Infant Baptism!
Morph.
a single record of an infant baptism. Every example of baptism are of those
who have heard the gospel preached and became believers.
So the NT teaching is - faith must always precede baptism, it is an act of
faith, and
obedience, as well as a public demonstration of the decision to accept
Christ as Lord and Saviour.
Therefore only those old enough to understand and
believe the gospel should be baptised. An infant should not be baptised as
an
act of faith.
Infant baptism is also dangerous because the infant becomes an
adult who falsely believes he has been properly baptised and is saved, and
therefore doesn't feel the need to be authentically baptised for a true
salvation. It's tragic.
Literally millions have been deceived and given a
false hope of salvation by infant baptism.
Oh! the evil deception of such useless deceived sects, and deluded
denominations.
Greeting in the Lord.
Morph.
Hiscoming
"Morph." <zygotically....@virgin.net> wrote in message
news:rsbj8.28029$y76.3...@news6-win.server.ntlworld.com...
about all these denominational traditions that do not comply with the
scriptures no matter how we explain them.
I know you need to believe, know what you are doing before you get baptised.
Libertarius
> In the Bible there are examples of families being baptised, but there is not
> a single record of an infant baptism. Every example of baptism are of those
> who have heard the gospel preached and became believers.
===>So, what?
It is just a ritual that has been practiced in various ways by many different
peoples and many different religions. If some people believe it is necessary
so their kids will go to heaven in case they die, why not?
Libertarius
============
Libertarius
> In the Bible there are examples of families being baptised, but there is not
> a single record of an infant baptism. Every example of baptism are of those
> who have heard the gospel preached and became believers.
===>So, what?
Gary Avrett
disease was taking the lives of infants. I guess they thought an infant must
be baptized so in case of death they could enter heaven. I do not believe
this but am only passing on what I have been told by Catholic Priests.
Gary
"Morph." <zygotically....@virgin.net> wrote in message
news:rsbj8.28029$y76.3...@news6-win.server.ntlworld.com...
Timothy
'sprinkled' as a baby, but grew up to be an adult who believes in total
immersion *after* coming to Faith. Problem is, although my Church
(Anglican) does offer total immersion believers baptisms, it refuses to
're-baptise' those who have already been 'sprinkled', which the Church
recognise as a valid baptism even though I do not! Instead they try to
compromise by offering an 'Affirmation' service which can involve a
'dunking', but they refuse to call it a 'baptism'. Consequently, in order
to get properly baptised (as I see it) I had to go in fellowship with the
Baptist Church for a time, and get baptised there. (They seem to have no
hang-ups about re-baptising). Later I became Confirmed Anglican (they
recognising the 'sprinkling', me recognising the immersion, I now wait to
see which one God recognises). But I still disagree with infant baptism, as
the candidate has no say in it whatsoever. At the very least, I feel that
the Church should permit the individual to be baptised after confessing
Christ as Lord, even if they have already been 'sprinkled'.
Jesus said to suffer the little children to come unto him, and not to hinder
them, as the kingdom of heaven belongs to such as these. It is therefore
unrealistic to suppose that the same Jesus is going to condemn little
children who die too young to understand or believe, just because they
haven't been baptised. Whatever God does, it will be Righteous and Just.
That's all we can know for sure. I also think that the person who genuinely
believes that their 'sprinkling' was a valid baptism (perhaps it is, God
knows. But the Bible seems to suggest believers baptism), would not be
condemned for it, as if there is an error, it is the Church in error and not
the individual personally, who is following his church's teaching in good
faith.
Any way, that's the 'why not', Libertarius, the Church takes away the
individual's choice, if they've been 'sprinkled' against their will when the
y later grow up and come to Faith.
(This is the one issue where I disagree with the Anglican Church, as I
believe total immersion believers' baptism should be available to all, in
line with the Scriptural model. Infant baptism is retained in Article 27 of
the 39 Articles of Religion).
Timothy <><
"Have patience! God hasn't finished with me yet!"
"Libertarius" <The_Truth_The_Whole_Truth@Nothing_But_The.Truth> wrote in
message news:3C8D8281.61A6731F@Nothing_But_The.Truth...
FP
so be it--then for them it is necessary. Jesus baptizes with the Holy
Spirit, and when we come to know Him, that is when our new life "begins".
We need to remember that God looks at the heart; and He is the judge...not
any one of us.
:o)
"Libertarius" <The_Truth_The_Whole_Truth@Nothing_But_The.Truth> wrote in
message news:3C8D8281.61A6731F@Nothing_But_The.Truth...
Victor
"Gary Avrett" <garya...@attbi.com_nospam> wrote in message
news:iagj8.24800$af7.21082@rwcrnsc53...
How does this verse below fit with peoples theology, on baptism??
1Cor 15:29 Else what shall they do which are baptized for the dead, if the
dead rise not at all? why are they then baptized for the dead?
regards
Vic
Timothy
"Victor" <home...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote in message
>
> How does this verse below fit with peoples theology, on baptism??
> 1Cor 15:29 Else what shall they do which are baptized for the dead, if the
> dead rise not at all? why are they then baptized for the dead?
>
> regards
>
> Vic
>
Hi Vic, that's very interesting! I'd never really noticed that passage
before. I looked up the passage in my study bible (NIV) and the commentator
says the following:-
"15:29 those . . . who are baptized for the dead. The present tense
suggests that at Corinth people were currently being baptized for the dead.
But because Paul does not give any more information about the practice, many
attempts have been made to interpret the concept. Three of these are: 1.
Living believers were being baptized for believers who died before they were
baptized, so that they too, in a sense, would not miss out on baptism. 2.
Christians were being baptized in anticipation of the resurrection of the
dead. 3. New converts were being baptized to fill the ranks of Christians
who had died. At any rate, Paul mentions this custom almost in passing,
using it in his arguments substantiating the resurrection of the dead, but
without necessarily approving the practice. Probably the passage will always
remain obscure. "
So it seems that no-one really knows what was meant by it. Because Paul
mentioned it, it doesn't necessarily mean it was something he approved of.
Matthew Henry says:-
"What shall those do, who are baptized for the dead, if the dead rise not at
all? Perhaps baptism is used here in a figure, for afflictions, sufferings,
and martyrdom, as Matthew 20:22-23. What is, or will become of those who
have suffered many and great injuries, and have even lost their lives, for
this doctrine of the resurrection, if the dead rise not at all? Whatever
the meaning may be, doubtless the apostle's argument was understood by the
Corinthians."
Any one else on here can throw any light on this unusual passage of
Scripture?
Dave Oldridge
news:rsbj8.28029$y76.3...@news6-win.server.ntlworld.com:
I think you protest too much. The efficacy of the sacrament is not
dependent on the conscious decision of the infant to accept it, but on the
authority of the person performing the sacrament (which authority rests in
every Christian believer). The godparents, standing for the infant, agree
to take responsibility for the child's upbringing in the faith and nobody
should feel "saved" just because they have received any particular
sacrament. Salvation is something we cannot earn, which God gives us freely
IF WE ACCEPT IT. The sign of accepting it is the Christian life itself.
As the master has said, "by their fruits ye shall know them."
If infant baptism were some latter-day invention, you might well protest,
but it has been practised in the Church virtually from the beginning. Even
the rites established far from Rome and out of contact with her for tens of
centuries have it. This argument was settled in the 2nd century, if I'm not
mistaken.
--
Dave Oldridge
ICQ 1800667
============================================================================
==================
Paradoxically, nearly all real events are highly improbable
--me, 2000AD
Peter Besenbruch
<tim...@ntlworld.com> wrote:
>I was
>'sprinkled' as a baby, but grew up to be an adult who believes in total
>immersion *after* coming to Faith. Problem is, although my Church
>(Anglican) does offer total immersion believers baptisms, it refuses to
>'re-baptise' those who have already been 'sprinkled', which the Church
>recognise as a valid baptism even though I do not! Instead they try to
>compromise by offering an 'Affirmation' service which can involve a
>'dunking', but they refuse to call it a 'baptism'. Consequently, in order
>to get properly baptised (as I see it) I had to go in fellowship with the
>Baptist Church for a time, and get baptised there. (They seem to have no
>hang-ups about re-baptising). Later I became Confirmed Anglican (they
>recognising the 'sprinkling', me recognising the immersion, I now wait to
>see which one God recognises). But I still disagree with infant baptism, as
>the candidate has no say in it whatsoever. At the very least, I feel that
>the Church should permit the individual to be baptised after confessing
>Christ as Lord, even if they have already been 'sprinkled'.
A couple of things: Historically, baptism and confirmation are
closely related, often word for word. The promises made at
confirmation are the same that are made at baptism, only at
confirmation they are made by the person "confirming" their vows.
While water carries deep symbolic and theological significance,
what counts ultimately is how you live out your baptismal vows.
To get hung up on sprinkling verses immersion is to engage in
magical thinking.
__________________________________________________________
http://www.hawastsoc.org/ (Hawaiian Astronomical Society)
http://www.hawastsoc.org/deepsky/ (Deepsky Atlas)
Hiscoming
"Dave Oldridge" <dold...@leavethisout.hfx.eastlink.ca> wrote in message
news:Xns91CF80CA1E3C1...@142.77.1.194...
falling away from the truth. We should be careful the way of using our
denominational traditions which are not found in the scriptures for these
may deceive and hinder people from receiving the true salvation of God.
Children are brought for dedication, prayer and blessing before God. And as
they are growing up and reach the stage they can receive salvation, we
should preach the word to them. They should be allowed to voluntarily give
their life to Jesus and then be baptised.
Jim Docherty
"Morph." <zygotically....@virgin.net> wrote in message
news:rsbj8.28029$y76.3...@news6-win.server.ntlworld.com...
Scriptural interpretation conveniently ignore the words of Our Lord
Jesus written by Matthew.
You also choose to ignore the Sacraments, Baptism being but one, and
the legacy of Original sin. By all means choose your own (usually
flawed) interpretation but please refrain from calling Infant Baptism an
evil deception.
Read again Matthew 16: 17-19 paying particular attention to 'Whatever
you bind on earth shall be bound in Heaven'. And if you wish to challenge
the words of Jesus.........go for it!
Jim
PS Particularly you Morph with your 'false hope of salvation' crap!!
PPS Sola Scriptura leads to chaos.....please discuss!
Christ's Disciple
"Timothy" <tim...@ntlworld.com> wrote in message
news:pTpj8.37047$y76.3...@news6-win.server.ntlworld.com...
Hi! Tim.
The Christadelphian understanding of this passage is as follows.
----------------
This expression needs to be read in the light of it's context, and, when so
read, enables us to arrive at it's meaning without troubling about any
various renderings of the original.
Paul's whole argument and reasoning in 1 Cor.15 has to do with the reality
of Christ's resurrection, and that of those who are in him, and lest there
should be any in the Corinthian Ecclesia with a leaning to those who either
denied such, or who thought it was already past, he asks them to consider
their baptism into Christ, and points out how vain their hope is (verse 29)
"If the dead rise not" and how foolish to have been baptised into a dead
Christ, for such was so "If Christ be not raised" (verse 17) or "If the dead
rise not".
See also Romans 11:3.
"3 Know ye not, that so many of us as were baptized into Jesus Christ were
baptized into his death?
4 Therefore we are buried with him by baptism into death"
Romans 6:3-4 (KJV)
-----------------
Jeff...
Peter Besenbruch
<Jim.Do...@btinternet.com> wrote:
> Read again Matthew 16: 17-19 paying particular attention to 'Whatever
> you bind on earth shall be bound in Heaven'. And if you wish to challenge
> the words of Jesus.........go for it!
As Jesus said, "A plague on both your houses!" [g]
Morph.
"Hiscoming" <hisc...@btopenworld.com> wrote in message
news:a6lnfd$ioi$1...@paris.btinternet.com...
Hear! Hear!
> Children are brought for dedication, prayer and blessing before God. And
as
> they are growing up and reach the stage they can receive salvation, we
> should preach the word to them. They should be allowed to voluntarily give
> their life to Jesus and then be baptised.
Hear! Hear!
You have said it all for me......Thanks!
Jim Docherty
"Peter Besenbruch" <prb.nonl...@product.lava.net> wrote in message
news:onCOPJsEbxWvP3FayvsuUYYrYf=p...@4ax.com...
> On Tue, 12 Mar 2002 21:14:22 +0000 (UTC), "Jim Docherty"
> <Jim.Do...@btinternet.com> wrote:
>
> > Read again Matthew 16: 17-19 paying particular attention to 'Whatever
> > you bind on earth shall be bound in Heaven'. And if you wish to
challenge
> > the words of Jesus.........go for it!
>
> As Jesus said, "A plague on both your houses!" [g]
>
Your point being Peter ?
Jim Docherty
"Jim Docherty" <Jim.Do...@btinternet.com> wrote in message
news:a6lsrf$ouq$1...@helle.btinternet.com...
Morph.
> > Morph.
> >
> >
> > Infant Baptism is an evil deception is it?
Sure thing.
>You reformers who choose
> Scriptural interpretation conveniently ignore the words of Our Lord
> Jesus written by Matthew.
Didn't Jesus say in Mark. "Whoever believes and is baptized will be saved,
but whoever does not believe will be condemned."
Mark 16:16 (NIV)
How can baby infants believe?
> You also choose to ignore the Sacraments, Baptism being but one, and
> the legacy of Original sin. By all means choose your own (usually
> flawed) interpretation but please refrain from calling Infant Baptism
an
> evil deception.
Why! doesn't the truth of it appeal to you?
Infant sprinklings are not biblical and confer nothing but a death sentence
on it's unfortunate victim.
> Read again Matthew 16: 17-19 paying particular attention to 'Whatever
> you bind on earth shall be bound in Heaven'. And if you wish to
challenge
> the words of Jesus.........go for it!
Belief before baptism are Jesus' words, do you wish to challenge that?
> Jim
> PS Particularly you Morph with your 'false hope of salvation' crap!!
Never heard of that before, obviously you are not a Christian then?
> PPS Sola Scriptura leads to chaos.....please discuss!
Go ahead.
Timothy
"Peter Besenbruch" <prb.nonl...@product.lava.net> wrote in message <
<snip my bit>
>
> A couple of things: Historically, baptism and confirmation are
> closely related, often word for word. The promises made at
> confirmation are the same that are made at baptism, only at
> confirmation they are made by the person "confirming" their vows.
>
>
> While water carries deep symbolic and theological significance,
> what counts ultimately is how you live out your baptismal vows.
> To get hung up on sprinkling verses immersion is to engage in
> magical thinking.
I would agree, to an extent. But I still don't see the point in deviating
from the Scriptural model, almost 'just for the sake of it' !!
Burl Ratzsch
meaning of baptism extends far beyond the matter of "correct" modality.
Indeed, we can lose the meaning of the experience in arguing as to
modality - especially when it comes to using the issue as a club. Even in
the practice of "believer's baptism" by immersion, there is much more to
being validly baptized than the mere act of being immersed. The act is meant
to be demonstrate an act of commitment based upon faith and repentance,
without which the candidate becomes wet, but with little meaningful
implication.
If the physical act encompasses the entirety of purpose and intent within
baptism, one might well find spiritual value in falling off the dock. The
fact is that there are many unregenerate persons who have simply undergone a
ritual of adult immersion.
We need to think some things through.
Burl Ratzsch
*******
"Morph." <zygotically....@virgin.net> wrote in message
news:rsbj8.28029$y76.3...@news6-win.server.ntlworld.com...
Peter Besenbruch
<burl.r...@foundation-forum.com> wrote:
>As a retired Baptist pastor, experience would underscore the fact that the
>meaning of baptism extends far beyond the matter of "correct" modality.
>
>Indeed, we can lose the meaning of the experience in arguing as to
>modality - especially when it comes to using the issue as a club. Even in
>the practice of "believer's baptism" by immersion, there is much more to
>being validly baptized than the mere act of being immersed. The act is meant
>to be demonstrate an act of commitment based upon faith and repentance,
>without which the candidate becomes wet, but with little meaningful
>implication.
>
>If the physical act encompasses the entirety of purpose and intent within
>baptism, one might well find spiritual value in falling off the dock. The
>fact is that there are many unregenerate persons who have simply undergone a
>ritual of adult immersion.
>
>We need to think some things through.
For want of a better way of putting it, this guy has a true
sacramental view of Baptism.
Askjo
Askjo
"Morph." <zygotically....@virgin.net> wrote in message
news:rsbj8.28029$y76.3...@news6-win.server.ntlworld.com...
Dave Oldridge
news:a6lnfd$ioi$1...@paris.btinternet.com:
If you think being baptized as an infant is going to send someone to hell,
you have been misinformed. People end up in hell because of sin they will
not relinquish.
> Children are brought for dedication, prayer and blessing before God. And
> as they are growing up and reach the stage they can receive salvation, we
> should preach the word to them. They should be allowed to voluntarily
> give their life to Jesus and then be baptised.
In your private opinion, not that of the Church for AT LEAST the last 1800
years.
Peter Besenbruch
<tim...@ntlworld.com> wrote:
>I would agree, to an extent. But I still don't see the point in deviating
>from the Scriptural model, almost 'just for the sake of it' !!
No, not "for the sake of it." There is a fundamental disagreement
about how baptism is portrayed in the New Testament and in the
early church. First, there are indirect indications that infant
baptism was practiced. The most obvious is in Acts 16:15, which
points, not so much to individuals being baptized because of
their belief, but to baptism because the leader of the household
believes.
This carries certain implications about how society was
structured in ancient times. A person was not a deciding
individual so much as part of a larger structure that began with
the household. Christians were seen as members of a larger
structure, sometimes referred to as the "body of Christ
(Ephesians 4:12)." The rights of the individual, and individual
choice, so championed by the Baptists were a much later
development, and somewhat foreign to the Biblical world.
Dave Oldridge
news:mNuj8.38284$yc2.4...@news2-win.server.ntlworld.com:
They seem to have more faith than you exhibit.
>> You also choose to ignore the Sacraments, Baptism being but one, and
>> the legacy of Original sin. By all means choose your own (usually
>> flawed) interpretation but please refrain from calling Infant Baptism
>> an evil deception.
>
> Why! doesn't the truth of it appeal to you?
Perhaps because there is no truth in your false witness?
> Infant sprinklings are not biblical and confer nothing but a death
> sentence on it's unfortunate victim.
This is a flat lie. Not to mention a very serious sin. Watch your step or
you may find out what REALLY happens when you sin against the Holy Ghost.
>> Read again Matthew 16: 17-19 paying particular attention to 'Whatever
>> you bind on earth shall be bound in Heaven'. And if you wish to
>> challenge the words of Jesus.........go for it!
>
> Belief before baptism are Jesus' words, do you wish to challenge that?
You're making an awful lot of doctrine out of the position of a couple of
words in a sentence. The RCC, of course, also practices the sacrament of
Confirmation, in which the belief of the baptized believer is instructed
and examined, followed by Chrismation by a bishop in the direct succession
from the apostles. You'll probably be horrified to learn that the OLDER
churches that go back even before ROME do the Chrismation thing at birth,
too, right after baptism.
But then you're probably one of these so-called reformers who think that
Christian history has a 1450 year gap in it starting with the death of St.
Paul and restarting with Luther.
My advice to you would be to drop the high-horse attitude and go read some
real history. Like I said, it seems to me this debate was settled in the
2nd century by some people who had some REAL problems on their minds. They
were not even sure they would live to see their children baptized at the
age of eight or nine like you people do. They did not have that luxury...
>> Jim
>> PS Particularly you Morph with your 'false hope of salvation' crap!!
>
> Never heard of that before, obviously you are not a Christian then?
>
>> PPS Sola Scriptura leads to chaos.....please discuss!
>
> Go ahead.
Moreover, sola scriptura is not scriptural. Scripture does not define
scripture, only tradition can do that and the traditions that do it are not
those of Luther, but those of the ancient Church.
--
Dave Oldridge
ICQ 1800667
============================================================================
==================================================
MikeS
The Reformational theologian John Calvin emphasized the continuity of
scripture between the old and new testaments. Calvin saw baptism as a
sign of the new covanent God made through Christ. In his view baptism
applys to childeren just like circumcision did in the old covanent.
Victor
Do you realy believe that God has changed??
Are you trying to make God in mans Image??
Gen 9:8 And God spake unto Noah, and to his sons with him, saying,
Gen 9:9 And I, behold, I establish my covenant with you, and with your seed
after you;
Gen 12:7 And the LORD appeared unto Abram, and said, Unto thy seed will I
give this land: and there builded he an altar unto the LORD, who appeared
unto him.
Gen 17:7 And I will establish my covenant between me and thee and thy seed
after thee in their generations for an everlasting covenant, to be a God
unto thee, and to thy seed after thee.
Num 25:12 Wherefore say, Behold, I give unto him my covenant of peace:
Num 25:13 And he shall have it, and his seed after him, even the covenant of
an everlasting priesthood; because he was zealous for his God, and made an
atonement for the children of Israel.
2Sa 22:50 Therefore I will give thanks unto thee, O LORD, among the heathen,
and I will sing praises unto thy name.
2Sa 22:51 He is the tower of salvation for his king: and sheweth mercy to
his anointed, unto David, and to his seed for evermore.
Psa 69:35 For God will save Zion, and will build the cities of Judah: that
they may dwell there, and have it in possession.
Psa 69:36 The seed also of his servants shall inherit it: and they that love
his name shall dwell therein.
Isa 44:3 For I will pour water upon him that is thirsty, and floods upon the
dry ground: I will pour my spirit upon thy seed, and my blessing upon thine
offspring:
Isa 59:21 As for me, this is my covenant with them, saith the LORD; My
spirit that is upon thee, and my words which I have put in thy mouth, shall
not depart out of thy mouth, nor out of the mouth of thy seed, nor out of
the mouth of thy seed's seed, saith the LORD, from henceforth and for ever.
1Co 7:14 For the unbelieving husband is sanctified by the wife, and the
unbelieving wife is sanctified by the husband: else were your children
unclean; but now are they holy.
Act 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.
When my wife and I got saved, I just for some reason believed that God had
also saved my three children. I also believe that He has saved my
grandchildren.
We got baptized and had our children baptized. Later my three children made
personal commitments to the Lord, and had a baptism of full emersion.
I believe that when Jesus died for my sins, He also died for the sins of my
seed!!!
I would suggest if you have faith (which comes by hearing), instead of
asking God to save your children, start to thank and praise Him, for there
salvation!!!
regards
Vic
Timothy
Ok fair enough. The debate is probably nearly as old as Christianity
itself. I still stay with what I personally see as the Scriptural model,
for myself. As for others, they must follow their own Church or conscience,
as appropriate with their beliefs on the matter. My Church (Anglican) is
not opposed to adult believers immersion baptism, and indeed I've seen it
take place in Anglican services (my parish church has a total immersion
baptistry). It's more a question of whether a person can be baptised more
than once. I believe in one baptism, in the sense that it only *needs* to
be done once, but I don't see that it would be wrong for a person who was
baptised before coming to faith to be baptised again as a believer, if they
so wish. (In fact, this is what I did, but that is personal to me, I don't
try to claim that that is the right thing for all).
Indeed, more important is to receive the Holy Spirit. As John the Baptist
said, he baptised with water but the One who was to follow would baptise
with the Spirit.
God bless.
Timothy
retained under Article 27 of the 39 Articles of Religion? I don't know.
It's certainly a different view on baptism than held by many today, but it
might go some way to explaining why 'whole households' were baptised in NT
times when the head of the household turned to Christ. What do others think
of this idea?
Timothy <><
"Have patience! God hasn't finished with me yet!"
"MikeS" <mike...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:43b825cc.02031...@posting.google.com...
Timothy
"Victor" <home...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote in message
> We got baptized and had our children baptized. Later my three children
made
> personal commitments to the Lord, and had a baptism of full emersion.
>
Good, Vic. But what if the church your children attended had said they
could not have their emersion because they'd already been baptised? That's
the position I was in.
Victoria Lee Hirt
<zygotically....@virgin.net> wrote:
>In the Bible there are examples of families being baptised, but there is not
>a single record of an infant baptism. Every example of baptism are of those
>who have heard the gospel preached and became believers.
>
>So the NT teaching is - faith must always precede baptism, it is an act of
>faith, and
>obedience, as well as a public demonstration of the decision to accept
>Christ as Lord and Saviour.
>
>Therefore only those old enough to understand and
>believe the gospel should be baptised. An infant should not be baptised as
>an
>act of faith.
>
>Infant baptism is also dangerous because the infant becomes an
>adult who falsely believes he has been properly baptised and is saved, and
>therefore doesn't feel the need to be authentically baptised for a true
>salvation. It's tragic.
>
>Literally millions have been deceived and given a
>false hope of salvation by infant baptism.
>Oh! the evil deception of such useless deceived sects, and deluded
>denominations.
>
>Greeting in the Lord.
>Morph.
Reminds you of those who substitute grape juice for wine, doesn't it?
Victoria "Lee" Hirt
http://scican2.scican.net/haxton
"The definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over
and over and over again and expecting a different result."
j.w.
"Libertarius" <The_Truth_The_Whole_Truth@Nothing_But_The.Truth> wrote in
message news:3C8D8281.61A6731F@Nothing_But_The.Truth...
> "Morph." wrote:
>
>> ===>So, what?
> It is just a ritual that has been practiced in various ways by many
different
> peoples and many different religions. If some people believe it is
necessary
> so their kids will go to heaven in case they die, why not?
>
> Libertarius
> ============
>
Because the issue is what must a person do for God to forgive them of their
sins and be declared righteous for heaven. Jesus Christ once said: "I am the
resurrection and the life. He who believes in me will live, even though he
dies; and whoever lives and believes in me will never die." (John 11:26).
Jesus claimed to be the source of eternal life, which he defined as eternal
fellowship with God in heaven (John 17). Jesus died to suffer the full
justice of a holy God who had to punish sin. He paid the full penalty for
every individual. Because He fully satisfied God's justice against our sin,
He can now offer eternal life as a free gift to all who will acknowledge
their need of Him, and personally receive Him by faith. He stated that
"whoever believes" will have eternal life. Baptism does not clean away our
sins before God. God accepted Jesus' sacrifice of His own life on the cross
as the only payment, not our good works, not our sacraments or religious
efforts. Receiving Christ by faith, not baptism, will obtain forgiveness.
