You make a lot of great points about what is or what isn't "traditions of men."
I just have to ask, would praying for someone while sitting in the dentist chair getting prepped for a crown be considered a tradition of men?
Sorry, I had to ask and I'm just trying to share a little humor here. There's not much of that anymore and it seems like we can use a little humor every now and then.
Remove not the ancient landmark, which thy fathers have set. ( Proverbs 22:28)
Deuteronomy 32:8 When the most High divided to the nations their inheritance, when he separated the sons of Adam, he set the bounds of the people according to the number of the children of Israel.
With these two verses; it is clear that there were distinct areas allotted for the nations from the beginning which God established.
It would appear that at least a type and pattern of the children of Israel was in this plan; even though this would have been apparently before the flood. This principle it would seem from Proverbs was to be more or less continued after the flood when sadly once again nations were corrupted rapidly worshipping idols and performing child sacrifice as a common ritual. The Lord did have Melchizedek as an early Godly priest who was mysteriously outside the genealogy of the rest of Israel but so great that Abraham himself tithed to him.
Many in the West today are ignorant on history; and aren't aware how often we as "Colonialists" redefined the boundaries in the Middle East; although it is one of the talking points today. Naturally the main focus of support for Hamas is insane for several reasons; as they don't want a "2 State Solution" and indeed they were the biproduct of displacement from Arab groups in the past; and of course surrounding nations such as Egypt most recently don't want them in the past. The point on that subject relates to this topic in that God did establish Israel and it's borders in it's covenant; as offended as many may be if Israel has land from the Mediterranean Sea to the Jordan; its actual boundaries scripturally extend all the way to the Euphrates and would encompass much or all of Jordan; and parts of other nations in that area today.
Issues in this regard have fostered centuries of conflict between Russia and surrounding nations; and China vs Japan as 2 examples. History repeats itself ( Ecclesiastes 1:9).
To finish up. There are many things practiced in the Christian church over the centuries, some are ancient and some are recent, that are not delineated in Scripture and most of these are seen as a matter of individual conscience or conviction. So when people disagree on a matter such as these we are to be charitable and not judgmental.
Whether or not to accept infant baptism is one of those matters.
So from my end, I will be charitable to you and not judgmental in things we differ on that are not ESSENTIAL doctrines of the faith.
I hope you will understand where I am coming from in this response to you. God's blessing to you always.
Yeah I can't remember exactly; but someone said that an entire unit came back without casualties and those at home in church were praying for them daily (may have been a charismatic type church).
I am sorry if I sound less than enthusiastic as to my view on the past; I feel that things need to be brought out that may have made things worse than they had to be; nonetheless because of His grace the whole world wasn't destroyed at that time.
I suppose to go back in detail at this point to explore all this may not be all that edifying. There are things such as the licentiousness especially in England but also I have no doubt occured with our soldiers when on tour of duty that allowed for more collateral damage. Pearl Harbor was something apparently that could have been warned against; and we were said on one or more occasions to have provoked Germany to attack. Of course we could also look to the stubbornness of German Jews who held out for months or years when they had the opportunity to leave because they thought it never could happen there.
And such a situation may be coming to pass in our nation. I have been warning that if we really defeat and throw out the untold multitudes of terrorists and criminals that are now within our borders that there will be a great loss of life. Just look at the casualties from the Mexican drug cartel and the government in recent years (I know I mentioned that the other day).
Yes; Gigi I suppose I can be desperately trying to find ways to cope; to prepare or somehow be more ready for what is to come.
Ultimately the Lord is in control; I'll admit knowing we are in a sinking ship is very difficult to deal with but also I'm a realist.
Is it wrong to be realistic about how horrible thing are going to get? Yes; I'll admit if we don't focus on His Spirit it is; it is just mind boggling to me how many professing Christians aren't spiritually up in arms when the casualties are mounting around us.
I didn't realize that this reply of yours was to me.
I must say that what offends me is when people comment as you have concerning me in a way that is judgmental when you really do not know me or what God knows in my heart.
I understand that you think we all should seek what the Bible says on matters. I agree with that. However, the Bible nowhere says that if a matter is not explicitly set forth in Scripture we are to reject it as a "tradition of men". There was a whole lot more spoken and preached and practiced by the apostles that are not recorded in Scriptures. But some of these have been spoken about by believers close in time to the apostles and with knowledge of what was practiced. This is where historical information come in to help us to understand matters that are not explained, condemned, or commanded in the Scriptures.
For example, the use of organs, pianos and other instruments were not mentioned in Scripture, but are used in worship services now. Therefore, such use can be considered a new tradition. Is it wrong to practice this tradition since we are not instructed to do this in Scripture? Is it a" tradition of men" that we should reject?
Or, the matter of the Lord's Supper in the church. In the first century it was celebrated with a full meal, but most churches do not include a full meal with this ordinance today. So, is changing the way the Supper is performed and celebrated now a "tradition of men" that we should reject?
How about personal Bible study. In the early church people did not have copies of the Bible to study and that continued for 1500 years or so. Is it a "tradition of men" to engage in personal or even home-group studies and therefore be rejected because it is not commanded in the Scriptures?
Then again, what about children's Sunday School classes. These are a very recent practice in the church and was not commanded or practiced in the early church according to the Scriptures. isn't this a tradition of men?....
