Baptism as requirement for membership set for church vote

Discussion:

(too old to reply)

Stephen Korsman

2006-08-04 19:05:53 UTC

x-no-archive: yes
On Fri, 4 Aug 2006 07:11:48 +0200, "Stephen Korsman"
© 2006 John Weatherly; all rights reserved; no portion of this
article may be used elsewhere without express written consent of the
author

x-no-archive: yes
On Thu, 3 Aug 2006 18:41:49 +0200, "Stephen Korsman"
© 2006 John Weatherly; all rights reserved; no portion of this
article may be used elsewhere without express written consent of the
author

x-no-archive: yes
On Wed, 2 Aug 2006 22:11:01 +0200, "Stephen Korsman"
© 2006 John Weatherly; all rights reserved; no portion of this
article may be used elsewhere without express written consent of the
author

x-no-archive: yes
On Tue, 01 Aug 2006 22:17:31 -0500, Mike I
© 2006 John Weatherly; all rights reserved; no portion of this
article may be used elsewhere without express written consent of

the

author

On Tue, 01 Aug 2006 07:35:30 -0500, Mike I

"cafeteria Baptist"...

no such thing

Just a figure of speech.. when some one or group picks and

chooses

what doctrines they wish to follow that is what JW accused them

doing.

I've heard the term, "cafeteria Christian", but don't use it to

refer

to ME! I TYPICALLY hear it used by Roman Catholics to refer to
everyone else! (the Non-Roman Catholics)
In other words, if you're not a Roman Catholic, and you claim to

Christian, then you're a "cafeteria Christian."
If ever there was a "cafeteria Christian", it's a Roman Catholic
Immersion, believers' baptism (in the Bible)
don't believe in it
Salvation by grace through faith in Christ (John 3:16)
don't believe in it
Have NO other gods before me!
don't believe in it.
I could give you 50 - 75 examples without even trying!
"don't believe that!"
If ever there was a "cafeteria Christian", it's a Roman Catholic.

Actually, the term is usually used to describe a Catholic who picks

and

chooses what parts of Catholic teaching he will believe or follow.

I was being facetious. The times I've heard "Cafeteria Christian"

it's

been a put-down from a Roman Catholic who has been wrongly taught

that

all Christians must believe these 550 things. If you only believe

549

of them, you can't be a Christian!
I see in scripture, that we must believe certain "core teachings",
such as the Trinity, the Deity of our Lord, His virgin birth, etc.
Yet even a CORE teaching among MOST denominations of Christians, the
final authority of scripture as taught by the Holy Spirit,

To each individual?

Here we go again! I've discussed this REPEATEDLY, and yet you STILL
can't wrap your head around it! After I've discussed it from 50
different angles, it remains a complete MYSTERY to you!
Why is that?
Even if you disagreed, you SHOULD be able to understand it! Yet your
continued questions about the "priesthood of the believer" (Let each
of you make up his own mind) indicate you just don't get it!

Let each person make up their own mind and theology.

You obviously
1. didn't look up the passage.
2. looked it up, but with your obvious spiritual blindness, you didn't
get it.
That's how Baptists

work, it seems. You included. It's all arbitrary.

Not at all!
We are free to decide for ourselves on non-essentials. ALL the topics
in that passage are NON-ESSENTIALS.
feasts
holidays
foods to eat/avoid
days to worship
NON-essentials!

And what is essential and not essential (e.g. water volume and body posture
seems to be essential to you) is completely arbitrary. There is no
systematic authority on how to interpret the Bible, and what is and is not
essential.

