Water Baptism

[zecryphon_nomdiv]

I don't deny scripture. I provided you the entire passage and showed you why your one verse is not about baptism. You claim it is about baptism because you want it to fit your narrative rather than let scripture change your narrative. Prooftexting out of context is a dangerous thing. It leads to false teaching, dogmas and cults. It is best to let the text speak plainly rather than force something into it, which you have clearly done with John 3.
Second, just because a person rightly understands justification by faith, not works, does not mean he understands all of scripture. Martin Luther never was able to reconcile with scripture in regard to communion and baptism. He wasn't able to clear himself of the dogma from tradition.

You deny the Sacraments. You deny Scripture. You make a mockery of Jesus' forgiveness of sins through physical means by referring to Baptism as being "magic water." You can't understand how Jesus, who turned water to wine, could turn bread and wine into His body and blood, while having the elements remain physically unchanged. I don't understand how He did it either, it's a mystery. That isn't reason to behave like an atheist and mock the Sacraments as you do and then claim you're adhering to Scripture. You're not.

He said "This is my body." "This is my blood." That is not symbolic language. You deny His words. If the meal is symbolic, as you so errantly insist it is, then there is no forgiveness of sins. So I'll ask you, how does the Christian receive forgiveness of sins when they deny the means of grace instituted by Christ for the forgiveness of sins?

 

[MennoSota]

You deny the Sacraments. You deny Scripture. You make a mockery of Jesus' forgiveness of sins through physical means by referring to Baptism as being "magic water." You can't understand how Jesus, who turned water to wine, could turn bread and wine into His body and blood, while having the elements remain physically unchanged. I don't understand how He did it either, it's a mystery. That isn't reason to behave like an atheist and mock the Sacraments as you do and then claim you're adhering to Scripture. You're not.

He said "This is my body." "This is my blood." That is not symbolic language. You deny His words. If the meal is symbolic, as you so errantly insist it is, then there is no forgiveness of sins. So I'll ask you, how does the Christian receive forgiveness of sins when they deny the means of grace instituted by Christ for the forgiveness of sins?

I don't deny communion or baptism. I deny the magic you ascribe to them, but I don't deny Jesus command to "do this in REMEMBRANCE of me." Or...to go, make disciples, and baptize them. These are commands we obey to remind us that Christ died and bled for the elect. The Holy Spirit immersed us in Christ when he made us alive with Christ. Those ceremonies of remembrance are good and commanded.
What is not good, nor commanded, is to state that communion and baptism magically saves people and is the means that humans use to invoke God to act. That teaching is fraught with error and human-centered pride. It is not biblically supported, though you are desperately trying to prop it up with prooftext out of context.
So, no, I don't mock scripture. I mock the foolish dogma of your denomination.

 

[atpollard]

So far so good. You are speaking about things that you evidently know and have some sympathy with even if you do not agree and do not believe it all.


Here you cross into territory unfamiliar to you and hence mistakenly interpret was what written. But you are free to reject what you saw if you want to. That is always an option when one exercises free will to choose what one believes and what one rejects.


Here you cross into error of your own making and presumption about what said and meant in the post that was written to you and to which you replied.



As always, you are free to choose what you believe and what you do not believe. That is the meaning of free will. You exercise it even if your theology denies it or interprets it in such a way as to eviscerate it.

I asked TWICE to clarify. The topic is “water baptism”, and you claimed that EVERY Catholic recipient of Water Baptism receives every one of the things on your list ... your list included the Holy Spirit and Eternal Life. Feel free to go back and reread my questions and your responses. YOU HAVE CLAIMED UNIVERSAL SALVATION FOR ALL WHO RECEIVE A CATHOLIC BAPTISM! You may have misspoken, but I did not misunderstand what you claimed.

 

[zecryphon_nomdiv]

I don't deny communion or baptism. I deny the magic you ascribe to them, but I don't deny Jesus command to "do this in REMEMBRANCE of me." Or...to go, make disciples, and baptize them. These are commands we obey to remind us that Christ died and bled for the elect. The Holy Spirit immersed us in Christ when he made us alive with Christ. Those ceremonies of remembrance are good and commanded.
What is not good, nor commanded, is to state that communion and baptism magically saves people and is the means that humans use to invoke God to act. That teaching is fraught with error and human-centered pride. It is not biblically supported, though you are desperately trying to prop it up with prooftext out of context.
So, no, I don't mock scripture. I mock the foolish dogma of your denomination.

I'm not going around and around on this with you. You are the only one who uses the word "magic" when it comes to the Sacraments given to the Church for the forgiveness of sins. You see this behavior from Atheists, not fellow Christians. You want to mock my denomination, go ahead. It's clear that's all you can do. You pick and choose what is true from Scripture that fits nicely with the lies you've been taught are true. I pray one day your eyes will be opened and you will cease being hostile to Christ and His Sacraments.

 

[YourTruthGod]

I asked TWICE to clarify. The topic is “water baptism”, and you claimed that EVERY Catholic recipient of Water Baptism receives every one of the things on your list ... your list included the Holy Spirit and Eternal Life. Feel free to go back and reread my questions and your responses. YOU HAVE CLAIMED UNIVERSAL SALVATION FOR ALL WHO RECEIVE A CATHOLIC BAPTISM! You may have misspoken, but I did not misunderstand what you claimed.

See that, be more careful how you speak to others. Can you believe you had the nerve to say that to me and then you speak like this?

By the way, now do you see too how the Catholic denomination is false?

 

[MennoSota]

I'm not going around and around on this with you. You are the only one who uses the word "magic" when it comes to the Sacraments given to the Church for the forgiveness of sins. You see this behavior from Atheists, not fellow Christians. You want to mock my denomination, go ahead. It's clear that's all you can do. You pick and choose what is true from Scripture that fits nicely with the lies you've been taught are true. I pray one day your eyes will be opened and you will cease being hostile to Christ and His Sacraments.

I use magic because you apply a mystical, magical event that affects salvation to both ceremonies. The early church did not apply that mysticism in the book of Acts.

 

[Josiah]

I use magic because you apply a mystical, magical event that affects salvation to both ceremonies. The early church did not apply that mysticism in the book of Acts.

AGAIN, yet again, one more time.... and you should have learned it in Confirmation because it's a Calvinist belief, too.... While God CAN (and very rarely does) grant faith by PURE FIAT (John the Baptist, for example), typically He uses means. In Catholicism, Anglicanism, Calvinism and Lutheranism, we refer to such as "the Means of Grace." Sometimes I've read/heard these referred to as "tools in the hands of the Carpenter." A hammer may be an innate, inert ng object but used by a skilled carpenter, can result in a miracle. While "shorthand" is sometimes used (as in "baptism now saves you" and "do THIS for the forgiveness of your sins") actually FAiTH does that, but the "tool" or "Means of Grace" referred is being used by God. They are "the power of God for salvation" why? Because faith comes via them, and faith means the work of Christ is 'credit to you' as Paul puts it.


Now, you may reject that Baptism and Communion DO anything (other than "remind" and get folks wet) - and I understand your view; I disagree with it but I understand the position here. Lutherans, Orthodox, Catholics, Anglicans - we've all shared why we have the perspective we do, the perspective of 2000 years of Christianity, but yes, Zwingli and the Anabaptist both created and went down a very different path in the 16th Century.

But your seeming insistance that God is impotent to work via means and ministry, that the ONLY way God is allowed to grant faith is by pure fiat - IMO that's unbiblical (and it's not even Calvinist).






.

 

[zecryphon_nomdiv]

I use magic because you apply a mystical, magical event that affects salvation to both ceremonies. The early church did not apply that mysticism in the book of Acts.

Acts 2:37-39 proves that the early church did accept that Baptism, did deliver forgiveness of sins.

Acts 2:37–39 (NASB95)

37) Now when they heard this, they were pierced to the heart, and said to Peter and the rest of the apostles, “Brethren, what shall we do?”
38) Peter said to them, “Repent, and each of you be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins; and you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit.
39) “For the promise is for you and your children and for all who are far off, as many as the Lord our God will call to Himself.”

