AboutMichael Kelley Expertise For a different viewpoint on Mormonism for your questions, try me. I am a staunch believer in the Book of Mormon and belong to another church (the Church of Christ)that is set up identically to the Biblical church. If there are things about traditional Mormonism that trouble you or you have questions about, just ask and you might find the answers from the Book of Mormon to be quite surprising. I have been studying the scriptures diligently for 16 years under the school of hard knocks... I may not have all of the answers but will sure go find them if I don`t. I`m strongest on Biblical and Book of Mormon doctrines, and am also somewhat familiar with Mormon history and archaeology.
Question Dear Michael. Thanks for the great reply, allow me to follow up.
You said,
"The only outright contradictions that I am aware of are the cases that I already quoted where Moses taught Divorce for any cause which Jesus had to refute and the question of polygamy being acceptable to God in the cases of David and Solomon."
Michael, you may be missing my point,my question is not whether some issues in the old Testament may appear to be different from things in the new Testament we can all agree the NT was the fulfillment of the OT, the question is about traslation, Where is the problem of tranlation in the Greek text? Or what is wrong with the Greek Text in and of itelf?
Where in the Bible did God say the Polygamy of David and Solomon was "accepable." As far as my research, He doesnt say, either way up to that point.
..................................................
You say,(about apostacy)
"There are numerous reasons why, mainly it was the watering down and polluting of the early church in order to make it a political entity. The doctrines are the key thing, and there were numerous changes added. For example baptism... the original Church of Christ baptized only those who were accountable and REPENTED of thier sins first and were then IMMERSED by water. The Greek word for baptism - Baptizmo - means literally "to be buried", Jesus was immersed by John as the example. Some today sprinkle infants which there are no scriptural examples of such, some even suppose a child that dies without baptism would go to hell under the sin of Adam. The OT teaches animal sacrifices for those who sin in their ignorance."
First of all,The Catholic Church has never had doctrine saying a child without baptism goes to Hell, though the centuries there has been those who taught Limbo and the such, but non of this was ever offical doctrine.
Baptism: Immersion Only?
Although Latin-rite Catholics are usually baptized by infusion (pouring), they know that immersion (dunking) and sprinkling are also valid ways to baptize. Fundamentalists, however, regard only baptism by immersion as true baptism, concluding that most Catholics are not validly baptized at all.
Although the New Testament contains no explicit instructions on how physically to administer the water of baptism, Fundamentalists argue that the Greek word baptizo found in the New Testament means "to immerse." They also maintain that only immersion reflects the symbolic significance of being "buried" and "raised" with Christ (see Romans 6:3-4).
It is true that baptizo often means immersion. For example, the Greek version of the Old Testament tells us that Naaman, at Elisha's direction, "went down and dipped himself [the Greek word here is baptizo] seven times in the Jordan" (2 Kgs. 5:14, Septuagint, emphasis added).
But immersion is not the only meaning of baptizo. Sometimes it just means washing up. Thus Luke 11:38 reports that, when Jesus ate at a Pharisee's house, "[t]he Pharisee was astonished to see that he did not first wash [baptizo] before dinner." They did not practice immersion before dinner, but, according to Mark, the Pharisees "do not eat unless they wash [nipto] their hands, observing the tradition of the elders; and when they come from the market place, they do not eat unless they wash themselves [baptizo]" (Mark 7:3–4a, emphasis added). So baptizo can mean cleansing or ritual washing as well as immersion.
A similar range of meanings can be seen when baptizo is used metaphorically. Sometimes a figurative "baptism" is a sort of "immersion"; but not always. For example, speaking of his future suffering and death, Jesus said, "I have a baptism [baptisma] to be baptized [baptizo] with; and how I am constrained until it is accomplished!" (Luke 12:50) This might suggest that Christ would be "immersed" in suffering. On the other hand, consider the case of being "baptized with the Holy Spirit."
In Acts 1:4–5 Jesus charged his disciples "not to depart from Jerusalem, but to wait for the promise of the Father, which, he said, ‘you heard from me, for John baptized with water, but before many days you shall be baptized with the Holy Spirit.'" Did this mean they would be "immersed" in the Spirit? No: three times Acts 2 states that the Holy Spirit was poured out on them when Pentecost came (2:17, 18, 33, emphasis added). Later Peter referred to the Spirit falling upon them, and also on others after Pentecost, explicitly identifying these events with the promise of being "baptized with the Holy Spirit" (Acts 11:15–17). These passages demonstrate that the meaning of baptizo is broad enough to include "pouring." www.catholic.com
Michael also think about desert people, or those living in an area where there is not much water and the rivers are low,which dont allow for full immerison. "The Didache" which is an early Christian text publish in 70 AD allows for water to be poured onto the head of the person when immersion is not possible.
Also think of someone on their deathbed, who at the last hour decides to be baptised. Here the pouring of water is very appropriate.
And any catholic can be baptised by immersion if they request.
................................................................
Infant Baptism
Fundamentalists often criticize the Catholic Church's practice of baptizing infants. According to them, baptism is for adults and older children, because it is to be administered only after one has undergone a "born again" experience—that is, after one has "accepted Jesus Christ as his personal Lord and Savior." At the instant of acceptance, when he is "born again," the adult becomes a Christian, and his salvation is assured forever. Baptism follows, though it has no actual salvific value. In fact, one who dies before being baptized, but after "being saved," goes to heaven anyway.
As Fundamentalists see it, baptism is not a sacrament (in the true sense of the word), but an ordinance. It does not in any way convey the grace it symbolizes; rather, it is merely a public manifestation of the person's conversion. Since only an adult or older child can be converted, baptism is inappropriate for infants or for children who have not yet reached the age of reason (generally considered to be age seven). Most Fundamentalists say that during the years before they reach the age of reason infants and young children are automatically saved. Only once a person reaches the age of reason does he need to "accept Jesus" in order to reach heaven.
Since the New Testament era, the Catholic Church has always understood baptism differently, teaching that it is a sacrament which accomplishes several things, the first of which is the remission of sin, both original sin and actual sin—only original sin in the case of infants and young children, since they are incapable of actual sin; and both original and actual sin in the case of older persons.
Peter explained what happens at baptism when he said, "Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins; and you shall receive the gift of the Holy Spirit" (Acts 2:38). But he did not restrict this teaching to adults. He added, "For the promise is to you and to your children and to all that are far off, every one whom the Lord our God calls to him" (2:39). We also read: "Rise and be baptized, and wash away your sins, calling on his name" (Acts 22:16). These commands are universal, not restricted to adults. Further, these commands make clear the necessary connection between baptism and salvation, a
connection explicitly stated in 1 Peter 3:21: "Baptism . . . now saves you, not as a removal of dirt from the body but as an appeal to God for a clear conscience, through the resurrection of Jesus Christ."
.................................................................
Christ Calls All to Baptism
Although Fundamentalists are the most recent critics of infant baptism, opposition to infant baptism is not a new phenomenon. In the Middle Ages, some groups developed that rejected infant baptism, e.g., the Waldenses and Catharists. Later, the Anabaptists ("re-baptizers") echoed them, claiming that infants are incapable of being baptized validly. But the historic Christian Church has always held that Christ's law applies to infants as well as adults, for Jesus said that no one can enter heaven unless he has been born again of water and the Holy Spirit (John 3:5). His words can be taken to apply to anyone capable of belonging to his kingdom. He asserted such even for children: "Let the children come to me, and do not hinder them; for to such belongs the kingdom of heaven" (Matt. 19:14).
More detail is given in Luke's account of this event, which reads: "Now they were bringing even infants to him that he might touch them; and when the disciples saw it, they rebuked them. But Jesus called them to him, saying, ‘Let the children come to me, and do not hinder them; for to such belongs the kingdom of God'" (Luke 18:15–16).
Now Fundamentalists say this event does not apply to young children or infants since it implies the children to which Christ was referring were able to approach him on their own. (Older translations have, "Suffer the little children to come unto me," which seems to suggest they could do so under their own power.) Fundamentalists conclude the passage refers only to children old enough to walk, and, presumably, capable of sinning. But the text in Luke 18:15 says, "Now they were bringing even infants to him" (Greek, Prosepheron de auto kai ta brepha). The Greek word brepha means "infants"—children who are quite unable to approach Christ on their own and who could not possibly make a conscious
decision to "accept Jesus as their personal Lord and Savior." And that is precisely the problem. Fundamentalists refuse to permit the baptism of infants and young children, because they are not yet capable of making such a conscious act. But notice what Jesus said: "to such as these [referring to the infants and children who had been brought to him by their mothers] belongs the kingdom of heaven." The Lord did not require them to make a conscious decision. He says that they are precisely the kind of people who can come to him and receive the kingdom. So on what basis, Fundamentalists should be asked, can infants and young children be excluded from the sacrament of baptism? If Jesus said "let them come unto me," who are we to say "no," and withhold baptism from them?
...........................................................
In Place of Circumcision
Furthermore, Paul notes that baptism has replaced circumcision (Col. 2:11–12). In that passage, he refers to baptism as "the circumcision of Christ" and "the circumcision made without hands." Of course, usually only infants were circumcised under the Old Law; circumcision of adults was rare, since there were few converts to Judaism. If Paul meant to exclude infants, he would not have chosen circumcision as a parallel for baptism.
This comparison between who could receive baptism and circumcision is an appropriate one. In the Old Testament, if a man wanted to become a Jew, he had to believe in the God of Israel and be circumcised. In the New Testament, if one wants to become a Christian, one must believe in God and Jesus and be baptized. In the Old Testament, those born into Jewish households could be circumcised in anticipation of the Jewish faith in which they would be raised. Thus in the New Testament, those born in Christian households can be baptized in anticipation of the Christian faith in which they will be raised. The pattern is the same: If one is an adult, one must have faith before receiving the rite of membership; if one is a child too young to have faith, one may be given the rite of membership in the knowledge that one will be raised in the faith. This is the basis of Paul's reference to baptism as "the circumcision of Christ"—that is, the Christian equivalent of circumcision.
Remember a Jewish baby was made a Jew as an Infant.
His parents did not wait for him to grow and then ask him is he wanted to be Jewish.
.......................................................................
Were Only Adults Baptized?
Fundamentalists are reluctant to admit that the Bible nowhere says baptism is to be restricted to adults, but when pressed, they will. They just conclude that is what it should be taken as meaning, even if the text does not explicitly support such a view. Naturally enough, the people whose baptisms we read about in Scripture (and few are individually identified) are adults, because they were converted as adults. This makes sense, because Christianity was just beginning—there were no "cradle Christians," people brought up from childhood in Christian homes.
Even in the books of the New Testament that were written later in the first century, during the time when children were raised in the first Christian homes, we never—not even once—find an example of a child raised in a Christian home who is baptized only upon making a "decision for Christ." Rather, it is always assumed that the children of Christian homes are already Christians, that they have already been "baptized into Christ" (Rom. 6:3). If infant baptism were not the rule, then we should have references to the children of Christian parents joining the Church only after they had come to the age of reason, and there are no such records in the Bible.
.......................................................................
Specific Biblical References?
But, one might ask, does the Bible ever say that infants or young children can be baptized? The indications are clear. In the New Testament we read that Lydia was converted by Paul's preaching and that "She was baptized, with her household" (Acts 16:15). The Philippian jailer whom Paul and Silas had converted to the faith was baptized that night along with his household. We are told that "the same hour of the night . . . he was baptized, with all his family" (Acts 16:33). And in his greetings to the Corinthians, Paul recalled that, "I did baptize also the household of Stephanas" (1 Cor. 1:16).
In all these cases, whole households or families were baptized. This means more than just the spouse; the children too were included. If the text of Acts referred simply to the Philippian jailer and his wife, then we would read that "he and his wife were baptized," but we do not. Thus his children must have been baptized as well. The same applies to the other cases of household baptism in Scripture.
Granted, we do not know the exact age of the children; they may have been past the age of reason, rather than infants. Then again, they could have been babes in arms. More probably, there were both younger and older children. Certainly there were children younger than the age of reason in some of the households that were baptized, especially if one considers that society at this time had no reliable form of birth control. Furthermore, given the New Testament pattern of household baptism, if there were to be exceptions to this rule (such as infants), they would be explicit.
.......................................................................
Catholics From the First
The present Catholic attitude accords perfectly with early Christian practices. Origen, for instance, wrote in the third century that "according to the usage of the Church, baptism is given even to infants" (Holilies on Leviticus, 8:3:11 [A.D. 244]). The Council of Carthage, in 253, condemned the opinion that baptism should be withheld from infants until the eighth day after birth. Later, Augustine taught, "The custom of Mother Church in baptizing infants is certainly not to be scorned . . . nor is it to be believed that its tradition is anything except apostolic" (Literal Interpretation of Genesis 10:23:39 [A.D. 408]).
.........................................................................
You quote,
2 Thessalonians 2:3-4 Let no man deceive you by any means: for that day shall not come, except there come a falling away first, and that man of sin be revealed, the son of perdition; 4 Who opposeth and exalteth himself above all that is called God, or that is worshipped; so that he as God sitteth in the temple of God, shewing himself that he is God.
You say,
"OK, who in 570 AD exalted himself as God, who on his crown wore the Latin inscription "I am in the sted of God",
Michael,at the time 570 Popes did not even use crowns, their is no record of a pope wearing a crown until the 9th century, and in the 7th century they used cloth to cover their heads.
The closest I can find a Pope calling him anything close to "I am in the sted of God" in not unitl the 13th century with Nicholas III sayings "Vicar of God." (remember we catholic believe Jesus is God and Jesus instituted the Papacy though Peter (Matt 16:18) to lead the Church on Earth)
The Pope in 570 was Pope John III, I cant find any info where we had a crown saying "I am in the sted of God"
Micheal Have you seen a Picture of this crown or something, how do you know it existed? or the story is true? When all History says it would have been impossible. Remember "antis" will make things up to fit there stories, even if there is no evidence.
But for arguements sake lets say its true and he did where a crown like that.
That still leaves no Historical evidence that this Pope thought he was God or exalted higher than God.
In the Writings of History of that time 570 AD, there is no mentioned that the Pope asked the people to worship Him as God.
And He never sat in a Temple either. as there was non in Rome.
The facts dont lie. history speaks for itself. It didnt happen.
So I am morally obligated to reject this theory.
................................................................
You quote
Timothy 4:1-3 Now the Spirit speaketh expressly, that in the latter times some shall depart from the faith, giving heed to seducing spirits, and doctrines of devils; 2 Speaking lies in hypocrisy; having their conscience seared with a hot iron; 3 Forbidding to marry, and commanding to abstain from meats, which God hath created to be received with thanksgiving of them which believe and know the truth.
You say
"who forbids priest to marry - causing many to stumble and become molestors?"
What does it mean to forbid marriage? It means that a person is not allowed to marry, even if they feel it is their vocation to marry. Does the Catholic Church do this? No. In the Rites of the Church that require celibacy among the clergy, these individuals are not forbidden to marry, but must make the decision whether their vocation is to be a celibate cleric, or a married laymen. If this person makes a mistake, and later determines that their vocation is not as a celibate cleric, but as a married laymen, the Church will grant a dispensation, and this individual is allowed to leave the clergy and become married. This does not work the other way around; the Church does not forbid marriage, but it does forbid divorce. (remember also Jesus and Paul promoted celebacy, also it was not until the 12th century that all the clergy became celibate)
What does it mean to require abstinence from foods? It means that a person is not allowed to eat these foods. Does the Catholic Church do this? No. To forbid the consumption of particular foods is different than fasting from particular foods. Christ said there would be a time for fasting, "But the days will come when the bridegroom is taken away from them, and then they will fast on that day." (Mark 2:20, Luke 5:33). And in Acts, fasting is practiced with prayer: "Then, completing their fasting and prayer, they laid hands on them and sent them off." (Acts 13:3); "with prayer and fasting" (Acts 14:23). Unlike many heretic churches, the Catholic Church, follows the words of Christ and the example of the apostles, and prescribes certain days of fasting, such as Fridays during Lent, in remembrance of the crucifixion of Christ.
.....................................................
You said,
(their is no evidence of the Church of Christs distint beliefs )Because the early church apostatized and the plain and simple truths were buried or lost. Are you aware that there are numerous missing books of the Bible that the Bible itself refers to?
1 Kings 11:41 And the rest of the acts of Solomon, and all that he did, and his wisdom, are they not written in the book of the acts of Solomon?
2 Chronicles 9:29 Now the rest of the acts of Solomon, first and last, are they not written in the book of Nathan the prophet, and in the prophecy of Ahijah the Shilonite, and in the visions of Iddo the seer against Jeroboam the son of Nebat?
These books were about the acts of Solomon. And at least we knowt they did exist, even if we dont have them.
But your Church is different is the sence that, in the Bible we know there were thousands of Christians with Bishops, deacons, elders.
And you are saying they Just vanished without a trace.
While their is evidence of other groups of the time such as the Ngostics and others. Was it just by chance there is no evidece of your group?
...................................................................
You say
The original Church of Christ is plainly written about in the Bible itself, that IS the Church of Christ. Even in some of the old Catholic Bibles the Catholics called themselves the Church of Christ. The reason why these writers did not write about the Church of Christ was because the early church apostatize. Remember what I quoted above in Paul's writings... the 2nd coming would NOT occur until there was FIRST a FALLING AWAY, many departing from the truth."
