Do you believe God works through means?

[Lamb]

Ephesians 2:8
For by grace are ye saved through faith ; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God:

Yes, and doesn't faith come from God's Word?

 

[Brighten04]

Yes, and doesn't faith come from God's Word?

Romans 10:17
So then faith cometh by hearing, and hearing by the word of God.

 

[Lamb]

Yes, God's Word is how we get faith. Do you know that God's Word is with the water in baptism? Ephesians 5:26

 

[Brighten04]

The cleansing comes from the washing through the word not water. For instance in Acts 10 Cornelius was saved and baptized in the Holy Ghost after the preaching of Peter before his baptism in water. The Ethiopian Eunuch was saved by the preaching of Phillip before he was baptized in water. Both of these instances show that it is the Word of God that saves through a person's faith. Baptism is an act of faith according to scripture.

 

[Lamb]

Baptism is the Word and the water. That is why baptism is God's work in us.

 

[Brighten04]

Baptism is the Word and the water. That is why baptism is God's work in us.

I understand if this messes with your theology. Salvation does not come through water baptism. Salvation comes first through a person first hearing the word of God preached and then the person responds in faith with repentance and is saved. After repentance the person responds in his faith by being baptized in water into the name of Jesus. The jailer in Acts 16 asked Paul and Silas what must he do to be saved. They told he had to believe on the Lord Jesus Christ and he would be saved. Then they preached the Word if God to him. It was only afterward that he was baptized in water.Nowhere in scripture do you see people being baptized without first believing in the Word of God being preached and them being saved first. If I missed it, please show me the passage that teach otherwise. To be baptized is an act of our faith in the death,burial, and resurrection of our Lord Jesus Christ. It is the washing of the Word of God that works in us to conform us into the image of the Lord Jesus Christ, not water. The Bible tells us that we are to be transformed by the renewing of our mind. The only way to do that is to believe the Word of God as it is written.

 

[Josiah]

The jailer in Acts 16 asked Paul and Silas what must he do to be saved. They told he had to believe on the Lord Jesus Christ and he would be saved.

.... nothing about "but FIRST you must weep buckets of tears in repentance BEFORE God is able to give you the divine gift of faith." Nothing about, "but FIRST you must become obedient, perfect, holy in life BEFORE God is able to give you the divine gift of faith." Nothing about "But FIRST you must have a certain IQ, attain a certain level of education, know and understand this corpus of teachings and assent to it before God is able to give you the gift of faith." Nothing about, "but FIRST you must attend X classes or X crusades, say the "sinners' prayer" and respond to an altar call before God is able to give you the gift of faith." What is required is not a certain age..... not a certain IQ..... not a certain level of education..... not a certain prayer said..... but FAITH, which Paul tells us is "the GIFT of God."

Nowhere in scripture do you see people being baptized without first believing in the Word of God being preached and them being saved first.

1. Not true.... you CANNOT show that every case of Baptism in the NT was preceded by the recepients FIRST doing X, Y or Z. You may ASSUME such to be the case, but the Bible does NOT so state. That's the case SOMETIMES, but not always.

2. So what? Why does Tradition trump Teaching? Nowhere in the Bible do we have examples of Asians being baptized yet Anabaptists do so anyway. Nowhere in the Bible do we have examples of Germans or Americans being baptized but..... How can you baptize an American Native ("Indian") since there was NOT ONE such EVER baptized in the Bible? And why can you post on the internet (no examples of that in the Bible)? There are no examples of anyone being baptized in a tank at the front of a church. There are no examples of people passing around grape juice and Weber's bread in communion. There are no examples of youth groups or youth pastors in the Bible. There are no examples of electrical musical instruments or powerpoint or church websites in the Bible. There are no examples of colleges or seminaries in the Bible. Can we only do things exampled in the Bible? If we don't find an example of it in the Bible, we can't do it? If so, why are you posting on the internet?



Thank you.


Pax


- Josiah

 

[psalms 91]

This is almost to the point of lol I will continue to watch

 

[Josiah]

double post, sorry

 

[Josiah]

The jailer in Acts 16 asked Paul and Silas what must he do to be saved. They told he had to believe on the Lord Jesus Christ and he would be saved.

.... nothing about "but FIRST you must weep buckets of tears in repentance BEFORE God is able to give you the divine gift of faith." Nothing about, "but FIRST you must become obedient, perfect, holy in life BEFORE God is able to give you the divine gift of faith." Nothing about "But FIRST you must have a certain IQ, attain a certain level of education, know and understand this corpus of teachings and assent to it before God is able to give you the gift of faith." Nothing about, "but FIRST you must attend X classes or X crusades, say the "sinners' prayer" and respond to an altar call before God is able to give you the gift of faith." What is required is not a certain age..... not a certain IQ..... not a certain level of education..... not a certain prayer said..... but FAITH, which Paul tells us is "the GIFT of God."

