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.
But are we united on the essentials of the faith? Lutherans, for example, would say that the Sacraments, for example, are essentials of the faith, while baptists would disagree.MikeMcK said:And this is a very common misunderstanding of what Sola Scriptura is. It doesn't lead to "personal interpretations".
While the Bible does teach priesthood of the believer, the believer is still bound to orthodoxy and the essential teachings of Christianity as spelled out in the historic creeds and confessions of historic Christianity.
The fact that there are so many different denominations, and yet, all are united on the essentials of the faith shows that there is not a multitude of "personal interpretations", but unity on those essential teachings of scripture and liberty on what Paul called "disputable matters", just as the Bible says it should be.
How can it not? You're bound only to what you see in the Bible. You don't see the way someone else does, so who's seeing the real truth?MikeMcK said:And this is a very common misunderstanding of what Sola Scriptura is. It doesn't lead to "personal interpretations".
Certainly doesn't look that way. Historic Christianity is accepted by Protestants only insofar as it doesn't contradict with their personal beliefs.While the Bible does teach priesthood of the believer, the believer is still bound to orthodoxy and the essential teachings of Christianity as spelled out in the historic creeds and confessions of historic Christianity.
They're not 'united on the essentials, they can't even agree on what the essentials are! Do you follow everything in the Apostles Creed? Or the Nicene Creed? EVERYTHING? Including 'one baptism FOR THE FORGIVENESS OF SINS?' How about 'the communion of saints?'The fact that there are so many different denominations, and yet, all are united on the essentials of the faith shows that there is not a multitude of "personal interpretations", but unity on those essential teachings of scripture and liberty on what Paul called "disputable matters", just as the Bible says it should be.
Borealis said:How can it not? You're bound only to what you see in the Bible.
Certainly doesn't look that way. Historic Christianity is accepted by Protestants only insofar as it doesn't contradict with their personal beliefs.
They're not 'united on the essentials, they can't even agree on what the essentials are!
For every Protestant that says 'yes' to either of those, I'll show you half a dozen who say 'no.'
That's fine. According to Paul, they're allowed to disagree over such "disputable matters".
Only in your imagination.MikeMcK said:There's a big difference between teh Bible being ou authority and having a "personal interpretation" of the Bible.
Quit claiming you're not a Protestant. You're not Catholic, you're not Orthodox. That means you're a Protestant.While, technically, I am not a Protestant, I don't believe that this is true. It certainly hasn't been evident in my experience with protestants.
Disputable matters? BAPTISM is a disputable matter?That's fine. According to Paul, they're allowed to disagree over such "disputable matters".
Borealis said:Only in your imagination.
Quit claiming you're not a Protestant. You're not Catholic, you're not Orthodox. That means you're a Protestant.
Disputable matters? BAPTISM is a disputable matter?
Thank you for completely proving my point. There are no 'essentials' in Protestant beliefs that are not disputed by someone.
TamaraLynne said:Hi everyone......I'm not as knowledgable as most in here. I was baptized catholic as a child but later was baptised again. I felt a very strong desire to be baptised again.......full immerssion. But I was under the impression that if the parents are beleivers then their children are sanctified. Is this something different?
Love
Tam
MikeMcK said:No, they're two different things.
I'm sorry, but since the traditions my branch of the church was born out of existed long before the Reformation, technically, that would make us not Protestants.
Yes.
Your point hasn't been proven. You still haven't named one essential we disagree on.
Hmmmm.........I did ask awhile ago(asked my husband) why some people baptize their babies. He told me it brought them more comfort..........which I understand being a mom myself. But I found more comfort in that my children were sanctified first.......then when they come of age they have a choice as to whether or not they love Jesus.TruthMiner said:Yes it is something different. 1 Corinthians 7:14.... a reference not to salvation but to being set apart due to the union with a believer.
Your point hasn't been proven. You still haven't named one essential we disagree on.
It's not necessarily something we're meant to understand. You tell your young children not to touch the hot stove, right? Or warn them about sticking forks in light sockets? They don't necessarily understand WHY you're telling them this (though they can find out the hard way), but if they are obedient, they do as you say.TamaraLynne said:Hmmmm.........I did ask awhile ago(asked my husband) why some people baptize their babies. He told me it brought them more comfort..........which I understand being a mom myself. But I found more comfort in that my children were sanctified first.......then when they come of age they have a choice as to whether or not they love Jesus.
Understanding who Jesus is and chosing to follow himand then to be baptised. But you know what.....if someone wants to baptize their baby............then rebaptize later when they understand.........I see no problem.
