WOULD YOU LIKE TO JOIN A NEW TESTAMENT CHURCH?
- Thread starter marksman
- Start date
-
Welcome to Christian Forums, a Christian Forum that recognizes that all Christians are a work in progress.
You will need to register to be able to join in fellowship with Christians all over the world.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!
Marymog
Well-Known Member
- Mar 7, 2017
- 11,946
- 1,795
- 113
- Faith
- Christian
- Country
- United States
I agree. It is. ;)
And please do not use Scripture to call me a fool. Just tell me what you think in your own words.
Mary
Bobby Jo
Well-Known Member
So as I was heading up to the cabin (some 8,000 ft elev.) from the townsite (some 7,000 ft elev.) I stopped for groceries. And as I approached the dairy display a woman in her late 60's approached me and asked why I wasn't wearing a Face Mask, -- as though it were any of her business. So rather than insult her by suggesting that I already have a wife, and I don't need a concubine; or some other disrespectful "busy body" accusation; or offering her my deepest condolences to her (presumed) husband, -- I once bought lunch for the husband of a co-worker as an act of sympathy --; I simply began an extended explanation as to when and how I had already contracted the Wuhan Virus, what the symptoms were, how long it lasted, and when I finally went to my doctor it was before the Virus had even made headlines and that I hadn't been properly diagnosed so I wasn't included in the Statistics.
Of course that wasn't enough for this busy body. She asserted that my "anti-bodies" could save the lives of 8 or 9 people so I should immediately be tested and volunteer to provide my blood. -- To which I explained they could save the SICKNESS from 8 or 9 people, but not necessarily their lives.
In hindsight, I probably should have just expressed my condolences for her husband. Proverbs 21:9.
Bobby Jo
Last edited:
Brakelite
Well-Known Member
Concerning this baptism thing. When I read the following, I understand the verses as saying that baptism isn't so much a metaphor for cleansing, but rather death, in which case I would prefer to be buried than just sprinkled. I have been to Catholic funerals... Served as an altar boy at Requiem masses. The vast majority of dead folk were buried...I don't know if anyone who was left lying around on the surface and had dirt sprinkled over them and left for folk to trip over the following day.
The whole exercise depicted death and Resurrection. Sprinkling simply doesn't cut it .
The whole exercise depicted death and Resurrection. Sprinkling simply doesn't cut it .
Brakelite
Well-Known Member
Sorry, I meant to quote the following as part of the above post...
KJV Romans 6
3 Know ye not, that so many of us as were baptized into Jesus Christ were baptized into his death?
4 Therefore we are buried with him by baptism into death: that like as Christ was raised up from the dead by the glory of the Father, even so we also should walk in newness of life.
Brakelite
Well-Known Member
I can sympathize with Mary because sometimes it seems there's that many here.
Note in Acts 2 v 41 it says that those who gladly received his word (which means that some didn't) were baptized (fully wet) and that day about 3,000 souls were added to them.
v43....and many wonders and signs were done through the apostles
v46....and breaking bread from house to house, THEY ATE THEIR FOOD with gladness and simplicity of heart...
Now, I have to ask that if they started the church by baptizing the new converts by immersion, where does it say in scripture that they stopped doing this?
And if many signs and wonders were done by the apostles where does it say that signs and wonders are no longer needed and done.
And if the breaking of bread from house to house daily means the eucharist, then the Catholics have got it right. If it means they ate food daily from house to house as it says here, then everyone has got it wrong with communion.
I am of the opinion that as no instruction was given to sip wine and eat a cracker and it was standard practice in those days to eat meals together if someone visited you, saying it means a sip and a bit is drawing a very longbow.
I am of the opinion that as I have seen and read about signs and wonders happening today, then the idea that they are no longer needed is false and I am not referring to people like Benny Hinn, Kenneth Copeland, and Creflo Dollar.
And I am of the opinion that as nowhere in scripture does it say not to baptize a new convert by immersion, then that is what we should do.
And as Brakelite has said in Romans 6 that we are raised to a new life in baptism. So, no baptism no new life.
People say "I have not been baptised but I have new life." I say how do you know if you have not been baptised. You may think you have new life but in comparison to new life after baptism you have nothing like new life. You have an apology for new life.
