Happy Sunday. Find a good Bible believing church and attend.

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Realitybites said:

---

Quote:

---

You and I both know that young kids raised in an evangelical church environment will say and do what the other kids are doing, as they would in any other environment. I don't understand why you insist that it's a "false doctrine" because people will profess something of themselves that really isn't true. That's human nature. Peer pressure and acceptance is a huge motivating factor at that age.

---

If you're professing a doctrine that is forcing you to accuse 50% of those who are coming to Christ, obtaining eternal life, and having eternal security of bearing false witness because of peer pressure, it is probably time to rethink that doctrine.

---

Who's "accusing"? Wasn't it YOU? 50% was YOUR number. I offered an explanation that is no different than what the Bible offers: "They went out from us, but they were not of us; for if they had been of us, they would have continued with us. But they went out, that it might become plain that they all are not of us."

Was John "accusing" as well?

---

The Bible passage you are misapplying is 1st John 2:19. It refers to (little a) antichrists, that is false teachers. It is not referring to youth group kids who pray the sinners prayer, are baptized, told they are saved and subsequently deny Christ and lose that salvation.

And 50% isn't my number (it's actually not even correct). The correct number is 75%, and it is from your online catechism citing the Barna group. " Two studies conducted by both the Barna Group and USA Today found that nearly 75 percent of Christian young people fall away from the faith and leave the church after high school."

Realitybites said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Realitybites said:

---

Quote:

---

You and I both know that young kids raised in an evangelical church environment will say and do what the other kids are doing, as they would in any other environment. I don't understand why you insist that it's a "false doctrine" because people will profess something of themselves that really isn't true. That's human nature. Peer pressure and acceptance is a huge motivating factor at that age.

---

If you're professing a doctrine that is forcing you to accuse 50% of those who are coming to Christ, obtaining eternal life, and having eternal security of bearing false witness because of peer pressure, it is probably time to rethink that doctrine.

---

Who's "accusing"? Wasn't it YOU? 50% was YOUR number. I offered an explanation that is no different than what the Bible offers: "They went out from us, but they were not of us; for if they had been of us, they would have continued with us. But they went out, that it might become plain that they all are not of us."

Was John "accusing" as well?

---

The Bible passage you are misapplying is 1st John 2:19. It refers to (little a) antichrists, that is false teachers. It is not referring to youth group kids who pray the sinners prayer, are baptized, told they are saved and subsequently deny Christ and lose that salvation.

And 50% isn't my number (it's actually not even correct). The correct number is 75%, and it is from your online catechism citing the Barna group. " Two studies conducted by both the Barna Group and USA Today found that nearly 75 percent of Christian young people fall away from the faith and leave the church after high school."

---

Do you know of a source that might indicate the percentage that return within say about 5 years?
I have been away on vacation where internet is not good. I hope to get back to the discussion I left hanging withing a day or two, so I can learn a bit more about the topics we were on.

BUDOS said:

---

Do you know of a source that might indicate the percentage that return within say about 5 years?
I have been away on vacation where internet is not good. I hope to get back to the discussion I left hanging withing a day or two, so I can learn a bit more about the topics we were on.

---

According to Barna, 17% or so return after having kids.

Enjoy your vacation!

Coke Bear said:

---

BUDOS said:

---

I would say there are several references to entire households being baptized. It was even common for three or four generations to live in the same house. There's never any reference to an age limit, so it seems likely that children were being baptized.Do you believe the child needs to understand what baptism represents, &/or understand what believing in Christ and being a Christian means? If an 8 day old baby is baptized is that the same as an 8 year old? Is there an age/point of accountability? Should there be? Can a 5, 6 or 8 year old routinely understand? I don't ask these questions to start one of those word fights where we try to bury with each other in non-Christian conduct. I would just like your thoughts and questions on the subject, even scenarios. Such a discussion might help me better fine tune my own thoughts so can then evaluate how they might or might not fit within my core religious beliefs.

---

BUDOS - I too appreciate your honest asking of these questions.

I'll try to piggy-back onto Sam's and Realitybites excellent answers.

Catholics (Orthodox, Lutheran, Anglicans, Methodists, etc.) believe in the doctrine of original sin.

Original sin isn't something that we necessarily have. It's something we lack. We lack salvific grace. When we are baptized, we are infused with (salvific) grace, our souls are indelibly marked, and we become adoptive sons and daughters of God.

You ask a great question about the 8-day old verses the 8-yo. When we look at Matthew 9:1-2, we read ...

Jesus stepped into a boat, crossed over and came to his own town. Some men brought to him a paralyzed man, lying on a mat. When Jesus saw their faith, he said to the man, "Take heart, son; your sins are forgiven."

We Catholics (Orthodox, Lutheran, Anglicans, etc.) believe the faith of the parents (guardians), like the faith of the paralyzed man's friends, are enough for Jesus to forgive our sins.

For the Jews (males), it was circumcision 8 days after birth that made them parts of God's family. This is no longer required. Now ALL (male and female) can be part of God's covenant.

St Paul references the link between circumcision and baptism in Col 2:11-12 -

In him you were also circumcised with a circumcision not performed by human hands. Your whole self ruled by the flesh was put off when you were circumcised by Christ, having been buried with him in baptism, in which you were also raised with him through your faith in the working of God, who raised him from the dead.

One of the earliest debates in the Church was not IF to baptizing infants was proper, but whether they should even wait the 8-days. Infant mortality was much higher then. The Church knew the importance of getting someone baptized.


Jesus. apostles, not the Bible ever said that baptism was symbolic. On the contrary, it is VERY specific in stating that baptism washed away sin and saves you ...

1 Pet. 3:21 - Baptism, which corresponds to this (referring to Noah, the ark, and the water), 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,

Acts 2:38 - And Peter said to them, "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.

Please keep asking great questions. You may not agree with what the Church teaches, but you will hopefully understand what the Church teaches and why it does certain things.

God Bless!

---

Hmmm, perhaps some of us are making this a bit more complicated than I think is necessary. For young children before their cognitive development of maturity to be accountable for their actions and its consequences I would think that they will be in heaven, or at the least not hell. Similar for those adults with similar mental development/disabilities. I'm open to discussion on that subject as those are just me attempting to be rational, as I am not aware of any relative scriptures.

As I may have stated earlier, I often feel uneasy when I see young children, especially prior to their teen years, coming forward stating that they believe and are ready to be baptized. I can grasp the concept of youth baptism, especially as a dedication/declaration by the parents to raise their child within a Christian environment, and/or as a "phase" in which the individual goes through an education/confirmation of what being a Christian involves and its significance.

As for why a male child was circumcised on the 8th day, well, there is a sound medical reason for that, and it is one that they could not have known at the time.

What are your thoughts?

Realitybites said:

---

BUDOS said:

---

Do you know of a source that might indicate the percentage that return within say about 5 years?
I have been away on vacation where internet is not good. I hope to get back to the discussion I left hanging withing a day or two, so I can learn a bit more about the topics we were on.

---

According to Barna, 17% or so return after having kids.

Enjoy your vacation!

---

Ouch! I'm not sure it's getting any better; especially with other research revealing a declining faith; however perhaps other, similar research is being done, including why they came back. We might be able to use that in our evangelistic efforts.

I know when I was at Baylor, the first semester I observed several who reduced &/or stopped attending church; however, sometime during the second semester I noticed that some started back up, and some others during their sophomore year. Most moved off campus by the end of their sophomore year.

Realitybites said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Realitybites said:

---

Quote:

---

You and I both know that young kids raised in an evangelical church environment will say and do what the other kids are doing, as they would in any other environment. I don't understand why you insist that it's a "false doctrine" because people will profess something of themselves that really isn't true. That's human nature. Peer pressure and acceptance is a huge motivating factor at that age.

---

If you're professing a doctrine that is forcing you to accuse 50% of those who are coming to Christ, obtaining eternal life, and having eternal security of bearing false witness because of peer pressure, it is probably time to rethink that doctrine.

---

Who's "accusing"? Wasn't it YOU? 50% was YOUR number. I offered an explanation that is no different than what the Bible offers: "They went out from us, but they were not of us; for if they had been of us, they would have continued with us. But they went out, that it might become plain that they all are not of us."

Was John "accusing" as well?

---

The Bible passage you are misapplying is 1st John 2:19. It refers to (little a) antichrists, that is false teachers. It is not referring to youth group kids who pray the sinners prayer, are baptized, told they are saved and subsequently deny Christ and lose that salvation.

And 50% isn't my number (it's actually not even correct). The correct number is 75%, and it is from your online catechism citing the Barna group. " Two studies conducted by both the Barna Group and USA Today found that nearly 75 percent of Christian young people fall away from the faith and leave the church after high school."

---

It's not misapplying the verse at all. The principle is this: people can make false proclamations about themselves regarding their faith, and the evidence of it is that they end up leaving the faith. If anything, you're under-appyling the verse. Clearly, it is possible for people to say they are Christians, when they really are not. I'm not sure why this is even controversial. I'm also not sure how it is that you don't seem to know that kids are heavily unfluenced by peer pressure, and Christian youth groups are not an exception. Saying that this is "accusing" people and therefore it is sufficient cause to abandon doctrine (presumably OSAS) is as about as ridiculous of an assertion I've heard. You're really reaching for an argument against it.

BUDOS said:

---

Realitybites said:

---

BUDOS said:

---

Do you know of a source that might indicate the percentage that return within say about 5 years?
I have been away on vacation where internet is not good. I hope to get back to the discussion I left hanging withing a day or two, so I can learn a bit more about the topics we were on.

---

According to Barna, 17% or so return after having kids.

Enjoy your vacation!

---

Ouch! I'm not sure it's getting any better; especially with other research revealing a declining faith; however perhaps other, similar research is being done, including why they came back. We might be able to use that in our evangelistic efforts.

I know when I was at Baylor, the first semester I observed several who reduced &/or stopped attending church; however, sometime during the second semester I noticed that some started back up, and some others during their sophomore year. Most moved off campus by the end of their sophomore year.

---

There used to be a couple of sayings in Baptist circles that I am sure have been tossed out along with the hymnals and pews. "You keep them with what you won them with" and "If it's true, it's not new. If it's new, it's not true."

The entire children's church - youth group culture has become a bread and circuses routine designed to produce emotional consumers who will switch allegiances to the world's more polished circuses when they get old enough.

For that matter, the entirety of weak sauce Boomer age Christianity is starting to die off. There is growth, but you see that in places like Orthodoxy, Latin Mass Roman Catholicism, confessional Lutheranism, and hyper Calvinist reformed circles.

I don't disagree with the degree to which the entertainment facet and appealing to the emotions of youth aspect has had too much influence. I would hope that research is being conducted on why growth is happening in some of these areas as well as which ones are declining and why.

Please take the time to read this first post if you haven't yet

BUDOS said:

---

Hmmm, perhaps some of us are making this a bit more complicated than I think is necessary. For young children before their cognitive development of maturity to be accountable for their actions and its consequences I would think that they will be in heaven, or at the least not hell. Similar for those adults with similar mental development/disabilities. I'm open to discussion on that subject as those are just me attempting to be rational, as I am not aware of any relative scriptures.

---

You're on the right track with your line of thought for those who have not reached the age of accountability or those with diminished mental capacity. The Church entrusts them to the mercy of God.

BUDOS said:

---

As I may have stated earlier, I often feel uneasy when I see young children, especially prior to their teen years, coming forward stating that they believe and are ready to be baptized. I can grasp the concept of youth baptism, especially as a dedication/declaration by the parents to raise their child within a Christian environment, and/or as a "phase" in which the individual goes through an education/confirmation of what being a Christian involves and its significance.

