C.Q.I.M. :: Forum

PRO-LIFE, A Short video [by themis]

Wed, 14 May 2008 09:47:40 -0000

Videos:: PRO-LIFE, A Short video

Re: New Member Introduction [by catsnyarn]

Fri, 09 May 2008 16:37:16 -0000

Introductions...:: New Member Introduction
Hi Jan Lyn,

My name is Dawn and I , too , have within the past several years come to feel as if I am a convinced Quaker. I have been a Christian most of my life, but find myself drawn to Quakerism. I am finding answers to questions that I have asked.

I also have 3 children and a very loving husband. The Lord is blessing my with strength for each new day and wisdom through His Holy Spirit.

I have been unable to find a meetinghouse in my area that is not extremely liberal. The only one's in this region are no longer Orthodox in their believing. I have found this very frustrating. I seem to be drawn more to the Friends United Meeting that trust Jesus as Lord and Teacher. So, I have been searching for a possible website or other to communicate with other Quakers to establish some form of community and fellowship. I came across another website: www.quakerfaithandfellowship.org. I see that you have requested a meeting on May 14th. Is this correct? I'm a little confused my how this website tells time. Does 17:30 mean our time 5:30 p.m. or 1:30 p.m. ?

I am looking forward to worshipping with you in the Holy Spirit and getting to know you better over this website.

I will pray for you in your time of illness.

Dawn

Response to: "Patrick and James examine the Quakers" [by themis]

Mon, 05 May 2008 12:55:21 -0000

Videos:: Response to: "Patrick and James examine the Quakers"
Following is a video criticizing Friends and my response.

True Quakers are Christians. Actually the majority of Quakers worldwide are Christians (FUM, EFI, Conservative Friends, etc). BYM is not the only Quaker YM in Britain. There are groups of Christian Friends which uphold original Quakerism as well as some Evangelical Quakers. Also George Fox did not believe in any kind of millenianism. He upheld the original Christian understanding which is that the Church is the Kingdom of God and the number 1000 in Revelation means "a great number of years". Quakers were pacifist from the start. Fox said that he lived in the Spirit which took away the occasion of all wars. Also the Early Christians where Pacifists. Nixon was born an Evangelical Quaker in Southwest Y.M., he joined politics and did not practice our Faith. It is said that latter on he returned to Christ's Church. What you say about Liberal Quakerism is true and Fox would not recognize it, I am sad to admit this. Your mistake is that you don't really know the Quakers for if you did you would know that Liberal Friends are actually a minority (worldwide). Today many Liberal Friends are returning to Jesus. As a last note I would like to thank you for the the respect you showed to George Fox for he was a true man of God. My prayer is that all Quakers worldwide return to our original Faith which did not have a creed to recite but had DOCTRINES to live by!

Re: Hello from Switzerland [by themis]

Sat, 26 Apr 2008 17:35:31 -0000

Introductions...:: Hello from Switzerland

Dear George,

Greetings in the Holy Name of our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ!

Thanks for joining this web site and for posting an introduction to our Forum. I am very happy to meet thee and I hope to get to know thee even better. I am thankful that thee wants to reach the world for Jesus this is is my vision too.

Yes, Quakers have split into three (3) major traditions [there are some smaller groups which might not fit in any single tradition but would fit in more than one]. Pastoral or Evangelical Friends, Liberal Friends and Conservative Friends. Both Evangelical and Conservative Quakers belong to the "Orthodox" branch while Liberal Meetings to the "Liberal" branch.

With this post I really want to welcome thee !

Again thanks for posting!

God Bless!

In Christian Friendship,

Themis

Woolly-minded liberals? [by themis]

Sat, 26 Apr 2008 09:04:59 -0000

Videos:: Woolly-minded liberals?

Re: Short Interview with Conservative Friend Simon Watson. [by themis]

Sat, 26 Apr 2008 08:53:03 -0000

Videos:: Short Interview with Conservative Friend Simon Watson.
This video is good so I am posting this message in order for the post to become viewable in the front page.

Re: Nice to meet you [by kevinroberts]

Fri, 25 Jan 2008 19:31:32 -0000

Introductions...:: Nice to meet you
Well, the Calvinist interpretation of utter depravity and the inability of man to reach towards God has always been a stumbling block. The Reformed Churches have never been in sympathy with the Friends.

The Friends do not look at Holy Scripture as the Gospel, nor even as the message there as the Gospel. It is Jesus Himself who is the Gospel, the Good News, the Word. TULIP notwithstanding.

