Churches, Doctrines, and Trustworthiness

[Pedrito]

In Post #563 on Page 57 in the Infant Baptism thread, with regard to my identifying untrustworthiness in two religious organisations (both of which happen to promulgate and practice infant baptism), Lämmchen said:

Why are you creating a tangent?

Create another thread, don't try to distract in this one with trustworthiness.

I hereby accede to that suggestion.

When considering the original topic from which this thread has forked (Infant Baptism), might not the relative trustworthiness of organisations promoting the two opposing views, be of paramount importance? I suspect Lämmchen realises only too well that that is so.

Both the Catholic Church and the Lutheran Church (and infant-baptising churches in general) read into various scriptures, meanings with which other churches disagree. So how can we tell which stance is correct?

Well, neither of those two particular churches (that I am aware of) follows the stated-to-be-apostolic practice of baptising whole households of converts. (The exception would be the forced conversions that people were compelled to enter into by the historic Roman Catholic Church.)

And the Roman Catholic Church makes demonstrably false statements about its general recognition of baptism conducted by other churches.

And the representatives of the Lutheran Church in this forum continue to promulgate and support the known false teaching that non-infant-baptism churches have an undisclosed age X before which baptism is not permitted.

(Refer to Posts #560 and #562 on Pages 56 and 57 in the Infant Baptism thread.)

The point is, if any church persists in issuing proclamations that are demonstrably untrue, what trust can be put into other statements that that church makes about scriptural teaching, apostolic practice, and its own doctrines and practices?

Little if any, I would suggest. That was the highly relevant point of my former posts.

Were an outsider to be seriously considering Christianity and seeking a trustworthy church to join, on a scale of 1 to 10, where would he or she place the Roman Catholic Church and the Lutheran Church once the dishonesties associated with those churches were revealed to them?


Now, please note that I did make a serious offer to expose other churches (obviously the opposing ones) with respect to the infant baptism issue via their statements. (See the bottom of Post #560, and Post #562 as referred to above.)

Please also note that my offer was ignored.

So maybe instead, I should reveal the real and essential reason why the false accusation of “age X” has to be repeatedly stated by people like Josiah. And why that accusation has to be supported by others of his denomination in the form of silent acceptance. Instead of being acknowledged as false and renounced as it should have been right at the start.


Reveal it, unless of course, Josiah and his cohorts think it best to “fess up” first.

 

[Josiah]

NO individual person or denomination is automatically right (and unaccountable) if the self same claims such for the self same. RCC and LDS notwithstanding.

 

[psalms 91]

In Post #563 on Page 57 in the Infant Baptism thread, with regard to my identifying untrustworthiness in two religious organisations (both of which happen to promulgate and practice infant baptism), Lämmchen said:

I hereby accede to that suggestion.

When considering the original topic from which this thread has forked (Infant Baptism), might not the relative trustworthiness of organisations promoting the two opposing views, be of paramount importance? I suspect Lämmchen realises only too well that that is so.

Both the Catholic Church and the Lutheran Church (and infant-baptising churches in general) read into various scriptures, meanings with which other churches disagree. So how can we tell which stance is correct?

Well, neither of those two particular churches (that I am aware of) follows the stated-to-be-apostolic practice of baptising whole households of converts. (The exception would be the forced conversions that people were compelled to enter into by the historic Roman Catholic Church.)

And the Roman Catholic Church makes demonstrably false statements about its general recognition of baptism conducted by other churches.

And the representatives of the Lutheran Church in this forum continue to promulgate and support the known false teaching that non-infant-baptism churches have an undisclosed age X before which baptism is not permitted.

(Refer to Posts #560 and #562 on Pages 56 and 57 in the Infant Baptism thread.)

The point is, if any church persists in issuing proclamations that are demonstrably untrue, what trust can be put into other statements that that church makes about scriptural teaching, apostolic practice, and its own doctrines and practices?

Little if any, I would suggest. That was the highly relevant point of my former posts.