In conclusion; we might say that the extreme of idealism and patriotism brought vigor and strength to be what otherwise would be cannon fodder. Much newsreels and literature continued to raise the themes of patriotism; and on both sides there were caricatures exaggerating whoever the enemy was; whether racist images of what was perceived as "Jews"; or of the big 3 dictators (Hitler; Hirohito and Mousselini). There are; of course well known conspiracy theories about those who fomented both of these wars and the final war to come. National pride as it stood then was universal; whether by force or free will no one dreamed about living in a world such as envisioned today in our country of open borders in which those who stand for their country are made to feel ashamed.
That being said; we need to look beyond the exterior venire of our past and realize that the spirit of the age dominated. There was an idealism in external beauty as seen with the idolization of hollywood stars; and an ignorance of the evils of racism that truly discriminated against the black population. The Japanese internment in our nation was a sad episode in our past; especially in the light of those who volunteered to fight for our country. Nonetheless; the economic expansion and blessings of our country in general came to pass; certainly in a large part to many who married and were fruitful to multiply as was the plan in Genesis. We can't dwell on the past; but see how patient God was and how many generations He allowed these benefits to our citizens.
As we stand today; we don't know how much time we have until He comes or if any day now we will suffer a major attack and life will suddenly change. Let us fight the good fight daily ( 1 Tim. 6:12) and continue to persevere until the end. We are losing hundreds of thousands every year to drugs; gun violence and suicide so our situation is even more dire than the deaths we suffered in WW2. ( 1 Peter 5:8
Thank you and all who have prayed for Nathan, he is 25. They have moved him out of ICU but he is in a lot of pain and they have not given the family a prognosis. God's will he will come through this.
I prayed for you this morning when at the dentist having a tooth prepped for a crown. instead of focusing on the procedure and any discomfort I may feel, I focused on praying for those I know who have asked for prayer, like you. I knew that the time spent in the chair was short and your pain is ongoing, so I will continue to pray for you.
It would seem; with the lines blurring between good and evil (or more precisely; who the friends or the enemy is); today's drone type warfare and proxy wars and the hesitation since Hiroshima and Nagasaki to start a nuclear war (and in the same logic to directly start a large invasion or saturation bombing campaign such as Hitler's "blitzkrieg" which would trigger a nuclear apocalypse; we may not have such a large scale world war until the wars preceding and related to Armageddon. This of course doesn't guarantee this being a logical conclusion; but if wrong it would mean the Lord is going to tarry MUCH longer than it appears today. It would take decades to have any sort of society near "normal" as we see today; and indeed Jesus stated it would be like the times of Noah; or Sodom when destruction comes. ( Matt. 24:37 see also Luke).
In World War 2 itself; but not isolated to that event we saw how the actions of a few may have saved the day. I am not taking the time now to do the research; but I have heard that much prayer happened when England was down to its last plane or last few when being heavily assaulted by the German bombing runs. There were also things that I said in my last post that made the situation worse; namely Roosevelt sending those attempting to escape the concentration camps back to Germany; and the racism that peaked in our country in the 1930s to name two.
In terms of finding meaning; we can look to films such as "Unbroken" to see how Christ can allow forgiveness to our enemies; as well as the Corrie Ten Boom story of being with her sister who died eventually; and her narrative explaining how she praised God for the flea infested camp she was in because the guards didn't come in to beat them and they could study the Word together.
When looking at the madness of dictators we can see foreshadowing of the Antichrist and his campaign commencing in trying to fight Christ. (Ps.2 REV 19
Listened to Reagan's speech on D-Day 1984 where he said something like: those who fight a war to liberate differ markedly from those who fight a war to conquer.
The allied forces were fighting WWII to liberate. They were just in going to war and landing at Normandy. The men that disembarked were heroic and selfless in their taking to the beaches under German fire. That victory by allied forces was an event that turned the tide for liberation from the dictator Hitler and his plan to conquer all of Europe for his evil reich.
I heard today also of a bill introduced to have a month of celebration/acknowledgement/ honoring all American who have fallen in battle. Hope it happens since this is such a worthy thing to do (as opposed to say-gay pride month)
Those of that generation not only fought the war, but those at home were praying en masse on D-day. Wish our country was more like that now.
On June 6, 1944 the Allied armies began their land invasion from the shores of Normandy. This would involve in large part the American and British and signal their first "en masse" intrusion to force the Germans to retreat. In truth the first major resistance for the Germans was the Russians who stalemated their original expansion east just short of Moscow at the end of 1941 and continuing into 1943 when they started the inevitable push westward; expanding in 1944. In the meantime; those such as my now deceased father in law were involved with the slow incursion on the "boot" of Italy; where interestingly Hitler's ally and codictator ended being more of a pain for Hitler; and also the mass killings in that part of Europe never took the ferocity and numbers to the camps as the rest of Europe. Mussolini met his fate first; then later just less than a year after Normandy; did Hitler at the end of April, 1944 when Berlin was sacked despite his maniacal efforts to resist to the last child that could fight.
Of course on the Japanese front a similar plan would have been an option which was eventually tabled due to the high casualty rates predicted with the 2 atom bombs dropped. If the land invasion happened instead the fight probably would have gone well into 1946.
There is much that can be said about the war; in terms of it being something that got our country out of the depression (which a lot of wars are about; money). World War 2 itself was the last war that was "officially" approved through Congress; unlike any conflicts since. It seemed we knew who was good and who was evil in this event; but truth be told there were those complicit to the evil that occured even in this country and especially with the Japanese things were much more complex than they appeared in regard to the animosity and religious fervor for the Japanese leader and differing fanaticism between the army and navy.
Asking for extra strong protection, intervention and breakthrough and also much more love, joy, peace, strength, wisdom, guidance, discernment and to walk in the authority and the power of the Lord. Asking this for us and all in need. Thank you.
