This questions if for Protestants who believe in adult baptism.
What is the fate a child who dies unbaptized?
[quote]Tiribulus wrote:
[quote]Brother Chris wrote:
[quote]Tiribulus wrote:
[quote]Brother Chris wrote:
This is directed towards Tirib, but anyone can answer it.
Did the Apostles break fellowship with those who were teaching different doctrines than they were teaching? Yes or no?[/quote]I just now saw this and I’m gonna try n get some sleep. The short answer is yes (this was your best trap so far BTW Chris. Yer gittin better)[/quote]
As you can see there are only two answers. And, you picked the longest answer by one letter.
Well, why don’t you do the same? Paul commands Titus (sometimes I like the King James, just not when he goes to Miami) in 3:10-11, “A man that is a heretic, after the first and second admonition reject, knowing that he that is such is subverted, and sinneth, being condemned of himself.” So, reject the heretic or the man that believes and teaches different doctrines. Does not the Bible say break fellowship with them? Or, do you believe that it is okay to worship and fellowship with those who believe and teach different doctrines? Is there no problem with doing this? >>>[/quote]What does “reject” mean? AND it is just not possible to deny that comprehensive conformity has an elusiveness 2000 years hence that was more easily overcome while the apostles were still with us. Paul penned this letter to his beloved and trusted brother Titus in the early to mid 60’s somewhere while Titus was on Crete. The location is not insignificant in gaining the import of Paul’s admonition. [quote]Brother Chris wrote:<<< Next question, did Jesus and the Apostles demand conformity to the doctrines they taught? Yes or no?[/quote]Uhhh… no. They agreed with Pat that there’s truth in all religions and everybody not demanding to go to hell wouldn’t. Of course they did. There. I jumped in with both feet. Lemme have it Christopher. Don’t lemme down now.
[/quote]
There is truth in most religions to varying degrees, not all. You can’t just make something up from thin air and it be truth. For instance, though you faith does believe in Jesus as the son of God and savior of the wor…well of some chosen few. I see calvinism stunningly short on truth. To the point where it can be detrimental as it accuses God of sin.
Unfortunately Pat ol buddy ol pal, you remain stunningly short on your understanding of “Calvinism”.
[quote]Tiribulus wrote:
[quote]Brother Chris wrote:<<< Next question, did Jesus and the Apostles demand conformity to the doctrines they taught? Yes or no?[/quote]Uhhh… no.
[/quote]
The Bible says otherwise: Paul to Titus, speaking of bishops, that they should “Give instruction in sound doctrine and also to confute those who contradict it,” (Titus 1:9). “Teach what befits sound doctrine,” (Titus 2:1). “Guard the truth that has been entrusted to you by the Holy Spirit,” (2 Tim 1:14). “That you may charge certain persons not to teach ANY different doctrine,” (1 Tim 1:3) and there is no mention of it being okay to teach different doctrine as long as it is “non-essential.”
Conformity is commanded in all of these quotes of Paul. Paul is inspired by the Holy Ghost, who was sent by Jesus, so Jesus, as did the Apostles, demanded conformity to the doctrines He taught.
This begs the question, why do Protestants think it’s okay to not have doctrinal conformity among the various denominations? How can protestants think that the lack of conformity could in anyway be of God?
I didn’t read your answer because I was busy taking my tongue outta my cheek after jabbin ol Patty boy (unless he is not at all Irish. Then it would be “Pateranza” for that hispanic blood.) Come on Chris. You didn’t see that I said of course they demanded doctrinal purity? They also demanded holy and spotless purity of speech and life btw. I doubt if that changes your answer, but jist in case.
[quote]Tiribulus wrote:
I didn’t read your answer because I was busy taking my tongue outta my cheek after jabbin ol Patty boy (unless he is not at all Irish. Then it would be “Pateranza” for that hispanic blood.) Come on Chris. You didn’t see that I said of course they demanded doctrinal purity? They also demanded holy and spotless purity of speech and life btw. I doubt if that changes your answer, but jist in case.[/quote]
Yes, and I don’t objectify women with friends, I don’t make sexual jokes, and I don’t take the Lord’s name in vain. Unless you’re talking about the Puritan idea (based on their idea of matter being evil) that there are certain words on their own that are immoral to utter.
If that is what you mean, I say bollocks to that.
I didn’t read your answer because I was busy taking my tongue outta my cheek after jabbin ol Patty boy (unless he is not at all Irish. Then it would be “Pateranza” for that hispanic blood.) Come on Chris. You didn’t see that I said of course they demanded doctrinal purity? They also demanded holy and spotless purity of speech and life btw. I doubt if that changes your answer, but jist in case.
I didn’t read your answer because I was busy taking my tongue outta my cheek after jabbin ol Patty boy (unless he is not at all Irish. Then it would be “Pateranza” for that hispanic blood.) Come on Chris. You didn’t see that I said of course they demanded doctrinal purity? They also demanded holy and spotless purity of speech and life btw. I doubt if that changes your answer, but jist in case.
[quote]Tiribulus wrote:
Unfortunately Pat ol buddy ol pal, you remain stunningly short on your understanding of “Calvinism”.[/quote]
Oh, no I understand it better that you do!