God bless,
Stephen
--
Stephen Korsman
website: http://www.theotokos.co.za/adventism/
blog: http://www.theotokos.co.za/blog/

IC | XC
---------
NI | KA

add an s before .co.za

Stephen Korsman

2006-08-04 19:06:05 UTC

Permalink

x-no-archive: yes
On Fri, 4 Aug 2006 07:17:33 +0200, "Stephen Korsman"
© 2006 John Weatherly; all rights reserved; no portion of this
article may be used elsewhere without express written consent of the
author

x-no-archive: yes
On Tue, 01 Aug 2006 22:17:31 -0500, Mike I
© 2006 John Weatherly; all rights reserved; no portion of this
article may be used elsewhere without express written consent of

the

author

On Tue, 01 Aug 2006 07:35:30 -0500, Mike I

"cafeteria Baptist"...

no such thing

Just a figure of speech.. when some one or group picks and

chooses

what doctrines they wish to follow that is what JW accused them

doing.

I've heard the term, "cafeteria Christian", but don't use it to

refer

to ME! I TYPICALLY hear it used by Roman Catholics to refer to
everyone else! (the Non-Roman Catholics)
In other words, if you're not a Roman Catholic, and you claim to

Actually, the term is usually used to describe a Catholic who picks

and

chooses what parts of Catholic teaching he will believe or follow.

I was being facetious. The times I've heard "Cafeteria Christian"

it's

been a put-down from a Roman Catholic who has been wrongly taught

that

all Christians must believe these 550 things. If you only believe

549

To each individual?

the Roman
Catholic FLATLY rejects, placing that authority in the VATICAN,
instead.

It's a common thread amongst a minority ... not a core teaching of
historical Christianity.

Meaning YOU would FLUNK a CORE teaching of MOST other denominations.

If it were a core teaching of Christianity, that would be problematic.

But

since it's not, but rather a common teaching held by the minority, and

teaching that is 500 years old at most, it's not a problem.

By its very nature, Sola Scriptura leads to that sort of thing

Nonsense! And -- again-- you misunderstand the authority of
scripture. It unites us; it does not divide us.

Tell that to all the denominations who baptise adults only and

infants,

who

believe that Jesus' presence in the Eucharist is symbolic, really

present,

and absent, who sing only psalms as well as other hymns, including and
forbidding rock music, etc.

And how it unites us is simply that it allows the Saturday

worshipper

to fellowship outside of church with the Sunday worshipper, as long

both are tolerant.
It allows the person who reads the NIV translation to fellowship

with

the one who prefers the RSV.
It allows the person who speaks in "tongues" to fellowship with the
one who believes the signs are long gone.
- not picking

and choosing what parts of the Bible are good and bad (although

many

so)

Actually, AGAIN, that is a misunderstanding of the freedom we have

Christ.
I have explained MANY times, yet you-- an "enlightened Roman
Catholic" -- continue to fail to grasp Paul's VERY important

teaching.

"Let each be convinced in his own mind."

Of the virgin birth?

Did I mention the virgin birth as a teaching on which there could be
diversity?

I never said you did.

Yes, you did!

You can't read.

And with THAT lie, I cut you off yet again!
Lie to someone else!

I'm sure you will.

God bless,
Stephen
--
Stephen Korsman
website: http://www.theotokos.co.za/adventism/
blog: http://www.theotokos.co.za/blog/

IC | XC
---------
NI | KA

add an s before .co.za

Stephen Korsman

2006-08-04 19:06:10 UTC

Permalink

x-no-archive: yes
On Tue, 01 Aug 2006 22:17:31 -0500, Mike I
© 2006 John Weatherly; all rights reserved; no portion of this
article may be used elsewhere without express written consent of

the

author

On Tue, 01 Aug 2006 07:35:30 -0500, Mike I

"cafeteria Baptist"...

no such thing

Just a figure of speech.. when some one or group picks and

chooses

what doctrines they wish to follow that is what JW accused them

doing.

I've heard the term, "cafeteria Christian", but don't use it to

refer

to ME! I TYPICALLY hear it used by Roman Catholics to refer to
everyone else! (the Non-Roman Catholics)
In other words, if you're not a Roman Catholic, and you claim to

Actually, the term is usually used to describe a Catholic who picks

and

chooses what parts of Catholic teaching he will believe or follow.

I was being facetious. The times I've heard "Cafeteria Christian"

it's

been a put-down from a Roman Catholic who has been wrongly taught

that

all Christians must believe these 550 things. If you only believe

549

To each individual?

the Roman
Catholic FLATLY rejects, placing that authority in the VATICAN,
instead.

It's a common thread amongst a minority ... not a core teaching of
historical Christianity.

Meaning YOU would FLUNK a CORE teaching of MOST other denominations.

If it were a core teaching of Christianity, that would be problematic.

But

since it's not, but rather a common teaching held by the minority, and

teaching that is 500 years old at most, it's not a problem.

By its very nature, Sola Scriptura leads to that sort of thing

Nonsense! And -- again-- you misunderstand the authority of
scripture. It unites us; it does not divide us.

Tell that to all the denominations who baptise adults only and

infants,

who

believe that Jesus' presence in the Eucharist is symbolic, really

present,

and absent, who sing only psalms as well as other hymns, including and
forbidding rock music, etc.

And how it unites us is simply that it allows the Saturday

worshipper

to fellowship outside of church with the Sunday worshipper, as long

both are tolerant.
It allows the person who reads the NIV translation to fellowship

with

the one who prefers the RSV.
It allows the person who speaks in "tongues" to fellowship with the
one who believes the signs are long gone.
- not picking

and choosing what parts of the Bible are good and bad (although

many

so)

Actually, AGAIN, that is a misunderstanding of the freedom we have

Christ.
I have explained MANY times, yet you-- an "enlightened Roman
Catholic" -- continue to fail to grasp Paul's VERY important

teaching.

"Let each be convinced in his own mind."

Of the virgin birth?

Did I mention the virgin birth as a teaching on which there could be
diversity?

I never said you did.

I did not! Which means you CONTINUE to not understand "core teaching"
(virgin birth) from differences over which day we should worship!

No, that's Adventism.

For you, there are 500 teachings that I would call "diversity"
teachings that you would call "core" teachings.

Likewise. So it's all arbitrary. Who decides? You?

There simply is not FREEDOM of conscience in your religion.

Then you don't understand it.

Which is
why I would never ever ever be a part of your religion. It forbids
individuality and thought.

Then you don't understand it.

Yes, sure, let them be convinced, but one way is

right, and the other is wrong.

So, according to your rigid view, which is the correct Bible?

The 73 book one. Anything else is relative truth.

According to your rigid view, what is the correct style of seating in
church?

In some churches, there is no seating. They stand.

According to you, which is the correct type of wood to be used for
the pulpit?

Who says it has to be wood? If it's wood, it is decreed that it be the

wood

of a tree, and let anyone who denies that be anathema. All else is
non-essential.

IF I eat meat, but you do not, then I should not eat meat in front

you.
If you drink vodka, and I do not, then you should not drink your

vodka

in front of me.

but choosing how one will interpret the passages one accepts, based

variety of whims.

AGAIN, you ridicule and dismiss a very important teaching. "The
freedom in Christ to disagree on non-essentials."
You do not have/ and you do not understand, the freedom in Christ to
disagree on the non-essentials.

And, it would seem, you have the freedom to define what non-essentials

are,

while the rest do not.

I have defined "non-essentials" MANY times, but in your atrophied
(Roman Catholicized) brain, you just don't get it.
That means-- for you-- any teaching-- ANYTHING-- that comes out of
Rome, is a "core teaching."
If the Roman Catholic Church ordered you to begin drinking your urine
tomorrow, you would.

Nope, that's Baptists.
Isa 36:12 But Rabshakeh said, Hath my master sent me to thy master and

thee to speak these words? hath he not sent me to the men that sit upon

the

wall, that they may eat their own dung, and drink their own piss with

you?

If it comes out of the Vatican, it's "core
teaching."

You obviously haven't a clue about things like that.

