• Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.

  • CF has always been a site that welcomes people from different backgrounds and beliefs to participate in discussion and even debate. That is the nature of its ministry. In view of recent events emotions are running very high. We need to remind people of some basic principles in debating on this site. We need to be civil when we express differences in opinion. No personal attacks. Avoid you, your statements. Don't characterize an entire political party with comparisons to Fascism or Communism or other extreme movements that committed atrocities. CF is not the place for broad brush or blanket statements about groups and political parties. Put the broad brushes and blankets away when you come to CF, better yet, put them in the incinerator. Debate had no place for them. We need to remember that people that commit acts of violence represent themselves or a small extreme faction.

B flat B♭

If you/a loved one had a rare medical condition would you "look to science" - take the medication/raise money for a particular form of treatment/go for regular scans to show if it was getting worse? Or would you say "there is no Biblical support for those things - just do nothing and hope that I/my relative gets better on their own"?

The Jehovah Witness's do.
Upvote 0

The Biblical Basis of 10 Catholic Distinctives

It says she AND HER HOUSEHOLD were baptized. The Scriptures only refer to Lydia's faith and make no mention of the faith of members of her household, yet clearly her household were baptized. You said you could not think of any mention of people being baptized in the NT where they were not a believer first. I've given two examples where no indication is given that the people being baptized were believers, only the head of the household.
But your examplers do not say that the other household members did not believe. I still say that I cannot think of a single reference to someone who is said in the bible to be an unbeliever being baptised.
That is you adding to the passage. Paul doesn't say that.
No, not adding to the passage, but reading it in its context. Just a short few verses later, we read that the other household members had believed: "having believed in God with all his household,”
In 1 Corinthians 7:14, Paul says, "For the unbelieving husband is consecrated through his wife, and the unbelieving wife is consecrated through her husband. Otherwise, your children would be unclean, but as it is they are holy."

So if the children of believing parents are holy, why would they not be joined to Christ in baptism? Jesus said, "Let the children come to me, and do not hinder them; for to such belongs the kingdom of God."
I don't believe that means that the unbelieving spouse necessarily is saved. As Jamieson, Faussett and Brown write in their commentary: "14. sanctified Those inseparably connected with the people of God are [hallowed] thereby, so that the latter may retain the connection without impairing their own sanctity (compare 1Ti 4:5); nay, rather imparting to the former externally some degree of their own hallowed character, and so preparing the way for the unbeliever becoming at last sanctified inwardly by faith."
Upvote 0

The Biblical Basis of 10 Catholic Distinctives

It says she AND HER HOUSEHOLD were baptized. The Scriptures only refer to Lydia's faith and make no mention of the faith of members of her household, yet clearly her household were baptized. You said you could not think of any mention of people being baptized in the NT where they were not a believer first. I've given two examples where no indication is given that the people being baptized were believers, only the head of the household.

That is you adding to the passage. Paul doesn't say that.

In 1 Corinthians 7:14, Paul says, "For the unbelieving husband is consecrated through his wife, and the unbelieving wife is consecrated through her husband. Otherwise, your children would be unclean, but as it is they are holy."

So if the children of believing parents are holy, why would they not be joined to Christ in baptism? Jesus said, "Let the children come to me, and do not hinder them; for to such belongs the kingdom of God."

Precisely; a fully literal and exegetically harmonic interpretation of the New Testament, such as we find among the early church fathers, supports our position of the baptism of infants.
Upvote 0

The Biblical Basis of 10 Catholic Distinctives

The Baptists have already won this argument a long time ago by one simple trick: THEY REDEFINE THE HISTORICAL DEFINITION OF "HOUSEHOLD" from all those living under the same roof regardless of age to only adults unless the Biblical text says there are children present. Do not believe this.

So how do we interpret Scripture here? We ask the diagnostic question(s): 1) Do the words and grammar of Scripture determine theological content and belief? 2) Or does your theological belief determine what words should mean in Scripture?

Clearly and plainly, Baptists use interpretative principle #2 when defining the word "household" due to their anti-paedo beliefs. By fiat, Baptists just declare a household can not have children living in them UNLESS THE TEXT SAYS CHILDREN ARE PRESENT! Pure eisegesis but this interpretation emotionally satisfies the Baptist belief in credobaptism. This is interpretive cheating.

