Nah. The posting is because there are Methodists and Presbyterians who visit here and do not know that their denominations are lobbying for gun control and, worse, claiming to their attendees that they are "giving money to God" when in reality they take the money and give it to Sarah Brady and others that the attendees might find distasteful.I'm not sure if the the posting is just because of the "violation of roman law" part . . .
Given those words, however, I submit a couple of light articles for pleasure reading and your later critique, if desired.kkennett said:higher bodies of the denomination . . .
In all fairness, kkennett, I do not believe Paul ever applied this statement you so loosely paraphrase to worship, nor did he use it to sanction denominationalism or notions of various sects constituting the "church universal." Rather, he made the statement you so loosely paraphrase when speaking of not being an offense to the locals by his manner or custom so that he would not be hindered in preaching the gospel (in which he did not hesitate to give offense so long as he spoke the truth).kkennett said:Style of worship is not the same as theology. The apostle Paul's ministry can largely be summed up, "when in Rome do as the Romans do, when in Greece, as the Grecians, as long as you preach the gospel." For it is not what goes into man that makes him unclean, but what comes out. Thus Paul said, eat whatever food you want, keep your local heritage and customs, as long as they are not sinful.
I completely agree. I think that was exactly my point, perhaps not well said. If the people down the street from you want to sing songs with horns instead of strings and sprinkle instead of dunk, that ought not cause you to break into factions, separate on the theology, and ultimately hold animosity toward one another. The church ought to be able to accommodate these differences without all the separations that have occurred throughout history. Alas, the church has been, and will be until the second coming, governed by flawed sinners who have made poor choices and failed to love another above all. Where the rubber meets the road is discerning the cultural from the moral. I am appalled by the PCUSA's stance on abortion and lack of certitude regarding homosexual ordination. I know some, however, who are appalled by the practice of sprinkling instead of full immersion, and place that issue on the same level as homosexual ordination. How much blood has been shed in the name of 'transsubstantiation' for the Mass? The European monarchs largely tried to use the faith to preserve their particular culture and feudal power structure. America's founding fathers found the faith lead them to a different conclusion (thankfully). This process of discernment and error has brought us to this point. The humans in the churches at Corinth, Phillipi, Ephesus, Collosa, Thessolonica, and all the others struggled with the same sinful, fallen nature with which we struggle today. Paul was there to guide them. Would that we had a Paul rise up today!Malum Prohibitum said:
Appalled? Well, what does the word "baptism" mean? I do not mean the English word that seems to have whatever modern connotations people want to pour into it to justify a manmade practice (for example, sprinkling ), but what did it mean in the New Testament (as that is my standard) when written there.kkennett said:If the people down the street from you want to sing songs with horns instead of strings and sprinkle instead of dunk, that ought not cause you to break into factions, separate on the theology, and ultimately hold animosity toward one another.
. . .
I know some, however, who are appalled by the practice of sprinkling instead of full immersion . . .
And none of these men were directly inspired by God. I point to this uninspired testimony just to illustrate how late in history "sprinkling" as a substitute for immersion arose.[until] Council of Nemours (A.D. 1284) â€œlimited sprinkling to cases of necessity.â€ Thomas Aquinas (cir. A.D. 1225-1274), one of the most prominent Catholic theologians, acknowledged that immersion was the â€œsaferâ€ mode, though he allowed sprinkling or pouring. In was not until the Council of Ravenna (A.D. 1311) that sprinkling officially was made an option for administering â€œbaptismâ€
Well, maybe he will. But can I go around teaching people that he will do what he has explicitly said he will not do? I do not think I can rely on that! Nor would I want you to.kkennett said:If the New Testament commanded that now circumision and uncircumcision was no longer relevant to receiving the saving power of Christ (which it did), how can the whetted surface area achieved during baptism be any different. To put it another way, if I spend my entire life placing my faith in his redeeming grace (which is all I need), seeking to follow his commands, studying his Word, attempting servant leadership, and returning back to his grace when I fail, and then I reach the pearly gates and he says, 'off to Hell with you, as you weren't baptized properly', I will have worshiped a god unworthy of the sacrifices of the saints. Perhaps he'll just, 'I really did mean immersion, but you can come in anyway.'
:shock:kkennett said:All that being said, apparently my third child is going to be born later today, so I have to be going. I will ask those properly baptized to pray for us. :wink: