the meaning of Baptism

[MennoSota]

All 5 guys ought to be baptised when they realise that Jesus commanded that disciples be baptised in the name of the Father, and the Son, and the Holy Spirit. If they refuse baptism then they are not following Jesus and are not his disciples.

You didn't even come close to answering the question. Please try again.

 

[Josiah]

The scripture is clear that the Spirit has immersed us in Christ. Spirit baptism is the only effectual baptism referred to in scripture. It is the ONE baptism.
Water baptism is just a ceremony with no mystical power...just like receiving communion. Nothing mystical, MC, despite your churches false teaching.

You are echoing that denominational view of Anabaptists (since the 16th Century) but you have offered NOTHING to support it.....


I just find it.... odd.... that of the very few things Jesus specifically commanded Church to do.... one of them is to baptize. And that was embraced as extremely important until the Anabaptist denomination was invented in the 16th Century. Odd... that Jesus would COMMAND so strongly and boldly something that has no value, no meaning, a waste of time. Odd. And I wonder (just wonder) why NO ONE - not one Christian - for 1500 years - realized that Jesus' Command that we baptize is a meaningless act of no importance, accomplishing nothing whatsoever.... not one did. Not until the Anabaptist denomination was invented in the 16th Century. Odd.....


If Jesus meant to dunk in the Holy Spirit rather than to apply water, why - I wonder - did all the examples of baptism in the Bible and in the church until the Anabaptist baptize by applying water rather than only dunking people entirely under the Holy Spirit? Just seems odd.....


I understand your Anabaptist view...... but you've not offered even one verse to remotely support it as true, and you've not even theorized why Jesus would so boldly command something that's a waste of time and why not one Christian in the Bible or for 1500 years realized this "truth" of which you speak.


It was presented that we aren't to echo denominational opinions (yet, friend, that's all you've done here) and stick to Scripture (okay).... Well, where's the Scripture that states, "Go..... baptize..... teach..... but this is all a waste of time, meaningless, and unusable to God but do it anyway just 'cuz!" "Go..... baptize.... teach...... but not until the receiver has celebrated his X birthday and never before!" "Go..... baptize..... teach..... but don't use Water or the Word but instead of that immerse them in the Holy Spirit."



- Josiah

 

[Albion]

If getting wet is a requirement for baptism, and baptism is a requirement for salvation, and salvation is a requirement for entering heaven, you have just effectively barred a whole lot of ppl down thru the ages from ever being saved and entering heaven with that teaching, MoreCoffer.
Thats very dangerous teaching, are you sure you want to hold to it?

Leaving those sneers aside for a moment, the idea that God is a meanie if he doesn't save a majority of us sinners is nuts in itself.

 

[Josiah]

[MENTION=333]Snerfle[/MENTION]

If getting wet is a requirement for baptism

Well... yes. Although I was baptized with an eye dropper.

baptism is a requirement for salvation

NO ONE on the planet believes that it is.


However, CHRISTIANS (not dead, unregenerate, atheists) are commanded to "Go.... baptize..... teach......" The command is to baptize, not to be baptized.

salvation is a requirement for entering heaven

.... it is.

you have just effectively barred a whole lot of ppl down thru the ages from ever being saved and entering heaven with that teaching

I don't see how.....

A salvation scenario:

Guy A: Believes in the Lord Jesus Christ, His death for his sins, burial and resurrection from the grave. Never gets baptized in water.

Jesus alone saves. We are justified by Sola Gratia - Solus Christus - Sola Fide.