/finished with this discussion

 

[MennoSota]

AGAIN, yet again, one more time.... and you should have learned it in Confirmation because it's a Calvinist belief, too.... While God CAN (and very rarely does) grant faith by PURE FIAT (John the Baptist, for example), typically He uses means. In Catholicism, Anglicanism, Calvinism and Lutheranism, we refer to such as "the Means of Grace." Sometimes I've read/heard these referred to as "tools in the hands of the Carpenter." A hammer may be an innate, inert ng object but used by a skilled carpenter, can result in a miracle. While "shorthand" is sometimes used (as in "baptism now saves you" and "do THIS for the forgiveness of your sins") actually FAiTH does that, but the "tool" or "Means of Grace" referred is being used by God. They are "the power of God for salvation" why? Because faith comes via them, and faith means the work of Christ is 'credit to you' as Paul puts it.


Now, you may reject that Baptism and Communion DO anything (other than "remind" and get folks wet) - and I understand your view; I disagree with it but I understand the position here. Lutherans, Orthodox, Catholics, Anglicans - we've all shared why we have the perspective we do, the perspective of 2000 years of Christianity, but yes, Zwingli and the Anabaptist both created and went down a very different path in the 16th Century.

But your seeming insistance that God is impotent to work via means and ministry, that the ONLY way God is allowed to grant faith is by pure fiat - IMO that's unbiblical (and it's not even Calvinist).
.

Your insistance in baptizing dead people with the hopes that God will make them alive...after the fact...is interesting. It's like saying "God could save a person if you shot them out a canon into outerspace so let's do it."
Josiah, there is no biblical evidence for your position. Your leaning upon tradition does not make your position legitimate. It just makes it a long position of being wrong.
My suggestion is that you let the biblical text determine the position and you throw out any and all traditions that fail under biblical scrutiny. Tossing out the phrase "well...God could...if He wished" as your argument is just silly.

 

[MennoSota]

Acts 2:37-39 proves that the early church did accept that Baptism, did deliver forgiveness of sins.

Acts 2:37–39 (NASB95)

37) Now when they heard this, they were pierced to the heart, and said to Peter and the rest of the apostles, “Brethren, what shall we do?”
38) Peter said to them, “Repent, and each of you be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins; and you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit.
39) “For the promise is for you and your children and for all who are far off, as many as the Lord our God will call to Himself.”

/finished with this discussion

"And now when they heard this they were pierced to the heart."
There is your salvation. (God is the cause)
The response (effect) is...repent and be baptized.
Thanks for sharing so we can all clearly see the work of God and the symbolism of baptism.

 

[YourTruthGod]

"And now when they heard this they were pierced to the heart."
There is your salvation. (God is the cause)
The response (effect) is...repent and be baptized.
Thanks for sharing be so we can all clearly see the work of God and the symbolism of baptism.

Try hard not to make up things the Bible does not say.

God warns about it.

 

[YourTruthGod]

Acts 2:37–39

37) Now when they heard this, they were pierced to the heart, and said to Peter and the rest of the apostles, “Brethren, what shall we do?”
38) Peter said to them, “Repent, and each of you be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins; and you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit.
39) “For the promise is for you and your children and for all who are far off, as many as the Lord our God will call to Himself.”

This passage proves that we have to believe and repent to get saved.

When they asked what should they do---God did not make them supernaturally feel that and say that.

IT IS NOT IN THE SCRIPTURES SO DON"T SAY IT IS WHAT GOD SAYS.

 

[atpollard]

AGAIN, yet again, one more time.... and you should have learned it in Confirmation because it's a Calvinist belief, too.... While God CAN (and very rarely does) grant faith by PURE FIAT (John the Baptist, for example), typically He uses means. In Catholicism, Anglicanism, Calvinism and Lutheranism, we refer to such as "the Means of Grace." Sometimes I've read/heard these referred to as "tools in the hands of the Carpenter." A hammer may be an innate, inert ng object but used by a skilled carpenter, can result in a miracle. While "shorthand" is sometimes used (as in "baptism now saves you" and "do THIS for the forgiveness of your sins") actually FAiTH does that, but the "tool" or "Means of Grace" referred is being used by God. They are "the power of God for salvation" why? Because faith comes via them, and faith means the work of Christ is 'credit to you' as Paul puts it.

