Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
Christian Forums is looking to bring on new moderators to the CF Staff Team! If you have been an active member of CF for at least three months with 200 posts during that time, you're eligible to apply! This is a great way to give back to CF and keep the forums running smoothly! If you're interested, you can submit your application here!
Our eternal life depends on
our own power to reason and accomplish an act of faith? There is no hope of salvation if one lacks power to reason? Many kids in ancient times never reached the age of reason which would also be referred to as the age of salvation if what you believe were true.
God requires faith for healing but when did it have to be the faith of the one healed?
So, then it is an act of faith? Similar to circumcision in the Covenant made with Abraham?
Well, forget for a moment the notion of salvation and take it out of the equation - Jesus DID command we be baptized (Mk 16:16, Mt 28:18-20). Are you suggesting God might command something of His people that are too difficult for them?No, baptism is not required for salvation else people who for some reason cannot get baptized after accepting Christ that act would be negated by simple lack of water.
No. Nowhere does the bible teach this, either directly or by inference.Do you believe that if a person is baptized apart from any faith on their part, they are thus remitted of all previous sins?
Not really. One can be saved without baptism, but can still be an unbeliever after baptismIt is still an act of faith.
1)The Gospel was only for Israel, Jesus himself said he was only ministering to the Jews, and treated the woman with the issue of blood like a dog and she herself said even the dogs are allowed to eat the scraps from the table which he relented and healed her I believe. He told his apostles to NOT go to the gentiles nowhere was the Gospel prior to the cross preached to non Jewish that we can ascertain. It was not until Saul's conversion that the door was open to Gentiles when Saul became Paul and was commissioned by Jesus to be the Apostle to the Gentiles. His Gospel of Grace did not say you had to be baptized to be savedWell, forget for a moment the notion of salvation and take it out of the equation - Jesus DID command we be baptized (Mk 16:16, Mt 28:18-20). Are you suggesting God might command something of His people that are too difficult for them?
Wouldn't that contradict Jeremiah 32:17 “Behold, I am the Lord, the God of all flesh; is anything too difficult for Me?”
Penalty for thief?There was no sacrifice he could have offered under the old testament to atone for his sin. He is described as a thief, and was under a death penalty. There were no sacrifices in the old testament to atone for a sin requiring death.
Um, actually the door to the Gentiles was opened entirely apart from Paul's conversion - where Peter was sent to Cornelius' household in Acts 10. Peter's response to his experience with the vision he'd had: “I most certainly understand now that God is not one to show partiality, but in every nation the man who fears Him and does what is right is welcome to Him." (Acts 10:35f) Whereupon Peter preached the gospel to this group of Gentiles, who then experienced the very same thing the Jews experienced on the day of Pentecost - the Holy Spirit being poured out upon them, speaking in tongues, etc.1)The Gospel was only for Israel, Jesus himself said he was only ministering to the Jews, and treated the woman with the issue of blood like a dog and she herself said even the dogs are allowed to eat the scraps from the table which he relented and healed her I believe. He told his apostles to NOT go to the gentiles nowhere was the Gospel prior to the cross preached to non Jewish that we can ascertain. It was not until Saul's conversion that the door was open to Gentiles when Saul became Paul and was commissioned by Jesus to be the Apostle to the Gentiles. His Gospel of Grace did not say you had to be baptized to be saved
Soph, this particular objection to Christian baptism is perhaps the oldest of all of them, and one literally riddled with logical fallacies, the main one being that of "Denying the Antecedent." The premise being if Christ had sent Paul to baptize then baptism would be part of the gospel message. (He didn't, ergo, it isn't...)17 For Christ sent me not to baptize, but to preach the gospel: not in wisdom of words, lest the cross of Christ should be made void. 1 Corinthians 1:17
The Gospel of Grace was still not revealed, Peter was set up with this group of gentiles for a purpose and that was to help cement Paul as an apostle. If Peter had not had this happen to him Paul would have had an endless battle with Jews demanding gentiles be put under the Law.Um, actually the door to the Gentiles was opened entirely apart from Paul's conversion - where Peter was sent to Cornelius' household in Acts 10. Peter's response to his experience with the vision he'd had: “I most certainly understand now that God is not one to show partiality, but in every nation the man who fears Him and does what is right is welcome to Him." (Acts 10:35f) Whereupon Peter preached the gospel to this group of Gentiles, who then experienced the very same thing the Jews experienced on the day of Pentecost - the Holy Spirit being poured out upon them, speaking in tongues, etc.