Household baptisms scripturally are born from Peter's words....this promise is to you and your children (Acts 2:39). Baptists seem to ignore this passage of Scripture. A household is basically everyone leaving under the same roof regardless of age. A Baptist interpret a household as everyone leaving under the same roof except those under the Age of Accountability. How bogus!

The Merriam-Webster Dictionary definition of a household 1) those who dwell under the same roof and compose a family 2)a social unit composed of those living together in the same dwelling. And certainly the legal definition of a household: A household is composed of one or more people who occupy a housing unit. Tax filer + spouse + tax dependents = household. But of course the credo's discount this also.

The Scriptural definition of a household includes both children and servants .
  • I Tim 3:12 A deacon must be faithful to his wife and must manage his children (τέκνων) and his household (οἴκων) well.
  • I Tim 3:4 [A shepherd] must be one who manages his own household (οἴκου) well, keeping his children (τέκνα) under control with all dignity.
One passage of Scripture which gives the credos harsh criticism is I Tim. 5:8.
  • "But if anyone does not provide for his own, and especially for those of his household, he has denied the faith and is worse than an unbeliever.”
  • Paul is clearly talking to believers here because only a believer can become worse than an unbeliever.
  • Is Paul saying here because children are not specifically mentioned in this passage, Christian parents are exempt from providing for their smallest and youngest children?
  • Nonsense. As is the same with credo's redefining words of Scripture to match their theological bias and a futile attempt to EXPLAIN AWAY paedobaptism altogether from Scripture.

Thank you for this beautiful post, my dear friend! I have been praying for you fervently.

Re Lydia's household, it doesn't say that anybody who didn't believe was baptised.

I believe Paul's words to the jailer meant that if the jailer believed on the Lord Jesus Christ,, he would be saved, and if the other members of his household believed, they would be saved too. That ties in with what Jesus Himself said:

““For God so loved the world that He gave His only begotten Son, that whoever believes in Him should not perish but have everlasting life.” (Joh 3:16 NKJV)

The issue of course comes down to an ironic Baptist inclination for non-literal interpretations of many of those portions of the New Testament that were historically interpreted literally, even as Baptists to their credit continue to literally interpret other pericopes (for example, St. Paul’s views on the sinful nature of homosexuality).

Taken on face value, a literal interpretation of the pericope mentioned by my pious co-religionist @prodromos , who is much more pious than I am, would indicate the baptism of all in the household, children and servants and children of servants included (and we do know from the synaxaria of the early church, the ancient martyrologies, that such relationships of martyred Christians did exist).

Likewise, a literal interpretation of the Institution Narratives in the Synoptic Gospels and 1 Corinthians ch. 11, and of John ch. 6, supports a non-memorialist embrace of some form of the real presence doctrine, at a bare minimum, a real spiritual presence, but really, most comfortably supports the Eastern and Oriental Orthodox, Confessional Lutheran, Roman Catholic (including the sui juris Eastern Catholic churches such as the Ukrainian Greek Catholics, Chaldean Catholics, Maronite Catholics etc) and High Church Anglican view of the Eucharist, also shared by some Methodists, some Congregationalists and Presbyterians of the Reformed Catholic / Scoto-Catholic / Mercersburg Theology movement, some Moravians, the more traditional Old Catholics (probably most Old Catholics) and the Assyrian Church of the East and Ancient Church of the East.

The other main issue we’ve seen in this thread is inconsistent exegesis of the New Testament. If we interpret all of it in a literal manner, and interpret it in a non-contradictory manner, something very much in line with the beliefs of all the traditional liturgical churches is supported. For example, John 3:16 does connect salvation to faith, but it does not contradict Matthew 28:19, or Galatians 3:27, or John ch. 6 inclusive, which connect salvation with Baptism and reception of the Eucharist respectively.

Now, I do give Baptists such as yourself credit where credit is due: you have not made the mistake of a legalistic interpretation of the New Testament wherein the Law of the Old Testament is used as the lens for interpreting the New Testament, in the case of some Restorationist churches through a further lens of interpretation provided by various 19th century and early 20th century figures associated with exegesis.