Nowhere in scripture do you see people being baptized without first believing in the Word of God being preached and them being saved first.

1. Not true.... you CANNOT show that every case of Baptism in the NT was preceded by the recepients FIRST doing X, Y or Z. You may ASSUME such to be the case, but the Bible does NOT so state. That's the case SOMETIMES, but not always. Consider Acts 16:15 for example; it says her HOUSEHOLD was baptized; prove to us that all in her household FIRST studied X, knew X, repented, believed and ONLY THEN, AFTER THAT, were all of them baptized. Now, yes, you may ASSUME that to be the case, but then you'd thereby be admitting the Bible does not say that - and your point would thus be incorrect, no, not all the cases in of folks being baptized were of those who FIRST learned, studied, understood, felt, responded, believed..... and only AFTERWARDS where they permitted to be baptized.

2. So what? Why does Tradition trump Teaching? Nowhere in the Bible do we have examples of Asians being baptized yet Anabaptists do so anyway. Nowhere in the Bible do we have examples of Germans or Americans being baptized but..... How can you baptize an American Native ("Indian") since there was NOT ONE such EVER baptized in the Bible? And why can you post on the internet (no examples of that in the Bible)? There are no examples of anyone being baptized in a tank at the front of a church. There are no examples of people passing around grape juice and Weber's bread in communion. There are no examples of youth groups or youth pastors in the Bible. There are no examples of electrical musical instruments or powerpoint or church websites in the Bible. There are no examples of colleges or seminaries in the Bible. Can we only do things exampled in the Bible? If we don't find an example of it in the Bible, we can't do it? If so, why are you posting on the internet? Do you see my point? I just don't agree that we can only do what we see illustrated in the Bible (if I did, I couldn't be posting here). Could I say, "I won't teach Koreans because there were none so taught in the Bible - and the command to go and teach doesn't mean everyone, just those to whom we have an example of being taught illustrated and recorded in the 27 NT books." Do you see my point, my friend?



Thank you.


Pax


- Josiah

 

[Brighten04]

.... nothing about "but FIRST you must weep buckets of tears in repentance BEFORE God is able to give you the divine gift of faith." Nothing about, "but FIRST you must become obedient, perfect, holy in life BEFORE God is able to give you the divine gift of faith." Nothing about "But FIRST you must have a certain IQ, attain a certain level of education, know and understand this corpus of teachings and assent to it before God is able to give you the gift of faith." Nothing about, "but FIRST you must attend X classes or X crusades, say the "sinners' prayer" and respond to an altar call before God is able to give you the gift of faith." What is required is not a certain age..... not a certain IQ..... not a certain level of education..... not a certain prayer said..... but FAITH, which Paul tells us is "the GIFT of God."




1. Not true.... you CANNOT show that every case of Baptism in the NT was preceded by the recepients FIRST doing X, Y or Z. You may ASSUME such to be the case, but the Bible does NOT so state. That's the case SOMETIMES, but not always. Consider Acts 16:15 for example; it says her HOUSEHOLD was baptized; prove to us that all in her household FIRST studied X, knew X, repented, believed and ONLY THEN, AFTER THAT, were all of them baptized. Now, yes, you may ASSUME that to be the case, but then you'd thereby be admitting the Bible does not say that - and your point would thus be incorrect, no, not all the cases in of folks being baptized were of those who FIRST learned, studied, understood, felt, responded, believed..... and only AFTERWARDS where they permitted to be baptized.

2. So what? Why does Tradition trump Teaching? Nowhere in the Bible do we have examples of Asians being baptized yet Anabaptists do so anyway. Nowhere in the Bible do we have examples of Germans or Americans being baptized but..... How can you baptize an American Native ("Indian") since there was NOT ONE such EVER baptized in the Bible? And why can you post on the internet (no examples of that in the Bible)? There are no examples of anyone being baptized in a tank at the front of a church. There are no examples of people passing around grape juice and Weber's bread in communion. There are no examples of youth groups or youth pastors in the Bible. There are no examples of electrical musical instruments or powerpoint or church websites in the Bible. There are no examples of colleges or seminaries in the Bible. Can we only do things exampled in the Bible? If we don't find an example of it in the Bible, we can't do it? If so, why are you posting on the internet? Do you see my point? I just don't agree that we can only do what we see illustrated in the Bible (if I did, I couldn't be posting here). Could I say, "I won't teach Koreans because there were none so taught in the Bible - and the command to go and teach doesn't mean everyone, just those to whom we have an example of being taught illustrated and recorded in the 27 NT books." Do you see my point, my friend?



Thank you.


Pax


- Josiah

Traditionally one can do whatever one wants to do for that matter. But the Bible says believe on the Lord Jesus Christ. IMHO that trumps all tradition.

 

[Brighten04]

. Not true.... you CANNOT show that every case of Baptism in the NT
was preceded by the recepients FIRST doing X, Y or Z. You may ASSUME such to be the case, but the Bible does NOT so state. That's the case SOMETIMES, but not always. Consider Acts 16:15 for example; it says her HOUSEHOLD was baptized; prove to us that all in her household FIRST studied X, knew X, repented, believed and ONLY THEN, AFTER THAT, were all of them baptized. Now, yes, you may ASSUME that to be the case, but then you'd thereby be admitting the Bible does not say that - and your point would thus be incorrect, no, not all the cases in of folks being baptized were of those who FIRST learned, studied, understood, felt, responded, believed..... and only AFTERWARDS where they permitted to be baptized.

Can you show where there were people who did not believe were baptized?

 

[Lamb]

Baptism isn't just water but water and God's Word. For those who believe that God's Word is how we come to faith, why can't you see that with God's Word being in baptism that the infant can be brought to faith?

Entire households were baptized in scripture.

 

[Josiah]

Can you show where there were people who did not believe were baptized?

Of course, I was responding to the point that ALL the examples of baptism that happen to be recorded in the NT were of people who FIRST believed (or repented or were taught or who understood or .....). I noted, that's simply untrue.


No. I can no more prove that all the members of Lydias household FIRST didn't do or achieve X,Y and Z than one can prove that they did. Thus, Scripture does NOT example X,Y,Z FIRST being done. Nor can I show that Native Americans or Koreans or Germans or blond hair/blue eyed Americans were baptized in the Bible (but that doesn't seem to keep anabaptist from doing so - IN SPITE OF have NO examples of such in the NT). But I'm not the one denying 1500 years of solid, ecumenical practice with an argument from TRADITION. I'm not the one insisting we must do and can ONLY do what we see illustrated and exampled in the Bible (I could not be posting on the internet with that rubric).

I'm arguing from teaching, not from the position that we can only do what is EXAMPLED in ILLUSTRATIONS that happen to be recorded in the 27 books of the NT. The Bible says to go and baptize. It doesn't say "but NOT unless they have first celebrated their X birthday!" "But NOT unless they hath an IQ of at least X." "But NOT unless you can find examples of people of the same race, color, age, ethnicity as recorded in the Bible." "But NOT unless they have read and understood X in formation." "But NOT until they have first wept buckets of tears in repentance."


It seems to ME, for the last 500 years (25% of Christian history), a very small percentage of Christians (less than 10%) are putting in prohibitions Scripture never put in place. And they seem to have ZERO justification for these prohibitions on the command of God. Now..... I admit..... it seems at least POSSIBLE that we'll all get to heaven and Jesus will say to 90% of Christians, "Why did you baptize babies, where did I tell you to do that? I know I never told you not to, of course.... don't you know all you did was get the baby wet? No harm, but no benefit either!" But I think it's more probable - and FAR MORE TRAGIC - that 10% of Christians in just the past 500 years might get to heaven and Jesus will say, "Why did you forbid people to do what I commanded? Where did I say to forbid those under the age of X? Why did you take it upon yourselves to deprive my children of what I wished to give them? What right did you have to invent this prohibition? Where do you get off contradicting me?" See my point, my friend?

I admit.... it COULD be I'll get to heaven and find out that baptizing my children was a complete waste of time and water (thus SO strange Jesus would so powerfully and centrally command it, that the early church would place SO much importance on it!). I'd rather find that out than discover (without biblical basis..... inventing prohibition and restriction and barrier) I kept my children from Jesus and from what He intended to do (even if I didn't know what that was). See my point????? You might consider it bad to needlessly get a baby wet, but I see a far great "bad" possibility here......




Thank you.


Pax


- Josiah

 

[Brighten04]

See my point????? You might consider it bad to needlessly get a baby wet, but I see a far great "bad" possibility here......

I think it is just a matter of denominational teaching.I reared my children in the fear and admonition of the Lord from the time they were born. They were baptized when they could confess Jesus is Lord. I do not believe they needed to be baptized before they knew that, neither do I believe they would be lost if they died while they were infants. I think it is bad to baptize a child before they come to faith, because, a relationship with Jesus is essential. I know a few Roman Catholics from forums who say they were born Roman Catholics, but,they say they have not been born again of the Holy Spirit of God. It is one's own faith, not mommy's or daddy's that saves one. The word of God plainly says this
Romans 10:8 But what saith it? The word is nigh thee, even in thy mouth, and in thy heart: that is, the word of faith, which we preach;

9 That if thou shalt confess with thy mouth the Lord Jesus, and shalt believe in thine heart that God hath raised him from the dead, thou shalt be saved.