Now, you may reject that Baptism and Communion DO anything (other than "remind" and get folks wet) - and I understand your view; I disagree with it but I understand the position here. Lutherans, Orthodox, Catholics, Anglicans - we've all shared why we have the perspective we do, the perspective of 2000 years of Christianity, but yes, Zwingli and the Anabaptist both created and went down a very different path in the 16th Century.

But your seeming insistance that God is impotent to work via means and ministry, that the ONLY way God is allowed to grant faith is by pure fiat - IMO that's unbiblical (and it's not even Calvinist).
.

Just for the record, there is no “Calvinist” Church or denomination. There are multiple Reformed Denominations including the Reformed branch of the Presbyterian Church that supports Water Baptism as the new circumcision and sign of admission into the new covenant people of God, and there is the Particular Baptists who maintain that it is repentance and the baptism of the Spirit that marks one as a member of the Body of Christ, with water baptism being and outward sign of an inner change that God has already made. Both branches are nearly the same age (less than 100 years separates their founding) and both follow Reformed Sotierology (so would be what you would call ‘Calvinist’)

 

[MoreCoffee]

I asked TWICE to clarify. The topic is “water baptism”, and you claimed that EVERY Catholic recipient of Water Baptism receives every one of the things on your list ... your list included the Holy Spirit and Eternal Life.

You are mistaken, the only person who has eternal life, that is to say immortality, is God and more specifically the only human being who has eternal life is Jesus Christ.

1 Timothy 6:13-16 I charge you, in the sight of God, who enlivens all things, and in the sight of Christ Jesus, who gave the testimony of a good profession under Pontius Pilate, 14 to observe the commandment, immaculately, irreproachably, unto the return of our Lord Jesus Christ. 15 For at the proper time, he shall reveal the blessed and only Power, the King of kings and the Lord of lords, 16 who alone holds immortality, and who inhabits the inaccessible light, whom no man has seen, nor even is able to see, to whom is honor and everlasting dominion. Amen.
​

Thus the "saved" who are saved in Christ and only in Christ have everlasting life in Christ and never apart from being in Christ. And to remain in Christ the faithful must "abide in him" as the Lord himself, while physically present among us taught. (See John 15:5-6 and surrounding verses)

Additionally human beings may fall away from Christ while in this world as saint Paul warns (See Hebrews 6:1-8; 2 Corinthinas 11:1-3; 1Timothy 3:5-7;6:9 ); tragically some fall away from Christ to their own destruction.

Feel free to go back and reread my questions and your responses. YOU HAVE CLAIMED UNIVERSAL SALVATION FOR ALL WHO RECEIVE A CATHOLIC BAPTISM! You may have misspoken, but I did not misunderstand what you claimed.

I think that you may have misunderstood many things that have been said both by me and in the holy scriptures.

Regarding baptism I wrote in answer to your question about infant baptism and adult baptism that:

Baptism means that the one baptised receives new birth from above in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit and that one dies to sin and rises to Life in Christ Jesus the Saviour. (Matthew 28:19; John 3:5; Romans 6:3-4) That meaning applies to infant and adult alike though the form of the baptismal ceremony differs in some details when baptism is administered to adults from when baptism is administered to infants. In the case of Infants baptism is administered after the parents (or those standing in for them for whatever good reasons they have for standing in) make affirmations regarding the upbringing of the child and make promises and affirmation on the child's behalf when asked to do so. In the case of adult baptism the promises and affirmations are made by the one about to be baptised in their own voice and on their own behalf.​

 

[Arsenios]

That was more of a joke, busting MC's chops, than a serious post.

I stole it to make a point...
I am trying to be sorry...
Failing to succeed...
Me not easy!




Arsenios

 

[Arsenios]

No.
Water not necessary.

So do we start a bonfire and do Baptisms at your place???

Just a little Levitical levity...


Arsenios

 

[MoreCoffee]

That was more of a joke, busting MC's chops, than a serious post.

I did reply to you "chop busting" post. But thus far I have seen no reply from you to that reply

Just to remind you, here is what was said in my reply.

You were doing good right up until you brought Mary and the saints into it.

