Posted on 12/22/2013 3:01:31 PM PST by DouglasKC
What I got out of that answer was, yes, traditional Christianity does not practice what Jesus Christ specifically said his followers should do. Further, in order to justify it we'll say it's wrong because "we" believe these verses override it.
Again, I think the best course of action is to ASSUME that Christ was telling the truth when he said it was his doctrine and then study those verses with that understanding.
I apologize if you were offended at my question, and I do not desire to be fighting with a Christian, but, to defend myself somewhat, check the context of the thread to understand the cause of the question, and the extreme wickedness of UCG’s teachings. I have plenty of links to show enough of that for you.
“Again, I think the best course of action is to ASSUME that Christ was telling the truth when he said it was his doctrine and then study those verses with that understanding.”
So then, since you concede that there is no actual command in scripture to perform them, no explicit mandate, nor can you show me what it is in plain terms from the text, to what scriptures do you wish for us to read “with that understanding?,” when you have nothing whatever that could naturally lead you to your conclusion? It is the scripture which should lead someone to conclude something. You cannot read a pre-existent idea and hope to get the scripture to conform it. Either the scripture bares it out, or it doesn’t. It’s really quite simple.
If what you say is true, then you should be able to legitimately explain why there is no explicit mention of this Eternal-life dependent question, and also explain all the verses which demonstrate an extreme inconsistency with what the Apostles thought was actually important and your claims.
For example, why, again, did the Spirit catch away Philip BEFORE he could lay hands on him, if we are supposed to believe that the early Christians believed, prior, about the laying on of hands being necessary for salvation? Why did the Eunuch walk away rejoicing, and yet Luke does not take the time to assure the followers of the UCG that “But, he got sad later, when he realized he wasn’t a Christian yet, because, as you know, we teach that a person isn’t converted until they are baptized AND laid hands on.”
Why is it that the Thief, who lived a life of horrible sin, is saved with this simple statement: “Remember me, Lord, when you come into your Kingdom”? When your religion teaches that if a person is not baptized, and not laid hands on, he is not actually even become a Christian?
Out of the entire New Testament, SO MUCH is spent on talking about HOW men are saved, and yet there is not one sentence, not one little phrase, not one little suggestion,that says anything that you have said.
Can’t you explain why? Why didn’t Paul, when he was saying “ye are saved by grace,” did he not sit down and say, “But, you can’t have any grace unless you submit to the authority of the UCG, or whatever offshoot cult from Armstrong may pop up 2000 years from now”?
Merry Christmas to you as well. Check, I think, maybe my second post in this thread. I have a link from CARM filled with footnotes that will put UCG on your radar, followed up with a mention from EWTN and a quote from Waltar Martin’s “Kingdom of the Cults.”
UCG is not a particularly big cult, not as huge as the LDS, but it’s been a subject lately due to the threads being posted with articles either from the cult’s website, or, in this case, straight out teaching of their doctrine.
Knowledge is power!
You mean besides the mandate of Jesus Christ for his followers to teach the doctrine of the laying on of hands? And the examples of the disciples of Christ who performed the laying on of hands when asking for the holy spirit to be given others?
I understand perfectly what all those other verses mean in the correct context. You never will as long as you start with the premise that Jesus Christ was wrong.
Again, your fallback is to question the clear teaching of Jesus Christ when he says the doctrine of the laying on of hands is HIS doctrine. Set your heart to obey Christ and then you'll be able to see where those scriptures fit. I can explain until I'm blue in the face but you won't believe me...you don't even believe Christ!
“You mean besides the mandate of Jesus Christ for his followers to teach the doctrine of the laying on of hands? And the examples of the disciples of Christ who performed the laying on of hands when asking for the holy spirit to be given others?”
Back to this again? At this point, it’s pure desperation, since you’re still ignoring what I’ve asked you. 1) What is the doctrine of the laying on of hands? 2) Where is the command to perform them? 3) Why was it not always practiced if it is mandatory? And this is just 3 things. There’s lots of other stuff you’re still avoiding.
If you cannot answer it, or will not acknowledge it, I’ll safely say that you concede it. In which case, with all your presuppositions removed, WHY should we accept your position?
“Set your heart to obey Christ”
Which one? The Second person of the Trinity, or the UCG Christ who doesn’t even say anything in your defense? I’m pretty sure I’m okay with the actual Christ:
“And as Moses lifted up the serpent in the wilderness, even so must the Son of man be lifted up: That whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have eternal life.”
(Joh 3:14-15)
Can’t really say the same for you though. You DON’T believe Jesus Christ when He says that.
It's listed in the article.
2) Where is the command to perform them?
Hebrews 6...