Were an outsider to be seriously considering Christianity and seeking a trustworthy church to join, on a scale of 1 to 10, where would he or she place the Roman Catholic Church and the Lutheran Church once the dishonesties associated with those churches were revealed to them?


Now, please note that I did make a serious offer to expose other churches (obviously the opposing ones) with respect to the infant baptism issue via their statements. (See the bottom of Post #560, and Post #562 as referred to above.)

Please also note that my offer was ignored.

So maybe instead, I should reveal the real and essential reason why the false accusation of “age X” has to be repeatedly stated by people like Josiah. And why that accusation has to be supported by others of his denomination in the form of silent acceptance. Instead of being acknowledged as false and renounced as it should have been right at the start.


Reveal it, unless of course, Josiah and his cohorts think it best to “fess up” first.

yes

 

[Josiah]

d the Lutheran Church (and infant-baptising churches in general) read into various scriptures

I think it is the new tradition of Mr. Thomas Muenzer that is reading INTO Scripture this new Baptism Rule of theirs: that we may not permit those under the age of X to receive baptism.

Friend, we have given HUNDREDS of opportunities for these followers of Mr. Muenzer to list the Scriptures that state their long, long, ever-growing list of Baptism Rules. But they have not been able to find even one verse for even one of their new Baptism Rules. The Muenzer/anabaptist/anti-paedobaptism crowd just swithes to yet another, yet another, new Baptism Rule: can't do this, can't do that, gotta this, gotta that, always something new.... never ANY Scripture that STATES any of their long, long, long, ever-growing list of Baptism Rules. All while insisting that if a Baptism Rule is not expressly STATED in Scripture it's to be rejected... but then proving they've not one Scripture that STATES even one of their plethora of new Baptism Rules. This Muenzer - anabaptist - anti-peado crowd never tires of creating more and more Baptism Rules. Can't. Must. Gotta. Proving NOT ONE Scripture states even one of them.

(Refer to Posts #560 and #562 on Pages 56 and 57 in the Infant Baptism thread.)

That thread is about paedobaptism and the ANTI-paedobaptism insistence of Mr. Thomas Muenzer in the 16th Century and his few followers ever since: that we are forbidden to permit baptism for those under the age of X. And yes, Mr. Muenzer too would never state what that age is, only that that age is. And yes, Mr. Muenzer also stated that Scripture STATES this Baptism Rule he came up with in the 16th Century but he too could never find it.

THAT thread also diverted (sadly) into a whole plethora of OTHER new Baptism Rules that these followers of Mr. Muenzer have created since his death. A long, long, ever-growing list of Baptism Rules! A whole plethora of Baptism Rules! We lost count of them in that thread! But yup, none of the rule inventors could produce even one Scripture stating even one of their new, creative Baptism Rules. Every time they are asked to quote the Scripture that states that - they just invent another new Baptism Rule - and the process starts all over again.

Please also note that my offer was ignored

True. We asked you to produce these Scriptures that you insisted STATE all these many, many new Baptism Rules you've come up with. But you would not. None would. Instead, you just keep creating more and more rules. Rules, rules, rules, rules, rules...... gotta thing, gotta that...... can't this, can't that..... this hoop, that hoop...... this mandate, that mandate..... this prohibition, that prohibition..... With NO Scripture that STATES any of it.


Instead, you tried to run from your rules. Going instead to the silly point that we can't DO things unless JESUS did them. Then you proved by posting on the internet that you think your point is wrong and you neither believe it or follow it.



- Josiah




.

 

[TurtleHare]

You took offense to someone asking you about the age of X and so you began a thread questioning the trustworthiness of 2 entire denominations only because instead of saying you don't believe in an age of X for baptism you'd rather lead everyone astray concerning these 2 denominations JUST BECAUSE one member got your goat?

In Post #563 on Page 57 in the Infant Baptism thread, with regard to my identifying untrustworthiness in two religious organisations (both of which happen to promulgate and practice infant baptism), Lämmchen said:

I hereby accede to that suggestion.

