|
Post by evanschaible on Apr 9, 2006 9:12:15 GMT -5
All I know is that If someone asks me, "do I need to be baptized?" I am not going to tell them, "If you want to, it doesnt matter." Why is that? Becuase Jesus commanded us to be baptized. Argu if you like, but dont argue with me, argue with Jesus, he said it.
|
|
|
Post by tomah on Apr 9, 2006 10:10:01 GMT -5
All I know is that If someone asks me, "do I need to be baptized?" I am not going to tell them, "If you want to, it doesnt matter." Why is that? Becuase Jesus commanded us to be baptized. Argu if you like, but dont argue with me, argue with Jesus, he said it. No, what you're saying here is different. I agree with what you're saying here. However, the emphasis upon baptism for salvation is error. If it was as necessary as you say, the thief on the cross could have been baptised. The apostle John was there, he could have went over and baptised via pouring or sprinkling like I believe Saul (Paul) was baptised by Ananias.
|
|
|
Post by evanschaible on Apr 9, 2006 10:19:58 GMT -5
Brother, you did not read my long post did you? Paul was not baptized by sprinkling, why did he have to "arise"? You say you are reformed, but yet you believe in infant baptism and sprinkling? Is there not a contradiction there? Brother, you are not going to convince me of somethig that is not in the word of God, show me in scripture where baptism is not neesary? Please, like I said, if I am wrong I will humbly admit my error, I am fallible just like anyone else, but please, show me my error.
|
|
|
Post by tomah on Apr 9, 2006 10:35:17 GMT -5
Brother, you did not read my long post did you? Paul was not baptized by sprinkling, why did he have to "arise"? You say you are reformed, but yet you believe in infant baptism and sprinkling? Is there not a contradiction there? . Brother, read more reformed literature. Even just the Westminster Confession of Faith which is the pinacle of reformed doctrine outlined. Most reformers believed in infant baptism and sprinkling, pouring and immersion all as valid modes of baptism. Plus, I haven't said that I believe these things, I am just setting forth thoughts taken from the scriptures. As far as Paul, he hadn't eaten or drank in three days so he was weak. They were in a very dry city, and there most certainly would not be a tank or an accessible place of water deep enough for immersion, and all it says was that he " arose and was baptised" it does not say he arose and went to be baptised. He was baptised where he was at.
|
|
|
Post by Kerrigan on Apr 9, 2006 11:11:47 GMT -5
I believe that you have to be baptised in the name of Jesus only to be saved. I'm beginning to lean more toward the Oneness theology. It just seems to make since. You were starting to scare me their brother...
|
|
|
Post by evanschaible on Apr 9, 2006 11:26:57 GMT -5
What is oneness threology? Isnt that where they believe that only Jesus name needs to be ued in baptism?
|
|
|
Post by evanschaible on Apr 9, 2006 11:27:39 GMT -5
Armen, explaon Mark 16:16 then brother.
|
|
|
Post by Kerrigan on Apr 9, 2006 12:53:16 GMT -5
What is oneness threology? Isnt that where they believe that only Jesus name needs to be ued in baptism? Yes...they believe that, deny the Orthodox view of the Trinity and believe that you MUST speak in tongues in order to be saved...among many other blasphemous things... But, just to make clear Evan, you know Tony was JOKING, right? ;D
|
|
|
Post by Tony Denham on Apr 9, 2006 22:08:35 GMT -5
ITGFY Kerrigan ;D
|
|
|
Post by evanschaible on Apr 11, 2006 12:14:24 GMT -5
RevK, Armen, again I come to you with the humble plea to put aside what man has told you and examine what the Bible actually says. I will again use the commentary by James Coffman because like I said before, you obviously don't respect my opinion. Think of this first and foremost, Why would Jesus have included a non-essential in the great commission?
“Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost.” (Matt. 28:19)
“Go ye into all the world and preach the gospel to every creature, he that believeth and in baptized shall be saved; but he that believeth not shall be damned.” (Mark 16:16)
From these two verses, we begin to see the importance of baptism. And again I ask, would you tell someone that they didn’t need to be baptized even though Jesus said they did? You say baptism is works in disguise, then let us take that a step further. Is repentance ‘works in disguise”? After all, we have to do it in order to be saved. Repentance is a gift of God, and so is baptism. Think of Jesus words to Nicodemus…
“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.” (John 3:5)
James Coffman says of John 3:5, “Paraphrased, this statement means that unless one obeys the gospel of Jesus Christ by believing in him, repenting of sin, confessing his name, and being baptized into Jesus Christ (no genuine baptism is possible without the three antecedents mentioned here), and as a consequence of such obedience, receives the Holy Spirit, he can never enter God's kingdom, i.e., he cannot be saved.”
I agree with Coffman, even if you call me a heretic.
Phillip Schaff said this, “In view of the facts that John baptized, that Christ himself was baptized, that his disciples baptized in his name it seems impossible to disconnect water in John 3:5, from baptism. Calvin's interpretation arose from doctrinal opposition to the Roman Catholic over-valuation of the sacrament, which must be guarded against in another way.”
Coffman continues, this time upon the subject of baptismal regeneration, “Most of the bitterest denunciations against what Jesus taught here are actually directed against a straw man called "baptismal regeneration," in which it is continually affirmed that water cannot save anyone; but, of course, no one supposes that it can. No efficacy was ever attributed to the water, even by the staunchest defenders of what Jesus here clearly made a precondition of salvation. Fulminations against baptismal regeneration might have been relevant in Calvin's day, when that scholar attacked the Medieval superstition that a few drops of water sprinkled religiously upon a dead infant could save a soul; but those arguments by Calvin are not relevant arguments against Christ's promise that "He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved"
Did any other scholars support this theology? Yes they did, to name a few, Origen, Chrysostom, Augustine, Cyril, Beda, Theophylact, Euthymius, along with Justin Martyr, Tertullian, Ambrose, Hierome, Basil, Gregory, Wesley, The Westminster confession and Nyssen. To this James Coffman says, “It cannot be denied, therefore, that all interpretations that would edit any reference to baptism out of this text are too late by centuries, to have any weight at all with people who wish to know what the word of the Lord teaches.”
But past these things brothers, I do believe that you are the ones deceived. In that you deny the necessity of baptism, you openly and blatantly deny the authority of Christ. I cannot and will not stand idle while the word of God is distorted in such a sickening manner. I thank God that some of the brothers on this board have opened my eyes to the unscriptural nature of many of John Calvin’s interpretations of the holy word. But even further we can look into Romans chapter 6, which further illustrates the unscriptural nature of the heresy that you promote. Please offer me your interpretation of John 3:5, Romans 6, and Mark 16:16.
I will wait to further refute your teaching until you have honestly read my previous post (the long one) and have honestly taken a look at what you believe. And my humble extension of an open ear to what you have to say still stands, as men are fallible and are never right in all points. But thus far you have not offered anything beside telling me I am wrong. John 3:5 is rock solid evidence of the necessity of baptism. I cannot say any different because my Master said it.
