Warning

 

Close

Confirm Action

Are you sure you wish to do this?

Confirm Cancel
Member Login
Arrow Left Previous Page
Page / 2
Posted: 12/27/2005 9:27:07 AM EDT
Here is the deal...

I am a non demoninational protestant...while my wife comes from a Catholic family.
We were maried by the mayor as I did not want to be maried in a Catholic church.

The wife is pregnant, and understands that I do not want my baby baptized Catholic.
I think the catholics are good people who know the Lord, but I disagree with things like mass, confessing sins to a preist, and so on.

Should I consider having my child baptized as a baby at all?

<­BR>
Link Posted: 12/27/2005 10:04:06 AM EDT
I had a pastor who equated infant baptism with baby dedication, in which parents present their child back to the Lord. That's his take on it, but I don't think that's how the RCC sees it.

Baptism is a voluntary act in which the person makes a public confession of faith and the baptism itself symbolizes the old life being buried and the person being raised to new life. Obviously, a baby doesn't have much to repent of.

When I became a Christian (at age 26) I was baptized. When I told my Mom about it she sounded offended and said, "But I had you baptized as a little boy!" I went on to explain to her what this meant as a decision of mine, rather than having some stranger sprinkle water on my head when I was a lad.

When my daughter made a decision of her own to ask Jesus into her heart she asked to be baptized. IIRC, she was about 6 years old. As her Dad, I was the primary spiritual authority over her, so my pastor let me baptize her. It was a great experience for both of us.

I think the two of you should sit down and discuss what exactly the act of baptism means and come to a place of agreement on how it should be handled.
Link Posted: 12/27/2005 10:31:10 AM EDT
We are all born in sin... I think thats the RCC take on it....

But how can an infant repent? Certainly, it does not have the mental capacity to do so.

I was never baptized as an infant. I was baptized as an adult...after making the decision to be saved.

Baptism is not required to be saved from hell as I understand it...

Link Posted: 12/27/2005 10:43:27 AM EDT

Originally Posted By pv74:
We are all born in sin... I think thats the RCC take on it....

But how can an infant repent? Certainly, it does not have the mental capacity to do so.

I was never baptized as an infant. I was baptized as an adult...after making the decision to be saved.

Baptism is not required to be saved from hell as I understand it...




I became a Christian in 1986. After an initial steep growth curve I felt like I had reached a plateau. Then one day I read this:


When the people heard this, they were cut to the heart and said to Peter and the other apostles, "Brothers, what shall we do?"

Peter replied, "Repent and be baptized, every one of you, in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins. (Acts 2:37-38)



It struck me that I had repented, but hadn't been baptized. Making that decision and taking that step were key to identifying with my Savior in death, burial, and resurrection. The old man was dead!

Some will argue that baptism is required for salvation, but I'm not one of them.

If I was on a plane that crashed in the desert and another survivor asked how to be saved, I couldn't say to them, "You're out of luck, dude - there's no water here." Also, the thief on the cross next to Jesus was promised a place in Paradise, yet was not baptized.

(Do I hear Eric coming? )
Link Posted: 12/27/2005 10:50:15 AM EDT

Originally Posted By Brohawk:

Originally Posted By pv74:
We are all born in sin... I think thats the RCC take on it....

But how can an infant repent? Certainly, it does not have the mental capacity to do so.

I was never baptized as an infant. I was baptized as an adult...after making the decision to be saved.

Baptism is not required to be saved from hell as I understand it...




I became a Christian in 1986. After an initial steep growth curve I felt like I had reached a plateau. Then one day I read this:


When the people heard this, they were cut to the heart and said to Peter and the other apostles, "Brothers, what shall we do?"

Peter replied, "Repent and be baptized, every one of you, in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins. (Acts 2:37-38)



It struck me that I had repented, but hadn't been baptized. Making that decision and taking that step were key to identifying with my Savior in death, burial, and resurrection. The old man was dead!

Some will argue that baptism is required for salvation, but I'm not one of them.

If I was on a plane that crashed in the desert and another survivor asked how to be saved, I couldn't say to them, "You're out of luck, dude - there's no water here." Also, the thief on the cross next to Jesus was promised a place in Paradise, yet was not baptized.

(Do I hear Eric coming? )



You do have a point with the thief on the cross.

Baptism, to me seems to be more symbolic, like communion...

Why would the Lord make us perform a ritual to be saved?

I think it is giving one's heart to the Lord that matters...


Link Posted: 12/27/2005 11:53:23 AM EDT
You are correct in the thought that baptism is symbolic. The TRUE baptism is the washing away of sins by the Holy Spirit. In most denominations that practice infant baptism (with the exception of the RCC), the baptism is not what is sounds like. It is more of a dedication and acknowledgement by the family and congregation to raise the child in a Christian home and environment. When the child reaches the age of accountability(generally 12 years), he/she can make their own decision and be confirmed. The best advice I would give is to find out the ceremony that would be used, read it, and determine what is actually being accomplished in the ceremony. Most denominations ceremonies are available online.
Link Posted: 12/27/2005 12:10:24 PM EDT
Where does the New Testament forbid infant or child baptism? It doesn't. So obviously a judgment call is required which brings us to the problem of who has the final word.

But before we get into that, let's go back to what Baptism is. A free gift of grace, right?

Also, I'd think that Protestants who believe we can do absolutely zero, zip, nada to 'earn' salvation, that is, no work, act, thought, etc. nothing to attain it on our own since it is a completely unearnable free gift of God, would not be so bent out of shape of someone baptizing an infant and thus giving this utterly free gift of grace to someone else.

Unless, of course you don't believe baptism is anything more than a sacramental altar call. but then if you do, Catholic Confirmation covers THAT (and with the biblical laying on of hands and all).

If you're right and that's all Baptism is....then no biggie. Kid get's baptised as an infant, then later as a teen and then again as a young adult and then again after backsliding and then again in old age after life gets him down....

But if you're wrong and the kid dies before life allows him to have that emotional altar call.... what then?

Now let's look at the actual scripture: We do know that whole families were baptised. The implication is 'family' included infants. We also know our Lord commanded that his followers 'let the little children come to me and do not hinder them'. What could be more a question of allowing Children to come to Jesus than grafting them onto the vine, Jesus?

Baptism isn't only or even primarily about removing actual sin as it is about making us children of God and thus supernaturalizing us - removing original sin (the proclivity we all have from Adam to seek our own will and not Gods). It provides human beings with a faculty to obey God's commands... it doesn't make life easier (because we all must carry our crosses) but it does make bearing those moral crosses POSSIBLE. Lot's of folk will claim Christianity is a nice idea but not livable.... and they're 100% right if it were purely a question of human strength and not God's grace. Baptism provides the grace.

Then there's the argument from the silence of Scripture.

Look at the Protestant take on artificial contraception: no specific New Testament prohibition for them = approval to use the Pill. But then by the same token, infant baptism ought to be a no-brainer, but it's not.

What this boils down to is.... you need more than what's in the New Testament to come to the fullness of understanding of the "Way", WHICH IS WHY JESUS FOUNDED A CHURCH RATHER THAN A PUBLISHING EMPIRE.

He didn't command his apostles to "go ye therefore and print up all my words and hand out this tract to everyone so they may each interpret my words as (any) spirit moves them".

No, he gave THEM teaching authority (in his name) and sent them with a promise to be WITH THEM ALWAYS as they made DISCIPLES OF ALL THE NATIONS, teaching these nations to obey ALL HIS COMMANDS.

And while many commands of his are detailed in the Gospels, some aren't. Like specifics as how his disciples are to baptise, exactly. John had people step into a river and immersed them. But there's no specific rubric coming from Jesus as to how baptism is to be given; so SOMEONE has to make a judgement call here.

Must we only baptise in a river or will a swimming pool do?
Must we only baptise by full body immersion or will pouring water over a person do?
Must the rite be merely the act and words as spelled out in Matthew or do we use Mark's version?

Acts has Phillip and the Ethiopian reading Isaiah first and then "going down"...but what does "going down" and "coming up from" the water mean? Immersion? Not necessarily, especially since they were leaving the road to get to water. WHO'S GOING TO MAKE THE CALL?

Obviously the book itself can't interpret itself, while the Gospels all point to Jesus leaving men behind to speak in his name and guide humanity in the truth his spirit would reveal to them, the apostles....

ergo, on a question of what to do, whom to do it to and how and when, NOT SPECIFIED in the text, we must turn to a teaching authority to make the call. Being a non-denominational Protestant, you admit (theologically, if not personally) to not being infallible, whereas your wife's church believes that it has been vested with the teaching authority from Christ to make such judgment calls.

In the face of such an important question then, I'd go with the group that has much better creds with making such a call (as in, they've called it some 1800 years ago, closer to the event and person in question than modern day folk who admit they only have the text to go with).

Link Posted: 12/27/2005 1:44:48 PM EDT

But if you're wrong and the kid dies before life allows him to have that emotional altar call.... what then?



What then, what?

Link Posted: 12/27/2005 3:10:09 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 12/27/2005 3:13:59 PM EDT by FMD]
I might be able to add something here:

I'm not a big fan of infant baptism. I grew up in a church that forbid its practice. However, as far as I can tell, the "age of accountability" is an extrabiblical idea. I can't find anything in the Bible that supports it docrinally. There is nothing in the Bible that forbids the practice of paedobaptism. In fact, as an outward symbol similar to circumcision, it makes sense to baptize children of believers into the new covenant relationship with God (even though it is Grace that saves us). One needs only to look in Acts to find that the Word says entire households were baptised as an example of this.

As far as baptism being a requirement; If it is Grace alone that saves us from the sin that we are born with, then baptism is a command: important but not required for salvation (Roman Catholics and the Church of Christ might disagree with me here, but then again they take issue with "Grace Alone"). My take on it is that I cannot discount infant baptism's validity based soley on the Bible.

Bottom line: Do what you are led by your conceince and the Holy Spirit to do. It is my belief that it makes no real difference either way. If you are dead-set against the kid growing up RC, and she requires that he/she be baptized into the church, you both might want to consider membership in a Presbyterian church. You may find that both of you can reach a happy medium, and I'm rather certain that a Presbyterian minister can explain their doctrines to you.

ETA: I just noticed that you're located in Korea. If the last paragraph appeals to you, you might want to visit www.pck.or.kr/EngPage/eng_index.html
Link Posted: 12/27/2005 8:28:10 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 12/27/2005 8:29:02 PM EDT by Dramborleg]
Those who cannot determine what sin is or is not, have no conception of sin.

Therefore, they CANNOT repent.

Children are not "baptized" in the paedobaptism faiths, they are "sprinkled".

Baptizo is burial in the original Greek.

Immersion, not sprinkle or pour.

The concept of original sin and its dispersal originate in the Roman church. ETH knows when this originate I believe.

And if you are of a "faithist" religion, you believe faith alone saves.

Which is opposite of what scripture teaches us.

Physical baptism and spiritual baptism CANNOT be separated.

We provide the burial according to Christs commandment and Christ provides the spiritual baptism.

The tired old saw of the "thief on the cross" is soooo soooooo old.

The thief was told by Christ, before Christ died, that he would be in paradise with Him.

That was under the Old Testament Mosaic Law.

Christ could dispense with his forgiveness as he saw fit.

Under the New Testament dispensation, those who wish for salvation have participated thusly:

Ro:6:2: God forbid. How shall we, that are dead to sin, live any longer therein?
Ro:6:3: Know ye not, that so many of us as were baptized into Jesus Christ were baptized into his death?
Ro:6:4: Therefore we are buried with him by baptism into death: that like as Christ was raised up from the dead by the glory of the Father, even so we also should walk in newness of life.
Ro:6:5: For if we have been planted together in the likeness of his death, we shall be also in the likeness of his resurrection:

One CANNOT be buried in a shower, or a sprinkle of ANY kind of water.

The figure of burial is consistant and conclusive.

So, to say one is baptizing an infant that is without knowledge or sense of any sort, to save them from "something" whatever that might be, is utterly at odds with scripture.

One cannot repent of something one has never done, nor can they believe in a concept of which they are utterly incapable of understanding.

Ac:2:38: Then Peter said unto them, Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins, and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost.
Ac:2:39: For the promise is unto you, and to your children, and to all that are afar off, even as many as the Lord our God shall call.
Ac:2:40: And with many other words did he testify and exhort, saying, Save yourselves from this untoward generation.
Ac:2:41: Then they that gladly received his word were baptized: and the same day there were added unto them about three thousand souls.
Ac:2:42: And they continued stedfastly in the apostles' doctrine and fellowship, and in breaking of bread, and in prayers.

Children CANNOT receive Christs Word.

Children CANNOT repent of sins they have neither committed nor understand.

Lets listen to Christ:
M't:18:3: And said, Verily I say unto you, Except ye be converted, and become as little children, ye shall not enter into the kingdom of heaven.

Christ even says you must become as INNOCENT as little children to go to heaven.

If one does not comprehend that saying, I cannot help them I am afraid.

Scripture does not lie.

Men do.

Follow scripture or man, it is up to the individual to decide.

Dram out

Link Posted: 12/27/2005 8:43:00 PM EDT
In the Bible it doesnt say that a priest/father/pastor/rabbi is the one that has to do the baptism. Do it yourself. It also doesn't say that to be saved you must be baptised, it doesn't even say that you have to go to church to be saved. We do it b/c it makes our faith stronger and out of love for our God.
Link Posted: 12/27/2005 8:57:02 PM EDT
In John 3, Jesus states unequivocally that baptism is essential for entrance to the kingdom of God:

[3] Jesus answered and said unto him, Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except a man be born again, he cannot see the kingdom of God.
[4] Nicodemus saith unto him, How can a man be born when he is old? can he enter the second time into his mother's womb, and be born?
[5] Jesus answered, Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except a man be born of water and of the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God.

The reference to "born of water" is clearly baptism. Jesus provided the perfect example, even though he had no sin, when he was baptized by John. He didn't do that just for the fun of it, but to show everyone else what to do.

This is further explianed in the Book of Mormon, in 2 Nephi 31:

[3] For my soul delighteth in plainness; for after this manner doth the Lord God work among the children of men. For the Lord God giveth light unto the understanding; for he speaketh unto men according to their language, unto their understanding.

[4] Wherefore, I would that ye should remember that I have spoken unto you concerning that prophet which the Lord showed unto me, that should baptize the Lamb of God, which should take away the sins of the world.

[5] And now, if the Lamb of God, he being holy, should have need to be baptized by water, to fulfil all righteousness, O then, how much more need have we, being unholy, to be baptized, yea, even by water!

[6] And now, I would ask of you, my beloved brethren, wherein the Lamb of God did fulfil all righteousness in being baptized by water?

[7] Know ye not that he was holy? But notwithstanding he being holy, he showeth unto the children of men that, according to the flesh he humbleth himself before the Father, and witnesseth unto the Father that he would be obedient unto him in keeping his commandments.

herefore,
[9] And again, it showeth unto the children of men the straightness of the path, and the narrowness of the gate, by which they should enter, he having set the example before them.


So let's recap - he did it himself to show an example, then he said it was necessary for everyone. How much simpler can it get?

Now about infant baptism: the Book of Mormon clarifies this point of doctrine in Moroni 8:

[10] Behold I say unto you that this thing shall ye teach -- repentance and baptism unto those who are accountable and capable of committing sin; yea, teach parents that they must repent and be baptized, and humble themselves as their little children, and they shall all be saved with their little children.

[11] And their little children need no repentance, neither baptism. Behold, baptism is unto repentance to the fulfilling the commandments unto the remission of sins.

[12] But little children are alive in Christ, even from the foundation of the world; if not so, God is a partial God, and also a changeable God, and a respecter to persons; for how many little children have died without baptism!

[13] Wherefore, if little children could not be saved without baptism, these must have gone to an endless hell.

[14] Behold I say unto you, that he that supposeth that little children need baptism is in the gall of bitterness and in the bonds of iniquity, for he hath neither faith, hope, nor charity; wherefore, should he be cut off while in the thought, he must go down to hell.

[15] For awful is the wickedness to suppose that God saveth one child because of baptism, and the other must perish because he hath no baptism.

[16] Wo be unto them that shall pervert the ways of the Lord after this manner, for they shall perish except they repent. Behold, I speak with boldness, having authority from God; and I fear not what man can do; for perfect love casteth out all fear.

The question that this scripture raises about the billions of other people who have never had the opportunity to be baptized is completely valid. The answers are found in 1Cor 15, 1 Peter 3, and 1 Peter 4. Bottom line is that before Christ's work is completely done, all will have had the opportunity to hear his word and follow him, by their own choice. The work is not done yet, and there is much left to do. Remember that the Gospel of Jesus Christ spans all of eternity.

-grommet


Link Posted: 12/28/2005 4:15:54 AM EDT
Grommet, pv74 didn't say a thing about being or following the mormon sect. It is not scripture (only to other mormons) what you posted it was written by a man and not by God.


[5] Jesus answered, Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except a man be born of water and of the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God.


..of water and of the Spirit...Jesus uses this not to describe baptisim, but to show the contrast between physical birth and spirtual birth. Nicodemus was a Pharisee and we know what the Pharisee think/ thought about what it takes/ took to get into Heaven...

Both Dram and RCK made good, truthful points.
Link Posted: 12/28/2005 6:21:13 AM EDT
Bros. Dram and grommet, have said it all...

If, God forbid, your parents were members of the Church of Satan®, and had 'baptized' you into that wretched church....would you then think that God's Salvation was forever closed to you?

Of course NOT!

You had nothing to do with your parents and their evil thoughts and practices...it wasn't you who believed in Satan, but them.

And in 'infant baptisms', it is NOT the child who proclaims a belief in Christ, but his parents, or godparents.

Now, getting back to that Penitent Thief, Brohawk, you must by now understand that he died under the Law, and not in the Age of the Church.....right?

Don't worry. I will keep reminding you that the Church was NOT founded on 'Good' Friday, nor even on 'Resurrection' Sunday, but on Pentecost, some 50 days later.

Men and Brothers what shall we do?

Repent and be baptized was the answer supplied in the very First Sermon in the Church of Christ!

Eric The(FirstCentury)Hun
Link Posted: 12/28/2005 7:02:58 AM EDT

Originally Posted By ZitiForBreakfast:
Grommet, pv74 didn't say a thing about being or following the mormon sect. It is not scripture (only to other mormons) what you posted it was written by a man and not by God.


[5] Jesus answered, Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except a man be born of water and of the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God.


..of water and of the Spirit...Jesus uses this not to describe baptisim, but to show the contrast between physical birth and spirtual birth. Nicodemus was a Pharisee and we know what the Pharisee think/ thought about what it takes/ took to get into Heaven...

Both Dram and RCK made good, truthful points.



I find it interesting that you cannot dispute Grommet's quote from the Book of Mormon, so you simply deny its scriptural validity to avoid the debate.

As far as Jesus' teaching about being born of water, you have no basis for your speculation that it is merely a "spiritual" reference other than your own desire to reject the commandment to be baptised. We have Biblical evidence that Jesus gave us the example of baptism. We have further evidence that this ordinance was taught and practiced by the apostles.

---------------------------------------------
EricTheHun,

Once again we find ourselves in agreement on this saving ordinance.
Link Posted: 12/28/2005 10:24:35 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 12/28/2005 10:25:11 AM EDT by Dramborleg]
Lets listen to Christ:
M't:18:3: And said, Verily I say unto you, Except ye be converted, and become as little children, ye shall not enter into the kingdom of heaven.


Lets also amplify this statement thru study:

Baptism is where one is BORN AGAIN and become NEW.

Christ says you must become like a child, which is indeed unstained and pure.

I would stand in awe of someones ability to make such a prodigious leap in logic as to believe babies are evil in any way. (save perhaps the smells they make at times)

For that there is no support.

If one is BORN, one is rightly assumed to be an infant. There has yet to be a baby born from the womb with a beard, a Phd, and and a predilection for cheetos.

Therefore we look to the statements made about baptism:

Ro:6:3: Know ye not, that so many of us as were baptized into Jesus Christ were baptized into his death?
Ro:6:4: Therefore we are buried with him by baptism into death: that like as Christ was raised up from the dead by the glory of the Father, even so we also should walk in newness of life.

2Co:5:17: Therefore if any man be in Christ, he is a new creature: old things are passed away; behold, all things are become new.

Ti:3:5: Not by works of righteousness which we have done, but according to his mercy he saved us, by the washing of regeneration, and renewing of the Holy Ghost;

Baptism is a washing away of sins, it is a regeneration of the spirit making it new again, it is the spiritual rebirth that Nicodemus did not understand.

We are buried in water in imitation of Christs death, that as we rise from the watery grave... we are born anew as was Christ Jesus resurrected.



We are become new creatures, babes in Christ.


