Posted on 02/09/2014 7:51:42 AM PST by daniel1212
MOORESVILLE, N.C. – A high school football coach in North Carolina has been ordered to cease leading his team in prayers following a complaint by a prominent atheist activist organization.
Officials with the Mooresville Graded School District recently told Mooresville High School football coach Hal Capps to stop leading the Blue Devils in prayer, and Capps has agreed to discontinue to the practice.
The Madison, Wisconsin-based Freedom From Religion Foundation (FFRF) had contacted the district last fall after learning of Capps’ practice and asserted that the prayers were unlawful. According to reports, a parent of a student had complained to the organization, stating that they did not like promoting religion.
“It is a violation of the Constitution for the Mooresville High School football coach to organize, lead, or participate in prayers or other religious proselytizing before, during, or after games and practices,” FFRF Patrick Elliott wrote to District Attorney Kevin Donaldson. “It is well settled that public schools, and by extension public school officials, may not advance or promote religion.”
Superintendent Mark Edwards told the Charlotte Observer this week that he approached Capps following the football season and told him to discontinue praying with the team, advising that it was a violation of the separation of church and state.
“He said he understood,” Edwards stated.
FFRF had also asserted that Capps had held a team baptism, sending the district a photograph that showed the coach in an indoor pool with several young students and a group of onlookers. However, officials state that the event was not a team baptism, but that a local church hosted a baptism for some of the team members, who then requested that Capps be present.
Despite Capps’ agreement to discontinue the prayers, a number of area team members are now expressing their support for the coach and their disapproval of FFRF. #ISupportCapps soon became a new Twitter hashtag.
“#ISupportCapps and he’s the best coach I’ve ever had, and I’m twice the guy and player I was when I came to Mooresville as a freshman,” Tweeted team member Dallas Jackson.
“Love my coach mane; he do a lot for me,” posted Dash Ingram. “Helping me with a lot of stuff mane! Coach Capps [is] the truth mane #ISupportCapps.”
Local residents likewise largely supported the coach.
“I believe what the Bible says,” Belvin Sherrill told WBTV. “It upsets that some people can just dictate what you do because of their beliefs and not take into consideration your own.”
“I think the man, the coach, should be able to pray with his players or anybody else that he wants too,” resident Betty Lambert also remarked to the outlet. “That’s our right; we as Christians have stood back too long.”
That is the Truth.
In their obsessive animosity toward any affirmation of faith, they would disallow this as they do others, and in so doing they reject multitudes of Founders.
A broad brush but such militant types are overall cousins to anarchists who also suffer from a basic animosity toward moral authority, as they, like their master, consider themselves wiser, more knowledgeable, and morally superior to God in His omniscience, and desire his place.
Thus a "space seed" hypothesis receives acceptance over a Creator judge, as the former carries no moral requirements.
A reasonable but exceptional response, as while it must not be compelled, some type of belief is always going to be expressed, and in a democracy the general belief of the founders and the people will be and has historically been the case . And thus a Christian here can object to the prohibition of any expression of dependance on God by even low level officials. But if the founders were atheists as well as the majority of the people, then he would have no real appeal to laws which reflect that.
That is simply another RC assertion. You cannot extrapolate a perpetual infallible magisterium out of Matthew 16:18-20, anymore than you can for the OT magisterium under which this principle finds its roots. Now will any other exploitative attempts to establish Rome as being the One True and infallible Church®. Others have have tried, and you may also, but first you should answer the question as to what your basis is (Scripture, etc.) for assurance of Truth.
allows for one baptism only.
Actually, regardless of what Rome says - as Scripture is not her supreme authority for Truth as it is shown to be in Scripture - it is Scripture that supports one valid baptism only, as a believer is only buried with Christ once, who only died and rose once, and thus the baptized is positionally crucified with Christ and risen to walk in newness of life. (Rm. 6) Now for me to do so much better.
To knowingly perform a second baptism on a Catholic is a grave matter as it demonstrates a rejection of the Catholic form of baptism.
Which must be rejected, as it is sin to presume a valid baptism is sprinkling a morally incognizant infant (which the majority of RC "baptism" are), which cannot obey the stated requirements for baptism, that of repentant faith. (Acts 2:38; 8:36-38) And which act is said to formally justify the infant by interior holiness, thus he is then good enough for heaven, but which typically begins the process of salvation that ends with also becoming good enough to enter Heaven thru the mythical purgatory of Rome's tradition (which even the EOs reject).
Such usually have never had their "day of salvation," in which damned and destitute sinners come before an infinitely holy and perfectly just almighty God. Before whom they are condemned for what they have done, versus saved by their deeds as most imagine, and have nothing to offer that they should escape their just and eternal damnation nor gain eternal life with God. And thus must cast all their faith upon the risen Lord Jesus, sent by the Father, to save them by His blood and righteousness. Which in Scripture usually happened the same hour as they heard it by anointed men, and are baptized in identification with their Lord and so follow Him.