We are also commanded to GO..... BAPTIZE..... TEACH..... We are told that "Baptism now saves you" and "Faith comes by hearing" and "My Word does not return void but accomplishes that for which I sent it." I believe that faith is "the gift of God" and that ONLY God can and does give it. But while He can do this immediately (without means) - as in the case of John the Baptist who believed before he was born - it seems God normally performs His miracle of salvation via means (doesn't HAVE to but USUALLY does). We have two things associated with God performing this miracle: Baptism and teaching. And these are the two things CHRISTIANS are told to "go" with: "Go.... baptize..... teach......." Now, does teaching a pagan, dead, atheist John 3:16 save them? Absolutely not - however God can deliver His gift of faith THROUGH that means, as He said, "My word does not return to me empty but accomplishes all for which I sent it" and "faith comes by hearing" (although it doesn't say ONLY by hearing). Jesus one performed a miracle using a spit all, lol.... did the spit ball accomplish the healing? Obviously not. Did Jesus USE the spit ball? Undeniably. If Jesus told all Christians: I COMMAND you all to GO and put a mud ball in the eyes of dead people!" Do you think His Command would be wrong, invalid, meaningless, "of no value" and "a waste of time" (all argued in this thread) BECAUSE a spit ball can't heal?

Guy B: Believes in the Lord Jesus Christ as Guy A, and DOES get water-baptised, does so as a symbolic response to already being a believer, but does not believe his water-baptism is a requirement for salvation.

It's Sola Gratia - Solus Christus - Sola Fide. Where that's given to a soul, there is life and justification - and heaven awaits. Where that is not given, there is not.

Going.... baptizing.... teaching is NOT a requirement for the unbelieving, DEAD, atheist to do - a good work rewarded with salvation. These are commands for CHRISTIANS - believing, regenerated, born again, children of God to do FOR the dead. There is no verse, "The dead shalt go and baptize and teach themselves."

Guy C: Believes in Jesus AND gets baptised in water, believing that his water-baptism IS a requirement for salvation.

Well, he's wrong but that doesn't make the one who baptizes him wrong.

Guy D: Does NOT believe in Jesus, but WAS baptised in water at one point in his life, either as a baby at a ceremony with his parents, or as a young child even adult, but didnt understand or care to understand what he was doing.

Let's say Guy D hears the song, "Jesus Loves Me" when he was 5 because his grandmother sang it to him. But he has no faith. Is he saved? No. Justification is: Sola Gratia - Solus Christus - Sola Fide.

But was his grandmother denying the Grace of God by singing "Jesus Loves Me" to him? Is it wrong to teach unbelieving young people about Jesus?

St. Paul (one of the APOSTLES) preached the correct Gospel to UNBELIEVERS (because he loved them and because Jesus COMMANDED it).... did they all believe? No. Was it thus wrong for Paul to preach? I don't think so. Does that mean that preaching/teaching is "a waste of time" "of no value" "accomplishes nothing?" Does it mean that Paul was denying the Grace of God and denying that Jesus ALONE saves - not his preaching? I don't agree that it does.

Guy E: Does not believe in Jesus and was never water-baptized.

He needs to be our object of ministry - GO! Baptize! Teach!

Of the 5 Guys, which one(s) if any, are saved and go to heaven?

Where Sola Gratia - Solus Christus - Sola Fide apply.



Thank you.


- Josiah



.

 

[MennoSota]

You are echoing that denominational view of Anabaptists (since the 16th Century) but you have offered NOTHING to support it.....


I just find it.... odd.... that of the very few things Jesus specifically commanded Church to do.... one of them is to baptize. And that was embraced as extremely important until the Anabaptist denomination was invented in the 16th Century. Odd... that Jesus would COMMAND so strongly and boldly something that has no value, no meaning, a waste of time. Odd. And I wonder (just wonder) why NO ONE - not one Christian - for 1500 years - realized that Jesus' Command that we baptize is a meaningless act of no importance, accomplishing nothing whatsoever.... not one did. Not until the Anabaptist denomination was invented in the 16th Century. Odd.....


If Jesus meant to dunk in the Holy Spirit rather than to apply water, why - I wonder - did all the examples of baptism in the Bible and in the church until the Anabaptist baptize by applying water rather than only dunking people entirely under the Holy Spirit? Just seems odd.....


I understand your Anabaptist view...... but you've not offered even one verse to remotely support it as true, and you've not even theorized why Jesus would so boldly command something that's a waste of time and why not one Christian in the Bible or for 1500 years realized this "truth" of which you speak.