Jenifer, you are always welcome among us..

Kevin

The Sacraments [by themis]

Tue, 15 Jan 2008 16:20:15 -0000

Faith:: The Sacraments

Taken from: www.hallvworthington.com/sacraments.html

The Sacraments

But in vain they do worship me,

teaching for doctrines the commandments of men.

Mat 15:9

The word sacrament is not to be found in the entire Bible; such absence being our first clue to the origin of sacraments not being from God, but an invention of man. The word is derived from a Greek word meaning mystery and was used in military oaths of pagans. As with many practices of the pagans, the Roman and Greek sects incorporated them into their religion, making themselves more popular and drawing more tithe-paying followers, (follow the money). There are many so-called sacraments, all of which have their origin in the Roman sect, including: communion, baptism, confirmation, penance, anointing the sick, holy orders, and matrimony.

Communion (called the Eucharist)

From George Fox in his Journal, defending the denial of the sacrament and explaining the true requirements of fellowship :

Another great objection they [the other sects] had, "That the Quakers denied the sacrament," as they called it, "of bread and wine, which" they said, "they [the other sects] were to take, and do in remembrance of Christ to the end of the world." A great deal of work we had with the priests and professors [of the other sects] about this, and about the several modes of receiving it in Christendom, so called: for some of them take it kneeling, some sitting; but none of them all, that ever I could find, take it as the disciples took it. For the disciples took it in a chamber after supper; but the sects generally take it before dinner; and some say, after their priest has blessed it, it is "Christ's body." But as to this matter, Christ said, "Do this in remembrance of me." He did not tell them how often they should do it, or how long; neither did he tell them to do it always as long as they lived, or that all believers in him should do it to the world's end. The apostle Paul, who was not converted until after Christ's death, tells the Corinthians, that he had received from the Lord what he had told them concerning this matter; and Paul relates Christ's words concerning the cup thus: "This do you, as often as you drink it, in remembrance of me" and himself adds, "For as often as you do eat this bread and drink this cup, you do show forth the Lord's death until he comes." So according to what Paul here relates, neither Christ nor he instructed the people to do this always, but leaves it to their liberty, "as often as you drink it,"... The Jews used to share a cup of wine, and to break bread and divide it among themselves in their feasts; as may be seen in the Jewish Antiquities; so that the breaking of bread and drinking of wine were Jewish rites, which were not to last forever. They also baptized with water, which made it not seem a strange thing to them, when John the Baptist came with his decreasing ministration of water baptism. But as to the bread and wine, after the disciples had taken it, some of them questioned whether Jesus was the Christ? For some of them said, after he was crucified, “We trusted that it had been he who should have redeemed Israel,".. And although the Corinthians had eaten the bread and wine, and had been baptized in water, the apostle told them they were "reprobates, [still captive to sin] if Christ was not in them;" and told them "examine themselves." And as the apostle said, "As often as you do eat this bread, and drink this cup, you show forth the Lord's death until he comes;" so Christ had said before that he was the "bread of life," which" came down from heaven;" and that "he would come, and dwell in them;" which the apostles witnessed to be fulfilled in themselves; and they exhorted others to seek that which "comes down from above;" but the outward bread and wine, and water, are not from above, but from below.

Now you, who eat and drink this outward bread and wine in remembrance of Christ's death, and have your fellowships in that, will you come no nearer to Christ's death than to take bread and wine in remembrance of it? After you have eaten in remembrance of his death, you must come into his death, and die [spiritual death of the inward cross of self-denial] with him, as the apostles did, if you will live with him. This is a nearer and further advanced state, to be with him in the fellowship of his death, than to only eat bread and wine in remembrance of his death.

You must have fellowship with Christ in his sufferings; 1 Pet 4:12-13

if you will reign with him, you must suffer with him; 2 Tim 2:12

if you will live with him, you must die with him; 2 Tim 2:11

and if you die with him, you must be buried with him, Rom 6:4

and being buried with him in the true baptism, you also rise with him. Col 2:12

Then having suffered with him, died with him, and been buried with him, if you are risen with Christ "seek those things which are above where Christ, sits on the right hand of God." Eat the bread which comes down from above, which is not outward bread; and drink the cup of salvation which he gives in his kingdom, which is not outward wine. And then there will not be a looking at the things that are seen (as outward bread and wine and water are), for the apostle says, "The things that are seen are temporal, but the things that are not seen are eternal." So here are many states and conditions to be gone through before people come to see that, and partake of that which "comes down from above:"

For, first, there was "a taking of the outward bread and wine in remembrance of Christ's death." This was temporary, and not of necessity; but at their liberty, "As often as you do it,..".