---

I guess this is where you (or anyone) has to ask themselves, "What does baptism do?" If you believe it's JUST a symbol, then I understand your point. But NO where in the bible does it say that baptism is JUST a symbol or a nice thing to promise we'll take the kids to bible school.

What does Jesus say in John 3:5?
Jesus answered, "Very truly, I tell you, no one can enter the kingdom of God without being born of water and Spirit.

From the earliest Church fathers, 2nd century forward, it has always been believed that Jesus is requiring baptism in this verse.

Catholics (Orthodox, Lutheran, Anglicans, Methodists, etc.) believe that baptism washes away original sin. It makes us part of God's adopted family. It makes an indelible mark on our soul. Baptism fills us with the Holy Spirit.



Baptism is SO important, that it was the very last thing that Jesus say to do in Matthew 28:19 in the Great Commission:

Go therefore and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit

He didn't say, "Go, write a book!"

BUDOS said:

---

As for why a male child was circumcised on the 8th day, well, there is a sound medical reason for that, and it is one that they could not have known at the time.

What are your thoughts?

---

One could argue the heath merits of circumcision, but I don't believe that was God's intention.

Circumcision served as a mark of belonging to God's people. It served as a covenant with Abraham. It was about identity and belonging and obedience and commitment.

Baptism is now part of the New Covenant with God. Our souls are forever marked. (It's also a whole lot less painful than circumcision. ) And this covenant was just for the Hebrew males, it is for all the world, male and female, slave and free, Gentile and Jew.

Coke Bear said:

---

BUDOS said:

---

Hmmm, perhaps some of us are making this a bit more complicated than I think is necessary. For young children before their cognitive development of maturity to be accountable for their actions and its consequences I would think that they will be in heaven, or at the least not hell. Similar for those adults with similar mental development/disabilities. I'm open to discussion on that subject as those are just me attempting to be rational, as I am not aware of any relative scriptures.

---

You're on the right track with your line of thought for those who have not reached the age of accountability or those with diminished mental capacity. The Church entrusts them to the mercy of God.

BUDOS said:

---

As I may have stated earlier, I often feel uneasy when I see young children, especially prior to their teen years, coming forward stating that they believe and are ready to be baptized. I can grasp the concept of youth baptism, especially as a dedication/declaration by the parents to raise their child within a Christian environment, and/or as a "phase" in which the individual goes through an education/confirmation of what being a Christian involves and its significance.

---

I guess this is where you (or anyone) has to ask themselves, "What does baptism do?" If you believe it's JUST a symbol, then I understand your point. But NO where in the bible does it say that baptism is JUST a symbol or a nice thing to promise we'll take the kids to bible school.

What does Jesus say in John 3:5?
Jesus answered, "Very truly, I tell you, no one can enter the kingdom of God without being born of water and Spirit.

From the earliest Church fathers, 2nd century forward, it has always been believed that Jesus is requiring baptism in this verse.

Catholics (Orthodox, Lutheran, Anglicans, Methodists, etc.) believe that baptism washes away original sin. It makes us part of God's adopted family. It makes an indelible mark on our soul. Baptism fills us with the Holy Spirit.



Baptism is SO important, that it was the very last thing that Jesus say to do in Matthew 28:19 in the Great Commission:

Go therefore and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit

He didn't say, "Go, write a book!"

BUDOS said:

---

As for why a male child was circumcised on the 8th day, well, there is a sound medical reason for that, and it is one that they could not have known at the time.

What are your thoughts?

---

One could argue the heath merits of circumcision, but I don't believe that was God's intention.

Circumcision served as a mark of belonging to God's people. It served as a covenant with Abraham. It was about identity and belonging and obedience and commitment.

Baptism is now part of the New Covenant with God. Our souls are forever marked. (It's also a whole lot less painful than circumcision. ) And this covenant was just for the Hebrew males, it is for all the world, male and female, slave and free, Gentile and Jew.