As a person capable of rational thought, we:

Recognize Christ as the Savior
Know we have sinned against God
Turn away from our previous life and REPENT
Become new born in Christ by participating in the likeness of His death thru burial in baptism... rising into the newness of life.

Babies cannot do this.

Babies have no conception of the word sin, or of any word for that matter.

Neither do retarded people.

They have no faculties whereby they might recognize and accept that theirs is a nature capable of sinful acts.

They are innocent in mind and outlook, as Christ would have us to be.



And to the mormon members here: I would think it would be wise to perhaps let people know that what you believe is the mormon view.

Mainstream Christianity is divergent from mormonism via its belief in the book of mormon.

I dont mind hearing your views, as they broaden my knowledge of other peoples faiths.



Take care all,

Dram

Link Posted: 12/28/2005 10:48:42 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 12/28/2005 10:49:36 AM EDT by FMD]
I apologize if this seems to be a hijack, but I can't let some of this go unchallenged, as it is completely off base from what Scripture teaches, regardless what hermeneutic you use, or how one might wish to "interpret" the Bible. What follows is a very long reply to Dramborleg, EricTheHun, and Shane 333. I've singled you guys out, but only for the fact that you've clearly and continually stated that Baptism is required for salvation. Please don't take this all personally, and please read all of what I've posted.


Originally Posted By Dramborleg:
...The concept of original sin and its dispersal originate in the Roman church...



With all due respect, if that's the case; it just might be because Paul gave the church in Rome the "concept" that Adam's sin imputed to all men:


Romans 3
9 What then? are we better than they? No, in no wise: for we have before proved both Jews and Gentiles, that they are all under sin;
10 As it is written, There is none righteous, no, not one:
11 There is none that understandeth, there is none that seeketh after God.
12 They are all gone out of the way, they are together become unprofitable; there is none that doeth good, no, not one
...23 For all have sinned, and come short of the glory of God...

Romans 5
12 Wherefore, as by one man sin entered into the world, and death by sin; and so death passed upon all men, for that all have sinned:
13 (For until the law sin was in the world: but sin is not imputed when there is no law.
14 Nevertheless death reigned from Adam to Moses, even over them that had not sinned after the similitude of Adam's transgression, who is the figure of him that was to come.
15 But not as the offence, so also is the free gift. For if through the offence of one many be dead, much more the grace of God, and the gift by grace, which is by one man, Jesus Christ, hath abounded unto many.
16 And not as it was by one that sinned, so is the gift: for the judgment was by one to condemnation, but the free gift is of many offences unto justification.
17 For if by one man's offence death reigned by one; much more they which receive abundance of grace and of the gift of righteousness shall reign in life by one, Jesus Christ.)
18 Therefore as by the offence of one judgment came upon all men to condemnation; even so by the righteousness of one the free gift came upon all men unto justification of life.
19 For as by one man's disobedience many were made sinners, so by the obedience of one shall many be made righteous.



This "concept" could also have originated in Corinth, as it is repeated by Paul in letter to the Corinthians as well:


1 Corinthians 15
21 For since by man came death, by man came also the resurrection of the dead.
22 For as in Adam all die, even so in Christ shall all be made alive.



The catholic Church (not the "Roman" church of today) codified the "concept" of original/imputed sin into "doctrine". They did that with most of the basic Christian doctrines. One cannot be so blinded by denominational hatred as to discount the beliefs of the Church fathers simply because they called themselves "catholic". Would one deny the triune nature of God (i.e. the Trinity) simply because it was a docrine associated with the early "Catholic" scholars?


And if you are of a "faithist" religion, you believe faith alone saves.


Sticks and stones. If you would just call me by the correct term of "Gracist", then I would gladly accept your fictional title.


Which is opposite of what scripture teaches us.


Really? Let's go back to Paul's letter to the Romans, shall we?


Romans 1
13 Now I would not have you ignorant, brethren, that oftentimes I purposed to come unto you, (but was let hitherto,) that I might have some fruit among you also, even as among other Gentiles.
14 I am debtor both to the Greeks, and to the Barbarians; both to the wise, and to the unwise.
15 So, as much as in me is, I am ready to preach the gospel to you that are at Rome also.
16 For I am not ashamed of the gospel of Christ: for it is the power of God unto salvation to every one that believeth; to the Jew first, and also to the Greek.
17 For therein is the righteousness of God revealed from faith to faith: as it is written, The just shall live by faith.

Romans 3
19 Now we know that what things soever the law saith, it saith to them who are under the law: that every mouth may be stopped, and all the world may become guilty before God.
20 Therefore by the deeds of the law there shall no flesh be justified in his sight: for by the law is the knowledge of sin.
21 But now the righteousness of God without the law is manifested, being witnessed by the law and the prophets;
22 Even the righteousness of God which is by faith of Jesus Christ unto all and upon all them that believe: for there is no difference:
23 For all have sinned, and come short of the glory of God;
24 Being justified freely by his grace through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus:
25 Whom God hath set forth to be a propitiation through faith in his blood, to declare his righteousness for the remission of sins that are past, through the forbearance of God;
26 To declare, I say, at this time his righteousness: that he might be just, and the justifier of him which believeth in Jesus.
27 Where is boasting then? It is excluded. By what law? of works? Nay: but by the law of faith.
28 Therefore we conclude that a man is justified by faith without the deeds of the law.
29 Is he the God of the Jews only? is he not also of the Gentiles? Yes, of the Gentiles also:
30 Seeing it is one God, which shall justify the circumcision by faith, and uncircumcision through faith.

Romans 4
1 What shall we say then that Abraham our father, as pertaining to the flesh, hath found?
2 For if Abraham were justified by works, he hath whereof to glory; but not before God.
3 For what saith the scripture? Abraham believed God, and it was counted unto him for righteousness.
4 Now to him that worketh is the reward not reckoned of grace, but of debt.
5 But to him that worketh not, but believeth on him that justifieth the ungodly, his faith is counted for righteousness.
6 Even as David also describeth the blessedness of the man, unto whom God imputeth righteousness without works,
7 Saying, Blessed are they whose iniquities are forgiven, and whose sins are covered . 8 Blessed is the man to whom the Lord will not impute sin.
9 Cometh this blessedness then upon the circumcision only, or upon the uncircumcision also? for we say that faith was reckoned to Abraham for righteousness.
10 How was it then reckoned? when he was in circumcision, or in uncircumcision? Not in circumcision, but in uncircumcision.
11 And he received the sign of circumcision, a seal of the righteousness of the faith which he had yet being uncircumcised: that he might be the father of all them that believe, though they be not circumcised; that righteousness might be imputed unto them also:
12 And the father of circumcision to them who are not of the circumcision only, but who also walk in the steps of that faith of our father Abraham, which he had being yet uncircumcised.
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.
14 For if they which are of the law be heirs, faith is made void, and the promise made of none effect:
15 Because the law worketh wrath: for where no law is, there is no transgression.
16 Therefore it is of faith, that it might be by grace; to the end the promise might be sure to all the seed; not to that only which is of the law, but to that also which is of the faith of Abraham; who is the father of us all,
17 (As it is written, I have made thee a father of many nations,) before him whom he believed, even God, who quickeneth the dead, and calleth those things which be not as though they were.
18 Who against hope believed in hope, that he might become the father of many nations, according to that which was spoken, So shall thy seed be.
19 And being not weak in faith, he considered not his own body now dead, when he was about an hundred years old, neither yet the deadness of Sarah's womb:
20 He staggered not at the promise of God through unbelief; but was strong in faith, giving glory to God;
21 And being fully persuaded that, what he had promised, he was able also to perform.
22 And therefore it was imputed to him for righteousness.
23 Now it was not written for his sake alone, that it was imputed to him;
24 But for us also, to whom it shall be imputed, if we believe on him that raised up Jesus our Lord from the dead;
25 Who was delivered for our offences, and was raised again for our justification.

Romans 5
1 Therefore being justified by faith, we have peace with God through our Lord Jesus Christ:
2 By whom also we have access by faith into this grace wherein we stand[/blue, and rejoice in hope of the glory of God.



Here’s what we find Paul saying to the Ephesians...


Ephesians 2
4 But God, who is rich in mercy, for his great love wherewith he loved us,
5 Even when we were dead in sins, hath quickened us together with Christ, (by grace ye are saved;)
6 And hath raised us up together, and made us sit together in heavenly places in Christ Jesus:
7 That in the ages to come he might shew the exceeding riches of his grace in his kindness toward us through Christ Jesus.
8 For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God:
9 Not of works, lest any man should boast.



…and to the Hebrews…


Hebrews 10
38 Now the just shall live by faith: but if any man draw back, my soul shall have no pleasure in him.
39 But we are not of them who draw back unto perdition; but of them that believe to the saving of the soul.

Hebrews 11
6 But without faith it is impossible to please him: for he that cometh to God must believe that he is, and that he is a rewarder of them that diligently seek him.



...and also to the Galatians:


Galatians 2
16 Knowing that a man is not justified by the works of the law, but by the faith of Jesus Christ, even we have believed in Jesus Christ, that we might be justified by the faith of Christ, and not by the works of the law: for by the works of the law shall no flesh be justified.
17 But if, while we seek to be justified by Christ, we ourselves also are found sinners, is therefore Christ the minister of sin? God forbid.
18 For if I build again the things which I destroyed, I make myself a transgressor.
19 For I through the law am dead to the law, that I might live unto God.
20 I am crucified with Christ: nevertheless I live; yet not I, but Christ liveth in me: and the life which I now live in the flesh I live by the faith of the Son of God, who loved me, and gave himself for me.
21 I do not frustrate the grace of God: for if righteousness come by the law, then Christ is dead in vain.