When considering the original topic from which this thread has forked (Infant Baptism), might not the relative trustworthiness of organisations promoting the two opposing views, be of paramount importance? I suspect Lämmchen realises only too well that that is so.

Both the Catholic Church and the Lutheran Church (and infant-baptising churches in general) read into various scriptures, meanings with which other churches disagree. So how can we tell which stance is correct?

Well, neither of those two particular churches (that I am aware of) follows the stated-to-be-apostolic practice of baptising whole households of converts. (The exception would be the forced conversions that people were compelled to enter into by the historic Roman Catholic Church.)

And the Roman Catholic Church makes demonstrably false statements about its general recognition of baptism conducted by other churches.

And the representatives of the Lutheran Church in this forum continue to promulgate and support the known false teaching that non-infant-baptism churches have an undisclosed age X before which baptism is not permitted.

(Refer to Posts #560 and #562 on Pages 56 and 57 in the Infant Baptism thread.)

The point is, if any church persists in issuing proclamations that are demonstrably untrue, what trust can be put into other statements that that church makes about scriptural teaching, apostolic practice, and its own doctrines and practices?

Little if any, I would suggest. That was the highly relevant point of my former posts.

Were an outsider to be seriously considering Christianity and seeking a trustworthy church to join, on a scale of 1 to 10, where would he or she place the Roman Catholic Church and the Lutheran Church once the dishonesties associated with those churches were revealed to them?


Now, please note that I did make a serious offer to expose other churches (obviously the opposing ones) with respect to the infant baptism issue via their statements. (See the bottom of Post #560, and Post #562 as referred to above.)

Please also note that my offer was ignored.

So maybe instead, I should reveal the real and essential reason why the false accusation of “age X” has to be repeatedly stated by people like Josiah. And why that accusation has to be supported by others of his denomination in the form of silent acceptance. Instead of being acknowledged as false and renounced as it should have been right at the start.


Reveal it, unless of course, Josiah and his cohorts think it best to “fess up” first.

 

[Pedrito]

Wow! Talk about a cat among the pigeons.

Josiah in Post #4, because I pointed out that my offer to also expose opposition churches (“believer's baptism” churches), had been ignored, stated:

Please also note that my offer was ignored

True. We asked you to produce these Scriptures that you insisted STATE all these many, many new Baptism Rules you've come up with. But you would not. None would. Instead, you just keep creating more and more rules. Rules, rules, rules, rules, rules...... gotta thing, gotta that...... can't this, can't that..... this hoop, that hoop...... this mandate, that mandate..... this prohibition, that prohibition..... With NO Scripture that STATES any of it.

Instead, you tried to run from your rules. Going instead to the silly point that we can't DO things unless JESUS did them. Then you proved by posting on the internet that you think your point is wrong and you neither believe it or follow it.

I find all that rather amazing. Don't you?

I must confess that I find it difficult to follow Josiah's thought patterns, and to understand how he dreams some of his proclamations up.


Continued ...

 

[Pedrito]

… Continued


And as for TurtleHair's Post #5:

You took offense to someone asking you about the age of X and so you began a thread questioning the trustworthiness of 2 entire denominations only because instead of saying you don't believe in an age of X for baptism you'd rather lead everyone astray concerning these 2 denominations JUST BECAUSE one member got your goat?

Actually, I don't think anyone asked me about “age X”.

I did point out the dishonesty of accusing non-infant-baptisers of having an undisclosed “age X” below which baptism was not allowed. That dishonesty became deliberate when its untruth was revealed. Every occurrence since then has been deliberate dishonesty. And the silent support for that deliberate dishonesty speaks volumes. Does it not?

------------------------------------------

What is it like owning a goat? I've never owned one. They are smelly. They eat the washing. They butt you when you're not looking.

So nobody got mine.

It is amazing, is it not, how reasoned, logical presentations can engender highly emotional and illogical responses, simply because the presented information is not liked and is difficult to refute.