The Bible does say there will be a falling away, Catholics teach this also, But the Bible nowhere says there will be a complete and total falling away.Yes like you say, many will fall away, but not all as you claimed happened.
Your right the Bible does talk about the early church and we see that the Promises Our Lord made about this Church as in Matt:16:18, When Our Lord says, the Gates of Hades(Hell) will not prevail against His Church. Here Our Lord is Promising to always Guard his Church from Error and destruction.
And in Matt 28:20 Jesus says to his 11 disiples, "I am with you ALWAYS even to the end of the age." So we know he was always here and with his church.
I have noticed many groups such as Jehovas Witness, LDS, your Church of Christ, and Seven day adventist, all use the text in Revelation and try to say it was their church that was the First. However there is no proof of any of them being present on this Earth until the 19th century, And in America.
As for Me I will put my trust in Our Lords words, namely that He was always going to be with the Church he founded
And the Roman Catholic Church is the Only Church that has an unbroken chain of succession from the aposltes until now.
We read in Acts Ch 1, when one of the Apostles dies anoter is elected to take his place, and this has never ceased, You may remember, Bendict XVI, being elected to replace the late John Paul II.
..................................................................
One more thing, about scripture
How do you know what Scripture is? How do you know what books are inspired? Do we leave it up to each individual Christian to read all of the books that were possibly included or excluded from the New Testament? Have you read and studied The Shepherd of Hermas? The Epistle of Barnabas? The Book of Clement? The Epistles of Ignatius? All of these were circulated in the early Chrurch in such a way as that some regarded them as scriptural. Others didn't. The Churchin the 4th century had to decide and, thanks be to God, Jesus Christ gave to his apostles his own authority to decide, and their successors carried on their authority so that we could have a New Testament today
Mike, It was the Catholic Church (with the guidence of the Holy Spirit) who decieded what went in and what stayed out of the Canon of the New Testament.(offically made cannon in 397 AD)
So, If one believes in the authenticity of the New Testament, It
therefore logically and really means that they have accepted the Authority
of the Catholic Church (whether they like it or not). For it was though
this Church that came the New Testanet as you and I know it today.
If I did not trust in the Authority of the Catholic Church it would
follow that I would be morally obligated to reject the New testament.
But as I do believe in the 27 letters of the New Testamet as decided
with the guidence of the Holy Spirit by the Pope and Bishops of the
Catholic Church in the 4th century. It does then make sense that The Holy
Spirt is working in this Church.
......................................................................
I can say with confidence also the RCC teaches nothing contrary to scriprute. If you think their is Please tell me.
Ok, This has been mostly a historical,logical and biblical defense of my Church. but thats Ok. I hope you like it anyways. And hope i didnt offend you, but I usually talk straight and to the point without "beating around the bush."
Though I did ask some questions and I look forward to your response
Peace be with you
Jeff Myers OR USA
Answer -
Hi Jeff,
I will reply to your message below in **, Mike
You sent: Dar Michael, forgive me if I offended you in anyway.
Honestly I didnt think i was creating "impossible stipulations" I just
want clarification. As I truly want to understand your positon.
**Mike replies: My apologies, I've had numerous Evangelicals approach me about that subject many times and their intent was not really for the intent of understanding my position but rather trying to make me an "offendor for a word". I'm glad you are a sincere seeker for truth.
Can you point to the imperfections in the Orginal Greek text of the Bible?
If not, how do you know there are any?
**Mike: The only outright contradictions that I am aware of are the cases that I already quoted where Moses taught Divorce for any cause which Jesus had to refute and the question of polygamy being acceptable to God in the cases of David and Solomon. Since these cases are well established history and Jesus plainly taught against the Law of Moses concerning Divorce for any cause I cannot imagine these being mistranslations, the Greek surely would read the same. Also please note that the Old Testament was written in Hebrew, and the New Testament was translated from Aramaic. I do have a Lamsa version Bible which does seem to correct a few minor errors such as the statement "it is easier for a camel to pass through an eye of a needle" now reads "it is easier to pass a rope through an eye of a needle". Another Lamsa correction is when Jesus dies on the cross it is written that He said "My God, My God why has thou forsaken me", the Lamsa version says "My God, My God, for this was I born".
You say,
"When you ask certain Evangelicals which version of God is the one true
flawless one, the KJV, the NASB, the NIV etc etc they cannot answer you."
I not an evengelical(Im Catholic) but even they know(should know) the
Original Greek is the final word.
Though, they may quarrel about which is the best "English translation."
**Mike: Right, most of the differences are "straining at gnats". Again, remember the OT was written in Hebrew, the NT was from Aramaic into Greek.
And will you answer my other following questions. So I may understand your
position better
You say,
"the original Church of Christ fell into complete apostasy when Rome
merged politics into the church in 570AD."
Yes I know that Rome's religious leaders were into politics alot, But how
does dealing with politics make a church apostate? As the doctrines were
never effected?
**Mike: There are numerous reasons why, mainly it was the watering down and polluting of the early church in order to make it a political entity. The doctrines are the key thing, and there were numerous changes added. For example baptism... the original Church of Christ baptized only those who were accountable and REPENTED of thier sins first and were then IMMERSED by water. The Greek word for baptism - Baptizmo - means literally "to be buried", Jesus was immersed by John as the example. Some today sprinkle infants which there are no scriptural examples of such, some even suppose a child that dies without baptism would go to hell under the sin of Adam. The OT teaches animal sacrifices for those who sin in their ignorance. The Book of Mormon strongly teaches baptism is only required for the accountable and those who suppose God would send an infant to hell deny the justice and mercy of Christ and Mike: There are numerous reasons why, mainly it was the watering down and polluting of the early church in order to make it a political entity. The doctrines are the key thing, and there were numerous changes added. For example baptism... the original Church of Christ baptized only those who were accountable and REPENTED of thier sins first and were then IMMERSED by water. The Greek word for baptism - Baptizmo - means literally "to be buried", Jesus was immersed by John as the example. Some today sprinkle infants which there are no scriptural examples of such, some even suppose a child that dies without baptism would go to hell under the sin of Adam. The OT teaches animal sacrifices for those who sin in their ignorance. are in danger of hell themselves. Mike: There are numerous reasons why, mainly it was the watering down and polluting of the early church in order to make it a political entity. The doctrines are the key thing, and there were numerous changes added. For example baptism... the original Church of Christ baptized only those who were accountable and REPENTED of thier sins first and were then IMMERSED by water. The Greek word for baptism - Baptizmo - means literally "to be buried", Jesus was immersed by John as the example. Some today sprinkle infants which there are no scriptural examples of such, some even suppose a child that dies without baptism would go to hell under the sin of Adam. The OT teaches animal sacrifices for those who sin in their ignorance. Paul repeatedly teaches this:
Romans 6:4 Therefore we are buried with him by baptism into death: that like as Christ was raised up from the dead by the glory of the Father, even so we also should walk in newness of life.
Colossians 2:12 Buried with him in baptism, wherein also ye are risen with him through the faith of the operation of God, who hath raised him from the dead.
You say,
"The Bible prophesies of this 1260 year apostasy which ends in 1830 when
Joseph Smith restored the Church."
Can you tell me where the Bible says this?
Mike replies: This can be lengthy. In short:
Revelation 12:6 And the woman fled into the wilderness, where she hath a place prepared of God, that they should feed her there a thousand two hundred and threescore days.
Revelation 12:14 And to the woman were given two wings of a great eagle, that she might fly into the wilderness, into her place, where she is nourished for a time, and times, and half a time, from the face of the serpent.
Revelation 13:5 And there was given unto him a mouth speaking great things and blasphemies; and power was given unto him to continue forty and two months.
Mike adds: Each of these three verses allude to 1260 days. A time in prophetic language is refering to 1 year, thus 1 + 2 + 1/2 year equals 3 1/2 years. The Jewish calandar used 360 days, thus 3.5 years is also 1260 days. The Jewish month used 30 days per month, thus 42 months is also 1260 days. Evangelicals believe this will be the 3.5 year tribulation period yet to begin yet they are unaware of the following:
Numbers 14:34 After the number of the days in which ye searched the land, even forty days, each day for a year, shall ye bear your iniquities, even forty years, and ye shall know my breach of promise.
Ezekiel 4:6 And when thou hast accomplished them, lie again on thy right side, and thou shalt bear the iniquity of the house of Judah forty days: I have appointed thee each day for a year.
**Mike adds: In prophetic language, 1 day represents 1 year or in summation 1260 years. What occured that initiated the Apostasy?
2 Thessalonians 2:3-4 Let no man deceive you by any means: for that day shall not come, except there come a falling away first, and that man of sin be revealed, the son of perdition; 4 Who opposeth and exalteth himself above all that is called God, or that is worshipped; so that he as God sitteth in the temple of God, shewing himself that he is God.