A person who trusts in their baptism as a means of obtaining God's
forgiveness is rejecting the sufficiency of Christ's death on his or her
behalf. That is not faith, and therefore it will not save that person.
Victor
Hi Timothy,
I guess I have to give an hypothetical answer to your question.
When my children made a personal commitment, it was because they was of an
age and understanding to do so.
I would have only been in a position, to prayerfully advise them on the
matter of baptism.
I suspect my advise would be for them to give the matter to the Lord, and
trust in Him. If God had a desire for them, to have a personal baptism by
emersion, then He would provide them with the opportunity. If God (who reads
the heart) is satisfied, and decides not to provide the opportunity, then
the matter is closed!!
I would suggest, that to then pursue a baptism by emersion would be an act
of either, disobedience, deafness or blindness stemming from a desire to
satisfy ones own heart, rather than the heart of God.
regards
Vic
Timothy
"j.w." <j...@noaddress.com> wrote in message news:wXHj8.3329
>
> A person who trusts in their baptism as a means of obtaining God's
> forgiveness is rejecting the sufficiency of Christ's death on his or her
> behalf. That is not faith, and therefore it will not save that person.
>
>
Agreed. But we are commanded to be baptised as an act of obedience, just as
we are commanded to remember Christ in the bread and wine. Jesus said that
if we love Him we will keep His commands. The Sacraments themselves do not
save, but nevertheless the Christian is expected to keep them in obedience
to his Saviour.
Indeed, Mark 16:16 says whoever believes *and* is baptised will be saved.
Baptism is a command that should be carried out, if at all possible.
John the Baptist said that whereas he baptised with water, the One who was
to follow will baptise with the Spirit. The essential thing is that we
receive the Holy Spirit, without whom a 'baptism' just amounts to getting
wet....
Timothy
Yes, thanks for that, Vic. In my case I certainly believe I had a clear
sense that God wanted me to have an immersion baptism, and others also
prayed about it and felt it was right for me. I don't claim that *everyone*
should do as I did! But I do agree that each person should seek God's
guidance in this if they are unsure. Indeed, I know of several people who
have taken the route I did. The main thing is to Follow Christ.
Wayne Halloran
Elohim are blessed to the thoudsandth generation? It would seem that our
children are saved through grace 'possibly' by our faith untill they become
accountable in understanding?
THAT would give understanding to the baptism's maybe. Yet baptisim is not a
'NT church thing', but was practiced all through Tanukh.
I myself dont see why there is division over baptism. Though baptisim in
water does not save (as scripture shows), Yeshua, my Messiah was baptised
and He is to be our example. Not that it saves, but that it behooves us to
follow Him and His example.
If baptism in water does not save, then neither does it condemn. But the
very real danger in it is where one teaches that a baby baptised at birth is
saved and can do nothing in their life to lose this salvation, therefore
they can live as they please and never come to repentance or true knowledge
of the word OR the Spirit!
Sort of like a vaccination against salvation... yet it is not the baptism
that does this, but erronious teachings which follow the baptism.
hope this makes sense...
shalom...
"Timothy" <tim...@ntlworld.com> wrote in message
news:FkEj8.43648$yc2.4...@news2-win.server.ntlworld.com...
: This is interesting. Maybe this idea explains how infant baptism is
:
:
Wayne Halloran
shalom...
"Victor" <home...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote in message
news:10159923...@iapetus.uk.clara.net...
:
: "Morph." <zygotically....@virgin.net> wrote in message
:
:
Jim Docherty
I don't think I will dignify that remark with
an answer!
Peter Besenbruch
<tim...@ntlworld.com> wrote:
>Agreed. But we are commanded to be baptised as an act of obedience, just as
>we are commanded to remember Christ in the bread and wine. Jesus said that
>if we love Him we will keep His commands. The Sacraments themselves do not
>save, but nevertheless the Christian is expected to keep them in obedience
>to his Saviour.
Sure, and note the focus on obedience. Baptism is an entrance
rite into the body of Christ. It says to Christians that their
ultimate identity is not that of an individual believer, but is
part of a larger whole.
>Indeed, Mark 16:16 says whoever believes *and* is baptised will be saved.
>Baptism is a command that should be carried out, if at all possible.
Baptism can be adapted to various times, circumstances, and
cultures. What we know of early church practice is that total
immersion was probably never practiced. Rather, the ceremony took
place in the richest parishioner's house (they had running
water). The candidates stood in a pool naked, and had lots of
water poured on them from a jar. They entered the pool from the
side opposite the rest of the community. After the ceremony, they
exited the pool to join their fellow believers and had white
robes put on them.
>John the Baptist said that whereas he baptised with water, the One who was
>to follow will baptise with the Spirit. The essential thing is that we
>receive the Holy Spirit, without whom a 'baptism' just amounts to getting
>wet....
John's baptism, while historically related, isn't church baptism.
It is a baptism in preparation for the coming kingdom, but
membership in a community is deemphasized.
When it comes to the action of the Holy Spirit, we assume the
Holy Spirit always acts. What is critical is that vows are
made... and kept.
Libertarius
argument is totally ridiculous. Even silly.
Anyone with a minimum objective thinking will see that the "baptism"
of infants is for the sake of the ADULTS, not for the sake of the
ínfants, even though objectors are technically correct that the
ORIGINAL idea was to baptize repentant converts, such as those of
John the Baptizer, into a movement preparing for the coming kingdom,
implying personal, adult decisions. And, of course, it was done by
submersion into water. The same was true of the followers of
Jesus.
""...we indeed descend into the water full of sins and defilement,
but come up, bearing fruit in our heart, having the fear [of God]
and trust in Jesus in our spirit..." (Epistle of Barnabas)
"And for this [rite] we have learned from the apostles this reason.
Since at our birth we were born without our own knowledge or choice,
by our parents coming together, and were brought up in bad habits
and wicked training; in order that we may not remain the children
of necessity and of ignorance, but may become the children of choice
and knowledge, and may obtain in the water the remission of sins
formerly committed, there is pronounced over him who chooses to be
born again, and has repented of his sins, the name of God the Father
and Lord of the universe; he who leads to the laver the person that
is to be washed calling him by this name alone."
(Justin Martyr, "First Apology", p 339)
It was in time changed by Saul/Paul's Gentile Christians into a symbolic
death/resurrection ritual following Pagan customs.
"...before a man bears the name of the Son of God he is dead;
but when he receives the seal he lays aside his deadness,
and obtains life. The seal, then, is the water:
they descend into the water dead, and they arise alive."
(Shepherd of Hermas - Similitude IX, Chapter 16)
"This baptism, therefore, is given into the death of Jesus:
the water is instead of the burial...the descent into the
water the dying together with Christ; the ascent out of
the water the rising again with Him.”
("Constitutions of the Holy Apostles", Book 3, Section 16/17)
"Beloved, be it known to you that those who are baptized
into the death of our Lord Jesus are obliged to go on no
longer in sin; for as those who are dead cannot work
wickedness any longer, so those who are dead with Christ
cannot practice wickedness. We do not therefore believe,
brethren, that any one who has received the washing of life
continues in the practice of the licentious acts of
transgressors. Now he who sins after his baptism, unless he
repent and forsake his sins, shall be condemned to hell-fire."
("Constitutions of the Holy Apostles", Book 2, Section 3)
Indeed, by the fourth century, many people, including, possibly,
the Emperor Constantine, the true father of institutionalized
Christianity, put off getting baptized until
they were near death, so that they could continue to live
a sinful life!
And full immersion being often impossible, the practice varied
according to circumstances.
"Where there is no scarcity of water the stream shall flow
through the baptismal font or pour into it from above;
but if water is scarce, whether on a constant condition or
on occasion, then use whatever water is available. Let them
remove their clothing. Baptize first the children, and if they
can speak for themselves let them do so. Otherwise, let their
parents or other relatives speak for them."
(Hippolytus, "The Apostolic Tradition", 21:15).
SEE: http://www.sundayschoolcourses.com/baptism/baptism.htm
Infant baptism goes way back to the beginning of the Church, and
may have possibly been viewed as a substitute for the Jewish
circumcision, supplemented by "confirmation", the Christian equivalent
of Bar Mitzvah. See Colossians 2:11-12
"and in Him you were also circumcised with a
circumcision made without hands, in the removal of the
body of the flesh by the circumcision of Christ;
having been buried with Him in baptism."
Since most "sectarians" take converts from infant-baptizing religions,
they feel compelled to go back to the original baptism idea, and since
the traditionals claim that they have been already baptized, they feel
compelled to denounce infant baptism as a sinful act, even "conferring a
death sentence". How stupid! (Well...if it is done in a cold church with
very cold water, the baby could get sick).
Libertarius
====================
Peter Besenbruch
<THE_TRUTH_THE_WHOLE_TRUTH@NOTHING_BUT_THE.TRUTH> wrote:
>It was in time changed by Saul/Paul's Gentile Christians into a symbolic
>death/resurrection ritual following Pagan customs.
I liked your quotes of early church authors, but you didn't show
what it was about Paul's writings that invoked Pagan practices. I
think you may be wrong, but I can't be sure until I see more meat
put on your assertion.
Timothy
> On Wed, 13 Mar 2002 16:19:54 -0000, "Timothy"
> <tim...@ntlworld.com> wrote:
>
> >Agreed. But we are commanded to be baptised as an act of obedience, just
as
> >we are commanded to remember Christ in the bread and wine. Jesus said
that
> >if we love Him we will keep His commands. The Sacraments themselves do
not
> >save, but nevertheless the Christian is expected to keep them in
obedience
> >to his Saviour.
>
> Sure, and note the focus on obedience. Baptism is an entrance
> rite into the body of Christ. It says to Christians that their
> ultimate identity is not that of an individual believer, but is
> part of a larger whole.
This is in line with what one other poster has said, about baptism being
almost the 'Christian equivalent' of the Jewish circumcision. If indeed
this is the correct understanding, then infant baptism would be appropriate,
as Jews circumcise infants. But what makes a Jew a good Jew is not the
circumcision, but how he lives his life. Certainly in that case no-one
needs to be baptised twice, any more than a Jew needs to be circumcised
twice (if that were possible). However, when does a person become a
Christian? I would say it is when they believe, repent and confess Christ
as Lord. This would mean that an infant who has been baptised is still not
a Christian until such time as they come to and profess their own faith. So
infant baptism identifies someone who is not yet a Christian (and indeed,
may never come to Faith) with the body of Christ. Does this make sense?
What status do they have? Yes, the ultimate identity of the Christian is a
part of the body of Christ, the Church, indeed more than that even, a
citizen of God's kingdom. But what about the baptised infant who has not
yet come to Faith? Perhaps they are identified as members of the Christian
community, but not yet Christians? (I am not being antagonistic here, I
really want to understand the theology behind this, as the Anglican Church
upholds infant baptism).
>
> >Indeed, Mark 16:16 says whoever believes *and* is baptised will be saved.
> >Baptism is a command that should be carried out, if at all possible.
>
> Baptism can be adapted to various times, circumstances, and
> cultures. What we know of early church practice is that total
> immersion was probably never practiced. Rather, the ceremony took
> place in the richest parishioner's house (they had running
> water). The candidates stood in a pool naked, and had lots of
> water poured on them from a jar. They entered the pool from the
> side opposite the rest of the community. After the ceremony, they
> exited the pool to join their fellow believers and had white
> robes put on them.
What sources does this information come from? The bible word for baptism
apparently suggests a 'dunking', a going down into water, rather than a
pouring or dousing. The description above, that the candidates 'stood in a
pool' suggests they were not babes-in-arms.....
>
> >John the Baptist said that whereas he baptised with water, the One who
was
> >to follow will baptise with the Spirit. The essential thing is that we
> >receive the Holy Spirit, without whom a 'baptism' just amounts to getting
> >wet....
>
> John's baptism, while historically related, isn't church baptism.
> It is a baptism in preparation for the coming kingdom, but
> membership in a community is deemphasized.
>
> When it comes to the action of the Holy Spirit, we assume the
> Holy Spirit always acts. What is critical is that vows are
> made... and kept.
Vows are made by the individual at Confirmation (or Baptism and Confirmation
if they are of 'riper years'). Vows made before God should of course be
kept, I wish more people today would consider that with regard to marriage
vows!! But Baptism and Confirmation are more than making vows, they are
acts of obedience in themselves, and a public declaration of Faith, a public
putting off of the old self, and a putting on of the new self in Christ, an
outward physical statement of inward spiritual re-birth. A symbolic death
of the worldly self, and symbolic birth of the new self. A rejecting and
turning away from the things of the 'world', and accepting and turning to
follow Christ in obedience.
Timothy <><
"Have patience! God hasn't finished with me yet!"
> __________________________________________________________
Timothy
that one is saved because one was baptised as a baby. Indeed, when I first
came to Faith when I was 16 (Er, umpteen years ago) I told my parents I'd
become a Christian, and was rather stunned at their response, which was
along the lines of, "What are you talking about? Of course you're a
Christian, we had you Christened when you were a baby".
John the Baptist's baptism was a symbolic washing away of sins, a public
declaration of repentance. Christian baptism symbolises a dying of the
worldly self, and the birth of a new self in Christ, which in the believer
also must be accompanied by repentance, which ties in nicely with the
baptism of John. The Christian needs to reject sin, repent and turn to
Christ, confessing Him as Saviour and Lord. Baptism would seem a good
outward public declaration of this inner act. It's also an act of obedience
required of us. Vows of Confirmation are another way of declaring this
inner act of repentance and turning to Christ.