Galatians 3
1 O foolish Galatians, who hath bewitched you, that ye should not obey the truth, before whose eyes Jesus Christ hath been evidently set forth, crucified among you?
2 This only would I learn of you, Received ye the Spirit by the works of the law, or by the hearing of faith?
3 Are ye so foolish? having begun in the Spirit, are ye now made perfect by the flesh?
4 Have ye suffered so many things in vain? if it be yet in vain.
5 He therefore that ministereth to you the Spirit, and worketh miracles among you, doeth he it by the works of the law, or by the hearing of faith?
6 Even as Abraham believed God, and it was accounted to him for righteousness.
7 Know ye therefore that they which are of faith, the same are the children of Abraham.
8 And the scripture, foreseeing that God would justify the heathen through faith, preached before the gospel unto Abraham, saying, In thee shall all nations be blessed.
9 So then they which be of faith are blessed with faithful Abraham.
10 For as many as are of the works of the law are under the curse: for it is written, Cursed is every one that continueth not in all things which are written in the book of the law to do them.
11 But that no man is justified by the law in the sight of God, it is evident: for, The just shall live by faith.
12 And the law is not of faith: but, The man that doeth them shall live in them.
13 Christ hath redeemed us from the curse of the law, being made a curse for us: for it is written, Cursed is every one that hangeth on a tree:
14 That the blessing of Abraham might come on the Gentiles through Jesus Christ; that we might receive the promise of the Spirit through faith.
15 Brethren, I speak after the manner of men; Though it be but a man's covenant, yet if it be confirmed, no man disannulleth, or addeth thereto.
16 Now to Abraham and his seed were the promises made. He saith not, And to seeds, as of many; but as of one, And to thy seed, which is Christ.
17 And this I say, that the covenant, that was confirmed before of God in Christ, the law, which was four hundred and thirty years after, cannot disannul, that it should make the promise of none effect.
18 For if the inheritance be of the law, it is no more of promise: but God gave it to Abraham by promise.
19 Wherefore then serveth the law? It was added because of transgressions, till the seed should come to whom the promise was made; and it was ordained by angels in the hand of a mediator.
20 Now a mediator is not a mediator of one, but God is one.
21 Is the law then against the promises of God? God forbid: for if there had been a law given which could have given life, verily righteousness should have been by the law.
22 But the scripture hath concluded all under sin, that the promise by faith of Jesus Christ might be given to them that believe.
23 But before faith came, we were kept under the law, shut up unto the faith which should afterwards be revealed.
24 Wherefore the law was our schoolmaster to bring us unto Christ, that we might be justified by faith.
25 But after that faith is come, we are no longer under a schoolmaster.
26 For ye are all the children of God by faith in Christ Jesus.
27 For as many of you as have been baptized into Christ have put on Christ.
28 There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither bond nor free, there is neither male nor female: for ye are all one in Christ Jesus.
29 And if ye be Christ's, then are ye Abraham's seed, and heirs according to the promise.



Newsflash for anyone that would quote verse 27 singly: Read the previous verses, and put it in context of the entire epistle the entire. Verse 27 does not support justification by baptism, rather it is an affirmative statement for those who are justified by faith (verses 24 and 26).

So where did Paul come up with this idea of “justification” or “sanctification” by faith? Let’s look:


Acts 26
15 And I said, Who art thou, Lord? And he said, I am Jesus whom thou persecutest.
16 But rise, and stand upon thy feet: for I have appeared unto thee for this purpose, to make thee a minister and a witness both of these things which thou hast seen, and of those things in the which I will appear unto thee;
17 Delivering thee from the people, and from the Gentiles, unto whom now I send thee,
18 To open their eyes, and to turn them from darkness to light, and from the power of Satan unto God, that they may receive forgiveness of sins, and inheritance among them which are sanctified by faith that is in me.



Note that this is not a doctrine exclusive to the Pauline Epistels:

The following conversation took place between Peter, James, Paul, and Barnabas during a meeting of the early church in Jeruselem:


Acts 15
7 And when there had been much disputing, Peter rose up, and said unto them, Men and brethren, ye know how that a good while ago God made choice among us, that the Gentiles by my mouth should hear the word of the gospel, and believe.
8 And God, which knoweth the hearts, bare them witness, giving them the Holy Ghost, even as he did unto us;
9 And put no difference between us and them, purifying their hearts by faith.
10 Now therefore why tempt ye God, to put a yoke upon the neck of the disciples, which neither our fathers nor we were able to bear?
11 But we believe that through the grace of the LORD Jesus Christ we shall be saved , even as they.
12 Then all the multitude kept silence, and gave audience to Barnabas and Paul, declaring what miracles and wonders God had wrought among the Gentiles by them.



Here it is again, this time from Titus:


Titus 3
4 But after that the kindness and love of God our Saviour toward man appeared,
5 Not by works of righteousness which we have done, but according to his mercy he saved us, by the washing of regeneration, and renewing of the Holy Ghost;
6 Which he shed on us abundantly through Jesus Christ our Saviour;
7 That being justified by his grace, we should be made heirs according to the hope of eternal life.
8 This is a faithful saying, and these things I will that thou affirm constantly, that they which have believed in God might be careful to maintain good works. These things are good and profitable unto men.



Now someone is now bound to bring up James' statement that "...faith without works is dead" (James 2:26). When read in context with the rest of the epistle, it's clear that James is speaking to backslidden brothers, not to those following the example of Jesus.

The book of James is followed by Peter’s first Epistle. Here’s what he had to say:


1 Peter 1
1 Peter, an apostle of Jesus Christ, to the strangers scattered throughout Pontus, Galatia, Cappadocia, Asia, and Bithynia,
2 Elect according to the foreknowledge of God the Father, through sanctification of the Spirit, unto obedience and sprinkling of the blood of Jesus Christ: Grace unto you, and peace, be multiplied.
3 Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, which according to his abundant mercy hath begotten us again unto a lively hope by the resurrection of Jesus Christ from the dead,
4 To an inheritance incorruptible, and undefiled, and that fadeth not away, reserved in heaven for you,
5 Who are kept by the power of God through faith unto salvation ready to be revealed in the last time.
6 Wherein ye greatly rejoice, though now for a season, if need be, ye are in heaviness through manifold temptations:
7 That the trial of your faith, being much more precious than of gold that perisheth, though it be tried with fire, might be found unto praise and honour and glory at the appearing of Jesus Christ:
8Whom having not seen, ye love; in whom, though now ye see him not, yet believing, ye rejoice with joy unspeakable and full of glory:
9 Receiving the end of your faith, even the salvation of your souls.



Where have I heard that “begotten” part before? Oh yes, in John’s Gospel:


[John 3
14And as Moses lifted up the serpent in the wilderness, even so must the Son of man be lifted up:
15 That whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have eternal life.
16 For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life.
17 For God sent not his Son into the world to condemn the world; but that the world through him might be saved.
18 He that believeth on him is not condemned: but he that believeth not is condemned already, because he hath not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God.



Belief comes from faith in Jesus, which is in and of it self not possible without the Grace of God (Eph 2:8).


Physical baptism and spiritual baptism CANNOT be separated.


If you are equating “physical baptism” to receiving the gift of Salvation, please give chapter and verse (in context) that would nullify the great body of Scripture I have just quoted.


We provide the burial according to Christs commandment and Christ provides the spiritual baptism.


I agree, but I think you have the order mixed up.


The tired old saw of the "thief on the cross" is soooo soooooo old.


But it is one that you have to explain thusly…


That was under the Old Testament Mosaic Law.


For this to be a valid point, then there would be a requirement for a blood sacrifice (one that hadn’t happened yet since Jesus was not quite dead). Now, I’ve quoted quite extensively from the Word above that basically says Grace has been the “dispensation” in effect since Adam’s sin. Abraham didn’t have the Law, but he had the Promise. That belief in the Promise is what saved him, as it did for the thief.


Christ could dispense with his forgiveness as he saw fit.


Correct! Now you just need to apply this to all of history.


Under the New Testament dispensation, those who wish for salvation have participated thusly:


I’m interrupting here, because I need to make the point that “dispensations” are delineations that MAN has inserted into the Bible to support his own doctrines. When you cease trying to make God fit your notions of who He is, you have an unchanging plan of Salvation that is consistent from Genesis to Revelation. Something to think about.


Ro:6:2: God forbid. How shall we, that are dead to sin, live any longer therein?
Ro:6:3: Know ye not, that so many of us as were baptized into Jesus Christ were baptized into his death?
Ro:6:4: Therefore we are buried with him by baptism into death: that like as Christ was raised up from the dead by the glory of the Father, even so we also should walk in newness of life.
Ro:6:5: For if we have been planted together in the likeness of his death, we shall be also in the likeness of his resurrection:



Excellent try. I highlighted the important parts in blue. How can a person (especially one who has read the previous five chapters) miss the fact that act of Baptism is a “likeness” “into death”, rather than an actual spiritual death and rebirth? Just in case you took it that way, Paul adds this starting in verse eleven:



11 Likewise reckon ye also yourselves to be dead indeed unto sin, but alive unto God through Jesus Christ our Lord.
12 Let not sin therefore reign in your mortal body, that ye should obey it in the lusts thereof.
13 Neither yield ye your members as instruments of unrighteousness unto sin: but yield yourselves unto God, as those that are alive from the dead, and your members as instruments of righteousness unto God.
14 For sin shall not have dominion over you: for ye are not under the law, but under grace.



Dram, did you just stop reading at verse 5, or was this part considered not important?


One CANNOT be buried in a shower, or a sprinkle of ANY kind of water.
The figure of burial is consistant and conclusive.



On this I agree with you, but (using your words) Baptism is a “figure of burial”. It’s a symbol. As a symbol, the early church fathers put it this way:


Chapter 7. Concerning Baptism. And concerning baptism, baptize this way: Having first said all these things, baptize into the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit, in living water. But if you have no living water, baptize into other water; and if you cannot do so in cold water, do so in warm. But if you have neither, pour out water three times upon the head into the name of Father and Son and Holy Spirit. But before the baptism let the baptizer fast, and the baptized, and whoever else can; but you shall order the baptized to fast one or two days before.

The Didache (50-120 A.D.)
Roberts-Donaldson English Translation.



Now I realize that I’m quoting an extra-biblical source here, but I’m speaking to those who would claim themselves to be “First Century” style Christians. This was written during the first hundred years of Christianity, so it applies to you specifically. Guess what? Immersion was not required.

As to why it wasn’t required; probably because baptism was a symbol (but now I’m guessing).


So, to say one is baptizing an infant that is without knowledge or sense of any sort, to save them from "something" whatever that might be, is utterly at odds with scripture.


To this I would agree as well. That said, if baptism is the sign of the New Covenant in Christ why should the practice not follow the Old Testament sign of the covenant (i.e. Circumcision of infants)? Again, I’m not dogmatic on the issue for this reason.


One cannot repent of something one has never done,


Back to the top re: Original (imputed) Sin for you!


nor can they believe in a concept of which they are utterly incapable of understanding.


Then we are all doomed, as no one can truly fathom God’s Grace!


Ac:2:38: Then Peter said unto them, Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins, and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost.
Ac:2:39: For the promise is unto you, and to your children, and to all that are afar off, even as many as the Lord our God shall call.
Ac:2:40: And with many other words did he testify and exhort, saying, Save yourselves from this untoward generation.
Ac:2:41: Then they that gladly received his word were baptized: and the same day there were added unto them about three thousand souls.
Ac:2:42: And they continued stedfastly in the apostles' doctrine and fellowship, and in breaking of bread, and in prayers.



