# Southern Baptist question



## Flash (Oct 15, 2021)

Posted this here because just asking what this means not if one agrees with the doctine etc..

Saw this posted on GAB, what are they talking about???  

It is painful watching what’s happening to the Southern Baptist Convention. The resignations happening right now are major. There is no recovery from this without the intervention of God. The largest Protestant denomination in the United States is going to the vultures and the leaders of it are crying “Peace! Peace!”When there is no peace. Any interpretation other than the fact that this is the result of cowardice, compromise, and the rightful judgment of God upon a denomination that had the chance to self correct multiple times within the past three years, is out of touch with reality.


----------



## gawildlife (Oct 16, 2021)

My denomination is dying and the faults lies in the local congregation failing in its duty to the Lord.
Some will say its the fault of leadership. Some will say the convention has gone woke.
I say it's the failure to exercise congregational autonomy in accepting our responsibility to lead our own churches and associations.
Gone are the days when the two moving forces were the board of deacons and the WMU.
We have lost our salt.


----------



## HortDawg (Oct 16, 2021)

I heard it was fallout from a scandal.  The higher ups knew what was going on and “overlooked it”. Something similar to the Catholic Church priest situation. The denomination with a problem with wokeness now is Methodist.


----------



## gma1320 (Oct 16, 2021)

All the  problems with the church,  the government and the world around us start with the home. You have to have a Godly home with Godly men leading the home and the family in order for it to spill out into the world. The poor leadership from the home trickles out to every facet of society.


----------



## treemanjohn (Oct 16, 2021)

Every ideology is at war right now. God bless us all


----------



## Flash (Oct 16, 2021)

If anyone has a story linky, feel free to PM it to me.


----------



## gawildlife (Oct 16, 2021)

HortDawg said:


> I heard it was fallout from a scandal.  The higher ups knew what was going on and “overlooked it”. Something similar to the Catholic Church priest situation. The denomination with a problem with wokeness now is Methodist.



Not a scandal as much of a forced upon us problem and forced error.

The denomination unfortunately like so many others is populated with sinners. Most are repentant and seeking God's righteousness. But like others we have some that still choose to practice sexual sin and have hurt others. This has never been condoned, period.
Now for the forced upon us. You can find these sins in any organized group where fallen man gathers and some folks came looking with an axe to grind.
And for the forced error. Due to the conventions make up of locally autonomous congregations the convention does not and cannot exercise any sort of hierarchical control over or within the denomination. Individual acts of sin are handled at the local level within the affected congregation. Due to this identification and prosecution of offenders varies and in many cases unfortunately discretion and shame has allowed offenders to not only go unpunished and publicly known and shunned but to remain eligible for movement within the denomination from congregation to congregation in positions of leadership.
Some have opined that this amounts to a cover up and conspiracy by some within the convention and in some local individual cases there may have been some effort to not publicly air sins within the church but nothing at the convention level in an orchestrated manner.
The convention when confronted by those wishing to make this an issue for their own gain reacted badly and allowed the media to set the narrative.


----------



## gawildlife (Oct 16, 2021)

gma1320 said:


> All the  problems with the church,  the government and the world around us start with the home. You have to have a Godly home with Godly men leading the home and the family in order for it to spill out into the world. The poor leadership from the home trickles out to every facet of society.



Exactly my point in the local congregation. It all begins at home. We failed to lead within our local church home.


----------



## naildrvr (Oct 16, 2021)

gma1320 said:


> All the  problems with the church,  the government and the world around us start with the home. You have to have a Godly home with Godly men leading the home and the family in order for it to spill out into the world. The poor leadership from the home trickles out to every facet of society.


I believe this to be 100% correct! I have never been one to debate anything about religion or politics. I am a firm believer that following religion as well as politics can take you down a path of destruction. The adversary will take the path of least resistance. I believe that if he can't get to the head of the household (husband) then he will try his best to attack the second in charge (wife), and if that doesn't work then he will attack the children through music, videos, cartoons, etc which leads to allowing him to come into your home. That's when people begin living split lifestyles. They put on a facade in public and at church and around the people who believe them to be followers of God. And then, when they think no one is looking, they can be found drunken and cursing and wrapped up in sexual sin as well as all other kinds of sin. The best thing that we can do is keep our own lives on the straight and narrow and pray for those who are straying and for the non-believers. Everyone should have an accountability partner, so many times people become so buddy-buddy that the smallest things get swept under the rug which will eventually leads to bigger things which goes right back to allowing the adversary to take control of your life. PEOPLE AREN'T BEING HELD ACCOUNTABLE FOR THEIR ACTIONS!

I'm going back to the deer hunting forum  now ?


----------



## gma1320 (Oct 16, 2021)

naildrvr said:


> I believe this to be 100% correct! I have never been one to debate anything about religion or politics. I am a firm believer that following religion as well as politics can take you down a path of destruction. The adversary will take the path of least resistance. I believe that if he can't get to the head of the household (husband) then he will try his best to attack the second in charge (wife), and if that doesn't work then he will attack the children through music, videos, cartoons, etc which leads to allowing him to come into your home. That's when people begin living split lifestyles. They put on a facade in public and at church and around the people who believe them to be followers of God. And then, when they think no one is looking, they can be found drunken and cursing and wrapped up in sexual sin as well as all other kinds of sin. The best thing that we can do is keep our own lives on the straight and narrow and pray for those who are straying and for the non-believers. Everyone should have an accountability partner, so many times people become so buddy-buddy that the smallest things get swept under the rug which will eventually leads to bigger things which goes right back to allowing the adversary to take control of your life. PEOPLE AREN'T BEING HELD ACCOUNTABLE FOR THEIR ACTIONS!
> 
> I'm going back to the deer hunting forum  now ?


Yes sir


----------



## gawildlife (Oct 16, 2021)

naildrvr said:


> I believe this to be 100% correct! I have never been one to debate anything about religion or politics. I am a firm believer that following religion as well as politics can take you down a path of destruction. The adversary will take the path of least resistance. I believe that if he can't get to the head of the household (husband) then he will try his best to attack the second in charge (wife), and if that doesn't work then he will attack the children through music, videos, cartoons, etc which leads to allowing him to come into your home. That's when people begin living split lifestyles. They put on a facade in public and at church and around the people who believe them to be followers of God. And then, when they think no one is looking, they can be found drunken and cursing and wrapped up in sexual sin as well as all other kinds of sin. The best thing that we can do is keep our own lives on the straight and narrow and pray for those who are straying and for the non-believers. Everyone should have an accountability partner, so many times people become so buddy-buddy that the smallest things get swept under the rug which will eventually leads to bigger things which goes right back to allowing the adversary to take control of your life. PEOPLE AREN'T BEING HELD ACCOUNTABLE FOR THEIR ACTIONS!
> 
> I'm going back to the deer hunting forum  now ?