The debate goes on...
Timothy <><
"Have patience! God hasn't finished with me yet!"
"Wayne Halloran" <hall...@bellsouth.net> wrote in message
news:8JLj8.51507$Yd.31...@e3500-atl1.usenetserver.com...
Libertarius
>
> Was Jesus baptized when He was an infant? If so, what Scripture says?
>
> Askjo
===>Silly question. You should know the Gospels say he was circumcised.
Baptism was substituted for circumcision by Saul/Paul and his Gentile
followers.
Libertarius
====================
Timothy
"Libertarius" <THE_TRUTH_THE_WHOLE_TRUTH@NOTHING_BUT_THE.TRUTH>
> ""...we indeed descend into the water full of sins and defilement,
> but come up, bearing fruit in our heart, having the fear [of God]
> and trust in Jesus in our spirit..." (Epistle of Barnabas)
Is this the Gospel of Barnabas? Generally, this is (so I understand)
believed by most scholars to be a fake as it contains several historical
errors, inconsistancies and more seriously, anachronisms which suggest a
time of writing much, much later than the first or second centuries. Claims
that it was referred to by early church fathers also seem to be
unsubstantiated.
Nevertheless, I would feel that the NT accounts seem to suggest immersion
baptism, or possibly a thorough dousing, if a river or pool is not
available.
Morph.
"Jim Docherty" <Jim.Do...@btinternet.com> wrote in message news:a6o3u7
> > > > Infant Baptism is an evil deception is it?
> >
Morph.
I think you just have.
Thank you Jim.
Christ's Disciple
I think you ought to study your baptismal history a little better my
friend....
But before you do, let us peruse a few 'Reference works'.
What the Dictionaries say:
[First remembering just what the word dip means.
Oxford Dic. Dip -v. (-pp-) 1 put or lower briefly into liquid etc.;
Immerse. 2 To go below a surface or level.]
Webster's New Collegiate Dictionary: "Baptize . . . from Greek baptizein,
from baptein to dip in water."
Century Dictionary (7 volumes): "Baptize . . . dip in water."
The Encyclopedia Dictionary (7 Volumes): "Baptize . . . to dip in or under
water."
Chamber's English Dictionary: "Baptize . . . to dip in water."
The Library Dictionary: "Baptism . . . to dip in water."
Household Dictionary: "Baptism . . . to dip in water."
What the Encyclopedias say:
Encyclopedia Britannica: "The word is derived from the Greek baptize, a
frequentive form of baptize, to dip, or wash, which is the term used in the
New Testament when the sacrament is described . . . The usual mode of
performing the ceremony was by immersion . . . The Council of Ravenna in
1311, was the first council of the (Roman Catholic) church which legalized
baptism by sprinkling, by leaving it to the choice of the officiating
minister."
Encyclopedia Americana: "Baptism (that is, dipping, immersing, from the
Greek baptizo) . . . In the time of the apostles, the form of baptism was
very simple. The person to be baptized was dipped in a river or vessel with
the words which Christ had ordered . . ."
New International Encyclopedia: "Baptism . . . was originally by immersion.
The candidates used to descend into fonts or streams, or rivers, and sink
beneath the waters under the pressure of the hands of the minister."
Chamber's Encyclopedia: "Baptism . . . It is, however, indisputable that at
a very early period the ordinary mode of baptism was by immersion . . ."
Nelson Complete Encyclopedia (1937, 24 volumes): "There is little doubt that
the original practice was immersion . . ."
What do Bible Dictionaries say?
Blunt's Theological Dictionary: "That immersion was the ordinary mode of
baptizing in the primitive church is unquestionable."
Catholic Dictionary (by Wm. E. Addis, 1934): "Baptism . . . In apostolic
times the body of the baptized person was immersed, for St. Paul looks on
this immersion as typifying burial with Christ, and speaks of baptism as a
bath . . . for even St. Thomas in the 13th century, speaks of baptism by
immersion as the common practice of his time."
The Catholic Encyclopedia Dictionary (1941): "Baptism . . . the act of
immersing or washing."
Hook's Church Dictionary: "In performing the ceremony of baptism, the usual
custom was to immerse and dip the whole body."
What do the Religious Encyclopedias say?
Schaff-Herzog Encyclopedia of Religious Knowledge: "Baptism . . . Original
Forms . . . It is an attractive theory, supported by Cyprian's express
statement, that the Jews and the Gentiles in the apostles' time had a
different manner of baptizing; that among the Jewish Christians a single
immersion was the rule, in the name of Christ alone, on the analogy of the
Jewish proselyte baptism, while the threefold immersion in the threefold
name, which has its counterpoint in the heathen lustrations was the rule
among the Gentile Christians."
The Concordia Encyclopedia (1927): "Baptism . . . Nevertheless, it is held
by historians that immersion wholly in water was the prevailing mode of the
first century."
The Catholic Encyclopedia: "Baptism . . . The word baptism derived from the
Greek word means to wash or to immerse. It signifies, therefore, that laying
is the essential idea of the sacrament . . . The most ancient form usually
employed was unquestionably immersion. In the Latin (Catholic) church,
immersion seems to have prevailed until the twelfth century."
What do early Christian writers say?
Hermas (in the Commands of Hermas, Book 2, Com. 4, C. 3): "And I said to
him, 'I have even now heard from certain teachers, that there is no other
repentance besides that of baptism; when we go down into the water, and
receive the forgiveness of sins; and after that we should sin no more, but
live in purity!' And he said to me-' Thou host been rightly informed'."
Tertullian, (On Baptism, Chapter 7): "Thus, too, in our ease, the unction
runs carnally, (such as on the body), but profits spiritually; in the same
way as the act of baptism itself too is carnal, in that we are plunged in
water, but the effect is spiritual, in that we are freed from sins."
What do the Roman Catholic Councils say?
Council of Nice, A.D. 325: "He who is baptized descends indeed, obnoxious to
sins, and held with the corruptions of slavery; but he ascends free from the
slavery of sins, a son of God, heir-yea, co-heir-with Christ, having put on
Christ, as it is written, 'As many of you as were baptized into Christ have
put on Christ'."
Fourth Council of Toledo, A.D. 633: "For shunning the schism (trine
immersion) or the use of an heretical practice, we observe a single
immersion in baptism . . . For the immersion in the waters is a descent, as
it were into the grave; and, again, the emersion from the waters is a
resurrection."
Council of Worms, A.D. 868: "While some priests baptized with three
immersions, and others with one, a schism was raised, endangering the unity
of the church "
Council of Tribur, A.D. 895: "Trine immersion is an imitation of the three
days burial, and the rising again out of the water is an image of Christ
rising from the grave."
The Synod of Cologne, A.D. 1280: "He who baptizes, when he immerses the
candidate in water, shall neither add to the words, or take away from them,
or change them."
Council of Ravenna, A.D. 1311: "Baptism is to be administered by tribe
immersion or aspersion."
Have you noted that first trine immersion was called an "heretical
practice," and then accepted. That immersion only was accepted, and then,
for the first time, in 1311 pouring was accepted. The main thing to be noted
is that only immersion was the practice for some 1300 years.
Make a note of that folks........
What some preachers had to say:
(From Twentieth Century Christian, 1962)
John Calvin, Presbyterian: "The word baptize signifies to immerse. It is
certain that immersion was the practice of the primitive church."
Martin Luther, Lutheran: "Baptism is a Greek word and may be translated
immerse. I would have those who are to be baptized to be altogether dipped."
John Wesley, Methodist: "Buried with him in baptism-alluding to the ancient
manner of baptizing by immersion."
Wall, Episcopalian: "Immersion was in all probability the way in which our
blessed Savior, and for certain the way by which the ancient Christians
received their baptism."
Brenner, Catholic: "For thirteen hundred years was baptism an immersion of
the person under water."
Macknight, Presbyterian: "In baptism the baptized person is buried under the
water. Christ submitted to be baptized, that is, to be buried under water."
Whitfield, Methodist: "It is certain that the word of our text, Romans 6:4,
alludes to the manner of baptizing by immersion."
What does the New Testament say?
Acts 8:36: ". . . they came unto a certain water . . ." It is only natural
that a person who intended to be immersed must come to enough water to do
so. Never do we find a single case in the New Testament of water being
brought to a person who was going to be baptized.
Acts 8:38: ". . . and they both went down into the water . . ." It is
necessary for immersion that both the one to be baptized and the one doing
the baptizing go down into the water. This would not be necessary in
sprinkling or pouring.
Acts 8:39: ". . . they came up out of the water . . ." Both must come up out
of the water once having gone into the water. This would not be necessary in
the case of sprinkling or pouring.
Romans 6:4: ". . . buried therefore with him by baptism into death . . ."
Colossians 2:12: ". . . buried with him in baptism, in which you were also
raised with him . . ." Baptism is described in these two verses as a burial.
When something is buried it is completely covered or submerged.
Only immersion can fit the description of a burial. One is not buried in
baptism when water is sprinkled or poured over his head. Then too, only one
who is buried in water can be raised up out of it. No person can be raised
from a few drops of water.
In the study of the many other examples to be found in the New Testament we
find that those who were baptized were immersed. Much water was needed,
going down into the water and coming up out of the water, is very evident.
There can be no doubt whatsoever that the baptism of the New Testament is
immersion.
Once again I will rest my case and hope many will see "Splashings" and
[baby ] "Sprinklings" are not true baptisms at all, for even the Roman
Catholic Church practised general "IMMERSION" up until the 14 century.
Now for the last six, their members have been denied an authentic baptism by
immersion, and sadly such "Remain in their sins" and are uncleanced.
"Take heed unto thyself, and unto the doctrine; continue in them: for in
doing this thou shalt both save thyself, and them that hear thee."
1 Tim 4:16 (KJV)
Jeff...
<<<Read yourself RICH in the ways of the TRUTH>>>
Website: http://www.antipas.org
My above e-mail address is a now necessary spamtrap.
To contact me please use apostolic(dot)advocate@ntlworld(dot)com
Wayne Halloran
Baptism did not replace circumcism, they were always two different things,
still are...
"Libertarius" <THE_TRUTH_THE_WHOLE_TRUTH@NOTHING_BUT_THE.TRUTH> wrote in
message news:3C8FB3D3.4163C554@NOTHING_BUT_THE.TRUTH...
Askjo
"Libertarius" <THE_TRUTH_THE_WHOLE_TRUTH@NOTHING_BUT_THE.TRUTH> wrote in
message news:3C8FB3D3.4163C554@NOTHING_BUT_THE.TRUTH...
> >
> > Was Jesus baptized when He was an infant? If so, what Scripture says?
> >
> > Askjo
>
> ===>Silly question.
Is infant baptism doctrinal or biblical?
Askjo
Libertarius
>
> "Libertarius" <The_Truth_The_Whole_Truth@Nothing_But_The.Truth> wrote in
> message news:3C8D8281.61A6731F@Nothing_But_The.Truth...
> > "Morph." wrote:
> >
> >> ===>So, what?
> > It is just a ritual that has been practiced in various ways by many
> different
> > peoples and many different religions. If some people believe it is
> necessary
> > so their kids will go to heaven in case they die, why not?
> >
> > Libertarius
> > ============
> >
>
> Because the issue is what must a person do for God to forgive them of their
> sins and be declared righteous for heaven. Jesus Christ once said: "I am the
> resurrection and the life. He who believes in me will live, even though he
> dies; and whoever lives and believes in me will never die." (John 11:26).
===>Someone wrote that some sixty years AFTER Jesus. All believers have
died ever since.
> Jesus claimed to be the source of eternal life, which he defined as eternal
> fellowship with God in heaven (John 17).
===>When did Jesus do that?
You are confusing a writer's story ABOUT Jesus with Jesus.
Jesus died to suffer the full
> justice of a holy God who had to punish sin.
===>WHY, since "God" is an omnipotent, omniscient, omnipresent
being who is the source of ALL THINGS?
He paid the full penalty for
> every individual.
===>WHY, since it says no one should bear the penalty for someone else?
Because He fully satisfied God's justice against our sin,
> He can now offer eternal life as a free gift to all who will acknowledge
> their need of Him, and personally receive Him by faith. He stated that
> "whoever believes" will have eternal life. Baptism does not clean away our
> sins before God.
===>So, John the Baptizer was a liar, fooling Jesus and others?
God accepted Jesus' sacrifice of His own life on the cross
> as the only payment, not our good works, not our sacraments or religious
> efforts.
===>How do you know that? Has he told you so?
Receiving Christ by faith, not baptism, will obtain forgiveness.
===>That's not what Ol' John preached by the Jordan!
>
> A person who trusts in their baptism as a means of obtaining God's
> forgiveness is rejecting the sufficiency of Christ's death on his or her
> behalf. That is not faith, and therefore it will not save that person.
===>Nor will any "faith". When the time comes, it's up for you, you're
dead, and that's that.
So, why not do the hocus pocus stuff if it makes you feel better?