Hello Mike. What you see there (&c), is an abbreviation for what we wish to write as, 'and other things', or, 'and so forth'. More commonly, we would abbreviate these with the Latin, 'et cetera', or 'etc', when we want to emphasize one or more references, but not wanting to quote all the references that refer to the subject. So, '&c' would be the same as writing, 'etc'.
Thanks for your help! I am very grateful. May God richly bless you!
Prayer: That God would pour out his blessings, grace, anointing on our movie, "Make America Great Again." That His Holy Spirit would fill this movie in such a way that viewers would deeply experience the true presence of God from the beginning to the end of the movie. That this movie would be medicine to all Americans and people of the world. That it would bring forth real change, causing people to come together and work together, as ONE (Sumus Unus is what we call it in the movie) to get their countries back from these demonic tyrants who have had their hands on our throats for much too long. That God would put into every person's heart, who watches it, a true respect and sacredness for every person who has sacrificed their lives for our countries and constitutions, especially the sacrifice that Jesus made to give us life, so that we could all be free. That God would fulfill His original plans for this movie. That He would give us the perfect and most effective way to distribute this movie far and wide. If Faith Film Funding is the right group to partner with that the He would bring it forth very soon. That the Lord would finish what He started, that He would allow me, Joseph, to fulfill EXACTLY what He gave me to do after so many years. That He would put a holy hedge around this movie and everyone associated with it. That none of our enemies could stop it from going out far and wide. That the Lord would lift it up to the world and cause it to do all that it was created to do. That it would be a HUGE success! Nothing is impossible with God - I can do all things through Christ who strengthens me - in my weakness God's strength is made perfect - God prepares my table in the presence of my enemies - We can do nothing without Him - angels harken to the Word of God - we are to occupy the land until He comes - whatever we ask for in HIS NAME our Father in heaven will do it
15...The kingdoms OF THIS WORLD are become the Kingdoms of our Lord, and of His Christ; and He shall reign for ever and ever.
18 And the nations were(WILL BE) angry, and GOD's WRATH is come ... and should destroy them which destroy the earth.
The message above was written around 95AD to be LITERALLY fulfilled in the future( Revelation 1:1) , and now, even now, from now on, the prophecy will LITERALLY be executed, for GOD is wrathed against all nations and they will be destroyed, include the current Israel, and only and only will be saved a remnant of Israel- Micah 7:18-20, in fact only 144K will be saved- Revelation 7:1-8. And the others?
The others? Matthew 23:33-35
33 Ye serpents, ye generation of vipers (why serpents? why generation of vipers? The answer is in John 8:44.Take a look), how can ye escape the damnation of hell?
34 Wherefore, behold, I send unto you prophets, and wise men, and scribes: and some of them ye shall kill and crucify; and some of them shall ye scourge in your synagogues, and persecute them from city to city:
35 That upon you may come all the righteous blood shed upon the earth, from the blood of righteous Abel unto the blood of Zacharias son of Barachias, whom ye slew between the temple and the altar.
The Word is GOD, GOD Himself, self-executing, understand?
It's significant that Paul Owen has to rely on such speculative reasoning in order to argue for infant baptism in the earliest centuries. It's not as if baptism and the issues related to it aren't discussed much in the earliest sources. They're discussed often in the gospels, Acts, the writings of Paul, The Didache, Justin Martyr, Clement of Alexandria, etc. Yet, the first explicit reference to the concept of infant baptism is found in Tertullian, who is writing against it.
It's also significant that Paul has so far chosen to ignore large portions of the evidence I've cited, including my citation of David Wright and his discussion of the conclusions of modern scholarship. Even in discussing the little evidence he's addressed so far, Paul has made some comments that aren't consistent with his original article. He claims that Tertullian and others who didn't want to baptize infants differed from Baptists in their motivations. But they wouldn't have to have all of the same motives as Baptists in order to be inconsistent with Paul's concept of the catholicity of infant baptism.
I wanted to post this earlier but couldn't get away from work.
It's very hard to get anything definite when researching the early church.
We have to go with what is in front of us as they did and that's the written word.
I also believe in a certain age of accountability and that differ between individuals.
The reason for such a thing as an age of accountability is because one would have to have a clear and mature understanding of they have a sin nature that is incurable. And that we are in need of a savior and you can not add to the grace provided.
So, in doing so a child should feel the need to repent.
If there is a 5 year old child that can understand and make the decision for salvation then there is also a 5 year old child that can go to hell.
I am sorry to hear that you are going through so much pain. To answer your first question, there is no promise of physical healing. The only healing that we are promised is spiritual healing. Can God heal us from physical pain? Yes, of course He can. But there is no promise that He will always do so.
As for your second question asking if it is reasonable to believe that God would answer our prayers, not only is it reasonable to believe that God answers our prayers, but we can have complete confidence that God answers every single prayer that is asked according to His will. What I mean by this is that we sometimes petition God in prayer for something we want without asking for His will to be done in whatever it is we are asking for, whether it be a physical ailment or whatever the case may be.
On the flip side, we might pray for His will to be done in whatever we are asking for, and things may or may not get better. I speak from my own experience when I say that sometimes things may even get worse, but we have to accept the outcome even if it's not the outcome we expected. As brother Spencer has said, our physical bodies are temporary. We are not immune from pain and suffering. But we must trust the Lord even through the pain and hardships we go through.
