• Welcome to Christian Forums
  1. Welcome to Christian Forums, a forum to discuss Christianity in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to be able to join in fellowship with Christians all over the world.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!

  2. The forums in the Christian Congregations category are now open only to Christian members. Please review our current Faith Groups list for information on which faith groups are considered to be Christian faiths. Christian members please remember to read the Statement of Purpose threads for each forum within Christian Congregations before posting in the forum.

Featured Is water Baptism essential for salvation?

Discussion in 'General Theology' started by -57, Jun 19, 2017.

  1. Albion

    Albion Facilitator

    +21,548
    Anglican
    Married
    Which isn't to add anything.
     
  2. SkyWriting

    SkyWriting The Librarian Supporter

    +5,397
    United States
    Non-Denom
    Married
    US-Others
    Wrong church. wrong people, I never go under water, does not make sense....lots of reasons.
     
  3. SkyWriting

    SkyWriting The Librarian Supporter

    +5,397
    United States
    Non-Denom
    Married
    US-Others
    You don't get around. The largest churches use those methods.
     
  4. SkyWriting

    SkyWriting The Librarian Supporter

    +5,397
    United States
    Non-Denom
    Married
    US-Others
    Both. Man is born into sin like a fish born in water.
    Not one is dry, no not one.
    But sin is a personal thing between you and God.
    Babies, not knowing the law, are in sin, but not
    accountable for their sin. This includes "Spiritual
    Babies" as well.

    James 4:17
    So whoever knows the right thing to do
    and fails to do it, for him it is sin.

    Unless Babies are physically cradled by God at birth,
    they are born into sin.
     
  5. Albion

    Albion Facilitator

    +21,548
    Anglican
    Married
    Did you mean to say "wrong every church?"

    Of the estimated 33,000 Christian denominations, "No Baptism" is part of the doctrinal perspective of...2 of them.

    You're in rather exclusive company.
     
  6. Albion

    Albion Facilitator

    +21,548
    Anglican
    Married
    No. They don't. At least, those methods are not "common" with them--and that's what you claimed.
     
  7. SkyWriting

    SkyWriting The Librarian Supporter

    +5,397
    United States
    Non-Denom
    Married
    US-Others
    Wrong church for me. Weird ideas, bad children, no bibles.
    Almost the most liberal there is. As a result, I don't feel
    at home in churches that don't give each other backrubs
    or feet washings or sing Kumbaya-my-Lord campfire songs
    now that I've left them.
     
  8. SkyWriting

    SkyWriting The Librarian Supporter

    +5,397
    United States
    Non-Denom
    Married
    US-Others
    I have never attended a baptism without cloth or sprinkling.
    Ohh. No... yes i did once.
    I don't know if Catholics or Lutherans have a tank.
    That a good size group.
     
    Last edited: Jun 23, 2017
  9. Archivist

    Archivist Senior Veteran Supporter

    +4,228
    Lutheran
    Single
    US-Republican
    The statement made by Seabass to which I was responding was "Infants are born without sin therefore again, they are not candidates for baptism." I disagree with him on that; my reply was that babies are born with a sinful nature.
     
  10. Albion

    Albion Facilitator

    +21,548
    Anglican
    Married
    They don't use the Baptist-type tank, but in neither of those churches is it standard practice to use sprinkling or a dampened cloth.
     
  11. PropheticTimes

    PropheticTimes Lord Have Mercy Supporter

    956
    +1,296
    United States
    Christian
    Private
    I have never intentionally avoided it. Actually, if I had the opportunity I would take it, and when I have the opportunity I WILL take it. I am not, however, fearful about my salvation, because I know I am saved. What is irksome is others telling me that I am unsaved when they know nothing of my relationship with the Lord, simply due to the lack of water baptism.
     
  12. Albion

    Albion Facilitator

    +21,548
    Anglican
    Married
    I had no one in particular in mind when I made that observation, you understand, but there are a number of people who have posted that they don't need it, don't value it, don't think it does anything, and are definitely not going to avail themselves of Baptism.

    I seem to be asking this question a lot lately, so forgive me, but who (or what denominations) say that?
     
  13. PropheticTimes

    PropheticTimes Lord Have Mercy Supporter

    956
    +1,296
    United States
    Christian
    Private
    Completely understood.

    I have not noticed it to be a certain denomination, just people from time to time, such as TheSeabass. I have come across it in others from time to time and I simply find it to be blindly judgmental and arrogant.
     
  14. Albion

    Albion Facilitator

    +21,548
    Anglican
    Married
    That's similar to what I've noticed. The typical proponent of that idea lists no church affiliation here on CR, and that most often means that they're a lone wolf kind of Christian. In other words, almost the whole of the Christian world has one POV about this matter, but there are also individuals who have their own contrary thoughts on the subject. That's fine, so long as everyone keeps things in perspective.
     