Yup, we lost church discipline. I remember a time when certain behaviors meant shunning by the church and by extension the community.


----------



## Flash (Oct 16, 2021)

gawildlife said:


> Not a scandal as much of a forced upon us problem and forced error.
> 
> The denomination unfortunately like so many others is populated with sinners. Most are repentant and seeking God's righteousness. But like others we have some that still choose to practice sexual sin and have hurt others. This has never been condoned, period.
> Now for the forced upon us. You can find these sins in any organized group where fallen man gathers and some folks came looking with an axe to grind.
> ...


  Could you PM me some cliff notes, not asking you to name names, churches or anything.  Thanks


----------



## gawildlife (Oct 17, 2021)

It's all been in the news over the last few years.


----------



## Flash (Oct 18, 2021)

gawildlife said:


> It's all been in the news over the last few years.


Don't watch much TV


----------



## gawildlife (Oct 18, 2021)

Nor do I, save for what I choose to watch on YouTube. 
I do pull up news on the web.


----------



## furtaker (Oct 18, 2021)

Personally, I think that denominations or conventions or whatever you want to call them, such as the Southern Baptist Convention, the United Methodists, the International Pentecostal Holiness Church, etc, etc, that oversee individual churches are unscriptural.

I've never seen any indication in Scripture that churches are supposed to be governed by some hierarchy of people like that and it's nothing but an invitation for all kinds of corruption. The churches in the Bible times were independent groups of people governed by the pastor, deacons, and people, not some convention group with offices 500 miles away who told them what to do.


----------



## NE GA Pappy (Oct 18, 2021)

furtaker said:


> Personally, I think that denominations or conventions or whatever you want to call them, such as the Southern Baptist Convention, the United Methodists, the International Pentecostal Holiness Church, etc, etc, that oversee individual churches are unscriptural.
> 
> I've never seen any indication in Scripture that churches are supposed to be governed by some hierarchy of people like that and it's nothing but an invitation for all kinds of corruption. The churches in the Bible times were independent groups of people governed by the pastor, deacons, and people, not some convention group with offices 500 miles away who told them what to do.



then, could you please explain Acts 15:23 and following?


----------



## gawildlife (Oct 18, 2021)

Southern Baptist are not controlled by the Convention. Each local church is completely autonomous choosing to associate themselves with an association and convention. We do not have a hierarchy per se but a cooperative convention.

It actually goes way back to the split between the missionary and primitive aka hard shell baptists and the Bible tract societies. The tract societies were third party independent groups that printed bibles, tracts, hymnal, etc much like the Gideon of today. They often worked through local churches to distribute material or to support missionary work.
Fast forward to discussion of churches associating themselves to work cooperatively to have their own tract society and to mutually support missionaries.
Ultimately this lead to a split, many times an acrimonious split, between the missionary and the primitives that feared an editorial slant in shared literature such as Sunday Schools and adamantly felt that scriptural instruction was best done in the home or at the local level.
The Southern Baptist Convention is the missionary baptists. Or more correctly the later split of the missionary baptists when northern messengers to the Augusta Convention refused to support southern missionaries who were slave owners.


----------



## gawildlife (Oct 18, 2021)

furtaker said:


> Personally, I think that denominations or conventions or whatever you want to call them, such as the Southern Baptist Convention, the United Methodists, the International Pentecostal Holiness Church, etc, etc, that oversee individual churches are unscriptural.
> 
> I've never seen any indication in Scripture that churches are supposed to be governed by some hierarchy of people like that and it's nothing but an invitation for all kinds of corruption. The churches in the Bible times were independent groups of people governed by the pastor, deacons, and people, not some convention group with offices 500 miles away who told them what to do.



You must have completely glossed over the book of Acts where Paul after he met the risen Savior on the road to Damascus and initial instruction by Ananias returned to Jerusalem and placed what he had been taught before James and the disciples. Or further as Paul sends epistles to churches all over asia minor with instructions and corrections.
Maybe you meant a worldly hierarchy but each local church and pastor must submit to others the same as the individual follower for instruction and correction that they stay true to the gospel. As the word says iron sharpens iron. Or to use my pastor's term accountability partners.


----------



## gma1320 (Oct 19, 2021)

furtaker said:


> Personally, I think that denominations or conventions or whatever you want to call them, such as the Southern Baptist Convention, the United Methodists, the International Pentecostal Holiness Church, etc, etc, that oversee individual churches are unscriptural.
> 
> I've never seen any indication in Scripture that churches are supposed to be governed by some hierarchy of people like that and it's nothing but an invitation for all kinds of corruption. The churches in the Bible times were independent groups of people governed by the pastor, deacons, and people, not some convention group with offices 500 miles away who told them what to do.


I can't say that it is unscriptural, but what I can say is that many denominations cause division. As well as some denominations are just flat out false prophets.  We are to live out the full gospel as is instructed in the Word of God.


----------



## furtaker (Oct 19, 2021)

NE GA Pappy said:


> then, could you please explain Acts 15:23 and following?


If you see anything that resembles an organization like the SBC or UMC in Acts 15, then you see something in the passage that I certainly don't see.


----------



## furtaker (Oct 19, 2021)

gawildlife said:


> You must have completely glossed over the book of Acts where Paul after he met the risen Savior on the road to Damascus and initial instruction by Ananias returned to Jerusalem and placed what he had been taught before James and the disciples. Or further as Paul sends epistles to churches all over asia minor with instructions and corrections.
> Maybe you meant a worldly hierarchy but each local church and pastor must submit to others the same as the individual follower for instruction and correction that they stay true to the gospel. As the word says iron sharpens iron. Or to use my pastor's term accountability partners.


I don't see any similarity between the Southern Baptist Convention and the Apostle Paul sending instructions and corrections to believers. And I certainly don't put the leader of the SBC, the UMC, or some other organization in the same class as the Apostle Paul who wrote half of the New Testament.


----------



## NE GA Pappy (Oct 19, 2021)

furtaker said:


> The churches in the Bible times were independent groups of people governed by the pastor, deacons, and people, not some convention group with offices 500 miles away who told them what to do.



they were held accountable by the leaders of the church.  At first it was Peter, Barnabas and others. That is why Acts 15 records them asking of the leadership, and the leadership responding as to how a situation should be handled.  Even Paul went back to Jerusalem to ask about traveling to minister.