---

You do realize that a few of us have been having some positive interchange, although we may not totally agree on everything, or at least to the same degree. I think Paul had this type of exchange in mind, rather than the heated put-downs we so often find ourselves. As for the eighth day, I agree i that it was not only a medical "thing." I just think it shows just a tiny glimpse of why God had His people do/not do certain things. This was one which no medical person could have known why God instructed that it be done on the 8th day instead of the 7th or 10th.

It's unfortunate that too many times we use our free will to actively &/or passively resist His direction. Staying close to Him is key in my book, and I don't do it enough.

BUDOS: "Staying close to Him is key in my book, and I don't do it enough."


And that insight is one reason I keep coming back to this thread, BUDOS.

Well said!

I think sometimes on Jesus' disciples, who followed Him and lived with Him for three years, hearing every word and seeing every deed. Yet when Jesus was arrested, every one of them fled, even and perhaps especially Peter.

Nothing shows me the limit of human ability like realizing that men far beyond me in faith and good works could not stand up to Satan even though Jesus warned them the test was coming.

Yet these same men, when the Holy Spirit dwelt in them, were powerful enough to change the course of Humanity.

That is, having the opportunity to be near Christ is precious, but it is God's will which matters, and it is when we submit to God and put ourselves out of the picture, when we are best able to do something worthwhile.

Do what is right not in hope of glory or reward, but in thanks and humility, knowing it is God alone who gives us the victory.

Oldbear,
I think of this at times as well. Their actions, in both instances, reflect their and our humanness. Similar to the song "The Impossible Dream" we're to pick up our cross daily and strive to be better than the day/struggle we just had. If only more of us would; however, as you indicated, look what an ordinary group of people did.

Please take the time to read this first post if you haven't yet

xfrodobagginsx said:

---

Please take the time to read this first post if you haven't yet

---

Are you saying to stay off unless we choose to respond directly to your personal statement?
I'm not upset, I just want to know, exactly what type of responses you are wanting.

BUDOS said:

---

xfrodobagginsx said:

---

Please take the time to read this first post if you haven't yet

---

Are you saying to stay off unless we choose to respond directly to your personal statement?
I'm not upset, I just want to know, exactly what type of responses you are wanting.

---

xFrodo puts that in from time to time, because he believes the first post is important.

Got to say, there are a lot of threads where the opener makes a good point but is forgotten in the noise of the post traffic.

We both know you got that right.

BUDOS said:

---

You do realize that a few of us have been having some positive interchange, although we may not totally agree on everything, or at least to the same degree. I think Paul had this type of exchange in mind, rather than the heated put-downs we so often find ourselves.

---

I suppose that I'm somewhat confused by your statement here.

Are you implying that my post wasn't written with a tone of "positive interchange"? If so, then I certainly apologize. That was not my intention or direction. I tried to respond to your comments concerning baptism and outline what the Catholic Church teaches.

If my tone was harsh, accusatorial, or confrontation, once again I offer my sincere apologizes. You have posted many great questions in good faith. I merely wanted to explain what the Church actually teaches. I am sorry if my post came off in a poor light.

Peace!

My bad! I apologize. I was just trying to acknowledge that some of us were having some positive exchanges of information. Including areas we were willing to admit that while we had some differing views we didn't attempt to demean, humiliate or use harsh language in the process. To me it was refreshing, and more of what I expected.

Today, June 20th we remeber Hieromartyr Methodius, Bishop of Patara.

The Hieromartyr Methodius, Bishop of Patara (Lycia in Asia Minor), was distinguished for his genuine monastic humility. Calmly and with mildness he instructed his flock, but he firmly defended the purity of Orthodoxy and he energetically contended against heresies, especially the widespread heresy of the Origenists. He left behind him a rich literary legacy: works in defense of Christianity against paganism, explications of Orthodox dogmas against the heresy of Origen, moral discourses, and explanations of Holy Scripture.

St Methodius was arrested by the pagans, steadfastly confessed before them his faith in Christ, and he was sentenced to death by beheading in the year 312.