Secondly, there must be "a coming into his death, a suffering with Christ;" and this is of necessity to salvation; and not temporarily, but continually: there must be a "dying daily."

Thirdly, a "buried with Christ."

Fourthly, "a rising with Christ."

Fifthly, after they are risen with Christ, then "a seeking those things which are above, a seeking the bread that comes down from heaven" and a "feeding on that and having fellowship in that." For outward bread, wine, and water are from below, and are visible and temporal; but, said the apostle, "We look not at things that are seen, for the things that are seen are temporal, but the things that are not seen are eternal."

So the fellowship that stands in the use of bread, wine, water, circumcision, outward temple, and things seen will have an end; but the fellowship which stands in the gospel, the power of God, which was before the devil was, and which brings life and immortality to light, by which people may see over the devil that has darkened them, this fellowship is eternal, and will stand. And all that are in the true fellowship seek that which is heavenly and eternal, which comes down from above, and are settled in the eternal mystery of the fellowship of the gospel, which is hidden from all eyes that look only at visible things. The apostle told the Corinthians, who were in disorder about water, bread, and wine, that he "desired to know nothing among them, but Jesus Christ, and him crucified."

And from George Fox's Journal when discussing communion with the Jesuits:

After this he [the Jesuit began speaking about communion] came to his sacrament of the altar, beginning at the paschal lamb, and the show bread, and came to the words of Christ, 'This is my body,' and to what the apostle wrote of it to the Corinthians; concluding, 'that after the priest had consecrated the bread and wine, it was immortal and divine, and he that received it, received the whole Christ.' I followed him through the scriptures he brought, until I came to Christ's words and the apostle's. I showed him, 'that the same apostle told the Corinthians, after they had taken bread and wine in remembrance of Christ's death, that they were reprobates, [still subject to sin] "if Christ was not in them;" but if the bread they ate was Christ, he must of necessity be in them after they had eaten it. [which if reprobates, is impossible: Proof 1]. Besides, if this bread and this wine, which the Corinthians ate and drank, was Christ's body, then how has Christ a body in heaven?' [Proof 2]. I observed to him also, 'that both the disciples at the supper, and the Corinthians afterwards, were to eat the bread and drink the wine in "remembrance of Christ," and to "show forth his death until he comes;" which plainly proves the bread and wine, which they took, was not his body. For if it had been his real body that they ate, then he had already come, and was then there present, and it had been improper to have done such a thing in remembrance of him, if he had been then present with them, as he must have been, if that bread and wine which they ate and drank had been his real body.' [Proof 3]. As to those words of Christ, 'This is my body,' I told him, 'Christ calls himself a vine, and a door, and is called in scripture a rock. Is Christ therefore an outward rock, door, or vine?’ 'Oh,' said the Jesuit, 'those words are to be interpreted;' 'So,' I said, 'are those words of Christ, “This is my body."' [Proof 4]. Having stopped his mouth as to argument, I made the Jesuit a proposal thus: 'that seeing he said, "the bread and wine was immortal and divine, and the very Christ; and that whosoever received it, received the whole Christ;" let a meeting be appointed between some whom the pope and his cardinals should appoint, and some of us; let a bottle of wine and loaf of bread be brought, and divided each into two parts, and let them consecrate which of those parts they would. Then set the consecrated and the unconsecrated bread and wine in a safe place, with a sure watch upon it; and let trial be thus made, whether the consecrated bread and wine would not lose its goodness, and the bread grow dry and moldy, and the wine turn dead and sour, as well and as soon as that which was unconsecrated.' By this means,' I said, 'the truth of this matter may be made manifest. And if the consecrated bread and wine does not change, but retain their savor and goodness, this may be a means to draw many to your church; but if they change, decay, and lose their goodness, then you ought to confess and forsake your error, and shed no more blood about it; for much blood has been shed about these things; as in queen Mary's days.' To this the Jesuit made this reply, 'Take a piece of new cloth, and cut it into two pieces, and make two garments of it, and put one of them upon king David's back, and the other upon a beggar's, and the one garment shall wear away as well as the other.' I asked, 'Is this your answer?' 'Yes,' he said. 'Then,' I said, 'by this the company may all be satisfied that your consecrated bread and wine is not Christ. [Proof 5]. Have you told people so long, that the consecrated bread and wine was immortal and divine, and that it was the very and real body and blood of Christ, and do you now say it will wear away or decay as well as the other? I must tell you,"Christ remains the same today as yesterday," and never decays; but is the saints' heavenly food in all generations, through which they have life.' He replied no more to this, being willing to let it fall; for the people that were present saw his error, and that he could not defend it.