|
|
|
Post by tomah on Apr 11, 2006 13:23:16 GMT -5
I say again, You said that if circumstances make it impossible for one to be baptised, then God will overlook that and they'll be ok, like deathbed repentance, thief on the cross, etc. But here you are placing baptism along with repentance and faith. So I ask the question, if circumstances of ignorance make someone unaware of their need to have faith in Christ, but they repent and are baptised, will God overlook it and accept them into Heaven? ONE MUST KNOW THAT THEY NEED TO BELIEVE ON CHRIST! If you don't know, you CANNOT be saved even though your excuse is ignorance. Or if someone doesn't realise that they need to repent, but they believe and are baptised, does God overlook that and accept them? ONE MUST KNOW THAT THEY NEED TO REPENT! Again, if you don't know, you CANNOT be saved even though your excuse is ignorance. If God does not make exceptions for no faith or no repentance, than WHY should he make exceptions for no baptism if it is necessary to salvation?? ONE MUST KNOW THAT THEY NEED TO BE BAPTISED. If you are ignorant of baptism can you be saved?? There are two ABSOLUTES, not three, that result in salvation. PROOF of genuine conversion is OBEDIENCE, so therefore one WILL live a holy life and be baptised....but this ultimately isn't what saves...it is the FRUIT of salvation!! John 3:5 - water = Word of God. Backed up by, Eph 5:26 "That he might sanctify and cleanse it with the washing of water by the word" The word water here is figurative, just like fire in the verse, "he shall baptise you with the Holy Ghost and with fire". It isn't LITERAL fire, neither is it literal water. It denotes spiritual cleansing which the Word of God does, it cleanses us, showing us our sin and guiding us into paths of holiness. 1 Pet 1:23 "Being born again, not of corruptible seed, but of incorruptible, by the word of God, which liveth and abideth for ever." Notice this verse mentions the necessity of the scripture in order to be saved, NOT water! Same is noted here, "Of his own will begat he us with the word of truth, that we should be a kind of firstfruits of his creatures." James 1:18 If "water" in John 3:5 means water baptism then logically ALL who have died unbaptised after this was said, died and went to Hell, including the penitent thief. PLUS, if this meant water baptism, HOW could Jesus have rebuked Nicodemus for not knowing these things?? How could he know about it? he was an expert in the OT as Jesus was aware, but baptism is not in the OT so how could he be expected to know? Mark 16:16 - this verse shows the IMPORTANCE of baptism, but not the necessity. Baptismal water conveys NO grace. It is a commandment of our Lord and no doubt he blesses us when we obey, like in anything else,. Notice in the latter part of the verse it DOESN'T say, 'he that is not baptised, shall be damned'?? This is significant. Romans 6 - haven't time to go into it. NOTE - How could Paul have begotten people through the gospel (1 Cor 4:14) when he baptised NONE (1 Cor 1:14,17) According to you, he couldn't have been their spiritual father unless he baptised them after their repentance and faith!
|
|
|
Post by Evan on Apr 12, 2006 13:44:21 GMT -5
Brother, Let's now stop this thread. I am sorry if you dont like what the Bible says. Paul may not if baptized, but someone did or they disoebeyed Jesus. Sorry brother, you didnt read anything I wrote previously. No one ever claimed that the water held any magical power. In fact I said the exact opposite.
I am tired of people taking the extreme path of refutation. If someone is tied to a pole, converted and never baptized becaue they were tied to a pole their whole life, would God send them to hell? Most likeley not. If you were never baptized with ample opporutunity to do so, would you go to hell? Most likely because your so called 'faith' couldnt even lead you to obediance to Jesus.
The theif on the cross was haging there NEXT TO THE VERY ONE THAT GAVE THE MANDATE. Not only that but the great commission was not yet given. Simon magus dudnt believe, therfore went to hell. You go ahead and preach your libertine gospel, I will preach obedience.
|
|
|
Post by tomah on Apr 12, 2006 17:38:22 GMT -5
Westcott is hardly a reliable source. I work with a guy that 'believes' with his head, but due to fear of his wife and friends he'll not believe with his whole heart.
Not true. The bible does not indicate that Paul was on the verge of conversion prior to his meeting with the Lord. Almost immediately cried, "Lord...." showing his instant conversion from a Christ rejecter to a Christian!
I read most of what you wrote..till I got this far. What utter trash is being spued out here!! For a start, wher does it say WHAT Saul was praying for and WHAT or WHERE did this "...and wash away thy sins" quote come from?? It's not in the Bible!! If it is what this person believes, far enough, but to quote it like scripture is utter lies!! After reading this I couldn't read submit myself to read anymore.