It's alot better then no baptism at all like some preach.
Maybe someone can explain being sanctified by the parents ..........maybe I just don't understand.
Love
Tam
TruthMiner said:Read the preceding context. Peter is specifically talking about WATER.
No, that is an incorrect presumption.
1. Do you think Peter said "Baptism saves" and then changed his mind?
2. What are you proposing "putting away the filth of the flesh" means?
No, up to this point you only believe things about Jesus to be true.
No one ever said it did.
That's right.
No one ever said it did.
Scripture please.
You seem to think your faith is a thing that causes you to be saved. It isn't.
No it doesn't. It contradicts your misinterpretation of Scripture.
[FONT=Arial, Geneva, Helvetica]Romans 4: 1 - 25 - Study This Chapter[/FONT] [FONT=Arial, Geneva, Helvetica]
1 What shall we say then that Abraham our father, as pertaining to the flesh, hath found? 2 For if Abraham were justified by works, he hath whereof to glory; but not before God. 3 For what saith the scripture? Abraham believed God, and it was counted unto him for righteousness. 4 Now to him that worketh is the reward not reckoned of grace, but of debt. 5 But to him that worketh not, but believeth on him that justifieth the ungodly, his faith is counted for righteousness 6 Even as David also describeth the blessedness of the man, unto whom God imputeth righteousness without works, 7 Saying, Blessed are they whose iniquities are forgiven, and whose sins are covered. 8 Blessed is the man to whom the Lord will not impute sin.
9 Cometh this blessedness then upon the circumcision only, or upon the uncircumcision also? for we say that faith was reckoned to Abraham for righteousness. 10 How was it then reckoned? when he was in circumcision, or in uncircumcision? Not in circumcision, but in uncircumcision. 11 And he received the sign of circumcision, a seal of the righteousness of the faith which he had yet being uncircumcised: that he might be the father of all them that believe, though they be not circumcised; that righteousness might be imputed unto them also: 12 And the father of circumcision to them who are not of the circumcision only, but who also walk in the steps of that faith of our father Abraham, which he had being yet uncircumcised. 13 For the promise, that he should be the heir of the world, was not to Abraham, or to his seed, through the law, but through the righteousness of faith. 14 For if they which are of the law be heirs, faith is made void, and the promise made of none effect: 15 Because the law worketh wrath: for where no law is, there is no transgression. 16 Therefore it is of faith, that it might be by grace; to the end the promise might be sure to all the seed; not to that only which is of the law, but to that also which is of the faith of Abraham; who is the father of us all, 17 (As it is written, I have made thee a father of many nations,) before him whom he believed, even God, who quickeneth the dead, and calleth those things which be not as though they were. 18 Who against hope believed in hope, that he might become the father of many nations, according to that which was spoken, So shall thy seed be. 19 And being not weak in faith, he considered not his own body now dead, when he was about an hundred years old, neither yet the deadness of Sara's womb: 20 He staggered not at the promise of God through unbelief; but was strong in faith, giving glory to God; 21 And being fully persuaded that, what he had promised, he was able also to perform. 22 And therefore it was imputed to him for righteousness. 23 Now it was not written for his sake alone, that it was imputed to him; 24 But for us also, to whom it shall be imputed, if we believe on him that raised up Jesus our Lord from the dead; 25 Who was delivered for our offences, and was raised again for our justification.
I was only agreeing the point that based on scripture of no infant being baptized in the New Testament that being baptized is an act of free will. Now if at anytime I list a comment that you would like a full and detailed scripture listing, just say the word, and I will oblige you with such informationKEPLER said:This position has absolutely ZERO support from Scripture.
You CANNOT work from "the only example we have is..." and base a doctrine on that. Preposterous.
[/COLOR]
TruthMiner said:Been reading imaginary history again have we?
The first clue that you might be a Protestant is your protests.
If you don't believe so, then please feel free to explain why each of the Baptist Distinctives are clearly taught in scripture or, as you call it, "imaginary history".
KEPLER said:The Eastern Orthodox immerse their infants. They have always immersed their infants (three times, in fact!) .So, how does your argument work against them?
KEPLER said:
- Your "histoircal" argument is incorrect. In Mark 7 and Luke 11, the word "baptizo" is rendered "wash". The key thing in Mark 7 is not the pharisees, but the pots, pans and the table. Do you really think they picked up a table and immersed it in the kitchen sink (or wash tub, whatever!)??? That's how the KJV translators solved the problem. When it referred to people, they used "baptize"; when it referred to inanimate objects, the used "wash". They were wrong to do so.