Saint Methodius, pray for us.

BUDOS said:

---

My bad! I apologize. I was just trying to acknowledge that some of us were having some positive exchanges of information. Including areas we were willing to admit that while we had some differing views we didn't attempt to demean, humiliate or use harsh language in the process. To me it was refreshing, and more of what I expected.

---

That's a good thing to have differing views and be respectful

Folks, the times when there were people here actually trying to demean, humiliate, and use harsh language - no one says a word about it; however, the charge of trying to demean, humiliate, and use harsh tone only seems to arise when one's view is being seriously challenged, and the only way out of it is to redirect the fault to the other guy in order to avoid actually having to address the issue, by making their perceived faults the issue. It's a game that's played over and over in this forum. And there can't really be anything productive from this, can there? Watching people in this forum trying to manipulate the narrative in order to steer away from the really vital issues and questions and to marginalize the ones bringing it up is really sad. Truth is never served this way.

xfrodobagginsx said:

---

BUDOS said:

---

My bad! I apologize. I was just trying to acknowledge that some of us were having some positive exchanges of information. Including areas we were willing to admit that while we had some differing views we didn't attempt to demean, humiliate or use harsh language in the process. To me it was refreshing, and more of what I expected.

---

That's a good thing to have differing views and be respectful

---

Respect is a two-way street. Is it being respectful to dodge questions and then call someone a "Pharisee" because they don't like where it's going? That's the part of the respect equation that too many here are forgetting.

Yes, respect is generally considered a two-way street, meaning that it is expected to be reciprocated. While it's often taught that giving respect leads to receiving respect, the concept is more nuanced and can involve considerations of social status, context, and individual choices. It's not a guarantee that respectful behavior will always be met with the same, but the default expectation is that mutual respect is the foundation for healthy interactions.
Here's a more detailed look:
Reciprocity:
The idea of respect as a two-way street implies that giving respect should beget respect. It's a reciprocal exchange where individuals treat each other with consideration and regard.
Not a Guarantee:
While the expectation is for respect to be reciprocated, it's not always the case. People may not always act respectfully, even when treated with respect.
Context Matters:
The level of respect and how it's expressed can vary depending on the situation, relationship, and social context.
Starting Point:
While it's not always guaranteed, the default in most interactions should be to treat others with respect, as this sets a positive tone and is more likely to encourage respectful behavior in return.
Consequences of Disrespect:
Disrespectful behavior, especially when it involves abuse or serious breaches of conduct, can lower the bar for how one is treated in return.
Individual Choices:
Ultimately, individuals have the choice to engage with others respectfully, regardless of how they are treated.

Who saw this report? Church attacked over the weekend?


https://www.wnd.com/2025/06/sitting-ducks-gunman-shoots-up-sunday-church-service/?fbclid=IwY2xjawLFs0VleHRuA2FlbQIxMQABHlgnUGcXd3jF8s-BH99VxVcrAIVahudpq4KEw4YF3iDzo1-JsZ_gH_Jt-KXW_aem_ieM2ZuDudE3rczOIbMA3uQ

Here's some more information; preliminary information indicates that he may have had mental health issues.

Police identify Michigan church shooting suspect as local man who attended with his mother

https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/police-identify-michigan-church-shooting-suspect-local-man-attended-mo-rcna214440

BUDOS said:

---

Here's some more information; preliminary information indicates that he may have had mental health issues.

Police identify Michigan church shooting suspect as local man who attended with his mother

https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/police-identify-michigan-church-shooting-suspect-local-man-attended-mo-rcna214440

---

I was in the Church when it happened. Had it not been for the brave security men, I would have been dead, along with 150 others.