1 Timothy 4:1-3 Now the Spirit speaketh expressly, that in the latter times some shall depart from the faith, giving heed to seducing spirits, and doctrines of devils; 2 Speaking lies in hypocrisy; having their conscience seared with a hot iron; 3 Forbidding to marry, and commanding to abstain from meats, which God hath created to be received with thanksgiving of them which believe and know the truth.
**Mike concludes: OK, who in 570 AD exalted himself as God, who on his crown wore the Latin inscription "I am in the sted of God", who forbids priest to marry - causing many to stumble and become molestors? The "woman" that was forced into the wilderness for 1260 years was referring to the Church of Christ, she was essentially extinct, in hiding. During the dark ages countless 1000s were tortured and murdered because of their resistance to the false doctrines of this polluted church. I know this is probably offensive to you but you can easily figure out who I'm referring to.
You say,
At this time(1830) it was also called the Church of Christ and had
identical doctrines as the AD 33 Bible Church of Christ.
So why do all Early Christian Writerss 1st 2nd 3rd 4th 5th 6th century,
not speak of any of your distint beliefs? where is any evidence of this,
if it is historical?
**Mike: Because the early church apostatized and the plain and simple truths were buried or lost. Are you aware that there are numerous missing books of the Bible that the Bible itself refers to?
1 Kings 11:41 And the rest of the acts of Solomon, and all that he did, and his wisdom, are they not written in the book of the acts of Solomon?
2 Chronicles 9:29 Now the rest of the acts of Solomon, first and last, are they not written in the book of Nathan the prophet, and in the prophecy of Ahijah the Shilonite, and in the visions of Iddo the seer against Jeroboam the son of Nebat?
If your Chruch was the Original Church, why is there no eveidence of their
existance? such as in writings. you can read all the early Christian
writings at www.earlychristianwriters.com or www.newadvent.org/fathers/
**Mike: The original Church of Christ is plainly written about in the Bible itself, that IS the Church of Christ. Even in some of the old Catholic Bibles the Catholics called themselves the Church of Christ. The reason why these writers did not write about the Church of Christ was because the early church apostatize. Remember what I quoted above in Paul's writings... the 2nd coming would NOT occur until there was FIRST a FALLING AWAY, many departing from the truth.
Thanks Michael, I dont think I am "anti" anything for asking quesitons,
do you? I want only to understand.
Peace be with you
ps I'll be happy to answer anything about my faith also if you wish.
Jeff Myers OR USA
**Mike: Sorry for stating the anti thing, I know some of my points may seem like anti Catholic which really isn't true... some Catholics are better saints than I am, I only have disagreements with doctrines and institutions that are contrary to scriptures. I know what I have written may seem shocking of offensive, but I make no apology for what the scriptures teach... and they repeatedly teach the true points of doctrine concerning Baptism and many other things, as well as the impending apostasy after Paul's ministry, and how long it would last, 1260 years. Another big problem I have is idolotry, the worship of one man over Christ, which the Utah faction does in their own way. They have no problem with their "prophet" changing doctrines, rewriting scripture or latter day revelation, and believing some of the most outrageous things as they trust in the arm of flesh. This is most dangerous, Jesus plainly warns us that in the latter days many false prophets will arise in sheep's clothing but are rather ravening wolves.
Jeremiah 17:5-7 Thus saith the LORD; Cursed be the man that trusteth in man, and maketh flesh his arm, and whose heart departeth from the LORD. 6 For he shall be like the heath in the desert, and shall not see when good cometh; but shall inhabit the parched places in the wilderness, in a salt land and not inhabited. 7 Blessed is the man that trusteth in the LORD, and whose hope the LORD is.
I bet I caused more questions than provided answers, feel free to ask for further explanation or scripture quotes if you like.
God Bless,
Mike
Answer Hi Jeff, I will reply to your message below in **. Also if you like you can email me directly at technomn@earthlink.net as the AllExperts website is rather cumborsome for back and forth messages. Mike
You sent:
Michael, you may be missing my point,my question is not whether some
issues in the old Testament may appear to be different from things in the
new Testament we can all agree the NT was the fulfillment of the OT, the
question is about traslation, Where is the problem of tranlation in the
Greek text? Or what is wrong with the Greek Text in and of itelf?
Where in the Bible did God say the Polygamy of David and Solomon was
"accepable." As far as my research, He doesnt say, either way up to that
point.
** Mike replies: As I mentioned earlier, I am not able to read Greek and cannot speak to that question. However I have shown missing books of the Bible in previous quotes, and a couple of doctrinal contradictions. To the best of my knowledge there is no fault with the original Greek, however this does not negate the possibility of human flaws while they wrote down the Greek passages. On polygamy:
2 Samuel 12:8-9 And I gave thee thy master's house, and thy master's wives into thy bosom, and gave thee the house of Israel and of Judah; and if that had been too little, I would moreover have given unto thee such and such things.
9 Wherefore hast thou despised the commandment of the LORD, to do evil in his sight? thou hast killed Uriah the Hittite with the sword, and hast taken his wife to be thy wife, and hast slain him with the sword of the children of Ammon.
Yet elsewhere it is against the Law of Moses, specifically referring to the Kings of Israel:
Deuteronomy 17:17 Neither shall he multiply wives to himself, that his heart turn not away: neither shall he greatly multiply to himself silver and gold.
**Mike adds: Yet David and Solomon had many wives, which practice did indeed cause their hearts to depart from the Lord onto wickedness. When Samuel rebuked David he did not rebuke him for the many wives, only for Bathsheba, and he seems to imply God's tacit approval by the statement where God supposedly gave David's master's wives unto his bosom. The Book of Mormon corrects this error by plainly stating:
Jacob 2:24 Behold, David and Solomon truly had many wives and concubines, which thing was abominable before me, saith the Lord.
**Mike: How the Utah faction ever excused this wicked practice is beyond me since they profess the Book of Mormon.
.................................................
First of all,The Catholic Church has never had doctrine saying a child
without baptism goes to Hell, though the centuries there has been those
who taught Limbo and the such, but non of this was ever offical doctrine.
**Mike: OK, but do not Catholic parents feel the need to rush to baptism in case their child does die young, and possibly not be saved? Anyway my key point on this is the fact that the Bible teaches REPENTENCE and baptism, a concious act on the recipient. Baptism is much like making a wedding vow, a vow of the participant to repent of their sins and serve God the rest of their lives. An infant, child, or even an adult in true ignorance cannot possibly do this. Baptism is the washing away of sins, and one can only sin when they know good from evil, know the law and will of God, and willfully rebel and sin. Sin is the breaking of God's commandments and one must understand the commandments in order to be able to sin. Sure little children do bad things, but it is not imputed unto them as sin because they don't know better. The Catholic method converts baptism (a conscious spiritual commitment, a covenant) into a dead work, and empty ritual.
Baptism: Immersion Only?
Although Latin-rite Catholics are usually baptized by infusion (pouring),
they know that immersion (dunking) and sprinkling are also valid ways to
baptize. Fundamentalists, however, regard only baptism by immersion as
true baptism, concluding that most Catholics are not validly baptized at
all.
**Mike: Correct, Restorationist churches feel the same way that Catholic baptisms are not valid, not just because of infant baptism, sprinkling etc. but also because they consider all other churches to not have any Priesthood authority to baptize. Of course I believe in God's mercy and atonement for those Catholics who do this ignorantly not knowing the Restoration or true baptism. Also many view Fundamentalism as being extremist which is the case for some, I prefer the term Foundationalist... those founded on the teachings and examples of Christ himself.
Although the New Testament contains no explicit instructions on how
physically to administer the water of baptism, Fundamentalists argue that
the Greek word baptizo found in the New Testament means "to immerse." They
also maintain that only immersion reflects the symbolic significance of
being "buried" and "raised" with Christ (see Romans 6:3-4).
**Mike: Right, one of the flaws of the NT. The BoM (Book of Mormon) states that the church of the dark ages removed many things from the Bible that were plain and precious. The BoM plainly and repeatedly teach Baptism by Immersion for those who are accountable. The NT does however teach this, but not in direct fashion as you mentioned.
It is true that baptizo often means immersion. For example, the Greek
version of the Old Testament tells us that Naaman, at Elisha's direction,
"went down and dipped himself [the Greek word here is baptizo] seven times
in the Jordan" (2 Kgs. 5:14, Septuagint, emphasis added).
But immersion is not the only meaning of baptizo. Sometimes it just means
washing up. Thus Luke 11:38 reports that, when Jesus ate at a Pharisee's
house, "[t]he Pharisee was astonished to see that he did not first wash
[baptizo] before dinner." They did not practice immersion before dinner,
but, according to Mark, the Pharisees "do not eat unless they wash [nipto]
their hands, observing the tradition of the elders; and when they come
from the market place, they do not eat unless they wash themselves
[baptizo]" (Mark 7:3-4a, emphasis added). So baptizo can mean cleansing or
ritual washing as well as immersion.