KEPLER said:
- Neither Lutherans, Eastern Orthodox, nor Roman Catholics believe in "once saved, always saved," so your crtique really doesn't apply.
- Presbyteraisn who baptize infants do believe in OSAS (although they define it differently (and better!) than the Baptists). BUt in their theology, infant baptism is rooted in inclusion in the New Covenant, in which case, your crtique does not apply to them either (although for differenet reasons).
I can only conlude Mark, that you do not understand the doctrine of Baptism as the EO, RC, Lutherans Presbyterians define it. (For that matter, I would further say that you also don't udnerstand baptism as the Scriptures define it...)
GNOSTICISM ALERT!!!!
I am sorry my friend, but this division between "water baptism" and the "baptism of the Spirit" is an entirely gnostic division. At it's root, this intepretation is DENYING that God can or does work through physical means. In other words, in separating the Spirit from the Water, you also deny the God worked through a serpent on a stick, a burning bush, a bog box with a couple of graven images on it, a pillar of cloud, lamb's blood on a lintel, a baby in a manger...
OOPS! That last on'e a biggie!
And lastly, Acts 10 is the governing Scripture on this issue: Yes, God is capable of imparting the Holy Spirit outside the use of water, but Peter thought it was very strange, and immediately set about getting water to baptize the new believers. (And, FWIW, this takes care of the "thief on the cross" exclsusion as well).
Strawman argument. Neither Eastern Orthodox, nor Roman Catholic, nor Lutheran, nor Presbyterian theology "decides" what happens to an unbaptized infant. They are entirely in the hands of God. In essence, (speaking for the Lutherans) we would agree with you 100% on this, so it must not be an argument against infant baptism...?
KEPLER said:The Eastern Orthodox immerse their infants. They have always immersed their infants (three times, in fact!) .So, how does your argument work against them?
KEPLER said:
- Your "histoircal" argument is incorrect. In Mark 7 and Luke 11, the word "baptizo" is rendered "wash". The key thing in Mark 7 is not the pharisees, but the pots, pans and the table. Do you really think they picked up a table and immersed it in the kitchen sink (or wash tub, whatever!)??? That's how the KJV translators solved the problem. When it referred to people, they used "baptize"; when it referred to inanimate objects, the used "wash". They were wrong to do so.
KEPLER said:
- Neither Lutherans, Eastern Orthodox, nor Roman Catholics believe in "once saved, always saved," so your crtique really doesn't apply.
- Presbyteraisn who baptize infants do believe in OSAS (although they define it differently (and better!) than the Baptists). BUt in their theology, infant baptism is rooted in inclusion in the New Covenant, in which case, your crtique does not apply to them either (although for differenet reasons).
I can only conlude Mark, that you do not understand the doctrine of Baptism as the EO, RC, Lutherans Presbyterians define it. (For that matter, I would further say that you also don't udnerstand baptism as the Scriptures define it...)
GNOSTICISM ALERT!!!!
I am sorry my friend, but this division between "water baptism" and the "baptism of the Spirit" is an entirely gnostic division. At it's root, this intepretation is DENYING that God can or does work through physical means. In other words, in separating the Spirit from the Water, you also deny the God worked through a serpent on a stick, a burning bush, a bog box with a couple of graven images on it, a pillar of cloud, lamb's blood on a lintel, a baby in a manger...
OOPS! That last on'e a biggie!
And lastly, Acts 10 is the governing Scripture on this issue: Yes, God is capable of imparting the Holy Spirit outside the use of water, but Peter thought it was very strange, and immediately set about getting water to baptize the new believers. (And, FWIW, this takes care of the "thief on the cross" exclsusion as well).
Strawman argument. Neither Eastern Orthodox, nor Roman Catholic, nor Lutheran, nor Presbyterian theology "decides" what happens to an unbaptized infant. They are entirely in the hands of God. In essence, (speaking for the Lutherans) we would agree with you 100% on this, so it must not be an argument against infant baptism...?
EO: Dr. Jewell, EO theologian, in Infant Baptism and the Covenant of Grace, says, "... one believes that baptism washes away the guilt of eternal sin, so that any one departing this life without it is in danger of eternal damnation, he will have good reason to conclude that infants should be baptized. In fact, the question of infant baptism can hardly be raised without such a sacramental theology, since an affirmative answer is a foregone conclusion."
With exception of Presbyterians and Lutherans, I would encourage you to check out the articles of belief from the RC and EO churches and you will see that their outlook for an infant who dies without first being baptized, (which is the only way into the Church, according to their theology), is not very good at all.
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?