As some here have prayed for your situation, I also will pray that the Lord will ease your pain according to His will. Please know that if you belong to Christ and are in submission to Him, the pain you are experiencing is not His vengeance on you. Cast all your cares on the Lord. The suffering and pain that we go through in this earthly life cannot even be compared to what awaits those who belong to Christ. ( Romans 8:18).
"'And dipped himself,' says the Scripture, 'seven times in Jordan.' It was not for nothing that Naaman of old, when suffering from leprosy, was purified upon his being baptized, but it served as an indication to us. For as we are lepers in sin, we are made clean, by means of the sacred water and the invocation of the Lord, from our old transgressions; being spiritually regenerated as new-born babes, even as the Lord has declared: 'Except a man be born again through water and the Spirit, he shall not enter into the kingdom of heaven.'" (Fragments, 34)
If Paul only intends this passage as another example of Irenaeus' belief in baptismal regeneration, then I have no objection. However, if Paul is suggesting that the reference to "new-born babes" is about infant baptism, then I reject that suggestion. Irenaeus is addressing Christians in general. Christians are born again. Regeneration is like becoming a spiritual infant, being born spiritually. This passage says nothing about infant baptism.
Nothing Paul Owen has cited from Irenaeus leads to the conclusion that he believed in infant baptism. To the contrary, it appears that Irenaeus believed in universal infant salvation, like other church fathers of the second century. Thus, the concern some later fathers had for baptizing infants in order to ensure their salvation apparently wouldn't have been a concern to Irenaeus. And when we look at the many passages in Irenaeus that explicitly address baptism, the baptism of infants is never mentioned. So, Paul has attempted to arrive at a conclusion of infant baptism by an indirect means, but, as I've shown above, the argument is inconclusive. There's no logical requirement that infants be baptized in order to be regenerated, and there are passages in Irenaeus in which he discusses infant salvation without any involvement of baptism.
But we can take this a step further. Irenaeus is one of the fathers who commented on the issue of infant salvation, so we can examine those passages to see if he mentions infant baptism as part of the process. Irenaeus writes:
"And again, who are they that have been saved and received the inheritance? Those, doubtless, who do believe God, and who have continued in His love; as did Caleb the son of Jephunneh and Joshua the son of Nun, and innocent children, who have had no sense of evil." (Against Heresies, 4:28:3)
And elsewhere, concerning the Slaughter of the Innocents:
"For this cause, too, He suddenly removed those children belonging to the house of David, whose happy lot it was to have been born at that time, that He might send them on before into His kingdom; He, since He was Himself an infant, so arranging it that human infants should be martyrs, slain, according to the Scriptures, for the sake of Christ, who was born in Bethlehem of Judah, in the city of David." (Against Heresies, 3:16:4)
Irenaeus doesn't limit his comments in the first passage to children of believers, he says nothing of baptism, and he says nothing of the Bethlehem children being saved only because they had been circumcised. It seems that Irenaeus believed that all children who die in infancy are saved because of "innocence". There's no need to assume infant baptism in order to explain why Irenaeus would refer to Christ regenerating infants.
In the first passage Paul cites, Irenaeus is addressing the claim that Jesus' public ministry lasted for only one year. This is from the well known section in Irenaeus where he incorrectly asserts that Jesus lived to be over 40 years old. Irenaeus is explaining that Jesus lived through every stage of life, including old age, which would result in His public ministry having lasted more than one year. Jesus experienced every stage of life, from infancy to old age, in order to save people from all age groups. The immediate context says nothing of the baptism of these people. Paul includes baptism by means of combining this passage in Irenaeus with what Irenaeus says elsewhere about baptism. But there's an assumption he's making in combining the two.
Would a belief in baptismal regeneration as normative require that every person regenerated is regenerated through baptism? No, advocates of baptismal regeneration will acknowledge some exceptions, such as the thief on the cross. Paul's assumption that Irenaeus believed that infants are born again through infant baptism is therefore possible, but unproven, at this point in the argument. Hendrick Stander and Johannes Louw explain:
"It is rather pretentious to insist on substituting the notion of baptism every time a writer uses the term 'regeneration' unless the context clearly relates to baptism as such....[this passage in Irenaeus] merely tells us that the redeeming work of Christ extends to whatever person....The passage does not speak about the age when people were baptized." (Baptism In The Early Church [Webster, New York: Carey Publications, 2004], pp. 53, 55)
Paul Owen posted an article today arguing that the second century church father Irenaeus believed in infant baptism. None of the passages Paul cites refer to infant baptism, but Paul assumes that the practice is implied. In past responses to Paul, I've given some examples of Christians of the patristic era opposing his claims about infant baptism, and I've cited the patristic scholar David Wright commenting on the subject. Even if Irenaeus had believed in infant baptism, Paul's original assertions would still be false. But does the evidence suggest that Irenaeus believed in infant baptism?
Paul writes:
"In his treatise Against Heresies (II.22.4) he [Irenaeus] writes: 'He came to save all through means of Himself-all, I say, who through Him are born again to God-infants, and children, and boys, and youths, and old men.' Irenaeus clearly believed that 'infants' in the Church were 'born again' to God, the same as children, youths and adults."
And:
"Like all other Catholic Christians, he believed that the new birth was received through water baptism: 'And again, giving to the disciples the power of regeneration into God, He said to them, Go and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost' (Against Heresies, III.17.1). Cf. also Irenaeus: 'As we are lepers in sin, we are made clean by means of the sacred water and the invocation of the Lord, from our old transgressions, being spiritually regenerated as newborn babes' (cited by J. Pelikan, The Emergence of the Catholic Tradition (100-600), p. 164)."
