Give me the opportunity to come back perhaps in a day or so with what my Tyndale 8-translation New Testament says that actual scripture's wording can mean, plus a very useful paraphrase (not a translation) called "The Living Bible".
I am sure it is worth creating a page online about this because in context it talks about Christian wives, non-Christian husbands, divorce etc...
Not an "internal" saving of kids!
Totally out of the context of whatever translation was posted
Paul's letters are pastoral, not necessarily doctrinal. He is addressing pastoral issues within the specific church.
The Corinthians were not that keen on marriage on ascetic grounds so the chapters on marriage are like a discussion where Paul is giving reasons for marriage and his views on divorce.
And here I will defer to Gordon Fee whose commentary on Corinthians is just a bookshelf away.
The verses regarding marriage and sanctification and salvation indicate that while the unbeliever or the children remain within the marriage or the family then the potential for salvation is maintained. To say that marriage / home = salvation is certainly not Paul's intention nor is it ever indicated. In fact in the context of anything else Paul has written about salvation it is ridiculous.
You are absolutely right, Wendy.
If you remember an old black and white movie "How Green Was My Valley" about the Welsh coal mining Valleys from donkeys' years ago, you will be exposed to the wish for the head of the board of deacons to publicly pilllory a lady in the community.
While leaders' names vary from congregation to congregation, there are desires by many leaders to fully control all the plebs; not unique to these guys
Often described as "same old, same old" I'm afraid.
If I read this on face value, if we have a "believing" wife/husband, the other partner is then "sanctified". So how does shunning fit into this picture?Paul Kovaks wrote: ↑Mon Jul 03, 2017 12:34 pmIt's all based on 1 Cor 7:14
To partly come to MCF/BCF's defence here, how else are we to interpret this verse?14For the unbelieving husband is sanctified through his believing wife, and the unbelieving wife is sanctified through her believing husband. Otherwise your children would be unclean, but now they are holy.
In some sense, a parent's faith 'covers' the children until of age. MCF may have gone too far in their statements on this but the basic principle is Scriptural. No?
I agree, as usual, MCF/BCF have read WAY too much into it.
Example; if my husband/wife is naughty (according to xCF) and needs to be shunned and not allowed to talk to our children etc, what is the basis? According to 1Cor 7:14, my partner is sanctified and should be beyond the judgment of men.
But possibly more important to me is the overall message of the NT. I thought that Jesus was the one who delivered forgiveness, salvation and sanctification. Since when does this get "gifted" by association? Rubbish.
The bit in Acts where Philip teaches the African eunuch reading Isaiah's scroll while sitting in his ute (euphemism for his two-wheel chariot lol!!) is interesting as they jointly agree that there was "sufficient" water for Philip to baptise him.Does that imply immersion? or is that a RED HERRING?
We need remember (in context) that the immersion thing was practiced by the Jews of that era as ceremonial "washings" (for example the "Pool of Siloam", and the thing we as kids (and our parents) referred to as "christenings" were very similar to "anointings", also practiced by the Jews.
So where does that leave us all NOW?
Those who don't believe baptism is by immersion (from the Greek, "bapto" meaning dip) have no answer. Nor do we who have been enlightened by charisma.
We are back to the "need to know" furphy, aren't we? (defence Dept official secrets) or simpler "God will tell us what we need in order to live the life here He wants us to live, here and now".
We are the NOW generation - which we have been taught to believe that we MUST know all answers "On Demand". Or am I just showing my age and impatience at younger people? I don't think so really.
In the end, when we transition to the next life, if we are really interested, we shall know anyway, lol. Convoluted reasoning
Seriously, how many times have we heard an angry person say "when I get to meet God, I'll ask Him WHYYYYY". And you know, when we get to meet Him, it';s not going to matter, is it?
My two cents worth. I'm still not well, so if it doesn't make sense, blame "The wog".
And I don't mean Philip's black-skinned Nubian lolol!
I think this thread has been hijacked W-A-Y off topic. But does that matter?
One of the things I've found is that as we delve into what Gilbert and Sullivan (in Sullivan's music) created - "Never Mind the Why and Wherefore... Love can level ranks, and therefore..." we feel more comfortable with discussing detail, and opening our eyes wider in a more accepting way.
Not accepting of wrong stuff,though.
In the retirement village in which I live, I have chosen to walk away from a fortnightly afternoon activity called "fellowship" in which the man in charge (an uniting church retired minister) made some interesting comments, which shows to me the level of corruption we can expect to encounter in the wider church.
I tried to explain to him a bad doctrine the church he attends promotes - (reminds me of "If your brother errs...")- and he hid behind the "circular" concept of "we decided there were many things borderline there but "we" had decided to let them choose what to accept..." my paraphrase from months ago, rather that his actual words in 2016.
With that he removed me from the leading roster with a faulty argument about my punctuality!!
That is similar to other things we have discussed, and this is theoretically in the environment of "the wider church" rather than a cult. I don't NEED to "have a ministry". So there is no real disappointment. Just sadness that someone who sees himself "with a ministry" can inflict his attitude on those he sees as parishioners he can control. Lord have mercy on each of us.
What hope do the plebs have, honestly?
Isn't that remarkably similar to what in a recent post were the accusations that Mark Conner's dad received?
BTW That era was different. PEOPLE HAD BEEN TAUGHT TO "NOT MAKE WAVES" THEN.
The throne of judgement will likely have an appropriate reply to misleading the plebs... we don't need to seek revenge my friends,
"If you do it unto the least of these, my brethren, you do it unto ME"
Immersion of course makes sense biblically but God is merciful (either way).
But baptising babies is a GENUINELY strange thing to do given the closely related command of 'repent'.
On the other hand, how come many (most?) Pentecostals give holy communion to kids and even infants? Scripture (1 Cor 11:28) says 'Each one must examine himself before he eats of the bread and drinks of the cup'.
It's even clearer than the baptism situation! BUt when I've mentioned it to leaders they argue with non-Scripture!
But God is a merciful God. Even the new Pentecostal church we go to does communion for everyone. How hard would it be to practise Catholic/Lutheran-like 'first communion' after the child has confessed a desire to follow Christ? I can't fault that based on 1 Cor 11:28.
If you're going to hold off baptism for unable to repenters, you've got to hold off communion! I'm not sure anyone does that combo correctly because it feels Catholic!
If you insist on immersion baptism because that is how you interpret how Christ was baptised, why is the mode any more important than the place, why not insist that all baptisms happen in a river or in the Jordan river more specifically.
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest