Is Baptism Just an Inert Outward Symbol?

[Josiah]

Opening post:

Is Baptism simply an inert, ineffectual action or rite? A ritualistic act that God cannot use for anything? Perhaps symbolizing stuff or reminding of stuff but ineffectual of anything? Or does Scripture suggest that God actually can accomplish something via Baptism, that God can use it for something?


NOTE: no one argued that symbolism is involved; the new view is that it is ONLY a symbol. Foot washing is a powerful symbol that Jesus instituted; but there is nothing in Scripture or the Early Church that suggests it is anything MORE than that. And so the ACT was never much emphasized or practiced, and nothing is said in Scritpure about it. The Anabaptist position is that Baptism is just such a pure symbol. No one disputes there is symbolism involved (Luther stressed such), the dispute is the dogma invented by the Anabaptists in the 16th Century that that's ALL it is. Much like foot washing.


In the 16th Century, the synergistic Anabaptists overturned 1500 years of Christian faith by inventing a new dogma that baptism is an ineffectual, inert ritual that accomplishes nothing (spiritual or otherwise). They stressed that it is ONLY a symbol They invented an entirely new and never before heard of concept that "Baptism is visible, outward proof of the person choosing Jesus as their personal Savior, etc., etc." They repudiated and denounced every baptism in history and of every non-Anabaptist because this view was found nowhere but among the Anabaptist. Additionally, they invented several new prohibitions/mandates on the practice of Baptism: 1) A certain never-disclosed AGE must first be attained by the recipient ("Anti-Paedobaptism - no baptisms for children), 2) The recipient must first adequately prove they have chosen Jesus as their personal Savior ("Credobaptism"), 3) The recipient must first prove they have adequately repented of all their sins, 4) The recipient must have every part of their body entirely and fully immersed under water (Immersion Only Baptism). THIS thread is not about all those prohibitions/mandates that they invented vis-a-vis Baptism. There are already threads on these new inventions, but this is only about their new position: Baptism is ONLY an OUTWARD symbol of inner good works performed by the recipient. In effect, they claimed that Baptism is what Christians had held Confirmation to be. It was a radical idea, a brand new one, reversing 1500 years of universal Christianity.


.

It has been admitted by Josiah that there is zero biblical evidence for infant baptism.

Again, you are just trying to derail the thread.... This thread is not about the AGE of anything or anyone about anything. This is a common ploy of yours: In debate, it's called "The Shell Game.' There is a thread about the Anabaptist invention of an AGE mandate in Baptism, but this isn't that thread.

he should state that zero infants were baptized from Adam and Eve all the way until the first actual document that said an infant was baptized. No infants were baptized by the Apostles because there is no record of an infant being baptized in the Bible.

Again, you are just trying to derail the thread.... Just playing the Shell Game (again) for the only reason people do - to evade a point, to change the subject and get out of a difficult spot. As everyone who can read knows, This thread is not about the AGE of anything or anyone about anything. This is a common ploy of yours: In debate, it's called "The Shell Game.' There is a thread about the Anabaptist invention of an AGE mandate in Baptism, but this isn't that thread. Since you have nothing to this topic, nothing beyond your Dan Brown-esk someone-riped-that-out-of-the-Bible.... someone-silenced-the-majority..... theory. Now, if this thread were about some AGE restriction in Christian Baptism....and if derailing and hijacking disccussions was how best to have a discussion, then I'd agree it's unlikely there were any Christian Baptisms during the time of Adam and Eve.


I'm sure you think I SHOULD post that. But that's irrelevant, isn't it?


In ANOTHER THREAD, you have had ample opportunity to provide the Scripture "Thou canst not baptize any unless they hath attaineth the age of we-won't-tell-you." But this isn't that thread...




.

 

[MennoSota]

Opening post:










Again, you are just trying to derail the thread.... This thread is not about the AGE of anything or anyone about anything. This is a common ploy of yours: In debate, it's called "The Shell Game.' There is a thread about the Anabaptist invention of an AGE mandate in Baptism, but this isn't that thread.