I agree there wasn't a formal convention, but there was a leadership oversight of those churches, and Syria is a good distance out from Jerusalem.

Rome is even farther


----------



## gawildlife (Oct 19, 2021)

furtaker said:


> And I certainly don't put the leader of the SBC, the UMC, or some other organization in the same class as the Apostle Paul who wrote half of the New Testament.



Nor do I, but the scripture is pretty clear in submitting to the teaching of those God places in leadership.


----------



## formula1 (Oct 21, 2021)

At the risk of being a simpleton, if one loves Jesus and follows Him and lives for Him, taking time to acquaint themselves with His word and learn of Him and walk with Him, the problem is solved.  Jesus is lifted up and lives are changed for Him.

So the problem, if we have one, is actually in each mirror!


----------



## gordon 2 (Oct 21, 2021)

formula1 said:


> At the risk of being a simpleton, if one loves Jesus and follows Him and lives for Him, taking time to acquaint themselves with His word and learn of Him and walk with Him, the problem is solved.  Jesus is lifted up and lives are changed for Him.
> 
> So the problem, if we have one, is actually in each mirror!



I think that I read or understood in scripture that a few who lived for God through  the word could not recognize Jesus as anything but a fraud.

They loved God, perhaps for what God did for them. But how could they love God for who he simply was as they did not know I Am That I Am other than what their commentators interpreted by their research. 

Simply they were the elect and the heavy lifters regards God. They had mirrors and these simply reflected back what they were.

Perhaps it is a problem today still and so the problem if there is one and it is not solved necessarily.

While it is true that those who love God, God knows them. Some who say it ( declare it) however might not be known at all. Not being embraced by God's love and using the bible as a road map might be possible today. And it might be a problem in the assessments of good and evil in general when faith is the solid ground of believers.


----------



## Artfuldodger (Oct 21, 2021)

Is there an organization today that can be defined as being the role that Paul, Silas, and Timothy played in the Church's leadership?


----------



## formula1 (Oct 21, 2021)

Many ways to describe this but if we are not known by God and yet we declare so, even scripture and the Holy Spirit gives the wisdom to discern it.

Some scripture examples:
Matthew 7:15-20
Galatians 5:22-23
John 13:35
John 14:23
Romans 12:10
1 John 2:10

….and so on!


----------



## The Original Rooster (Oct 21, 2021)

All I know is that if I witnessed or became aware of a sexual assault at a church of ANY denomination, there's nothing anyone could do to stop me from reporting it to the police.
If these church's had just done that in the first place, they could have avoided this. Yes, it would be an embarrassment to the church at the time, but it would be a lot less than the damage of covering it up.


----------



## Wifeshusband (Oct 21, 2021)

I am still a Southern Baptist. As stated above, the local congregations are autonomous, which is somewhat of a saving grace for us. Look at what is happening to the Methodists right now, being literally torn asunder, as they have been trying to split for the last several years because of rampant liberalism in the Methodist hierarchy.  The Methodist have sued their biggest church in Georgia in Cobb County, Mt. Bethel, because they had a conservative pastor, i.e., one who was preaching the gospel. He refused to step down and the church shunned the newly appointed pastor. Whoever heard of a denomination suing itself. It's getting nasty.

What gripes me is the SBC and the SBC Baptist Churches planting new churches and then the new church removes "Baptist" from their name, as if they are ashamed.  They get the money and help from the SBC and SBC churches but then turn their back on the heritage. I have a son who is always complaining about the corruption and faults of capitalism.  I said, look , it has it's faults, but show me something that is working better for other countries around the world.


----------



## Throwback (Oct 21, 2021)

Flash said:


> If anyone has a story linky, feel free to PM it to me.


Google “southern Baptist convention drama”


----------



## Flash (Oct 21, 2021)

Throwback said:


> Google “southern Baptist convention drama”


Is this it???  Found a story dated today, where one is bringing a lawsuit against another (man) 
Didn't see anything "juicy"    Pretty sure I heard the one doing the suing preach 12 or so yrs ago.


----------



## Madman (Oct 22, 2021)

NE GA Pappy said:


> they were held accountable by the leaders of the church.  At first it was Peter, Barnabas and others. That is why Acts 15 records them asking of the leadership, and the leadership responding as to how a situation should be handled.  Even Paul went back to Jerusalem to ask about traveling to minister.
> 
> I agree there wasn't a formal convention, but there was a leadership oversight of those churches, and Syria is a good distance out from Jerusalem.
> 
> Rome is even farther



It is apparent Christ set up a Church and put men in charge of it from Acts.  Those men met and sent out decrees to the other churches.  It has been discussed before but if someone is interested lets take this discussion to another topic.

I will say, this very topic is why there needs to be one Church as Christ originally designed.


----------



## hummerpoo (Oct 23, 2021)

Israel said:


> There is one church as there is one Lord and Savior, Jesus Christ.
> Let the members recognize one another.


Amen!!!

Failure in that recognition in the F & M 2000 sent me looking elsewhere.


----------



## j_seph (Oct 26, 2021)

Simplest solution is to put God back in church and in control of it not man. We will have different folks have different ideas of how something should be done or what should be done. It is never "Go ahead and do it", it is as a church lets pray about it and let the Lord lead it. This is what I mean by putting God back in control not man. Thankful to be considered independent Baptist but in the end all that matters is that you know Jesus as your personal Savior.


----------



## Madman (Oct 26, 2021)

Artfuldodger said:


> Is there an organization today that can be defined as being the role that Paul, Silas, and Timothy played in the Church's leadership?


Whether they accurately display the role or not, those in true Apostolic succession are supposed to be those men.


----------



## Madman (Oct 26, 2021)

Israel said:


> There is one church as there is one Lord and Savior, Jesus Christ.
> Let the members recognize one another.


and are they all of one mind as Christ prayed?


----------



## Madman (Oct 27, 2021)

Israel said:


> That's a great question over which I have sought understanding; at least in terms of that (and my particular) recognition mentioned. That one body of Christ (as Christ is One) of which each individual believer is a member. The question is reduced for me to "how does it/she appear?" vs "how does it/she appear to me?"



That was quite an extended answer.  If we stick with the opening for now, I believe the question of "are we all of one mind" will be easier to answer.

Historically and Biblically, any properly baptized person is a member of "The Church".

For the sacrament of baptism to be valid there must be three things present;

1) It must be done with the correct intention, that it is being done to do what it was Biblically intended to do.
2) It must be done with the correct matter, water Per the Bible.
3) It must be done with the correct form, "in the name of the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit" Per the Bible.

