A major evangelistic campaign that seeks to plant 40 churches in 40 Ukrainian cities within five weeks will kick off at the end of this month.
The ambitious campaign to start 40 new churches within a short period of time is only the first of two phases of Project 125, which has a goal of planting churches in 125 cities in Ukraine before the country’s national election next fall.
Forty ministry teams – 20 from the United States partnering with local volunteers and 20 Ukrainians – will participate in the series of evangelistic campaigns beginning July 28 until Aug. 25.
During this period, each team will travel to a city without an evangelical church to hold a weeklong evangelistic outreach that will begin on a Tuesday and end on Monday. The team will invite people during the week to attend a citywide “freedom” crusade, held Friday through Sunday. In the past, each crusade usually resulted in about 500 decisions for Christ.
Then on the Monday following the crusade, new believers and those interested in learning more are invited to attend a praise/testimonial service where trained church planters will set up the new church and enroll attendees in an eight-week discipleship program.
About 40 trained church planters in Ukraine have volunteered to move with their families to one of the cities to help start a church.
The organizations leading Project 125 are the Ukrainian Baptist Union, the Southern Baptist Convention’s International Mission Board (IMB), and the Don Betts Evangelistic Association.
“This is the largest cooperative event we’ve done,” said Don Betts, whose ministry has conducted similar crusades in Ukraine for 18 years, to The Christian Post. “There are 25 states there and we’ve led crusades in 19 of those 25 capitals in that country.”
Betts explained that while he doesn’t expect the crusades during this campaign to be as large as his single events in the past, he noted the combination of the campaign’s crusades will be the largest cooperative effort his ministry has ever done.
“And it’s the most work I’ve ever done,” Betts added jokingly.
There will also be separate children’s crusades conducted in each city. The evangelistic teams will invite children at youth clubs, soccer games, on the streets and at orphanages to attend the crusades. Rented buses will then be provided to take the children to the events.
Another part of the project effort is to provide basic supplies to orphans that the teams will be visiting. American churches are helping to raise money to buy school supplies and clothing for the children in orphanages.
“Thousands of these items are needed,” Betts said. “One orphanage had 300 children with no shoes. Efforts are under way to provide each child with a backpack containing a metric ruler, a set of colored pencils, ballpoint pens, watercolor paints, pencils and erasers.”
Additional teams are being recruited to go to Ukraine next year to complete the 125 city goal.
Comments
We agree baptism of the Holy Spirit being a needed component for salvation. We agree that baptism by water is something we should do in obedience.
We disagree that water baptism is needed for salvation. We disagree that water baptism alone will do nothing for children - they must repent, believe, and turn to God and live lives that show their repentance..
msnchris70 - Sadly, wbmoore and myself have shown you that infantile baptism is not scriptural and you simple reject it.
Sadly, I have shown scriptural proof on the need for Baptism and the need to be born again.
You simply reject my interpretation and the interpretation of Lutherans, Orthodox, Methodists, Presybterians, Reformed, Anglicans.
I'll just tell 85% of christianity they are wrong. NOT.
You have both failed to produce any scripture that is contrary to the scriptures that we "MUST BE BORN AGAIN" and right after that they went and baptized people.
Yes the Holy Spirit gave faith to some people before. This part of scripture does not say they were "Born Again" at all. Only that the Spirit was working with them. If they refused baptism then they would not have been saved.
They did the right thing, were baptised and hopefully they were saved by persevering in the faith.
If you don't persevere in your faith you will not be saved.
"WATER IS WATER"
Amniotic fluid is water. Baptism by water was never mentioned until the next section.
"We also see in many passages I've already posted that the Holy Spirit comes to you at Baptism."
And you were wrong. Acts 10:39-48 is an example of being saved by faith and being baptized with the Holy Spirit before being baptized in water. So your theory falls short of the facts.
" So, Water and Spirit are together. No one in 1650 years ever thought that to be "Born Again" was anything else than Baptism. It is a "new" invention.
Just because we have no written evidence did not mean it was not a belief others held but were afraid to express (because of what the Catholic church would do). As well, just because the leading denominations are wrong does not mean everyone should continue to be wrong.
"Yes, there are a lot of people who experience an emotional event where they accept Christ and turn from their former lifestyle. This version of born again is not consistent with scripture. It is a great thing, but "
Yet again, scripture proves you wrong:
2 Corinthians 7:10
Godly sorrow brings repentance that leads to salvation and leaves no regret, but worldly sorrow brings death.
How can you argue that emotion should not be a component of a saving experience, when Paul wrote it leads us to repentance which leads to salvation?
"the true definition of "Born Again" is to be baptised."
