Any here hold to Covenant Theology then?

crossnote said:
I hold to the view (good men may differ) that the RCC came about through the Church being wed to paganism under Constantine...
but then that's not within the scope of the OP.
Click to expand...

Musicmaster said:
Umm, no. The RCC was not spawned by the apostles. It's a creation of men starting in about the fourth century.

MM
Click to expand...
And who were they and where did they come from? I do believe they were students of scripture. They didnt just make up Christ crusified. And no, the apostles didnt call themselves catholic, that came later. Polycarp knew John the apostle personally.
 
Last edited:
Musicmaster said:
I would fully agree that the word of God is indeed powerful and true, but the idea of anyone thinking that they can expand the power of those words over into a ceremony for those who cannot make such a conscious decision, that's just ludicrous. What would keep some looney from expanding that over to their dog or their horse? Do you see the dilemma?

I realize my example hits upon two different kingdoms...that of animals and another of human, but still. The problem is them thinking that they can expand upon those verses you quoted earlier, and envelop infants who do not and cannot make any decision for Christ and salvation that would make the baptism a true representation of a choice they made, and yet were incapable.

They cannot show to us any wording in those verses that would authorize them to include infants into that observance. It matters not one bit how they see any of it, what their creeds say, nor even their wishful thinking. If we're going to be honest with the word of God, we do not expand it out to include those who are not specifically included anywhere in a systematic study of the topic of baptism.

I don't mean to sound hostile, but this is serious stuff that I'm sure has been debated through many years of non-settlement...given that this practice is still ongoing because of the fallacious writings of Luther and perhaps others who are respected beyond what is reasonable.

MM
Click to expand...
All comes down to just how new was and is the new Covenant then? Brand new, as Baptists hold, or a continuation and fulfillment of old One, as remainder hold it as being?
 
Hopefull said:
Here is what I found about Methodists.




  1. Family & Relationships
  2. Baby
  3. Baptism

What Do Methodists Believe About Baptism?​

BySusie McGee Teacher, M.Ed
Contributor: Julie Kirk
newborn baby in christening gownSOURCE
What do Methodists believe about the baptism of children and adults? The following is a brief history of the Methodist church as well as information on this denomination's baptism and salvation beliefs.

What Do Methodists Believe About Baptism of Children and Adults?​

What do Methodists believe about baptism? The official doctrine of The United Methodist Church in regards to baptism is this: Baptism represents believers' repentance and forgiveness of sins. It also signifies a new birth and the beginning of a person's Christian discipleship.


Baptism Symbolizes God's Intentions for Young Children​

Because young children are considered to be heirs of God's kingdom and believed to be under the atonement of Jesus Christ, they are thought of as acceptable subjects for baptism. In other words, baptism is symbolic of God's intentions for them.
An infant baptism is a sacrament and a gift of God's grace. This combined with teaching God's word can help guide the child, as he or she grows to accept the covenant and receive their salvation through their profession of faith
Click to expand...
About the same as a Presbyterian manual on water baptism would read!
 
Musicmaster said:
This still ignores what any systematic study of this topic would reveal as foundational truths, as defined by the word of God. Babies already have over them whatever God has pre-ordained as binding upon them. The baseline, biblically revealed purpose for baptism is the outward expression of an inner work in those who have obtained saving faith who have gone beyond what is called "the age of accountability." Infants are not accountable for sin, so sprinkling them in a ceremony, that is still a rudimentary residue of the Romish system. It's therefore meaningless, more akin to witchcraft for those who may be onlookers and not aware of the history.

This concept of making the word of God into a candy cane and lollipop land of doctrinal inventions that have Walt Disney appeals to emotions and sentiments, none of which aligns with absolute truths as discovered through proper Hermeneutics, its lascivious to its core.

But, hey, we're all free to add to the word of God whatsoever one desires, remembering, of course, the consequences for doing such.

MM
Click to expand...
Th purpose of water baptism is NOT for the sinner to get saved by it, nor to now have the Holy Spirit, but as a sign and testimony to having been already saved!
 
crossnote said:
You do have to consider the thick darkness Luther and other Reformers came out of, heck even my wife has struggles shaking some of her past RC influence. If the Reformers hadn't shed their blood (especially in their translating work) we'd have a Pope for a president and would be singing Gregorian Chants.
Click to expand...
Indeed, and also must factor in that their Main emphasis was on combating sacramental gracing and gospel of works, as rediscovered Pauline Justification again!
Just too bad those such as Calvin and Luther did not reform far enough!
 
crossnote said:
Do you mean by chaining the Bible to the Latin language rendering it nearly impossible for the common person to understand? Or the superstitions of purgatory and Fatima visions?
Click to expand...
Think that God kept even among pagan and idolatry Rome a saved remnant that kept moving forward awaiting reformation
 
Hopefull said:
What I mean is without them Christanity would have died. Many hate to face the fact that the catholic church came from what the apostles passed down through writings and stories. As corrupt as it became doesnt negate the fact that it was THE church for hundreds of years. Many anti catholics will say they arnt christian. That is nonsense. Ive been to mass a few times. They do more bible readings than any protestant church ive attended. Two from the OT and two from the NT. Im not catholic but neither do I believe they get everything wrong.
Click to expand...
The church of Rome officially started with papacy, in 5/6 century!
 
Hopefull said:
And who were they and where did they come from? I do believe they were students of scripture. They didnt just make up Christ crusified. And no, the apostles didnt call themselves catholic, that came later. Polycarp knew John the apostle personally.
Click to expand...
The early Church fathers had some correct theology, but also mixture of bad, best to stay with scripture!
 