You make a lot of great points about what is or what isn't "traditions of men."
I just have to ask, would praying for someone while sitting in the dentist chair getting prepped for a crown be considered a tradition of men?
Sorry, I had to ask and I'm just trying to share a little humor here. There's not much of that anymore and it seems like we can use a little humor every now and then.
Blessings!
Deuteronomy 32:8 When the most High divided to the nations their inheritance, when he separated the sons of Adam, he set the bounds of the people according to the number of the children of Israel.
With these two verses; it is clear that there were distinct areas allotted for the nations from the beginning which God established.
It would appear that at least a type and pattern of the children of Israel was in this plan; even though this would have been apparently before the flood. This principle it would seem from Proverbs was to be more or less continued after the flood when sadly once again nations were corrupted rapidly worshipping idols and performing child sacrifice as a common ritual. The Lord did have Melchizedek as an early Godly priest who was mysteriously outside the genealogy of the rest of Israel but so great that Abraham himself tithed to him.
Many in the West today are ignorant on history; and aren't aware how often we as "Colonialists" redefined the boundaries in the Middle East; although it is one of the talking points today. Naturally the main focus of support for Hamas is insane for several reasons; as they don't want a "2 State Solution" and indeed they were the biproduct of displacement from Arab groups in the past; and of course surrounding nations such as Egypt most recently don't want them in the past. The point on that subject relates to this topic in that God did establish Israel and it's borders in it's covenant; as offended as many may be if Israel has land from the Mediterranean Sea to the Jordan; its actual boundaries scripturally extend all the way to the Euphrates and would encompass much or all of Jordan; and parts of other nations in that area today.
Issues in this regard have fostered centuries of conflict between Russia and surrounding nations; and China vs Japan as 2 examples. History repeats itself ( Ecclesiastes 1:9).
To finish up. There are many things practiced in the Christian church over the centuries, some are ancient and some are recent, that are not delineated in Scripture and most of these are seen as a matter of individual conscience or conviction. So when people disagree on a matter such as these we are to be charitable and not judgmental.
Whether or not to accept infant baptism is one of those matters.
So from my end, I will be charitable to you and not judgmental in things we differ on that are not ESSENTIAL doctrines of the faith.
I hope you will understand where I am coming from in this response to you. God's blessing to you always.
I am sorry if I sound less than enthusiastic as to my view on the past; I feel that things need to be brought out that may have made things worse than they had to be; nonetheless because of His grace the whole world wasn't destroyed at that time.
I suppose to go back in detail at this point to explore all this may not be all that edifying. There are things such as the licentiousness especially in England but also I have no doubt occured with our soldiers when on tour of duty that allowed for more collateral damage. Pearl Harbor was something apparently that could have been warned against; and we were said on one or more occasions to have provoked Germany to attack. Of course we could also look to the stubbornness of German Jews who held out for months or years when they had the opportunity to leave because they thought it never could happen there.
And such a situation may be coming to pass in our nation. I have been warning that if we really defeat and throw out the untold multitudes of terrorists and criminals that are now within our borders that there will be a great loss of life. Just look at the casualties from the Mexican drug cartel and the government in recent years (I know I mentioned that the other day).
Yes; Gigi I suppose I can be desperately trying to find ways to cope; to prepare or somehow be more ready for what is to come.
Ultimately the Lord is in control; I'll admit knowing we are in a sinking ship is very difficult to deal with but also I'm a realist.
Is it wrong to be realistic about how horrible thing are going to get? Yes; I'll admit if we don't focus on His Spirit it is; it is just mind boggling to me how many professing Christians aren't spiritually up in arms when the casualties are mounting around us.
Sorry to rant.
Agape; RP
I didn't realize that this reply of yours was to me.
I must say that what offends me is when people comment as you have concerning me in a way that is judgmental when you really do not know me or what God knows in my heart.
I understand that you think we all should seek what the Bible says on matters. I agree with that. However, the Bible nowhere says that if a matter is not explicitly set forth in Scripture we are to reject it as a "tradition of men". There was a whole lot more spoken and preached and practiced by the apostles that are not recorded in Scriptures. But some of these have been spoken about by believers close in time to the apostles and with knowledge of what was practiced. This is where historical information come in to help us to understand matters that are not explained, condemned, or commanded in the Scriptures.
For example, the use of organs, pianos and other instruments were not mentioned in Scripture, but are used in worship services now. Therefore, such use can be considered a new tradition. Is it wrong to practice this tradition since we are not instructed to do this in Scripture? Is it a" tradition of men" that we should reject?
Or, the matter of the Lord's Supper in the church. In the first century it was celebrated with a full meal, but most churches do not include a full meal with this ordinance today. So, is changing the way the Supper is performed and celebrated now a "tradition of men" that we should reject?
How about personal Bible study. In the early church people did not have copies of the Bible to study and that continued for 1500 years or so. Is it a "tradition of men" to engage in personal or even home-group studies and therefore be rejected because it is not commanded in the Scriptures?
Then again, what about children's Sunday School classes. These are a very recent practice in the church and was not commanded or practiced in the early church according to the Scriptures. isn't this a tradition of men?....
In conclusion; we might say that the extreme of idealism and patriotism brought vigor and strength to be what otherwise would be cannon fodder. Much newsreels and literature continued to raise the themes of patriotism; and on both sides there were caricatures exaggerating whoever the enemy was; whether racist images of what was perceived as "Jews"; or of the big 3 dictators (Hitler; Hirohito and Mousselini). There are; of course well known conspiracy theories about those who fomented both of these wars and the final war to come. National pride as it stood then was universal; whether by force or free will no one dreamed about living in a world such as envisioned today in our country of open borders in which those who stand for their country are made to feel ashamed.
