Invalidating God's word

[The Liturgist]

If that is what you are worried about, you have nothing to worry about.
I'm not worried that you asked such a strange question, 'by the way, in a middle of a conversation where I said nothing against the Christian Forums Statement of Faith.

Well, the Christian Faith was adopted at the Ecumenical Council in Nicaea, by the Fourth Century Church, which believed in infant baptism and the real presence of Christ in the Eucharist, and since you are misinterpreting the warnings of St. Paul about the Gnostic heretics, the first of whom had already appeared (Simon Magus), and more of whom were in the process of formation, including Nicolas the deacon, and have instead imputed that warning falsely to the martyred Christians who shed their blood for Christ, and furthermore attacked my faith by claiming that if I am right, the Holy Apostles are wrong, which is an ad hominem attack, it seems unlikely that you would be inclined to regard the Nicene Creed or the Council of Nicaea with much in terms of authority. And the Nicene Creed is part of the CF.com Statement of Faith. As a matter of principle, I do not discuss theology with Christians who reject the Nicene Creed.

What was particularly offensive, by the way, is that you quoted the verse from every single Bible translation you could find online, as if to suggest I was not intimately familiar with that verse and had not learned about it at seminary, and in the course of serving as a Christian pastor for the past twenty years. I forgive you, but I must insist you not do that again.

And you know what is now restraining him, so that he may be revealed at the proper time.
7 For the mystery of lawlessness is working already; there is only the one at present restraining it, until he might be gone out of the midst.
8 And then the lawless one will be revealed, whom the Lord Jesus will consume with the breath of His mouth and will annul by the appearing of His coming,
9 whose coming is according to the working of Satan, in every power, and in signs, and in wonders of falsehood,

I don't think you believe the apostles are wrong, so can we agree that you are?

No, because the man of lawlessness was the type of the anti-Christ, exemplified by Nero, who initiated the persecution of Christians on a massive scale, which the number 666 in Revelation refers to, and also Nicolas the Deacon, who had been properly ordained by the Apostles, but who betrayed them by setting up a heretical Gnostic sect that promoted organized wife swapping.

Additionally, I do not speak for myself, but for the 290 million Eastern Orthodox, Oriental Orthodox and Assyrian Christians who have testified that Christ is the King of Kings, Lord of Lords, Savior of Mankind, and God Incarnate, through enduring tortures and the shedding of their blood at the hands of the Roman Empire, the Arian heretics, the Muslims of the Ummayid Caliphate and the Fatimid Caliphate, the Roman Catholic Crusaders, especially during the Fourth Crusade in which Venice diverted the crusading armies to Constantinople rather than trying to liberate Jerusalem, and then the Turks, after Western Europe refused to provide military assistance to the Eastern and Oriental Orthodox Christians in Greece, Armenia and Constantinople unless they submitted themselves to the Pope, and then more recently to the genocide of the Young Turks* in 1915, and the Communists of the Soviet Union, and Communist Romania, Bulgaria, Czechoslovakia, Poland and Yugoslavia, Albania, and Nazi Germany, and more recently at the hands of Al Qaeda, the Muslim Brotherhood and the Islamic State. But don’t take my word for it: our many Eastern Orthodox members such as @prodromos @FenderTL5 @HTacianas and our Oriental Orthodox members such as @dzheremi can back what I am saying.

And additionally, I am also seeking to provide a Patristic perspective based on the shared ecumenical understanding of Scripture as received by all of the traditional liturgical churches, which include the Lutherans, Anglicans, traditional Methodists, traditional Congregationalists, traditional Reformed churches, and related groups, and my Lutheran, Anglican and Methodist friends such as @Jipsah @MarkRohfrietsch and @jas3 can attest to what I am saying in this respect.

I am not speaking for myself; my own opinions are irrelevant. What matters is what the Christian Church has historically believed, since the time of the Apostles until the present, the consensus patrum, that is to say, the shared opinion of the Early Church Fathers from the Holy Apostles until the present.

And this also includes our Roman Catholic friends, because while I disagree with some Roman Catholic doctrines, I agree with far more of what they teach than with what a typical Restorationist or Pentecostal church teaches. In particular, traditional, conservative Catholics such as my friends @chevyontheriver and @Michie , who are as pious Christians as one will find anywhere.


*That a left wing talk show would adopt that name despite its associations with the genocide of Armenian, Assyrian and Pontic Greek Christians in 1915 has always struck me as incredibly insensitive and offensive, particularly since to this day Turkey has refused to apologize for the genocide or offer any reparations, in contrast to Germany, which has acted appropriately to compensate the Jews for the immense harm they inflicted upon them during the Third Reich.

 

[Valletta]

Why can you not show me where "God Himself has commanded that infants be baptized", in the scriptures.