The Roman, Greek, and some Protestant (the protesters) sects say that the wine and bread is changed (consecrated, made holy) to be the body and blood of Christ by the priest reciting a special prayer. This is nothing but magic words said by the priest to change bread into Christ's flesh and wine into Christ's blood - could this be any sillier than a witch doctor's magic words? But because of the pomp and circumstance (robes, impressive buildings, the sanctuary, choirs, organs, candles, many people nodding their heads), we accept such magic words as truth - what we would laugh at in other cultures, not surrounded by similar splendor! Superstition!

In John 6:27-28, Christ begins his "eat my flesh, drink my blood" discourse with this statement, Stop toiling and doing and producing for the food that perishes and decomposes, but strive and work and produce rather for the food which endures unto life eternal; the Son of Man will give (furnish) you that, for God the Father has authorized and certified Him and put His seal of endorsement upon Him. I suggest a sect's sacrament of eating bread and drinking wine could hardly be described as "striving, working, and producing" food, but rather is a lazy man's substitute for a directly ordered labor that Christ sufficiently describes to lay to rest any contrary arguments.

Christ further distinguishes: This is the Bread that came down from heaven.

It is not like the manna which our forefathers ate, and yet died;

he who takes this Bread for his food shall live forever.

Christ ends with: It is the Spirit Who gives life; the flesh conveys no benefit whatever.

The words (truths) that I have been speaking to you are spirit and life, John 6:59-63.

Clearly, his words, which we must labor to hear, by getting quiet to wait and listen, is the bread which we must eat,

by listening, hearing, and obeying (repenting), Luke 6:47-48.

In the Last Supper, perhaps the greatest and most dramatic example of his teaching was his washing the feet of the disciples, showing that he who would be greatest, should be the servant of all. If we were to follow this teaching literally, your preacher would regularly wash the feet of the entire congregation to show his humility; but curiously, such a ceremony is not upheld by men who would have the principal seat in the assembly and love to be greeted with titles such as Reverend [meaning worthy of adoration], Father, Brother, Elder, Bishop, Sister, Prophet, Prophetess, Doctor, Teacher, Pastor, etc. I say this, not to suggest such a ceremony is necessary, but only to illustrate how selective are the inventions of sacrament; for the physical examples, which Jesus used to illustrate his teachings, were to be followed in spiritual principle only, not physical ceremony.

There is another point to be made regarding Paul's instructions to the Corinthians: that when he spoke of condemnation when eating, he referenced the fact that some were not waiting on their poor brethren to arrive before eating their evening meal, such poor who had no homes or food, and forgetting that all believers were one body, proceeded to eat and drink before the poor arrived - thereby incurring condemnation by their unworthy behavior. 1 Cor 11:20-28:

So when you gather for your meetings, it is not the supper instituted by the Lord that you eat,

For in eating each one to get his own supper first [not waiting for the poor], and one goes hungry while another gets drunk.

What! Do you have no houses in which to eat and drink? Or do you despise the church of God and mean to show contempt for it, while you humiliate those who are poor (have no homes and have brought no food)? What shall I say to you? Shall I commend you in this? No, I will not!

For I received from the Lord Himself that which I passed on to you , that the Lord Jesus on the night when He was treacherously delivered up and while His betrayal was in progress took bread,

And when He had given thanks, He broke and said, Take, eat. This is My body, which is broken for you.

Do this to call Me to remembrance.

Similarly when supper was ended, He took the cup also, saying, This cup is the new covenant [ratified and established] in My blood. Do this, as often as you drink , to call Me to remembrance.

For every time you eat this bread and drink this cup, you are representing and signifying and proclaiming the fact of the Lord's death until He comes [again].

So then whoever eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord in a way that is unworthy will be guilty of the body and blood of the Lord.

Let a man examine himself, and so should he eat of the bread and drink of the cup.

So, the believers ate together. Some were so poor they had no food or homes. Some were eating before the poor arrived, showing contempt for their poor brothers; showing contempt for the body of Christ in which all are one, like the bread which Christ broke into pieces, to signify that his body was to be broken, so it could then be raised in many, and which we should remember each time we eat and drink, until he returns to us. But, by eating without waiting on the poor brothers, they showed contempt for the believers' body of Christ, (including themselves), and therefore ate condemnation on themselves.