It would be remiss of me to ignore the Blessed Virgin Mary, the angels, and the saints who make constant intercession for the saints here on Earth. Some do ignore them because their religion teaches them that these blessed persons are dead or if not dead insensate regarding earthly persons but I cannot follow their lead in this matter because my Lord told me that they are living and the apostle Paul wrote how they are gathered as a great cloud of witnesses observing the race that God's people on Earth run, the race that God calls them to run so that they may obtain the prize which awaits those who follow the high calling of the Lord Jesus Christ. So I invoke them in my prayers asking that they will join in praying for the good things that I asked from the Lord our God.

I hope that the little emoji that you used indicated that there was humour intended in your remark and that you do not really want the faithful children of God on Earth to forego the benefits of invoking the saints in prayer.

:big-eyes:​

 

[zecryphon_nomdiv]

I did reply to you "chop busting" post. But thus far I have seen no reply from you to that reply

Just to remind you, here is what was said in my reply.

It would be remiss of me to ignore the Blessed Virgin Mary, the angels, and the saints who make constant intercession for the saints here on Earth. Some do ignore them because their religion teaches them that these blessed persons are dead or if not dead insensate regarding earthly persons but I cannot follow their lead in this matter because my Lord told me that they are living and the apostle Paul wrote how they are gathered as a great cloud of witnesses observing the race that God's people on Earth run, the race that God calls them to run so that they may obtain the prize which awaits those who follow the high calling of the Lord Jesus Christ. So I invoke them in my prayers asking that they will join in praying for the good things that I asked from the Lord our God.

I hope that the little emoji that you used indicated that there was humour intended in your remark and that you do not really want the faithful children of God on Earth to forego the benefits of invoking the saints in prayer.

:big-eyes:​

Well we can't have you being remiss, now can we? I mean if you were remiss just think of the calamity that would ensue.

 

[MoreCoffee]

Well we can't have you being remiss, now can we? I mean if you were remiss just think of the calamity that would ensue.

Yes, I quite agree; much that could be calamitous could arise if any among the faithful were remiss so I will pray that none will be, including myself. And in my prayer I invoke Blessed Mary ever Virgin, all the angels and saints who make constant intersession for us, and all here who are my brothers and sisters asking that you all pray for the faithful and for me to the Lord our God that nothing remiss be done or said in this place.

And in the interim, between the time I typed the above and now as you read it, I will have a quiet chuckle every now and then as I read what you wrote and what some others have written. May God also find some pleasure and laughter as he watches our struggles to be serious that fail so badly so often.

 

[Josiah]

AGAIN, yet again, one more time.... and you should have learned it in Confirmation because it's a Calvinist belief, too.... While God CAN (and very rarely does) grant faith by PURE FIAT (John the Baptist, for example), typically He uses means. In Catholicism, Anglicanism, Calvinism and Lutheranism, we refer to such as "the Means of Grace." Sometimes I've read/heard these referred to as "tools in the hands of the Carpenter." A hammer may be an innate, inert ng object but used by a skilled carpenter, can result in a miracle. While "shorthand" is sometimes used (as in "baptism now saves you" and "do THIS for the forgiveness of your sins") actually FAiTH does that, but the "tool" or "Means of Grace" referred is being used by God. They are "the power of God for salvation" why? Because faith comes via them, and faith means the work of Christ is 'credit to you' as Paul puts it.


Now, you may reject that Baptism and Communion DO anything (other than "remind" and get folks wet) - and I understand your view; I disagree with it but I understand the position here. Lutherans, Orthodox, Catholics, Anglicans - we've all shared why we have the perspective we do, the perspective of 2000 years of Christianity, but yes, Zwingli and the Anabaptist both created and went down a very different path in the 16th Century.

But your seeming insistance that God is impotent to work via means and ministry, that the ONLY way God is allowed to grant faith is by pure fiat - IMO that's unbiblical (and it's not even Calvinist).
.


.

Your insistance in baptizing dead people with the hopes that God will make them alive...after the fact...is interesting.

.... not for a monergist, not for one who holds that JESUS is the Savior, not for one who holds that God is not impotent to save some because of their age or whatever. We're believing, not telling God what He can't do.

I'm often reminded that your theology of Baptism comes hook, line and sinker from the Anabaptists, who invented it in the late 16th Century. They did so for one reason: they were radical synergists and they re-invented Baptism to fit with that. I will never ceased to be amazed with how a Calvinist can also be an Anabaptist; I often wonder if you actually READ your own statements here

You certainly can reject that Baptism is a Means of Grace; I disagree with you but I can understand your denial, but your framing all this in pure echo of the Anabaptists and their radical synergism strikes me a very odd.