Age does not matter, sex does not matter, nor does race matter, the later condition of the person's soul and relationship to God does not matter, and as long as the sacrament is done as above it may be administered by anyone.

I believe the above is enough to start a conversation as to whether we are all of one mind.


----------



## Madman (Oct 27, 2021)

Israel said:


> Response in this recognition...and to this recognition, affects in ways barely understood but profoundly addressed as in:
> 
> Wherefore whosoever shall eat this bread, and drink _this_ cup of the Lord, unworthily, shall be guilty of the body and blood of the Lord. But let a man examine himself, and so let him eat of _that_ bread, and drink of _that_ cup. For he that eateth and drinketh unworthily, eateth and drinketh ****ation to himself, not discerning the Lord's body.
> 
> ...



And to that very end I say we are no longer of one mind.  While all the baptized are members of the church we are not of one mind. Much as members of family are not not of one one mind.  We are related and bound by blood, my family is paternally bound by blood, members of the church are bound by the blood of our Lord Jesus Christ.  However we are deeply divided, sometimes to the point of casting stones at brothers and sisters.

A large division is in our belief of the sacraments, what they are and what they do.  Holy Eucharist is a prime example, the majority of the Church believes, for Biblical and historical reasons, that it is the true body and blood of Christ that has been given for us as real food which sustains us in this desert just as manna sustained the Israelites in the desert. And as you said, if not discerned properly, some become sick and some have even fallen asleep.

If it were nothing more than bread and juice, there is no way it could have that affect.

My prayer is that we can once again become of mind, that the completeness of the sacraments can once again be properly enjoyed by the saints, that with one voice the Church can say Amen to saving grace of Savior and God.


----------



## Madman (Oct 27, 2021)

Israel said:


> That's interesting because I thought it far too brief in taking in both matters of one church (of necessity)...and being of one mind.
> 
> But as to your response (above) I find no grounds for disagreement.
> 
> ...


Do not misunderstand, it was a thoughtful and spot on observation you made.  

My prayer is that the chasm is not so deep that the prayer of our Lord cannot repair it.  I pray I live to see what it looks like.


----------



## Madman (Oct 27, 2021)

Madman said:


> Do not misunderstand, it was a thoughtful and spot on observation you made.
> 
> My prayer is that the chasm is not so deep that the prayer of our Lord cannot repair it.  I pray I live to see what it looks like.


I apologize, I missed the question of “correct intention”.
The correct intention is to do what the Church does and what the Sacrament is meant to do. 

As Holy Scripture says “baptism saves you”, and in so doing incorporates one into the body of Christ and therefore into Christ.  The receiver of baptism is marked by the Holy Spirit.


----------



## Israel (Oct 28, 2021)

Madman said:


> I apologize, I missed the question of “correct intention”.
> The correct intention is to do what the Church does and what the Sacrament is meant to do.
> 
> As Holy Scripture says “baptism saves you”, and in so doing incorporates one into the body of Christ and therefore into Christ.  The receiver of baptism is marked by the Holy Spirit.



Is it therefore that the minister of baptism recognizes the mark



> The receiver of baptism is marked by the Holy Spirit.



and ministers then according to this recognition and the receiver's submission?


----------



## Madman (Oct 28, 2021)

Israel said:


> Is it therefore that the minister of baptism recognizes the mark
> and ministers then according to this recognition and the receiver's submission?


 the minister preforms the sacrament with the intention of it providing what it is meant to to provide.
The recipient needs not submit nor agree to anything.


----------



## Madman (Oct 28, 2021)

Read a statistic years ago from the Billy Graham Crusade, it stated that some 80+ % of respondents to the alter calls had been baptized previously.


----------



## Israel (Oct 28, 2021)

Madman said:


> the minister preforms the sacrament with the intention of it providing what it is meant to to provide.
> The recipient needs not submit nor agree to anything.


Then it is not in recognition of the being "marked by the Holy Spirit"?

As in Peter's encounter with Cornelius' household?

Or Philip's questions/statement  to the Ethiopian eunuch?


----------



## Israel (Oct 28, 2021)

Madman said:


> Read a statistic years ago from the Billy Graham Crusade, it stated that some 80+ % of respondents to the alter calls had been baptized previously.



It would be interesting to know how that statistic was arrived at...


----------



## gordon 2 (Oct 28, 2021)

Y'all are debating on the interpretation of the word "marked".


God can act on anyone be they believers or not.
God can act on those who don't have eternal life or a shared life with God.
God can act on those who do have eternal life or a shared life with Him.

Perhaps "marked" is used here to indicate that with baptism one is known as having a shared life with God, and not by their own efforts, or any single minister's efforts, but through the ministry of the Church which recognizes definite attributes of the baptized. The baptized might be in a relationship that is of neglect, but the relationship is inherent nevertheless.

To say that someone "marked" is "saved" is a whole other can of worms of the OSAS debates. Which is not my idea of fun, fun, fun.  I'm getting side tracked now... so I'l stop.

I will add this:

Once upon a time when I was physically able to teach and therefore teaching within the Church... I was preparing kids for Confirmation. ( We were doing it with much bible study I might add.)

  It so happened that one boy indicated to someone that he was getting a lot of teasing or getting harassed by his older brother who was telling him that, " All this God-Church stuff is fake and just stories and that there was no God. It and Jesus was just an other fictitious- magic story written by people.

The priest mentioned it to me and ask me if I knew for certain if the older brother had been baptized. It seemed important for the pastor to know this before he proceeded or intervened either directly or with parents.

I can only assume that the intervention would not be the same for one baptized and one not baptized.

My instinct tells me that the phycology of each would be very different or the dynamics of their deny of God might be motivated from very different causes. Rebellion vs mistrust is not the same.  Add church rebellion to the rebellious yrs of your youth and you got yourself  a rebel. This rebel has somethings to rebel about. On the other hand, to the worldly minds and hearts it would be easy to paint a blanket over God belief that it was possibly worse than the corruptions of the ordinary world due to the hypocrisy and double mindedness as demonstrable fact within the established groupings of God believers.


----------



## Israel (Oct 28, 2021)

I didn't know we were debating.


----------



## Israel (Oct 28, 2021)

Peter recognized that the Holy Spirit had come upon the hearers in the Cornelius account...whether there was further entreaty "for water" by them we do not know...only that Peter had arrived _already knowing_ God was at work there.

Yet, he did not assay as first matter...to baptize.

And dare we assume there was no resistance by them to being baptized in water as Peter then so ordered?