I was quickly trying to think of an analogy about faith and works. Shake an unopened bottle of Pepsi. Open it. You will be guaranteed fizz. Whether fizz came or not, the bottle is still open but there is no question....you WILL get fizz! Likewise you WILL get works. Faith doesn't so much 'produce' works, but it 'drives' out works. This is a crude analogy, however I don't think it really matters. You have quoted reams of stuff that doesn't make sense (you NEED to be baptised to get to heaven, yet you don't if the circumstances don't allow it). For salvation you NEED faith, you NEED repentance (without them you perish) and if you NEED to be baptised then you NEED IT. Justification is black and white. There is only one way to be justified (saved) and it's either a combination of repentance, faith and baptism, OR it's just repentance and faith, it can't be both!
|
|
|
Post by tomah on Apr 12, 2006 17:49:15 GMT -5
I like this brother:
You see, you cannot be sure. Poor souls not sure whether their saved or not, lying on their deathbeds, have been Christians all their lives and then someone like you comes along and says that unless they were baptised when they had the opportunity to be, then they cannot have been saved. So the person lying there who has lived and witnessed and preached for Christ for 50 years lies there and doesn't know whether he's been saved all those years because he never got baptised and so after you convince him that he must not have been, he then gets saved on his deathbed, realising that everything he did for Christ was works of the flesh because he never was converted in the first place!! What nonsense!
John 3:5 was given which according to you is referring to baptism, so it really doesn't matter that the Great Commission hadn't been given, according to you the necessity to be baptised was already pronounced!
|
|
|
Post by Evan on Apr 13, 2006 9:57:44 GMT -5
"And now why tarriest thou? Arise, and be baptized and wash away thy sins, calling on the name of the Lord." Acts 22:16
You see brother, how can I trust what you say?
|
|
|
Post by evanschaible on Apr 13, 2006 10:08:52 GMT -5
"Why tarriest thou? arise, and be baptized, and wash away thy sins, calling on the name of the Lord." Acts 22:16
It surely is in my Bible, what translation do you read?
This qoute alone from you makes me hesitant to belive what you say. You are right, justifacation is black and white. The preconditions of salvation are faith, repentance and baptism. All are one, meaning that without one the entire system fails. The synecdoche of faith means exactly what brother Coffman said it does.
The fact that God knows the heart and everything about our lives, and knows us better than we know ourselves is not conradictory. He knows why we werent baptized if we werent, and if it was from disobediance than it is off to hell for you. There is no part time service in the Christian life, it is either all or nothing. And again I ask that you study yourself, in an unbiased way, to show yourself approved.
I am grieved that we cannot reason together, I have honeslty read what you have to say, and I have honestly put what you say alongside scripture to see if your claims are true. However, I dont think you have done me the same honor. I love you brother, and I heartly hope that you will at least examine these things.
It was not my goal to start something like this. Division is not the goal, the truth is my goal. Even is the truth is unpopular, that doesnt make it any less truthful. I apologize for making you angry, and I hope that these things will not hinder any further discussion.
|
|
|
Post by tomah on Apr 13, 2006 16:24:07 GMT -5
truely rebuked! Accept my sincerest apologies for that Evan, I cannot stress how much I am sorry for what I said there. The only time I was upset was when I though the guy was misquoting scripture, so me being annoyed is because of my own foolishness and ignorance, other than that I am not annoyed. However, like Matthew Henry, I feel that verse indicates, "Be baptized, and rest not in the sign, but make sure of the thing signified, the putting away of the filth of sin." I understand what you're saying about God knowing the heart, but it just doesn't tally to place baptism as important as repentance and faith. Many really sincere Roman Catholics are baptised and repent of their sins but they lack faith based alone upon the merits of Christ. Will God overlook their ignorance and see the sincerety of their heart knowing that they never heard the 'truth' (like believers who don't get the opportunity to get baptised) and accept them into Heaven? This discussion has definately made me recognise the importance of baptism alot more, but cannot see where our eternal destination rests upon the sacrament.
|
|
|
Post by evanschaible on Apr 13, 2006 16:38:54 GMT -5
I admire your humility brother, and like I said, I sincerely love you. I may put to much emphasis on it. But either way I think that we both agree that baptism is important.
Oh, by the way, I am not Roamn Catholic. I quite enjoy protestantism ;D ;D
|
|