You want the magical "power" of "eating His flesh" and "drinking His
blood!"
You want the magical "power" of praying to Mary and Peter.
You want the magical "power" of bowing down to the idols in your
cathedrals
You want the magical "power" you get from "indulgences".
You want the magical "power" of voting for a "pope" every -__ years.
You want the magical "power" of being sprinkled with "holy water"
periodically.
You want the magical "power" of burning candles when you "pray."
You want the magical "power" of chanting the "Rosary" 50 times a week.
But if there's any REAL mystical "power" in being immersed,

You have your magical powers, and Catholicism has its own mysticism. I'll
leave it at that. I know which one is biblical.

God bless,
Stephen
--
Stephen Korsman
website: http://www.theotokos.co.za/adventism/
blog: http://www.theotokos.co.za/blog/

IC | XC
---------
NI | KA

add an s before .co.za

Stephen Korsman

2006-08-04 19:06:16 UTC

Permalink

x-no-archive: yes
On Fri, 4 Aug 2006 07:19:25 +0200, "Stephen Korsman"
© 2006 John Weatherly; all rights reserved; no portion of this
article may be used elsewhere without express written consent of the
author

x-no-archive: yes
On Thu, 3 Aug 2006 18:43:31 +0200, "Stephen Korsman"
© 2006 John Weatherly; all rights reserved; no portion of this
article may be used elsewhere without express written consent of the
author

x-no-archive: yes
On Wed, 2 Aug 2006 22:11:56 +0200, "Stephen Korsman"
© 2006 John Weatherly; all rights reserved; no portion of this
article may be used elsewhere without express written consent of the
author

the

author

2. in the way Jesus chose to baptize the first of His

followers.

JESUS DID NOT BAPTIZE WITH WATER.

John 3
JN 3:22 After this, Jesus and his disciples went out into the
Judean countryside,
where he spent some time with them, and baptized.
23 Now John also was baptizing at Aenon near Salim, because there

was

plenty of water, and people were constantly coming to be

baptized.

(This was before John was put in prison.) 25 An argument

developed

between some of John's disciples and a certain Jew over the

matter

ceremonial washing.
26 They came to John and said to him, "Rabbi, that man who was

with

you on the other side of the Jordan--the one you testified
about--well,
He is baptizing, and everyone is going to him."
^ ^

John 4:2 (Though Jesus himself baptized not, but his

disciples,)

CONTRADICTORY information. It MUST square with John 3.

It's EXPLANATORY, not CONTRADICTORY, information. It EXPLAINS John

How many times do you plan on "explaining' this contradiction?
That's probably 20 thus far this week!

I don't believe the Bible contradicts itself.

No, but the ONLY way you can explain the apparent CONTRADICTION
between John 3 and John 4 is to disregard John 3!

Nope, you disregard John 4.

I strive to HARMONIZE them! He did baptize; not everybody who
"reported in" saw Him baptize.

That phrase is not about what they saw, it's an explanation from John

(the

Apostle) of what they said.

However, that view presents YOU a MAJOR problem!
"He BAPTIZED," that is, He IMMERSED BELIEVERS IN WATER!
HORRORS!
YOU SIMPLY CANNOT HAVE VERSES THAT SAY ' HE BAPTIZED' ANYONE!
So YOU simply toss THOSE verses in the GARBAGE!
" Well, John 3 says He did! John 4 says He didn't!"
You're gonna go with John 4! ;-)

You go with John 3. I harmonise them.

Why am I not surprised?
(You're a Roman Catholic!)
--- INSTEAD-- I HARMONIZE them!
;-)
Nor do you need refer me to the Adventists!

Why not? You're just as legalisting, believing in a religion of body
posture rules and water volume.

On the contrary! I believe in baptizing BELIEVERS (like Jesus
believed). I don't base baptism on ASSUMPTIONS (like ASSUMING that
infants "simply MUST have been baptized" even though not one single
mention of an infant being "baptized" can be found in the New
Testament!
And I believe in being baptized like Jesus chose to be baptized, and
like His followers chose to do it.
And I don't argue over "we don't KNOW He was immersed!"
(but you REFUSE to be immersed "in case HE WAS")
There would be ABSOLUTELY NO SIN INVOLVED WHATSOEVER in being IMMERSED
in water.
But you STILL R E F U S E to do it!
Why?
Because ROME says "Don't!"