Without falling into a rigorous formula, with the exception of mention of those "being baptized for the dead" (which bears no endorsement nor rebuke...only mention) do any find a reference where the one being baptized is without either knowledge of it, assent to it, or desire for it?

Or in terms already expressed...unless I misunderstand...the estate of the one being baptized is at best secondary if not totally immaterial to the intent of the one baptizing.


----------



## gordon 2 (Oct 28, 2021)

Israel said:


> I didn't know we were debating.


----------



## NE GA Pappy (Oct 28, 2021)

Madman said:


> the minister preforms the sacrament with the intention of it providing what it is meant to to provide.
> The recipient needs not submit nor agree to anything.



are you saying that an infant can be baptized and be, at that point and forever more, a redeemed soul?  or that if you held down a 3 time murderer against his will, and baptized him, he would be saved?


----------



## gordon 2 (Oct 28, 2021)

Israel said:


> Peter recognized that the Holy Spirit had come upon the hearers in the Cornelius account...whether there was further entreaty "for water" by them we do not know...only that Peter had arrived _already knowing_ God was at work there.
> 
> Yet, he did not assay as first matter...to baptize.
> 
> ...




I don't know enough bible to add to much of your post questions, except that Paul was knocked off his high horse before he was baptized. I'm thinking that baptism is secondary to my parents being Christian, and  I know the material of my baptism is foremost in the scheme, that is my parents being Christian is secondary to my baptism regards the estate.


 I go to God's promise of His heart in people. How does He do this or at what point does this happen in general? Is it sudden? Is it a lengthy process with steps to boot? Does it depend on the wishes of the receiver? Is the new heart ready for the road as soon as one acquires it? Does the new person need help to walk before they can run? Do they need help of a authority in the temporal in which they exist? If so how does this occur usually?


----------



## Madman (Oct 28, 2021)

NE GA Pappy said:


> are you saying that an infant can be baptized and be, at that point and forever more, a redeemed soul?  or that if you held down a 3 time murderer against his will, and baptized him, he would be saved?


No I am not.  An infant is no more "once saved, always saved" than anyone else.  No one can be properly baptized against their adult will.


----------



## gordon 2 (Oct 28, 2021)

NE GA Pappy said:


> are you saying that an infant can be baptized and be, at that point and forever more, a redeemed soul?  or that if you held down a 3 time murderer against his will, and baptized him, he would be saved?




On the murderer being baptized against his will. When they are held down with chemical restraints against their wills it might be a good Hail Mary try. 

But then Who's  gona be there with help when the restraints come off and the're back on the street or prison with a 50-50 chance of reoffending?

King David was basically cold blooded when it came to an other man's wife. It is a good thing he had a lot of faith. What about those who's faith is weak?

I personally think that a infant that is baptized has the gift of a foundation on which a great life can be built. Some will be attracted by God's witness to them personally and/ or God's personal witness to others because of this foundation-- which foundation is the gift of God heart in believers...

It seems to me that Jesus had an assessment of degree for believers. The friend had an added commission compared to the servant only. The friend had a knowledge the servant did not.




4You are My friends if you do what I command you. 15No longer do I call you servants, for a servant does not understand what his master is doing. But I have called you friends, because everything I have learned from My Father I have made known to you. 16You did not choose Me, but I chose you. And I appointed you to go and bear fruit—fruit that will remain—so that whatever you ask the Father in My name, He will give you.…

This tread is getting serious  We are  now quoting scripture at the end of our posts. Woo! This means we are onto business.


----------



## gordon 2 (Oct 28, 2021)

Israel said:


> I realize the seeming paradox of, in one case, holding to the confession that God does as He wishes placing members in the body according to His sole intent (no assent needed nor agreement sought by the member) and the notion that a man, any man, in the church holds the same authority...apart from some recognition, provided only by the Spirit, and that such a one is agreeable to the confession of Jesus Christ as Lord. This even by declaration.
> 
> This position (of mine, presently) cannot annul any or all instruction that it is enough for the disciple to be as his Master...which taken to the extreme would seem to indicate "do all as God does"...which would include "then man is granted to choose who is, or will be, 'in the church'" as opposed to an agreement with God granted by the Spirit's recognition.
> 
> ...


 

Who is ordained and who is not?


----------



## Israel (Oct 28, 2021)

gordon 2 said:


> Who is ordained and who is not?



That's the question, ultimately...how does God's choosing appear?

"What went you out into the wilderness to see?"


----------



## Madman (Oct 28, 2021)

Israel said:


> I realize the seeming paradox of, in one case, holding to the confession that God does as He wishes placing members in the body according to His sole intent (no assent needed nor agreement sought by the member) and the notion that a man, any man, in the church holds the same authority...apart from some recognition, provided only by the Spirit, and that such a one is agreeable to the confession of Jesus Christ as Lord. This even by declaration.
> 
> This position (of mine, presently) cannot annul any or all instruction that it is enough for the disciple to be as his Master...which taken to the extreme would seem to indicate "do all as God does"...which would include "then man is granted to choose who is, or will be, 'in the church'" as opposed to an agreement with God granted by the Spirit's recognition.
> 
> ...


While baptism is necessary for salvation, that is on the part of the one being baptized.

Holy Scripture says that baptism is for the washing away of sins, therefore the baptized is sinless, immediately following the sacrament.  He very well walk out of the river and slap his wife, he would then need to go to confession to repair that.

We must understand that God does not need the sacraments, he provided them for us, so that our conscience is constantly turned toward him.

Does God need Holy Eucharist to sustain his children in this realm?  No more than the Israelites needed mana and quail in the wilderness, but he provides it that we may know where our strength/sustenance derive.


----------



## Madman (Oct 28, 2021)

gordon 2 said:


> Who is ordained and who is not?


and ordained for what purpose


----------



## NE GA Pappy (Oct 28, 2021)

Madman said:


> No I am not.  An infant is no more "once saved, always saved" than anyone else.  No one can be properly baptized against their adult will.



I am trying to reconcile this statement, with your previous statement of



Madman said:


> the minister preforms the sacrament with the intention of it providing what it is meant to to provide.
> The recipient needs not submit nor agree to anything.



aren't these opposing statements, or am I missing something here?


----------



## NE GA Pappy (Oct 28, 2021)

Madman said:


> While baptism is necessary for salvation, that is on the part of the one being baptized.



My belief system doesn't agree with this statement.  I see numerous times where scripture says to 'Repent and believe on the Lord Jesus and you shall be saved' with no requirement to be baptized.


----------



## Madman (Oct 28, 2021)

NE GA Pappy said:


> I am trying to reconcile this statement, with your previous statement of
> 
> 
> 
> aren't these opposing statements, or am I missing something here?