YeshuaFan said:
The early Church fathers had some correct theology, but also mixture of bad, best to stay with scripture!
Click to expand...
Agreed. Corruption started early on. They recieved written and oral instruction passed down from the apostles, which was my point. What they did was add to it the things that would benefit whoever was in charge at the time. The RCC became more of a political entity.And yet without it would christianity have survived the dark ages?
 
thenami said:
I said Nothing About The Heart Only!!!

This is why I usually Do Not Post! Thanks for the wonderful reminder.
Click to expand...

What are you saying? Are you saying it's our fault for you leaving us with nothing more to go on?

"Sometimes some of you get too logical and systematic about scripture. Get out of your heads and into your hearts.
Our Father in heaven will remind you to do so the hard way, cause sometimes thats the only place to find answers."

I emphasized the pertinent part to what you said, which shows that you left us with nothing more to go on since you included nothing else in your post than the heart, and thus leaving out the mind. Get out of our mind? Being rational is part of what lends balance to the emotions.

So, I'm perfectly willing to hear what you have to say for clarification if you didn't mean what you said...and in what you didn't say.

Please. Let us know your thoughts.

MM
 
Hopefull said:
Agreed. Corruption started early on. They recieved written and oral instruction passed down from the apostles, which was my point. What they did was add to it the things that would benefit whoever was in charge at the time. The RCC became more of a political entity.And yet without it would christianity have survived the dark ages?
Click to expand...
Think that God always kept and preserved unto Himself a faithful remnant within even pagan and Apostate Rome!
 
YeshuaFan said:
Indeed, and also must factor in that their Main emphasis was on combating sacramental gracing and gospel of works, as rediscovered Pauline Justification again!
Just too bad those such as Calvin and Luther did not reform far enough!
Click to expand...
I watched a documentary on John Knox and I think he pushed the envelope more than Luther. He did conspire with Calvin. Bloody Mary kept him on the run.
 
YeshuaFan said:
All comes down to just how new was and is the new Covenant then? Brand new, as Baptists hold, or a continuation and fulfillment of old One, as remainder hold it as being?
Click to expand...

We might answer this by asking what Jesus said:

Luke 22:20 Likewise also the cup after supper, saying, This cup [is] the new testament in my blood, which is shed for you.

1 Corinthians 11:25 After the same manner also [he took] the cup, when he had supped, saying, This cup is the new testament in my blood: this do ye, as oft as ye drink [it], in remembrance of me.

Given that it was prophesied in the OT that He was going to be crucified (not in that terminology, but is discernable as we look back to the prophesies), His soon to come crucifixion was/is a fulfillment of the system of sacrifices, thus providing the atonement (price paid in full), which facilitated the OT saints being released from their captivity in Sheol, and all believers thereafter being in paradise with the Lord without going into captivity.

Was it new for that day, yes, but it was also a fulfillment. Was it new in that it does not put upon us the burden and curse of the Law, yes, but it also is the Power that removed mankind from under the burden and yoke of the Law.

This is the nature of the systematic approach, taking in the panorama of what scripture says on the subject.

Romans is an amazing book that shows to us that we are not under the curse of the Law any longer, with the power of that curse broken only by the shed blood of Christ Jesus; and yet there are movements out there teaching that we are still bound by requirements to do the best we can to live by the Law. That would fit the new covenant into the compartment of neither fulfillment nor being new. To them all that has changed is is the requirement for ceremonial Law in the sacrifices, with all else still a yoke upon us. To them, that was the lightening of the yoke they think Yahshua spoke of then saying that His yoke is light (less Law).

:confused:

Uhh. No. I don't buy that for a minute. Romans and Hebrews, among other of the epistles, are too emphatic, not to mention Acts 15. It all collectively establishes that the Law is still a living force in this creation, but not in the sense that it is binding upon the Church for obedience to all the precepts and ordinances apart from sacrifices. How is it a living force that is still valid today? Simply this:

Romans 5:13 For until the law sin was in the world: but sin is not imputed when there is no law.

Romans 7:7-8
7 What shall we say then? [Is] the law sin? God forbid. Nay, I had not known sin, but by the law: for I had not known lust, except the law had said, Thou shalt not covet. 8 But sin, taking occasion by the commandment, wrought in me all manner of concupiscence. For without the law sin [was] dead.

1 Corinthians 15:56 The sting of death [is] sin; and the strength of sin [is] the law.

James 2:9 But if ye have respect to persons, ye commit sin, and are convinced of the law as transgressors.

1 John 3:4 Whosoever committeth sin transgresseth also the law: for sin is the transgression of the law.

There are many other verses I could quote, but suffice it to say that the Law is the power of condemnation upon those who are without Christ. Without the Law, there would be no sin by which the lost would be condemned.

So, it cannot be said that the new covenant is totally new in that it has no ties to the old covenant of Law and the prophecies.

Jeremiah 31:33 But this [shall be] the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel; After those days, saith the LORD, I will put my law in their inward parts, and write it in their hearts; and will be their God, and they shall be my people.

Romans 2:15 Which shew the work of the law written in their hearts, their conscience also bearing witness, and [their] thoughts the mean while accusing or else excusing one another

So, given that the new covenant still has the Law within it, the tablets of stone are no longer where we look for guidance against sin. So, so, it is not totally new in the sense that it still has the undergirding of the foundations of the old covenant by way of the Law. That's an important distinction, and yet similarity.

MM
 
YeshuaFan said:
Th purpose of water baptism is NOT for the sinner to get saved by it, nor to now have the Holy Spirit, but as a sign and testimony to having been already saved!
Click to expand...

Then that begs the question: How can an infant voluntarily speak out about having been saved already? What about all those infants who had that sprinkling (not baptism, but sprinkling), and yet are still burning in Sheol to this very day as unsaved adults?

MM
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top