If you think you can have new life without baptism you are in fact saying that the scripture does not apply to me or I will pick those scriptures that suit me which means I am not fully dedicated to the kingdom.
v43....and many wonders and signs were done through the apostles
v46....and breaking bread from house to house, THEY ATE THEIR FOOD with gladness and simplicity of heart...
Now, I have to ask that if they started the church by baptizing the new converts by immersion, where does it say in scripture that they stopped doing this?
And if many signs and wonders were done by the apostles where does it say that signs and wonders are no longer needed and done.
And if the breaking of bread from house to house daily means the eucharist, then the Catholics have got it right. If it means they ate food daily from house to house as it says here, then everyone has got it wrong with communion.
I am of the opinion that as no instruction was given to sip wine and eat a cracker and it was standard practice in those days to eat meals together if someone visited you, saying it means a sip and a bit is drawing a very longbow.
I am of the opinion that as I have seen and read about signs and wonders happening today, then the idea that they are no longer needed is false and I am not referring to people like Benny Hinn, Kenneth Copeland, and Creflo Dollar.
And I am of the opinion that as nowhere in scripture does it say not to baptize a new convert by immersion, then that is what we should do.
And as Brakelite has said in Romans 6 that we are raised to a new life in baptism. So, no baptism no new life.
People say "I have not been baptised but I have new life." I say how do you know if you have not been baptised. You may think you have new life but in comparison to new life after baptism you have nothing like new life. You have an apology for new life.
If you think you can have new life without baptism you are in fact saying that the scripture does not apply to me or I will pick those scriptures that suit me which means I am not fully dedicated to the kingdom.
Last edited:
Marymog
Well-Known Member
- Mar 7, 2017
- 11,946
- 1,795
- 113
- Faith
- Christian
- Country
- United States
I would like to get back to the point at hand. Please stop using hurtful language!
Marymog
Well-Known Member
- Mar 7, 2017
- 11,946
- 1,795
- 113
- Faith
- Christian
- Country
- United States
They all adhere to the same doctrine so, in effect, they should repeat the same thing that all of us Catholics on this thread say.
Unlike the members of your Protestant revolution who can not agree on anything.
The question becomes: What denomination available to us today is the closest to the following?...
The Five-Fold Ministry
Ephesians Chapter 4 (KJV)
11 And he gave some, apostles; and some, prophets; and some, evangelists; and some, pastors and teachers;
12 For the perfecting of the saints, for the work of the ministry, for the edifying of the body of Christ:
The Fruit of the Spirit
Galatians Chapter 5 (KJV)
22 But the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, longsuffering, gentleness, goodness, faith,
23 Meekness, temperance: against such there is no law.
The Gifts of the Spirit
1 Corinthians Chapter 12 (KJV)
4 Now there are diversities of gifts, but the same Spirit.
8 For to one is given by the Spirit the word of wisdom; to another the word of knowledge by the same Spirit;
9 To another faith by the same Spirit; to another the gifts of healing by the same Spirit;
10 To another the working of miracles; to another prophecy; to another discerning of spirits; to another divers kinds of tongues; to another the interpretation of tongues:
1 Corinthians 12:28 (KJV)
And God hath set some in the church, first apostles, secondarily prophets, thirdly teachers, after that miracles, then gifts of healings, helps, governments, diversities of tongues.
We see that God is the One who placed the above in His Church. And we're even told why He did. However, not everyone believes that. But, I've never met anyone who doesn't believe it who can provide Scripture(s) for when, where OR why God removes any of it from His Church.
God bless!
Marymog
Well-Known Member
- Mar 7, 2017
- 11,946
- 1,795
- 113
- Faith
- Christian
- Country
- United States
Oh boy...Looks like @BreadOfLife has gotten under someone’s skin
Getting back to the title of the thread...A NT Church promotes the men among them to elder by laying hands upon them. Those men are then to “watch their life and doctrine closely”. Those elders are to be called when someone is sick to anoint them with oil.
Does your Church practice that?
They should all say the same thing but they don't as I have told Catholics what I have been told by Catholics and they said they were wrong.
We believe that Jesus is the Son of God.
We believe that Jesus Christ is Lord.
We believe that Jesus died on Calvary.
We believe that there is no other name whereby we can be saved.
We believe in the power of God.
We believe that Jesus rose from the dead.
We believe that Jesus walked on the earth.
We believe that Jesus ascended into heaven.
We believe that he sits on the right hand of God.