It was presented that we aren't to echo denominational opinions (yet, friend, that's all you've done here) and stick to Scripture (okay).... Well, where's the Scripture that states, "Go..... baptize..... teach..... but this is all a waste of time, meaningless, and unusable to God but do it anyway just 'cuz!" "Go..... baptize.... teach...... but not until the receiver has celebrated his X birthday and never before!" "Go..... baptize..... teach..... but don't use Water or the Word but instead of that immerse them in the Holy Spirit."



- Josiah

I am sharing what the Bible says.
When the word baptizo is used in the context of water...interpret it that way. When the word baptizo is used outside of the context of water...interpret it that way. This is elementary stuff, Josiah.
The question becomes:
Since water does not save and the connection of the word baptizo to salvation is NEVER in context with water, what is the immersion that is associated with salvation?
The answer is in the text. The Spirit immerses those who are adopted into Christ Jesus and his atoning sacrifice.
The second question we ask is: Why does God tell us to baptize with water?
The answer is: There is no reason given. Water baptism merely shows an outward display to the community about what God has already done.
We obey...because we obey. God is not obligated to tell us why he wants believers to be water baptized after salvation.
What we know for certain is that there is NO mystical power in water baptism. There is NO mysterious regenerative properties in the water. To claim such a fallacy is to deny God's salvation by grace alone.

 

[Josiah]

There is one baptism, MennoSota. Just one. Ephesians 4:5.

That's what Scripture states.

 

[MennoSota]

Well... yes. Although I was baptized with an eye dropper.






NO ONE on the planet believes that it is.


However, CHRISTIANS (not dead, unregenerate, atheists) are commanded to "Go.... baptize..... teach......" The command is to baptize, not to be baptized.






.... it is. The dead don't live, only the living live.






I don't see how.




- Josiah

You always neglect "make disciples" before baptism. Why is that? It is shouting out to you in the text and you turn your back on it every time you discuss Mathew 28. Why?

 

[Albion]

You always neglect "make disciples" before baptism. Why is that? It is shouting out to you in the text and you turn your back on it every time you discuss Mathew 28. Why?

It is irrelevant to the issue. If we want to make disciples, we're going to charge our missionaries with converting them. That is the usual process, but it doesn't for a moment mean that there are no other possible candidates for inclusion. What, for example, if some stranger came up to them and said the he already had accepted Christ? Would he be denied baptism because, after all, the missionary didn't have the chance to 'make him a disciple' on his own? Your logic would say "yes."

 

[Josiah]

I am sharing what the Bible says.

Respectfully, no. Which is why quotes from Scripture are typically missing from your posts. What you are doing is echoing the post 16th Century position of one denomination - the Anabaptists.

I don't believe there is a verse that states, "Baptism does nothing." I don't think there is a verse that states, "Go.... baptize.... teach....but don't use water or the Word but only dunk them under the Holy Spirit." "Go.... baptize.... teach..... but these are meaningless, worthless acts that accomplish absolutely nothing but do them just cuz." "Go.... baptize.... teach but thou art forbidden to do so if they are under the age of X". "Go.... baptize.... teach..... but not unless they FIRST have documented and proven that they are regenerate, born again and believe in Jesus as their Savior." You know, the claims made in this thread.

We do have verses like "There is one baptism." We do have verses like "Baptism now saves you" and "Faith comes by hearing." We do have verses such as "My word does not return to me void but shall accomplish all for which I sent it." We do see in the NT and for 1500 years how Christians went and baptized and taught (baptizing with water and teaching with words) and embraced that with great importance (it's called The Great Commission of Jesus) and not as a meaningless, worthless, waste of time that God cannot use. Friend, you have been given MANY Scriptures but haven't presented even one that states all the limitations and prohibitions you claim, all this "meaningless, useless" position.