That being said; we need to look beyond the exterior venire of our past and realize that the spirit of the age dominated. There was an idealism in external beauty as seen with the idolization of hollywood stars; and an ignorance of the evils of racism that truly discriminated against the black population. The Japanese internment in our nation was a sad episode in our past; especially in the light of those who volunteered to fight for our country. Nonetheless; the economic expansion and blessings of our country in general came to pass; certainly in a large part to many who married and were fruitful to multiply as was the plan in Genesis. We can't dwell on the past; but see how patient God was and how many generations He allowed these benefits to our citizens.
As we stand today; we don't know how much time we have until He comes or if any day now we will suffer a major attack and life will suddenly change. Let us fight the good fight daily ( 1 Tim. 6:12) and continue to persevere until the end. We are losing hundreds of thousands every year to drugs; gun violence and suicide so our situation is even more dire than the deaths we suffered in WW2. ( 1 Peter 5:8
Thank you and all who have prayed for Nathan, he is 25. They have moved him out of ICU but he is in a lot of pain and they have not given the family a prognosis. God's will he will come through this.
Thank you again GiGi,
God bless,
RLW
I prayed for you this morning when at the dentist having a tooth prepped for a crown. instead of focusing on the procedure and any discomfort I may feel, I focused on praying for those I know who have asked for prayer, like you. I knew that the time spent in the chair was short and your pain is ongoing, so I will continue to pray for you.
It would seem; with the lines blurring between good and evil (or more precisely; who the friends or the enemy is); today's drone type warfare and proxy wars and the hesitation since Hiroshima and Nagasaki to start a nuclear war (and in the same logic to directly start a large invasion or saturation bombing campaign such as Hitler's "blitzkrieg" which would trigger a nuclear apocalypse; we may not have such a large scale world war until the wars preceding and related to Armageddon. This of course doesn't guarantee this being a logical conclusion; but if wrong it would mean the Lord is going to tarry MUCH longer than it appears today. It would take decades to have any sort of society near "normal" as we see today; and indeed Jesus stated it would be like the times of Noah; or Sodom when destruction comes. ( Matt. 24:37 see also Luke).
In World War 2 itself; but not isolated to that event we saw how the actions of a few may have saved the day. I am not taking the time now to do the research; but I have heard that much prayer happened when England was down to its last plane or last few when being heavily assaulted by the German bombing runs. There were also things that I said in my last post that made the situation worse; namely Roosevelt sending those attempting to escape the concentration camps back to Germany; and the racism that peaked in our country in the 1930s to name two.
In terms of finding meaning; we can look to films such as "Unbroken" to see how Christ can allow forgiveness to our enemies; as well as the Corrie Ten Boom story of being with her sister who died eventually; and her narrative explaining how she praised God for the flea infested camp she was in because the guards didn't come in to beat them and they could study the Word together.
When looking at the madness of dictators we can see foreshadowing of the Antichrist and his campaign commencing in trying to fight Christ. (Ps.2 REV 19
I am happy to pray for your family and mother-in-law.
Listened to Reagan's speech on D-Day 1984 where he said something like: those who fight a war to liberate differ markedly from those who fight a war to conquer.
The allied forces were fighting WWII to liberate. They were just in going to war and landing at Normandy. The men that disembarked were heroic and selfless in their taking to the beaches under German fire. That victory by allied forces was an event that turned the tide for liberation from the dictator Hitler and his plan to conquer all of Europe for his evil reich.
I heard today also of a bill introduced to have a month of celebration/acknowledgement/ honoring all American who have fallen in battle. Hope it happens since this is such a worthy thing to do (as opposed to say-gay pride month)
Those of that generation not only fought the war, but those at home were praying en masse on D-day. Wish our country was more like that now.
On June 6, 1944 the Allied armies began their land invasion from the shores of Normandy. This would involve in large part the American and British and signal their first "en masse" intrusion to force the Germans to retreat. In truth the first major resistance for the Germans was the Russians who stalemated their original expansion east just short of Moscow at the end of 1941 and continuing into 1943 when they started the inevitable push westward; expanding in 1944. In the meantime; those such as my now deceased father in law were involved with the slow incursion on the "boot" of Italy; where interestingly Hitler's ally and codictator ended being more of a pain for Hitler; and also the mass killings in that part of Europe never took the ferocity and numbers to the camps as the rest of Europe. Mussolini met his fate first; then later just less than a year after Normandy; did Hitler at the end of April, 1944 when Berlin was sacked despite his maniacal efforts to resist to the last child that could fight.
Of course on the Japanese front a similar plan would have been an option which was eventually tabled due to the high casualty rates predicted with the 2 atom bombs dropped. If the land invasion happened instead the fight probably would have gone well into 1946.
There is much that can be said about the war; in terms of it being something that got our country out of the depression (which a lot of wars are about; money). World War 2 itself was the last war that was "officially" approved through Congress; unlike any conflicts since. It seemed we knew who was good and who was evil in this event; but truth be told there were those complicit to the evil that occured even in this country and especially with the Japanese things were much more complex than they appeared in regard to the animosity and religious fervor for the Japanese leader and differing fanaticism between the army and navy.