Libertarius
===================
Libertarius
>
> "Libertarius" <THE_TRUTH_THE_WHOLE_TRUTH@NOTHING_BUT_THE.TRUTH>
> > ""...we indeed descend into the water full of sins and defilement,
> > but come up, bearing fruit in our heart, having the fear [of God]
> > and trust in Jesus in our spirit..." (Epistle of Barnabas)
>
> Is this the Gospel of Barnabas? Generally, this is (so I understand)
> believed by most scholars to be a fake as it contains several historical
> errors, inconsistancies and more seriously, anachronisms which suggest a
> time of writing much, much later than the first or second centuries. Claims
> that it was referred to by early church fathers also seem to be
> unsubstantiated.
===> The Gospel of Barnabas does appear to be a medieval forgery.
The Epistle was written by an unknown author, about
A.D. 130-131.
>
> Nevertheless, I would feel that the NT accounts seem to suggest immersion
> baptism, or possibly a thorough dousing, if a river or pool is not
> available.
===>OK. So?
Libertarius
>
> "Libertarius" <THE_TRUTH_THE_WHOLE_TRUTH@NOTHING_BUT_THE.TRUTH> wrote in
> message news:3C8FB3D3.4163C554@NOTHING_BUT_THE.TRUTH...
> > Askjo wrote:
> > >
> > > Was Jesus baptized when He was an infant? If so, what Scripture says?
> > >
> > > Askjo
> >
> > ===>Silly question.
>
> Is infant baptism doctrinal or biblical?
===>BOTH.
Libertarius
>
> No, baptism was all through the Tanukh.
> Baptism did not replace circumcism, they were always two different things,
> still are...
===>I never said they were not. Baptism was substituted for circumcision
by the Christians. SEE: Colossians 2:11-12
"In whom also ye are circumcised with the
circumcision made without hands, in putting off the body
of the sins of the flesh by the circumcision of Christ:
Buried with him in baptism"
Libertarius
===================
MikeS
> scripture, only tradition can do that and the traditions that do it are not
> those of Luther, but those of the ancient Church.
Here is a point that I can discuss. I have long been interested in
the basis behind the importance of tradition in some theologies.
Consider my theories for a moment. The way I see it, the reformation
began during a period of corruption in the medival church. Corruption
arisen out of the warping of tradition. Some of this warped tradition
was directly due to the compromise of the Palagian controversy in the
early church. The Reformational theologians based much of their ideas
on those of Augustine. Isn't it possible that they picked up the pure
tradition where the Roman Catholics left off? In the resolution, the
Roman Catholics acknowledged original sin but down played our death in
it, thereby reducing the importance of Christ's sacrifice. Reformers
picked up on this divergance and returned to the teachings of
Augustine.
I could elaborate but I will leave that up to the interested to
discover. I think if you investigated further you might find that
contrary to the arguments of most protestants, they do have a
traditional basis. However, this foundation eliminates the coruption
of the medival church. Consider the acceptance of the most basic of
Christianity's creeds, the Apostles and the Nicene by protestants.
Although Christ's descent into hell has caused dissension these creeds
are foundational. In fact, most if not all of the creeds and
confessions up to the time of Augustine are accepted by churches with
a Reformational basis.
Therefore I would contend, in the interest of friendly debate, that
protestantionism is not entirely deviod of tradition. In fact, the
tradition established in the Reformation is not the begining at all
but an extension, much like the views of the Catholic church.
Timothy
accept Tradition as well as Scripture, where it is accepted that such
Tradition is supported by Scripture even if it is not contained therein.
Sola Scriptura is often taken by it's opponents as a licence to 'think
however you like', but in fact it means "Scripture Alone". It's not saying
that Tradition has no value, rather, it is saying that all we need for
Salvation can be found in, or derived from, that which is written in
Scripture. Much of the Protestant church (including Anglican, of which I am
a member) is founded on the "39 Articles of Religion", which contain
information on which Tradition is to be retained, based on it's perceived
Scriptural grounding. Such Traditions upheld in the 39 Articles are: the
Trinity Doctrine, the Divinity of Christ and the Holy Spirit, the canon of
Scripture (the deutero-canonical books are upheld for use in teaching, but
not for establishing or defending Doctrine), three *Creeds* are upheld,
Athanasius, Apostles, Nicene. The concept of 'original' or birth-sin is
upheld, as is predestination. Infant baptism is upheld in Article 27.
Article 34 talks about the 'Traditions of the Church" (ie rites and
ceremonies, styles of worship etc, but not Sacraments) in which it says that
they do not have to be the same universally, but nevertheless should be
respected as being 'ordained and approved by common authority'. The right
is reserved for ceremonies or rites ordained 'only by man's authority' to be
ordained, changed or abolished, so that all things done are 'edifying'.
The Articles can be found in the 'Common Book of Prayer', or by internet
search.
The upheld Creeds talk of the 'catholic faith', of which Anglicans (and
others) believe they are included, as the Church is defined in Article 19 as
the 'congregation of faithful men (and women!) in which the pure Word of God
is preached, and the Sacrements be duly ministered according to Christ's
ordinance ..'. The Sacraments being as defined in Article 25.
The attempt was made to reject only Tradition that was believed to be in
error by the reformers, but not to reject good Tradition that had it's
grounding in Scripture. Indeed, many of the first reformers were people
such as Martin Luther, who attempted to campaign for reform *within* the
established Church, rather than initiate a split from it. Today's Roman
Catholic Church recognises Protestants as being 'separated brethren', as
Protestants also accept the RCC members as Christians, but still believe the
RCC to be in error (Article 19).
Protestants and Catholics should recognise that each other's Church
authorities recognise each other as Christians, and should therefore heed
Christ's command to love one-another. He said that this is how others would
know that we are His Disciples, by the way we love one-another.
Timothy <><
"Have patience! God hasn't finished with me yet!"
"MikeS" <mike...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:43b825cc.0203...@posting.google.com...
Timothy
only the fake 'Gospel of Barnabas'.
Timothy <><
Hiscoming
to the Holy Bible. Even if such books exist, will they contradict the Holy
Bible?
Dave Oldridge
news:a6pv6q$i7c$1...@helle.btinternet.com:
Some gnostic works do, in fact contradict the Bible--even the Bible as
interpreted by the Church, which is quite different from the Bible as
interpreted by Falwell or Swaggart.
Other works omitted from the canon do not. For example, ancient canons of
the New Testament usually included 1 and 2 Clement. These have been
preserved by the Church and are not (as far an I know) considered heresy,
just not canon (due to being of later than apostolic origin).
--
Dave Oldridge
ICQ 1800667
============================================================================
==================================================
Paradoxically, nearly all real events are highly improbable
--me, 2000AD
Dave Oldridge
news:43b825cc.0203...@posting.google.com:
While there is some truth in this, there is also some glossing over.
Augustine would never have stood still for the things that Luther did to the
canon, nor for the notion that changing the abused doctrine was a solution
to the abuse. Augustine would have endeavoured to change the abusers, not
the doctrine.
--
Dave Oldridge
ICQ 1800667
============================================================================
==================
Timothy
"Hiscoming" <hisc...@btopenworld.com> wrote in message
> >
> I like that. They always use various books as an excuse for their
rebellion
> to the Holy Bible. Even if such books exist, will they contradict the
Holy
> Bible?
>
Who are the 'they', Hiscoming? I'm not in rebellion to the Holy Bible, I
accept the canon as established by the Church (notwithstanding discussion on
the status of the deutero-canonical books) as being the correct canon of
Scripture as God ordained. Because a writing is not canonical, it is not
necessarily wrong, only not authoritive. I haven't read the 'Epistle of
Barabas' and so cannot comment on it, but I have read the 'gospel of
Barabas', and can confirm it is basically nonsense.
Jim Docherty
>
> I think you just have.
> Thank you Jim.
>
>
>
remark that I am not a Christian and while you are at
it perhaps you could tell us on what authority you
assert that Infant Baptism is an 'evil deception', your
interpretation will not suffice.
Thanks
Jim
Hiscoming
"No more to add, I was not aware of the existance of an Epistle of Barnabas,
only the fake 'Gospel of Barnabas'."
I was replying to your above statement and I do not think my reply was
against your statement, but in support of your statement. The 'they' in my
statement refers to those who always refer to another books - gospels of
Thomas, of Barnabas etc. - to oppose the Holy Bible. I do not know of these
books, but if they exist, I will not expect them to oppose the Holy Bible.
I started my reply with "I like that", ie your statement, and I do not know
how you misunderstood my reply. I hope I have made myself clear.
Morph.
>
> >
> > I think you just have.
> > Thank you Jim.
> >
> >
> >
> > Strange reply!..............
>OK then Morph, justify your
> remark that I am not a Christian
Were you baptised by immersion after belief in Jesus, or just sprinkled
with water as a baby? Are you a member of the much disgraced Catholic
Church?
> and while you are at
> it perhaps you could tell us on what authority you
> assert that Infant Baptism is an 'evil deception', your
> interpretation will not suffice.
I think my other posts have answered that already Jim.
Jim Docherty
just so
good to draw them.
Morph, just a small point, to which sin free sect do you belong? And
please
don't hit me with some American, red-neck obscurity! We are trying
to be
serious here.....I wish!
Jim
PS I could take a guess, but with 60,000 and counting it could be a
long shot!
Timothy
Timothy <><
"Hiscoming" <hisc...@btopenworld.com> wrote in message
news:a6qtoc$pdl$1...@helle.btinternet.com...
Peter Besenbruch
<tim...@ntlworld.com> wrote:
>What sources does this information come from? The bible word for baptism
>apparently suggests a 'dunking', a going down into water, rather than a
>pouring or dousing. The description above, that the candidates 'stood in a
>pool' suggests they were not babes-in-arms.....
I got information from a Commentary on the (American) Book of
Common Prayer (Hatchett). In the 1st century, I suspect 3/4 of
the candidates were adults, what one would expect for a new
religion. By the early 2nd century, I suspect children had pulled
even, and by the 3rd, children were far in the majority. I assume
the "babes-in-arms" were literally that.
Peter Besenbruch
<tim...@ntlworld.com> wrote:
>But Baptism and Confirmation are more than making vows, they are
>acts of obedience in themselves, and a public declaration of Faith,
And church marriages aren't?!
Peter Besenbruch
<tim...@ntlworld.com> wrote:
>No more to add, I was not aware of the existance of an Epistle of Barnabas,
>only the fake 'Gospel of Barnabas'.
We get the Epistle of Barnabas largely from the Codex Sinaiticus.
While the book emphasizes gnosis, it is somewhat different from
what is spoken of in gnostic literature. The author denies any
link between Jesus and David, stressing Jesus' pre-existence. It
does not deny Jesus' suffering. It is aware that the temple in
Jerusalem was destroyed, but expected it to be rebuilt. This may
date it to some time prior to 135 A.D., when Hadrian built a
Roman temple on the old site.
Peter Besenbruch
>Corruption
>arisen out of the warping of tradition. Some of this warped tradition
>was directly due to the compromise of the Palagian controversy in the
>early church. The Reformational theologians based much of their ideas
>on those of Augustine. Isn't it possible that they picked up the pure
>tradition where the Roman Catholics left off?
ROTFL! Just don't tell an Orthodox theologian about the "purity"
of Augustine, unless you want to make them mad. [g] Another
point, corruption of the sort Luther protested against is quite
possible in any kind of doctrinal environment. Greed knows
doctrinal boundaries.
Peter Besenbruch
<No.Evi...@Gog.spom> wrote:
>Acts 8:38: ". . . and they both went down into the water . . ." It is
>necessary for immersion that both the one to be baptized and the one doing
>the baptizing go down into the water. This would not be necessary in
>sprinkling or pouring.
Actually this is consistent with what I had stated. They enter
the water, and water is poured over the person's head. Lots of
water. You have set up an either/or situation of sprinkling or
immersion. What I described was neither, and to quote Britannica
(you seem to like it): " By the 2nd century, the irreducible
minimum for a valid Baptism appears to have been the use of water
and the invocation of the Trinity. Usually the candidate was
immersed three times, but there are references to pouring as
well."
My example was an early church example, but it could well apply
to the Bible. From the Biblical text itself, we will never know.
Consider the implications of multiple acceptable baptism
modalities. Baptism is valid if certain minimums are met. Baptism
may be performed in different ways, if certain basics are met
(water and the invocation of the Trinity). All are valid
baptisms.
Now think for a minute what Protestantism stood for. Among other
things, it stood for the elimination of magical thinking in the
church, particularly in the miraculous nature of relics, or the
magical thinking associated with the eucharist. On baptism, it
took the Baptists to put magical thinking back into
Protestantism.
>Now for the last six, their members have been denied an authentic baptism by
>immersion, and sadly such "Remain in their sins" and are uncleanced.
And this is aa classic a case of magical thinking as one will
find.
Askjo
"Libertarius" <THE_TRUTH_THE_WHOLE_TRUTH@NOTHING_BUT_THE.TRUTH> wrote in
message news:3C8FF8F4.2EE0A27A@NOTHING_BUT_THE.TRUTH...
> Askjo wrote:
> >
> > "Libertarius" <THE_TRUTH_THE_WHOLE_TRUTH@NOTHING_BUT_THE.TRUTH> wrote in
> > message news:3C8FB3D3.4163C554@NOTHING_BUT_THE.TRUTH...
> > > Askjo wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Was Jesus baptized when He was an infant? If so, what Scripture
says?