**Mike: I see your line of thinking but disagree with it. By Christ's own example He was immersed. Baptism means to be buried (immersed) and cleansed but not in the manner you say by the washing of the flesh, but by the washing of sins:
1 Peter 3:21 The like figure whereunto even baptism doth also now save us (not the putting away of the filth of the flesh, but the answer of a good conscience toward God,) by the resurrection of Jesus Christ:
A similar range of meanings can be seen when baptizo is used
metaphorically. Sometimes a figurative "baptism" is a sort of "immersion";
but not always. For example, speaking of his future suffering and death,
Jesus said, "I have a baptism [baptisma] to be baptized [baptizo] with;
and how I am constrained until it is accomplished!" (Luke 12:50) This
might suggest that Christ would be "immersed" in suffering. On the other
hand, consider the case of being "baptized with the Holy Spirit."
**Mike: I disagree, being baptized by immersion is how we join Christ in death by being buried and risen up again... the old man put to death, the new spiritual creature raised anew. An infant cannot possibly understand or perform this. I agree like many Greek words each word can have different meanings (wine is a good one) but in this case... the context of Baptism, or Baptizmo always means immersion or to be buried. God used many symbolic acts in the OT to lead the people to Christ in the future, Baptism in the NT is just such one act, much like the Sacrament, a physical symbolic act with a spiritual change.
In Acts 1:4-5 Jesus charged his disciples "not to depart from Jerusalem,
but to wait for the promise of the Father, which, he said, 'you heard from
me, for John baptized with water, but before many days you shall be
baptized with the Holy Spirit.'" Did this mean they would be "immersed" in
the Spirit? No: three times Acts 2 states that the Holy Spirit was poured
out on them when Pentecost came (2:17, 18, 33, emphasis added). Later
Peter referred to the Spirit falling upon them, and also on others after
Pentecost, explicitly identifying these events with the promise of being
"baptized with the Holy Spirit" (Acts 11:15-17). These passages
demonstrate that the meaning of baptizo is broad enough to include
"pouring." www.catholic.com
**Mike: I think you are comparing apples and oranges here, Baptism is the firstfruits of repentence, the gift of the Holy Ghost was given by the laying of hands. This does not mean that people cannot be touched by the HG by different methods but the scriptural method for the GIFT of the HG was by laying of hands.
Acts 8:18 And when Simon saw that through laying on of the apostles' hands the Holy Ghost was given, he offered them money,
**Mike: Again, Baptism by immersion only, reception of the HG by laying of hands, being touched by the HG infinate ways.
Michael also think about desert people, or those living in an area where
there is not much water and the rivers are low,which dont allow for full
immerison. "The Didache" which is an early Christian text publish in 70
AD allows for water to be poured onto the head of the person when
immersion is not possible.
Also think of someone on their deathbed, who at the last hour decides to
be baptised. Here the pouring of water is very appropriate.
And any catholic can be baptised by immersion if they request.
**Mike: Disagreed, if they have enough water for pouring, they can easily fill a tub. As for the deathbed thing remeber the thief on the cross who repented at the last moment, he was promised heaven without baptism. We cannot negate God's mercy and justice in this regard, He knows a deathbed person WOULD have been baptized had he the opportunity to do so. However if a person decides to procrastinate their repentance and wait until the last, they may find their judgment not to what they would like.
...............................................................
Infant Baptism
Fundamentalists often criticize the Catholic Church's practice of
baptizing infants. According to them, baptism is for adults and older
children, because it is to be administered only after one has undergone a
"born again" experience-that is, after one has "accepted Jesus Christ as
his personal Lord and Savior." At the instant of acceptance, when he is
"born again," the adult becomes a Christian, and his salvation is assured
forever. Baptism follows, though it has no actual salvific value. In fact,
one who dies before being baptized, but after "being saved," goes to
heaven anyway.
**Mike: We disagree somewhat on the Fundamentalist view on Born Again. We believe Born Again is baptism by immersion, WITH a spiritual conversion and real repentence and commitment to serve Jesus. Unlike some Fundamentalists we believe "Accepting" Jesus as your savior is much more than an acknowledgment of his existence, but the keeping of His commandments and teachings. Those who do not strive with real intent to keep God's commandments haven't really accpeted him as thier savior have they? Jesus states in the Bible "Many shall say Lord Lord" but "keep not my sayings" and shall be thrust out as "workers of iniquity". Many Evangelicals may be in for a ride surprise if they are only worshipping God with their lips.
As Fundamentalists see it, baptism is not a sacrament (in the true sense
of the word), but an ordinance. It does not in any way convey the grace it
symbolizes; rather, it is merely a public manifestation of the person's
conversion. Since only an adult or older child can be converted, baptism
is inappropriate for infants or for children who have not yet reached the
age of reason (generally considered to be age seven). Most Fundamentalists
say that during the years before they reach the age of reason infants and
young children are automatically saved. Only once a person reaches the age
of reason does he need to "accept Jesus" in order to reach heaven.
**Mike: Many Restoration churches believe the "Age of accountability" is 8 years. I disagree, it can be clear into adulthood if the person never hears the truth and ignorantly sinned. The OT teaches animal sacrifices for those who sinned ignorantly. The NT says God winked at those who sinned ignorantly. Paul faound grace while he was ignorantly persecuting the Christians. The BoM teaches grace for infants, little children, and adults in true ignorance, and that baptism for such is a solemn mockery before God denying His mercy and justice and making baptism a dead work.... much like how the Jews turned animal sacrifices into a dead work, and empty ritual while their hearts were against God... and God said it was like cutting off a dog's neck. It was not the work that saved them, but what was going on in their hearts. Was the work an act of worship and obedience towards God, and an empty ritual. Infant baptism cannot possibly be nothing more than an empty ritual.
Since the New Testament era, the Catholic Church has always understood
baptism differently, teaching that it is a sacrament which accomplishes
several things, the first of which is the remission of sin, both original
sin and actual sin-only original sin in the case of infants and young
children, since they are incapable of actual sin; and both original and
actual sin in the case of older persons.
**Mike: If our interpretation of sacrament is the same, we also consider it a sacrament, a sacrifice of our wills to God. The original sin is not imputed to infants as they are not accountable, else how many non-Catholic infants have died without baptism. Would God send them to hell without baptism? If you say not that is good, however how can any unclean thing then enter into heaven if the sin of Adam is still upon them without baptism?
Peter explained what happens at baptism when he said, "Repent, and be
baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness
of your sins; and you shall receive the gift of the Holy Spirit" (Acts
2:38). But he did not restrict this teaching to adults. He added, "For the
promise is to you and to your children and to all that are far off, every
one whom the Lord our God calls to him" (2:39). We also read: "Rise and be
baptized, and wash away your sins, calling on his name" (Acts 22:16).
These commands are universal, not restricted to adults. Further, these
commands make clear the necessary connection between baptism and
salvation, a
connection explicitly stated in 1 Peter 3:21: "Baptism . . . now saves
you, not as a removal of dirt from the body but as an appeal to God for a
clear conscience, through the resurrection of Jesus Christ."
**Mike: Right, as I quoted, but can a little child or infant read or understand Peter's words? The term "children" in this case is speaking to future offspringe, decendants who when they become accountable will hear and believe and be baptized, or disobey and be damned.
................................................................
Christ Calls All to Baptism
Although Fundamentalists are the most recent critics of infant baptism,
opposition to infant baptism is not a new phenomenon. In the Middle Ages,
some groups developed that rejected infant baptism, e.g., the Waldenses
and Catharists. Later, the Anabaptists ("re-baptizers") echoed them,
claiming that infants are incapable of being baptized validly. But the
historic Christian Church has always held that Christ's law applies to
infants as well as adults, for Jesus said that no one can enter heaven
unless he has been born again of water and the Holy Spirit (John 3:5). His
words can be taken to apply to anyone capable of belonging to his kingdom.
He asserted such even for children: "Let the children come to me, and do
not hinder them; for to such belongs the kingdom of heaven" (Matt. 19:14).
**Mike: If taken ALONE that passage can be used to interpret that all must be baptized or be damned. Yet how many millions of infants have died without baptism, are they damned?? You can't have it both ways. When you take ALL of the scriptures concerning accountability, repentence and baptism you will see that little children and the ignorant are excluded from this mandate. Those whom hear or read John 3:5 are then accountable and that passage then applies to them.
Leviticus 4:27-28 And if any one of the common people sin through ignorance, while he doeth somewhat against any of the commandments of the LORD concerning things which ought not to be done, and be guilty; 28 Or if his sin, which he hath sinned, come to his knowledge: then he shall bring his offering, a kid of the goats, a female without blemish, for his sin which he hath sinned.