Thus i was properly baptized 6 years (should have been sooner) after i had become born again while still a RC (sprinkled and raised devout), and had realized the profound difference btwn being a devout RC via paedobaptism and regeneration via heartfelt personal repentance and faith in Christ to save on His expense and credit.
I wouldn't care, as long as it was done in the name of Jesus. Of course, that has already been done.
You mean you cannot read or you know that the article does not say he was baptizing Catholics or anyone without permission, or even that he did the baptizing, which usually is done by the minister. And thus you are engaging in RC sophistry as you have nothing to refute what the information states. But as with the Inquisitions, guilt is presumed of any that are not with Rome.
Also infant baptism? Acts 16:15 Acts 16:33 1 Cor. 1:16
You left out Acts 18:8, yet this attempt is worse than being blind, as now you are reading into Scripture that which is not there.
Jesus said unto them, If ye were blind, ye should have no sin: but now ye say, We see; therefore your sin remaineth. (John 9:41)
NOWHERE does the Holy Spirit record any infants being baptized, and thus you must read infants into the cursory accounts of household baptisms, while where more description is provided, it is those who could hear and belief that were baptized. (Acts 2:41; 8:12; 10:43-47; 19:4,5; 16:32; 22:16)
For as said, the requirement the Holy Spirit states is that of repentant wholehearted faith, (Acts 2:28; 8:36,37) which an infant cannot fulfill.
Col. 2:11–12 does makes a casual connection between circumcision and baptism, but this not make the former fully correspond to the latter as regards requirements. Circumcision was an external sign of the Abrahamic covenant that was commanded to be performed to all the household, servants included, but only for the males, and without a personal faith being a prerequisite. (Gn. 17:10-14)
Col. 2:11–12 only refers to circumcision as corresponding to the regeneration what baptism stands for, that of burying the old man and rising to walk in newness of life, (Rm. 6:3,4) with faith appropriating justification. For the Holy Spirit plainly states that the “father of faith, Abraham, "received the sign of circumcision, a seal of the righteousness of the faith which he had yet being uncircumcised: that he might be the father of all them that believe, though they be not circumcised; that righteousness might be imputed unto them also: " (Romans 4:11)
You can argue that the accounts do not say infants were not baptized, and Scripture also does not say cats will not be in heaven, but you do not make a doctrine on silence and conjecture, and it contrary to the character of the Holy Spirit to fail to record support in Acts for such a critical (according to Catholicism) practice, and you cannot charge God with neglect. And who sets forth personal repentant and believe as the requirement, which infants cannot do.
Thus what is manifest is that while RCs attempt to wrest support for their traditions of men from Scripture, the fact is that teachings such as paedobaptism do not depend upon the weight of Scriptural evidence for their veracity, and which is not to be the basis for your assurance as an RC anyway.
Thank you for your response...The very fact the RC church teaches paedobaptism and dear impimp must believe that repentance is not a requirement for baptism, since infants cannot repent and a second regenerative baptism is possible a sinful act, the very reason for the symbolic renewing of the new believer...
As a protestant I find it very strange RC believers value the word and tradition of fallible men over the infallible Word of God...
That’s your opinion.
The infallible Word of God, is Jesus Christ. That the Bible is the word of God we know only through the testimony of others, which is to say, the Church.
Folks, this is real easy. A coach (or other), can have a large advertising campaign for a team designated prayer, flyers/contact the parents also, for team designated off campus before game-time. (Or even designating it as an on campus “club.” Even inviting other teams to participate. And make it go postal.
The fact is the Church is, historically, the custodian of those Scriptures. The Protestant doctrine that it is the only rule of faith derives from Luther’s rejection of the teaching authority of the Church, which left him only the Bible, of which he appointed himself as a competent interpreter.
Another is to separate football from the school entirely. It could become a private club that hires the coach and rents facilities.
Sola Scriptura is a lie. I will not condescend to that lie. But if I did condescend I would probably say that neither practice (infant baptism or adult baptism) has its specific procedures and rules laid out in scripture. So at least the traditions I follow are from Apostles and the early church fathers. Yours are “inspired” by “latter-day saints” such as Calvin and Luther.
As in cults, that enables the church itself to be the supreme authority versus Scripture, which it is abundantly manifest to be , and thus it was upon Scriptural substantiation that the church began. See here .
I am waiting until one tries the "we gave you the Bible" polemic to ask them the questions Catholics refuse to answer without nuking the church.
Which means what?
That’s your opinion.
Chapter and verse please...
Here let me help you...
1Pe 3:21:
...and this water symbolizes baptism that now saves you also—not the removal of dirt from the body but the pledge of a clear conscience toward God. It saves you by the resurrection of Jesus Christ,
You have salvation not because you were baptised, it was because of the resurrection of Jesus Christ...
It is the water that is the symbol, not the baptizing.
How do you know that the Bible is the Word of God?
So using RC teaching, one can be baptised even as a infant and not repent of their sins and still be saved ?
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.