We believe that Jesus is the Word.
We believe that he has the power to save and heal.
We believe that we are born again to everlasting life.
Now, after breakfast, we believe..... so what was it you were saying?
Last edited:
I get the feeling that the Acts was written to give us examples of what God was doing in raising up the church and how he did it.
Consider the event in chapter three. A man who had sat at the temple gate because he was born lame, begging for money. As Peter and John walked by him he was hopeful of getting some money. But Peter had other ideas and I ask myself, why did he take the course that he did. He could have given the man a few shekels and walked on, but he didn't. I don't think that for one moment he was hoping that the man might be healed. When he said "In the name of Jesus Christ of Nazareth, rise up and walk," that is just what he expected him to do.
And why was that? I believe that he had seen the miracle that beat all miracles and that was the risen Christ. You can't get a more dramatic miracle than that and it would have sunk into his being and in one sense made him invincible. If God could raise Jesus from the dead, then to get a man to walk was small fry.
You will note that the first thing he did was to go into the temple. Why did he do this? Because as a lame man he was not allowed to go into the temple. All he could do was sit at the gate of the Temple. So he went into the Temple and made it quite clear who was behind his healing because he was walking, leaping, and praising GOD.
Whilst the priests were more worried about tithing from the salt on the table, a cripple was being healed. What you might say God putting things into perspective.
So I see this event as being an example of what was normal in the NTC, not something that happened once in a blue moon. God took the opportunity to show his power to the people and show that there was nothing unusual about it all.
So what is the lesson here? For me, it is that the God who raised Jesus from the dead all those years ago is the same God that we serve, and he is as willing today to prove his power in the lives of those who have their doubts about who he is and what he can do.
Consider the event in chapter three. A man who had sat at the temple gate because he was born lame, begging for money. As Peter and John walked by him he was hopeful of getting some money. But Peter had other ideas and I ask myself, why did he take the course that he did. He could have given the man a few shekels and walked on, but he didn't. I don't think that for one moment he was hoping that the man might be healed. When he said "In the name of Jesus Christ of Nazareth, rise up and walk," that is just what he expected him to do.
And why was that? I believe that he had seen the miracle that beat all miracles and that was the risen Christ. You can't get a more dramatic miracle than that and it would have sunk into his being and in one sense made him invincible. If God could raise Jesus from the dead, then to get a man to walk was small fry.
You will note that the first thing he did was to go into the temple. Why did he do this? Because as a lame man he was not allowed to go into the temple. All he could do was sit at the gate of the Temple. So he went into the Temple and made it quite clear who was behind his healing because he was walking, leaping, and praising GOD.
Whilst the priests were more worried about tithing from the salt on the table, a cripple was being healed. What you might say God putting things into perspective.
So I see this event as being an example of what was normal in the NTC, not something that happened once in a blue moon. God took the opportunity to show his power to the people and show that there was nothing unusual about it all.
So what is the lesson here? For me, it is that the God who raised Jesus from the dead all those years ago is the same God that we serve, and he is as willing today to prove his power in the lives of those who have their doubts about who he is and what he can do.
Jesus' book of Acts Church is in existence, today. However, it is separated from the broad way, wide road, “church world” by its core doctrine.
The broad way, wide road, churches all have one thing in common. Their common denominator is this: They ALL embrace the 3rd-4th Century “theory” of a plurality of separate and distinct persons being required to make up the One God of ..
Deuteronomy 6:4 (KJV)
Hear, O Israel: The LORD our God [is] one LORD:
Whereas, the obscure, more often than not despised Church of the “strait” and narrow way, strictly adheres to its First Century Foundation, and stays true to its VERBATIM teaching and preaching, as found in the History Book of the “original” (First Century) Church .. the Book of Acts.
There are “other” churches that do NOT have the plurality of persons as its core doctrine. However, neither do they embrace the Apostles One God Monotheistic Doctrine, either.
The real test is to check the core doctrine of a church, first. Then those that do not embrace the plurality of persons “theory”, see if they embrace the Apostles One God Monotheistic Doctrine.
God bless!
Bobby Jo
Well-Known Member
SERIOUSLY?!?
It means you don't have to send posts to each person individually. All you have to do is put @person1, @person2, @person3, -- and send a MASS DISTRIBUTION with one Post.
New to technology are we?
Bobby Jo