Acts 17:30 And the times of this ignorance God winked at; but now commandeth all men every where to repent:
More detail is given in Luke's account of this event, which reads: "Now
they were bringing even infants to him that he might touch them; and when
the disciples saw it, they rebuked them. But Jesus called them to him,
saying, 'Let the children come to me, and do not hinder them; for to such
belongs the kingdom of God'" (Luke 18:15-16).
**Mike: Another correction that the Restoration brings. The BoM teaches that Jesus BLESSED the infants by touching them. We practice this today, laying of hands to bless them, not baptize. That is exactly what Jesus did to them in the Bible... no mention of baptism either by immersion or sprinkling. This is one more example of the many plain and precious things taken out of the Bible by the church of the dark ages.
Now Fundamentalists say this event does not apply to young children or
infants since it implies the children to which Christ was referring were
able to approach him on their own. (Older translations have, "Suffer the
little children to come unto me," which seems to suggest they could do so
under their own power.) Fundamentalists conclude the passage refers only
to children old enough to walk, and, presumably, capable of sinning. But
the text in Luke 18:15 says, "Now they were bringing even infants to him"
(Greek, Prosepheron de auto kai ta brepha). The Greek word brepha means
"infants"-children who are quite unable to approach Christ on their own
and who could not possibly make a conscious
decision to "accept Jesus as their personal Lord and Savior." And that is
precisely the problem. Fundamentalists refuse to permit the baptism of
infants and young children, because they are not yet capable of making
such a conscious act. But notice what Jesus said: "to such as these
[referring to the infants and children who had been brought to him by
their mothers] belongs the kingdom of heaven." The Lord did not require
them to make a conscious decision. He says that they are precisely the
kind of people who can come to him and receive the kingdom. So on what
basis, Fundamentalists should be asked, can infants and young children be
excluded from the sacrament of baptism? If Jesus said "let them come unto
me," who are we to say "no," and withhold baptism from them?
**Mike: Right, they may be infants or little children capable of walking... are already in the saved condition and are "of the kingdom of heaven". This implies the sin of Adam is not imputed upon them. We are not saying no to the "sacrament" of blessing the infants or little children, we are only saying no to baptism until THEY make the choice and covenant.
..........................................................
In Place of Circumcision
Furthermore, Paul notes that baptism has replaced circumcision (Col.
2:11-12). In that passage, he refers to baptism as "the circumcision of
Christ" and "the circumcision made without hands." Of course, usually only
infants were circumcised under the Old Law; circumcision of adults was
rare, since there were few converts to Judaism. If Paul meant to exclude
infants, he would not have chosen circumcision as a parallel for baptism.
**Mike: Disagreed, Paul teaches the circumcision we are to have today is a circumcised heart... a broken heart and a contrite spirit. Baptism under the old law is compared to when the Israelites crossed through the Red Sea.
1 Corinthians 10:2 And were all baptized unto Moses in the cloud and in the sea;
**Mike: This mirrors the teaching of being baptized by water and the spirit... a spiritual conversion, an immersion, a baptism of the Holy Ghost.
This comparison between who could receive baptism and circumcision is an
appropriate one. In the Old Testament, if a man wanted to become a Jew, he
had to believe in the God of Israel and be circumcised. In the New
Testament, if one wants to become a Christian, one must believe in God and
Jesus and be baptized.
**Mike: It's deeper than that, it is a spiritual covenant, circumcision in the OT, a change of heart of which baptism would be followed as one would follow God's commandments as a covenant. It is the covenant that does the job. An infant cannot make a covenant.
In the Old Testament, those born into Jewish
households could be circumcised in anticipation of the Jewish faith in
which they would be raised. Thus in the New Testament, those born in
Christian households can be baptized in anticipation of the Christian
faith in which they will be raised. The pattern is the same: If one is an
adult, one must have faith before receiving the rite of membership; if one
is a child too young to have faith, one may be given the rite of
membership in the knowledge that one will be raised in the faith. This is
the basis of Paul's reference to baptism as "the circumcision of
Christ"-that is, the Christian equivalent of circumcision.
Remember a Jewish baby was made a Jew as an Infant.
His parents did not wait for him to grow and then ask him is he wanted to
be Jewish.
**Mike: Yet the Old Law was filled with rituals such as these, a regimented schoolmaster because the Jews were boneheads when they worshipped the gold calf. You expect these rituals under the old law but not under the new. Jesus strove to get to the people's hearts rather than follow blind tradition. It was blind tradition that caused the Pharisees to have Christ crucified. I view the circumcision of infants the same way I do as blessing them by laying of hands, just as Christ did. It was more of a dedicating the infants life to God, not their repentence and own free will covenant of baptism.
......................................................................
Were Only Adults Baptized?
Fundamentalists are reluctant to admit that the Bible nowhere says baptism
is to be restricted to adults, but when pressed, they will. They just
conclude that is what it should be taken as meaning, even if the text does
not explicitly support such a view. Naturally enough, the people whose
baptisms we read about in Scripture (and few are individually identified)
are adults, because they were converted as adults. This makes sense,
because Christianity was just beginning-there were no "cradle Christians,"
people brought up from childhood in Christian homes.
**Mike: That's what is so nice about having the BoM, these things are taught in much plainness so nobody needs to wonder. Then after you learn these plain and precious things you can go back to the Bible and understand these passages not so plain in clarity. You don't know how many times I have had Evangelicals beat me over the head about this or that Restoration doctrine, only to have me find the same doctrine in their own Bibles that they were ignorant of.
Even in the books of the New Testament that were written later in the
first century, during the time when children were raised in the first
Christian homes, we never-not even once-find an example of a child raised
in a Christian home who is baptized only upon making a "decision for
Christ." Rather, it is always assumed that the children of Christian homes
are already Christians, that they have already been "baptized into Christ"
(Rom. 6:3). If infant baptism were not the rule, then we should have
references to the children of Christian parents joining the Church only
after they had come to the age of reason, and there are no such records in
the Bible.
**Mike: Again this is a twofold problem, the church of the dark ages removing many passages and books (as I have already quoted just a few of them) but also the scriptures were not written as a technical manual, but rather a word of mouth history. We cannot conclude that infant baptism is OK by the ABSENCE of it's prohibition in the Bible. I could just as easily say God wants us the pat our hears while rubbing our tummys just because it is not written in the Bible. When you take ALL of the passages of the Bible concerning baptism, accountability etc as a whole... you can reasonably conclude it was only intended for the accountable. When you have the BoM there is no room for doubt whatsoever. Ponder the following and see if you believe in a God of justice and mercy or a God of dead works:
Moroni 8:5-23 For, if I have learned the truth, there have been disputations among you concerning the baptism of your little children. 6 And now, my son, I desire that ye should labor diligently, that this gross error should be removed from among you; for, for this intent I have written this epistle. 7 For immediately after I had learned these things of you I inquired of the Lord concerning the matter. And the word of the Lord came to me by the power of the Holy Ghost, saying: 8 Listen to the words of Christ, your Redeemer, your Lord and your God. Behold, I came into the world not to call the righteous but sinners to repentance; the whole need no physician, but they that are sick; wherefore, little children are whole, for they are not capable of committing sin; wherefore the curse of Adam is taken from them in me, that it hath no power over them; and the law of circumcision is done away in me. 9 And after this manner did the Holy Ghost manifest the word of God unto me; wherefore, my beloved son, I know that it is solemn mockery before God, that ye should baptize little children.10 Behold I say unto you that this thing shall ye teach—repentance and baptism unto those who are accountable and capable of committing sin; yea, teach parents that they must repent and be baptized, and humble themselves as their little children, and they shall all be saved with their little children.11 And their little children need no repentance, neither baptism. Behold, baptism is unto repentance to the fulfilling the commandments unto the remission of sins. 12 But little children are alive in Christ, even from the foundation of the world; if not so, God is a partial God, and also a changeable God, and a respecter to persons; for how many little children have died without baptism! 13 Wherefore, if little children could not be saved without baptism, these must have gone to an endless hell. 14 Behold I say unto you, that he that supposeth that little children need baptism is in the gall of bitterness and in the bonds of iniquity; for he hath neither faith, hope, nor charity; wherefore, should he be cut off while in the thought, he must go down to hell. 15 For awful is the wickedness to suppose that God saveth one child because of baptism, and the other must perish because he hath no baptism. 16 Wo be unto them that shall pervert the ways of the Lord after this manner, for they shall perish except they repent. Behold, I speak with boldness, having authority from God; and I fear not what man can do; for perfect love casteth out all fear. 17 And I am filled with charity, which is everlasting love; wherefore, all children are alike unto me; wherefore, I love little children with a perfect love; and they are all alike and partakers of salvation. 18 For I know that God is not a partial God, neither a changeable being; but he is unchangeable from all eternity to all eternity. 19 Little children cannot repent; wherefore, it is awful wickedness to deny the pure mercies of God unto them, for they are all alive in him because of his mercy. 20 And he that saith that little children need baptism denieth the mercies of Christ, and setteth at naught the atonement of him and the power of his redemption. 21 Wo unto such, for they are in danger of death, hell, and an endless torment. I speak it boldly; God hath commanded me. Listen unto them and give heed, or they stand against you at the judgment-seat of Christ. 22 For behold that all little children are alive in Christ, and also all they that are without the law. For the power of redemption cometh on all them that have no law; wherefore, he that is not condemned, or he that is under no condemnation, cannot repent; and unto such baptism availeth nothing— 23 But it is mockery before God, denying the mercies of Christ, and the power of his Holy Spirit, and putting trust in dead works.