We are to call him to remembrance every time we eat and drink, until his return.

Notice: this in no way speaks of eating and drinking as a "sacrament" or ceremony - (bread was part of a supper, wine afterwards).

It was only a remembrance of Christ's broken body and shed blood, so that upon his personal return to us, we might live in and through Him.

And, as did the disciples, those who have received the completion of Christ's return in them would not continue this practice after supper.

Water Baptism

In the beginning of the early Church, they (Peter particularly) maintained Jewish circumcision, dietary law, and the Jewish custom of water purification rites - known by Christians as John's water baptism. Peter even applied some of these practices on the Gentiles, until: the Holy Spirit corrected him on food, Paul corrected him, and the Apostles Council issued different guideline for Gentiles. Since both Christ and John the Baptist spoke of a better baptism, this baptism was later eliminated from Christian practice and the faith maintained one faith, one Lord, and one baptism, the baptism of fire or of the Holy Spirit . Clearly, just as there are no multiple lords, there are no multiple baptisms.

There is one body and one Spirit, just as you were called in one hope of your calling; one Lord, one faith, one baptism. Eph 4:4-5

John said: I indeed baptize you with water unto repentance, but he that comes after me is mightier than I, whose shoes I am not worthy to bear: he shall baptize you with the Holy Ghost, and with fire: Mat 3:11

Jesus said: For John truly baptized with water; but you shall be baptized with the Holy Ghost not many days hence. Acts 1:5

Paul said: There is one body, and one Spirit, even as ye are called in one hope of your calling; One Lord, one faith, one baptism, Eph 4:4-5

I thank God that I baptized none of you, but Crispus and Gaius;

Lest any should say that I had baptized in mine own name.

And I baptized also the household of Stephanas: besides, I know not whether I baptized any other.

For Christ sent me not to baptize, but to preach the gospel: 1 Cor 1:14-17.

So in this scripture Paul is plainly not happy that he water baptized even the handful that he did.

Acts 8:13- 22

Simon the magician believed and was baptised. He tried to buy the power of laying on of hands. Acts 8:13-18

Peter said to him, "Repent therefore of your wickedness, and pray God, if perhaps the thought of your heart may be forgiven you. For I perceive that you are in the gall of bitterness, and the bond of iniquity." Acts 8:22

Does this sound like a man saved by believing or baptism - who in in the gall of bitterness and the bond of iniquity?

You can't be 'saved' and still be in bitterness and the bond of iniquity?

Peter said "perhaps" he could be forgiven, if he repented and prayed for forgiveness.

But forgiven is not saved. He was forgiven before.

Clearly the one baptism needed is the fire of the Holy Ghost, which circumcises the heart, by plunging down sin and iniquity, and puts off the body of death and sins of the flesh so that we are without sin; "..baptized into Jesus Christ .. his death, buried with him by baptism into death, that they should walk in newness of life." Although to be avoided as an unnecessary ritual, water baptism is not harmful, unless you think it somehow makes you righteous, thereby being prevented from your seeking righteousness, which is Christ's top priority command " Seek ye first the Kingdom of God and His righteousness."

Most sects have "Christening" as a sacrament also, or simply infant baptism, usually for a fee of course (follow the money). There is no scriptural basis for this baptism at all. It is derived from the mistaken belief that one must be baptised in water to be 'saved' and therefore it applies to children also. God is not so unfair as to banish one infant, who has not been sprinkled with water, and embrace another who has been sprinkled or immersed - that makes him a God who judges on a ridiculous technicality or ritual, completely without fairness and justice. It further assumes that infants need 'saving,' which is further silliness. What sin have infants committed?

From George Fox's Journal:

There were some Baptists in that country, whom I desired to see and speak with, because they were separated from the public worship. So Oats, one of their chief teachers, and others of the heads of them, with several of their company, came to meet us at Barrow, where we discoursed with them. One of them said, 'what was not of faith, was sin.' Upon which I asked them, what faith was? And how it was created in man? But they turned off from that, and spoke of their baptism in water. Then I asked them, whether their mountain of sin was brought down, and laid low in them? And their rough and crooked ways made smooth and straight in them? They looked upon the scriptures as meaning outward mountains and ways; but I told them, they must find them in their own hearts; at which they seemed to wonder. We asked them, who baptized John the Baptist? who baptized Peter, John, and the rest of the apostles? And put them to prove by scripture, that these were baptized in water: but they were silent.