What I would encourage in the case of Baptists, in the interests of an ecumenical friendship that I think is desirable, that without conceding that we are right, you at least walk through the beliefs of the traditional churches concerning Baptism, the Eucharist and the role of tradition itself, and also concerning the liturgy (which has a scriptural basis in the system of daily prayer instituted by St. Ezra the Priest and St. Nehemiah, in the instructions of Christ our True God, for example, what He said at the institution narrative, in the words of St. Paul that all things be done decently and in order, and also regarding music, we adhere to St. Paul’s exhortation for the singing of Psalms, Canticles and Spiritual Songs, although we interpret this literally as inclusive of the canticles (for example, the Magnfiicat and various Old Testament canticles such as the Songs of the Suffering Servant in Isaiah, Benedicte Omni Opera and so on), and of hymns or spiritual songs such as Te Deum Laudamus, a favorite of my friend @MarkRohfrietsch , the Paschal Troparion “Christ is risen from the dead, trampling down death by death) and other ancient hymns and some of more recent provenance, those by Charles Wesley being particularly popular among Western Christians, whereas settings of the traditional hymns by Bortnianski and Chesnokov being particularly popular among Eastern Orthodox Christians, particularly those in Slavonic chant; we do not interpret this as a requirement for exclusive Psalmody or a capella exclusive psalmody, although conversely, a cappella is the preferred form among most Orthodox churches, but the Greeks and Armenians make good use of the organ, and of course Lutheran, Anglican and Roman Catholic worship, not to mention much Reformed worship, makes splendid use thereof, along with other orchestral instruments on various occasions (Park Street Church in Boston, which is the last traditional Congregationalist church in Boston, has amazing services on Easter Sunday that remind me of the musical program at Coral Ridge Presbyterian Church under the late Rev. James Kennedy, memory eternal).

I think if you were to read a book like Orthodox Dogmatic Theology, by Protopresbyter Michael Pomazansky, you would be surprised by the degree to which our theology is based on that of Scripture. And of course it goes without saying that Lutherans and high church Anglicans have constructed their theological models on Scripture; the Orthodox did so likewise, and so did the Roman church in antiquity; interestingly the Roman church in antiquity had a very different character prior to the collapse of the Western Empire and the reign of Pope St. Gregory the Great - no Gregorian chant, extremely perfunctory, minimal services, most services chanted in monotone, and extreme conservatism, so that it took until the mid 2nd century for the Bible and the liturgy to be translated into Latin, and numerous feasts commemorated in the East were not commemorated in Rome or were only added to the Roman calendar in recent centuries. This aspect of the Roman church has largely been forgotten, and indeed the Roman Church now has few who view it through this lens after the Scholastic period saw much change, with some less traditional Catholics regarding the Orthodox as being stuck in the past.
  • Like
Reactions: prodromos
Upvote 0

The Biblical Basis of 10 Catholic Distinctives

Re Lydia's household, it doesn't say that anybody who didn't believe was baptised.
It says she AND HER HOUSEHOLD were baptized. The Scriptures only refer to Lydia's faith and make no mention of the faith of members of her household, yet clearly her household were baptized. You said you could not think of any mention of people being baptized in the NT where they were not a believer first. I've given two examples where no indication is given that the people being baptized were believers, only the head of the household.
I believe Paul's words to the jailer meant that if the jailer believed on the Lord Jesus Christ,, he would be saved, and if the other members of his household believed, they would be saved too.
That is you adding to the passage. Paul doesn't say that.
That ties in with what Jesus Himself said:

““For God so loved the world that He gave His only begotten Son, that whoever believes in Him should not perish but have everlasting life.” (Joh 3:16 NKJV)
In 1 Corinthians 7:14, Paul says, "For the unbelieving husband is consecrated through his wife, and the unbelieving wife is consecrated through her husband. Otherwise, your children would be unclean, but as it is they are holy."

