sat upon each of them.

4
And they were all filled with the Holy Ghost, and began to speak with
ot
her tongues, as the Spirit gave them utterance.


10:
44
While Peter yet spake these words, the Holy Ghost fell on all them which heard the word.

45
And they of the circumcision which believed were astonished, as many as came with Peter, because that on the Ge
nt
iles also was poured out the gift of the Holy Ghost.

46
For they heard them speak with tongues, and magnify God. Then answered Peter,

47
Can any man forbid water, that these should n
ot
be baptized, which have received the Holy Ghost as well as we?

48
And he commanded them to be baptized in the name of the Lord. Then prayed they him to tarry certain days.

Clearly baptism with the Holy Ghost is an outpouring, from above. It is the work of God, & by analogy water baptism by pouring/sprinkling is valid if not the preferred method.

The argument from "much water" ceases to hold water when the baptism is in a house, or in Jerusalem at Pentecost, as it was also with Saul & the Philippian jailer. What about "buried?
Rom. 6:
3
Know ye n
ot
, that so many of us as were baptized i
nt
o Jesus Christ were baptized i
nt
o his death?

4
Therefore we are buried with him by baptism i
nt
o death: that like as Christ was raised up from the dead by the glory of the Father, even so we also should walk in newness of life.

Paul is using death & burial as an analogy for the end of the old sinful life, & the beginning of the new life in Christ. But, why baptism? And why did the Pharisees expect Elijah & Christ to baptise? (John 1:25) Is there an OT basis for baptism? They must be, or Jesus could validly have been accused of violating the Law of Moses.

Ezekiel records the prophesy:
Eze. 36:
24
For I will take you from among the heathen, and gather you out of all cou
nt
ries, and will bring you i
nt
o your own land.

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.

That gives a clear basis for sprinkling baptism, linked to Holy Spirit baptism.

Then we can move on to Heb. 9:10 where "diverse baπτισμοῖς" (baptisms) is translated as divers washings. The OT examples that follow are ceremonial washings/baptisms carried out by a dip/sprinkle method using hyssop - red heifer (Num. 19:18,) the blood of the covenant (Ex. 24) & others. The ceremonial aspect of the OT baptisms/washings is contrasted with applied blood of Christ. The Heb. for "dip" is translated into the Gk as bάψει (bapsei) which explains the term "baptism" in the NT. Notice also:
Ex. 12:22
ye shall take a bunch of hyssop, and dip [it] in the blood that [is] in the bason, and strike the li
nt
el and the two side posts with the blood that [is] in the bason


That makes the Passover a baptism by the same method - dip/sprinkle.
Link to post
Share on other sites

Some churches do as Heartstrings mentions, where the parents will bring their baby/child before the congregation and make a public declaration before God and man to raise their child biblically with the aim of that child coming to Christ in the future. Often the congregation will join with them in promising their support through prayer and other means to help the couple in this. Sometimes there is a laying on of hands from the pastor and/or elders and prayer.

Some churches will also annoint the baby/child with oil and some will also use water in some fashion, but not baptism.

Thanks, John, Jerry, and others, for describing what kob must have meant by "baby dedication." In our church, the focus is not on the baby at all--that's why I said I had never been a part of a "baby dedication"--but rather on the parents...The parents are dedicating themselves...are making themselves accountable before the church and asking for prayer and support to help to raise the new child to follow the Lord. I see no similarities between this and infant baptism, in which the baby is assumed to be in sort of a "covenant relationship" b/c of his believing parents...but then, I've never been present at a baby baptism, either.

I think that the biblical pattern is clear: "Repent and be baptized." Baptism follows conversion to Christ, and Christ's example of going out into the Jordan River certainly seems to indicate immersion (not to mention that the meaning of the Greek word for "baptism" means "immersion"). Baptism might be comparable to circumcision (in the case of men, anyway...what about women and female infants? have any of the Presbys and Anglicans ever thought about that?), in that it is an outward sign of one's inward belief. But it can't be strictly analogous, because women and female infants were not circumcised, but they are baptized. So, I think it's a stretch to build a doctrine/practice (infant baptism) on such a weak connection, especially when we consider that nowhere in the NT is infant baptism even mentioned one time. Edited by Annie
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Moderators

Missed the quote button -- in reference to Jerry #s response to Wilchbla re raising child for God.

