Search results

… Continued In the former post we looked at the references and a comment from Lämmchen under the heading of “What Blessings Do We Receive In Baptism?” She followed that with verses under the heading of “Who Is To Be Baptised?”: Matthew 28:19-20, Mark 16:15-16, and Acts 2:37-39. None of those...

TurtleHair in Post #121 said: ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Let's see what Lämmchen said. In the post referred to, Lämmchen gave the following references under the heading of “What Blessings Do We Receive In Baptism?”: 1 Peter...

I think what Readers in general would like to know is, if God really does “work” through the “means” of “baptism” (which in Lutheran terms I understand includes the baptism of infants) and “the Lord's supper”, what exactly does He do in each case? 1. What does God actually do to or for an...

In Post #111 I clearly stated the following: In reply, Josiah offered in repetition (Post #113): And TurtleHare in Post #115 stated: One has to conclude one of three things. My command of English is so bad that what I thought were two easily understood sentences, actually defy...

Does God work through means? It depends on what that means. (Serious pun intended.) Communists used to recruit susceptible people by asking them if they believed in world peace. The answer was almost always yes. The communists said they believed in that too. Their definition of “peace” was...

I'm not sure that MoreCoffee realised just what he was pointing out in his Post #104, the important section of which is reproduced here: Could he have actually fallen for one of my “red flag” traps? Note the following: MoreCoffee states that Romans 6:3 and Galatians 3:27 teach that baptism...

In Post #103 Josiah quoted Alithis, then homed in on that quoted statement thus: Actually, Peter said in Acts 2:38: As Josiah ought to know, if he considers himself anything like a student of the Bible as opposed to a faithful denominationalist, the verb translated “be baptized” is in the...

In Post #85 MoreCoffee stated: Actually, verse 16 connects belief and baptism together with the idea of being saved. If a person is baptized as an infant but never believes, that person is headed for a less than auspicious end. Therefore infant baptism is meaningless, and for that reason...

It is merely a question of terminology. I have no particular preference. And even if I did, there are more important things to discuss.

… Continued. Being baptized at that time and in those cultures meant turning one's back on one's lifelong pagan or Jewish socio-religious environment, and immersing oneself in something totally alien and comparatively unstructured. That naturally resulted in the commitment associated with the...

… Continued. And now some more verses that appear to indicate that an irreversible act = commitment takes place, and the dangers of trying to back out of it: Continued ...

In Post #72 MoreCoffee asked: Well, the following is offered for consideration: That appears to rule infant baptism out as efficacious. In fact, in the context of the times in which the statement was uttered, the Greek word translated “believeth” carries the sense of entrusting oneself to, as...

You may consider me a conscientious objector.

I had the impression that baptism was the final seal of a commitment made to God – a commitment that could not be revoked or backed out of – and for which many dire warnings are given in Scripture for anyone who might be tempted to try. If that is indeed so, then any rite of any form performed...

I see anyone trying to persuade others to adopt his or her terminology, as being mean spirited, and not having a ghost of a chance.

There is an acid test that can be applied to MoreCoffee's statement in Post #28: Does history record anyone ever being burned at the stake by the Roman Catholic Church (or civil authorities acting on that church's behalf) in England for possessing any portion of the Bible in English? If the...

Regarding MoreCoffee's statement in Post #190: While the comment was offered good naturedly, it holds a lot of serious implication, which can and should be explored dispassionately. Lets have a quick look at theology historically. First of all we have the clearly stated theology of Jesus and...

As for (Post #17): two things can be pointed out. 1. The minor point: who started it? The Catholic Church – persecuting people who had the evil intention of worshipping God as the Apostolic Church had worshipped Him, and of having a direct relationship with God without the intermediary...

It would appear the Tallguy88's (Post #12) knowledge of his church's history is somewhat lacking when he said: It is easy to look at the church today and project its modern approach to the Bible back into the past. But that approach is invalid. It is undeniable that formerly the Scriptures in...

Another twist for the Reader to be aware of. The Poster of Post #169, in an attempt to downplay MoreCoffee's comments about Jesus' words being included in the liturgy of the Roman Catholic mass, stated: in response, MoreCoffee in Post #170 expressed joy that the word of God was being spread...