Different translations of verse 38 would have the blue part as “for the forgiveness of” (NAS, ESB). In either event, belief (faith) necessarily comes before repentance, which is itself followed by baptism. The question is, how can one miss the statement in red?


Children CANNOT receive Christ’s Word.

Children CANNOT repent of sins they have neither committed nor understand.



I agree.


Let’s listen to Christ:
M't:18:3: And said, Verily I say unto you, Except ye be converted, and become as little children, ye shall not enter into the kingdom of heaven.

Christ even says you must become as INNOCENT as little children to go to heaven.



No. Jesus said you must be converted and become as little children. Try not to read your interpretation into the Bible.


If one does not comprehend that saying, I cannot help them I am afraid.


I need no reading and comprehension help. Scripture must agree with Scripture. If my interpretation can’t explain a seeming incongruity, then my interpretation is invalid. This holds true for all doctrines, even the ones that deal with Baptism.


Scripture does not lie. Men do.


You mean like this?


Originally Posted By Dramborleg:
Christ even says you must become as INNOCENT as little children to go to heaven.



Brother, be very careful with what you say. I’m sure that I know what you meant, but this is what can happen when you take things that someone says (even Jesus) out of context.


Follow scripture or man, it is up to the individual to decide.


I’ve put an awful lot of scripture up, and believe ALL of what it says without reservation. How bout you?


Originally Posted By EricTheHun:
And in 'infant baptisms', it is NOT the child who proclaims a belief in Christ, but his parents, or godparents.



Again, agreed. See Acts 2:39


Now, getting back to that Penitent Thief, Brohawk, you must by now understand that he died under the Law, and not in the Age of the Church.....right?


Eric, some Christians aren’t dispensationalists. We see the “Old Covenant” and the “New Covenant” as one and the same, with the old pointing to the new.


Repent and be baptized was the answer supplied in the very First Sermon in the Church of Christ!


Those were the first words to the sermon. They were followed up by:
“For the promise is unto you, and to your children, and to all that are afar off, even as many as the Lord our God shall call”.


Originally Posted By Shane333:
I find it interesting that you cannot dispute Grommet's quote from the Book of Mormon, so you simply deny its scriptural validity to avoid the debate.



Not directed at me, but I’ll field it anyway. No one other than the LDS Church considers the Book of Mormon as scripture. You might as well (to a Protestant or Catholic type) be quoting from the Kama Sutra, the Kabbalah, the Koran, or the Satanic Bible. All have the same validity (none) from an orthodox point of view.


As far as Jesus' teaching about being born of water, you have no basis for your speculation that it is merely a "spiritual" reference other than your own desire to reject the commandment to be baptised.


Does no one actually read the Bible? You don’t have to go very far, just get to the next verse:


John 3
5 Jesus answered, Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except a man be born of water and of the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God.
6 That which is born of the flesh is flesh; and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit
.




We have Biblical evidence that Jesus gave us the example of baptism. We have further evidence that this ordinance was taught and practiced by the apostles.


Look folks, I don’t think anyone is saying “Baptism is pointless. Don’t do it”. One should be baptized. Period. End of sentence.

Unfortunately, in order to make it a requirement for salvation, you must ignore a great body of scripture to support the argument. Whether your baptism happens via sprinkling or immersion, in infancy, in adulthood, or not at all, it is your Faith in Jesus (that beautiful and undeserved gift of Grace) that saves you; not some water from the tap.

Respectfully,
FMD
Link Posted: 12/28/2005 11:57:19 AM EDT
First, FMD, 'belief in Jesus' without more is nothing.

Satan and his demons 'believe' that Jesus is the Son of God but a fat lot of good that will do them.

Jesus said that we must be born of water and of the Spirit.

That should end any discussion of the requirement for baptism...and so it did in His Church for almost 2,000 years.

But Man, with ears itching for new and strange doctrines, has thought it permissible to unilaterally dispense with this requirement.

Too bad. For him and them who fall for it.

Eric, some Christians aren’t dispensationalists.

'Dispensationalism' is such a loaded word.

I don't see it as a 'dispensation' in the manner that some see it.

But, it cannot be denied that there was a definite shift in gears in what was acceptable in the Old and what was acceptable in the New.

Was there suddenly a 'new' God?

Nope.

But there was a New Kingdom...here on earth. His Kingdom...the Kingdom of God.

Who serve unto the example and shadow of heavenly things, as Moses was admonished of God when he was about to make the tabernacle: for, See, saith he, that thou make all things according to the pattern shewed to thee in the mount.

But now hath he obtained a more excellent ministry, by how much also he is the mediator of a better covenant, which was established upon better promises.

For if that first covenant had been faultless, then should no place have been sought for the second.
Hebrews 8:5-7

The Old Testament or Covenant was merely a foreshadowing of the Testament or Covenant to come.

And it was the Death of Christ that brought this New Covenant into Being....

We see the “Old Covenant” and the “New Covenant” as one and the same, with the old pointing to the new.

Then the Writer of Hebrews was 'mistaken' when he claimed the New to be a better, less 'faultless' Covenant than the Old?

Because they were one and the same?

Hmmm. What Christian denomination teaches this?

Originally posted by Eric The Hun:
Repent and be baptized was the answer supplied in the very First Sermon in the Church of Christ!



Those were the first words to the sermon. They were followed up by:
“For the promise is unto you, and to your children, and to all that are afar off, even as many as the Lord our God shall call”.


And that was followed by:

Then they that gladly received his word were baptized: and the same day there were added unto them about three thousand souls. Acts 2:41

That's a whole lot of baptizing going on!



And yet, whenever we find anyone in the New Church believing on Chirst...they are immediately baptized.

Without exception....

Now, the Church historically understood this as a Command of Jesus, and never failed to baptize with water....

He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved; but he that believeth not shall be damned. Mark 16:16

Pretty simple.

Believe and be baptized in order to be saved....from His Lips to our ears...Amen!

Eric The(FirstCentury)Hun
Link Posted: 12/28/2005 12:01:02 PM EDT
FMD,

I don't have enough time to address every jot and tittle you've mentioned. So I'll give you the reader's digest summary:

Jesus himself was baptised despite the fact that he was perfect/without sin. You can dispute the necessity of baptism if you like, but I know I won't be wrong if I follow Jesus' example, especially when Jesus specifically mentioned being born of the water.

It is interesting to note from Luke 7:30 how the Pharisees rejected the counsel of God by rejecting Baptism.

Then of course there is Acts 2:38 where Peter commands the converts to be baptised.

That's enough for me to base my belief on the subject.

Link Posted: 12/28/2005 12:15:34 PM EDT

Originally Posted By Shane333:
That's enough for me to base my belief on the subject.


It is enough. Luke 22:38b



Eric The(KeepingItFirstCenturySimple)Hun
Link Posted: 12/28/2005 1:17:57 PM EDT
FMD,

You go round and round the mulberry to try and avoid what Christians have always done... become baptized if they wished to obey Christ

Faith is FIRST, it is the ONE and ONLY starting point.

For if you did not believe, why would you wish to follow or obey the dictates of the Lord?

And of course we receive Grace through our Faith.

Yet what did Christ tell the apostles to do?

M't:28:19: Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost:

He did NOT tell them to just TEACH all nations, and have an altar call.

No, not at all.

They were told to GO

They were told to TEACH

They were told to BAPTIZE

Not to trust in deathbed last second "conversions".

Or to impudently ask about pygmies that have never heard about Jesus.

Or to wonder why the thief on the cross was let in heaven and they wont be.

There are numerous occasions in the New Testament that faith and grace are described as must haves.

And so too are there numerous locations where baptism is described as a must have for salvation.

So, as Christians, we are therefore free to choose what we wish to obey when it is explicitly listed as necessary?

Obviously, I agree with not only the Bible where it speaks about faith and grace... but with you also.

Yet you refuse and seek to refute plain scripture REQUIRING your rebirth to enter heaven.

Why?

You and your co-religionists seek to delete the importance of baptism as a spiritual rebirth to what purpose?

I cant wait for you to claim baptism is amniotic fluid, all the people like-minded to you do so.

Joh:3:5: Jesus answered, Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except a man be born of water and of the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God.

The scriptures are painfully plain.

Unless you wish them to be not so.

2Th:2:10: And with all deceivableness of unrighteousness in them that perish; because they received not the love of the truth, that they might be saved.
2Th:2:11: And for this cause God shall send them strong delusion, that they should believe a lie:
2Th:2:12: That they all might be damned who believed not the truth, but had pleasure in unrighteousness.

So be warned, if you wish to thwart scripture and the express will of Christ by making the baptism he SPECIFICALLY DIRECTED HIS APOSTLES TO PERFORM into a mere footling event, payment will come due.

And before I go here is a bit more.


If I tell you in a written series of messages that you are to accomplish a goal, in this example it is to brick a house,

I tell you that without fail you need bricks, as a brick job with no bricks is impossible.

I tell you in a second one that you will without fail need mortar and water to brick the house.

I tell you in a third that you will need tools, like scaffold,trowels,level, string, and a mixer and wheelbarrow without fail.

Which one of these imperative messages can be ignored?

Which one will you discard?

None. You need them all.

Whereas you would have possible Christians believe that they can brick their spiritual house without tools or mortar, just bricks.

How is this so that you have fallen into this error?

Dram out
Link Posted: 12/28/2005 1:33:23 PM EDT
Eric, forgive me if I wasn't clear.

The words "believe" and or "faith" that I used were in the context of "...in the work wrough by the death and resurrection of the Person of Jesus, Son of God which saves us from eternal damnation". I thought that was clear by implication, but I guess I was wrong.

Let me clear this up as well:


We see the “Old Covenant” and the “New Covenant” [promise] as one and the same, with the old pointing to the new.


This, my freind, is what I can understand from reading both Hebrews and Romans (they had the same author) and is what the Church believed fro 1800 or so years until Darby came around with "dispensationalism".

While they deal with different groups of people, both covenants are the same promise. They are not different ways of dealing with two different groups of people at two different times (i.e. two seperate "dispensations").

As far as baptism goes, please go back and re-read all of what I wrote. While there are many references to baptism in the NT, there are far more that lay out exactly what is needed for salvation: Faith (as defined above, to differentiate it from mere belief), and Faith alone.

THAT is enough.