Why can you not show me where God commanded that those with red hair be baptized? Whole households were baptized, and households included children. Jesus wanted the children to come to him. This is found in the Bible. Baptism replaced circumcision, and the faith of the parents was enough for a child to be circumcised. No where in the Bible will you find that the faith of the parents is not enough for a child to be baptized. Your teaching that infants were not baptized is simply not found in the Bible.

 

[RandyPNW]

See my OP in which I disagree with your assumption: TWO INTERPRETATIONS: “For Christ sent me not to baptize, but to preach the gospel.”

Yes, there are too many points to address them quickly. Let me just say that following Occam's Razor, the simplest explanation is that Paul separated Salvation itself from an act intended to confirm it.

That is, Salvation preceded the act that confirmed it. We would not say that taking the Eucharist enables one to participate in Christ's body and blood if indeed it has already been made available by the faith that accepts Christ as Lord and Savior. Therefore, the Eucharist is a celebration of the fact, and a memory device enabling one to maintain a posture of regular living in Christ.

In the same way, Water Baptism follows Salvation and is a public declaration so that one can look back and show a specific time when that declaration was made publicly. But it was not the initial moment of acceptance by faith. It was a public declaration that it had already happened.

Again, John the Baptist initiated Water Baptism for the sinners in Israel who needed to repent. Nothing is said about those who lived saintly lives. This has nothing to do with sinless perfection, but with the matter of living in obedience generally, as opposed to living in sin.

So, if Water Baptism is necessary for Salvation, then those who had not lived in sin and who had not gotten baptized for repentance were lost? I don't think so!

No, Water Baptism is symbolic of the fact pagans converted to Christian living. It is a public declaration of that fact, symbolically showing that sin had been cleansed by spiritual water and that the sinful life had been put to death with Christ spiritually when we choose to live by him in the Holy Spirit.

 

[The Liturgist]

So, you never read it anywhere in the Bible, but you made an assumption, based on what you believe, and since the clergy decides it is good, you accept it as good.
Did I say anything incorrectly? Please correct what I said wrong.

Yes, because I made no such assumption. Rather, there’s a principle called exegesis, wherein scripture must be read consistently with all other scripture, and according to this principle, there is ample evidence to support the baptism of infants, young children and the mentally disabled, and what is more there is nothing at all that suggests that such baptisms are invalid or illicit. So when we consider that the church engaged in this practice at the time it formulated the Nicene Creed and the New Testament Canon, and had engaged in it before then, and furthermore, no one rose to object to this practice until the 16th century, that, combined with the strong exegetical evidence in favor of the baptism of infants, and a lack even of eisegetical remarks that would contradict it (that is to say, scriptural verses read in isolation, in a way that contradicts the rest of scripture), it is clear that God Himself commanded us to receive infants into His church when He said “Suffer the little ones to come unto me.”

And this is not my opinion, but the opinion of everyone who has been confronted with the novel doctrines of the credobaptists since people first started promoting the idea in the late 16th century.

Why can you not show me where "God Himself has commanded that infants be baptized", in the scriptures.

I can, and I did. Jesus Christ is God incarnate, and He instructed the disciples to permit the small children to come to Him, and since His ascension to Heaven, which we celebrated today, the way one comes to our Lord, God and Savior Jesus Christ is through Baptism and the Eucharist, according to St. Paul in 1 Corinthians. Furthermore, when He commanded us to baptize all nations in the name of the Father, Son and Holy Ghost, since nations contain infants and the mentally disabled, we obviously have to baptize them as well, for our Lord did not say “baptize the competent adults of all nations.” And when there are such qualifications in Scripture, God makes them clear for us. For example, based on Acts 15, there can be no doubt that Christians are not to eat food which has been sacrificed to idols.

Also, your remarks concerning what our Lord said about the traditions of the Pharisees are applicable only to the Pharisees and their successors, the Rabinnical Jews, for the Pharisees had an oral tradition, which was written down in the Mishnah, compiled in the Talmud and codified in works by Maimonides and Joseph Karo, such as the Sulchan Aruch. It was controversial among Jews at the time, with the Sadducees rejecting it, but they died out after the destruction of the Temple and the dispersal of the Jews from Jerusalem following the devastation of that city by the Romans in the wake of the failed revolt of the false messiah Bar Kochba. A few centuries later, the Karaite Jews emerged, who, like the Sadducees, rejected the authority of the Rabbis, but unlike the Sadducees, believed in the Resurrection.

However, the New Testament actually makes it clear that the tradition of the Apostles is to be followed, in 2 Thessalonians 2:15, 1 Corinthians 11:2-16, and Galatians 1:8-9.

Most of the areas where you seem to be having trouble understanding what I have written, or find it unfamiliar, seem to revolve around 1 Corinthians, and to a lesser extent, certain parts of the Gospel According to John, so I would respectfully suggest you carefully reread these books: all of 1 Corinthians, and then John chapters 1-3, 6, 10, and the passion narrative. Also, you should reread Matthew chapter 16 and 28, Luke chapters 1 and 2, and also, of particular importance, Luke chapter 24:13-49 Galatians chapter 1, the epistle of the Holy Apostle James, and the Pastoral Epistles of St. Paul to St. Timothy.

