Gospel Defender, good name btw.

How would that which you just posted differ from that which I posted. You quoted scripture, which is the Word. Which I believe.

Did you think I would disagree perhaps?

Just curious.

Dramborleg

Sorry Dramborleg, I noticed something Eric had posted and attributed it to the both of you,



My answer differed with Eric's in that way, I would not have said an emphatic No.

Sorry about that.

Gospel D,

I hate to speak for ETH but he knows that scripture, I think he just mis-phrased his reply.

Dram :)

Post from Gospel_Defender -

Not so fast there, Brother![:D]

When I answered Garmentless' question I understood that he meant 'Were there no other sayings of Christ to which we can refer?'

Not 'Did Christ ever say anything NOT contained in the Bible?'

So, surely, Christ uttered sayings and words that are not contained in the Bible, but those words are not necessary for us to believe in Him and to fully understand His commandments.

We have received all we need from the 'Mouth of God' in order that we might be saved by believing and by doing what He said we must!

Now, isn't that better?

The 'traditions of the Church Fathers' are nice to read about and contemplate, but they are not replacements for anything that Christ forgot to tell us in either His words, in His deeds, or in the words and deeds of the New Testament writers.

Eric The(Fundamentalist)Hun[>]:)]

You you may be right, Preemptive apologies to Ericthe(abouttogoonarampage)Hun

Well? Am I forgiven?[:D]

I'm just getting tired of being quoted to from the 'Secret Gospel of Thomas' [i][b]ad nauseam[/b][/i], and sundry other books of the Apocrypha, to admit that the canon we have today is the canon that we should have today!

Anything more is either suspect, or heretical!

BTW, when do you date the books of the New Testament - I have a very different idea concerning the various dates that the books were written.

I don't believe, for instance, that any book in the New Testament was written much after 70 AD, and probably most were written prior to 66 AD, and I even think that the vast majority were written prior to 62 AD.

What do y'all think?

Eric The(Earnest)Hun[>]:)]

To Eric The(ForgivenforallwrongdoinginregardstothespokenwordsofChrist) Hun

I would tend to agree with you about the date of record for most of the NT. In regard to the book of Revelation. I lean toward an earlier date (Around 66 AD) but I do understand and appreciate the arguments for a later date.

What date would you put on I, II, III John?

I've never really researched it but have just gone by Scofield notes, which put it after AD90 as it does Revelation.

Just curious.

Most of the information I have places the date of 1,2,3 John either before 70 AD or around 90-95 AD. The reason for the two dates mainly hinge on the dating of Revelation and the Life of John. By the 100's 1,2,3 John are being cited with regularity.

I brought this post over from another thread on this site. I posted that baptism in not required for salvation under grace on Paul's/God's authority in I Cor 1:17 where He says, "For Christ sent me not to baptize..." EricTheHun's answer is as follows:

"No, dear Brother, that is not what Paul/God said about baptism, that was what Paul was telling the church at Corinth about the divisions that it was undergoing.

Read the full verse in context, to see:

1 Corinthians, Chapter 1:

10 Now I beseech you, brethren, by the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that ye all speak the same thing, and that there be no divisions among you; but that ye be perfectly joined together in the same mind and in the same judgment.

11 For it hath been declared unto me of you, my brethren, by them which are of the house of Chloe, that there are contentions among you.

12 Now this I say, that every one of you saith, I am of Paul; and I of Apollos; and I of Cephas; and I of Christ.

13 Is Christ divided? was Paul crucified for you? or were ye baptized in the name of Paul?

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

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

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

17 For Christ sent me not to baptize, but to preach the gospel: not with wisdom of words, lest the cross of Christ should be made of none effect.

18 For the preaching of the cross is to them that perish foolishness; but unto us which are saved it is the power of God.

You see? Paul was worried that the divisions that were creeping into the church would destroy it, so he was pleased that he, personally, had only baptized a few of their number, which he mentioned by name, and also indicated that there were others he might have forgotten about! "

So if I understand your answer ETH, you are saying that Paul quit baptizing because Paul didn't want division in the church? I can't help but say DUH!

Division is a secondary issue and I agree. But the primary phrase is still "For Christ sent me not to baptize..." So, though you seem to resist agreeing with me, I think you're agreeing that baptism was not continued under grace? Is that correct?