The question becomes:
Since water does not save

Well, let's focus on the other tool in the Great Commission - teaching. What are we Christians COMMANDED to go with? Baptism and teaching (they seem to be given equal importance, and they are COMMANDED directly by Jesus). Do words save? No. Jesus saves. We all agree on that (including MC, my friend). But here's where I disagree with you: Therefore, teaching the Word is NOT a meaningless, useless, waste of time which God cannot use for his purposes. While God alone saves (I'm as strong of a monergist as you, my friend) you seem to leap that THEREFORE Christians must do NOTHING and just allow the Holy Spirit to work in a vacuum. I don't deny He can do that (witness John the Baptist still in his mother's womb) but that's not what we are commanded to do: Nothing. We (the regenerate, believing. justified, children of God) are COMMANDED to love, to go, to baptize, to teach. God typically works through MEANS - not because He has to but because He wills to. This does not make it any less His doing, obviously... but it does mean that the COMMANDS and COMISSIONS He gives are not meaningless rituals, useless acts, something we should do cuz God says so even though it's a waste of time and bad stewardship of ministry. Again, all the Scriptures have been given to you repeatedly - and you seem to ignore them offering nothing in reply.

Water baptism merely shows an outward display to the community about what God has already done.

You keep echoing this Anabaptist claim.... never with any Scriptures to remotely support it. Nothing.

We obey...because we obey. God is not obligated to tell us why he wants believers to be water baptized after salvation.

But there is no such command. As you've proven by persistently refusing to give the first that states, "Thou canst not be baptized unless thou has FIRST believed in Jesus and become regenerate." You claim there is that command that believers BE baptized but you can't find it anywhere in the Bible. The command, friend, is for CHRISTIANS to baptize (it's the other way around).

What we know for certain is that there is NO mystical power in water baptism

Yes, you are echoing this Anabaptist claim. But you have offered NOTHING to remotely indicate such. Nothing.

There is NO mysterious regenerative properties in the water. To claim such a fallacy is to deny God's salvation by grace alone.

No one claims that water saves, you know that. No one claims that saying John 3:16 saves anyone. Does that mean that teaching the Gospel to unbelievers is a waste of time, meaningless, forbidden - because it denies salvation by grace alone?

IMO, you've taken the Anabaptist view of baptism - and stripped it of the whole basis (which is synergistic) because you are a Monergist. But you've hit the wall Calvinists are WRONGLY accused of. Calvinists are accused of destroying the whole basis for evangelism, mission work, the Great Commission because the argument is made "if a Christian DOES something, that takes away from God doing EVERYTHING!" Go to any Calvinist website and you'll see that discussion. But you've taken Calvinism FAR too far, MUCH further than Calvinists do. Calvinists do NOT deny that Christians can share (AND MUST) administer the Means of Grace (and they do). They simply note what EVERYONE IN THIS THREAD has to you: The means doesn't save, God saves via the means. "My Word does not return to me void but accomplished all for which I sent it." That doesn't mean we are forbidden to love unbelievers, forbidden to go to them forbidden to baptize them, forbidden to teach them.... it ONLY means it's GOD who gives faith although usually via means. "Faith comes by hearing" doesn't mean OUR hearing creates the faith, it means the gift of faith comes by hearing (although it doesn't say "ONLY through hearing"). Can God give faith apart from hearing? God can do whatever He wants (and yes, John the Baptist had the gift of faith before he was even born).



- Josiah

 

[user1234]

A: depends. There are ppl who say they're saved but can't even do that and live like the devil. There are ppl who get saved in a jail in China and can't get baptised. Those are saved.
D and E are not saved. A good one from McArthur: Simon the scorcerer got baptized but wasn't saved. I just thought: hey so the apostles baptized someone who hadn't repented yet.

Hiya Ima ! :stars:
Thanks for being the one to at least make a serious, honest attempt to answer the Q's in post #716. :shake:

Part of your answer is correct. I'll explain.
(also, what about Guys B, C, and D?)

I tried to pose the Q as a hypothetical re: the 5 Guys, but state the scenarios as if fact, to try to avoid the 'what if' type of speculations in the answers.

Let me put it this way:
Guy A: Believes in Jesus, the way it was written in the Q...He DEFINITELY believes, for the sake of this discussion, he believes as much as anyone, as far as anyone else can say for sure. He believes fer real fer real! (Just to avoid the 'maybe he doesnt' speculations about him.)