    • Like Like x 1
    • Agree Agree x 1
    • List
  15. TheSeabass

    TheSeabass Well-Known Member

    +357
    Non-Denom
    Private
    Peter was addressing the men of Israel who had committed sin (crucifying the Christ) Acts 2:22-35. Concluding his words in Acts 2:36 with "Therefore let all the house of Israel know assuredly,..." . And in verse 41 "Then they that gladly received his word.."

    Peter was addressing adults that 1) committed a sin and 2) had the cognitive skills to "know" and "receive" what Peter preached. "Know" is ginōskō meaning to learn to know, come to know, get a knowledge of perceive, to know, understand, perceive, have knowledge of. They would not have received Peter's word if they did not know/understand/perceive what Peter was saying. Why, how would they been have been baptized (verse 41) if they could not know/understand what Peter was saying?

    It is evident, obvious that Peter was not addressing infants for 1) infants cannot commit sin and 2) do not have the ability to know/understand/perceive what Peter was saying. Infants do not even have a grasp of language skills much less cognitive skills required to know/understand/believe. It would also exclude those with severe mental disabilities for they are in an innocent state as infants not capable of sinning for they are not capable of knowing/understanding.

    And since baptism is for the remission of sins and infants have no sins, then logic dictates that baptism is not for infants.

    It is very common in the bible that descendants, future generations are referred to as children. Israel is referred to as Abraham's 'children' but the nation of Israel was not a nation of infants.
    Isaiah 59:21 "As for me, this is my covenant with them, saith the LORD; My spirit that is upon thee, and my words which I have put in thy mouth, shall not depart out of thy mouth, nor out of the mouth of thy seed, nor out of the mouth of thy seed's seed, saith the LORD, from henceforth and for ever." Infants are not being considered as the future seed but the seed refers to future generations.
    Even Albert Barnes says of Acts 2:39 (my emp) "In these and similar places their descendants or posterity are denoted. It does not refer merely to children as children, and should not be adduced as applicable exclusively to infants. It is a promise to parents that the blessings of salvation shall not be confined to parents, but shall be extended also to their posterity. Under this promise parents may be encouraged to train up their children for God; they are authorized to devote them to him in the ordinance of Christian baptism, and they may trust in his gracious purpose thus to perpetuate the blessings of salvation from age to age."


    David did not say he was born a sinner. The NIV perverts the verse.

    KJV - Behold, I was shapen in iniquity; and in sin did my mother conceive me.
    NIV - Surely I was sinful at birth, sinful from the time my mother conceived me.

    A world of difference between a accurate translation as the KJV and a purposefully corrupt translation as the NIV. The NIV should not even be seen as the bible, God's word. It is nothing more than a blatant attempt to change God's doctrines, an attempt to force Calvinism into God's word.

    "Shapen in iniquity" is NOT the same as "I was sinful at birth"

    The bible describes the world as a place full of sin and iniquity. Therefore everyone has been shapened, conceived, born into an environment full of iniquity and sin. My mother could have given birth to me while on a trip to China. I would have been born into an environment full of Chinese customs, language, food and people but being born in China would not make me Chinese no more than being born into an environment full of sin and iniquity makes me a sinner.

    Similar language in Acts 2:8. After the Apostles spoke in various languages verse 8 says "And how hear we every man in our own tongue, wherein we were born?" If I had been there at that time, I would have said I heard the Apostles speak in the English language wherein I was born. This does not mean I was born speaking the English language, but I was born in an environment where English was spoken and in time I learned to speak it myself. Likewise we are born into a sinful world not knowing right from wrong (Isaiah 7:15-16) but in time upon learning right from wrong one becomes accountable to God's laws and THEN sins by transgressing that law.

    Furthermore, John says sin is transgression of the law. Sin is not a gene passed from one to another nor a sickness no just an idea that is passed from one to another. A transgression must be committed for sin to exist. This makes the idea of original sin impossible. A new born must have committed a transgression for it to be a sinner. What transgression did the new born commit? Lie? Steal? Adultery? Murder? Infants are not capable of sinning therefore the NIV is corrupt and put words into David's mouth he never said.

    Lastly;
    in sin did my mother conceive me

    David is talking about the sin of his mother here if anything at all.

    in sin did my mother conceive me
    in a drunken rage a husband beat his wife

    Who was in sin? The mother not the infant. Who was in a drunken rage? the husband, not the wife. The NIV perverts the verse by taking the sin from the mother and putting upon the the infant.

    Psalms 139:14 "I will praise thee; for I am fearfully and wonderfully made: marvellous are thy works; and that my soul knoweth right well."

    David was NOT praising God for making him a vile, lost reprobate at birth.