I think if you do this, with an open mind, assuming you accept the Nicene Creed, you will find it much easier to understand where I am coming from.

And once you’ve read that, you should consider reading a history of Eastern Christianity, or at least of the Eastern Orthodox Church, whose experiences have been to a large degree shared by the Oriental Orthodox and the Assyrian Church of the East.

…

If, on the other hand, you reject the Nicene Creed, this conversation will prove pointless, since we must be able to agree on who God is, and what the Church is, and what our hope as Christians is, in order to be able to have a meaningful ecumenical dialogue together as Christians.

But again, I remain mystified as to why you are singling me out for criticism when, as I pointed out, all of the mainline Protestant churches in the US are now actively promoting a multitude of sins during “Gay Pride Month.”

 

[RandyPNW]

See my OP in which I disagree with your assumption: TWO INTERPRETATIONS: “For Christ sent me not to baptize, but to preach the gospel.”

Interpretation A: Paul is showing his ambivalence towards the practice of Christian baptism when actual water is applied to the human body with the Triune formula. In this sense, Paul is diminishing the importance of baptism, certainly separating it from the preached gospel, and showing baptism is not necessary for salvation. John MacArthur and Norman Geisler are representative of this interpretation.

Response: Paul is not showing ambivalence towards Water Baptism nor diminishing its importance. Rather, he is showing the superiority of the actual act of Salvation as opposed to an important follow-up that can be administered by others.


Interpretation B: Paul is stating Christ did not send him to personally administer baptism to individual recipients, rather Paul had a special apostolic commission to preach the Gentiles. His work in preaching was unique. However, the administration of baptism requires no unique gifts or abilities. Rather than Paul administering mass individual baptisms, he followed the normal historical NT practice of preaching and let his assistants do the work of baptism.

Response: Yes, Paul was more focused on building the Church than on each individual act of repentance. And so, time pressed him to focus on the building of the Church, which required preaching, teaching, and founding churches. It involved formulating sound doctrine for new churches.


...This is the historical NT pattern. The Apostles preached and the assistants baptize.

Response: Yes, Water Baptism was a "follow up," which did not require the leadership to preside over in order to authenticate it.


Baptism is not necessary for salvation. This is a specific diagnostic statement strategically used to illicit a negative response. But why does the response have to be negative? Why not neutral or positive? What about usage of the word “ordinary?” Baptism certainly is ordinary in the sense that the “ordinary” way the Christian life is lived is by being baptized.

Response: Yes, this is my whole point, that Water Baptism is extraneous to the Gospel of Salvation. It is not, however, unChristian or separate from Christian practice.


Baptism is not apart of the gospel. This statement then is brought into tension with other statements by St. Paul such as:
Romans 6:3-4 and Colossians 2:12, which both make the point that baptism unites us with Christ’s death, burial and resurrection.
1 Corinthians 12:13, which tells us that it was by baptism that we were brought into the body of Christ.
Galatians 3:27, which says that baptism is how we clothed ourselves with Christ.
Ephesians 4:5, in which He listed baptism alongside the Trinity and one hope, faith, and body as marks of our unity.

Response: Baptism is an act that symbolizes what we experience spiritually through Christ. The ritual of Water Bapatism does not produce the reality, but only represents it, symbolically, as a public testimony.

It is not therefore distinct from Christian practice, even though it is not the act of Salvation itself. It "saves" only in the appearance of removing the pollution of sin, as opposed to the removal of bodily pollution, which a literal rendering would have made it.


Jesus didn’t want Paul to baptize at all. This is the one that hurts the most as it is used by unbelievers to show Scripture itself has flaws and inconsistencies in it.

Response: Saying Water Baptism is not Salvation is not to say Jesus didn't send Paul to baptize. As mentioned above, Paul was given a commission that required he prioritize founding churches over presiding over individual baptisms.

Paul did not depreciate Water Baptism in the Christian experience. Rather, he placed it secondary to the act of Salvation itself, which he determined was his priority as a leader in the Church. Others could preside over Baptism as a very important act in the matter of making a public confession of repentance from sin and a turning to living righteously in Christ.

 

[RandyPNW]

Perhaps you would need to read Acts 18:24-19:7.
Is obeying Jesus' commands "part of the Gospel of our salvation"?

Why do I need to read Acts 18.24-19.7? I've read it many, many times. Perhaps you need to explain to me how this passage makes any difference in what I stated? I can only guess what your concern is?

I had an experience like Apollos. I knew the accurate truths of the Gospel, confessing them every Sunday in church from birth. But I did not know the full power of the Gospel, and had to have it explained to me so I could open my eyes to the power in the Gospel.