Prayer: That God would pour out his blessings, grace, anointing on our movie, "Make America Great Again." That His Holy Spirit would fill this movie in such a way that viewers would deeply experience the true presence of God from the beginning to the end of the movie. That this movie would be medicine to all Americans and people of the world. That it would bring forth real change, causing people to come together and work together, as ONE (Sumus Unus is what we call it in the movie) to get their countries back from these demonic tyrants who have had their hands on our throats for much too long. That God would put into every person's heart, who watches it, a true respect and sacredness for every person who has sacrificed their lives for our countries and constitutions, especially the sacrifice that Jesus made to give us life, so that we could all be free. That God would fulfill His original plans for this movie. That He would give us the perfect and most effective way to distribute this movie far and wide. If Faith Film Funding is the right group to partner with that the He would bring it forth very soon. That the Lord would finish what He started, that He would allow me, Joseph, to fulfill EXACTLY what He gave me to do after so many years. That He would put a holy hedge around this movie and everyone associated with it. That none of our enemies could stop it from going out far and wide. That the Lord would lift it up to the world and cause it to do all that it was created to do. That it would be a HUGE success! Nothing is impossible with God - I can do all things through Christ who strengthens me - in my weakness God's strength is made perfect - God prepares my table in the presence of my enemies - We can do nothing without Him - angels harken to the Word of God - we are to occupy the land until He comes - whatever we ask for in HIS NAME our Father in heaven will do it
15...The kingdoms OF THIS WORLD are become the Kingdoms of our Lord, and of His Christ; and He shall reign for ever and ever.
18 And the nations were(WILL BE) angry, and GOD's WRATH is come ... and should destroy them which destroy the earth.
The message above was written around 95AD to be LITERALLY fulfilled in the future( Revelation 1:1) , and now, even now, from now on, the prophecy will LITERALLY be executed, for GOD is wrathed against all nations and they will be destroyed, include the current Israel, and only and only will be saved a remnant of Israel- Micah 7:18-20, in fact only 144K will be saved- Revelation 7:1-8. And the others?
The others? Matthew 23:33-35
33 Ye serpents, ye generation of vipers (why serpents? why generation of vipers? The answer is in John 8:44.Take a look), how can ye escape the damnation of hell?
34 Wherefore, behold, I send unto you prophets, and wise men, and scribes: and some of them ye shall kill and crucify; and some of them shall ye scourge in your synagogues, and persecute them from city to city:
35 That upon you may come all the righteous blood shed upon the earth, from the blood of righteous Abel unto the blood of Zacharias son of Barachias, whom ye slew between the temple and the altar.
The Word is GOD, GOD Himself, self-executing, understand?
Get ready
2 Peter 3:9, 2 Tim 2:25-26,
Luke 15:17-32.
I don't believe God gives the ability to one to respond to the Gospel without his foreknowledge.
God knows who is going to come to him.
To believe you can baptize an infant so he can receive salvation later is no different than paying a down-payment on it.
God judges our motives and he shares his glory with no man.
God bless.
Part 5.
It's significant that Paul Owen has to rely on such speculative reasoning in order to argue for infant baptism in the earliest centuries. It's not as if baptism and the issues related to it aren't discussed much in the earliest sources. They're discussed often in the gospels, Acts, the writings of Paul, The Didache, Justin Martyr, Clement of Alexandria, etc. Yet, the first explicit reference to the concept of infant baptism is found in Tertullian, who is writing against it.
It's also significant that Paul has so far chosen to ignore large portions of the evidence I've cited, including my citation of David Wright and his discussion of the conclusions of modern scholarship. Even in discussing the little evidence he's addressed so far, Paul has made some comments that aren't consistent with his original article. He claims that Tertullian and others who didn't want to baptize infants differed from Baptists in their motivations. But they wouldn't have to have all of the same motives as Baptists in order to be inconsistent with Paul's concept of the catholicity of infant baptism.
I wanted to post this earlier but couldn't get away from work.
It's very hard to get anything definite when researching the early church.
We have to go with what is in front of us as they did and that's the written word.
I also believe in a certain age of accountability and that differ between individuals.
The reason for such a thing as an age of accountability is because one would have to have a clear and mature understanding of they have a sin nature that is incurable. And that we are in need of a savior and you can not add to the grace provided.
So, in doing so a child should feel the need to repent.
If there is a 5 year old child that can understand and make the decision for salvation then there is also a 5 year old child that can go to hell.
God bless and good night for now.
I am sorry to hear that you are going through so much pain. To answer your first question, there is no promise of physical healing. The only healing that we are promised is spiritual healing. Can God heal us from physical pain? Yes, of course He can. But there is no promise that He will always do so.
As for your second question asking if it is reasonable to believe that God would answer our prayers, not only is it reasonable to believe that God answers our prayers, but we can have complete confidence that God answers every single prayer that is asked according to His will. What I mean by this is that we sometimes petition God in prayer for something we want without asking for His will to be done in whatever it is we are asking for, whether it be a physical ailment or whatever the case may be.
On the flip side, we might pray for His will to be done in whatever we are asking for, and things may or may not get better. I speak from my own experience when I say that sometimes things may even get worse, but we have to accept the outcome even if it's not the outcome we expected. As brother Spencer has said, our physical bodies are temporary. We are not immune from pain and suffering. But we must trust the Lord even through the pain and hardships we go through.
As some here have prayed for your situation, I also will pray that the Lord will ease your pain according to His will. Please know that if you belong to Christ and are in submission to Him, the pain you are experiencing is not His vengeance on you. Cast all your cares on the Lord. The suffering and pain that we go through in this earthly life cannot even be compared to what awaits those who belong to Christ. ( Romans 8:18).