Again, you are just trying to derail the thread.... Just playing the Shell Game (again) for the only reason people do - to evade a point, to change the subject and get out of a difficult spot. As everyone who can read knows, This thread is not about the AGE of anything or anyone about anything. This is a common ploy of yours: In debate, it's called "The Shell Game.' There is a thread about the Anabaptist invention of an AGE mandate in Baptism, but this isn't that thread. Since you have nothing to this topic, nothing beyond your Dan Brown-esk someone-riped-that-out-of-the-Bible.... someone-silenced-the-majority..... theory. Now, if this thread were about some AGE restriction in Christian Baptism....and if derailing and hijacking disccussions was how best to have a discussion, then I'd agree it's unlikely there were any Christian Baptisms during the time of Adam and Eve.


I'm sure you think I SHOULD post that. But that's irrelevant, isn't it?


In ANOTHER THREAD, you have had ample opportunity to provide the Scripture "Thou canst not baptize any unless they hath attaineth the age of we-won't-tell-you." But this isn't that thread...




.

Josiah, I am responding to your own derailment of the thread.
Now, please state, very clearly, what you believe water baptism effectually does. We can then compare scripture to see if that is true or not.
I await your claim as to what water baptism effectually does.

 

[Josiah]

[MENTION=394]MennoSota[/MENTION]


The sole issue of this thread is the: Is Baptism only an inert, ineffectual action or rite? Is it only symbolizing something or reminding of stuff but ineffectual of anything? Is it ONLY "an outward symbol of inner accomplishments by the recipient?" as the Anbaptists/Baptists and some Protestants of late hold; a fairly common position of some modern "Evangelicals?"


I offer the following to suggest that Anabaptist position is not sound.... I quote SCRIPTURE (and I'm okay with that Scripture says, I have no need to radically spin it to MEAN the opposite as you so consistently do on this topic and others). AND I give testimony of the Church. It's a short list, I realize, but I have placed SCRIPTURE and Christian Faith on the "table" as it were.


What does SCRIPTURE state?


I can find no Scriptures that state or indicate that Baptism is inert, ineffectual, just a symbolic ritual. IMO, that new Dogma (one of the defining, distictive dogmas of Baptists) is without any Scripture whatsoever. There is not one Scripture that remotely indicates that Baptism does nothing, accomplishes nothing, that it is SO stressed in the NT and SO important in the Book of Act and placed equal with teaching in the Great Commission, SO important in the Early Church because... well... worthless, not used by God. There is NOTHING in Scripture to support the Anabaptist's invented dogma of "ONLY an outward symbol of an inner good work performed by the recipient."

But there are several Scriptures, that when taken together, suggest something quite different. IMO, I'm not sure one can create DOGMA here, but there certainly is a powerful implication that God DOES something via baptism,or at least that this can be a "means of grace" - something God can use to convey His gifts. Let's look at some...


Acts 22:16

Acts 2:38

1 Peter 3:21

Romans 6:3-4

1 Corinthians 6:11

1 Corinthians 12:13

Galatians 3:26-27

Ephesians 5:25-27

Colossians 2:11-12

Titus 3:5

1 Peter 3:18-22

John 3:5

Acts 2:38

Romans 6:3-4

1 Corinthians 12:13

Galatians 3:27

Colossians 2:11-12


A couple of quick notes:

1. Nowhere in any of these is the word "then" or "after which" used; the word is "kai" (and) which only associates or connects things; it does not mean or imply sequence or chronological order

2. Also the word "wash" in some of the above verses is a variant of the word "baptize" or "baptism."


We need to also consider that Jesus, the Apostles and the Early Church gave great importance to this! Jesus places it along side of (and seemingly equal to) teaching in the Great Commission, for example. It seems less likely that it would be regarded as so very critical if it is an inert, ineffectual ritual that changes and accomplishes nothing at all. Jesus used the symbol of foot washing, for example, but that ACT was never given much importance and rarely practiced because everyone acknowledged it was a SYMBOL of something inward. Baptism could not be more different. Nowhere is a pure symbol given the importance that Jesus, the Apostles and Christians gave to this. Not even close.




What Did the Early Christians believe?


Again, we find none prior to that synergistic Anabaptist in the late 16th Century who view Baptism as just an inert ritual, only symbol, but great things are ascribed to it. NOT EVEN ONE who spoke of baptism as "an outward act of an inner decision or good work." Below is just a tiny sample. Note that the context of each is WATER BAPTISM.


The Epistle of Barnabas (A.D. 130) “This means that we go down into the water full of sins and foulness, and we come up bearing fruit in our hearts, fear and hope in Jesus and in the Spirit.”

The Shepherd of Hermas (A.D. 140?): "they descend into the water dead, and they arise alive.”

St. Justin Martyr (A.D. 160?) "And we, who have approached God through Him, have received not carnal, but spiritual circumcision, which Enoch and those like him observed. And we have received it through baptism, since we were sinners, by God’s mercy; and all men may equally obtain it."

St. Irenaeus (A.D. 190?). "And when we come to refute them [i.e. those heretics], we shall show in its fitting-place, that this class of men have been instigated by Satan to a denial of that baptism which is regeneration to God, and thus to a renunciation of the whole [Christian] faith."

St. Irenaeus (A.D. 190?) "“Now, this is what faith does for us, as the elders, the disciples of the apostles, have handed down to us. First of all, it admonishes us to remember that we have received baptism for the remission of sins in the name of God the Father, and in the name of Jesus Christ, the Son of God, who became incarnate and died and raised."

St. Clement of Alexandra (A.D. 215?) "The same also takes place in our case, whose exemplar Christ became. Being baptized, we are illuminated; illuminated, we become sons; being made sons, we are made perfect; being made perfect, we are made immortal."

St. Clement of Alexandra (A.D. 215?) "For it is said, “Put on him the best robe,” which was his the moment he obtained baptism. I mean the glory of baptism, the remission of sins, and the communication of the other blessings, which he obtained immediately he had touched the font."

St. Cyprian (A.D. 255) responding to a man who was asking him the specific question of whether or not the pouring of water in baptism would be valid: "You have asked also, dearest son, what I thought about those who obtain the grace of God while they are weakened by illness – whether or not they are to be reckoned as legitimate Christians who have not been bathed with the saving water, but have had it poured over them."


There are countless more. My point here is not the individual things here said, but the unavoidable and universal affirmation that Baptism is not an inert, ineffectual, mere ritual or pure symbol... Nowhere do we see any sense of it as some "outward ritual indicating a previous good work." Universally, baptism is seen as something God uses to accomplish something. Not until the late 16th Century.... not until the Anabaptists invented the new dogma of "Baptism Can't Do Anything" did ANY Christian agree with that view or even express it. The Anabaptist invention is found nowhere in the Bible and nowhere among Christians .... it is a radical new dogma invented by the radical Anabaptists in the late 16th Century, used to denounce and repudiate as invalid all baptisms that did not involve them.


[MENTION=394]MennoSota[/MENTION] I welcome the words of Scriptures that indicate that Baptism is ONLY an outward symbol of inner accomplishments; that it's sole function is to outwardly SYMBOLIZE a proven reality already accomplished by the receiver. And perhaps also the testimony of Christians before 1500, if you so desire. I invite and encourage you to put the WORDS in the Bible (and if you desire of Christians on this specific issue before 1500) to support your position, to support the 16th Century Anabaptist reinvention on this. If you have anything. Put them "on the table." Let's compare. Thank you very much! I'd appreciate it greatly if you cease attempts to change the topic to that of other threads, if you be so kind.



Thank you.


- Josiah




,

 

[MennoSota]

[MENTION=394]MennoSota[/MENTION]


The sole issue of this thread is the: Is Baptism only an inert, ineffectual action or rite? Is it only symbolizing something or reminding of stuff but ineffectual of anything? Is it ONLY "an outward symbol of inner accomplishments by the recipient?" as the Anbaptists/Baptists and some Protestants of late hold; a fairly common position of some modern "Evangelicals?"


I offer the following to suggest that Anabaptist position is not sound.... I quote SCRIPTURE (and I'm okay with that Scripture says, I have no need to radically spin it to MEAN the opposite as you so consistently do on this topic and others). AND I give testimony of the Church. It's a short list, I realize, but I have placed SCRIPTURE and Christian Faith on the "table" as it were.


What does SCRIPTURE state?


I can find no Scriptures that state or indicate that Baptism is inert, ineffectual, just a symbolic ritual. IMO, that new Dogma (one of the defining, distictive dogmas of Baptists) is without any Scripture whatsoever. There is not one Scripture that remotely indicates that Baptism does nothing, accomplishes nothing, that it is SO stressed in the NT and SO important in the Book of Act and placed equal with teaching in the Great Commission, SO important in the Early Church because... well... worthless, not used by God. There is NOTHING in Scripture to support the Anabaptist's invented dogma of "ONLY an outward symbol of an inner good work performed by the recipient."