That's when I read the passage in Acts, "I give my Spirit to those who obey Me." I recognized that having fallen into a wayward lifestyle, I needed to return to obeying God. When I realized that I had pleased God in doing that, and when I read this passage, I felt the power of God come upon me.

So in my experience I went through the various functions of the church, water baptism, or dedication as a child, confirmation, etc. I had assisted the pastor in dispensing the elements of Communion, lighting candles, etc. We were every week Christians, my father directing the choir, playing the organ, and teaching the adult Bible Class.

But I didn't know the power of God until somebody explained to me that this experience had been there while I was unaware of it, following religion with an as-yet carnal nature. I had not yet experienced what it was to "live in the Spirit" except perhaps in a limited capacity.

Water Baptism, therefore, added nothing to me until I came into the knowledge of the Spirit. It had nothing whatsoever to do with Water Baptism, whether John's Baptism or Jesus' Baptism, which is the Baptism of the Holy Spirit. We can therefore be saved, be Christians, and yet not know the full power of God. We need to have that.

God's power was available in both testaments, old and new. Until our eyes are fully opened we will be living in our carnal nature, even as we perform religious duties. To be truly in Christ we must be walking by his Spirit.

 

[David Lamb]

Why can you not show me where God commanded that those with red hair be baptized? Whole households were baptized, and households included children. Jesus wanted the children to come to him. This is found in the Bible. Baptism replaced circumcision, and the faith of the parents was enough for a child to be circumcised. No where in the Bible will you find that the faith of the parents is not enough for a child to be baptized. Your teaching that infants were not baptized is simply not found in the Bible.

Acts 16 includes an example of a household that was baptised. Did it include infants so young that they were unable to believe for themselves?:

“33 And he took them the same hour of the night and washed [their] stripes. And immediately he and all his [family] were baptized. 34 Now when he had brought them into his house, he set food before them; and he rejoiced, having believed in God with all his household.” (Ac 16:33-34 NKJV) (my emphasis)

Acts 18 contains another example of groups of people believing and being baptized:

“Then Crispus, the ruler of the synagogue, believed on the Lord with all his household. And many of the Corinthians, hearing, believed and were baptized.” (Ac 18:8 NKJV)

 

[CoreyD]

I was referring to your quotation of The Liturgist where he referenced a variety of topics, including infant baptism, and you responded that those beliefs weren't held until much later, which especially in the case of infant baptism is completely false.

Can you please quote where I said "that those beliefs weren't held until much later"?
I did not say that. I know that when the apostles died, which was the later part of the first century, as prophesied by these faithful men, wolves would rise up in the congregation, teaching things that deviated from the teachings of Christ, and his early followers.

The early Church is the apostles (You can verify this, by checking any encyclopedia). I go by their teachings. Anything outside of that, needs to be questioned.
There is no scripture writen by any of the faithful, that commands or approves baptism of a person who does not accept Christ and his teachings.

The multitude of Jews from every nation, that were staying in Jerusalem at the time the 120 disciples were filled with holy spirit, heard them speaking the Gospel in their language, and "and having heard, they were pierced to the heart and said to Peter and the other apostles, "Men, brothers, what shall we do?" Peter replied, “Repent and be baptized, every one of you, in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins, and you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit. Those who embraced his message were baptized, and about three thousand were added to the believers that day."

No infants embrace the message. You don't think they are "super" babies, do you?

Both the Ethiopian Eunuch and Cornelius and family heard and embraced the message, and then were baptized.
Acts 8:35 reads... Then Philip began with this very Scripture and told him the good news about Jesus.
In Acts 10:24, we read... The following day he arrived in Caesarea, where Cornelius was expecting them and had called together his relatives and close friends.

Can you picture the infants running, coming to hear what Peter has to say? We don't believe in Superman, do we. No babies are super.

No one has ever read about infant baptism in scripture. You haven't either, have you.

You've said you don't want to debate Scripture in this thread, which I agree would be a distraction from the original topic. I'm talking historically - although your latest response to ViaCrucis suggests that even if you're shown evidence from the 1st century you'll just say that that's the deception of the faithful that we were warned about.

As a person who intends to faithfully follow Christ and his teachings, I go by what scripture says. It's not about me.

The scriptures say that false teachings will infiltrate the Christian congregation
Even Jesus gave an illustration of an enemy sowing weeds (deceptive wolves) among the wheat ((faithful ones), and it would be hard to tell them apart.