When you present the Gospel to dead people, do you "HOPE" (funny word you use!) that God will give faith? Do you forbid yourself from doing so because you don't know if Jesus died for them and desires them to have faith (and might be wasting your time)? Do you forbid yourself from doing it unless they are over the never-disclosed age of X? Do you forbid yourself because to do so some human work would be involved (you telling them)? Where is this idea that God is rendered impotent based on age, based on is ministry is involved? Again, I 'get' your denial of Baptism, it's the REASONS you give (taken from the Anabaptist handbook) that shock and dismay me. What a limited God! I SUSPECT you present the Gospel because God tells us to, because you accept that God can use it, because God gives faith through it (although perhaps not always). Even though they may not have yet celebrated their Xth birthday .... and you can't prove Jesus died for them.... and they may not ALREADY believe and thus you don't need to evangelize them.

It's like saying "God could save a person if you shot them out a canon into outerspace so let's do it."

Accept that there is no such command. We are told to baptize and teach. We are commanded to celebrate Communion. And there are promises attached to such (forgiveness - which is salvation, "baptism now saves you", etc., etc., etc.). Yeah, as you do in much of your radical Anabaptist and Calvinist views, you like to spin verses 180 degrees so that they mean the exact opposite of what they say, you direct us instead to verses you can't find (such as "Thou canst baptize any under the age of X and you canst baptize any unless they publically prove they are among the unnamed persons for whom Jesus died and first give public proof of their faith in Jesus" and "Baptism does nothing" "And Communion is ONLY a rememberance and NOT for THIS is for the forgiveness of sins").


IF there was a divine command to shoot a canon..... IF the early church placed ENORMOUS emphasis on it (as it did Baptism and Communion), if promises were attached - yeah, I'd probably accept that. I don't limit what God can do or for whom.


Yes, synergists are going to argue that one must come to life and have certain attributes before God is released from His impotence and can bless. And you echo that Anabaptist argument. But consider Lazarus. Stinking to high heaven in that tomb. DEAD. Could Jesus GIVE him life? Seems so..... Why your Anabaptist synergism about how God cannot do anything for the dead? Your contradictions with your monergism is amazing.


No, the water does nothing..... it is but a "tool in the hands of the Carpenter" BUT it's in the hands of the CARPENTER! He can do great things! Yeah, He gave sight to a man with a mudball! Don't be so quick to tell Him what He cannot do. You may say you feel there is insufficent reason to believe He uses Baptism (and AGAIN, I can understand that, although I very much disagree) but your apologetic, your synergist limitations and restrictions and the mandates you put on God, the severe limitations to His sovereignty... well....

osiah, there is no biblical evidence for your position. Your leaning upon tradition does not make your position legitimate. It just makes it a long position of being wrong.

Freind, it's the opposite.

You have presented NOTHING from the Bible to show God cannot bless the dead, cannot give life to the dead.... you have presented NOTHING that states we are forbidden to baptize those under the age of X (Anti-Paedobaptism), NOTHING that we are forbidden to administer baptism to one who has not publicly proven he/she is among the unnamed few for whom Jesus died, NOTHING that states we are forbidden to baptize those who do not first give public proof of their faith, NOTHING that states we are forbidden to baptize unless every cell of their body is immersed under water. You have shouting a long list of Anabaptist prohibitions - and not one with any Scripture that remotely states what the Anabaptists and you do

My suggestion is that you let the biblical text determine the position and you throw out any and all traditions that fail under biblical scrutiny.

That's my suggestion to you. Stop spinning Scriptures 180 degrees so that they mean the exact opposite of what they say..... stop saying "Scripture says" and then proving you can't find that verse (and we both know why).... stop telling God how small He is, how limited is His sovereigty, stop parroting verbatim the synergistic apologetics of the Anabaptists who invented your dogma. Read. Accept. Believe. End the perfect parroting of the Anabaptist (and conflicting Calvinist) tradition.


Tossing out the phrase "well...God could...if He wished" as your argument is just silly.[/QUOTE]