Again Peter was not God chosen apostle to the Gentiles, his baptizing them means nothing for a precedent in that he didn't know any better it was habitual. Once you receive the Holy Spirit, what does baptism do? Can an unsaved person receive the Holy Spirit? After you receive the Holy Spirit if you don't get baptized does he leave you for good and you end up losing your salvation? It makes no logical sense other than a ceremonial inclusion into the group act. As baptism for Jesus was into the priesthood, I contend it is a worthy ceremony for us as being priests but logic would state if it were required for salvation people who have no access to water or die in a hospital bed after accepting Jesus would have wasted their time altogether.And at the conclusion of their meeting: “Surely no one can refuse the water for these to be baptized who have received the Holy Spirit just as we did, can he?” And he ordered them to be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ. (Acts 10:47f)
Again... the Holy Spirit falling on them was the witness to this "granting" bit. Had not the Holy Spirit fallen on them what do you think Peter would have thought and said about them? Likely he would have not thought what he did and concluded nothing special about these people. Did the Holy Spirit wait till after baptism to fall on them? No as they were already saved prior to it.And then, in the next chapter Peter explains himself to the elders in Jerusalem (Acts 11:1-18), whereupon they concluded: “Well then, God has granted to the Gentiles also the repentance that leads to life.” (v 18)
Soph, this particular objection to Christian baptism is perhaps the oldest of all of them, and one literally riddled with logical fallacies, the main one being that of "Denying the Antecedent." The premise being if Christ had sent Paul to baptize then baptism would be part of the gospel message. (He didn't, ergo, it isn't...)
As do most churches. Do they kick you out and reject you as a believer and not call you a Christian if you aren't baptised? No. Some churches require proof of baptism others don'tPaul DID baptize. Was he sinning or being disobedient to Christ in baptizing those whom he did?
Paul referred later to the household of Stephanas in chapter 16 (v. 15) as "the first fruits of Achaia." Is that merely coincidental?
The people to whom he was writing were themselves baptized - indeed the ENTIRE CONTEXT of his message there in chapter 1 was an appeal to their unity, an appeal to their mutual IDENTITY IN CHRIST... on what basis? On their baptism!
I don't see them claiming these people are unsaved. Why would you quarrel over a flock of unbelievers, no it was a sort of idea of legitimacy in that some of them thought they were better than others because of baptism which to me seems like baptism doesn't save you."For I have been informed concerning you, my brethren, by Chloe’s people, that there are quarrels among you. Now I mean this, that each one of you is saying, “I am of Paul,” and “I of Apollos,” and “I of Cephas,” and “I of Christ.” Has Christ been divided? Paul was not crucified for you, was he? Or were you baptized in the name of Paul?" (I Cor 1:11ff)
Is it any wonder then why Paul made that statement?
Well, forget for a moment the notion of salvation and take it out of the equation - Jesus DID command we be baptized (Mk 16:16, Mt 28:18-20). Are you suggesting God might command something of His people that are too difficult for them?
Wouldn't that contradict Jeremiah 32:17 “Behold, I am the Lord, the God of all flesh; is anything too difficult for Me?”
No. Nowhere does the bible teach this, either directly or by inference.
God isn't boxed in by Baptism. Baptism is for man. The good theif would have gotten Baptized if he could even though he was purified by drinking the cup of suffering that Jesus drank. The thief received the Baptism Jesus received. Jesus called His death on the cross a Baptism. The thief sits at Jesus' side in His Kingdom. As Jesus explained.No, baptism is not required for salvation else people who for some reason cannot get baptized after accepting Christ that act would be negated by simple lack of water. The thief on the cross was saved according to Jesus.
Yes, this flies in the face of baptism = salvation.Correct. Therefore, it is serious error to baptize an unbeliever no matter what age they happen to be.
I believe that before the cross baptism was symbolic as John himself told the audience he baptized with water and one would come after him that would baptize with fire.God isn't boxed in by Baptism. Baptism is for man. The good theif would have gotten Baptized if he could even though he was purified by drinking the cup of suffering that Jesus drank. The thief received the Baptism Jesus received. Jesus called His death on the cross a Baptism. The thief sits at Jesus' side in His Kingdom. As Jesus explained.
Unless you have not been born in sin, you can skip the water. But then if you weren't you would anyway for love of others to avoid scandalizing those who are.
Water is what makes a straight way to the Lord. That's why the Holy Spirit wanted John to Baptize. He makes a straight way with His life. A life cleansed of sin from birth. A life in the desert resisting temptation remaining cleansed of sin to the end. If you decide, as you are, to not be born again through water and spirit you should know that you put man made traditions before tradition from God.
I consider it along the likes of virtue signaling and a way for the church doing it to be seen as doing something. I don't mind it at all though as the intent is good behind it as long as people realize that it does nothing to save the kids and sometimes they get confused by it thinking they don't need to accept Christ.Infant baptism makes no sense to me.
False. Baptism replaced circumcision, as with circumcision the faith of the parents was enough. The Bible makes it clear that Jesus wanted the children to come to Him.Correct. Therefore, it is serious error to baptize an unbeliever no matter what age they happen to be.
John didn't teach that. You assume that because you believe man made traditions about Baptism. This is corrupt teaching about Baptism.believe that before the cross baptism was symbolic as John himself told the audience he baptized with water and one would come after him that would baptize with fire.
Penalty for thief?
Exodus
22 When a man steals an ox or a sheep and butchers it or sells it, he must repay five cattle for the ox or four sheep for the sheep. If a thief is caught in the act of breaking in, and he is beaten to death, no one is guilty of bloodshed. 3 But if this happens after sunrise, there is guilt of bloodshed. A thief must make full restitution. If he is unable, he is to be sold because of his theft. 4 If what was stolen—whether ox, donkey, or sheep—is actually found alive in his possession, he must repay double.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?