......................................................................
Specific Biblical References?
But, one might ask, does the Bible ever say that infants or young children
can be baptized? The indications are clear. In the New Testament we read
that Lydia was converted by Paul's preaching and that "She was baptized,
with her household" (Acts 16:15). The Philippian jailer whom Paul and
Silas had converted to the faith was baptized that night along with his
household. We are told that "the same hour of the night . . . he was
baptized, with all his family" (Acts 16:33). And in his greetings to the
Corinthians, Paul recalled that, "I did baptize also the household of
Stephanas" (1 Cor. 1:16).
**Mike: But this does not specifically point to little children or infants, it could just as easily be pointing to servants and accountable children.
In all these cases, whole households or families were baptized. This means
more than just the spouse; the children too were included. If the text of
Acts referred simply to the Philippian jailer and his wife, then we would
read that "he and his wife were baptized," but we do not. Thus his
children must have been baptized as well. The same applies to the other
cases of household baptism in Scripture.
Granted, we do not know the exact age of the children; they may have been
past the age of reason, rather than infants. Then again, they could have
been babes in arms. More probably, there were both younger and older
children. Certainly there were children younger than the age of reason in
some of the households that were baptized, especially if one considers
that society at this time had no reliable form of birth control.
Furthermore, given the New Testament pattern of household baptism, if
there were to be exceptions to this rule (such as infants), they would be
explicit.
......................................................................
Catholics From the First
The present Catholic attitude accords perfectly with early Christian
practices. Origen, for instance, wrote in the third century that
"according to the usage of the Church, baptism is given even to infants"
(Holilies on Leviticus, 8:3:11 [A.D. 244]). The Council of Carthage, in
253, condemned the opinion that baptism should be withheld from infants
until the eighth day after birth. Later, Augustine taught, "The custom of
Mother Church in baptizing infants is certainly not to be scorned . . .
nor is it to be believed that its tradition is anything except apostolic"
(Literal Interpretation of Genesis 10:23:39 [A.D. 408]).
**Mike: Signs of apostacy
........................................................................
You quote,
2 Thessalonians 2:3-4 Let no man deceive you by any means: for that day
shall not come, except there come a falling away first, and that man of
sin be revealed, the son of perdition; 4 Who opposeth and exalteth himself
above all that is called God, or that is worshipped; so that he as God
sitteth in the temple of God, shewing himself that he is God.
You say,
"OK, who in 570 AD exalted himself as God, who on his crown wore the Latin
inscription "I am in the sted of God",
Michael,at the time 570 Popes did not even use crowns, their is no record
of a pope wearing a crown until the 9th century, and in the 7th century
they used cloth to cover their heads.
**Mike: It is the principle that I am speaking to... a man in the sted of Christ who has all unquestionable authority, who is treated as infallible. That is pure idolotry. The 12 Apostles showed many signs of fallibility, frequently making mistakes and blunders. Shall we institute the practice of denying Christ thrice just because Peter did it?
The closest I can find a Pope calling him anything close to "I am in the
sted of God" in not unitl the 13th century with Nicholas III sayings
"Vicar of God." (remember we catholic believe Jesus is God and Jesus
instituted the Papacy though Peter (Matt 16:18) to lead the Church on
Earth)
**Mike: I know, they often refer to the passage of Peter being the "Rock" which when you go to the Greek it was Christ as the Rock, Peter the small pebble. Different Greek words were used. Forgive me if I misspell this, I don't have access to my books while on the road. The term I heard that was on his crown was something like "Vicarius Filie Dei" which literally translated into Vicar of God or "I am in the sted of Christ". This self exaltation is basically saying "I am Christ" and the way people worship the man... kiss his feet or ring, is pure idolotry. Coincidentally when you add up the Roman numeral equivelent of that saying it adds up to 666. The Bible states that 666 is the number of a MAN. Jesus warns us to beware of many false prophets and false Christs (Vicars) who come in sheep's clothings... in other words they are nice fellows, wear nice suits or robes, many shall be deceived by them.
The Pope in 570 was Pope John III, I cant find any info where we had a
crown saying "I am in the sted of God"
Micheal Have you seen a Picture of this crown or something, how do you
know it existed? or the story is true? When all History says it would have
been impossible. Remember "antis" will make things up to fit there
stories, even if there is no evidence.
**Mike: I don't discount the possibility of this being a story by the antis, however the acts, the man worship, is plain before everybody's eyes to this day.
But for arguements sake lets say its true and he did where a crown like
that.
That still leaves no Historical evidence that this Pope thought he was
God or exalted higher than God.
In the Writings of History of that time 570 AD, there is no mentioned that
the Pope asked the people to worship Him as God.
And He never sat in a Temple either. as there was non in Rome.
The facts dont lie. history speaks for itself. It didnt happen.
So I am morally obligated to reject this theory.
**Mike: Didn't Rome invade Israel and destroy the temple? The temple I am referring to is the spiritual temple... the Church.
1 Corinthians 3:16 Know ye not that ye are the temple of God, and that the Spirit of God dwelleth in you?
**Mike adds: However I understand your reluctance to accept my rejection of the papacy. The Utah people feel the same way about their prophet. When a man as a leader takes away scripture and changes Christian principles he exalts himself as God. The entire Reformation and Restoration know this occured in the early Roman church.
...............................................................
You quote
Timothy 4:1-3 Now the Spirit speaketh expressly, that in the latter times
some shall depart from the faith, giving heed to seducing spirits, and
doctrines of devils; 2 Speaking lies in hypocrisy; having their conscience
seared with a hot iron; 3 Forbidding to marry, and commanding to abstain
from meats, which God hath created to be received with thanksgiving of
them which believe and know the truth.
You say
"who forbids priest to marry - causing many to stumble and become
molestors?"
What does it mean to forbid marriage? It means that a person is not
allowed to marry, even if they feel it is their vocation to marry. Does
the Catholic Church do this? No. In the Rites of the Church that require
celibacy among the clergy, these individuals are not forbidden to marry,
but must make the decision whether their vocation is to be a celibate
cleric, or a married laymen.
**Mike: That's splitting hairs... in effect you are still forbidding marriage if you have the desire or calling to be a Priest. What does the Bible say?
1 Corinthians 9:5 Have we not power to lead about a sister, a wife, as well as other apostles, and as the brethren of the Lord, and Cephas?
1 Corinthians 7:6-9 But I speak this by permission, and not of commandment. 7 For I would that all men were even as I myself. But every man hath his proper gift of God, one after this manner, and another after that. 8 I say therefore to the unmarried and widows, It is good for them if they abide even as I. 9 But if they cannot contain, let them marry: for it is better to marry than to burn.
**Mike adds: As you can see, even the Apostles of old had wives. Paul teaches "as an opinion" that is is ok to be celebate but if you burn (with lust) it is better to marry. Nowhere does Paul or any Biblical author forbid marriage to the priesthood.
If this person makes a mistake, and later
determines that their vocation is not as a celibate cleric, but as a
married laymen, the Church will grant a dispensation, and this individual
is allowed to leave the clergy and become married. This does not work the
other way around; the Church does not forbid marriage, but it does forbid
divorce. (remember also Jesus and Paul promoted celebacy, also it was not
until the 12th century that all the clergy became celibate)
**Mike: Does God change, so why in AD33 the church did not force celebacy and in the 12th century did? Jesus practiced celebacy because the church was to be his bride... in the spiritual sense. He compared the church as to being 10 virgins. True Paul advocated celebacy but only as an opinion, specifically stating such and specifically stating it was not a commandment, and that those who had problems with celebacy SHOULD marry.
What does it mean to require abstinence from foods? It means that a person
is not allowed to eat these foods. Does the Catholic Church do this? No.
To forbid the consumption of particular foods is different than fasting
from particular foods. Christ said there would be a time for fasting, "But
the days will come when the bridegroom is taken away from them, and then
they will fast on that day." (Mark 2:20, Luke 5:33). And in Acts, fasting
is practiced with prayer: "Then, completing their fasting and prayer, they
laid hands on them and sent them off." (Acts 13:3); "with prayer and
fasting" (Acts 14:23). Unlike many heretic churches, the Catholic Church,
follows the words of Christ and the example of the apostles, and
prescribes certain days of fasting, such as Fridays during Lent, in
remembrance of the crucifixion of Christ.
