I was raised in this church and am curious to know what some of you might think about their theology. If any one has time to peruse around the website and look it over, let me know what you think. Thanks
http://www.firstborn.info
Church of the firstborn.
Re: Church of the firstborn.
Hi Paul,
Is this church the same as the one here in Brownsville?
I read over the "about our beliefs" section on their website and found the following of interest:
1) IMO they misundertand the passage in James 5 about calling the elders regarding physical illness; I see this passage as relating to spiritual illness. But at least they are trying to obey what they think it means. The problem is that they apparently think that the instruction forbids any other steps from being taken. God "invented" penicillin, man merely discovered it. Why not use it?
2) Apparently they are KJV only. They may be unaware that King James' instructions to the translaters precluded an accurate translation in some particulars and people to this day are confused over the meaning of "baptize" and "church" (more modern translations have followed these errors). And what of non-English speaking people? Must they learn King James English to have a proper translation?
3) Sounds like their view of baptism is similar to my own, which is not the "popular" view.
4) I question their view that the Holy Spirit is received by the laying on of hands.
Those of the similar group here in Brownsville appear to me to be wonderful people.
Is this church the same as the one here in Brownsville?
I read over the "about our beliefs" section on their website and found the following of interest:
1) IMO they misundertand the passage in James 5 about calling the elders regarding physical illness; I see this passage as relating to spiritual illness. But at least they are trying to obey what they think it means. The problem is that they apparently think that the instruction forbids any other steps from being taken. God "invented" penicillin, man merely discovered it. Why not use it?
2) Apparently they are KJV only. They may be unaware that King James' instructions to the translaters precluded an accurate translation in some particulars and people to this day are confused over the meaning of "baptize" and "church" (more modern translations have followed these errors). And what of non-English speaking people? Must they learn King James English to have a proper translation?
3) Sounds like their view of baptism is similar to my own, which is not the "popular" view.
4) I question their view that the Holy Spirit is received by the laying on of hands.
Those of the similar group here in Brownsville appear to me to be wonderful people.
Re: Church of the firstborn.
I think this is incorrect. The King James Version was published in 1611 and not universally received. The prefered Bible of the Puritans was the Geveva Bible, and the the Geneva Bible was on the Mayflower in 1620.ABOUT THE CHURCH OF FIRSTBORN
HISTORY
OUR PEOPLE BROUGHT … ' ' THE KING JAMES VERSION OF THE BIBLE ' ' TO AMERICA … ON THE MAYFLOWER WHEN IT ARRIVED IN 1620 A.D. AT PLYMOUTH ROCK
-
SteveF
Re: Church of the firstborn.
SamIam wrote:
You are correct SamIam.I think this is incorrect.
Re: Church of the firstborn.
Is this church the same as the one here in Brownsville?
I read over the "about our beliefs" section on their website and found the following of interest:
1) IMO they misundertand the passage in James 5 about calling the elders regarding physical illness; I see this passage as relating to spiritual illness. But at least they are trying to obey what they think it means. The problem is that they apparently think that the instruction forbids any other steps from being taken. God "invented" penicillin, man merely discovered it. Why not use it?
2) Apparently they are KJV only. They may be unaware that King James' instructions to the translaters precluded an accurate translation in some particulars and people to this day are confused over the meaning of "baptize" and "church" (more modern translations have followed these errors). And what of non-English speaking people? Must they learn King James English to have a proper translation?
3) Sounds like their view of baptism is similar to my own, which is not the "popular" view.
4) I question their view that the Holy Spirit is received by the laying on of hands.
Those of the similar group here in Brownsville appear to me to be wonderful people.[/quote]
It is the same church. I agree with your view on point 1. I also agree that there are other good translations out there. Though, If your view of baptism is the same, how is it that they are confused over the meaning of baptize and church? I'll have to go back through and try and find the area your talking about.
They, for the most part, reject all other denominations. In order to be saved you have to be baptized by them. They claim a link back to the apostles. Peter laid his hands on so and so, that person laid is hands on so and so, on down that line to the "church of the firstborn" So they ARE the church.
I read over the "about our beliefs" section on their website and found the following of interest:
1) IMO they misundertand the passage in James 5 about calling the elders regarding physical illness; I see this passage as relating to spiritual illness. But at least they are trying to obey what they think it means. The problem is that they apparently think that the instruction forbids any other steps from being taken. God "invented" penicillin, man merely discovered it. Why not use it?
2) Apparently they are KJV only. They may be unaware that King James' instructions to the translaters precluded an accurate translation in some particulars and people to this day are confused over the meaning of "baptize" and "church" (more modern translations have followed these errors). And what of non-English speaking people? Must they learn King James English to have a proper translation?
3) Sounds like their view of baptism is similar to my own, which is not the "popular" view.
4) I question their view that the Holy Spirit is received by the laying on of hands.
Those of the similar group here in Brownsville appear to me to be wonderful people.[/quote]
It is the same church. I agree with your view on point 1. I also agree that there are other good translations out there. Though, If your view of baptism is the same, how is it that they are confused over the meaning of baptize and church? I'll have to go back through and try and find the area your talking about.
They, for the most part, reject all other denominations. In order to be saved you have to be baptized by them. They claim a link back to the apostles. Peter laid his hands on so and so, that person laid is hands on so and so, on down that line to the "church of the firstborn" So they ARE the church.