If one wishes to base their salvation on the Pelagian error of "Faith +Works" feel free, just realize that in order to do so, one must ignore the vast majority of the very Scripture the we all claim to hold dearly.
Link Posted: 12/28/2005 1:44:52 PM EDT

Originally Posted By FMD:
Eric, forgive me if I wasn't clear.

The words "believe" and or "faith" that I used were in the context of "...in the work wrough by the death and resurrection of the Person of Jesus, Son of God which saves us from eternal damnation". I thought that was clear by implication, but I guess I was wrong.

Let me clear this up as well:


We see the “Old Covenant” and the “New Covenant” [promise] as one and the same, with the old pointing to the new.


This, my freind, is what I can understand from reading both Hebrews and Romans (they had the same author) and is what the Church believed fro 1800 or so years until Darby came around with "dispensationalism".

While they deal with different groups of people, both covenants are the same promise. They are not different ways of dealing with two different groups of people at two different times (i.e. two seperate "dispensations").

As far as baptism goes, please go back and re-read all of what I wrote. While there are many references to baptism in the NT, there are far more that lay out exactly what is needed for salvation: Faith (as defined above, to differentiate it from mere belief), and Faith alone.

THAT is enough.

If one wishes to base their salvation on the Pelagian error of "Faith +Works" feel free, just realize that in order to do so, one must ignore the vast majority of the very Scripture the we all claim to hold dearly.



Don't worry FMD. Nobody here is going to force you to be baptised. It has to be your decision anyway.
Link Posted: 12/28/2005 1:52:35 PM EDT
There ya' go FMD...


Call it whatever you WISH to call it....

Baptism is NOT a WORK.

It is an ORDINANCE.

So are you going to next tell me that REPENTING is a work too?

Or will you throw that baby out with the bath water also?

Which is it?

REPENTENCE requires ACTION on your part.

BAPTISM also requires ACTION.

Keep trying to brick those houses without mortar FMD.

Dram
Link Posted: 12/28/2005 1:57:10 PM EDT
Forget all the doctrines of Man and simply listen to the Words of Christ....

I say unto you, He that believeth on me, the works that I do shall he do also; and greater works than these shall he do; because I go unto my Father. John 14:12

If ye love me, keep my commandments. John 14:15

He that hath my commandments, and keepeth them, he it is that loveth me: and he that loveth me shall be loved of my Father, and I will love him, and will manifest myself to him. John 14:21

Jesus answered and said unto him, If a man love me, he will keep my words: and my Father will love him, and we will come unto him, and make our abode with him.

He that loveth me not keepeth not my sayings: and the word which ye hear is not mine, but the Father's which sent me.
John 14:23-24

I am the true vine, and my Father is the husbandman.

Every branch in me that beareth not fruit he taketh away: and every branch that beareth fruit, he purgeth it, that it may bring forth more fruit.

Now ye are clean through the word which I have spoken unto you.

Abide in me, and I in you. As the branch cannot bear fruit of itself, except it abide in the vine; no more can ye, except ye abide in me.

I am the vine, ye are the branches: He that abideth in me, and I in him, the same bringeth forth much fruit: for without me ye can do nothing.

If a man abide not in me, he is cast forth as a branch, and is withered; and men gather them, and cast them into the fire, and they are burned.

If ye abide in me, and my words abide in you, ye shall ask what ye will, and it shall be done unto you.

Herein is my Father glorified, that ye bear much fruit; so shall ye be my disciples.

As the Father hath loved me, so have I loved you: continue ye in my love.

If ye keep my commandments, ye shall abide in my love; even as I have kept my Father's commandments, and abide in his love.
John 15:1-10

What does all this teach us?

That obedience to God trumps every other aspect of Christian Doctrine.

You cannot be a Christian without obedience.

Suck it up, church!

Eric The(HolierThanNone)Hun
Link Posted: 12/28/2005 2:02:47 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 12/28/2005 2:07:58 PM EDT by EricTheHun]
BTW, every verse I quoted was from the Discourse of Christ to His Disciples at the Last Supper...so it's hardly a new-fangled idea, eh?

And you cannot place such Doctrine at the feet of any man...but only at the Feet of the Son of God.

Want to continue to be loved by Jesus and the Heavenly Father?

O-b-e-d-i-e-n-c-e.

For this is the love of God, that we keep his commandments: and his commandments are not grievous.1 John 5:3

Eric The(ManDoesNotLivebyBreadAlone,ButByEveryWord­ThatProceedethFromTheMouthOfGod)Hun
Link Posted: 12/28/2005 2:04:02 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 12/28/2005 2:07:16 PM EDT by FMD]
I'll ignore the crap and cut to the chase:


Originally Posted By Dramborleg:
Yet you refuse and seek to refute plain scripture REQUIRING your rebirth to enter heaven.

Why?



Because taken in context with the rest of scripture, the ideaof Baptismal Regeneration can't be valid. Spiritual rebirth is certainly in the Word, but it is a product of the Holy Spirit, not of water.


You and your co-religionists seek to delete the importance of [water] baptism as a spiritual rebirth to what purpose?


Because it is then a work that MAN does, rather than a work that GOD does.


Joh:3:5: Jesus answered, Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except a man be born of water and of the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God.

The scriptures are painfully plain.



It is: "That which is flesh is flesh, that which is spirit is spirit". Plain to me, how bout you?


So be warned, if you wish to thwart scripture and the express will of Christ by making the baptism he SPECIFICALLY DIRECTED HIS APOSTLES TO PERFORM into a mere footling event, payment will come due.


Show me where I've "thwarted" a truthful reading of the Word. You can't. The only thing I've done is said that Scripture must agree with Scrpiture, and here are the chapters and verses that would disagree with your position. Yes, Jesus commanded the Apostles to go out into all the world and make deciples of all nations, baptising in His name. Was it faith in Jesus' death and resurrection that saved the converts they made, or was it water baptism as performed by the deciples that made the acceptable to God?


here is a bit more.
<irrelevent allegory snipped>



God has already built the house, Dram. It's a gift. He want's us to have it. There's no need to build it. That's Grace. Then again, without faith, you can't see it. I'm truly sorry that you believe you have to "build" on what God has already said is sufficient.


How is this so that you have fallen into this error?


Countless hours of prayer and study of the Word over the last 25 years or so. Not relying on what someone tells me, but searching the Word for truth. You might want to try that. Don't just read snippets and say "Okay, I'm good now". Read. Pray. Read some more. Pray some more. Ask God to show you if you're in error. I have, and it to me the issue is clear.

It is those who would require works (whatever they may be) to get into Paradise that are in error.


Edit to fix quotes.
Link Posted: 12/28/2005 2:11:38 PM EDT
Find me a single Christian in the New Testament, after the Day of Pentecost, who was NOT baptized.

<sound of crickets...chirping>

Eric The(AndSoBelievedTheChurchFor2,000Years)Hun
Link Posted: 12/28/2005 2:16:34 PM EDT
One last thing before turning in:

ETH, your last posts were great, but you started to stray towards the "eternal security" issue. Perhaps in another thread?

Also, for the third time in this thread, I believe that people should get baptized in obediance to Christ's command. I have been baptised myself...twice (sprinked as an infant and dunked as an adult). What I take issue with is anyone that claims there is a "work" required for Salvation.


Galatians 6
14 But far be it from me to boast except in the cross of our Lord Jesus Christ, by which the world has been crucified to me, and I to the world.

Link Posted: 12/28/2005 2:28:15 PM EDT
FMD,

You are a hook, line and sinker--- FAITHIST.

You wouldnt know a "work" if it bit your hind leg.

And yes, you BLATANTLY seek to eliminate baptism as necessary.

WATER AND THE SPIRIT.

But that is too plain for you.

WASH AWAY YOUR SINS

Nope still too clear for you

BURIED IN THE LIKENESS OF HIS DEATH

Too obvious.



You dont want salvation?


OK


If this wasnt so serious I would laugh at the purposeful ignoring of the whole of scripture to concentrate on the first step ONLY.

Faithists, you are one FMD, really leave me dumbfounded and at a loss.


Pick and choose bible study at its finest.


Good luck with that.

Dram out
Link Posted: 12/28/2005 3:42:43 PM EDT
Sorry, but your dead wrong.

You can make counter accusations all you want, but it seems that you are the one who wishes to reduce Scripture to half a dozen verses quoted with no context.

Try reading the Word without the CoC goggles.


Titus 3:
4 But when the goodness and loving kindness of God our Savior appeared,
5 he saved us, not because of works done by us in righteousness, but according to his own mercy, by the washing of regeneration and renewal of the Holy Spirit,
6 whom he poured out on us richly through Jesus Christ our Savior,
7 so that being justified by his grace we might become heirs according to the hope of eternal life.
8 The saying is trustworthy, and I want you to insist on these things, so that those who have believed in God may be careful to devote themselves to good works. These things are excellent and profitable for people.
9 But avoid foolish controversies, genealogies, dissensions, and quarrels about the law, for they are unprofitable and worthless.
10 As for a person who stirs up division, after warning him once and then twice, have nothing more to do with him,
11 knowing that such a person is warped and sinful; he is self-condemned.



God saved us in His mercy, regenerated and renewed us through the Holy Spirit, which is a gift given to us by Jesus. That grace justifies us that we may be His heirs. This is what I believe.

Dram, since you insist that it is the voluntary act of immersing yourself in water and not the gracious gift of the Holy Spirit that renews and regenerates the Christian, I think it safe for me me to extricate myself from this thread now, with the admonishment of verses 9-11 above.

So be it.
Link Posted: 12/28/2005 4:22:21 PM EDT
Seems like they all turn out this way....

Link Posted: 12/28/2005 4:41:09 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 12/28/2005 4:43:35 PM EDT by Dramborleg]
FMD,

The only goggles I wear are the ones instituted 2000 years ago.

By some guy.... umm....wait... it'll come to me....

Oh yeah, Jesus.

Until the heresy that faithists purport to be scriptural came about, baptism was...is...and always shall be the method by which our savior intended our spiritual rebirth.

But you and your fellows THINK different.

Just because you CHOOSE to not accept the vehicle that Christ Jesus established, can in no way CHANGE what it is he told us to do.

To think one need not be baptized when it is clear as crystal what it is for, is amazing.

Simply amazing.

But not to you and those of the same hue and stripe.

There is NO spiritual rebirth without baptism.

It is not the water that saves sir, as well you know. Do not imply that I believe the physical water does anything beyond serve as the vehicle by which Christ intended for us to be transformed.