------------------------------------------

Now, back to the topic (stated slightly differently).

If a religious group engages in dishonesty, what trust can be put into any statements that that church makes about scriptural teaching, apostolic practice, and its own doctrines and practices?

Is that not a fair question?

If not, in what way is it unfair?

 

[Alithis]

You took offense to someone asking you about the age of X and so you began a thread questioning the trustworthiness of 2 entire denominations only because instead of saying you don't believe in an age of X for baptism you'd rather lead everyone astray concerning these 2 denominations JUST BECAUSE one member got your goat?

where on earth did that come from ?.. he states in post #1 that lammchen suggested he start a new thread in regard to the topic of denominational ,trustworthiness .


im just going to post the definition of "strawman argument " ..here as well methinks .

 

[Alithis]

"A straw man " - is a common form of argument and is an informal fallacy based on giving the impression of refuting an opponent's argument, while actually refuting an argument that was not advanced by that opponent. it can become an unconscious habit to do this and is a dishonest form of discussion or debate -can we please attempt to avoid it ..thats ME as well, as i have had the habit a lot in times past until it was properly explained to me what i was doing .. so iv tried very hard to stop .

 

[Pedrito]

In response to my thought in Post #1:

Now, please note that I did make a serious offer to expose other churches (obviously the opposing ones) with respect to the infant baptism issue via their statements. (See the bottom of Post #560, and Post #562 as referred to above.)

Please also note that my offer was ignored.

So maybe instead, I should reveal the real and essential reason why the false accusation of “age X” has to be repeatedly stated by people like Josiah. And why that accusation has to be supported by others of his denomination in the form of silent acceptance. Instead of being acknowledged as false and renounced as it should have been right at the start.

Reveal it, unless of course, Josiah and his cohorts think it best to “fess up” first.

bill1231 in Post #3 said:

yes

I thank bill1231 for responding.

However, I must point out that to be fair, I think I ought to reveal both sides of the coin. A balanced approach is definitely preferable.

That means exposing both the real reason for the continued dishonest “age X” accusations, as well as taking the action referred to in Post #1 (even though the offer was ignored yet again):

Now, please note that I did make a serious offer to expose other churches (obviously the opposing ones) with respect to the infant baptism issue via their statements. (See the bottom of Post #560, and Post #562 as referred to above.)

That being the condition under which I would honour bill1231's “yes”, and which may throw some unwanted light on the organisation or doctrine set that he might hold dear, I think it important to ask bill1231 if his response is still “yes”.

 

[psalms 91]

In response to my thought in Post #1:

bill1231 in Post #3 said:

I thank bill1231 for responding.

However, I must point out that to be fair, I think I ought to reveal both sides of the coin. A balanced approach is definitely preferable.

That means exposing both the real reason for the continued dishonest “age X” accusations, as well as taking the action referred to in Post #1 (even though the offer was ignored yet again):


That being the condition under which I would honour bill1231's “yes”, and which may throw some unwanted light on the organisation or doctrine set that he might hold dear, I think it important to ask bill1231 if his response is still “yes”.

Pf course it is, by all means go ahead

 

[Pedrito]

A
Short
Short
Time
Ago
.
.
In
A
Christendom
Not
Far
Away
.
.
.​

The evil Empire and its allies sought to subdue the righteous Rebel Alliance, and constantly spread around their own beliefs and those supposedly of the rebels.

Or was it ...​

An alliance of intransigent rebels sought to isolate their people from the advantages offered by absorption into the beneficent Empire?

What if ...​

Visitors from a non-aligned group of humans living in a distant star cluster, possessing a highly developed sense of justice and truth, came onto the scene and observed the struggle.

​

What would they find?


Continued ...

 

[Pedrito]

… Continued

What would the Non-Aligned Ones find
when they looked at the Empire?​

Among other things, they would see the strange phenomenon of a known untruth being constantly hurled at the Rebel Alliance in a most prominent fashion.