**Mike: I've always heard that the fish only on Fridays was instituted by the Catholics to sell more fish... but that may be one of those stories you mention ;) I have no problem with fastings... most churches practice this.
....................................................
You said,
(their is no evidence of the Church of Christs distint beliefs )Because
the early church apostatized and the plain and simple truths were buried
or lost. Are you aware that there are numerous missing books of the Bible
that the Bible itself refers to?
1 Kings 11:41 And the rest of the acts of Solomon, and all that he did,
and his wisdom, are they not written in the book of the acts of Solomon?
2 Chronicles 9:29 Now the rest of the acts of Solomon, first and last, are
they not written in the book of Nathan the prophet, and in the prophecy of
Ahijah the Shilonite, and in the visions of Iddo the seer against Jeroboam
the son of Nebat?
These books were about the acts of Solomon. And at least we knowt they did
exist, even if we dont have them.
But your Church is different is the sence that, in the Bible we know
there were thousands of Christians with Bishops, deacons, elders.
And you are saying they Just vanished without a trace.
While their is evidence of other groups of the time such as the Ngostics
and others. Was it just by chance there is no evidece of your group?
**Mike: There is no evidence other than the original AD33 Church of Christ that apostatized and became extinct. Thus required the need for a Restoration of the old church. I know Catholics consider themselves the original AD33 church but we feel they are the apostatized remnants of that church that longer can lay claim to being that church because of their apostasy.
..................................................................
You say
The original Church of Christ is plainly written about in the Bible
itself, that IS the Church of Christ. Even in some of the old Catholic
Bibles the Catholics called themselves the Church of Christ. The reason
why these writers did not write about the Church of Christ was because the
early church apostatize. Remember what I quoted above in Paul's
writings... the 2nd coming would NOT occur until there was FIRST a FALLING
AWAY, many departing from the truth."
The Bible does say there will be a falling away, Catholics teach this
also, But the Bible nowhere says there will be a complete and total
falling away.Yes like you say, many will fall away, but not all as you
claimed happened.
Your right the Bible does talk about the early church and we see that the
Promises Our Lord made about this Church as in Matt:16:18, When Our Lord s
ays, the Gates of Hades(Hell) will not prevail against His Church. Here
Our Lord is Promising to always Guard his Church from Error and
destruction.
And in Matt 28:20 Jesus says to his 11 disiples, "I am with you ALWAYS
even to the end of the age." So we know he was always here and with his
church.
**Mike: We differ on HOW God will preserve His church and fulfill these passages. Catholics view this as a continual progression to today, Restorationists believe the method used is the Restoration. God will always be with us so long as we don't exercise our free agency and walk away from Him which many have. The scriptures may not specifically say that a falling away will be complete, nor do they say it won't be either. I did however offer the passages about the 1260 years which I am sure you would interpret differently.
I have noticed many groups such as Jehovas Witness, LDS, your Church of
Christ, and Seven day adventist, all use the text in Revelation and try to
say it was their church that was the First. However there is no proof of
any of them being present on this Earth until the 19th century, And in
America.
**Mike: Right, remember though, Restorationists don't claim to have existed between 570 AD to 1830 AD. This is common knowledge. I'm not syre what your point here is?
As for Me I will put my trust in Our Lords words, namely that He was
always going to be with the Church he founded
**Mike: I agree but the Catholic church bears little resemblance to the AD33 Church of Christ. The AD33 church had no Popes or Cardinals or nuns, There is no mention of infant baptism and such. And then include the horrible history of the inquisition where countless true Christians were murdered and tortured... that is common fact history. And then include the colloboration with the Nazis and other evils. You sure you want to follow these men?
And the Roman Catholic Church is the Only Church that has an unbroken
chain of succession from the aposltes until now.
**Mike: True... yet this does not preclude the possibility of Apostasy. Israel apostatized and were sorely punished many times. It was only God's promise to Abraham that they were not utterly exterminated because of their apostasies. Do you even have Apostles in your church?? We do.
We read in Acts Ch 1, when one of the Apostles dies anoter is elected to
take his place, and this has never ceased, You may remember, Bendict XVI,
being elected to replace the late John Paul II.
**Mike: Then why do you not have 12 Apostles instead of 1 Pope. An Apostle has equal authority as the other 11 Apostles. Where does it mention in the Bible the office of Pope as the single supreme leader? Here is what the Bible says we should have:
Ephesians 2:20 And are built upon the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Jesus Christ himself being the chief corner stone;
**Mike adds: Jesus is the cornerstone, not the Pope. Jesus died for our sins and arose the 3rd day, not a man. There is only One Son of God. The word cornerstone means calibration reference (used to build the whole building by). All of the prophets and apostles were to be in alignment with the cornerstone, that being Christ, not the Pope, not Peter.
.................................................................
One more thing, about scripture
How do you know what Scripture is? How do you know what books are
inspired? Do we leave it up to each individual Christian to read all of
the books that were possibly included or excluded from the New Testament?
Have you read and studied The Shepherd of Hermas? The Epistle of Barnabas?
The Book of Clement? The Epistles of Ignatius? All of these were
circulated in the early Chrurch in such a way as that some regarded them
as scriptural. Others didn't. The Churchin the 4th century had to decide
and, thanks be to God, Jesus Christ gave to his apostles his own authority
to decide, and their successors carried on their authority so that we
could have a New Testament today
**Mike: We believe the Apostles ceased to exist soon after Paul due to the apostacy of the early church. All those whom you consider Popes or successors would thus have no authority to decide what is scripture. It is either scripture or it is not. I have read the Apochripha and it has some things that seem similar to BoM teachings.
Mike, It was the Catholic Church (with the guidence of the Holy Spirit)
who decieded what went in and what stayed out of the Canon of the New
Testament.(offically made cannon in 397 AD)
**Mike: Right, and they kept out many plain and precious things according to BoM prophecy.
So, If one believes in the authenticity of the New Testament, It
therefore logically and really means that they have accepted the Authority
of the Catholic Church (whether they like it or not). For it was though
this Church that came the New Testanet as you and I know it today.
**Mike: I disagree, the BoM states they will remove things, not alter or add. From my studies over the past 25 years I have found nothing really added or altered in the Bible, only taken away, thus what we have is good scripture and worthy of acceptation. We also have other versions such as the Lamsa version which use pre Catholic texts and basically teach the same thing.
If I did not trust in the Authority of the Catholic Church it would
follow that I would be morally obligated to reject the New testament.
**Mike: Nope, just because the Mormons misrepresent the Book of Mormon does not mean I reject the BoM. Apostates rarely follow their own books.
But as I do believe in the 27 letters of the New Testamet as decided
with the guidence of the Holy Spirit by the Pope and Bishops of the
Catholic Church in the 4th century. It does then make sense that The Holy
Spirt is working in this Church.
**Mike: Or in spite of. Really the ones I am amazed with are the King James translators. The BoM authors quote from the OT in Isaiah and these come out very close to the KJV translation. They truly did an inspired job. Joseph Smith didn't use his wisdom but the Urim to do the translation so that translation was perfect.
.....................................................................
I can say with confidence also the RCC teaches nothing contrary to
scriprute. If you think their is Please tell me.
**Mike: Oh I do and have. Don't get me wrong, I admire many Catholics and their good works, but doctrinally they are wrong on many key points, and historically during the dark ages up to WWII they were just abominable.
Ok, This has been mostly a historical,logical and biblical defense of my
Church. but thats Ok. I hope you like it anyways. And hope i didnt offend
you, but I usually talk straight and to the point without "beating around
the bush."
Though I did ask some questions and I look forward to your response
Peace be with you
Jeff Myers OR USA
**Mike: No offense, enjoyed the conversation. It's really nice to be able to disagree strongly on such things that are dear to our heart and not get personally offensive about it. Many many I have dealt with act like I'm badmouthing their wife and want to duke it out. I like to set personal feelings aside and talk straight about scripture. If the Bible is written in such plainness, why all the 10,000s of different churches today? All claim "I, I am the Lord's" but they cannot possibly be. Would you not agree? And if the Catholic church is the one true perfect church, why the Reformation Protestant movement who of their own study of the Bible found the Catholic church to be false and tried to reform it? Anyway, if you wish to continue the discussion feel free, please if possible write to me directly at technomn@earthlink.net and we can continue. However if we are going to rehash the same points over and over again, or build up points with minutia and endless counter arguments and not really address the key points it may be wisdom to not continue much further. I've debated with Catholics before and they are very learned and skilled debators, but often fail to address the key points and we waste both our time.
God Bless,
Mike Kelley