So if the children of believing parents are holy, why would they not be joined to Christ in baptism? Jesus said, "Let the children come to me, and do not hinder them; for to such belongs the kingdom of God."
  • Winner
Reactions: The Liturgist

B flat B♭

-​
So Globe earth christian believers i am guessing they also go with science. That stars die out and new stars are being formed, of course that again is also without Biblical support.
Lots of things are "without biblical support"
Computers, for example; going to hospital for a scan, x ray or an operation under anaesthetic, for example. There is no Biblical support for owning a car, smart watch, tv, hand gun or a thousand other things.
There is "no Biblical support" for them because a) that is not the purpose of the Bible and b) they hadn't been invented.

If you/a loved one had a rare medical condition would you "look to science" - take the medication/raise money for a particular form of treatment/go for regular scans to show if it was getting worse? Or would you say "there is no Biblical support for those things - just do nothing and hope that I/my relative gets better on their own"?
  • Like
Reactions: David Lamb
Upvote 0

The NEA is pushing far left teaching upon children

From his perspective, drag queens is perversion. There are no irrational fears. Men dressing up as women and acting provocatively? I say that's quite abnormal. It makes a mockery of women, imo.
It’s simply icky from your point of view; you don’t get to attribute your icky feelings as factual statements.
  • Agree
Reactions: A2SG
Upvote 0

Are the Jews Israel, or is the church Israel? Or does it depend on the context of the passage?

The Body of Christ is NOT the Israel of God.
The Christian people are the Overcomers for God, just as Jacob was. His name was changed to Israel, which is Hebrew for an Overcomer for God.
They are seen in each of the 7 Church's of Revelation. Christians are therefore; the Israel of God.
Your comment above is untrue and is a serious contradiction of scripture.
Upvote 0

The NEA is pushing far left teaching upon children

There's been many cases of trans teens who committed suicide after receiving so-called gender affirming care or socially transitioning or had affirming parents. Something tells me it's not as helpful as some claim.
You do realise that without statistics or any kind of detail, this sort of statement is worthless? How many of all trans teens who received care committed suicide? What were the causes of those suicides? That last one is pretty important because if they were driven to it by bullying for example, the care isn't the cause of it. You're just being too vague here to make any sort of hard claims.
Upvote 0

Who then can be saved?

Why does God command all men everywhere to repent? Acts 17:30-31

I'm not rejecting anything. I'm keeping it all together, for instance 2 Timothy 2:20-21 which directly addresses Romans 9. What of that passage?

And there's more.
And I, if I be lifted up from the earth, will draw all men to me. John 12:32

And the whole idea that only some can be saved is fully refuted with simply just Acts 17:21-31 that is why I'll keep repeating it. It's not a matter of interpretation, Paul specifically says 'all men everywhere'.

So I'll ask again, why does God command all men everywhere to repent? Acts 17:30-31, you need to understand that if you give a different reason than Paul clearly gave, your wrong.
OK, got it. According to your literal interpretation, only men will be saved, and women and children are condemned to hell. That's an interesting interpretation, you have there, but I reject it because it's based on your private opinion and it's not supported by the bible.
Upvote 0

Fixing Our Eyes on Jesus

“Therefore, since we have so great a cloud of witnesses surrounding us, let us also lay aside every encumbrance and the sin which so easily entangles us, and let us run with endurance the race that is set before us, fixing our eyes on Jesus, the author and perfecter of faith, who for the joy set before Him endured the cross, despising the shame, and has sat down at the right hand of the throne of God.” (Hebrews 12:1-2 NASB1995)

When the Scriptures were originally written, they did not have chapters and verses. Those were added much later to help us readers navigate through the Scriptures and to be able to locate particular passages of Scripture. So, when you see a sentence begin with “therefore,” you should look back to see what it is there for, I have always been taught. So this is in reference to the saints of old who were commended for their faith in chapter 11. They did not all live perfect lives, but they all were honored for their faith at some time.

But lack of perfection is never to be used as an excuse for deliberate and habitual sin. We who believe in Jesus Christ were crucified with Christ in death to sin, and raised with Christ to walk in newness of life in him, no longer to live as slaves to sin, but as servants of righteousness in walks of obedience to our Lord’s commands. So we are to lay aside the deeds of the flesh and all hindrances to our walks of obedience to our Lord’s commands, and we are to die to sin daily, for sin must no longer be our practice.