But there are several Scriptures, that when taken together, suggest something quite different. IMO, I'm not sure one can create DOGMA here, but there certainly is a powerful implication that God DOES something via baptism,or at least that this can be a "means of grace" - something God can use to convey His gifts. Let's look at some...


Acts 22:16

Acts 2:38

1 Peter 3:21

Romans 6:3-4

1 Corinthians 6:11

1 Corinthians 12:13

Galatians 3:26-27

Ephesians 5:25-27

Colossians 2:11-12

Titus 3:5

1 Peter 3:18-22

John 3:5

Acts 2:38

Romans 6:3-4

1 Corinthians 12:13

Galatians 3:27

Colossians 2:11-12


A couple of quick notes:

1. Nowhere in any of these is the word "then" or "after which" used; the word is "kai" (and) which only associates or connects things; it does not mean or imply sequence or chronological order

2. Also the word "wash" in some of the above verses is a variant of the word "baptize" or "baptism."


We need to also consider that Jesus, the Apostles and the Early Church gave great importance to this! Jesus places it along side of (and seemingly equal to) teaching in the Great Commission, for example. It seems less likely that it would be regarded as so very critical if it is an inert, ineffectual ritual that changes and accomplishes nothing at all. Jesus used the symbol of foot washing, for example, but that ACT was never given much importance and rarely practiced because everyone acknowledged it was a SYMBOL of something inward. Baptism could not be more different. Nowhere is a pure symbol given the importance that Jesus, the Apostles and Christians gave to this. Not even close.




What Did the Early Christians believe?


Again, we find none prior to that synergistic Anabaptist in the late 16th Century who view Baptism as just an inert ritual, only symbol, but great things are ascribed to it. NOT EVEN ONE who spoke of baptism as "an outward act of an inner decision or good work." Below is just a tiny sample. Note that the context of each is WATER BAPTISM.


The Epistle of Barnabas (A.D. 130) “This means that we go down into the water full of sins and foulness, and we come up bearing fruit in our hearts, fear and hope in Jesus and in the Spirit.”

The Shepherd of Hermas (A.D. 140?): "they descend into the water dead, and they arise alive.”

St. Justin Martyr (A.D. 160?) "And we, who have approached God through Him, have received not carnal, but spiritual circumcision, which Enoch and those like him observed. And we have received it through baptism, since we were sinners, by God’s mercy; and all men may equally obtain it."

St. Irenaeus (A.D. 190?). "And when we come to refute them [i.e. those heretics], we shall show in its fitting-place, that this class of men have been instigated by Satan to a denial of that baptism which is regeneration to God, and thus to a renunciation of the whole [Christian] faith."

St. Irenaeus (A.D. 190?) "“Now, this is what faith does for us, as the elders, the disciples of the apostles, have handed down to us. First of all, it admonishes us to remember that we have received baptism for the remission of sins in the name of God the Father, and in the name of Jesus Christ, the Son of God, who became incarnate and died and raised."

St. Clement of Alexandra (A.D. 215?) "The same also takes place in our case, whose exemplar Christ became. Being baptized, we are illuminated; illuminated, we become sons; being made sons, we are made perfect; being made perfect, we are made immortal."

St. Clement of Alexandra (A.D. 215?) "For it is said, “Put on him the best robe,” which was his the moment he obtained baptism. I mean the glory of baptism, the remission of sins, and the communication of the other blessings, which he obtained immediately he had touched the font."

St. Cyprian (A.D. 255) responding to a man who was asking him the specific question of whether or not the pouring of water in baptism would be valid: "You have asked also, dearest son, what I thought about those who obtain the grace of God while they are weakened by illness – whether or not they are to be reckoned as legitimate Christians who have not been bathed with the saving water, but have had it poured over them."


There are countless more. My point here is not the individual things here said, but the unavoidable and universal affirmation that Baptism is not an inert, ineffectual, mere ritual or pure symbol... Nowhere do we see any sense of it as some "outward ritual indicating a previous good work." Universally, baptism is seen as something God uses to accomplish something. Not until the late 16th Century.... not until the Anabaptists invented the new dogma of "Baptism Can't Do Anything" did ANY Christian agree with that view or even express it. The Anabaptist invention is found nowhere in the Bible and nowhere among Christians .... it is a radical new dogma invented by the radical Anabaptists in the late 16th Century, used to denounce and repudiate as invalid all baptisms that did not involve them.