1Pe:3:21: The like figure whereunto even baptism doth also now save us (not the putting away of the filth of the flesh, but the answer of a good conscience toward God,) by the resurrection of Jesus Christ:

So, no. It is not a bath.

It is a burial that we may rise up in the newness of life.

Ro:6:4: Therefore we are buried with him by baptism into death: that like as Christ was raised up from the dead by the glory of the Father, even so we also should walk in newness of life.

You die to your sins to rise up a new man.

Except to you.

Peter just was perhaps confused.

Yeah, that must be it.

If you dont like part of the bible, why just excise it.

Play cut and paste.

Just as you have done.

Yeah, it says that, but thats not what it means.

Okayyyyyyy, um ... yeah.

It is a free country.


I love how you parsed apart my previous posts with such foolish prattle. It tires me to even read it

Almost too much to wade through.

No context

HAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!

Whatever gets you through the night friend.

Just make sure to tell Jesus he was confused when he gave the Great Commission.

I just know he wont mind.

He made an honest mistake when he said M't:28:19: Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost:

Yes, it meant so little to Jesus that it was the final thing he committed his disciples to do---

What was it that Jesus committed them to do???

TEACH ALL

BAPTIZE THEM

Not Grace them.

Not faithize them.

Not altar call them.

Not have a special prayer of come into my heart.

None of it.

TEACH THEM ALL

BAPTIZE THEM

And this too is for you:

2Tm:4:2: Preach the word; be instant in season, out of season; reprove, rebuke, exhort with all longsuffering and doctrine.

You painfully cannot hear with a heart that is hardened.

But since that is not good for you scooter, you just get on down the road, and the sound you hear will be my sandals smacking together, raising a bit of dust for a heart that is hardened.


M't:10:14: And whosoever shall not receive you, nor hear your words, when ye depart out of that house or city, shake off the dust of your feet.
M'r:6:11: And whosoever shall not receive you, nor hear you, when ye depart thence, shake off the dust under your feet for a testimony against them. Verily I say unto you, It shall be more tolerable for Sodom and Gomorrha in the day of judgment, than for that city.
Lu:9:5: And whosoever will not receive you, when ye go out of that city, shake off the very dust from your feet for a testimony against them.
Lu:10:11: Even the very dust of your city, which cleaveth on us, we do wipe off against you: notwithstanding be ye sure of this, that the kingdom of God is come nigh unto you.



Link Posted: 12/29/2005 1:26:54 PM EDT
We all agree (wait, I take that back, most of us agree) that Jesus gave grace to humanity.

The question is how is this grace, mercy, supernatural life, applied to each individual soul?

The scripture makes the connection between the water and spirit as having a direct effect of 'washing away sin'. Not that water H20 HAS INTRINSIC power over spiritual guilt, but because God willed visible signs to accompany his spiritual act. Not my idea, not the CChurch's idea, Christ's idea.

How was the grace of healing and forgiveness of sins to be delievered? By the anointing of oil by presbyters and prayers.... how did Jesus define the coming of the Spirit on believers? The spirit would only come on those whom the apostles laid hands on - and not on those who simply believed and were baptized...

Again and again in the NT we see clear examples of grace - having real effect - being linked to outward signs.

Link Posted: 12/29/2005 1:46:13 PM EDT

Originally Posted By JusAdBellum:
The spirit would only come on those whom the apostles laid hands on - and not on those who simply believed and were baptized...


Uh, St. Paul simply believed and was baptized by Ananias in Damascus, and we read of no Apostle ever laying hands on him.

So St. Paul never had the Holy Spirit indwell in him?

Jeepers, but this is 'New Doctrine'!

Had it been necessary that any Apostle lay hands on the newly-baptized St. Paul, we would have been told about it.

Heck, St. Paul would have told us about it!

But he didn't, and neither did St. Luke who wrote of the Conversion of St. Paul in Acts.

What gives?

The original Gospel not sufficient for His Purposes that we should make up our own?

Eric The(Stunned)Hun
Link Posted: 12/29/2005 2:03:15 PM EDT
Infant baptism in the RCC is by water. Confirmation is baptism by the Holy Spirit.

Jesus instructed us to do both.

However, it is not neccessary to enter Heaven as the thief on the cross proved, but if one is able to do so nd they do not, then it is heavily frowned upon.

Link Posted: 12/29/2005 2:22:40 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 12/29/2005 2:23:31 PM EDT by EricTheHun]

Originally Posted By DarkHalf:
However, it is not neccessary to enter Heaven as the thief on the cross proved, but if one is able to do so nd they do not, then it is heavily frowned upon.


The only thing that the Penitent Thief on the cross proved is that God could forgive the sins of anyone who sinned and died under the Law as He wished.

New Covenant = New Rules.

Eric The(IftheOldHadBeenFaultlessWhyDidWeNeedTheNe­w?)Hun
Link Posted: 12/29/2005 2:25:45 PM EDT
which law?

Again, in Acts Jesus instructs His apostile to be baptized of water and of the Holy Spirit.

You keep picking and choosing which parts of scripture you want to believe all the while claiming you are a sctrict interpiter of the N.T.

Which is it?

Link Posted: 12/29/2005 3:07:32 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 12/29/2005 3:16:54 PM EDT by ZitiForBreakfast]
Shane,


As far as Jesus' teaching about being born of water, you have no basis for your speculation that it is merely a "spiritual" reference other than your own desire to reject the commandment to be baptised.


Can you prove me wrong? When we have discourse (if the far off shooting chance where ones own doctrine, weather right or wrong, is 'the only way to salvation' can acutually be discussed), what do I need? Do I need a PHD? An MDIV? Do I need to be published? What? What is that you have other than your own presuppositions (the same as me) to say I am wrong.

I do not reject Baptisim, if I did, I wouldn't have been baptised in the Upper Gauley. What I do reject is when people say it is a MUST for salvation. THAT IS WRONG.

Should we just ignore Romans 10?

I can see how one can be confused in the text of Gods word in the good book....Heck, I am still confused about a few things.
Link Posted: 12/29/2005 5:25:55 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 12/29/2005 5:31:57 PM EDT by TWIRE]

Originally Posted By EricTheHun:

Originally Posted By JusAdBellum:
The spirit would only come on those whom the apostles laid hands on - and not on those who simply believed and were baptized...


Uh, St. Paul simply believed and was baptized by Ananias in Damascus, and we read of no Apostle ever laying hands on him.

So St. Paul never had the Holy Spirit indwell in him?

Jeepers, but this is 'New Doctrine'!

Had it been necessary that any Apostle lay hands on the newly-baptized St. Paul, we would have been told about it.

Heck, St. Paul would have told us about it!

But he didn't, and neither did St. Luke who wrote of the Conversion of St. Paul in Acts.



Paul did have "laying on of hands." But no doubt you will remind us that Ananias was not an apostle.

Acts 9:10 There was a disciple in Damascus named Ananias, and the Lord said to him in a vision, "Ananias." He answered, "Here I am, Lord." 11 The Lord said to him, "Get up and go to the street called Straight and ask at the house of Judas for a man from Tarsus named Saul. He is there praying, 12 and (in a vision) he has seen a man named Ananias come in and lay (his) hands on him, that he may regain his sight."

13 But Ananias replied, "Lord, I have heard from many sources about this man, what evil things he has done to your holy ones in Jerusalem. 14 And here he has authority from the chief priests to imprison all who call upon your name." 15 But the Lord said to him, "Go, for this man is a chosen instrument of mine to carry my name before Gentiles, kings, and Israelites, 16 and I will show him what he will have to suffer for my name."

17 So Ananias went and entered the house; laying his hands on him, he said, "Saul, my brother, the Lord has sent me, Jesus who appeared to you on the way by which you came, that you may regain your sight and be filled with the holy Spirit."



What gives?

The original Gospel not sufficient for His Purposes that we should make up our own?

Eric The(Stunned)Hun



I believe JusAdBellum was referencing

Acts 8:14 Now when the apostles in Jerusalem heard that Samaria had accepted the word of God, they sent them Peter and John, 15 who went down and prayed for them, that they might receive the holy Spirit, 16 for it had not yet fallen upon any of them; they had only been baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus. 17 Then they laid hands on them and they received the holy Spirit.

Despite baptism the Samaritans did not receive the holy Spirit until the apostles laid hands upon them.

Carry on. Don't mind me.
Link Posted: 12/29/2005 6:02:26 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 12/29/2005 6:07:39 PM EDT by WildBoar]

Originally Posted By ZitiForBreakfast:
Seems like they all turn out this way....





+ 1 I think both parties made their points. Its only going to get ugly now.



to keep in the topic. I will Baptize my children when they ask. As far as me? I was dead and then the Holy Spirit resurrected me. Because of that I ended up being baptized. I was baptized because God first gave me life from my spiritual death. all glory goes to Him, for I dare not try to share in His glory of my salvation. It was all of Him and none of me and I am thankful to be able to say that. I hated God , I rebelled at every opportunity adn I did not want anything to do with Him. I was saved against my will.

THANK YOU GOD for eternity.
Link Posted: 12/30/2005 4:08:53 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 12/30/2005 4:10:29 AM EDT by EricTheHun]

Originally Posted By TWIRE:

Originally Posted By EricTheHun:

Originally Posted By JusAdBellum:
The spirit would only come on those whom the apostles laid hands on - and not on those who simply believed and were baptized...


Uh, St. Paul simply believed and was baptized by Ananias in Damascus, and we read of no Apostle ever laying hands on him.

So St. Paul never had the Holy Spirit indwell in him?

Jeepers, but this is 'New Doctrine'!

Had it been necessary that any Apostle lay hands on the newly-baptized St. Paul, we would have been told about it.

Heck, St. Paul would have told us about it!

But he didn't, and neither did St. Luke who wrote of the Conversion of St. Paul in Acts.



Paul did have "laying on of hands." But no doubt you will remind us that Ananias was not an apostle.


It appears that you don't need to be reminded.

You already KNOW that Ananias was NOT an Apostle!



It is my considered opinion that all of this sort of 'tripe' (one of my favorite words), is to make some new Believers think that they need someone else in obtaining their Eternal Salvation.

Holy Hogwash!

All anyone needs is Jesus.

And the efficacy of the Sacrament of Baptism is NOT dependent in any manner upon the identity or the quality of he who administers the 'Bath of Regeneration', but simply upon Jesus, Himself.

He said do it, we believe it, and it doesn't matter who administers it.

Requiring 'Apostles', 'priests', 'rabbis', 'ordained ministers', whoever, is simply a matter of exercising control over the church of Christ...which Jesus never authorized.


