Evidence for God from Science

vvart wrote:Regardless you can't claim that not 1 of the molestation cases was correct and if even 1 was legimate then my point still stands. The fact is its clear the apostles were chosen by God, but there are SO many churches and christian organizations that it would be silly to claim that each pastor or priest was in fact ordained by God.

Given the fact that there are no priests who aren't sinners the church long ago arrived at the conclusion that the sins of the priesthood do not invalidate the sacraments, and given the history of the priesthood this covers a lot. Neither do the sins of the clergy and laity alike invalidate the message or mission of the church, you cannot say that just because they are all a bunch of ignorant hypocrites you are going to have nothing to do with them and would in fact be better off on your own. Let me tell you, brother, we are all ignorant hypocrites desperately in need of salvation and to disdain or throw away any straw could be fatal.

We are told to watch out for false prophets and those who would mislead but how are you to know a false prophet if you have never heard a real one? The early church didn't read about christianity, they heard about it, and that is still a very good way to experience it.

A little "Reformed" food for thought on Baptism.

1.) Baptism is not necessary for salvation. If this were the case, then all Old Testament Saints would be doomed (as would the thief on the cross, to whom Jesus promised paradise.)

2.) Salvation is NOT a requirement for Baptism. (I know this is a shocker for some.) If this were the case, then the church would be given the impossible task of determining who was saved. Was Jesus mistaken when He baptized Judas Iscariot? What about Peter when he baptized Simon Magus?

What one looks for in an adult candidate for baptism is a confession of faith. We have no way of knowing if that confession is genuine. Baptism is merely a symbol, the sign and seal of the covenant of Grace, replacing circumcision (Col. 2:11). One can be unregenerate and still be in Covenant with God. Jesus presented the elements of the Lord's Supper to Judas knowing that Judas was "a devil". An unbeliever is "sanctified" by a believing spouse (1 Cor. 7:14). As a result, their children are "holy", whereas otherwise they would be "unclean". It is for this reason that Reformed churches baptize the children of believers, for the Covenant Promises are for believers and their children (Acts 2:38-39). In the Bible, the believer was baptized, along with the entire household.

This, of course, does not guarantee that the child will be a Christian, anymore than baptising a professed believer guarantees that the believer is a genuine Christian. God's Covenants have both blessing for believers as well as cursings for rebels (Deut. 28).

Puritan Lad,

1.) Baptism is not necessary for salvation. If this were the case, then all Old Testament Saints would be doomed (as would the thief on the cross, to whom Jesus promised paradise.)

I must disagree with you.
The Old Testament saints were not able to be baptized, and the command to be baptized was not even given at the time.
The thief on the cross did believe in Jesus. If he could have, I'm sure he would have bee bapized. God is merciful. And salvation is a mystery; yet Jesus did tell us, we must be born again of water and the Spirit.

Salvation is NOT a requirement for Baptism. (I know this is a shocker for some.) If this were the case, then the church would be given the impossible task of determining who was saved.

Why do you say this?

Baptism is merely a symbol, the sign and seal of the covenant of Grace, replacing circumcision

As an Orthodox Christian it is my firm conviction that Holy Baptism is necessary for the New Birth. This Holy Sacrament is for being born again {St. John 3:5}, remission of sins {Acts 2:38}, and it is for being united to Christ {Galatians 3:27}.

It is for this reason that Reformed churches baptize the children of believers, for the Covenant Promises are for believers and their children (Acts 2:38-39). In the Bible, the believer was baptized, along with the entire household.

James,
I'm not a mod here, and you are certainly welcome to dig up old threads. But did you happen to notice that this thread is five years old, and the person you are addressing is not an active poster here?

I would suggest starting a new thread about water baptism, with perhaps a link to this thread.

deja-vu jlay. Your welcome to reply to old threads imo JamesScott.

The older threads are often the better ones in my opinion... only cause I was more active back then you see.

jlay wrote:James,
I'm not a mod here, and you are certainly welcome to dig up old threads. But did you happen to notice that this thread is five years old, and the person you are addressing is not an active poster here?

I would suggest starting a new thread about water baptism, with perhaps a link to this thread.

No, I didn't know that. I didn't think old threads would be on the first page of the threads.

You can respond to any thread you want. If the original poster is not here and others are interested, they can become involved as they wish.

Canuckster1127 wrote:You can respond to any thread you want. If the original poster is not here and others are interested, they can become involved as they wish.

Great, thank you.

Kurieuo wrote: deja-vu jlay. Your welcome to reply to old threads imo JamesScott.

The older threads are often the better ones in my opinion... only cause I was more active back then you see.

lol, ok thanks.

We need to drag PL back here! I wonder if he received an e-mail notification that someone restarted the thread?