They would wonder why the rebels were constantly being accused of having an undisclosed “age of X” under which baptism was not permitted, and constantly berated for not disclosing what that fictitious age was.

It would not take the Non-Aligned Ones long to realise that it all hinged on the concept of “original sin”.

By baptising babies of Empire parents, the Empire believed that those baptised babies were saved from original sin, and introduced into God's church (or family).

But the Empire (and its allies) also taught that the condition resulting from infant baptism was not necessarily permanent, and that a baby once grown could fall away and no longer be part of God's church. Also, the babies could not possibly fall away before they reach an age of understanding or accountability.

Ahah!!! So that was it.

The Empire had its own very real (not contrived) “age of X”, a truth which it wished to keep secret, keep under the carpet, keep from being revealed. Naturally so, because the concept of an age of understanding or accountability was not found anywhere in its Holy Book, and was therefore a doctrine that was not in line with the holy revelation from its God.

What better way to keep that truth hidden, than to keep attention focussed on the Rebel Alliance by repeatedly targeting it with a false accusation?

The Non-Aligned Ones would thus uncover the real and calamitous reason for the repeated fictional accusation.

And the Non-Aligned Ones could well echo the demand issued by Josiah in Post #564 on Page 57 of the Infant Baptism thread:

JUST STATE THE AGE.

Continued ...

 

[Pedrito]

… Continued

What would the Non-Aligned Ones find
when they looked at the Rebel Alliance?​

Among other things, they would see “original sin” rearing its head once again, but being dealt with in a different manner.

The Non-Aligned Ones would see the reality of original sin denied by the Rebel Alliance – denied in spite of what its God stated in the Holy Book:

The second objection is: “But infants are not sinners! Therefore, Baptism is not for infants because Baptism is for those who have consciously sinned.” On the contrary, Scripture clearly teaches that we are sinners from the time of our conception (see Psalm 51:5) because we inherit a sinful nature from Adam (see Romans 5:12). The fact that infants die is God’s sign that they are sinners (see 1st Corinthians 15:22). We sin BECAUSE we are sinners, and we have this condition even as infants and little children (see Genesis 8:21 and John 3:6). Also, Romans 3:23 clearly shows that ALL have sinned and need the salvation that Jesus gives.

(Lämmchen in Post #728 on Page 73 of the Infant Baptism thread.)

Psalm 51:5:
Behold, I was shapen in iniquity; and in sin did my mother conceive me.
Romans 5:12:
Wherefore, as by one man sin entered into the world, and death by sin; and so death passed upon all men, for that all have sinned:
1 Corinthians 15:22:
For as in Adam all die, even so in Christ shall all be made alive.
Genesis 8:21:
... for the imagination of man's heart is evil from his youth ...
John 3:6,7:
6 That which is born of the flesh is flesh; and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit.
7 Marvel not that I said unto thee, Ye must be born again.
Romans 3:23:
For all have sinned, and come short of the glory of God;
Romans 3:10:
As it is written, There is none righteous, no, not one:
Job 15:14:
What is man, that he should be clean? and he which is born of a woman, that he should be righteous?
Job 25:4:
How then can man be justified with God? or how can he be clean that is born of a woman?

The Non-Aligned Ones would see that the Rebel Alliance denied that infants were seen as having sin attributed to them in God's eyes. But once a person reached a particular age, that person would become sinful in God's eyes.

The Non-Aligned Ones would realise that the rebels, also, had introduced the concept of an age of responsibility or accountability, a concept which was completely foreign to their Holy Book, but upon which their doctrine set depended.

Thus the Rebel Alliance did indeed have an undisclosed “age of X”. Not the one of which they had been constantly accused, but one that they had (possibly unwittingly) shared with their opponents.

So to them also the Non-Aligned Ones could well echo the demand issued by Josiah in Post #564 on Page 57 of the Infant Baptism thread:

JUST STATE THE AGE.