Acts 9:10 There was a disciple in Damascus named Ananias....

- snip -



I know the story very well, thank you.

I believe JusAdBellum was referencing....

- snip -



Yes, I believe that was the Passage that he was referencing, as well.

(These verses may be new to you, but they are not to me.)

Despite baptism the Samaritans did not receive the holy Spirit until the apostles laid hands upon them.

We know nothing about who may have baptized these Samaritans 'in the Name of Jesus', but the fact remained that these Samaritans had not received the Holy Spirit in some manner.

And that is all we know...or told.

Carry on. Don't mind me.

Well, with your permission, then.

Eric The(FirstCentury)Hun
Link Posted: 12/30/2005 4:16:15 AM EDT
In the spring of 1986 I accepted Yeshua as my Lord and Savior.

It was several months later that I was baptized.

At which point was I saved and under grace?

I am convinced that it was when I made the decision to accept Him. I do not believe that it was the baptism that made me a Christian. My baptism was a public confession of the faith I had practiced for those previous months.
Link Posted: 12/30/2005 5:12:48 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 12/30/2005 5:14:38 AM EDT by EricTheHun]

Originally Posted By Brohawk:
At which point was I saved and under grace?


At the point when you either died, or were alive when the Lord Returns on Judgment Day, and the Lord says to you, 'Enter in.'

You are not 'saved' on this planet.

You are 'saved' on Judgment Day.

There's many a slip 'twixt cup and lip, between the day you were baptized and the Day on which you are to be judged.

Or do you think 'Once Saved, Always Saved®' is correct Christian Doctrine?

BTW, we are all 'under Grace.'

(Some more than others, it appears. )

Eric The(Graceful)Hun
Link Posted: 12/30/2005 6:04:27 AM EDT

Originally Posted By EricTheHun:

Originally Posted By Brohawk:
At which point was I saved and under grace?


At the point when you either died, or were alive when the Lord Returns on Judgment Day, and the Lord says to you, 'Enter in.'

You are not 'saved' on this planet.

You are 'saved' on Judgment Day.

There's many a slip 'twixt cup and lip, between the day you were baptized and the Day on which you are to be judged.

Or do you think 'Once Saved, Always Saved®' is correct Christian Doctrine?

BTW, we are all 'under Grace.'

(Some more than others, it appears. )

Eric The(Graceful)Hun



I guess we differ in how we define that term.

I am forgiven, washed clean of my sins by the blood of the Lamb. I am born again into new life in the Spirit, leaving the old man behind. I am an adopted son of my Heavenly Father, an heir to his kingdom. Although I still struggle with sin, I am not ruled by it. I have an Advocate with the Father. I know that when I pass from this world I will enter into the house He has prepared for me. I have assurance from Him that I am His, sealed by the Holy Spirit for that day which you mentioned. And the most amazing thing is that He chose me. Wow.

That's where I stand.
Link Posted: 12/30/2005 6:24:51 AM EDT
As we are told by Jesus in His Discourse of the Sheep and the Goats, there will be many who will think themselves 'saved' on that Day of Judgment, who will be rudely turned away by the Lord...

Not every one that saith unto me, Lord, Lord, shall enter into the kingdom of heaven; but he that doeth the will of my Father which is in heaven. Matthew 7:21

And again, in the more lengthy description give by Jesus in Chapter 25 of Matthew...

You will be rewarded or damned according to your deeds on earth....according to Jesus.

And that's where I stand.

Eric The(Eternal,ForBetterOrWorse)Hun
Link Posted: 12/30/2005 7:10:30 AM EDT

Originally Posted by EricTheHun:
It is my considered opinion that all of this sort of 'tripe' (one of my favorite words), is to make some new Believers think that they need someone else in obtaining their Eternal Salvation.

Holy Hogwash!

All anyone needs is Jesus.

And the efficacy of the Sacrament of Baptism is NOT dependent in any manner upon the identity or the quality of he who administers the 'Bath of Regeneration', but simply upon Jesus, Himself.

He said do it, we believe it, and it doesn't matter who administers it.

Requiring 'Apostles', 'priests', 'rabbis', 'ordained ministers', whoever, is simply a matter of exercising control over the church of Christ...which Jesus never authorized.

-snip-

(These verses may be new to you, but they are not to me.)



I've tried to digest the tripe on this Forum before, but it won't stay down. Before you 'turn' the discussion any further (lawyers!!, arggh).....

Maybe I missed the point of JusAdBellum's post. I thought that he was making the point that Baptism and Confirmation (laying on of hands), although simultaneously celebrated, are not necessarily representative of a single event. I believe that the scripture bears that out, both in the case of the Samaritans and Saul's conversion.

I can't get a grip on your seeming disdain for any and all church heirachy. And I have always been taught that Baptism can be administered by any believer, but preferably the priest. As for confirmation (did you ever make it that far in the RCC?), the rites differ in who administers. Most often the bishop, in some rites the baptising priest immediately follows with 'laying on of hands.'

And, yeah, those verses are new to me......since about 2nd grade!!



Despite baptism the Samaritans did not receive the holy Spirit until the apostles laid hands upon them.

We know nothing about who may have baptized these Samaritans 'in the Name of Jesus', but the fact remained that these Samaritans had not received the Holy Spirit in some manner.


That would superficially seem to be in contradiction to your earlier statements. Does it now matter 'who' baptised them?
Link Posted: 12/30/2005 7:40:45 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 12/30/2005 7:43:51 AM EDT by EricTheHun]
Originally Posted By TWIRE:

Maybe I missed the point of JusAdBellum's post. I thought that he was making the point that Baptism and Confirmation (laying on of hands), although simultaneously celebrated, are not necessarily representative of a single event. I believe that the scripture bears that out, both in the case of the Samaritans and Saul's conversion.

I don't know of any Biblical 'Confirmation', so I cannot answer when that might occur.

I can't get a grip on your seeming disdain for any and all church heirachy.

I love the church 'heirarchy' that existed in the days of the Early Church.

Each individual congregation had Elders, Presbyters, or Bishops (the words are interchangeable) that oversaw their own particular church body.

And these Elders govern their individual congregation with the assistance of deacons, and others.

Our central 'government', if you will, however, is NOT in Jerusalem, nor in Rome, nor in Texas or Tennessee, but in Heaven.

And Jesus Christ is the Head of the Church that bears His Name.

Always has been, always will be.

And I have always been taught that Baptism can be administered by any believer...

Good enough!

That would superficially seem to be in contradiction to your earlier statements. Does it now matter 'who' baptised them?

It depends upon when they were baptized....as can be seen from this passage from Acts 19:

And it came to pass, that, while Apollos was at Corinth, Paul having passed through the upper coasts came to Ephesus: and finding certain disciples,

He said unto them, Have ye received the Holy Ghost since ye believed? And they said unto him, We have not so much as heard whether there be any Holy Ghost.

And he said unto them, Unto what then were ye baptized? And they said, Unto John's baptism.

Then said Paul, John verily baptized with the baptism of repentance, saying unto the people, that they should believe on him which should come after him, that is, on Christ Jesus.

When they heard this, they were baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus.

And when Paul had laid his hands upon them, the Holy Ghost came on them; and they spake with tongues, and prophesied.
Acts 19:1-6

'Unto John's Baptism', these men answered St. Paul...and we know that while Jesus was yet alive and with His Disciples, they likewise baptized many....

When therefore the LORD knew how the Pharisees had heard that Jesus made and baptized more disciples than John,

(Though Jesus himself baptized not, but his disciples,)

He left Judaea, and departed again into Galilee.
John 4:1-3

Hmmm, the Disciples of Jesus were baptizing more converts than John the Baptist?

Into Whose Name were these converts being Baptized by the Disciples?

Yet, the Holy Spirit had not yet descended as He did at Pentecost....so these newly baptized souls could NOT have received the Gift of the Holy Spirit in the manner of those on Pentecost and afterwards.

These are the very folks to whom the Passage quoted by JusAdbellum referred...those who were either baptized by John or by the Disciples of Jesus prior to His death, Burial and Resurrection.

Next question, please...

Eric The(Grounded)Hun
Link Posted: 12/30/2005 8:45:36 AM EDT

Originally Posted By EricTheHun:

And Jesus Christ is the Head of the Church that bears His Name.

Always has been, always will be.

Eric The(Grounded)Hun



CORRECT!!


Mat 16:18 And I say also unto thee, That thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.

Mat 16:19 And I will give unto thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt bind on earth shall be bound in heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.


and...........

1Pe 5:12 By Silvanus, a faithful brother unto you, as I suppose, I have written briefly, exhorting, and testifying that this is the true grace of God wherein ye stand.

1Pe 5:13 The [church that is] at Babylon, elected together with [you], saluteth you; and [so doth] Marcus my son.


1Pe 5:14 Greet ye one another with a kiss of charity. Peace [be] with you all that are in Christ Jesus. Amen.



The name of that church is CATHOLIC, which means universal (that means everyone btw), also know as Jesus' Bride.


You are welcome back any time you want.

Bring a Q-tip.

Link Posted: 12/30/2005 8:47:18 AM EDT

Originally Posted By Brohawk:
In the spring of 1986 I accepted Yeshua as my Lord and Savior.

It was several months later that I was baptized.

At which point was I saved and under grace?

I am convinced that it was when I made the decision to accept Him. I do not believe that it was the baptism that made me a Christian. My baptism was a public confession of the faith I had practiced for those previous months.



By golly he's GOT IT!

Link Posted: 12/30/2005 8:57:37 AM EDT

Originally Posted By EricTheHun:

Our central 'government', if you will, however, is NOT in Jerusalem, nor in Rome, nor in Texas or Tennessee, but in Heaven.

And Jesus Christ is the Head of the Church that bears His Name.

Always has been, always will be.


No argument, from me or Rome as to who is in charge.

From your second favorite book:

669 As Lord, Christ is also head of the Church, which is his Body. Taken up to heaven and glorified after he had thus fully accomplished his mission, Christ dwells on earth in his Church. The redemption is the source of the authority that Christ, by virtue of the Holy Spirit, exercises over the Church. "The kingdom of Christ [is] already present in mystery", "on earth, the seed and the beginning of the kingdom".

The myriad of denominations, and splintering of church communities speaks to the lack of earthly hierarchy.



It depends upon when they were baptized....as can be seen from this passage from Acts 19:

-snip-



I see your point. I think its a stretch, but it is arguable.

Arrow Left Previous Page
Page / 2
Top Top