Claims from a corrupted church, is not evidence.
Do you want to see evidence? Here is what we know - the facts; the evidence:

1. Jesus : many false prophets will appear and deceive many people.
2. Paul : Keep watch over yourselves and all the flock of which the Holy Spirit has made you overseers. Be shepherds of the church of God, which he bought with his own blood. I know that after I leave, savage wolves will come in among you and will not spare the flock. Even from your own number men will arise and distort the truth in order to draw away disciples after them.
3. Paul : Concerning the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ and our being gathered to him, we ask you, brothers and sisters, not to become easily unsettled or alarmed by the teaching allegedly from us—whether by a prophecy or by word of mouth or by letter—asserting that the day of the Lord has already come. Don’t let anyone deceive you in any way, for that day will not come until the rebellion occurs and the man of lawlessness is revealed, the man doomed to destruction. He will oppose and will exalt himself over everything that is called God or is worshiped, so that he sets himself up in God’s temple, proclaiming himself to be God.
4. Paul : The Spirit clearly says that in later times some will abandon the faith and follow deceiving spirits and things taught by demons. Such teachings come through hypocritical liars, whose consciences have been seared as with a hot iron. They forbid people to marry and order them to abstain from certain foods, which God created to be received with thanksgiving by those who believe and who know the truth.
5. John : Dear friends, do not believe every spirit, but test the spirits to see whether they are from God, because many false prophets have gone out into the world.

Matthew 24:11; Acts 20:28-30; 2 Thessalonians 2:3; 2 Peter 2:1; 1 Timothy 4:1-3; 1 John 4:1

This is the evidence. I accept it. It is true, because it comes from the word of God.
When I look around, what do I see? Exactly what was prophesied - The evidence. Where? It can be traced from the late first century, through to later centuries.

I want this body of evidence (facts). Do you care for it, or do you want your ears tickled?
2 Timothy 4:3, 4

For the time will come when they will not tolerate sound doctrine; but wanting to have their ears tickled, they will accumulate for themselves teachers in accordance with their own desires, and will turn away their ears from the truth, and will turn aside to myths.

Do you know who don't want this evidence... who hates it? 2 Thessalonians 2:11, 12
The do not even care to test each expression to see if it comes from God.

Would you consider someone's claim, evidence, on the basis of the fact that they said it?
If someone were to tell you that Jesus said to drink urine to purify your heart, would you say it is evidence that drinking urine to purify your heart, is a command of Jesus, simply because the person taught it during the first century?

If that's the case, then no evidence will ever be able to convince you, because your belief is unfalsifiable:

No claims will convince me, that's true.
I don't consider everything someone opens their mouth and say, to be evidence. Do you?
If so, may I suggest you attend court cases, and pay attention to how evidence is used in cases, and what it is the jury looks for in order to determine the truth.

if something contradicts what you believe, it's either early deception of the faithful or a later innovation; there's no scenario where you might just be mistaken about what the early Church believed.

This is what we would call maligning.

The truth is, if something contradicts what the scriptures teach, it is deception, on the part of those who are claiming to be faithful.
If a person loves the deception, because they have associated themselves with the ones who are making the claims, anyone who faithfully wants to follow the scriptures, which are God breathed, will become a target to be maligned.

 

[Ain't Zwinglian]

Water Baptism is extraneous to the Gospel of Salvation.

Yeap. This is a very common line of reasoning for Credobaptists: Turning the Means of Grace into a human work.

 

[MarkRohfrietsch]

Yeap. This is a very common line of reasoning for Credobaptists: Turning the Means of Grace into a human work.

RandyPNW said:
Water Baptism is extraneous to the Gospel of Salvation.

So very true, taking upon themselves credit for their conversion rather than giving all the glory to Christ.

This is about way more than infant baptism, this is getting to the heart of the whole doctrine of Sanctification. As the venerable Martin Luther states in his explanation of the third article of the Creed; until we can give 100% of the Glory to God, Father, Son and Holy Spirit for both Sanctification and Justification, our conversion can only be viewed as a work we do (or participate in at the very least). Sola Deo Gloria!!!.

What does this mean?​

​

–Answer:

I believe that I cannot by my own reason or strength believe in Jesus Christ, my Lord, or come to Him; but the Holy Ghost has called me by the Gospel, enlightened me with His gifts, sanctified and kept me in the true faith; even as He calls, gathers, enlightens, and sanctifies the whole Christian Church on earth, and keeps it with Jesus Christ in the one true faith; in which Christian Church He forgives daily and richly all sins to me and all believers, and at the last day will raise up me and all the dead, and will give to me and to all believers in Christ everlasting life. This is most certainly true. (Source: The Small Catechism )​

 

[CoreyD]

Well, the Christian Faith was adopted at the Ecumenical Council in Nicaea, by the Fourth Century Church, which believed in infant baptism and the real presence of Christ in the Eucharist, and since you are misinterpreting the warnings of St. Paul about the Gnostic heretics, the first of whom had already appeared (Simon Magus), and more of whom were in the process of formation, including Nicolas the deacon, and have instead imputed that warning falsely to the martyred Christians who shed their blood for Christ, and furthermore attacked my faith by claiming that if I am right, the Holy Apostles are wrong, which is an ad hominem attack, it seems unlikely that you would be inclined to regard the Nicene Creed or the Council of Nicaea with much in terms of authority. And the Nicene Creed is part of the CF.com Statement of Faith. As a matter of principle, I do not discuss theology with Christians who reject the Nicene Creed.