And then we can “run with endurance the race that is set before us,” i.e. we can live according to God’s calling upon each of our lives to die to sin, to obey his commands, and to follow our Lord wherever he leads us in surrender to his will and purpose for our lives, all in his power and wisdom. We can live for our Lord in doing his will when, by faith in him, we put aside our former lives of living in sin so that we can now serve our Lord in obedience to his commands in being who he desires us to become.

But this is not something we can do in our own flesh of our own willpower. We can only live for our Lord as we surrender our lives to him and we depend upon his strength and wisdom to get us through every day. And if our eyes are fixed on Jesus, that means that our minds, hearts, and attitudes are centered in our Lord and in his will for our lives, and we are now following his leading in our lives, and we are no longer going our own way, doing our own thing, living for the pleasures of this sinful world.

For Jesus Christ is the author and the perfecter of our faith. Our faith is not of our human flesh, of our own willpower, and of our own thinking and reasoning. The faith to believe in Jesus comes from God, it is gifted to us by God, and it is persuaded of God as to his holiness and righteousness, and of our sinfulness, and of our need to die to sin and to walk in obedience to our Lord’s commands, in surrender to his will. So our faith will then align with God’s will and purpose for our lives, not in accord with our human flesh.

[Hebrews 12:1-2; Ephesians 2:8-10; John 1:12-13; John 6:44; Acts 26:18]

For Jesus Christ taught that to come to him we must deny self, take up our cross daily (die daily to sin), and follow (obey) him. For if we hold on to living in sin and for self, we will lose our lives for eternity. But if we deny self, die daily to sin, by the Spirit, and we walk in obedience to our Lord and to his commands, in his power, then we have eternal life with God. For not everyone who calls him “Lord” will enter the kingdom of heaven, but the one DOING (obeying) the will of God (see Luke 9:23-26; Matthew 7:21-23).

[Matthew 7:13-14,21-23; Luke 9:23-26; John 10:27-30; Acts 26:18; Romans 1:18-32; Romans 2:5-10; Romans 3:23; Romans 6:1-23; Romans 8:1-14; 1 Corinthians 10:1-22; Galatians 5:16-24; Ephesians 2:8-10; Ephesians 4:17-32; Ephesians 5:3-6; Titus 2:11-14; Hebrews 3:1-19; Hebrews 4:1-13; Hebrews 10:19-39; Hebrews 12:1-2; 1 Peter 2:24; 1 John 1:1-10; 1 John 2:3-6; 1 John 3:4-10; Revelation 2:1-29; Revelation 3:1-22]

As the Deer

By Martin J. Nystrom
Based off Psalm 42:1


As the deer panteth for the water
So my soul longeth after You
You alone are my heart's desire
And I long to worship You

You alone are my strength, my shield
To You alone may my spirit yield
You alone are my heart's desire
And I long to worship You

Login to view embedded media
Caution: This link may contain ads

Fixing Our Eyes on Jesus
An Original Work / November 26, 2025
Christ’s Free Servant, Sue J Love

The Biblical Basis of 10 Catholic Distinctives

Acts 16:15 doesn't say anything about Lydia's household believing before being baptised.
In Acts 16:31, Paul tells the jailer, “Believe in the Lord Jesus, and you will be saved, you and your household.”. Paul's words were just to the jailer yet he says that by him believing that all of his household will be saved.
Re Lydia's household, it doesn't say that anybody who didn't believe was baptised.

I believe Paul's words to the jailer meant that if the jailer believed on the Lord Jesus Christ,, he would be saved, and if the other members of his household believed, they would be saved too. That ties in with those words in Acts 16, "having believed in God with all his household,” and also with what Jesus Himself said:

““For God so loved the world that He gave His only begotten Son, that whoever believes in Him should not perish but have everlasting life.” (Joh 3:16 NKJV)
Upvote 0

Hell doesn't exist and there is no eternal suffering, instead bad peolle just cease to exist

What is out of context?