[MENTION=394]MennoSota[/MENTION] I welcome the words of Scriptures that indicate that Baptism is ONLY an outward symbol of inner accomplishments; that it's sole function is to outwardly SYMBOLIZE a proven reality already accomplished by the receiver. And perhaps also the testimony of Christians before 1500, if you so desire. I invite and encourage you to put the WORDS in the Bible (and if you desire of Christians on this specific issue before 1500) to support your position, to support the 16th Century Anabaptist reinvention on this. If you have anything. Put them "on the table." Let's compare. Thank you very much! I'd appreciate it greatly if you cease attempts to change the topic to that of other threads, if you be so kind.



Thank you.


- Josiah




,

So...what does water baptism effectually do? Please share so we can discuss. It's your thread. I can't respond to an empty point. You need to show us why you feel water baptism causes an effect on a human being.
Please share.

 

[Lamb]

So...what does water baptism effectually do? Please share so we can discuss. It's your thread. I can't respond to an empty point. You need to show us why you feel water baptism causes an effect on a human being.
Please share.

That's not what Josiah intended for the direction of this thread. Please see his posts above and respond with what he's requesting. You've already said you haven't done any research so it looks like you have nothing further to add to the point of this thread.

 

[MennoSota]

That's not what Josiah intended for the direction of this thread. Please see his posts above and respond with what he's requesting. You've already said you haven't done any research so it looks like you have nothing further to add to the point of this thread.

Then this thread is of no value.
Josiah wanted to know if water baptism was effectual or not. Since there is refusal to identify what water baptism effects, there is nothing to discuss.
Why is the OP unwilling to answer his own question?

 

[Josiah]

[MENTION=13]Josiah[/MENTION]

Josiah wanted to know....

Perhaps you didn't read it.... so it seems... let me repeat (again).... Try reading it.

The issue of this thread is this: Is Baptism only an inert, ineffectual action or rite; is it only symbolizing something or reminding of stuff but ineffectual of anything; is it ONLY an outward symbol of inner accomplishments by the recipient as the Anbaptists/Baptists and some Protestants of late hold; a fairly common position of some modern "Evangelicals?"


,

Then I shared...

I offer the following to suggest that Anabaptist position is not sound.... I quote SCRIPTURE (and I'm okay with that Scripture says, I have no need to radically spin it to MEAN the opposite as you so consistently do on this topic and others). AND I give testimony of the Church. It's a short list, I realize, but I have placed SCRIPTURE and Christian Faith on the "table" as it were.


What does SCRIPTURE state?


I can find no Scriptures that state or indicate that Baptism is inert, ineffectual, just a symbolic ritual. IMO, that new Dogma (one of the defining, distictive dogmas of Baptists) is without any Scripture whatsoever. There is not one Scripture that remotely indicates that Baptism does nothing, accomplishes nothing, that it is SO stressed in the NT
and SO important in the Book of Act and placed equal with teaching in the Great Commission, SO important in the Early Church because... well... worthless, not used by God. There is NOTHING in Scripture to support the Anabaptist's invented dogma of "ONLY an outward symbol of an inner good work performed by the recipient."

But there are several Scriptures, that when taken together, suggest something quite different. IMO, I'm not sure one can create DOGMA here, but there certainly is a powerful implication that God DOES something via baptism,or at least that this can be a "means of grace" - something God can use to convey His gifts. Let's look at some...


Acts 22:16

Acts 2:38

1 Peter 3:21

Romans 6:3-4

1 Corinthians 6:11

1 Corinthians 12:13

Galatians 3:26-27

Ephesians 5:25-27

Colossians 2:11-12

Titus 3:5

1 Peter 3:18-22

John 3:5

Acts 2:38

Romans 6:3-4

1 Corinthians 12:13

Galatians 3:27

Colossians 2:11-12


A couple of quick notes:

1. Nowhere in any of these is the word "then" or "after which" used; the word is "kai" (and) which only associates or connects things; it does not mean or imply sequence or chronological order

2. Also the word "wash" in some of the above verses is a variant of the word "baptize" or "baptism."


We need to also consider that Jesus, the Apostles and the Early Church gave great importance to this! Jesus places it along side of (and seemingly equal to) teaching in the Great Commission, for example. It seems less likely that it would be regarded as so very critical if it is an inert, ineffectual ritual that changes and accomplishes nothing at all. Jesus used the symbol of foot washing, for example, but that ACT was never given much importance and rarely practiced because everyone acknowledged it was a SYMBOL of something inward. Baptism could not be more different. Nowhere is a pure symbol given the importance that Jesus, the Apostles and Christians gave to this. Not even close.