and:

In like manner he [Paul] was tender concerning the baptizing with water; but when he saw they began to make sects about it, some crying up Paul, others Apollo, he judged them, and called them carnal, and thanked God he had baptized no more but few; declaring plainly, that he was sent to preach the gospel, and not to baptize; and brought them to the one baptism by the one spirit, into the one body which Christ, the spiritual man, is the head of; and exhorted the church, "all to drink into that one spirit." For he asserted in the church the one faith, which Christ was the author of; and one baptism, which was that of the spirit into the one body; and one Lord Jesus Christ, who was the spiritual baptizer, who John said should come after him. And further the apostle declared that they, who worshipped and served God in the spirit, were of the circumcision of the spirit, which was "not made with hands;" by which the "body of the sins of the flesh was put off:" which circumcision Christ is the minister of.

and:

And although the Corinthians had eaten the bread and wine, and had been baptized in water, the apostle told them they were "reprobates, [still subject to sin] if Christ was not in them;" and bid them "examine themselves."

and:

While I was in London, I went one day to visit him that was called squire Marsh, who had showed much kindness both to me and Friends. I happened to go when he was at dinner. He no sooner heard of my name, but he sent for me to come up, and would have had me sit down with him to dinner; but I had not freedom to do so. Several great persons were at dinner with him; and he said to one of them who was a great Papist, 'here is a Quaker, which you have not seen before.’ The Papist asked me, 'whether I did own the christening of children?' I told him,' there was no scripture for any such practice.' 'What!' he said, 'not for christening children!' I said, 'no' I told him, 'the one baptism by the one spirit into one body we owned; but to throw a little water on a child's face, and say, that was baptizing and christening it, there was no scripture for that.'

Finally there are those who say: Jesus was baptised with water, so that proves it necessary. If you follow this logic, you must get circumcised (whatever your age, whatever the pain), follow all the dietary laws, observe all the Jewish ceremonies, etc. But Jesus was Jewish, and he had to completely fulfill the Law to live without sin, the Law being replaced by the new covenant that he came to establish. Of course all the above is not required, and practicing them would only put you under condemnation of the Law.

Confirmation

There is not scripture to support this either. It is a total invention of man in the Roman sect, presupposing that the invented infant baptism is not sufficient to keep a maturing person sufficiently saved.

Holy Orders

This is process of ordination of bishops, priests, and other clergy, among three sacraments that create an indelible mark called a sacramental character on the recipient's soul. This is man creating offices by ceremony that is supposedly holy - again a total invention of man, restricted to the Roman, Greek, and Anglicans sects.

Christ is the only one who can select, train, and authorize a man to be a pastor, teacher, or evangelist. There is no ceremony or magic words mentioned in the Bible for creation of any of these offices.

Marriage

I quote from William Penn's Introduction of George Fox's Journal:

Their way of marriage is peculiar to them, and shows a distinguishing care above other societies professing christianity. They say that marriage is an ordinance of God, and that God only can rightly join man and woman in marriage. Therefore they use neither priest nor magistrate, but the man and woman concerned take each other as husband and wife in the presence of a number of credible witnesses, 'promising unto each other, with God's assistance, to be loving and faithful in that relation until death shall separate them.' .... This society refuses ceremonies of ring and priest based on conscience, reasonably supported in scripture's examples, showing that the priest had no part in marriage other than to be one of the witnesses, before whom the Jews used to take one another in marriage. This people look upon the necessity of a priest in marriage as an imposition to advance the power and profits of the clergy. They considered the use of the ring, to be a heathen and vain custom, which was never in practiced among the people of God, Jews, or primitive Christians. The words of the usual form, as 'With my body I worship you,' etc. are hardly defensible. In short, their method is more careful, exact, and regular than any form now used, and it is free of other method's inconveniences. Their care and checks are so many that no clandestine marriages can be performed among them.

There is no recorded marriage in the Bible where a priest or magistrate officiates. The Roman sect instituted it, for purposes of control of the population, and most important, again money, (follow the money).

Penance

Fortunately limited to the Roman and Greek sects, this sacrament purchases your forgiveness of sins past and present, by visiting various relics and shrines (pilgrimages), acts of punishment (i.e., saying prayers over and over), and money to finance masses (religious services). This is a total invention by man, focusing on the physical, ignoring any requirement of true sorrow and amendment of actions, and substituting man's external actions for a change of heart resulting from true conviction and repentance with God. However, this invention has been the single greatest source of revenue for the Roman faith, (follow lots of the money) !