> > > >
> > > > Askjo
> > >
> > > ===>Silly question.
> >
> > Is infant baptism doctrinal or biblical?
>
> ===>BOTH.
I do not think you would find what Scripture says about infants being
baptized.
Askjo
Libertarius
> "Libertarius" <THE_TRUTH_THE_WHOLE_TRUTH@NOTHING_BUT_THE.TRUTH> wrote in
> message news:3C8FF8F4.2EE0A27A@NOTHING_BUT_THE.TRUTH...
> > Askjo wrote:
> > >
> > > "Libertarius" <THE_TRUTH_THE_WHOLE_TRUTH@NOTHING_BUT_THE.TRUTH> wrote in
> > > message news:3C8FB3D3.4163C554@NOTHING_BUT_THE.TRUTH...
> > > > Askjo wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > Was Jesus baptized when He was an infant? If so, what Scripture
> says?
> > > > >
> > > > > Askjo
> > > >
> > > > ===>Silly question.
> > >
> > > Is infant baptism doctrinal or biblical?
> >
> > ===>BOTH.
>
> I do not think you would find what Scripture says about infants being
> baptized.
>
> Askjo
===If you mean the Bible, there is talk about whole families
being baptized, and other texts explain HOW they did it, i.e.
older children making a confession of their beliefs, and younger
children being represented by their parents. I can see why
a family getting converted would not want to leave their infants
unbaptized, in view of all the expectations attached to the ritual.
Libertarius
============
Christ's Disciple
"Libertarius" <The_Truth_The_Whole_Truth@Nothing_But_The.Truth> wrote in
message news:3C917994.1F14394A@Nothing_But_The.Truth...
>> Askjo wrote:
> > I do not think you would find what Scripture says about infants being
> > baptized.
> >
> > Askjo
>
> ===If you mean the Bible, there is talk about whole families
> being baptized, and other texts explain HOW they did it, i.e.
> older children making a confession of their beliefs, and younger
> children being represented by their parents.
Where is the Biblical text proof of this?
Chapter and verse please. Thanks.
For as Jesus states, belief must precede an authentic baptism.
"He that believeth AND is baptised will be saved"
And Paul himself talks about adult "Believers" and "unbelievers".
"12 Let no man despise thy youth; but be thou an example of the BELIEVERS,
in word, in conversation, in charity, in spirit, in faith, in purity."
1 Tim 4:12 (KJV)
"14 And BELIEVERS were the more added to the Lord, multitudes both of MEN
and WOMEN." Acts 5:14 (KJV)
Nothing about infants at all.
Unbelievers.
Books: KJV
Found in: 4 locations
KJV Luke 12:46 portion with the unbelievers.
KJV 1 Cor 6:6 that before the unbelievers.
KJV 1 Cor 14:23 are unlearned, or unbelievers, will they not
KJV 2 Cor 6:14 yoked together with unbelievers: for what fellowship
No way can unbelievers be baptised, for such is just a useless exercise,
even by an immersion. Belief is the first criteria, babes in arms haven't a
clue.
Jeff...
Timothy
"Peter Besenbruch" <prb.nonl...@product.lava.net> wrote in message
news:gVWRPGO22g4Nc=dqipMhiWQ1e=h...@4ax.com...
> On Wed, 13 Mar 2002 19:53:24 -0000, "Timothy"
> <tim...@ntlworld.com> wrote:
>
> >But Baptism and Confirmation are more than making vows, they are
> >acts of obedience in themselves, and a public declaration of Faith,
>
> And church marriages aren't?!
Of course they are! I think you knew what I meant! The reference to
marriage vows was an aside, due to my distaste at how lightly so many people
these days (even Christians) seem to walk in and out of marriage as it suits
them, in total disrespect to God after disregarding their marriage vows made
before Him.
Timothy <><
"Have patience! God hasn't finished with me yet!"
> __________________________________________________________
Timothy
This I would refute, as someone who (although now Confirmed Anglican) was in
fellowship with the Baptists myself for a time. With them I had a full
immersion baptism, and in the pre-baptism classes they made it very clear
indeed that there was nothing "magical" about the Sacrement itself, nothing
special about the water, nothing special about the guys administering the
baptism (except they were Christians). They made it very clear that the
Sacrament itself does not save, it's Christ who saves, by Grace through
Faith. They even pointed out that the Sacrament was *not* considered
essential for salvation (citing the robber next to Christ on the cross as an
example), but should however be carried out as commanded by Christ, in
obedience to Him. However, if someone (un-baptised) repents, confesses and
turns to Christ, accepting Him as Lord and Saviour, then from that moment
they are a Christian, being Saved by Grace (assuming their belief is
genuine). If subsequently they are *prevented* from being baptised (ie by
an early death) this would not affect their Salvation status. However, if
at all possible they *must* be baptised after coming to Faith, as Christ
commanded.
Timothy <><
"Have patience! God hasn't finished with me yet!"
>
Peter Besenbruch
<tim...@ntlworld.com> wrote:
>Of course they are! I think you knew what I meant!
Of course. [g] Keeping covenants is serious business.
Peter Besenbruch
<tim...@ntlworld.com> wrote:
>They made it very clear that the
>Sacrament itself does not save, it's Christ who saves, by Grace through
>Faith. They even pointed out that the Sacrament was *not* considered
>essential for salvation (citing the robber next to Christ on the cross as an
>example), but should however be carried out as commanded by Christ, in
>obedience to Him. However, if someone (un-baptised) repents, confesses and
>turns to Christ, accepting Him as Lord and Saviour, then from that moment
>they are a Christian, being Saved by Grace (assuming their belief is
>genuine). If subsequently they are *prevented* from being baptised (ie by
>an early death) this would not affect their Salvation status. However, if
>at all possible they *must* be baptised after coming to Faith, as Christ
>commanded.
I am glad your particular congregation was more open about this.
To go along with your congregation, I'll cite the retired Baptist
pastor who posted about baptism a few days ago. Here in the
United States, Baptists are a diverse bunch, but there is
something of a tragic war going on among the largest group, the
Southern Baptists. In fact, the war is largely over. The
denomination has been taken over by a very doctrinaire
leadership, one that combines a high degree of legalism with a
great deal of magical thinking.
That magical thinking is reflected in the previous poster's
words. I'll re-quote them:
"Now for the last six, their members have been denied an
authentic baptism by immersion, and sadly such "Remain in their
sins" and are uncleanced."
Note the emphasis on the way the rite is performed to the
exclusion of the sovereign grace of God. It's not God who saves,
here, it is the "going through the motions" that counts. That
attitude is all too common in Baptist circles.
Timothy
between some Baptist groups in the US and the Baptist Church as we know it
here in the UK. There is no way that the Baptist church I attended would
say a person would still be 'dead in their sins' unless they had been
baptised, as their teaching was very clear that a person is 'born again'
from the very moment they repent and (genuinely) accept Christ as Lord.
They would expect baptism to follow conversion as an act of obedience and
public declaration of what has already taken place in the person's life.
In fact there is very little difference between most of the various
Trinitarian Protestant denominations in the UK and they often work together
and have fellowship together in the name of Christ. The Anglican church
(Episcopal in the US) I now attend also even allows full membership (on a
separate roll) to people from other 'recognised' Trinitarian denominations
such as Methodist, Baptist, United Reformed (URC), etc. It calls itself a
'shared' church.
(Interestingly enough, in the UK Baptist Church [at least, in the one I
attended] you don't need to be baptised before you can share in the
Sacrament of Communion, you only need to profess a Faith in Christ as Lord
and Saviour).
Timothy <><
"Have patience! God hasn't finished with me yet!"
"Peter Besenbruch" <prb.nonl...@product.lava.net> wrote in message
news:Sk+SPH8LOJcL+J...@4ax.com...
j.w.
>
> "j.w." <j...@noaddress.com> wrote in message news:wXHj8.3329
> >
> > A person who trusts in their baptism as a means of obtaining God's
> > forgiveness is rejecting the sufficiency of Christ's death on his or her
> > behalf. That is not faith, and therefore it will not save that person.
> >
> >
>
> Agreed. But we are commanded to be baptised as an act of obedience, just
as
> we are commanded to remember Christ in the bread and wine. Jesus said
that
> if we love Him we will keep His commands. The Sacraments themselves do
not
> save, but nevertheless the Christian is expected to keep them in obedience
> to his Saviour.
>
> Timothy <><
>
> "Have patience! God hasn't finished with me yet!"
>
>
>
Agreed!
j.w.
"Libertarius" <THE_TRUTH_THE_WHOLE_TRUTH@NOTHING_BUT_THE.TRUTH> wrote in
message news:3C8FE625.FB27909@NOTHING_BUT_THE.TRUTH...
> "j.w." wrote:
> >
> > "Libertarius" <The_Truth_The_Whole_Truth@Nothing_But_The.Truth> wrote in
> > > "Morph." wrote:
> > >
> > >> ===>So, what?
> > > It is just a ritual that has been practiced in various ways by many
> > different
> > > peoples and many different religions. If some people believe it is
> > necessary
> > > so their kids will go to heaven in case they die, why not?
> > >
> > > Libertarius
> > > ============
> > >
> >
> > Because the issue is what must a person do for God to forgive them of
their
> > sins and be declared righteous for heaven. Jesus Christ once said: "I am
the
> > resurrection and the life. He who believes in me will live, even though
he
> > dies; and whoever lives and believes in me will never die." (John
11:26).
>
> ===>Someone wrote that some sixty years AFTER Jesus. All believers have
> died ever since.
Yes, they died physical deaths. Jesus said that those who believe in Him
will live "even though he dies," and "he who believes in Me will never die."
He is stating that we continue in conscious existance after death. Those who
believe in Him will have eternal life with him.
>
> > Jesus claimed to be the source of eternal life, which he defined as
eternal
> > fellowship with God in heaven (John 17).
>
> ===>When did Jesus do that?
> You are confusing a writer's story ABOUT Jesus with Jesus.
The scripture reference is cited above. The writer was an eyewitness to
Jesus' life.
>
> Jesus died to suffer the full
> > justice of a holy God who had to punish sin.
>
> ===>WHY, since "God" is an omnipotent, omniscient, omnipresent
> being who is the source of ALL THINGS?
He is also holy and perfectly just. Only a crooked judge would not punish
evil, and God is not a crooked judge. In His omnipotence, perfect wisdom,
and perfect justice, God provided a way for His judgement against mankind's
sin to be satisfied and to still have fellowship with us. Jesus Christ, God
in human flesh, paid our sin penalty for us in our place. This enabled God
to satisfy His justice that He had toward us for our sins, and also allow
Him to exercise His love, grace, mercy and forgiveness toward us and
fellowship with us throughout all eternity without compromising His other
attributes.
>
> He paid the full penalty for
> > every individual.
>
> ===>WHY, since it says no one should bear the penalty for someone else?
Because He loves us and He wants us to be with Him forever.
>
> Because He fully satisfied God's justice against our sin,
> > He can now offer eternal life as a free gift to all who will acknowledge
> > their need of Him, and personally receive Him by faith. He stated that
> > "whoever believes" will have eternal life. Baptism does not clean away
our
> > sins before God.
>
> ===>So, John the Baptizer was a liar, fooling Jesus and others?
John the Baptist taught that his mission was to point people to Christ.
Jesus said "Whosoever believes in Me has eternal life." Neither John or
Jesus contradicted each other with conflicting gospel messages.
>
> God accepted Jesus' sacrifice of His own life on the cross
> > as the only payment, not our good works, not our sacraments or religious
> > efforts.
>
> ===>How do you know that? Has he told you so?
Jesus rose from the dead within three days after his crucifixion. The risen
Christ told his disciples that they should preach that there is forgiveness
of sins available to those who repent in Jesus' name. (Luke 24).
>
> Receiving Christ by faith, not baptism, will obtain forgiveness.
>
> ===>That's not what Ol' John preached by the Jordan!
When somone asked Jesus what must they do "to do the works of God," Jesus
replied "This is the work of God, that you believe on Him who He has
sent." - meaing Jesus himself. Jesus said further that faith (belief) in Him
will obtain eternal life. John the Baptist did not preach a fundamentally
different message that would contradict what Jesus taught. Jesus said that
John the Baptis, in His estimation, was the greatest person who ever lived.
That could not be true if John's message was fundamentally different, unless
John's baptism had a different meaning and purpose other than eternal
salvation.
> >
> > A person who trusts in their baptism as a means of obtaining God's
> > forgiveness is rejecting the sufficiency of Christ's death on his or her
> > behalf. That is not faith, and therefore it will not save that person.
>
> ===>Nor will any "faith". When the time comes, it's up for you, you're
> dead, and that's that.
In essence, you are exercising faith also, you are taking a chance, without
any divine revelation to support you, that there is no existance and
judgement after death. I think that would take more faith to believe than it
would to believe that Jesus died for me and rose from the dead.
>
> So, why not do the hocus pocus stuff if it makes you feel better?
>
> Libertarius
Wouldn't you like to be assured that something better awaits you on "the
other side," after this life ends? Hope is not hocus pocus, it is real in
the heart of every person.
Morph.
>
> "Morph." <zygotically....@virgin.net> wrote in message
> news:3a8k8.60710$yc2.6...@news2-win.server.ntlworld.com...