In fact, Guy C might appear to fall into that ↑ category, but not Guy A. (Not Guy B either.)

Guy B also believes, and ALSO got in the water, as a RESPONSE, (lets say, a Joyful Response from the heart), but not as a REQUIREMENT.

Guy C seems similar to B, but HE believes his water-baptism IS A REQUIREMENT.
This is the only svenario where there may be room for speculation about if he 'Truly' believes, (and THAT's the point of my post in trying to contribute to this thread and the OP).
But let's give him the benefit, and say he truly WANTS to believe, and is only doing what he was taught, and so he believes his water-baptism IS a necessary requirement for salvation/going to heaven.

Guy D and E are not believers, so i agree w your answer about them, if they were never believers, they dont have salvation.

*However, some ppl here seem to be saying (or say denominations teach?) that as long as Guy D was water-baptised at some point in his life, aside from personally believing in Jesus, he still goes to heaven anyway, yes no?

I'm just wondering, like the OP, what different ppl/denominations believe and teach here about what is baptism/water-baptism/salvation etc.

 

[Lamb]

*However, some ppl here seem to be saying (or say denominations teach?) that as long as Guy D was water-baptised at some point in his life, aside from personally believing in Jesus, he still goes to heaven anyway, yes no?
.

I have not seen one person of any denomination state in this thread that someone who doesn't have faith (regardless of baptism) which allows us to believe in Jesus will be saved. Have you? If so, point it out to me, please.

 

[user1234]

Leaving those sneers aside for a moment, the idea that God is a meanie if he doesn't save a majority of us sinners is nuts in itself.

Care to point out what 'sneers' youre referring to before you make accusations?
I saw a smirking onionhead as a response to one of my posts,...if you mean THAT sneer, you should direct your remark to that one, otherwise, there didnt seem to be a problem between that person and myself.

As far as your accusation that God is a meanie if he doesnt save a majority of sinners not MY position, but perhaps it's yours.
And if you believe a person can't be saved without being baptised in water, you make YOURSELF out to be a meanie, and seem to implicate God as well.

My position is that a person is saved by faith, APART from water-baptism.
It's the ppl and denominations that make water-baptism a REQUIREMENT that are the meanies :no: .

 

[Lamb]

Care to point out what 'sneers' youre referring to before you make accusations?
I saw a smirking onionhead as a response to one of my posts,...if you mean THAT sneer, you should direct your remark to that one, otherwise, there didnt seem to be a problem between that person and myself.

As far as your accusation that God is a meanie if he doesnt save a majority of sinners not MY position, but perhaps it's yours.
And if you believe a person can't be saved without being baptised in water, you make YOURSELF out to be a meanie, and seem to implicate God as well.

My position is that a person is saved by faith, APART from water-baptism.
It's the ppl and denominations that make water-baptism a REQUIREMENT that are the meanies :no: .

What if (and this is what those who believe in infant baptism hold to as being true) GOD is at work in baptism (which includes water)? The original language says "be baptized" which means that it's not a work we do but something is being done to us and we're passive. Could you consider God doing something in baptism?

 

[Confessional Lutheran]

What if (and this is what those who believe in infant baptism hold to as being true) GOD is at work in baptism (which includes water)? The original language says "be baptized" which means that it's not a work we do but something is being done to us and we're passive. Could you consider God doing something in baptism?

Indeed. Would it not be more cruel to withhold God's saving grace given in Baptism from a child on the assumption that Baptism is a work we do, rather than the means by which God brings us into His family ( a.k.a. the Church)?

 

[user1234]

No time now, but again, we are saved, brought into the family BY FAITH.
gtg will try to reply later, okay? Peace.

 

[Lamb]

No time now, but again, we are saved, brought into the family BY FAITH.
gtg will try to reply later, okay? Peace.

If you consider God doing the work in baptism and giving us the gift of the Holy Spirit (Acts 2:38) and that this gift is for us and our children, would you also then think that God gives faith in baptism?