All of these acts of pilgrimages, punishment, and finance, being without scripture precedent, are rationalized as "good" and "worthy" by the Pope's declarations, known as Bulls. The Pope's authority is claimed to be passed in succession from previous Popes, the first being Peter. Such claimed succession is without scriptural support; even if succession were supported by scripture, all Popes in the chain would have to be holy like Peter. But several of the Popes were so evil, they were driven out of Rome by outraged citizens for several hundred years; France was so repulsed by papal conduct, they even abandoned Christianity for a time. There are web sites dedicated to the historical criminal activity of the papacy. A claimed authority on succession is obviously a blatant lie. I should point out that not all Popes indulged their flesh, greed, and passions; but for the chain of succession to be remotely possible, all within the chain, would of necessity, be controlled by God in their words and actions, which is historically not true.

Even more ridiculous, are the several Protestant sects that have split from the Roman sect because of their errors, but then hypocritically claim their clerical authority on the same line of succession of Popes prior to their split.

Last Rites

Just before death, a priest says a particular prayer, with your preferred last confession of sins. This supposedly assures you to go to heaven. This is another case of instant salvation.

Many people justify all instant salvations on the basis of the Thief on the Cross, next to Jesus as he was crucified, taking comfort in Jesus saying to him, "Today you will be with me in paradise."

Of course the thief's circumstances were exceptional. Consider these:

1) he was watching another convicted criminal (Jesus) next to him being crucified.

2) this man, [Jesus] who claimed a special relationship with God, did nothing to prevent his crucifixion.

3) the criminal himself was in unimaginable agony from the pain of his own crucifixion.

and, still his faith was strong enough to rebuke another criminal, who was also being crucified and hurled insults at Jesus: "Aren't you the Christ? Save yourself and us!" This [other] criminal replied: "Don't you fear God," he said, "since you are under the same sentence? We are punished justly, for we are getting what our deeds deserve. But this man has done nothing wrong."Then he said, "Jesus, remember me when you come into your kingdom."

I would submit this man's faith was so strong, still active in excruciating pain, still active watching the man who claimed to be the son of God being horribly executed; that such faith, being beyond what I can claim to be able to show similarly, was rewarded for it being extraordinary and exceptional.

So anyone, who claims this criminal's superhuman example as the basis for their going to heaven because they too "believe in Jesus," fails to consider the magnitude of the criminal's faith, which almost all would be hard pressed to duplicate.

As I was told by the Voice of the Lord: "If you had been with me on the night I was arrested, you would not have believed I was the Holy One of Israel."

Anointing the Sick

This one is at least scriptural. Mark 6:13 related the disciples healing the sick with oil. And Paul says sickness calls for the elders to be sent for (but not to a church setting, rather they were called to the place of sick person), And they should pray over him, anointing him with oil in the Lord's name. This was not a church ceremony. The Roman sect started this as a sacramental ceremony, but the sect stopped this ceremony when sicknesses failed to be cured; to be named an elder, without being led and controlled by the Spirit of God, results in a church that was not controlled by God. God does not honor a group of false elder's prayers; to do so would only strengthen a false church.

Conclusion

Most of the invented and supposed sacraments are man's invention of a easy, ritualized, self-performed salvation that could hardly be described as the narrow gate, to which we must strive to enter, and which few will find for many embrace the broad, easy way that leads to destruction. To strive is to exert much effort or energy; few would argue that being wet with water, or eating bread and drinking wine or grape juice, is to labor with much effort or energy. Rather it forms a fantasy salvation of no effort, just ritual - I would include saying the "sinner's prayer" to be just another invention of self-appointed evangelists, who are anxious to get credit for their imagined "saving" of another soul.

All of these practices are just superstitious traditions, ceremonies and rituals of a false church; the same false church described in the book of Revelation. Yes, all the deficit sects of today comprise Revelation's Whore of Babylon, of which all the nations have drunk of the wine of the wrath of her fornication, because all the sects are simply evolutional varieties of the Roman Empire's church, both east and west, whose doctrines were dictated by the sainted Emperors Constantine and Justinian the despot, thus eliminating the true gospel by 390 AD. As predicted in the Bible's Book of Revelation, the church adulterated with the Kings of the earth.