Rome doesn't say "don't" ... you're making things up. Like your first
century AD church building marked as such.

God bless,
Stephen
--
Stephen Korsman
website: http://www.theotokos.co.za/adventism/
blog: http://www.theotokos.co.za/blog/

IC | XC
---------
NI | KA

add an s before .co.za

Stephen Korsman

2006-08-04 19:06:23 UTC

Permalink

x-no-archive: yes
On Fri, 4 Aug 2006 07:09:23 +0200, "Stephen Korsman"
© 2006 John Weatherly; all rights reserved; no portion of this
article may be used elsewhere without express written consent of the
author

x-no-archive: yes
On Thu, 3 Aug 2006 18:35:47 +0200, "Stephen Korsman"
© 2006 John Weatherly; all rights reserved; no portion of this
article may be used elsewhere without express written consent of the
author

x-no-archive: yes
On Wed, 2 Aug 2006 22:08:08 +0200, "Stephen Korsman"
© 2006 John Weatherly; all rights reserved; no portion of this
article may be used elsewhere without express written consent of the
author

the

author

the

author

snip

The Trinity is debatable

Not if you're a Christian, it's not!
- see many Jehovah's Witness-related threads.
And why on EARTH do you consider Jehovah's Witnesses "Christians?"
Last I was aware, the discussion was amongst CHRISTIANS. Jehovah's
Witnesses are NOT Christians.

In other words, you've just admitted that it's debatable by debating

it.

Oh, you DO LOVE to play games and you never give one inch!

Not to the likes of you, no.

Interesting comment.

I am not debating you! I informed you that you are incorrect in your
belief that Jehovah's Witnesses are Christians!
Why can't you stay on topic?

Why can't you?

Interesting comment.
Did you stick your tongue out and blow me a raspberry?
Did you put your finger on your nose and wiggle your hand at me?

Or do you PREFER being "cutesy?"

If you EXAMINED Jehovah's Witnesses "doctrine" (as you choose to
mis-label it), Jehovah's Witnesses not only reject the teaching
regarding the Trinity, they reject the teaching that Jesus Christ

was

God/man. They teach that he was a created being, an ANGEL.
NO matter what else you are confused about, if you reject the Deity

the Lord Jesus Christ, you are "preaching another gospel."
John 1, The Word WAS GOD, and The Word became flesh.

Transubstantiation is debatable - see your own statements.

To YOU, transubstantiation is "debatable'. To me, it's not, as it's

myth. Unnecessary "magic."

In other words, you've just admitted that it's debatable by debating

it.

Interesting. I give you some VITAL information PROVING that the
Jehovah's Witnesses aren't Christians by YOUR standard, and you IGNORE
it!
You are playing games.

I am not debating transubstantiation.

Not here, but you do. So that proves it's debatable.

As I said,
Interesting. I give you some VITAL information PROVING that the
Jehovah's Witnesses aren't Christians by YOUR standard, and you IGNORE
it!
You are playing games.

And I will leave you here.
AGAIN, you waste my time with "cutesy."
tsk tsk
I am trying to get into some SERIOUS discussion here. You prefer
trolling and playing patty cakes!

Just demonstrating your theology so that others can see it for what it

is.

smirk. You have NO clue!
And I think I will watch for your sig for the next week and avoid you.
You are a troll, and you aren't contributing. at the moment, in fact,
I think you are being little more than an attention whore.

Sorry, that's your legacy, and now that you've become tiresome, you're off
to the killfile ... I'll just finish reading your last bit of verbiage, then
you're gone. I've kept you here this long because when you have a good
moment, you say sensible things, but the full moon has gotten the better of
your bipolar disorder now.

God bless,
Stephen
--
Stephen Korsman
website: http://www.theotokos.co.za/adventism/
blog: http://www.theotokos.co.za/blog/

IC | XC
---------
NI | KA

add an s before .co.za