10 For with the heart man believeth unto righteousness; and with the mouth confession is made unto salvation.

So according to scripture a person has to confess and believe Jesus is Lord and that He is risen. Baptism comes afterward. At least, this is the pattern shown in scripture. Baptism done in faith, one's own faith. It is fine with me if people want to baptize their infants. I have no argument with the practice. But if that child grows up and never come to faith on his own, If He/she never can confess whith the mouth and believe with the heart according to scripture, they are not saved by the water of infant baptism. And I say this without condemnation.

 

[Josiah]

I think it is bad to baptize a child before they come to faith, because, a relationship with Jesus is essential.

1. As personal OPINION ("I think") I can live with that..... What I tend to disagree with are those who insist SCRIPTURE states that and who rebuke those parents who choose to not so forbid their children.

2. I agree that faith and relationship are essential. Where the fundamental difference MAY be is that I think Jesus establishes that (what this thread is all about). Jesus said, "you did not choose me but I chose you." I think GOD gives us faith, establishes that relationship. Now..... as I TRIED to respectfully say in my post above to you..... I'm willing to admit it MAY be that baptism has nothing to do with that (and perhaps it's all just a waste of time and water) but in any case GOD (alone! SOLA Gratia, SOLUS Christus!) does this..... we are not our own Savior in whole or in part, I strongly and passionately believe. The idea that WE get the ball rolling, WE do the critical first step, WE make it all possible - means we are the Savior of self. Reject that, GOD saves. GOD does it. GOD establishes the relationship.

3. I know the verses you quote. Scripture also says that faith is "THE GIFT OF GOD" (not the invention of man). That "NO ONE CAN SAY Jesus is Lord" unless the Holy Spirit FIRST so causes. I'm a monergist, not a synergist (another reason why I left the RCC), I believe Jesus is THE Savior, not part so but the causitive, effective, critical part is ME.

t is one's own faith, not mommy's or daddy's that saves one.

Thus I reject one of the chief arguements of infant baptism: that their PARENT'S faith saves them. I agree, that's unbiblical.

Baptism comes afterward. At least, this is the pattern shown in scripture.

I think it's obvious, it does not. No one (yet) has even TRIED, even ATTEMPTED to show that Scripture teaches FIRST one must do X,Y,Z and THEN, after that, they are no longer forbidden from baptism.

An arguemnt from PURE TRADITION (very recent, very tiny tradition!) is all that has been given. In SOME cases, SOME of the examples of baptisms that happen to be recorded in the NT suggest that first the person believed and then was baptized. But not ALL the examples show this. Nowhere does it teach this must be the case. And I find it curious to find PROTESTANTS arguing solely from tradition.... rather than teaching.

It is fine with me if people want to baptize their infants. I have no argument with the practice. But if that child grows up and never come to faith on his own, If He/she never can confess whith the mouth and believe with the heart according to scripture, they are not saved by the water of infant baptism. And I say this without condemnation.

... and I agree. But IMO, that's no basis to condemn or deny the practice. I know of LOTS of people who were taken to church and Sunday School every week, who were clearly and often taught the Gospel - and yet DO NOT BELIEVE. Do we thus forbid people to be taught the word - just because it SEEMS (anyway) not all receiving it perpetually have faith? I mean.... the argument we've seen in this thread, that because it may SEEM that baptism isn't always associated with perpetual faith and ERGO but be forbidden unless faith first exists can equally be used to forbid teaching.





Thank you.


Pax


- Josiah




.

 

[Brighten04]

This thread is, I thought, about whether God works through means. It was not about children/infants baptism, or I would not have joined the discussion. We already have a thread on infant baptism. I maintain that baptism is an act of faith practiced by the believer in the death, burial, and resurrection of Jesus Christ.

 

[Lamb]

Baptism is a means of grace that God uses.

A lot of evangelicals will admit that God works through His Word but when pointed out that His Word is in baptism, for some reason they can't see His Word there because they are still focused on the water. Once you see that His Word is attached to baptism, you'll see that it's God work within us, not something we do. Hence, "be baptized" is passive and shows something is being done to us.

 

[Brighten04]

Baptism is a means of grace that God uses.

A lot of evangelicals will admit that God works through His Word but when pointed out that His Word is in baptism, for some reason they can't see His Word there because they are still focused on the water. Once you see that His Word is attached to baptism, you'll see that it's God work within us, not something we do. Hence, "be baptized" is passive and shows something is being done to us.

I think you confuse water baptism with baptism in the Holy Ghost. There is a big difference. It is the Holy Ghost within us that is Christ at work in us.

 

[Lamb]

There is one baptism. In it, we receive the gift of the Holy Spirit (Acts 2:38).