When you look @ the Scripture he used it is evident that he is not dealing with the ideal situation.

It is best for both to live for the Lord, if one is lost then that doesn't happen. Then the woman has to teach godliness to a child without making the child despise his wicked Dad. I placed the Dad as the unregenerate because usually a lost woman will drag her saved husband out of church and away from his Bible as he "yes dear"s his way along.

Edited by Old fashioned
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Advanced Member

Anglicans also sometimes dedicate. I once went the the dedication of my nephew's daughter (I wish I hadn't) at an Anglican church in London. There was another family having their child dedicated at the same service. My nephew had a reading from Mark, the other family had a family member who was a budhist priest read from the writings of a budhist monk. The vicar spoke on the latter writings and then referred to the reading from Mark as "that other reading."

Anglicans also sometimes baptize. We met a vicar who had just batised 24 in a family pool, but soon after left the anglicans and joined a charismatic cult.

An 11 year old in our young people's group said she wanted to be christened. We said that we don't do that , but that we baptize only believers, and advised her to wait for a while. We later received a letter from the local vicar, or should I say, vicress, the Rev. Rachel, saying that this young lady had applied to her for baptism and that as her ecumenical colleagues wer shortly having a joint baptism in the sea, off Tankerton Slopes, she would include her. We contacted the leader of the 'ecumenical colleagues', a local evengelical church pastor, and asked him what he was playing at but didn't get a sensible answer. The young lady was baptised in the sea by the 'Rev. Rachel'.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Independent Fundamental Baptist

To steer this closer to the topic.
I see no problem with public 'baby dedications' if it is done solely as the parents' public testimony that they are going to raise the child in the nurture and admonition of the Lord. It encourages other brother's and sisters in the congregation and, in effect, is like a 'vow' if you will, before God. It is NOT an ordinance of the church and it DOES NOT save a child from eternal damnation. The point of this thread is that some of the "reformed" persuasion see nothing wrong with baptising babies and my reply to that is that they might as well embrace such heresy if they already embrace the doctrine that one is saved without exercising their own freewill to be saved. If man doesn't exercise free will in salvation, might as well baptise a baby against it's will and even call it saved too. One is just as heretical as the other.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Advanced Member

To steer this closer to the topic.
I see no problem with public 'baby dedications' if it is done solely as the parents' public testimony that they are going to raise the child in the nurture and admonition of the Lord. It encourages other brother's and sisters in the congregation and, in effect, is like a 'vow' if you will, before God. It is NOT an ordinance of the church and it DOES NOT save a child from eternal damnation. The point of this thread is that some of the "reformed" persuasion see nothing wrong with baptising babies and my reply to that is that they might as well embrace such heresy if they already embrace the doctrine that one is saved without exercising their own freewill to be saved. If man doesn't exercise free will in salvation, might as well baptise a baby against it's will and even call it saved too. One is just as heretical as the other.


That is such a foolish comment. Most of the non reformed persuasion also baptise babies.
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Independent Fundamental Baptist

To steer this closer to the topic.
I see no problem with public 'baby dedications' if it is done solely as the parents' public testimony that they are going to raise the child in the nurture and admonition of the Lord. It encourages other brother's and sisters in the congregation and, in effect, is like a 'vow' if you will, before God. It is NOT an ordinance of the church and it DOES NOT save a child from eternal damnation. The point of this thread is that some of the "reformed" persuasion see nothing wrong with baptising babies and my reply to that is that they might as well embrace such heresy if they already embrace the doctrine that one is saved without exercising their own freewill to be saved. If man doesn't exercise free will in salvation, might as well baptise a baby against it's will and even call it saved too. One is just as heretical as the other.