The short guy in the picture is me...


https://www.wnd.com/2025/06/sitting-ducks-gunman-shoots-up-sunday-church-service/?fbclid=IwY2xjawLIV8dleHRuA2FlbQIxMQABHkU3Vm6xBgaj7EdPa1yo5TLMIDRpPC225JnH9u28NWkGJjgoD2XfTP7yNrjH_aem_98DZtrlTJOxj8a-6wpE8nA

Theology Didn't Heal Them Jesus Did

The Scandalous Simplicity of Salvation: When Love and Reverence Matter More Than Doctrinal Precision
JUN 26

Imagine you're flat on your back, completely paralyzed. Your friends cut a hole in the roof and lower you down with ropes to the feet of a teacher you've only heard rumors about. You didn't come for a theology lectureyou came to walk again. And the first words out of His mouth are: "Your sins are forgiven."

That man in Capernaum never recited the Nicene Creed (or anything comparable to it). He didn't clarify whether Jesus had one will or two. He didn't outline anything that resembled the Definition of Chalcedon. All he had was helplessness, and hope in the Healer. And Jesus, seeing his faith, forgave him. Just like that.

Picture a woman weeping at a dinner party, washing Jesus' feet with her tears and hair. The room recoilsisn't He aware of what she is? But Jesus looks at her, not with disgust, but with divine tenderness. "Your sins are forgiven." Did she articulate precise Christology? No. She just loved much.

Zacchaeus, a tax collector in a tree, couldn't parse the theological details of the hypostatic union. But he scrambled like a child just to catch a glimpse of Christ. And when Jesus dined with him, Zacchaeus didn't quote the theological traditions of his forefathershe just repented of his past sins and gave generously to the poor. And Jesus said, "Today, salvation has come to this house."

None of these people had the kind of systematic theology you and I might take for granted. But they had something better: desperate, clumsy, wide-eyed faith. The kind that crawls to Christ when it can't stand. The kind that weeps when words run out.

St. John Chrysostom talks about the thief on the cross, and Christ's promise of Paradise, "addressing a thief who knew nothing of difficult teaching."

This isn't lowering the bar. This is lifting our eyes away from ivory towers and onto the torn, forgiving hands of Christ.

The thief on the cross didn't take a Christology class. He just said, "Lord, remember me in your kingdom." And Jesus said, "You shall be with me in Paradise." That's the scandal of grace. It's not that doctrine doesn't matterit's that grace doesn't wait for our vocabulary to catch up.

Jesus is the heart surgeon. He doesn't quiz you on anatomy before the transplant. You don't need to know how to explain His divinity before He saves you. All you have to do is be still, trust the hands holding the scalpel, and let Him operate.

Truth matters. Doctrine matters. But the Shepherd isn't waiting for you to pass an exam. He's looking for the bruised, the broken, and the hopeful. So even if your theology limpsgrace still runs.

2025 Fr. Joseph Gleason
Rostov Veliky, Russia

All I can say is that yes Jesus can heal but Jesus doesn't have to unless it's the will of the Lord.

The healing in question isn't so much physical healing as it is spiritual - what we commonly refer to as salvation. In the end, salvation is much more than a change in one's eternal destination. That is merely the result of the process of salvation.

The greater aspect of it is that men are reconciled with God, receive His Holy Spirit, and have a restoration of the relationship with Him that was lost in Eden. The ability to have the sort of communion Adam and Eve once had with the Triune God is restored…and that is the greatest miracle of Christ's birth, life, death, and resurrection...not just avoiding hell.

Realitybites said:

---

Theology Didn't Heal Them Jesus Did

The Scandalous Simplicity of Salvation: When Love and Reverence Matter More Than Doctrinal Precision
JUN 26

Imagine you're flat on your back, completely paralyzed. Your friends cut a hole in the roof and lower you down with ropes to the feet of a teacher you've only heard rumors about. You didn't come for a theology lectureyou came to walk again. And the first words out of His mouth are: "Your sins are forgiven."

That man in Capernaum never recited the Nicene Creed (or anything comparable to it). He didn't clarify whether Jesus had one will or two. He didn't outline anything that resembled the Definition of Chalcedon. All he had was helplessness, and hope in the Healer. And Jesus, seeing his faith, forgave him. Just like that.