I suppose that is unclear, I specifically had infants in mind when that statement was made.  While the infant does not need to consent the parents or guardians need to do so.

I do need to revisit the prisoner scenario, I would assume that since God does not force himself on anyone then it would not be valid, however, more than baptism is needed for salvation.  Let me study that one.

I would add that baptism is regenerative.  As stated in the Bible, "21 And baptism, which this prefigured, now saves you—not as a removal of dirt from the body, but as an appeal to God for a good conscience, through the resurrection of Jesus Christ, "

Christians have always believed this as shown in the Nicene Creed. "We believe in one baptism for the remission of sins."


----------



## Madman (Oct 28, 2021)

NE GA Pappy said:


> My belief system doesn't agree with this statement.  I see numerous times where scripture says to 'Repent and believe on the Lord Jesus and you shall be saved' with no requirement to be baptized.


I understand, and we see that language in Acts 16:31 but in vs. 33 it says "immediately they were baptized".   With the eunuch and Cornelius we see the same manner of actions, there is preaching, then repentance, a belief in Jesus as Christ, and baptism.


----------



## Madman (Oct 28, 2021)

NE GA Pappy said:


> My belief system doesn't agree with this statement.  I see numerous times where scripture says to 'Repent and believe on the Lord Jesus and you shall be saved' with no requirement to be baptized.


What in your belief system would prevent baptism from being necessary?


----------



## gordon 2 (Oct 28, 2021)

To repent and believe on the Lord Jesus means simply to believe on the Lord Jesus. One repents from unbelief and then one can believe in God and His promises, blessings, nurture etc...


----------



## Madman (Oct 29, 2021)

? #69


----------



## Madman (Oct 29, 2021)

What about the passages that say repent and be baptized?


----------



## gordon 2 (Oct 29, 2021)

Response ( attempt at a response) to "How do these (and I am not saying they cannot) square with either this...


(The minister in the case of baptism can be any Christian by the way...depending on circumstance but it would be best to have one directed by all the Church.)

It squares off that :

_A:The prayer_ of a _righteous_ man availeth much, and so I will ad lib: The ministering of a righteous man or woman availeth mucho.

B:"Believe in the Lord Jesus, and you will be _saved_, you and your _household." In Christ what man, any, can I exclude from the shared spiritual household  which all mankind inhabits? If my sister is deaf and mute onto the lord, yet my father cleaves to Jesus, what ministering can I deny as her's, she being of my father's house?_

_C: The source of the Jordan into which John baptized is the Anti-Lebanon mountains. The source of the Baptism into  which you and I baptize is in the promise of his heart in us._

_D. Baptism provides as fact that one is come to repentance not by their own will but by the grace of God. _"I will give you a new heart and put a new spirit in you; I will remove from you your heart of stone and give you a heart of flesh."

_E. "there is one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus," and "  Jesus said, “Let the little children come to me, and do not hinder them, for the kingdom of heaven belongs to such as these.” _


_Repentance is it not a change of heart?_


----------



## Madman (Oct 29, 2021)

Israel said:


> infant baptism?


The church has always believed in baptizing infants, at least as early as the 2nd century we see writings.

We see in Col. 2:11+  “In him you were also circumcised with . . . the circumcision of Christ, having been buried with him in baptism and raised with him through your faith in the power of God, who raised him from the dead”

Circumcision was for infants as well as adults so it stands to reason that baptism should also.  1 peter 3:21 says that baptism now saves you.

The early church always baptized infants and regarded it as apostolic.  In the 3rd century there was a controversy about waiting 8 days after birth as in circumcision.

We could go into the endless writings of the saints regarding baptism and infant baptism, however, I have come to learn, unless Holy Scripture demands an action, such as baptizing an infant, many will not believe it was ever done nor that it is efficacious.  Perhaps that would fall under the traditions that the NT speaks of.


----------



## Madman (Oct 29, 2021)

Israel said:


> I don't know that for "many"
> 
> 
> 
> ...


As stated, the church has always baptized infants and it has been seen as apostolic.  This may fall under the traditions as spoken of in Holy Scripture.
We see entire households being baptized in Holy Scripture also.

Also as stated many refuse anything that is specifically acknowledged in HS when it fits their view of the way they have been taught by the local preacher, yet they still have alter calls, they still pass the offering plate, they still claim to believe in the Trinity, even though none is mentioned in HS.

I'm not here to change minds, simply put forth arguments.  I do know this, just as the Israelites were told to bring their infants into the family by circumcision, which would not save them, the church has always brought the children into the family by baptism, which does save them.


----------



## Madman (Oct 29, 2021)

Then of course we can always believe the men who read HS outside of the tradition passed down by the saints, and believe they know more than the hundreds if not thousands of titans of the faith, who did the heavy lifting, fought off heresies for centuries, gave their lives to preserve the faith, wrote volumes of books, met by the hundreds for months at a time, prayed and fasted, during the councils, etc., etc., etc..

As for me, I trust the Church that Jesus Christ formed and put men in charge of, the same Church that exists today, to spread the Gospel of Truth, and for the teaching and edification of the saints.


----------



## Israel (Oct 30, 2021)

Is one looking for a remnant? 


Or is a remnant what is left only seeking One?


----------



## gemcgrew (Oct 30, 2021)

gordon 2 said:


> One repents from unbelief and then one can believe in God and His promises, blessings, nurture etc...


I can't make this work in my thinking. Can anybody else?


----------



## Artfuldodger (Oct 30, 2021)

gemcgrew said:


> I can't make this work in my thinking. Can anybody else?


How can you believe in God until you repent from not believing in God?
It's still "all" from God and I think a lot of things happen at the same time instead of the progression that some people thinks happens.

Once ones eyes are opened by God, they feel His presence, repent and believe or "believe and repent."
Once you feel God's spirit, you are gonna believe and repent from non-belief in an instant.


----------



## Danuwoa (Oct 30, 2021)

HortDawg said:


> I heard it was fallout from a scandal.  The higher ups knew what was going on and “overlooked it”. Something similar to the Catholic Church priest situation. The denomination with a problem with wokeness now is Methodist.


You aren’t wrong about the Methodist church leadership.  But a couple things.  One, it depends on what Methodist church you go to.  I go to a small Methodist Church that is not the least bit woke.  Also, regardless of cause or need the Baptist church is getting born again to woke.  I was a Southern Baptist and we left because at the church we were going to all the preacher wanted to preach about was racism.  I’m not saying all Baptist churches are like that but they’ve got the same problem as the Methodists.