> >
> > "Jim Docherty" <Jim.Do...@btinternet.com> wrote in message
> > news:a6qsn7$fbr$1...@paris.btinternet.com...
> > >
> > > >
> > > > I think you just have.
> > > > Thank you Jim.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Strange reply!..............
> > >OK then Morph, justify your
> > > remark that I am not a Christian
> >
> > Were you baptised by immersion after belief in Jesus, or just sprinkled
> > with water as a baby? Are you a member of the much disgraced Catholic
> > Church?
> >
> > > and while you are at
> > > it perhaps you could tell us on what authority you
> > > assert that Infant Baptism is an 'evil deception', your
> > > interpretation will not suffice.
> >
> > I think my other posts have answered that already Jim.
> >
> >
> > Another anti-Catholic bigot which is not much of a surprise, It's
> just so good to draw them.
Thank you Jim.
But what did you mean by the <rape of Drogheda> in another post?
>Morph, just a small point, to which sin free sect do you belong?
I didn't think there was such a sect?
Morph.
Libertarius
===>It is highly unlikely that Jesus ever said such a thing. The idea is
based on the teaching of Saul/Paul, who taught that all believers would
either be raised from death or transformed into a "spiritual body"
VERY SOON.
As I stated, it has not happened. Millions of "believers" have died.
>
>
> >
> > > Jesus claimed to be the source of eternal life, which he defined as
> eternal
> > > fellowship with God in heaven (John 17).
> >
> > ===>When did Jesus do that?
> > You are confusing a writer's story ABOUT Jesus with Jesus.
>
> The scripture reference is cited above. The writer was an eyewitness to
> Jesus' life.
===>NOT TRUE!
The Johannine Gospel was written some 60-70 years after the
crucifixion by someone obviously outside of Judaea.
> > Jesus died to suffer the full
> > > justice of a holy God who had to punish sin.
> >
> > ===>WHY, since "God" is an omnipotent, omniscient, omnipresent
> > being who is the source of ALL THINGS?
>
> He is also holy and perfectly just. Only a crooked judge would not punish
> evil, and God is not a crooked judge. In His omnipotence, perfect wisdom,
> and perfect justice, God provided a way for His judgement against mankind's
> sin to be satisfied and to still have fellowship with us.
===>As a SOURCE OF ALL THINGS, a "holy and just" being would TAKE
RESPONSIBILITY for all things, not punish his failures.
> Jesus Christ, God
> in human flesh, paid our sin penalty for us in our place.
===>That is total absurdity wrapped in more absurdity.
> This enabled God
> to satisfy His justice that He had toward us for our sins, and also allow
> Him to exercise His love, grace, mercy and forgiveness toward us and
> fellowship with us throughout all eternity without compromising His other
> attributes.
===>RIDICULOUS!
A totally just being would not punish "B" for the infractions of "A"!
This principle was even expressed by the OT prophets.
> > He paid the full penalty for
> > > every individual.
> >
> > ===>WHY, since it says no one should bear the penalty for someone else?
>
> Because He loves us and He wants us to be with Him forever.
===So, what happened to the principle of justice?
How is it just to punish "B" for the infractions of "A"???
> > Because He fully satisfied God's justice against our sin,
> > > He can now offer eternal life as a free gift to all who will acknowledge
> > > their need of Him, and personally receive Him by faith. He stated that
> > > "whoever believes" will have eternal life. Baptism does not clean away
> our
> > > sins before God.
> >
> > ===>So, John the Baptizer was a liar, fooling Jesus and others?
>
> John the Baptist taught that his mission was to point people to Christ.
===>NONSENSE! That's what Pauline Christians claimed, because
those baptized by John would not join their cult. But it is clear even from
the Gospels that John was preaching
"baptism of repentance for the forgiveness of sins".
>
> Jesus said "Whosoever believes in Me has eternal life." Neither John or
> Jesus contradicted each other with conflicting gospel messages.
===>Of course not. But Saul/Paul and his followers contradict both.
> > God accepted Jesus' sacrifice of His own life on the cross
> > > as the only payment, not our good works, not our sacraments or religious
> > > efforts.
> >
> > ===>How do you know that? Has he told you so?
>
> Jesus rose from the dead within three days after his crucifixion.
===>How do you know that? And if he "rose", how do you know
he was really dead?
> The risen
> Christ told his disciples that they should preach that there is forgiveness
> of sins available to those who repent in Jesus' name. (Luke 24).
===>A LEGEND about the "risen Jesus".
But even that does NOT say what you claim:
that "God accepted Jesus' sacrifice of His own life on the cross
as the only payment, not our good works, not our sacraments or religious
efforts."
>
> >
> > Receiving Christ by faith, not baptism, will obtain forgiveness.
> >
> > ===>That's not what Ol' John preached by the Jordan!
>
> When somone asked Jesus what must they do "to do the works of God," Jesus
> replied "This is the work of God, that you believe on Him who He has
> sent." - meaing Jesus himself. Jesus said further that faith (belief) in Him
> will obtain eternal life.
===>You are selectively quoting!
What about all the references to the rewards for GOOD WORKS???
> John the Baptist did not preach a fundamentally
> different message that would contradict what Jesus taught. Jesus said that
> John the Baptis, in His estimation, was the greatest person who ever lived.
> That could not be true if John's message was fundamentally different, unless
> John's baptism had a different meaning and purpose other than eternal
> salvation.
===>Jesus did not contradict John, the Pauline message did and does.
> > > A person who trusts in their baptism as a means of obtaining God's
> > > forgiveness is rejecting the sufficiency of Christ's death on his or her
> > > behalf. That is not faith, and therefore it will not save that person.
> >
> > ===>Nor will any "faith". When the time comes, it's up for you, you're
> > dead, and that's that.
>
> In essence, you are exercising faith also, you are taking a chance, without
> any divine revelation to support you, that there is no existance and
> judgement after death.
===>Sounds like you are ignorant of the clear and true message of
ECCLESIASTES:
Ecclesiastes 9:5
"For the living know they will die; but the dead do not know anything,
nor have they any longer a reward, for their memory is forgotten."
Ecclesiastes 9:2
"It is the same for all. There is one fate for the righteous and for the wicked;
for the good, for the clean and for the unclean; for the man who
offers a sacrifice and for the one who does not sacrifice. As the good man is,
so is the sinner; as the swearer is, so is the one who is afraid to
swear."
> I think that would take more faith to believe than it
> would to believe that Jesus died for me and rose from the dead.
===>It takes NO "faith" at all. One only needs to observe Nature and
Reality.
> > So, why not do the hocus pocus stuff if it makes you feel better?
> >
> > Libertarius
>
> Wouldn't you like to be assured that something better awaits you on "the
> other side," after this life ends?
===>Of course. Who would not?
I would also LOVE to be assured that I can be safely transported to Mars
and back tomorrow. But there's no such assurance.
> Hope is not hocus pocus, it is real in
> the heart of every person.
===>A.k.a. WISHFUL THINKING.
Libertarius
============
Peter Besenbruch
<tim...@ntlworld.com> wrote:
>...In fact there is very little difference between most of the various
>Trinitarian Protestant denominations in the UK and they often work together
>and have fellowship together in the name of Christ. The Anglican church
>(Episcopal in the US) I now attend also even allows full membership (on a
>separate roll) to people from other 'recognised' Trinitarian denominations
>such as Methodist, Baptist, United Reformed (URC), etc. It calls itself a
>'shared' church.
It does the heart good to hear stuff like that.
Morph.
> On Fri, 15 Mar 2002 22:48:11 -0000, "Timothy"
> <tim...@ntlworld.com> wrote:
>
> >...In fact there is very little difference between most of the various
> >Trinitarian Protestant denominations in the UK and they often work
together
> >and have fellowship together in the name of Christ. The Anglican church
> >(Episcopal in the US) I now attend also even allows full membership (on a
> >separate roll) to people from other 'recognised' Trinitarian
denominations
> >such as Methodist, Baptist, United Reformed (URC), etc. It calls itself
a
> >'shared' church.
>
> It does the heart good to hear stuff like that.
It makes mine bleed with the horror, with their shared heresies and
blasphemous incomprehensible "doctrines of devil's"
Where is the difference between the "Great Whore" RCC and it's desperate
gathering "Daughters"?
"I am no widow, I sit a queen"
Christ's Disciple
> On Fri, 15 Mar 2002 22:48:11 -0000, "Timothy"
> <tim...@ntlworld.com> wrote:
>
> >...In fact there is very little difference between most of the various
> >Trinitarian Protestant denominations in the UK and they often work
together
> >and have fellowship together in the name of Christ. The Anglican church
> >(Episcopal in the US) I now attend also even allows full membership (on a
> >separate roll) to people from other 'recognised' Trinitarian
denominations
> >such as Methodist, Baptist, United Reformed (URC), etc. It calls itself
a
> >'shared' church.
>
> It does the heart good to hear stuff like that.
It makes mine bleed with the horror, with their shared heresies and
blasphemous incomprehensible "doctrines of devil's"
Where is the difference between the "Great Whore" RCC and it's desperately
Kim Tame
>
Got yourself another new identity, Jeff?
Kim
Timothy
"Morph." <zygotically....@virgin.net> wrote in message
news:Rk1l8.20065$VP6.3...@news2-win.server.ntlworld.com...
>
Jeff, the denominations have their roots in the RCC, as the Reformers only
intended to remove Tradition that was either un-Scriptural or could not be
defended from Scripture. Indeed, the majority of the original reformers
wanted to reform the RCC itself, rather than form a separate Protestant
movement. Protestants do not reject the RCC as un-Christian, they only
believe it to be in error on some issues, and do not accept Papal authority.
The vast majority of the Christian Church is Trinitarian, and I know that
you contend that the vast majority are in error! Whereas I agree with you
on the form and timing of Baptism (as do the [UK] Baptist Church), and like
you I wholeheartedly believe in obedience to Christ's Commands, nevertheless
I am not a Christadelphian! You are quite correct in saying that the
Anglican Church and the denominations are much closer to the RCC than they
are to the Christadelphians, as in my [shared] church we welcome all in
fellowship from other *Trinitarian* fellowships.
One point:- The canon of Scripture we have is from Roman Catholic Tradition
(admittedly the status of the deutero-canonical books is debated, and some
are named differently) so if you accept the canon, you are accepting a piece
of good wholesome Roman Catholic Tradition!! Why do you think they were
right in selecting the Scriptural writings from among the available ancient
writings, and wrong in formulation of the Trinity Doctrine?
Jim Docherty
great anticipation!
Peace be with you
Jim
Glencoe
Isn't baptism an external sign showing that one has been baptized unto
Jesus Christ and into his death, and then raised unto God and newness
of life? However of what relevance is baptism if one is not truly
cleansed from within?
Judith
Timothy
"Glencoe" <oldb...@aol.com> wrote in message
>
> Isn't baptism an external sign showing that one has been baptized unto
> Jesus Christ and into his death, and then raised unto God and newness
> of life? However of what relevance is baptism if one is not truly
> cleansed from within?
>
> Judith
>
I would agree with that. Baptism being symbolic of dying and being raised
with Christ, an act showing obedience to Christ (as it is a Sacrament he
commands of us), and also a public declaration of rejection of sin and a
turning to Christ as Lord and Saviour, which has already taken place in the
person's life.
But that is the whole thread of this debate. I say that is the Biblical
model, and therefore ideally should be our practise today. Others refute
that and say that Baptism represents initiation into the 'community' of
Christ, ie is the Christian equivalent of Jewish Circumcision.
If you take the former view, Baptism should be reserved for adult believers,
if you take the latter view, then baptising 'babes in arms' is valid.
Confirmation then becomes the Christian 'Bah Mitzpha' (sorry, don't know
how to spell it).
The debate is over what the true Biblical model actually is...
Christ's Disciple
"Timothy" <tim...@ntlworld.com> wrote in message news:065l8.10637$%
> One point:- The canon of Scripture we have is from Roman Catholic
Tradition
> (admittedly the status of the deutero-canonical books is debated, and some
> are named differently) so if you accept the canon, you are accepting a
piece
> of good wholesome Roman Catholic Tradition!!
Errr! I would disagree there Tim. The best thing is for me to ask you to
take a look at this most interesting website.
http://www.blueletterbible.org/faq/canon.html#62
>Why do you think they were
> right in selecting the Scriptural writings from among the available
ancient
> writings,
See
http://www.blueletterbible.org/faq/canon.html#62
>and wrong in formulation of the Trinity Doctrine?
Well the Trinity was not accepted by any Church for almost 300 hundred
years after the beginnings of Christianity. Not a doctrine or indeed, word,
was ever mentioned by Jesus, his disciples or any Apostles. It is a
contradictory statement unintelligible and ridicules, if one stops to read
it with an unbiased mind.
It is a man-contrived heresy and was not accepted until decades of
controversy and the "Ravening wolves reeking havoc amongst the flock".
Jesus himself showed he was only "God's beloved Son" seeing Jesus
submitted to and always obeyed his Father, [even when he did not what to,
as when praying so hard to escape crucifixion, that he sweated blood, in
begging permission to get out of it. ] and actually worships Him.
So that scotches him from being "Almighty God" Himself, [for He worships
no-one ] and as we see, both have DIFFERENT WILLS. Tim.
Jesus wanted one thing, God another, Jesus submitted and obeyed ["Not MY
will, but THY will be done"] his Father, Almighty God "[Who is Greater then
I" states Jesus] .