God Bless!!!
Part 4.
Paul also cites the following from Irenaeus:
"'And dipped himself,' says the Scripture, 'seven times in Jordan.' It was not for nothing that Naaman of old, when suffering from leprosy, was purified upon his being baptized, but it served as an indication to us. For as we are lepers in sin, we are made clean, by means of the sacred water and the invocation of the Lord, from our old transgressions; being spiritually regenerated as new-born babes, even as the Lord has declared: 'Except a man be born again through water and the Spirit, he shall not enter into the kingdom of heaven.'" (Fragments, 34)
If Paul only intends this passage as another example of Irenaeus' belief in baptismal regeneration, then I have no objection. However, if Paul is suggesting that the reference to "new-born babes" is about infant baptism, then I reject that suggestion. Irenaeus is addressing Christians in general. Christians are born again. Regeneration is like becoming a spiritual infant, being born spiritually. This passage says nothing about infant baptism.
Nothing Paul Owen has cited from Irenaeus leads to the conclusion that he believed in infant baptism. To the contrary, it appears that Irenaeus believed in universal infant salvation, like other church fathers of the second century. Thus, the concern some later fathers had for baptizing infants in order to ensure their salvation apparently wouldn't have been a concern to Irenaeus. And when we look at the many passages in Irenaeus that explicitly address baptism, the baptism of infants is never mentioned. So, Paul has attempted to arrive at a conclusion of infant baptism by an indirect means, but, as I've shown above, the argument is inconclusive. There's no logical requirement that infants be baptized in order to be regenerated, and there are passages in Irenaeus in which he discusses infant salvation without any involvement of baptism.
See Part 5.
Part 3.
But we can take this a step further. Irenaeus is one of the fathers who commented on the issue of infant salvation, so we can examine those passages to see if he mentions infant baptism as part of the process. Irenaeus writes:
"And again, who are they that have been saved and received the inheritance? Those, doubtless, who do believe God, and who have continued in His love; as did Caleb the son of Jephunneh and Joshua the son of Nun, and innocent children, who have had no sense of evil." (Against Heresies, 4:28:3)
And elsewhere, concerning the Slaughter of the Innocents:
"For this cause, too, He suddenly removed those children belonging to the house of David, whose happy lot it was to have been born at that time, that He might send them on before into His kingdom; He, since He was Himself an infant, so arranging it that human infants should be martyrs, slain, according to the Scriptures, for the sake of Christ, who was born in Bethlehem of Judah, in the city of David." (Against Heresies, 3:16:4)
Irenaeus doesn't limit his comments in the first passage to children of believers, he says nothing of baptism, and he says nothing of the Bethlehem children being saved only because they had been circumcised. It seems that Irenaeus believed that all children who die in infancy are saved because of "innocence". There's no need to assume infant baptism in order to explain why Irenaeus would refer to Christ regenerating infants.
See Part 4.
Part 2.
In the first passage Paul cites, Irenaeus is addressing the claim that Jesus' public ministry lasted for only one year. This is from the well known section in Irenaeus where he incorrectly asserts that Jesus lived to be over 40 years old. Irenaeus is explaining that Jesus lived through every stage of life, including old age, which would result in His public ministry having lasted more than one year. Jesus experienced every stage of life, from infancy to old age, in order to save people from all age groups. The immediate context says nothing of the baptism of these people. Paul includes baptism by means of combining this passage in Irenaeus with what Irenaeus says elsewhere about baptism. But there's an assumption he's making in combining the two.
Would a belief in baptismal regeneration as normative require that every person regenerated is regenerated through baptism? No, advocates of baptismal regeneration will acknowledge some exceptions, such as the thief on the cross. Paul's assumption that Irenaeus believed that infants are born again through infant baptism is therefore possible, but unproven, at this point in the argument. Hendrick Stander and Johannes Louw explain:
"It is rather pretentious to insist on substituting the notion of baptism every time a writer uses the term 'regeneration' unless the context clearly relates to baptism as such....[this passage in Irenaeus] merely tells us that the redeeming work of Christ extends to whatever person....The passage does not speak about the age when people were baptized." (Baptism In The Early Church [Webster, New York: Carey Publications, 2004], pp. 53, 55)
See Part 3.
Part 1.
Tuesday, February 28, 2006
Paul Owen posted an article today arguing that the second century church father Irenaeus believed in infant baptism. None of the passages Paul cites refer to infant baptism, but Paul assumes that the practice is implied. In past responses to Paul, I've given some examples of Christians of the patristic era opposing his claims about infant baptism, and I've cited the patristic scholar David Wright commenting on the subject. Even if Irenaeus had believed in infant baptism, Paul's original assertions would still be false. But does the evidence suggest that Irenaeus believed in infant baptism?
Paul writes:
"In his treatise Against Heresies (II.22.4) he [Irenaeus] writes: 'He came to save all through means of Himself-all, I say, who through Him are born again to God-infants, and children, and boys, and youths, and old men.' Irenaeus clearly believed that 'infants' in the Church were 'born again' to God, the same as children, youths and adults."
And:
"Like all other Catholic Christians, he believed that the new birth was received through water baptism: 'And again, giving to the disciples the power of regeneration into God, He said to them, Go and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost' (Against Heresies, III.17.1). Cf. also Irenaeus: 'As we are lepers in sin, we are made clean by means of the sacred water and the invocation of the Lord, from our old transgressions, being spiritually regenerated as newborn babes' (cited by J. Pelikan, The Emergence of the Catholic Tradition (100-600), p. 164)."
See part 2.