Mark 16:16 says Whoever believes and is baptized will be saved.

Believing and baptism go hand in hand. Just like baptizing and teaching that Jesus states in the Matthew verse when he tells the disciples to baptize all nations (which infants are a part of).

If you think about God doing the work in baptism and how He gives faith in it, then you will see that it comes "from above" as the text states.

 

[Albion]

Care to point out what 'sneers' youre referring to before you make accusations?

Oh, sorry. I thought you'd remember them and I quoted them in my post. We can do better when describing theological matters than to talk like that.

My position is that a person is saved by faith, APART from water-baptism.

That's fine. Even the most unorthodox and unbiblical POVs get posted here, but the topic is Baptism, not justification by faith or something else.

It's the ppl and denominations that make water-baptism a REQUIREMENT that are the meanies

They are so few that you shouldn't get this worked up about it.

 

[Josiah]

It's the ppl and denominations that make water-baptism a REQUIREMENT that are the meanies :no: .

There are NONE who make it a REQUIREMENT for salvation.....

In fact, I've pointed out repeatedly that John the Baptist believed before he was ever born...... God can give faith where He wills. But that doesn't mean that THEREFORE Christians cannot love people and be obedient to the Commands of God and must sit back and do NOTHING for the unsaved - trusting that God will use our lack of anything in order to bring salvation to those we know.

The command to baptize is given to CHRISTIANS, not to dead, unregenerate pagans.... we are the ones who are to be going and baptizing and teaching, we are the missionaries, the evangelists. Nowhere does Scripture command the DEAD, the unregenerate, the atheist, the unbeliever to baptize himself or teach himself or go to himself. There is no command, no teaching, and no example of any unbelieving, dead, heathen teaching or baptizing themselves. OTHERS go to them..... OTHERS baptize them...... OTHERS teach them....... The Great Commission is given to Christians, not dead pagans. Now, you can believe God gave this bold command to Christians for no reason, it's all a waste of time, it does nothing, it can't accomplish anything, God can't and won't use any of it.... it's all supremely bad stewardship of ministry... that pov can be argued, on that we'd disagree.



See post 724




- Josiah




.

 

[MennoSota]

It is irrelevant to the issue. If we want to make disciples, we're going to charge our missionaries with converting them. That is the usual process, but it doesn't for a moment mean that there are no other possible candidates for inclusion. What, for example, if some stranger came up to them and said the he already had accepted Christ? Would he be denied baptism because, after all, the missionary didn't have the chance to 'make him a disciple' on his own? Your logic would say "yes."

The scriptures say what they say for a reason. Make disciples is not irrelevant. You and I are the ambassadors (missionaries) to a rebel land.
God must choose to pluck a person from their rebel territory and place them in the Kingdom of God. He immerses them into the Kingdom. That person cannot and never could join God's Kingdom by their own free will.
There have been billions of people over the past two thousand years who have engaged in a ceremony of water baptism and are spending eternity in hell. Why? Because their water baptism didn't save them. They had never been immersed in Christ through adoption by the Holy Spirit. Anyone can say a few word, be sprinkled or dunked in water and NEVER be saved. They just fake it. They were never chosen by God, but like their father the devil, they sure wanted to imitate and claim connection. But...God says..."be gone, I never knew you. Your name is not written in the Lambs book of Life."
Let me be crystal clear: Water baptism does NOTHING to save a person. Let that sink deeply into your cranium.

 

[MennoSota]

Respectfully, no. Which is why quotes from Scripture are typically missing from your posts. What you are doing is echoing the post 16th Century position of one denomination - the Anabaptists.

I don't believe there is a verse that states, "Baptism does nothing." I don't think there is a verse that states, "Go.... baptize.... teach....but don't use water or the Word but only dunk them under the Holy Spirit." "Go.... baptize.... teach..... but these are meaningless, worthless acts that accomplish absolutely nothing but do them just cuz." "Go.... baptize.... teach but thou art forbidden to do so if they are under the age of X". "Go.... baptize.... teach..... but not unless they FIRST have documented and proven that they are regenerate, born again and believe in Jesus as their Savior." You know, the claims made in this thread.