What was particularly offensive, by the way, is that you quoted the verse from every single Bible translation you could find online, as if to suggest I was not intimately familiar with that verse and had not learned about it at seminary, and in the course of serving as a Christian pastor for the past twenty years. I forgive you, but I must insist you not do that again.

You seem to be adding your rules to the Statement of Faith.
I do not see any clauses saying...
Posters must

• believe in infant baptism
• understand St. Paul writings as The Liturgist interprets them
• not say that if The Liturgist is right, the Holy Apostles are wrong
• not quote the verse from every single Bible translation you could find online because it offend The Liturgist

However, I can't promise not to disturb a person's comfort zone, if they are posting on this thread, or any that I consider important to discuss. So if "as a matter of principle,[you] do not discuss theology with Christians who reject the Nicene Creed", I don't know how this will work out for you.
You can always ignore me, but I'm not going to ignore anything that is said, that invalidates God's word.
People need to hear what is truth. This is the life of a true Christian - one who follows Christ, and his teachings.

Matthew 24:14
And this gospel of the kingdom shall be proclaimed in the whole world as a witness to all the nations, and then the end will come.​

It is true, not all will want to hear, but Jesus did not say the gospel will be preached to only those who want to hear. He said it will be preached, as a witness to all.

No, because the man of lawlessness was the type of the anti-Christ, exemplified by Nero, who initiated the persecution of Christians on a massive scale, which the number 666 in Revelation refers to, and also Nicolas the Deacon, who had been properly ordained by the Apostles, but who betrayed them by setting up a heretical Gnostic sect that promoted organized wife swapping.

This is your belief, but you don't want me to believe it because you do, do you?
The man of Lawlessness was before Nero, according to the apostle Paul.
Acts 20:29

I know that false teachers, like vicious wolves, will come in among you after I leave, not sparing the flock.

2 Thessalonians 2:6, 7

And you know what restrains him now, so that in his time he will be revealed.
For the mystery of lawlessness is already at work; only he who now restrains will do so until he is taken out of the way.

 

[CoreyD]

Why can you not show me where God commanded that those with red hair be baptized?

I can show you a red herring, if you like. All you need to do is read the quote above.
However, I would not speculate that first century Jews and Gentiles had red hair, but one thing I know for sure is this:
Those who got baptized

• "confessing their sins". Matthew 3:6
• received testimony, or were testified to - they received a witness, and accepted it. Acts 2:40

I don't know of any baby that does these things, but red hair people do.

Whole households were baptized, and households included children.

Where in scripture do we find that? I hope you don't say Acts 10, because I read there.
The following day he arrived in Caesarea. Cornelius was expecting them and had called together his relatives and close friends. Acts 10:24

I would not speculate that the babies jumped their crib, and took off running at Cornelius's call.
In fact, I would not speculate at all. Going beyond what is written is a sin.
It's a rule of command, not to do that. 1 Corinthians 4:6
We start to believe in men, and what they say.

Jesus wanted the children to come to him.

Yes, and what a lesson he taught his followers.
Matthew 18:2-4
2 Jesus invited a little child to stand among them.
3 “Truly I tell you,” He said, “unless you change and become like little children, you will never enter the kingdom of heaven.
4 Therefore, whoever humbles himself like this little child is the greatest in the kingdom of heaven.

This is found in the Bible. Baptism replaced circumcision, and the faith of the parents was enough for a child to be circumcised.

Please provide the scripture in the Bible showing that baptism replaced circumcision.

If baptism replaced circumcision, as you claimed, do you condone female circumcision? Were women required to be circumcised? Then what about the women.
If you use this as an argument for babies to be baptize, then women should not be baptize, nor would they be required to... according to your argument.

No where in the Bible will you find that the faith of the parents is not enough for a child to be baptized.

Your teaching that infants were not baptized is simply not found in the Bible.

This is like saying that the teaching that Jesus did not kick people in their head is not found in the Bible.

This is what happens when the Bible is no longer valid, but person's ideas become the commandments of God. Matthew 7:6-8

 

[CoreyD]

Why do I need to read Acts 18.24-19.7? I've read it many, many times. Perhaps you need to explain to me how this passage makes any difference in what I stated? I can only guess what your concern is?

No problem.
Perhaps I can ask you then, since you are familiar with the text, having read it many, many times.

RandyPNW said:
Water baptism was initiated by John the Baptist to bring *sinners* to repentance. I don't know that any Jews living in his time had to be baptized when they were already living for God? Christianity is an outreach to a pagan world, and naturally it would recommend water baptism to symbolize the change from paganism to Christianity. It is *not* necessary for Salvation, and is *not* a requirement.

In Acts 18:24, 25, we read...
24 Meanwhile a Jew named Apollos, a native of Alexandria, came to Ephesus. He was a learned man, with a thorough knowledge of the Scriptures. 25 He had been instructed in the way of the Lord, and he spoke with great fervor and taught about Jesus accurately, though he knew only the baptism of John.