The beast of the Book of Revelation is the beast of heathen religious authority, which power was severely curtailed [a wound to the head] by early Christianity, particularly in the Mediterranean region. But a second beast shortly arose that had horns like a lamb, but was a beast. He [the beast] was further permitted to wage war on God's holy people (the saints) and to overcome them. And power was given him to extend his authority over every tribe and people and tongue and nation. Note, this beast appears to be Christian-like, and under pretence of the Lamb's authority, (though acted by the dragon's power, derived from the first beast of heathen religion) compels men to comply with such traditions, ceremonies, and rituals, (for Christian duties), as resemble the customs of the heathen, in their idolatrous worship and superstition. The whole earth followed this beast, and still does. Thus, the false church arose, and no one could spiritually buy or sell, (like the foolish virgins for oil in their lamps), unless they complied with the beast and had received the false church's mark. Any who denied this false church, or who tried to buy or sell (spiritual works by mind or hand) without the sanction of the false church were martyred, as their predecessors had done before, under the heathen power, or first beast.

Anyone, who tried to increase their measure of Christ by any way that differed from the doctrine of the false church (to buy or sell spiritual oil differently for their lamps), was not only stopped; they were killed - which really made them unable to buy or sell.

And the whore was drunk on the blood of the saints - the Roman church's inquisitions and slaughters throughout Europe, in which during the Middle Ages (800 AD to 1500 AD) nine million souls were put to death, accused of witchcraft. This was followed by the Protestants of England and America who in 50 years were responsible for the deaths of over 869 Quakers in the 17th Century. The persecutors of the Quakers included Episcopalians, Presbyterians, Calvinist Puritans [Congregationalists], and Baptists. She boasts she is not a widow and will never see grief. She boasts that Christ is her husband; but she, the whore, only claims his name but ignores his command to repent, his teachings, his requirements, his warnings, his holiness, his gospel, his Kingdom, his promised freedom from sin, and his cross of self-denial - the Missing Cross to Purity.

And while this false church is often identified by the Protestants as the Roman church, the Protestants are all part of the same false whore, (the beast has many names), salvation based on saying certain words, water, bread and wine - all superstitious rituals - instead of a complete change of heart - circumcised to be a new heart and mind.

(If you want to read more about the whore and the beast, Isaac Penington has writings on this site: 1. Babylon the Great, and 2. The Great Apostasy, and Janney's History of the Church.)

Instead of a new heart, all you have to do is supposedly say words. But to say that Jesus is Lord does make him your Lord, and it does not save us. To be water-baptised does not save us. Nor does a touch of the Spirit, (the call of God only), touted as the baptism of Holy Spirit save us. They do not guarantee that we will live forever or make us a son of God. No believing/baptised "saved", "always saved." Salvation is not instant. Salvation is a process. To be reborn, we first have to die. You have to lose you life to save it. The true baptism of the Holy Spirit, the only one needed, circumcises the heart, by plunging down sin and iniquity, and puts off the body of death and sins of the flesh so that we are without sin; a baptism into the death of Christ, resulting in him being resurrected in us to be ruler of our words and actions.

Jesus said he would reject many, who thought they were Christians, but who stilled sinned. They had not made him their Lord in practice, who controls their lives in their actions and words; he doesn't know them to be his subjects as their ruling Lord. They say Jesus is Lord with their lips, but keep him far removed from their hearts to really be their Lord and King. But in vain they do worship me, teaching for doctrines the commandments of men. Mat 15:9. To make him Lord, he has to first cleanse us of our sinful nature that is unruly; until he cleanses us, we are a slave to sin, (Away from me, you evildoers!), and incapable of being subject to him as your Lord or King.

If any will come after me, let him deny himself,

and take up his cross daily, and follow me. Luke 9:23

And anyone who does not carry his cross and follow me cannot be my disciple. Luke 14:27

Those who belong to Christ Jesus

have crucified the sinful nature with its passions and desires. Gal 5:24

This web site's purpose is to show how to become

free from sin

by benefiting from the changing power of God through the cross,

which leads to union with God in his Kingdom.

Re: Greetings [by themis]

Mon, 14 Jan 2008 07:59:44 -0000

Faith:: Greetings

Dear friend,

Greetings in the Holy Name of our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ!

Welcome to our on line Forum and may our Lord Bless thee and keep thee as thee follows His leadings. Thanks for thy kind and encouraging words.

God Bless!

In Christian Love and Friendship,

Themis

Blessed New Year! [by themis]

Mon, 24 Dec 2007 17:00:00 -0000

Free....:: Blessed New Year!