What Did the Early Christians believe?


Again, we find none prior to that synergistic Anabaptist in the late 16th Century who view Baptism as just an inert ritual, only symbol, but great things are ascribed to it. NOT EVEN ONE who spoke of baptism as "an outward act of an inner decision or good work." Below is just a tiny sample. Note that the context of each is WATER BAPTISM.


The Epistle of Barnabas (A.D. 130) “This means that we go down into the water full of sins and foulness, and we come up bearing fruit in our hearts, fear and hope in Jesus and in the Spirit.”

The Shepherd of Hermas (A.D. 140?): "they descend into the water dead, and they arise alive.”

St. Justin Martyr (A.D. 160?) "And we, who have approached God through Him, have received not carnal, but spiritual circumcision, which Enoch and those like him observed. And we have received it through baptism, since we were sinners, by God’s mercy; and all men may equally obtain it."

St. Irenaeus (A.D. 190?). "And when we come to refute them [i.e. those heretics], we shall show in its fitting-place, that this class of men have been instigated by Satan to a denial of that baptism which is regeneration to God, and thus to a renunciation of the whole [Christian] faith."

St. Irenaeus (A.D. 190?) "“Now, this is what faith does for us, as the elders, the disciples of the apostles, have handed down to us. First of all, it admonishes us to remember that we have received baptism for the remission of sins in the name of God the Father, and in the name of Jesus Christ, the Son of God, who became incarnate and died and raised."

St. Clement of Alexandra (A.D. 215?) "The same also takes place in our case, whose exemplar Christ became. Being baptized, we are illuminated; illuminated, we become sons; being made sons, we are made perfect; being made perfect, we are made immortal."

St. Clement of Alexandra (A.D. 215?) "For it is said, “Put on him the best robe,” which was his the moment he obtained baptism. I mean the glory of baptism, the remission of sins, and the communication of the other blessings, which he obtained immediately he had touched the font."

St. Cyprian (A.D. 255) responding to a man who was asking him the specific question of whether or not the pouring of water in baptism would be valid: "You have asked also, dearest son, what I thought about those who obtain the grace of God while they are weakened by illness – whether or not they are to be reckoned as legitimate Christians who have not been bathed with the saving water, but have had it poured over them."


There are countless more. My point here is not the individual things here said, but the unavoidable and universal affirmation that Baptism is not an inert, ineffectual, mere ritual or pure symbol... Nowhere do we see any sense of it as some "outward ritual indicating a previous good work." Universally, baptism is seen as something God uses to accomplish something. Not until the late 16th Century.... not until the Anabaptists invented the new dogma of "Baptism Can't Do Anything" did ANY Christian agree with that view or even express it. The Anabaptist invention is found nowhere in the Bible and nowhere among Christians .... it is a radical new dogma invented by the radical Anabaptists in the late 16th Century, used to denounce and repudiate as invalid all baptisms that did not involve them.

So I offered quite a bit that seems to challenge this new re-invention. Did you miss it? And note: I did NOT "spin" them so that I insisted the Scriptures and quotes mean the opposite of what they say, that they say exactly the opposite of what they actually say because I appointed me to "exeget" them via very radical eisegesis, I was willing to let the quotes stand VERBATIM, exactly as the Holy Spirit inspired them and as these Christians actually said.



Then...

I welcome the words of Scriptures that indicate that Baptism is ONLY an outward symbol of inner accomplishments; that it's sole function is to outwardly SYMBOLIZE a proven reality already accomplished by the receiver. And perhaps also the testimony of Christians before 1500, if you so desire. I invite and encourage you to put the WORDS in the Bible (and if you desire of Christians on this specific issue before 1500) to support the 16th Century Anabaptist reinvention on this. If you have anything. Put them "on the table." Let's compare, Thank you very much!



.

Perhaps you didn't read that....


If you have such Scriptures and perhaps quotes - you are invited to share them. If you don't, I understand.




.