Verse 26 continues...
26 He began to speak boldly in the synagogue. When Priscilla and Aquila heard him, they invited him to their home and explained to him the way of God more adequately.

Chapter 19:1-7...
1 While Apollos was at Corinth, Paul took the road through the interior and arrived at Ephesus. There he found some disciples 2 and asked them, “Did you receive the Holy Spirit when you believed?”
They answered, “No, we have not even heard that there is a Holy Spirit.”
3 So Paul asked, “Then what baptism did you receive?”
“John’s baptism,” they replied.
4 Paul said, “John’s baptism was a baptism of repentance. He told the people to believe in the one coming after him, that is, in Jesus.” 5 On hearing this, they were baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus. 6 When Paul placed his hands on them, the Holy Spirit came on them, and they spoke in tongues and prophesied. 7 There were about twelve men in all.

Were persons required to be baptized in the name of Jesus, even thought baptized by John? Why, or why not?
Please consider John 1:35-37; John 3:22-4:3

I had an experience like Apollos. I knew the accurate truths of the Gospel, confessing them every Sunday in church from birth. But I did not know the full power of the Gospel, and had to have it explained to me so I could open my eyes to the power in the Gospel.

That's when I read the passage in Acts, "I give my Spirit to those who obey Me." I recognized that having fallen into a wayward lifestyle, I needed to return to obeying God. When I realized that I had pleased God in doing that, and when I read this passage, I felt the power of God come upon me.

So in my experience I went through the various functions of the church, water baptism, or dedication as a child, confirmation, etc. I had assisted the pastor in dispensing the elements of Communion, lighting candles, etc. We were every week Christians, my father directing the choir, playing the organ, and teaching the adult Bible Class.

But I didn't know the power of God until somebody explained to me that this experience had been there while I was unaware of it, following religion with an as-yet carnal nature. I had not yet experienced what it was to "live in the Spirit" except perhaps in a limited capacity.

Water Baptism, therefore, added nothing to me until I came into the knowledge of the Spirit. It had nothing whatsoever to do with Water Baptism, whether John's Baptism or Jesus' Baptism, which is the Baptism of the Holy Spirit. We can therefore be saved, be Christians, and yet not know the full power of God. We need to have that.

That is in truth what many are taught.

God's power was available in both testaments, old and new. Until our eyes are fully opened we will be living in our carnal nature, even as we perform religious duties. To be truly in Christ we must be walking by his Spirit.

I can agree with you on this.

 

[CoreyD]

Acts 16 includes an example of a household that was baptised. Did it include infants so young that they were unable to believe for themselves?:

“33 And he took them the same hour of the night and washed [their] stripes. And immediately he and all his [family] were baptized. 34 Now when he had brought them into his house, he set food before them; and he rejoiced, having believed in God with all his household.” (Ac 16:33-34 NKJV) (my emphasis)

Acts 18 contains another example of groups of people believing and being baptized:

“Then Crispus, the ruler of the synagogue, believed on the Lord with all his household. And many of the Corinthians, hearing, believed and were baptized.” (Ac 18:8 NKJV)

Hey David. Thank you for actually using the scriptures.
It's not common to find many doing that, more than just stating what they believe.

 

[RandyPNW]

Yeap. This is a very common line of reasoning for Credobaptists: Turning the Means of Grace into a human work.

What I said can be framed any way one likes, but it doesn't represent what I've either said or believe. I believe Water Baptism is a legitimate work on behalf of God. It just isn't Salvation--it *follows Salvation*--something some seem utterly unable to fathom.

Not all the works we do as Christians are works *to get saved.* Nearly all the works we do as Christians *follow Salvation.* These works, therefore, are legitimate works that we do in partnership with God. Even if they are not works *to get saved* they remain works done in partnership with God, in service to Him. I hope I made that clear enough?

 

[RandyPNW]

RandyPNW said:
Water baptism was initiated by John the Baptist to bring *sinners* to repentance. I don't know that any Jews living in his time had to be baptized when they were already living for God? Christianity is an outreach to a pagan world, and naturally it would recommend water baptism to symbolize the change from paganism to Christianity. It is *not* necessary for Salvation, and is *not* a requirement.

In Acts 18:24, 25, we read...
24 Meanwhile a Jew named Apollos, a native of Alexandria, came to Ephesus. He was a learned man, with a thorough knowledge of the Scriptures. 25 He had been instructed in the way of the Lord, and he spoke with great fervor and taught about Jesus accurately, though he knew only the baptism of John.

Verse 26 continues...
26 He began to speak boldly in the synagogue. When Priscilla and Aquila heard him, they invited him to their home and explained to him the way of God more adequately.