3) Why was it not always practiced if it is mandatory?
It was. You've convinced yourself it wasn't so you can't make sense of the scriptures.
“It’s listed in the article.... Hebrews 6... It was. You’ve convinced yourself it wasn’t so you can’t make sense of the scriptures.”
You really are wasting my time, as if each post is somehow independent from the other ones. When I asked you “What is the doctrine of the laying on of hands?” I meant, to show from the scripture, where it says what the doctrine even is.
You cannot produce this for me, as it is merely your presupposition that the laying on of hands is the second stage of the “conversion” process for salvation.
When I asked “Where is the command to perform them,” that command is not in Hebrews 6. Nor is it anywhere in scripture.
Let me show you what a command looks like: “Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ”
Can you produce one that says “And be baptized by an approved member of UCG Inc, and then receive the gift of the Holy Spirit by submitting to having our filthy ministers lay hands on you while praying”?
For the third one, “It isn’t,” since, quite clearly, it was not always practiced. Nor has it been practiced by anyone other than the Apostles in almost 2,000 years, resulting in miraculous signs and wonders.
Look through the thread. There are numerous examples from scripture of the exact process. Here's the clearest one:
Act 8:17 Then laid they their hands on them, and they received the Holy Ghost.
Act 8:18 And when Simon saw that through laying on of the apostles' hands the Holy Ghost was given, he offered them money,
In Hebrews 6, it's listed a fundamental doctrine right after baptism.
Look at the wiki article Laying on of hands. It shows that it was and is used in many churches today for the exact reasons listed in the article. It was and is an integral part of Christian worship. I can't help that by tradition it's been abandoned.
And look, I've tried to treat you with respect. Even if you don't think I'm a Christian Christ doesn't command that you be a dick to those outside of the faith. Stop using demeaning words like "filthy" when referring to people I know and love. And quit snarling when you post to me.
Also quotes in I believe 2Timothy as Paul lays hands on Timothy and ordains him as a bishop of that area.
“Look through the thread.”
But the thing is, I HAVE looked at the thread, and yet, we’re still stuck at this impasse:
“So then, since you concede that there is no actual command in scripture to perform them, no explicit mandate, nor can you show me what it is in plain terms from the text, to what scriptures do you wish for us to read “with that understanding?,” when you have nothing whatever that could naturally lead you to your conclusion? It is the scripture which should lead someone to conclude something. You cannot read a pre-existent idea and hope to get the scripture to conform it. Either the scripture bares it out, or it doesn’t. It’s really quite simple.
If what you say is true, then you should be able to legitimately explain why there is no explicit mention of this Eternal-life dependent question, and also explain all the verses which demonstrate an extreme inconsistency with what the Apostles thought was actually important and your claims.
For example, why, again, did the Spirit catch away Philip BEFORE he could lay hands on him, if we are supposed to believe that the early Christians believed about the laying on of hands being necessary for salvation? Why did the Eunuch walk away rejoicing, and yet Luke does not take the time to assure the followers of the UCG that “But, he got sad later, when he realized he wasn’t a Christian yet, because, as you know, we teach that a person isn’t converted until they are baptized AND laid hands on.”
Why is it that the Thief, who lived a life of horrible sin, is saved with this simple statement: “Remember me, Lord, when you come into your Kingdom”? When your religion teaches that if a person is not baptized, and not laid hands on, he is not actually even become a Christian?
Out of the entire New Testament, SO MUCH is spent on talking about HOW men are saved, and yet there is not one sentence, not one little phrase, not one little suggestion,that says anything that you have said.
Can’t you explain why? Why didn’t Paul, when he was saying “ye are saved by grace,” did he not sit down and say, “But, you can’t have any grace unless you submit to the authority of the UCG, or whatever offshoot cult from Armstrong may pop up 2000 years from now”?”
If you cannot specifically address any of this, then what good do you think it’ll do you to keep repeating yourself? Do you hope to trick me into believing that you are answering me?
“Look at the wiki article Laying on of hands. It shows that it was and is used in many churches today for the exact reasons listed in the article.”
Wikipedia? A real great source! It doesn’t even provide a footnote for its assertion. So then, can you please show me one single confession which asserts what you teach on the matter?
From the United Church of Beelzebub’s website:
On the requirements for SALVATION
“The NEXT step [after Baptism] on our road to eternal life is to receive God’s Holy Spirit, which comes through “laying on of hands,” as described in Hebrews 6:2. From the Scriptures, we find that water baptism is FOLLOWED by the ceremony of laying on of hands, at which time we receive God’s Spirit... the Holy Spirit was not given until Peter and John prayed and laid their hands on them... We see that God’s Holy Spirit is given to us by the prayer of and laying on of hands by God’s ordained ministers, serving as His representatives.” (All Caps on specific words mine)
http://www.ucg.org/booklet/road-eternal-life/water-baptism-and-laying-hands/
Keep in mind, YOU are claiming that the Eunuch, for example, either received the Spirit SECRETLY, or he didn’t receive it at all, because you believe that without the laying on of hands, He has NO Spirit within him.