Surely you must see the points here Tim...?
"And he said unto him, Why callest thou me good? there is none good but one,
that is, God: but if thou wilt enter into life, keep the commandments."
Matt 19:17 (KJV)
Was Jesus lying or telling the truth?
"don't call me good, I am not God, only his beloved obedient Son"
Time after time Jesus talks about " My God"....His Father.
Yet "Almighty God" or the "Lord God" has no God whom He worships...Right
Tim?
And there are countless other examples which I have given before.......
As to the unscriptual 'Trinity' it was not accepted by any 'Church' until
the 4th
century AD.
History of the Trinity.
A.D.29. Jesus said. "The Lord our God is ONE Lord" Mark.12:29
57. Paul said, "To us there is but ONE God" 1 Cor.8:6
96. Clement said, "Christ was sent by God"
120. "Apostle's Creed" "I believe in God the Father".
150. Justin Martin, introduces Greek Philosophy.
170. The word "Trias" appears first in Christian literature.
200. "Trinitas" is first introduced to Tertullian.
230. Origen, opposes prayers to Christ.
260. Sabellius: "Father, Son and Holy Ghost are the three names
for God"
300.Trinitarian prayers unknown in the Church.
325. "Nicene Creed" affirms Christ to be "Very God of very God"
370. Doxology composed.
381. Council of Constantinople invents "Three persons in One God".
383. Emperor Theodosius threatens punishment to all who won't
worship the Trinity.
519. Doxology ordered to be sung in all the churches.
669. Clergy commanded to commit to memory the "Athanasian Creed".
826. Bishop Basil, required the clergy to repeat the "Athanasian Creed"
every Sunday.
A few of the countless objections which baffle heretical Trinitarians that
Jesus is Almighty God Himself, appear below.
"28 When Christ has finally won the battle against all his enemies, then
he, the Son of God, will put himself also under his Father's orders, so that
God who has given him the victory over everything else will be utterly
supreme."
1 Cor 15:27-28 (LB)
This is wonderfully self- explanatory.
Almighty God, whom Jesus addressed as "MY FATHER in heaven" is completely
under the power of Almighty God and can never be His equal.
[BTW, it may be read in any version one cares to choose.]
For the Father loveth the Son, and sheweth him all things that himself
doeth: and he will shew him greater works than these, that ye may marvel.
John 5:18-20 (KJV)
If Jesus was God he wouldn't be need to be SHOWN what his father did, he
would know already being God. Right Gentlemen?
If Jesus was God he could do anything. Jesus couldn't even answer his own
prayer in the G.o.G. even when praying as with "Great drops of blood"
He begged his FATHER to realise from the terrible time ahead, that he be
tortured & crucified, but God declined to answer his prayer. If he was God,
he would have answered his own prayer immediately,
Right Gentlemen?
In fact, he wouldn't have needed to pray at all. ever. Yet Jesus was always
praying and beseeching of his Father. Right?
"Who in the days of his flesh, when he had offered up prayers and
supplications with strong crying and tears unto him that was able to save
him from death, and was heard in that he feared;
8 Though he were a Son, yet learned he obedience by the things which he
suffered;
9 And being made perfect, he became the author of eternal salvation unto all
them that obey him" Heb 5:7-9 (KJV)]
See! he had to learn obedience to God by what he suffered. Well that is daft
if he was God himself. Just crazy!
He wouldn't have allowed himself to be in such predicaments in the first
place, but he isn't God, so he submitted to his Father's Will. "Even unto
death" Right Gentlemen?
Now God CANNOT DIE.
Jesus DID.
"Who both killed the Lord Jesus, and their own prophets, etc."
1 Thess 2:15 (KJV)
How come, if Jesus is God?
"Who only hath immortality, dwelling in the light which no man can approach
unto; whom no man hath seen, nor can see: to whom be honour and power
everlasting. Amen." 1 Tim 6:16 (KJV)
This cannot be referring to Jesus as "multitudes" saw him. But no man can
see
"God's face and live" Ex. 33:20.
Right Gentlemen?
Also Jesus tell us he has a God...which His Father, "God Almighty" does not.
At John 4:24, Jesus says: "we worship that which we know"
Jesus worships? Yep. He said so, and I'll take his word for it, but
Trinies won't.
Even *after* his resurrection and glorification in heaven, Jesus
worships his God:
Romans 15:6 "glorify *the God* and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ."
2 Corinthians 1:3 "Blessed be *the God* and Father of our Lord Jesus
Christ."
2 Corinthians 11:31 "*The God* and Father of the Lord Jesus".
Ephesians 1:3 "Blessed be *the God* and Father of our Lord Jesus
Christ".
1 Peter 1:3 "Blessed be *the God* and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ"
John 20:17 "*my God* and your God."
Revelation 3:2 "before *my God*".
Revelation 3:12
"The one that conquers-I will make him a pillar in the temple of *my
God*, and he will by no means go out [from it] anymore, and I will write
upon him the name of *my God* and the name of the city of *my God*, the
new Jerusalem which descends out of heaven from *my God*, and that new name
of mine."
Micah 5:4 ASV "And he shall stand, and shall feed his flock in the
strength of Jehovah, in the majesty of the name of *Jehovah his God*:
and they shall abide; for now shall he be great unto the ends of the
earth"
Isaiah 11:2 ASV "And the Spirit of Jehovah shall rest upon him, the
spirit of wisdom and understanding, the spirit of counsel and might, the
spirit of knowledge and of the *fear of Jehovah*.
Who would Almighty God fear?
Himself?
Who would Almighty God worship
as His God?
An even "more" Almighty God?
Boy! It beggars belief that so many millions believe such a
incomprehensible mash of words as the heresy of the Trinity.
Jeff...
Christ's Disciple & Apostolic Advocate
<<<Read yourself RICH in the ways of the TRUTH>>>
Website: http://www.antipas.org
Read 'Christendom Astray From the Bible'
--
Brother Thomas was so, so, right:
"The greatest and most dangerous enemies to Christ are those who pretend to
be His friends, but are **not faithful to His doctrine; and they are
unfaithful who, from motives of personal interest, would weaken the point of
doctrine, or soften it for the gratification of their natural feelings,** or
for fear of hurting the feelings of the enemy and so affecting their
popularity with him....Dr. J Thomas. 1865
-
"12 Here is the patience of the saints: here are they that keep the
commandments of God, and the faith of Jesus." Rev 14:12 (KJV)
Jeff...
Christ's Disciple & Apostolic Advocate
<<<Read yourself RICH in the ways of the TRUTH>>>
Website: http://www.antipas.org
Read 'Christendom Astray From the Bible'
Peter Besenbruch
>Isn't baptism an external sign showing that one has been baptized unto
>Jesus Christ and into his death, and then raised unto God and newness
>of life? However of what relevance is baptism if one is not truly
>cleansed from within?
That's certainly one interpretation. I want to emphasize that the
candidate's spiritual state is important in any interpretation,
even in the alternative I'm now going to offer.
Baptism can also be seen as a vehicle of God's grace, regardless
of the state of the candidate. Some go a little further and say
that Baptism has cleansing properties regardless of the condition
of the recipient. It's God's grace that is offered, and that
grace may operate in ways we don't anticipate.
__________________________________________________________
Peter Besenbruch
>> >...In fact there is very little difference between most of the various
>> >Trinitarian Protestant denominations in the UK and they often work
>together
>> >and have fellowship together in the name of Christ. The Anglican church
>> >(Episcopal in the US) I now attend also even allows full membership (on a
>> >separate roll) to people from other 'recognised' Trinitarian
>denominations
>> >such as Methodist, Baptist, United Reformed (URC), etc. It calls itself
>a
>> >'shared' church.
I replied:
>> It does the heart good to hear stuff like that.
On Sun, 17 Mar 2002 14:05:51 -0000, "Morph."
<zygotically....@virgin.net> wrote:
>It makes mine bleed with the horror, with their shared heresies and
>blasphemous incomprehensible "doctrines of devil's"
>
>Where is the difference between the "Great Whore" RCC and it's desperate
>gathering "Daughters"?
>
>"I am no widow, I sit a queen"
Two things. 1) Your interpretation of Revelation 17 is highly
dubious. 2) Neither myself, no the person I was answering was
speaking of the Roman Catholic Church. Timothy was referring
specifically to English Protestants.
Glencoe
> "Glencoe" <oldb...@aol.com> wrote in message
> >
> > Isn't baptism an external sign showing that one has been baptized unto
> > Jesus Christ and into his death, and then raised unto God and newness
> > of life? However of what relevance is baptism if one is not truly
> > cleansed from within?
> >
> > Judith
> >
>
> I would agree with that. Baptism being symbolic of dying and being raised
> with Christ, an act showing obedience to Christ (as it is a Sacrament he
> commands of us), and also a public declaration of rejection of sin and a
> turning to Christ as Lord and Saviour, which has already taken place in the
> person's life.
>
> But that is the whole thread of this debate. I say that is the Biblical
> model, and therefore ideally should be our practise today. Others refute
> that and say that Baptism represents initiation into the 'community' of
> Christ, ie is the Christian equivalent of Jewish Circumcision.
>
> If you take the former view, Baptism should be reserved for adult believers,
> if you take the latter view, then baptising 'babes in arms' is valid.
My view is that baptism is for believers and immersion is my preferred
method.
Jewish males had no choice where circumcision, being done in infancy,
was concerned, but I do not believe the same is true about baptism.
> Confirmation then becomes the Christian 'Bah Mitzpha' (sorry, don't know
> how to spell it).
I believe it is Bar Mitzvah for boys who are 12 or 13, and Bat
Mitzvah for girls who are 12 or 13. I'm not sure about the ages.
>
> The debate is over what the true Biblical model actually is...
>
> Timothy <><
>
> "Have patience! God hasn't finished with me yet!"
Yes, or me either.
Judy
Timothy
and precious thing......
Timothy <><
"Have patience! God hasn't finished with me yet!"
"Glencoe" <oldb...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:798a71a3.0203...@posting.google.com...
Peter Besenbruch
<tim...@ntlworld.com> wrote:
>Judy, we're in agreement on this issue. Agreement on these NG's is a rare
>and precious thing......
And terribly boring when it goes on too long. [g]
__________________________________________________________
Glencoe
> Judy, we're in agreement on this issue. Agreement on these NG's is a rare
> and precious thing......
I am in total agreement with your statement. It feels absolutely
wonderful to agree with someone regarding a given ng topic. I am so
sick and tired of battling with people. Why can't we who name the
name be civil to one another when we disagree? I certainly include
myself in my previous sentence.
With regard to baptism mode, I was reading last night, and learned
that the Jews perform what they refer to as a ritual mikvah and it is
Jewish water immersion. Too, Messianic Jews refer to John the Baptist
as Yochanan the Immerser. I feel like they should know what the
actual mode of baptism is.
Peace to you Timothy,
Judy
Glencoe
> On 17 Mar 2002 17:12:32 -0800, oldb...@aol.com (Glencoe) wrote:
>
> >Isn't baptism an external sign showing that one has been baptized unto
> >Jesus Christ and into his death, and then raised unto God and newness
> >of life? However of what relevance is baptism if one is not truly
> >cleansed from within?
>
> That's certainly one interpretation. I want to emphasize that the
> candidate's spiritual state is important in any interpretation,
> even in the alternative I'm now going to offer.
>
> Baptism can also be seen as a vehicle of God's grace, regardless
> of the state of the candidate. Some go a little further and say
> that Baptism has cleansing properties regardless of the condition
> of the recipient. It's God's grace that is offered, and that
> grace may operate in ways we don't anticipate.
Truly, I don't believe rituals have any power to cleanse. I do
however believe in the absolute cleansing power of the blood of Jesus,
and believe it to be of such sufficiency that nothing else is needed
or of any real benefit.
We are saved by what baptism symbolizes. It is our identification
with the death, burial and resurrection of the Lord Jesus. We
participate in baptism in obedience to our Lord's command. What Jesus
has done for us is the reality, baptism is the symbol.
Judy
Teddy Priester
professing Christians are brought-up in Christian homes. As we would
expect.
The Episcopal (Anglican) infant baptisms serve to help remind and
determine those responsible; parents, Godparents, the Church community ,
etc. , for the Christian instruction and upbringing of the child.
If it is understood and believed aright by the child as he grows , he
recognizes that he has been dedicated to God by those with authority
which is no small matter .
I've found that many people of churches who do not practice infant
baptism tend to treat their children as if they belonged to Satan
before, and often after , their decision for Christ.(Often treating
each-other this way also) While those practicing infant baptism often
treat their
children as separate individuals', washed from the stain of the sin of
their conception , and dedicated to God . A sort-of 'Christ-child', born
of a virgin, the hope of the future . Needing correction, instruction
and discipline , not condemnation as a child of Satan .
Infant baptism seems much more likely to produce a mature and
well-balanced individual before God who doesn't feel guilty of becoming
'different' in any hopefully positive way , from his parents , friends ,
family , etc . Because it recognizes them as an individual before God
from the earliest beginning .
He isn't 'my child' any-more and he isn't 'Satans-child' .... he is
'Gods' child.' Bound and sealed in Faith and authority , as a member of
Christ.
What a wonderfull beginning !
TS Priester