Re: Church of the firstborn.
Sam I am, you make a good point. I actually get a little tired of hearing that claim from them because no one can ever prove it. It always just seems like an arrogant assumption. I will have to look more into your information, that will be a good thing to bring up. Thanks.
Re: Church of the firstborn.
Hi Paul,
And you also wrote:
Are you invovled in any local bible study?
God bless, Homer
Sorry for the misunderstanding. I meant the statement as a criticism of the KJV. If King James had allowed the proper translation of baptize (immerse) and church ( assembly or congregation) we wouldn't be so confused about them today. And so many translations still follow the KJV in this.how is it that they are confused over the meaning of baptize and church?
And you also wrote:
I also grew up in a church that thought this, although they accepted baptism by immersion done by other churches. There are other churches that believe they are the exclusive church, including some Baptists who think they go right back to Jesus, doctrines intact.They, for the most part, reject all other denominations. In order to be saved you have to be baptized by them. They claim a link back to the apostles.
Are you invovled in any local bible study?
God bless, Homer
Re: Church of the firstborn.
No, I am not involved in a local bible study.
I guess I am still a little confused on what your view of baptism is. You said their view of baptism is similar to yours, yet they misunderstand the real meaning of the word. What is it you think baptism is? I know baptism means to immerse. I know an argument can be made saying that immerse mean to immerse yourself into water or immerse yourself in the spirit, or immerse yourself in the family of God. Those types of things. What is your interpretation that is the unpopular view?
Paul
I guess I am still a little confused on what your view of baptism is. You said their view of baptism is similar to yours, yet they misunderstand the real meaning of the word. What is it you think baptism is? I know baptism means to immerse. I know an argument can be made saying that immerse mean to immerse yourself into water or immerse yourself in the spirit, or immerse yourself in the family of God. Those types of things. What is your interpretation that is the unpopular view?
Paul
Re: Church of the firstborn.
Hi Paul,
The reason I asked about bible study is I thought you had inquired about a local one some time ago when we met at Steve's visit to Albany.
Here is a link to a short article by Tim Warner that is very close to my own view:
http://www.pfrs.org/baptism/index.html
Perhaps you can tell me if the Church of the Firstborn view is the same. Basically I see the act of baptism as the scriptural "sinners prayer". The practice of the sinner's prayer, alter calls, signing pledge cards, hold up your hand while everyone closes their eyes but the preacher, etc, etc. are all documented as modern inventions unknown to the early Christians.
If you are interested, here is a link to a lengthy thread on the old forum regarding baptism where many were involved in the discussion:
http://www.wvss.com/forumc/viewtopic.ph ... bf003fd643
God bless, Homer
The reason I asked about bible study is I thought you had inquired about a local one some time ago when we met at Steve's visit to Albany.
Here is a link to a short article by Tim Warner that is very close to my own view:
http://www.pfrs.org/baptism/index.html
Perhaps you can tell me if the Church of the Firstborn view is the same. Basically I see the act of baptism as the scriptural "sinners prayer". The practice of the sinner's prayer, alter calls, signing pledge cards, hold up your hand while everyone closes their eyes but the preacher, etc, etc. are all documented as modern inventions unknown to the early Christians.
If you are interested, here is a link to a lengthy thread on the old forum regarding baptism where many were involved in the discussion:
http://www.wvss.com/forumc/viewtopic.ph ... bf003fd643
God bless, Homer
Re: Church of the firstborn.
I would agree with that view of baptism for the most part. Though, I often wonder, that a person is saved by faith in God and that journey always begins somewhere. If a person is raised in a church or another country where they are taught to say a "sinners prayer" and they begin there journey in that, I think many times that individual is being obedient to all that he has been taught. I personally think that faith saves them. This view gets me in hot water many times within the General Assembly. Most of the General Assembly believe that THEY have the spirit and getting baptized in any another church is just "getting wet". There have even been cases within the General Assembly where one person baptized another and it was later found out that the one that did the baptizing had committed adultery prior. This causes a great debate within the church as to whether or not that baptized person should be re baptized. I have asked around to a lot of people as to what saved them and the answer is rarely Christ dying on the cross. It is almost always "I was baptized and had the hands laid on me".
Off topic just to give you some insight on the church, they feel like once they are baptized they now have the Spirit which enable you to live a righteous life. Once you come into "the faith" you now have the power to overcome the flesh. You now have the POSSIBILITY to get to heaven but you will have to answer for every idle word you speak. In other words, once your saved by grace you now have to be saved by your works through living in the spirit. People get very sober all the time and ask the question "I hope I have done enough to make heaven my home", and many think if you go to the doctor you will go to hell because you lost faith in God.
Off topic just to give you some insight on the church, they feel like once they are baptized they now have the Spirit which enable you to live a righteous life. Once you come into "the faith" you now have the power to overcome the flesh. You now have the POSSIBILITY to get to heaven but you will have to answer for every idle word you speak. In other words, once your saved by grace you now have to be saved by your works through living in the spirit. People get very sober all the time and ask the question "I hope I have done enough to make heaven my home", and many think if you go to the doctor you will go to hell because you lost faith in God.