No. 'Born Again' means to have gone through a first birth (water in physical birth), and a second birth (spiritual in Holy Spirit baptism).
"Today, definitions are getting redefined like marriage, like what is a human being, etc. In a time full of relativist views I will stick with the Traditional definitions. Baptism was always considered how you are "Born Again" and I'm sticking with where the scriptures point and the strong historical witness.
But you are not sticking to Scripture. You are not sticking to what Christ taught, nor Paul.
"You simply cannot provide any historical witness to match your redefinition of born again. ALL MUST BE BORN AGAIN TO BE SAVED, including infants. You must have a relationship with God, and that is established through baptism."
But you are totally ignoring scripture that says the children already HAVE that relationship with God (Jeremiah 1:5; Luke 1:15; Lk 1:41-44; Mt 18:2-6; Mt 18:10; Mt 19:13-15; Lk 18:15-17; Ps 8:2; Mk 9:36-37; Isa 40:11). You are ignoring scripture that says Paul was not sent to baptize (1 Corinthians 1:17), but that we were all baptized by the Holy Spirit (1 Corinthians 12:13) when we came to faith.
"The Thief on the cross was the exception and not the rule. This thief had what is called the "Baptism of desire". This thief accepted Christ and desired this covenantal relationship but ofcourse he could not have it happen. "
It was his faith that saved Him, just as it does everyone. Acts 8:14-17 is an example of being baptized with water, and not having received the Holy Spirit. Acts 10:43-47 is an example of believing and being baptized with the Holy Spirit, and then were baptized with water. Acts 16:31 shows no need for water baptism to be saved, just belief. Water baptism is an expression of faith, just as confessing Christ, or calling on the name of the Lord. These things show we have faith, and show obedience. It is the Christ who saves us because of the faith we have, which we show by our actions.
"A soldier who has just received Christ and dies on the battlefied before properly getting baptized would also have this baptismal desire."
There is nothing speaking to a desire for baptism in scripture. But there are plenty of examples baptism not being required for salvation (Luke 23:42-43;John 3:36; Acts 16:31). Baptism, confessing Jesus, and calling on the name of the Lord are actions that gives evidence of the faith that saves us.
"The New covenant with GOD is only established one way. Paul describes baptism as the new circumcision."
I can't find this verse, please give where you got this idea from.
But even if you are right, it is the heart turned to God that matters.
Romans 2:29
No, a man is a Jew if he is one inwardly; and circumcision is circumcision of the heart, by the Spirit, not by the written code. Such a man's praise is not from men, but from God.
" I don't think you should dismiss this analogy so quickly. Only babies are circumcized."
As star2 pointed out, this is not true.
"The New Covenant is established through being "Born anew" through water and Spirit. The water symbolizes nothing but water. To suggest amniotic fluid is such a stretch because there is no other passages that suggest we must have amniotic fluid washed over us.
When Christ is talking about birth, it is not a stretch to think He meant the first birth we undergo being what he described as 'through water', especially when he said 'Flesh gives birth to flesh'. To believe it is water baptism is a stretch, when baptism was not mentioned in the context.
MsnChris70,
"Thank you for the links below."
you're welcome.
"there is nothing in the Word that says that children will be treated differently."
I think its crystal clear that God treats children differently than adults. He's done it repeatedly. Num 14:28-35 and Deut 1:37-39 shows the children were not held responsible for the actions of the adults. In Neh 8:1-3 only those who could hear with understanding were required to listen to the word of God - again indicating an age of accountability. Isa 7:15-16 shows the Bible recognizes there is a time when we are not aware of right and wrong.
Deut 24:16 and Eze 18:20 say each person is responsible for his own sins. Rom 7:9 shows Paul was alive before the Law came (when he learned right and wrong) and died after it came. In Jn 9:41 Jesus said, "If you were blind, you would not be guilty of sin; but now that you claim you can see, your guilt remains". He's saying that until people know the difference between right and wrong, they are not culpable of sin.
So apparently, while we all have a sin nature, there is a time when we are not aware of right and wrong (Is 7:16), and not held culpable for what we do wrong (Jn 9:41). If we are not culpable for our sins, we are innocent and do not need to be justified to go to heaven upon death. Once we know the difference between right and wrong, we are culpable for our sins (Rom 7:9). It is the fact that people sin is why we can not be with God unless we are saved. Jesus came and died for our sins, so we might be justified (declared innocent) through faith in Christ (Romans 3:23-24).