Do you believe people can know things that are revealed by the Holy Spirit or not? You seem to believe that there are things revealed by God to people, while also that if anyone thinks they know those things, that is "witchcraft"?


How am I excempting myself from a rule?
I made the point that God is a mystery and we know very little about Him. I also made the point that God has deliberately hidden many things from us. I'm not sure why you didn't agree, and chose to reject those bible doctrines. You then attempted to apply unrelated verses, to support your unbiblical view.

No, I don't "believe people can know the things that are revealed by the Holy Spirit". The things of God, are foolishness to "people". The Holy Spirit doesn't reveal anything to "people" He only reveals certain things to born again believers.

You can't find out anything about God, unless you have been regenerated, quickened to life, received the git of grace, received the gift of faith, received the gift of repentance, received the gift of the Holy Spirit, received the gift of being born again, received the gift of a sound mind and many other gifts.

Nobody gives themselves these gifts, which are all necessary for salvation, everyone is born dead and helpless and unable to get these gifts, since dead men can only stink. God must chose to give them to the individual, and we know He only gives them to His elect, (you know, those He chose before time began).
  • Like
Reactions: David Lamb
Upvote 0

The Biblical Basis of 10 Catholic Distinctives

I didn't mention such a thing. All I said was that in the bible, we are given examples of households believing and then being baptised. I cannot think of any mention of a baptism in the New Testament where we are told that the person being baptised was not yet a believer.
Acts 16:15 doesn't say anything about Lydia's household believing before being baptised.
In Acts 16:31, Paul tells the jailer, “Believe in the Lord Jesus, and you will be saved, you and your household.”. Paul's words were just to the jailer yet he says that by him believing that all of his household will be saved.
  • Winner
Reactions: The Liturgist

Nightmare caregiving situation/death issue

So my 93 year old grandmother is dying too. This woman is my dad's father, is an unbeliever, and she's not a nice lady to put it mildly. Wonder where my dad got his abusive behavior from?

My dad's going to have to bring her home to live with us because she needs 24/7 care and there's no way else for her to get it without paying an astronomical fortune of money. His siblings have all abandoned her because of how nasty she is. Only he will take care of her.

Meanwhile he's going to have to rely on his siblings to sell her house in Ohio and sell her things. One sibling has already tried to get more than his fair share of the inheritance. He is also an unbeliever.

I guess, pray for an alternative care situation to be found or that she dies, or whatever else you feel like praying for. You'll probably think of something more intelligent than me. I'm not sure how I'm going to survive both working a job and dodging her all of the time.

do you actually want her to die and go to hell without at least giving her the gospel. no pressure. she must be thinking of it
Upvote 0

Judge dismisses James Comey and Letitia James cases, finding prosecutor's appointment invalid

Comey lied to Congress.
Maybe you can help the prosecution find the lie, because they seem to be struggling on that point:

Here the specific text of the question Comey answered in his testimony matters a lot—for a number of reasons. Grassley asked Comey: “have you ever authorized someone else at the FBI to be an anonymous source in news reports about the Trump investigation or the Clinton investigation” (emphasis added).

It is thus not adequate for proof that Comey made a false statement for the government to show that Richman interfaced with reporters on Comey’s behalf. That fact has never been a secret (Richman did much of this work in the open and on a named basis), and Comey has never denied it. In fact, it was Comey who dramatically announced Richman’s role in Senate testimony that the brief later quotes (see pages 10-11).

Rather, to prove that Comey lied, the government has to show (a) that Richman was “at the FBI” at the time; (b) that Comey “authorized” the press contact; (c) that he authorized Richman to do the contact anonymously; and (d) that the contact concerned the Trump or Clinton investigation.


The article then goes on to do what seems to me to be a very good job explaining how none of the things the prosecution tries to point to in their filing as evidence actually show the aforementioned things required to make Comey's statement false. So, where's the lie?

That said, once again, even if the government had the strongest evidence possible that Comey lied, that wouldn't have any effect on the question of whether Halligan's appointment was lawful.
Upvote 0

Filter

Forum statistics

Threads
5,878,735
Messages
65,423,230
Members
276,399
Latest member
juniper_kat