    I asked the following "Psa 51 speaks of conception. Psalms 58:3 speaks of birth. Conception and birth are 2 distinct points separated by about 9 months. So if original sin were true, when does one become a sinner? At conception? At birth? In one becomes a sinner at conception he cannot become a sinner at birth for he already is a sinner. If one does not become a sinner until birth, then he is not a sinner at conception."

    Therefore if Psa 51:5 and Psa 58:3 teach original sin then does one become a sinner at conception or does one not become a sinner until he is born?

    Once you decide if one becomes a sinner at conception or at birth, then we can discuss what transgression was committed a conception or at birth making one a sinner.
     
    Last edited: Jun 23, 2017
  16. Albion

    Albion Facilitator

    +21,548
    Anglican
    Married
    Nothing so far in this conflicts with what I wrote. If anything, it confirms it.

    I SAID that infants were not covered by those words. They were intended for the ears of grown men and spoke to that situation. BUT this does not mean that infants and youngsters were being excluded from the sacrament. On the contrary, we know from the NT that they were baptized.
     
  17. TheSeabass

    TheSeabass Well-Known Member

    +357
    Non-Denom
    Private

    You earlier posted "It does not show that anyone else is excluded from Baptism."
    Obviously infants and the mentally impaired are excluded.

    This is contradictory.

    You first say "infants were not covered by those words" but then say "infants and youngsters were (not) being excluded"

    So were infants not covered/excluded or were they included by those words?
     
  18. Albion

    Albion Facilitator

    +21,548
    Anglican
    Married
    Obviously, they are not. They are excluded from the audience in that particular verse, but not from the sacrament of Baptism. Such is the kind of sloppy exegesis that people do and then wind up with them insisting that the Bible says X and that everyone else is wrong or even against the truth...but they themselves have simply misunderstood what they read.

    Do you see now how confused you've been?
     
  19. TheSeabass

    TheSeabass Well-Known Member

    +357
    Non-Denom
    Private
    John 1:1,14 Jesus is the word. Jesus left the earth some 2000 years ago leaving behind His written word, the bible. So the written word, the bible, is the only source of God's truth in the world today.
    Men do not create truth, the church does not create truth, God's truth comes from God and God alone.

    Men can have meetings and counsels but they can never create any truth that God has not already given us in the written word, they can only create FALSE UNINSPIRED teachings.

    Are you Catholic?


    The bible has truth and I must follow the bible if I am to know truth. I know that truth can never be found among all the 1000's of religious groups that all contradict each other.


    It comes down to who can prove their interpretation to be the correct one following proper rules of exegesis - logic.

    Therefore Christianity is not, never has been made up of varying contradicting interpretation with all those interpretations being right. The contradictions prove most are wrong.

    And why single me out? The faith onlyist here, the Calvinists, the Catholics here all will claim they have the correct interpretation and others are wrong. They would be just as guilty of what you charge me.


    Correct.

    So if I said "he that openeth the can and empties it out shall have soup to eat".

    The logical order, the logical progression of the statement has "opening" BEFORE "emptying" without me having to say "he that first opens the can and then empties the can"


    Your statement does not contain a logical progression of steps as my did or the Lord's sis in Mark 16:16a.

    The fact Christ put "believeth" BEFORE "baptism" means belief come before baptism. He created a logical sequence of steps, a logical order of events that first step must be done before going to the next step.


    If there is no logical sequence, no logical order of steps to be taken then one can read the verse "he that is baptized and believes shall be saved". This would not be posible for an unbeliever - atheist would not be baptized.


    You did not prove my interpretation to be wrong nor yours to be right.

    I asked a simple question that you did not even answer. Original sin has a contradiction right off the bat.

    I asked:
    I asked the following "Psa 51 speaks of conception. Psalms 58:3 speaks of birth. Conception and birth are 2 distinct points separated by about 9 months. So if original sin were true, when does one become a sinner? At conception? At birth? In one becomes a sinner at conception he cannot become a sinner at birth for he already is a sinner. If one does not become a sinner until birth, then he is not a sinner at conception."
     
  20. TheSeabass

    TheSeabass Well-Known Member

    +357
    Non-Denom
    Private
    There is nothing in the context that requires infants to be baptized.

    --Infants had not committed ant sin, adults had
    --Infants could not understand what was being preached or commanded, adults could
    --Baptism is for remission of sins, infants had no sin nor were they convicted of original sin by Peter where they needed to be baptized for remission of sins.

    It makes no logically sense to preach where infants are not included in the audience hearing what is being preached yet infants are still accountable to what is preached.

    The infants were either amenable to what was being preached therefore included in the audience
    or
    they were not amenable to what was preached and not part of the audience.

    You cannot have them both not amenable (not part of the audience the sermon was directed to) and amenable (accountable to what was preached to the audience) at the same time.

    It is correct to say I am confused....confused by the logical fallacy of your argument.
     
    Last edited: Jun 23, 2017
Loading...