"So why was Paul baptizing at all, if it was not being done 'under grace' as you like to refer to it?"

Because Paul didn't have the revelation of the msytery given to him all at once. He had to study to show himself approved. Once he became more aware of the mystery, Paul quit baptizing.

Explain me this contrast:

Eph 4:5 "one Lord, one faith, one baptism"
What is the "one" baptism? water? spirit? soil?
Rom 6:4 "...buried with him by baptism..."
Is there any water in a burial?
Col 2:12 "buried with him in baptism"
Any water in this baptism?

and let's go to a law verse...

Explain me this verse:

Matt 20:22"...Are ye able to...be baptized with the bpatism that I am baptized with...?
Is this water baptism?

Lk 3:3 "...preaching the baptism of repentance..."
Is this water baptism? How is this compared to the baptism in Matt?

EricThe Hun posted:
"--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Does that mean Paul was not sent to save people? God forbid. It means that baptism was done away with under grace.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



So, Christ's Great Commission to His church, not Paul's church, but His own, blood-purchased church, lapsed? Went away? Ended?"

Almost, it was put on hold. The mystery/gentile grace, et al was/still is a parenthetical pause in god's dealings with man. I gave you the cites

Rom 16:25 KJV, "Now to him that is of power to stablish you according to my gospel, and the preaching of Jesus Christ,according to the revelation of the mystery, WHICH WAS KEPT SECRET SINCE THE WORLD BEGAN." [emphasis mine]

AND/VERSUS

Acts 3:21 KJV "whom the heaven must receive until the times of restitution of all things, WHICH GOD HATH SPOKEN by the mouth of all his holy prophets SINCE THE WORLD BEGAN." [emphasis mine]

This is God tell us what's going on. What's your take on these verses?

"That is so absurd that I can't believe that your fingers didn't go to hell when you typed it!"

Such is God's grace to them that love Him.


"--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Also The Reject said about baptism, "That sounds more like a "work" than a "faith". You are entirely correct. This is another one of those contrasts.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



Contrast with what? The Word of God?"

A contrast within the word of God.


"Just where did Jesus do away with any requirement for 'works'?"

How's this: Eph 2:8 & 9 "For by grace are ye saved...not of works..."

"Show me the passage, where you can not visit the brothers in jail, where you are told not to feed the hungry, where you are commanded not to clothe the naked?

Where are those passages located?"

I thought we were talking about salvation? The above works are not required for salvation but there's nothing wrong in doing them and I recommend doing them. Go for it!

I couldn't tell the difference...I'll be 32 in a month, and I'm still not baptized :)

Kingme,

Your quotation of 1 Corinthians 1 answers your own query.

You say

"Because Paul didn't have the revelation of the msytery given to him all at once. He had to study to show himself approved. Once he became more aware of the mystery, Paul quit baptizing."

Paul Says

14 I thank God that I baptized none of you, but Crispus and Gaius; 15 [b]Lest any should say that I had baptized in mine own name.[/b]

Did you notice where he gave the reason why he thanked God he did not baptize any of of them save a few ... [b]so they would not say he had baptized them in his own name[/b]

Also note he never said he [b]quit[/b] baptizing, He again only said he was thankful he did not baptize all of them.

Now as for your "contrasts"

1. Eph 4:5 "one Lord, one faith, one baptism" What is the "one" baptism? water? spirit? soil?

the one Christ Commanded (the one that is done in his name...

2. Rom 6:4 "...buried with him by baptism..."
Is there any water in a burial?

There is when you are buried in Water

3. Col. 2:12 "buried with him in baptism" Any water in this baptism?

There is when you are buried in Water

Now to your so-called Law verses

Matt 20:22"...Are ye able to...be baptized with the baptism that I am baptized with...?
Is this water baptism?

Check your context, no this is not Water baptism,

Lk 3:3 "...preaching the baptism of repentance..."