I agree with the first half of this.

The second half I can't agree with. Even if a church or person is wrong in one area of Scripture it would not be good to say they might as well be wrong in others too. I'm also not sure that the term heretical actually fits here either, unless you are speaking of someone within your own church. The definition of heretic is mostly that of one who is in some form of dissent with the established church or church they are connected with.

I don't know if it's like this everywhere, but from what I've observed myself, it seems far more churches baptise babies than refuse to. To be clear, I'm not saying that makes it right, as I've stated previously, I see no justification in Scripture for baptising babies.
Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

  • Who's Online   0 Members, 0 Anonymous, 29 Guests (See full list)

    There are no registered users currently online


  • Tell a friend

    Love Online Baptist? Tell a friend!
  • Members

    No members to show

  • Recent Status Updates

    • Alan

      Happy Birthday John Young! God Bless! 🍰
      · 1 reply
    • KJV ME!

      Now it is time for me to step out of my shell and let go... I AM STRICT KJV!... In scripture God said he would preserve his word... Well did he or didn't he?... If there is every translation under the sun, then he didn't but I KNOW HE DID!... The preserved word of God called the KJV is for the English people has been around for over 400 years and what is interesting to me, is the KJV was translated in 1611 and the Pilgrims landed on Plymouth Rock in 1620... Coincidence?... A new book the preserved KJV word of God for the New World... So take that you KJV naysayers... I have been reading, studying and digging through the KJV for over 50 years... My belief is 100% Christ and scripture says so... Glad to be here and its time to take these shackles off!   
      John 5:39 Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me.
      I am... Brother Ramsey
       
      · 1 reply
    • stan1964stanssb

      Praise God I found such a powerhouse of the outpouring of His Spirit and unapologetic in regards of the defense of the KJV Bible. When I became a Christian back in 1984, I was told to get & read the KJV. It's been my choice all these years.
      · 0 replies
    • 1Timothy115  »  Ukulelemike

      Mike,
      RE: This is why I am here, why are you?
      Also, the land in Egypt wasn't land God gave them it was land Joseph through Pharaoh gave them. God gave them Canaan.
      Dave 
      · 1 reply
    • Alan

      Praise the Lord! Sherry and I, safe, tired, and joyful,  are back in Taiwan.
      · 0 replies
  • Forum Statistics

    • Total Topics
      27,622
    • Total Posts
      279,894
  • Topics

  • Recent Status Updates

    • Alan

      Happy Birthday John Young! God Bless! 🍰
      · 1 reply
    • KJV ME!

      Now it is time for me to step out of my shell and let go... I AM STRICT KJV!... In scripture God said he would preserve his word... Well did he or didn't he?... If there is every translation under the sun, then he didn't but I KNOW HE DID!... The preserved word of God called the KJV is for the English people has been around for over 400 years and what is interesting to me, is the KJV was translated in 1611 and the Pilgrims landed on Plymouth Rock in 1620... Coincidence?... A new book the preserved KJV word of God for the New World... So take that you KJV naysayers... I have been reading, studying and digging through the KJV for over 50 years... My belief is 100% Christ and scripture says so... Glad to be here and its time to take these shackles off!   
      John 5:39 Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me.
      I am... Brother Ramsey
       
      · 1 reply
    • stan1964stanssb

      Praise God I found such a powerhouse of the outpouring of His Spirit and unapologetic in regards of the defense of the KJV Bible. When I became a Christian back in 1984, I was told to get & read the KJV. It's been my choice all these years.
      · 0 replies
    • 1Timothy115  »  Ukulelemike

      Mike,
      RE: This is why I am here, why are you?
      Also, the land in Egypt wasn't land God gave them it was land Joseph through Pharaoh gave them. God gave them Canaan.
      Dave 
      · 1 reply
    • Alan

      Praise the Lord! Sherry and I, safe, tired, and joyful,  are back in Taiwan.
      · 0 replies
×
×
  • Create New...