(The Non-Aligned Ones also observed a divergent group within the Rebel Alliance that taught that God had predetermined the future state of each and every individual (Heaven or eternal torture) before he created them. The Non-Aligned Ones understood that in that perspective, there is no “age of X” requirement. But they found themselves questioning that concept in its entirety.)


Continued ...

 

[Pedrito]

… Continued

What did the Non-Aligned Ones conclude
after reviewing the teachings of the Empire
and those of the Rebel Alliance?​

Could the Non-Aligned Ones have concluded that neither the teachings of the Empire nor the teachings of the Rebel Alliance, truly represented the revelations from their God as revealed in the Book they claimed as Holy? (The Bible)

Could the wise ones among them have considered that it might be worthwhile going back to scratch and studying the Holy Book afresh themselves, ignoring the preconceived ideas of the Empire and the Rebel Alliance? And to do so with great care, in case it actually did contain a consistent, harmonious message for the honest reader?

If the wise ones did do that, what message might they have found?


What verses and passages would they have found that are normally skipped over, or are interpreted as they “must be” to make them line up with denominational doctrine?


Could they have returned home with a wonderful message that transcended those of the Empire and the Rebel Alliance, and which glorified the Great God as He never had been glorified before?

 

[Alithis]

… Continued

What did the Non-Aligned Ones conclude
after reviewing the teachings of the Empire
and those of the Rebel Alliance?​

Could the Non-Aligned Ones have concluded that neither the teachings of the Empire nor the teachings of the Rebel Alliance, truly represented the revelations from their God as revealed in the Book they claimed as Holy? (The Bible)

Could the wise ones among them have considered that it might be worthwhile going back to scratch and studying the Holy Book afresh themselves, ignoring the preconceived ideas of the Empire and the Rebel Alliance? And to do so with great care, in case it actually did contain a consistent, harmonious message for the honest reader?

If the wise ones did do that, what message might they have found?


What verses and passages would they have found that are normally skipped over, or are interpreted as they “must be” to make them line up with denominational doctrine?


Could they have returned home with a wonderful message that transcended those of the Empire and the Rebel Alliance, and which glorified the Great God as He never had been glorified before?

certainly we can "all " do that .

great presentation by the way ... though the music score was rather silent

but to clarify in extreme simplicity for my simple mind .. (and please forgive me if i make a hash of understanding your clever presentation )

we have been guilty of saying you cannot baptise a person ..being in this case " a baby ".. because they cannot knowledgeably repent of sin when they are unaware of sin and so be baptised . and neither can we say at what specific age they need to be before they can knowledgeably do so... and that becomes referred to as age "x" because it is undefinable ,being obviously different for every single individual . but they demand we state what age X is .(even though thats not possible)

and the other camp states you can baptise them ..but they may fall away later .. which means they will reach an undefinable age in which they then chose to or NOT adhere to the baptism that was imposed upon them and thus proving there is in fact an age x and that they also cannot define what that indefinable age x is .

and since both parties from opposite spectrums are then presented with the same dilemma ..

we must then consider we are BOTH wrong
and God is Always right - ? I can accept that - one thing life has taught me is how little we know, especially when we thing we know much .

and if God is always right - and he IS - we simply lack understanding and love on the issue .

 

[Lamb]

Please don't turn Christians into warring against each other. We have disagreements but we are not enemies but instead brothers and sisters in Christ.

 

[psalms 91]

Unless of course a denom makes a christian feel like he is less by refusing communion or saying they are the only right church and all others are not, seems to me thta denoms can do a pretty good job of that

 

[Lamb]

We are our brothers' keeper and it's better to correct someone who is in error than let him live with it and perhaps see him fall away from faith. That doesn't make us enemies nor at war. To insinuate otherwise isn't what Jesus wanted when he told us to love our neighbors as we love ourselves.

 

[psalms 91]

If I follow that I could make any doctrine seem sound by that standard. It is still not acceptable to deny a Christian of any faith something thta the bible tells them to do