How do we understand 'all have sinned'? We know this phrase can not apply to Jesus, for Jesus is without sin (Hebrews 4:15). It probably does not apply to Enoch or Noah (Genesis 5:24; Genesis 6:9). In Romans 2:6-11, to look at context, we see that Paul is speaking about people who have done things. God "will give to each according to what he has done." But infants have certainly done nothing, and young children have done nothing for which they are culpable (Rom 7:9). Therefore, the only valid understanding of this term, 'all have sinned' is to understand that only people who know the difference between right and wrong and not always done right.
for more info: http://wbmoore.wordpress.com/2008/07/26/what-happens-to-infants-or-children-when-they-die/
"The covenant with God is not established by faith alone. "
You are wrong. The relationship is exactly established by the faith that saves us through grace (Eph 2:8; 2 Thes 2:13).
msnchris70
Re:"While reading these links they all tend to be very subjective and hopeful...However, there is nothing in the Word that says that children will be treated differently."
No Chris 70 there was nothing subjective in those links. Scripture was given with sound reasoning. That is something you have not and can not do for your position. Your explanations so far have shown that you have almost zero understanding of the Word of God.
Re:We also see in many passages I've already posted that the Holy Spirit comes to you at Baptism.
Not so Chris70. You receive the Holy Ghost when you believe on the Lord Jesus Christ. (John 20:22)
On the evening of the first day of the week, Jesus appeared unto the disciples, showing them His hands and sides proving to them He has risen from the dead said,
John 20:22 - "And when he had said this, he breathed on them, and saith unto them, Receive ye the Holy Ghost:"
Re:Yes, there are a lot of people who experience an emotional event where they accept Christ and turn from their former lifestyle. This version of born again is not consistent with scripture.
You are wrong again Chris70. When you become born-again you become a new creature in Christ Jesus (2 Cor 5:17). God gives you a new nature created in righteousness and true holiness. (Ephesians 4:24)
2 Corinthians 5:17 - "Therefore if any man be in Christ, he is a new creature: old things are passed away; behold, all things are new."
Ephesians 4:24 - "And that ye put on the new man, which after God is created in righteousness and true holiness."
One who has experienced a changed life after having received Jesus from their heart as Savior and Lord will tell you that thier life changed supernaturally after their believed on and received Jesus. It wasn't something they had to do themselves. Catholics cannot understand that because they have never experience a true new birth in Christ. (continued)
msnchris70 - continued
Re:"Only babies are circumcized."
Really? That would be news to Timothy. Paul had him circumized not as a baby but as an adult.
Acts 16:1-3
1 Then came he to Derbe and Lystra: and, behold, a certain disciple was there, named Timotheus, the son of a certain woman, which was a Jewess, and believed; but his father was a Greek:
2 Which was well reported of by the brethren that were at Lystra and Iconium.
3 Him would Paul have to go forth with him; and took and circumcised him because of the Jews which were in those quarters: for they knew all that his father was a Greek.
Also Chris70 Abraham was called in uncircumcision not circumcision. God considered him righteous because he believed (Romans 4:1-13)
Romans 4:13 - "For the promise, that he should be the heir of the world, was not to Abraham, or to his seed, through the law, but through the righteousness of faith."
The doctrine of infantile baptism violates John 1:12-13. John 1:12-13 says that no human can impart salvation to another human being. Infantile baptism is imparting salvation to another human being.
Countless people have died and gone to hell because they placed their faith in the doctrine of infantile baptism. All infants who died, baptized or not, went to Heaven because of the faithfulness and righteousness of God.
wbmoore,
Thank you for the links below. While reading these links they all tend to be very subjective and hopeful. I can't blame them as I hope for this too. However, there is nothing in the Word that says that children will be treated differently.
The covenant with God is not established by faith alone. The Thief on the cross was the exception and not the rule. This thief had what is called the "Baptism of desire". This thief accepted Christ and desired this covenantal relationship but ofcourse he could not have it happen. A soldier who has just received Christ and dies on the battlefied before properly getting baptized would also have this baptismal desire.
The New covenant with GOD is only established one way. Paul describes baptism as the new circumcision. I don't think you should dismiss this analogy so quickly. Only babies are circumcized. The New Covenant is established through being "Born anew" through water and Spirit. The water symbolizes nothing but water. To suggest amniotic fluid is such a stretch because there is no other passages that suggest we must have amniotic fluid washed over us.
WATER IS WATER. We also see in many passages I've already posted that the Holy Spirit comes to you at Baptism. So, Water and Spirit are together. No one in 1650 years ever thought that to be "Born Again" was anything else than Baptism. It is a "new" invention.
Yes, there are a lot of people who experience an emotional event where they accept Christ and turn from their former lifestyle. This version of born again is not consistent with scripture. It is a great thing, but the true definition of "Born Again" is to be baptised.