Chapter 19:1-7...
1 While Apollos was at Corinth, Paul took the road through the interior and arrived at Ephesus. There he found some disciples 2 and asked them, “Did you receive the Holy Spirit when you believed?”
They answered, “No, we have not even heard that there is a Holy Spirit.”
3 So Paul asked, “Then what baptism did you receive?”
“John’s baptism,” they replied.
4 Paul said, “John’s baptism was a baptism of repentance. He told the people to believe in the one coming after him, that is, in Jesus.” 5 On hearing this, they were baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus. 6 When Paul placed his hands on them, the Holy Spirit came on them, and they spoke in tongues and prophesied. 7 There were about twelve men in all.

Were persons required to be baptized in the name of Jesus, even thought baptized by John? Why, or why not?
Please consider John 1:35-37; John 3:22-4:3


That is in truth what many are taught.


I can agree with you on this.

You remain very obscure in your question. Apollos had received a Baptism of repentance, and had not yet learned how to live in the Spirit of Jesus. John led Jews in living in the Spirit in accordance with the Law, since his ministry preceded the era of Grace.

I do not see how this approaches anything I said? I said that Water Baptism is unnecessary in the matter of Salvation, even though those who converted from gross sin or from paganism got Water Baptized as a public testimony that they had gotten saved. It was a useful tool in the matter of making a public testimony, which was encouraged--not required.

 

[CoreyD]

So, what's the point of your thread? You didn't answer that question from my first comment. And my second comment was responsive to your question as to whether we often see people who invalidate the truth of Scripture by adding to it or taking away from it.

The point is that God decided on His own, with no counsel from man, that He would "save those who believe" (1 Cor 1:21). He doesn't require the physical act of baptism as a condition before He saves them.

You are asking what it means to be saved?

Hello B. I was not ignoring you. Just waiting until I had time to give you special attention.

The point of the thread is to find out person's experience with those identifying as Christian, invalidating God's word - that is, having ideas, or commands that go contrary to or adds to what God's word actually says.

B Griffin said:
What exactly is your point? A baptized person must believe salvation is contingent on salvation or they are not really Christians, they just "identify" as Christians?

I did not realize the last phrase was actually a question, but in any case, I did not see how it was relevant to the thread, which I just explained.

B Griffin said:
I see it in this post. Using your logic, you are invalidating God's word by adding baptism to the list of things God requires of people before He saves them. Didn't Jesus tell the thief on the cross that he would be with Him in paradise that very day?

Yes. you did address the topic and thread with this comment, but since it was not an accurate comment, it's not a valid comment, until you can answer my request to point out where I added "baptism to the list of things God requires of people before He saves them".

I'm asking what you mean by saved, since it does not mean the same thing to the more than 2,000.000.000 people in the more than 45,000 denominations in the world.
Also, there is more than one usage of the term saved in the Bible.

Looking forward to hearing from you.

 

[Ain't Zwinglian]

I believe Water Baptism is a legitimate work on behalf of God.

I'm glad you don't believe baptism is an illegitimate work of God. Still, my criticism holds....Credo's take a Means of Grace and turn it into a human work.....the human work of course is mentioned below....making a public testimony.

Water Baptized as a public testimony that they had gotten saved. It was a useful tool in the matter of making a public testimony, which was encouraged--not required.

Please could you provide chapter and verse from Scripture where baptism is making a "public testimony."

 

[The Liturgist]

You seem to be adding your rules to the Statement of Faith.

I am not adding anything to the Statement of Faith. I merely wish to make sure you agree with everything it contains before we proceed to debate such differences of opinion as it allows (for example, obviously we have members who interpret the Pauline Epistles very differently, but the Statement of Faith ensures that everyone at least agrees in the Apostolate of St. Paul, likewise I want to make sure that you agree with the other provisions in there as well, for example, that Jesus Christ is True God of True God, as the Statement of Faith declares.

Adding additional items to the Nicene Creed is something I would never do, by the way, since it is prohibited by the canons of the Third Ecumenical Synod, the Council of Ephesus, which is of extreme importance (but one can do what CF.com did, which is take the Nicene Creed and additional material and combine it to make a Statement of Faith). In the Orthodox Christian faith we do not tamper with Scripture and we do not tamper with the Creed.

 

[ViaCrucis]

Late 1st century, 2nd century, thanks. Yes. I understand. That's the era the apostles warned about Acts 20:29, 30; 2 Thessalonians 2:3; 2 Peter 2:1, 3Acts 20:29, 30; 2 Thessalonians 2:3; 2 Peter 2:1, 3. Isn't it?

Is there a reason I should believe that those who learned, heard, and knew the apostolic preaching and teaching all, universally, fell away and that the Church vanished from the earth by the late 1st century?

If I can't trust someone like Ignatius to have held firm to the apostolic doctrine, then that means nobody did; that means even the Bible is unreliable and there is no Christian Church anywhere. Unless, of course, someone somewhere claims to have restored it, but if I were willing to believe that then I'd probably also believe in golden plates.

Should I believe in golden plates? Or should I believe in the Christian Church?

-CryptoLutheran