 

[MennoSota]

Perhaps you didn't read it.... so it seems... let me repeat (again)....





Then I shared...





So I offered quite a bit that seems to challenge this new re-invention. Did you miss it? And note: I did NOT "spin" them so that I insisted the Scriptures and quotes mean the opposite of what they say, that they say exactly the opposite of what they actually say because I appointed me to "exeget" them via very radical eisegesis, I was willing to let the quotes stand VERBATIM, exactly as the Holy Spirit inspired them and as these Christians actually said.


Then...





Perhaps you didn't read that....


If you have such Scriptures and perhaps quotes - you are invited to share them. If you don't, I understand.




.

I read this: I baptism just an inert symbol?
I await you expressing how you see baptism being effectual to cause something to happen. I cannot answer the title of the thread because it is too vague. Since you refuse to state your position as to how baptism is, in your mind, effectual, I cannot respond to emptiness in your part.

 

[atpollard]

Opening this back up...for those who wish to reply please keep in mind what the OP wishes to discuss.

Why?

 

[Andrew]

Why?

As long as the topic focuses on something other than exactly what is going on in another thread we allow off shoot branches to emphasise something apart from the other threads.
It's turning into a big tree I know but feel free to pick and choose which one you want to address just as long as it pertains to the OP topic.

 

[MennoSota]

As long as the topic focuses on something other than exactly what is going on in another thread we allow off shoot branches to emphasise something apart from the other threads.
It's turning into a big tree I know but feel free to pick and choose which one you want to address just as long as it pertains to the OP topic.

Be honest. No one has a clue as to what water baptism effectually does so no one can declare it in this thread. If someone actually believed it effectually did something, they would express it.
Clearly, by virtue of no one declaring what water baptism effectually does, we can conclude that Josiah's question has been answered.
Truthfully, nothing to see here. Shut down the thread and move on.

 

[Andrew]

Be honest. No one has a clue as to what water baptism effectually does so no one can declare it in this thread. If someone actually believed it effectually did something, they would express it.
Clearly, by virtue of no one declaring what water baptism effectually does, we can conclude that Josiah's question has been answered.
Truthfully, nothing to see here. Shut down the thread and move on.

The majority of the baptism topics in my opinion, when relating to scriptural detail, remain inconclusive for the most part.
When scripture remains silent on a theological matter perhaps we should remind ourselves of what scripture warns us about needles debates, it's unwise and unhealthy for us as a family.
Early Christians had debates too and they had disorder among them, thank God that the Apostles instructions to the churches are not lost.

You know sometimes we don't even realize that we all agree, if we have spiritual eyes and understanding then we know we can't force it down someones throat.
I have no intention of closing down baptism threads even if it seems rehashed to you or anybody, you can simply be the bigger person and just not respond to a thread that bothers you.

 

[MennoSota]

The majority of the baptism topics in my opinion, when relating to scriptural detail, remain inconclusive for the most part.
When scripture remains silent on a theological matter perhaps we should remind ourselves of what scripture warns us about needles debates, it's unwise and unhealthy for us as a family.
Early Christians had debates too and they had disorder among them, thank God that the Apostles instructions to the churches are not lost.

You know sometimes we don't even realize that we all agree, if we have spiritual eyes and understanding then we know we can't force it down someones throat.
I have no intention of closing down baptism threads even if it seems rehashed to you or anybody, you can simply be the bigger person and just not respond to a thread that bothers you.

Scripture is not silent on baptism. The issue is not scripture, the issue is rightly dividing the word of God.
Where, in scripture do you find water baptism being taught as effectual for giving a person faith and the Holy Spirit.
Where do you find water baptism being given...after a person repents?
Can a spiritually dead man repent, Andrew? Will water baptism make a person spiritually alive by virtue of the act of water baptism? What does scripture say?
There is no riding the fence when someone is teaching that the performance of water baptism causes a person to gain faith and the Holy Spirit. That teaching is works salvation and should be anathema to anyone who believes salvation comes by God's grace alone.

 

[zecryphon_nomdiv]

Be honest. No one has a clue as to what water baptism effectually does so no one can declare it in this thread. If someone actually believed it effectually did something, they would express it.
Clearly, by virtue of no one declaring what water baptism effectually does, we can conclude that Josiah's question has been answered.
Truthfully, nothing to see here. Shut down the thread and move on.