----------



## NCHillbilly (Oct 30, 2021)

Madman said:


> What in your belief system would prevent baptism from being necessary?


Who baptized the thief on the cross?


----------



## ky55 (Oct 30, 2021)

Danuwoa said:


> I was a Southern Baptist and we left because at the church we were going to all the preacher wanted to preach about was racism.



Guilty conscience maybe?

https://www.sbc.net/resource-librar...niversary-of-the-southern-baptist-convention/


----------



## Danuwoa (Oct 30, 2021)

ky55 said:


> Guilty conscience maybe?
> 
> https://www.sbc.net/resource-librar...niversary-of-the-southern-baptist-convention/


Assuming guilt for the sins of past generations is not only not Biblically sound, it’s just plain stupid.


----------



## ky55 (Oct 30, 2021)

Danuwoa said:


> Assuming guilt for the sins of past generations is not only not Biblically sound, it’s just plain stupid.



I agree. 
Did you read the link I posted?


----------



## Danuwoa (Oct 30, 2021)

ky55 said:


> I agree.
> Did you read the link I posted?


I did.


----------



## Spotlite (Oct 30, 2021)

NCHillbilly said:


> Who baptized the thief on the cross?



Setting aside belief / non belief of the Bible - do you know the biblical reason of why he wasn’t?


----------



## NCHillbilly (Oct 30, 2021)

Spotlite said:


> Setting aside belief / non belief of the Bible - do you know the biblical reason of why he wasn’t?


Well, to start with, it would probably been pretty hard for Jesus to unnail himself and thief and drag him down to the creek at the moment.....


----------



## gordon 2 (Oct 30, 2021)

gemcgrew said:


> I can't make this work in my thinking. Can anybody else?


You try too hard. 


Repent from the  belief that Jesus is a nobody or  just another spiritual divine, just another cult leader--- or another pretender playing at  being a political messiah or a super sensitive spiritual person with followers or even just a fiction or even just a prophet and  believe instead that he is The Messiah, The Christ and that:

"that Christ ( Jesus)  died for our sins according to the Scriptures, 4 that He was buried, that He was raised on the third day according to the Scriptures, 5and that He appeared to Cephas and then to the Twelve.…"


----------



## Spotlite (Oct 30, 2021)

NCHillbilly said:


> Well, to start with, it would probably been pretty hard for Jesus to unnail himself and thief and drag him down to the creek at the moment.....


Good answer  (the difference in old / new covenants)


----------



## Israel (Oct 30, 2021)

NCHillbilly said:


> Well, to start with, it would probably been pretty hard for Jesus to unnail himself and thief and drag him down to the creek at the moment.....





Thinkest thou that I cannot now pray to My Father, and He shall at once give Me more than twelve legions of angels?


----------



## NCHillbilly (Oct 30, 2021)

Israel said:


> Thinkest thou that I cannot now pray to My Father, and He shall at once give Me more than twelve legions of angels?


But, he didn't.


----------



## NE GA Pappy (Oct 30, 2021)

Madman said:


> Then of course we can always believe the men who read HS outside of the tradition passed down by the saints, and believe they know more than the hundreds if not thousands of titans of the faith, who did the heavy lifting, fought off heresies for centuries, gave their lives to preserve the faith, wrote volumes of books, met by the hundreds for months at a time, prayed and fasted, during the councils, etc., etc., etc..
> 
> As for me, I trust the Church that Jesus Christ formed and put men in charge of, the same Church that exists today, to spread the Gospel of Truth, and for the teaching and edification of the saints.



but never wrote down that we should be baptizing infants.  

Wonder why????


----------



## Spotlite (Oct 30, 2021)

Israel said:


> Thinkest thou that I cannot now pray to My Father, and He shall at once give Me more than twelve legions of angels?


Think beyond the physical of why He didn’t. But to the point, baptism is under the new covenant that involves death, burial and resurrection through Jesus so it don’t affect the Thief nor Moses, etc.


----------



## Madman (Oct 30, 2021)

NE GA Pappy said:


> but never wrote down that we should be baptizing infants.
> 
> Wonder why????


Never mentioned the Trinity.  Wonder why?


----------



## Madman (Oct 30, 2021)

NCHillbilly said:


> Who baptized the thief on the cross?


Baptism of desire.


----------



## NE GA Pappy (Oct 30, 2021)

Madman said:


> Never mentioned the Trinity.  Wonder why?



you tell me.

maybe the trinty doesn't exist?  <sarc>


----------



## Madman (Oct 30, 2021)

NE GA Pappy said:


> you tell me.
> maybe the trinty doesn't exist?  <sarc>


I believe the faith entails more than what is revealed in Holy Scripture.  Do you?


----------



## NE GA Pappy (Oct 30, 2021)

Madman said:


> I believe the faith entails more than what is revealed in Holy Scripture.  Do you?



I believe that scripture forms the basis for our beliefs, and that anything that goes against scripture is not a valid belief

I also believe that faith is vital for our walk, and without faith, we can't survive.

I also believe that some people put a lot more belief in ancient practices that are no longer meaningful in our lives today.  Most of those practices are not born out in scripture, and therefore not of consequence to me, nor most believers


----------



## Madman (Oct 30, 2021)

NE GA Pappy said:


> I believe that scripture forms the basis for our beliefs, and that anything that goes against scripture is not a valid belief
> 
> I also believe that faith is vital for our walk, and without faith, we can't survive.
> 
> I also believe that some people put a lot more belief in ancient practices that are no longer meaningful in our lives today.  Most of those practices are not born out in scripture, and therefore not of consequence to me, nor most believers


Holy Scripture does not teach against infant baptism.

The concept of the Trinity is tradition.


----------



## Madman (Oct 30, 2021)

NE GA Pappy said:


> I believe that scripture forms the basis for our beliefs, and that anything that goes against scripture is not a valid belief
> 
> I also believe that faith is vital for our walk, and without faith, we can't survive.
> 
> I also believe that some people put a lot more belief in ancient practices that are no longer meaningful in our lives today.  Most of those practices are not born out in scripture, and therefore not of consequence to me, nor most believers


Most believers?  I think you are mistaken.  Protestants are in the minority.


----------



## NE GA Pappy (Oct 30, 2021)

Madman said:


> Holy Scripture does not teach against infant baptism.
> 
> The concept of the Trinity is tradition.



Nor does it teach that it should be done.  This falls under the ancient practices of above.

If you don't want to believe in a Trinity, Don't.   