Picture a woman weeping at a dinner party, washing Jesus' feet with her tears and hair. The room recoilsisn't He aware of what she is? But Jesus looks at her, not with disgust, but with divine tenderness. "Your sins are forgiven." Did she articulate precise Christology? No. She just loved much.

Zacchaeus, a tax collector in a tree, couldn't parse the theological details of the hypostatic union. But he scrambled like a child just to catch a glimpse of Christ. And when Jesus dined with him, Zacchaeus didn't quote the theological traditions of his forefathershe just repented of his past sins and gave generously to the poor. And Jesus said, "Today, salvation has come to this house."

None of these people had the kind of systematic theology you and I might take for granted. But they had something better: desperate, clumsy, wide-eyed faith. The kind that crawls to Christ when it can't stand. The kind that weeps when words run out.

St. John Chrysostom talks about the thief on the cross, and Christ's promise of Paradise, "addressing a thief who knew nothing of difficult teaching."

This isn't lowering the bar. This is lifting our eyes away from ivory towers and onto the torn, forgiving hands of Christ.

The thief on the cross didn't take a Christology class. He just said, "Lord, remember me in your kingdom." And Jesus said, "You shall be with me in Paradise." That's the scandal of grace. It's not that doctrine doesn't matterit's that grace doesn't wait for our vocabulary to catch up.

Jesus is the heart surgeon. He doesn't quiz you on anatomy before the transplant. You don't need to know how to explain His divinity before He saves you. All you have to do is be still, trust the hands holding the scalpel, and let Him operate.

Truth matters. Doctrine matters. But the Shepherd isn't waiting for you to pass an exam. He's looking for the bruised, the broken, and the hopeful. So even if your theology limpsgrace still runs.

2025 Fr. Joseph Gleason
Rostov Veliky, Russia

---

It sounds like he's saying salvation by faith alone. And all this talk of salvation by grace.... but at what point, though, does it turn from grace into a matter of personal performance (taking up one's cross, sacraments) being a part of the "process"? Because that's the view that's being espoused by you and many others here - two competing concepts (grace and works) in the same breath. It just isn't tenable. How does this work?

xfrodobagginsx said:

---

BUDOS said:

---

Here's some more information; preliminary information indicates that he may have had mental health issues.

Police identify Michigan church shooting suspect as local man who attended with his mother

https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/police-identify-michigan-church-shooting-suspect-local-man-attended-mo-rcna214440

---

I was in the Church when it happened. Had it not been for the brave security men, I would have been dead, along with 150 others.

The short guy in the picture is me...


https://www.wnd.com/2025/06/sitting-ducks-gunman-shoots-up-sunday-church-service/?fbclid=IwY2xjawLIV8dleHRuA2FlbQIxMQABHkU3Vm6xBgaj7EdPa1yo5TLMIDRpPC225JnH9u28NWkGJjgoD2XfTP7yNrjH_aem_98DZtrlTJOxj8a-6wpE8nA

---

Wait - this happened at YOUR church?

Jesus Didn't "Hang Out With Sinners" and Neither Should You
Your inner circle shapes your future tolerating worldliness in the name of love will starve Your soul

BUDOS said:

---

Realitybites said:

---

BUDOS said:

---

Do you know of a source that might indicate the percentage that return within say about 5 years?
I have been away on vacation where internet is not good. I hope to get back to the discussion I left hanging withing a day or two, so I can learn a bit more about the topics we were on.

---

According to Barna, 17% or so return after having kids.

Enjoy your vacation!

---

Ouch! I'm not sure it's getting any better; especially with other research revealing a declining faith; however perhaps other, similar research is being done, including why they came back. We might be able to use that in our evangelistic efforts.

I know when I was at Baylor, the first semester I observed several who reduced &/or stopped attending church; however, sometime during the second semester I noticed that some started back up, and some others during their sophomore year. Most moved off campus by the end of their sophomore year.

---

What is awesome is the total collapse in number of mosques in Iran