There's no need to shut this thread down. Since the mere existence of this thread bothers you so much, and you have such a problem with it, perhaps you need to exercise some self-control or discretion, and choose not to participate. Can you do that?

 

[Lamb]

Be honest. No one has a clue as to what water baptism effectually does so no one can declare it in this thread. If someone actually believed it effectually did something, they would express it.
Clearly, by virtue of no one declaring what water baptism effectually does, we can conclude that Josiah's question has been answered.
Truthfully, nothing to see here. Shut down the thread and move on.

I was baptized at the age of 4. I know what happened and yes, it's God's work in me and not something I did at all but stand there and receive. I don't like putting experiences here on the site but baptism is not some empty symbolic event.

Like Zec said, step away since you're done talking about the thread.

 

[Albion]

A valid baptism renders the following effects--

Initiates a person into the Church of Christ

Forgives sin

Grants grace

Imparts the Holy Ghost

Imprints an indelible spiritual character upon the person






All of the above according to Holy Scripture.

 

[MennoSota]

There's no need to shut this thread down. Since the mere existence of this thread bothers you so much, and you have such a problem with it, perhaps you need to exercise some self-control or discretion, and choose not to participate. Can you do that?

The existence doesn't bother me. The fact that no one states what water...baptism effectually does actually answers the OPs question.

 

[MennoSota]

A valid baptism renders the following effects--

Initiates a person into the Church of Christ

Forgives sin

Grants grace

Imparts the Holy Ghost

Imprints an indelible spiritual character upon the person






All of the above according to Holy Scripture.

Which holy scripture states that water baptism...

1) Initiates a person into the Church of Christ

2) Forgives sin

3) Grants grace

4) Imparts the Holy Ghost

5) Imprints an indelible spiritual character upon the person

I await not only the specific Bible passages, but also your exegisis of those passages that prove each of your assertions.

 

[MennoSota]

I was baptized at the age of 4. I know what happened and yes, it's God's work in me and not something I did at all but stand there and receive. I don't like putting experiences here on the site but baptism is not some empty symbolic event.

Like Zec said, step away since you're done talking about the thread.

Lamm, you have now moved entirely away from scripture and you make your argument from perceived experience.
Feelings do not drive faith.
God gives faith (no water necessary). We see all the saints before the cross receiving faith with no water applied. Perhaps you received faith earlier and the water symbolized what God had done. You felt a euphoria at obeying God in being water baptized, yet your faith was there before water ever touched you body.
I have addressed and gone through the scripture verses you shared. Would you care to exegete them yourself to show us what exactly God says happens in water baptism?

 

[Josiah]

So I offered quite a bit that seems to challenge this new re-invention. Did you miss it? A goodly number of Scriptures. And note: I did NOT "spin" them so that I insisted the Scriptures and quotes mean the opposite of what they say, that they say exactly the opposite of what they actually say because I appointed me to "exeget" them via very radical eisegesis, I was willing to let the quotes stand VERBATIM, exactly as the Holy Spirit inspired them and as these Christians actually said. AND I gave quite a number of verbatim (no need to spin!) quotes from significant early Christians. I submitted much. Verbatim. No spins to suggest they meant the opposite of what is stated.


Then I wrote, "I welcome the words of Scriptures that support the Anabaptist new "take" or reinvention, that indicate that Baptism is ONLY an outward symbol of inner accomplishments; that it's sole function is to outwardly SYMBOLIZE a proven reality already accomplished by the receiver. And perhaps also the testimony of Christians before 1500, if you so desire. I invite and encourage you to put the WORDS in the Bible (and if you desire of Christians on this specific issue before 1500) to support the 16th Century Anabaptist reinvention on this. If you have anything. Put them "on the table." Let's compare. If you have such Scriptures and perhaps quotes - you are invited to share them. If you don't, I understand. Thank you very much!




.

I cannot answer ... I cannot respond ....

No problem. I understand.


You'll then exit this thread, but no worries, we'll chat in other threads....


I understand, I really do, why you wish the OP didn't exist and why you want the thread closed, but silencing others is unrelated to presenting the words of Scripture to support your claim and reinvention of Baptism. If you have nothing to present, that's fine, no problem, I accept that. Several of us have presented words of Scripture and of early Christians to challenge the Anabaptist concept.... I invited words of Scipture to support your view.... and.... well......



Blessings!


- Josiah





.