Yes, it is, For this text speaks of john, who was ...... Baptizing... tada... near the river Jordan for there was much water there.
Is this water baptism? How is this compared to the baptism in Matt?
Check what happened to those who only knew the Baptism of John... Acts 19:4-5

Hmm, they were Baptized in the Name of the Lord Jesus (note it was not in the name of Paul)

While there has been a lot of good information posted in this thread - my [b]serious[/b] question here hasn't been addressed yet (with the exception of [u]one[/u] person).

Y'all quit hijacking my thread, will ya?  [:D]

BTT for another round.

I think a lot of it depends on the faith you practice. Catholics usually baptize very young other religions do it later.  What does your faith practice?

We're Southern Baptists.  Basically, any time someone wants to be baptized, they walk the aisle during the invitation (closing hymn) and publically announce their desire to do so.

After that, there's a review - usually at that person's house - where they are asked some basic questions regarding salvation, the meaning of baptism, etc.  If they "pass" this, they generally get baptized.  My problem with it is - a youngster can be taught the correct answers to some simple questions and "pass" without really knowing, on a spiritual level, what those answers mean.

Hence my questions....

Thanks

-kid

a3kid,

I thought I had answered your initial question




Where the Conservative side is, depends upon your perspective.

From the point of view of the child younger might be conservative.

As for me, I would subjectively say that by age 13 or more, they clearly know right from wrong (Isa 7:15) but not always, and some would be even younger.

I got baptized when I was an infant, very elaborate, still have the pics..  Dad said our church required it and is a Greek tradition.

edited because I'm still sleepy.

a3kid:

Well my church doesn't believe in doing it to babies and such and only when you feel you ready and/or believe and such.  Not forcing and whatnot.  I don't know the specifics on how it goes with children since I didn't get baptized until I was 20 and when I got baptized, it was preceded by 3 people coming to my house because I answered on a card they use to see how many people showed up that asked "Do I believe if I died today would I got to heaven" and I put maybe.  I'm not totally sure if adults have to go to a class because near the end the Pastor asks people who wants to be baptized to walk up and they'll go in a backroom put on a robe and then go into a tub stuff is said and then you're basically dunked and then you're baptized in front of the congregation, people applaud then the next person goes in it.  However, afterward (although I'm not sure if its required now or required beforehand--this is how it was presented to me) its recommended to go to a class (not sure what it was called then but its called [i]Foundations for Faith:  Basics of Christian Life[/i] now).

They (we) don't believe in baptizing children (I'm born again Christian) until they're actually ready.  From observation, they have baptized children which to me look as young as 5 or 6 (usually the father or mother does it, [i]if[/i] they too have already been baptized--but I'm not the best judge of how old people are so they may have been older).

I'm fairly certain the children have to go to a baptism type of class in which I believe to help to determine if they actually understand what getting baptized means and what it entails.  Not lets get baptized cause its cool and people will applaud type of things.  Now is it possible the parents will feed their children the information to get ok'd (don't like how that sounds, ok'd to get baptized but hopefully you know what I mean) but if thats the case I believe that is worse than a child getting baptized who is ignorant to what is happening.


Anyhow I probably overanswered your question or didn't answer it at all.  Lets say you baptize someone who doesn't know what their doing or why their doing, if or when they finally understand they probably won't get baptized again since they already know, feel, believe they already have been baptized.  Same thing for children.  I've heard a few stories from my Pastor and others that some kids who get baptized after their born feel they've been baptized already so no need to have it done later when they are 'aware.'  Also, I would like to believe that God wouldn't damn someone because they're unable to get baptized for some reason but truly want to be baptized (not sure if I said the last part too well, I think/hope you understand what I mean, plus its probably a bit broad in reasoning).  So the 'just in case' method is not necessary or good to do.  But this is just my opinion, others I'm sure have other ideas...

This is [b]exactly[/b] where I have been led through the prayers I've prayed - and there have been [i]many[/i].  My concern has been [b]fully understanding[/b] the meaning of baptism at any given age.

I've come to realize and understand (funny how that works, isn't it/) that I have a different (clearer) understanding now than I had at age 15, 25, 30, or 35.  Who's to say that age 60, I won't look back on my views at my current age and think "You didn't know half of what you thought you did", did you?

I'm going to go ahead with it, I think.  What the heck - we've had to run 'em back through more than once on a couple of occasions, when the first one didn't "take".  [:D]

Thanks.

-kid