Don’t start trying to obfuscate and confuse your position with that of, say, the Pentecostals, or the Catholics, who do so in ordination of ministers, unless you want us to believe that these are religions which only believe salvation belongs to the clergy! Having once been a Pentecostal, not even THEY believe that a person is DAMNED or in rebellion if they are not touched. And, in either case, none of these practices actually have any explicit command to do them.
Can you please provide ANY confession which declares that your church does? You can start with the Westminster Confession. Or maybe the RCC Catechism. Good luck!
“Stop using demeaning words like “filthy” when referring to people I know and love.”
Not only are the ministers of your religion filthy, in that they rape the souls of those who come to them, deceive them about the identity of Christ, deny the trinity, and teach all manner of damnable heresies, I affirm that if the do not repent, that they are also accursed, and are on their way straight to hell! (And I don’t think the UCG’s denial of everlasting punishment is going to help them out!)
“But though we, or an angel from heaven, preach any other gospel unto you than that which we have preached unto you, let him be accursed. As we said before, so say I now again, If any man preach any other gospel unto you than that ye have received, let him be accursed.”
(Gal 1:8-9)
I also say that they are serpents, the children of Satan, whom God will crush with His foot one day!
Mat_23:33 Ye serpents, ye generation of vipers, how can ye escape the damnation of hell?
Get to repenting, or you’ll be joining the Devilish leaders of your religion.
The last few paragraphs were like reading a Stephen King novel. Were you raised by wolves? Did your mother ever teach you to be courteous? If real life if someone asked you to be respectful would you go all Carrie on them? :-)
Also the ordination of deacons here:
Act 6:5 And the saying pleased the whole multitude: and they chose Stephen, a man full of faith and of the Holy Ghost, and Philip, and Prochorus, and Nicanor, and Timon, and Parmenas, and Nicolas a proselyte of Antioch:
Act 6:6 Whom they set before the apostles: and when they had prayed, they laid their hands on them.
“The last few paragraphs were like reading a Stephen King novel. Were you raised by wolves? Did your mother ever teach you to be courteous? If real life if someone asked you to be respectful would you go all Carrie on them? :-)”
Wow, now you know how I feel reading your website!
From the United Church of Beelzebub’s website, answering the question “Is any one of the christian denominations more right than any other?”:
“Jesus Christ prophesied that there would be great religious diversity in those who claim to be Christian and represent Him. Matthew 24:4-5 says, “And Jesus answered and said unto them, Take heed that no man deceive you. For many shall come in my name, saying [that] I am the Christ; and shall deceive many” (KJV). As for the existence of the Church that Jesus founded in A.D. 31 on the Day of Pentecost, Jesus Himself promised that this church would always exist. Specifically, He said, “I will build My church, and the gates of Hades shall not prevail against it” (Matthew 16:18). Therefore, God’s Church does exist somewhere. The Bible explains that this church will accurately reflect the teachings and message of Jesus Christ... we suggest that you write for our free booklet, The Church Jesus Built, or read it online. This booklet addresses these important questions in much greater detail.”
When it comes down to it, at least I think there are millions upon millions upon millions upon millions of Christians going straight to HEAVEN, from out of every nation and tribe, from every century to the end of time. You think there are billions upon billions of Christians going straight to HELL, because they have not been baptized or received the laying on of hands by members of your cult, and believe the Trinity and other doctrines which your religion rejects.
Pretty sure I’m in good company though, and you guys are not!
You couldn't be more wrong. It's the exact opposite of what I believe and what the church teaches...but hey, don't let facts stop your rants...
“..but hey, don’t let facts stop your rants...”
LOL, right after you’ve spent the whole thread De-Christianizing anyone who has not had hands laid on them, including me, and after links from your Church say the same exact thing, even arguing that THEY are the true church of God, and all others are on the way to damnation! Come get the pamphlet!
Really? You're going to make me show you how wrong you were?
“Really? You’re going to make me show you how wrong you were?”
You’re going to renounce your position on the laying on of hands, and disagree with your church about them being the “true church of God” on Earth, with all other denominations being ‘deceived’? Or are you going to explain a way that maybe there are people who DO have the Spirit outside of having hands laid on them, and that there ARE denominations which are valid churches? Either is fine with me.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.