We do have verses like "There is one baptism." We do have verses like "Baptism now saves you" and "Faith comes by hearing." We do have verses such as "My word does not return to me void but shall accomplish all for which I sent it." We do see in the NT and for 1500 years how Christians went and baptized and taught (baptizing with water and teaching with words) and embraced that with great importance (it's called The Great Commission of Jesus) and not as a meaningless, worthless, waste of time that God cannot use. Friend, you have been given MANY Scriptures but haven't presented even one that states all the limitations and prohibitions you claim, all this "meaningless, useless" position.






Well, let's focus on the other tool in the Great Commission - teaching. What are we Christians COMMANDED to go with? Baptism and teaching (they seem to be given equal importance, and they are COMMANDED directly by Jesus). Do words save? No. Jesus saves. We all agree on that (including MC, my friend). But here's where I disagree with you: Therefore, teaching the Word is NOT a meaningless, useless, waste of time which God cannot use for his purposes. While God alone saves (I'm as strong of a monergist as you, my friend) you seem to leap that THEREFORE Christians must do NOTHING and just allow the Holy Spirit to work in a vacuum. I don't deny He can do that (witness John the Baptist still in his mother's womb) but that's not what we are commanded to do: Nothing. We (the regenerate, believing. justified, children of God) are COMMANDED to love, to go, to baptize, to teach. God typically works through MEANS - not because He has to but because He wills to. This does not make it any less His doing, obviously... but it does mean that the COMMANDS and COMISSIONS He gives are not meaningless rituals, useless acts, something we should do cuz God says so even though it's a waste of time and bad stewardship of ministry. Again, all the Scriptures have been given to you repeatedly - and you seem to ignore them offering nothing in reply.






You keep echoing this Anabaptist claim.... never with any Scriptures to remotely support it. Nothing.






But there is no such command. As you've proven by persistently refusing to give the first that states, "Thou canst not be baptized unless thou has FIRST believed in Jesus and become regenerate." You claim there is that command that believers BE baptized but you can't find it anywhere in the Bible. The command, friend, is for CHRISTIANS to baptize (it's the other way around).






Yes, you are echoing this Anabaptist claim. But you have offered NOTHING to remotely indicate such. Nothing.






No one claims that water saves, you know that. No one claims that saying John 3:16 saves anyone. Does that mean that teaching the Gospel to unbelievers is a waste of time, meaningless, forbidden - because it denies salvation by grace alone?

IMO, you've taken the Anabaptist view of baptism - and stripped it of the whole basis (which is synergistic) because you are a Monergist. But you've hit the wall Calvinists are WRONGLY accused of. Calvinists are accused of destroying the whole basis for evangelism, mission work, the Great Commission because the argument is made "if a Christian DOES something, that takes away from God doing EVERYTHING!" Go to any Calvinist website and you'll see that discussion. But you've taken Calvinism FAR too far, MUCH further than Calvinists do. Calvinists do NOT deny that Christians can share (AND MUST) administer the Means of Grace (and they do). They simply note what EVERYONE IN THIS THREAD has to you: The means doesn't save, God saves via the means. "My Word does not return to me void but accomplished all for which I sent it." That doesn't mean we are forbidden to love unbelievers, forbidden to go to them forbidden to baptize them, forbidden to teach them.... it ONLY means it's GOD who gives faith although usually via means. "Faith comes by hearing" doesn't mean OUR hearing creates the faith, it means the gift of faith comes by hearing (although it doesn't say "ONLY through hearing"). Can God give faith apart from hearing? God can do whatever He wants (and yes, John the Baptist had the gift of faith before he was even born).



- Josiah

First, I won't respond to a tome of false claims.
Josiah, I provide more Bible text than anyone in this forum, so you outright lie about me. Why do you choose to lie.
Secoond, I quote the verse as well as the passage in which the verse lies.
In your post, you start out lying and then you misquote. From that moment I consider what you posted illegitimate and worthless as a post. Either speak honestly or stay silent.