Doesn't bother me in the least


----------



## NE GA Pappy (Oct 30, 2021)

Madman said:


> Most believers?  I think you are mistaken.  Protestants are in the minority.




They may be, but the pentecostal branch is the fastest growing in the world, and most of the orthodox churches are losing membership by the handfuls.


----------



## Madman (Oct 30, 2021)

NE GA Pappy said:


> Nor does it teach that it should be done.  This falls under the ancient practices of above.
> 
> If you don't want to believe in a Trinity, Don't.
> 
> Doesn't bother me in the least



The crux of Your argument has been If it’s not in HS then it doesn’t exist.  I am simply showing you that everything you believe is not in HS. 

I would note that 1 Peter 3:21 claims that baptism saves you.  If you choose to deny it.  So be it.


----------



## NE GA Pappy (Oct 30, 2021)

Madman said:


> The crux of Your argument has been If it’s not in HS then it doesn’t exist.  I am simply showing you that everything you believe is not in HS.
> 
> I would note that 1 Peter 3:22 claims that baptism saves you.  If you choose to deny it.  So be it.



No... again you are not correct.

you are talking about 3:21  





> and this water symbolizes baptism that now saves you also—not the removal of dirt from the body but the pledge of a clear conscience toward God.[e] It saves you by the resurrection of Jesus Christ,



and the  key word you are over looking is SYMBOLIZES.  Not that baptism saves you, but it is a symbol of what saves you.


----------



## Madman (Oct 30, 2021)

NE GA Pappy said:


> They may be, but the pentecostal branch is the fastest growing in the world, and most of the orthodox churches are losing membership by the handfuls.


Might want to check that also,
but let’s pretend it is true.

Episcopalians are chasing the culture, as are the Methodist, and Presbyterians, the Baptist’s are trying the mega church menu rather than the Gospel.  I’ll stick with the remnant that HS promise s.


----------



## NE GA Pappy (Oct 30, 2021)

Madman said:


> Might want to check that also,
> but let’s pretend it is true.
> 
> Episcopalians are chasing the culture, as are the Methodist, and Presbyterians, the Baptist’s are trying the mega church menu rather than the Gospel.  I’ll stick with the remnant that HS promise s.



you do your faith... I'll do mine.


----------



## Madman (Oct 30, 2021)

NE GA Pappy said:


> No... again you are not correct.
> 
> you are talking about 3:21
> 
> and the  key word you are over looking is SYMBOLIZES.  Not that baptism saves you, but it is a symbol of what saves you.


Sorry for the typo.  Thank you for the correction.


----------



## Madman (Oct 30, 2021)

NE GA Pappy said:


> you do your faith... I'll do mine.


I’m ok with that.  I’ll take 2000+ years of belief, worked out by the giants of the faith, in-depth study and prayer of Holy Scripture, the ancient writings, and the teachings of the Church.

Sure, sounds good to me.


----------



## NE GA Pappy (Oct 30, 2021)

Madman said:


> I’m ok with that.  I’ll take 2000+ years of belief, worked out by the giants of the faith, in-depth study and prayer of Holy Scripture, the ancient writings, and the teachings of the Church.
> 
> Sure, sounds good to me.



I'll take freedom in grace, and working out my own salvation with fear and trembling, and Christ being sufficient for all my needs.

Sound great to me


----------



## Madman (Oct 30, 2021)

NE GA Pappy said:


> and the  key word you are over looking is SYMBOLIZES.  Not that baptism saves you, but it is a symbol of what saves you.


Hence the need to understand the language as originally written.


----------



## Madman (Oct 30, 2021)

NE GA Pappy said:


> I'll take freedom in grace, and working out my own salvation with fear and trembling, and Christ being sufficient for all my needs.
> 
> Sound great to me


Are we saved by grace or do we have to work out or salvation?


----------



## Artfuldodger (Oct 30, 2021)

Those flood waters were like baptism that now saves you. But baptism is more than just washing your body. It means turning to God with a clear conscience, because Jesus Christ was raised from death.


----------



## Artfuldodger (Oct 30, 2021)

Mark 16:16-18   
                                                                                                 16Whoever believes and is baptized will be saved, but whoever does not believe will be condemned. 17And these signs will accompany those who believe: In My name they will drive out demons; they will speak in new tongues;   18they will pick up snakes with their hands, and if they drink any deadly poison, it will not harm them; they will lay their hands on the sick, and they will be made well.”…

Maybe after the signs left so did the baptism requirement.


----------



## Israel (Oct 31, 2021)

Spotlite said:


> Think beyond the physical of why He didn’t. But to the point, baptism is under the new covenant that involves death, burial and resurrection through Jesus so it don’t affect the Thief nor Moses, etc.


Huh?


----------



## Israel (Oct 31, 2021)

NCHillbilly said:


> But, he didn't.


Yes!

Precisely, He didn't.

With a word He could have been relieved of all of it, with a word He could have established who He is in the sight of all who derided Him...with a word He could have gone to His Father apart from through the cross.

Who could accuse Him? Who could say "You didn't do as you ought"? Or even..."You didn't do as you said you would"?

And precisely in all to the point He told us of this. Why _does_ Jesus say what He says?
Even if it is (each man has his view) that He knows a thing...why does He say certain of them in the manner He does?

And why of what He does say...does He say it so? He could have said..."I can get out of this and put a stop to it"...or even "With a word I can end this charade of men believing they know what righteousness is".

But He said it as He did. And He said it knowing His Father was as prepared to send more than 12 Legions of angels if asked by Him as He knew anything. Who knows God as this? None could accuse Him of falling short, or sin, or even duplicity...His having made it clear..."this is _already cleared_ with the Father if I care to have it so".

So, surely the Father holds no accusation against the Son were it asked for He Himself would participate with Him in it, and for Him...the Son. Who knows God as this man? A man with no debt before His God?

Oh, the folly of man to speak of his own free will.

Let men babel on as God allows.


----------



## NCHillbilly (Oct 31, 2021)

Madman said:


> Most believers?  I think you are mistaken.  Protestants are in the minority.


Maybe in the world at large, but in my personal life, here in the southern US, I've only met a handful of Catholics in my over half-century of life, and most of those were Mexicans. I don't think there's a non-protestant church in my county.


----------



## Spotlite (Oct 31, 2021)

Israel said:


> Huh?


It was mentioned that it would have been hard for Jesus to unnail Himself from the cross……..

My comment was just a general statement meaning anything we might see as physical restrictions were not the reasons He didn’t “unnail Himself”


----------



## Israel (Nov 1, 2021)

It is very foolish to count on a comparison of numbers as any indicator of truth.


----------