Today, definitions are getting redefined like marriage, like what is a human being, etc. In a time full of relativist views I will stick with the Traditional definitions. Baptism was always considered how you are "
Born Again" and I'm sticking with where the scriptures point and the strong historical witness.
You simply cannot provide any historical witness to match your redefinition of born again. ALL MUST BE BORN AGAIN TO BE SAVED, including infants. You must have a relationship with God, and that is established through baptism.
msnchris70,
You see star2 differently than I. I see confidence in God, and His word, and a distrust of anything that contradicts either. I think her confidence is well placed. God places leaders in our lives, without doubt. However, just as without doubt, the final authority is God, not man. Men can be wrong. *I* can be wrong, as can you, as can star2. Because of this, everything taught by men must be verified against the Scriptures (just as the Bereans did). If what is being taught goes against scripture, we must agree with Scripture, not man.
I find her research to be accurate. I have yet to see her post anything that is not a plausible reading of Scripture.
You called her description of illumination from God through prayer a new revelation, a new theology of God. But it is not. Others have held this position for centuries. It is also supported by Scripture. Just because others do not agree does not make it right or wrong. But the fact is, others hold a similar position - myself for instance, and I am not the only one (not that it matters if others agree with God to make Him right).
Articles against infants going to hell upon death (I may not agree with everything used herein, but I do agree with the end result - infants being in the presence of God upon death):
http://www.apologeticspress.org/articles/2255
http://www.probe.org/founders-corner/jimmy-answers-his-e-mail/do-babies-go-to-hell.html
http://www.middletownbiblechurch.org/salvatio/infantsa.htm
http://therefinersfire.org/babies_go_to_heaven.htm
http://www.prairielakeschurch.org/clients/1/File/going%20deeper/Baptism_Infants.pdf
Articles against infant baptism:
John MacArthur http://www.biblebb.com/files/mac/infbap.htm
http://www.wayoflife.org/fbns/fbns/fbns209.html
http://www.gotquestions.org/infant-baptism.html
msnchris70
I already discussed with Tallguy1000 the scriptural evidence that infants, should they die, go to heaven. If you are interested, my discussion can be found on my Tues Jul 15, 2008 6:08pm post.
I will say that while I may not agree with infant baptism, per se it doesn't mean I'm not open to it since it sounds reasonable from scripture and is backed up with historical facts that everyone did it.
Also, we practice infant dedications which is also not in the New Testament. I now do not feel comfortable doing dedications because these are a Mosaic law and are more about the Nazarite way than anything else.
I find Star2 to be very difficult to deal with. Her ego is too much for me!
I'll email you msnchris70 offline to discuss baptism with you. Do you have EvanCal's email by chance?
Star2,
I have no problem discussing issues with wbmoor, or believer or even brotheraaron. I find them to have strong opinions, but I do not find them unreasonable. I also see how they actually will look up information upon request. I find this type of debate very fruitful and engaging.
I do not find discussions with you, Online or swordbearer very fruitful at all since the three of you combined are not willing to educate yourself and only go by your own feelings. The three of you are also not willing to look at historical record which helps prove how the majority of Christians interpreted the scriptures.
You star2 are a different breed. Maybe it is just your own personal issues. Online and swordbearer maybe belligerant at times and ignorant, but you have this sublime sense of ego I've never encountered with anyone else.
I have never found someone who thinks she knows everthing and also thinks she speaks for God. Your lack of humility is amazing to me.
Star2,
First you can't support your view of Baptism and infants going to heaven using scripture, then you tell me that you had a conversation with GOD ALMIGHTY and he gave you a "NEW" Revelation and now you mention that six others might disagree with me.
Are you now a person of consensus? I think not, you could only find six people who agree with you. I have John 14:6, Tallguy, EvanCal, IHS, Irenaus, etc. So I have five people that agree with me.
Funny enough I also have 85% of Christianty that agrees with me too and says your wrong! We have used scripture, we have shown you historical proofs as well and all you've done is say "I don't agree with you." Your response is typical from the Tradition you represent.
msnchris70
You know chris70, as far as I am concerned the entire RCC cathecism is heretical. I don't cop out and just make that statement I bring out a few points and discuss them using scripture and sound reason. Why can't you do the same with where you think the fundamentalists have strayed from the truth of God's Word? Or are you just bluffing?
If you do, then please back it up with scripture with explanation. Thus far you have not really done that to defend the teachings of the RCC. The scriptures you have used we (myself, wbmoore, Prophet, believer, mathetes, brotheraaron, seedplanter, Quecat, swordbearer, and others), have shown you that you have not interpreted scripture properly or have made it say what it does not say.