poor uzzah

[Zebra1552]

Matthew 28:19-20 "Go therefore and make disciples of all the nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, 20 "teaching them to observe all things that I have commanded you; and lo, I am with you always, even to the end of the age." Amen.

He sure looks like he did say that. Who do you think said what is contained in Matthew 28:19-20? The main verb is "make disciples" and the participles dependent on that verb are "baptizing" and "teaching" which describe how the disciples are made. The disciples are made by baptizing and teaching.

That does not prove that baptism is a requirement. It shows that Christ wanted it to happen, and if I recall He was talking to the 11 in the year 33 AD or so. What about people who would be immediately executed if they were baptized, in today's society? How is that a Godly thing to do- suicide?
Your verse does not say it is a requirement. Your verse says that Jesus said to do it, not that it is a requirement for discipleship. And I can guarantee you I can mold a disciple without that person being baptized and that they can perform just as well as any other disciple with the understanding of what baptism is symbolic for. I'm working on 3 right now, actually.

There is no Pharasiac legalism. They are given to us by God as gifts. They are not something we do but something God gives us and they sure look like they come from Jesus to me. He instituted the Lord's Supper and He instituted Christian baptism. It is by his authority that we receive these things.

But not all are requirements for salvation. That's where your legalism comes in.

I'm not a big fan of confirmation either but I don't know what that has to do with our discussion.

The forgiveness that we show to others is a result of the forgiveness that God shows to us. But even Matthew 18 shows our inability to keep the law.

You must have missed the point of my quoting it, then. And confirmation is entirely relevant to this, as it trains children to preach and teach rather than build relationships. It also teaches the sacraments you cite.

I assume also by neglecting to address the other issues I raised that you are conceding them.

 

[wildboar]

That does not prove that baptism is a requirement. It shows that Christ wanted it to happen, and if I recall He was talking to the 11 in the year 33 AD or so. What about people who would be immediately executed if they were baptized, in today's society? How is that a Godly thing to do- suicide?

The verse says that Jesus says that they should make disciples by baptizing and teaching. So baptism is part of the discipling process. It looks like you live in the US. Where are they killing people in the US for baptizing? There was a great deal of persecution in the early church so it's not as if things must change now because now we have persecution. You can baptize in a hidden location if you are really scared people are going to kill you. In many locations people can be killed for trying to tell people about Jesus so by your logic we shouldn't tell people about Jesus. Part of the discipling process is teaching people to be more willing to give up their lives than denounce Christ. There is a vast difference between martyrdom and suicide. God has seen fit to grow his church through the blood of the martyrs throughout history.

But not all are requirements for salvation. That's where your legalism comes in.

Our salvation is grounded upon the blood of Christ but we receive the benefits that He has won for us through the Word and sacraments. There are people who have died prior to receiving the sacrament of baptism and who gone on to be with the Lord, but why would we want to neglect His good gifts if we are able to receive them?

You must have missed the point of my quoting it, then. And confirmation is entirely relevant to this, as it trains children to preach and teach rather than build relationships. It also teaches the sacraments you cite.

So you're actually talking about catechizing, not necessarily confirmation or maybe seminary, I'm not sure what you are talking about. Catechizing is done so that people understand what the Christian faith teaches. You're drawing a false dichotomy between teaching and building relationships. Everything has its place and learning how to act and treat others is part of catechizing. We do good works not to earn salvation but for the good of our neighbor which helps build relationships. If all we are interested in is building relationships we can all go see a therapist for that. The Bible teaches the sacraments I cite and so the catechism explains the sacraments. But your gripe does not seem to be with the catechism but with what the catechism is based on--the Scriptures. You have come up with some new plan that you think is better than the plan that Jesus gave and have determined that His plan is no longer relevant.

I assume also by neglecting to address the other issues I raised that you are conceding them.

I did not respond line by line to everything that you said but tried to respond to the main points you were making. If there is something that you do not believe I addressed please tell me.

 

[Zebra1552]

The verse says that Jesus says that they should make disciples by baptizing and teaching. So baptism is part of the discipling process.

Physical baptism is NOT part of that process. You have no evidence for saying so, and this is the kind of legalism I am talking about. Even in this same post you tell me one can be saved without it, yet you directly contradict that in the same post.

It looks like you live in the US. Where are they killing people in the US for baptizing?

Red herring.

There was a great deal of persecution in the early church so it's not as if things must change now because now we have persecution. You can baptize in a hidden location if you are really scared people are going to kill you. In many locations people can be killed for trying to tell people about Jesus so by your logic we shouldn't tell people about Jesus. Part of the discipling process is teaching people to be more willing to give up their lives than denounce Christ. There is a vast difference between martyrdom and suicide. God has seen fit to grow his church through the blood of the martyrs throughout history.

Baptism, however, is not imperative, and making disciples is imperative. Do check your Greek words, and while you're at it you might want to read Romans 6, as I mentioned earlier:
Rom 6:1 What shall we say then? Are we to continue in sin so that grace may increase?
Rom 6:2 May it never be! How shall we who died to sin still live in it?
Rom 6:3 Or do you not know that all of us who have been baptized into Christ Jesus have been baptized into His death?
Rom 6:4 Therefore we have been buried with Him through baptism into death, so that as Christ was raised from the dead through the glory of the Father, so we too might walk in newness of life.
Rom 6:5 For if we have become united with Him in the likeness of His death, certainly we shall also be in the likeness of His resurrection,
Rom 6:6 knowing this, that our old self was crucified with Him, in order that our body of sin might be done away with, so that we would no longer be slaves to sin;
Rom 6:7 for he who has died is freed from sin.
Rom 6:8 Now if we have died with Christ, we believe that we shall also live with Him,
Rom 6:9 knowing that Christ, having been raised from the dead, is never to die again; death no longer is master over Him.
Rom 6:10 For the death that He died, He died to sin once for all; but the life that He lives, He lives to God.
Rom 6:11 Even so consider yourselves to be dead to sin, but alive to God in Christ Jesus.
Rom 6:12 Therefore do not let sin reign in your mortal body so that you obey its lusts,
Rom 6:13 and do not go on presenting the members of your body to sin as instruments of unrighteousness; but present yourselves to God as those alive from the dead, and your members as instruments of righteousness to God.
Rom 6:14 For sin shall not be master over you, for you are not under law but under grace.

Physical baptism is symbolic of this concept. Physical baptism is not a requirement. So long as one understands the symbol and enacts what it symbolizes is good enough.

Our salvation is grounded upon the blood of Christ but we receive the benefits that He has won for us through the Word and sacraments. There are people who have died prior to receiving the sacrament of baptism and who gone on to be with the Lord, but why would we want to neglect His good gifts if we are able to receive them?

Why would we want to confuse people by saying it is a requirement when it is not? Isn't that lying?

So you're actually talking about catechizing, not necessarily confirmation or maybe seminary, I'm not sure what you are talking about. Catechizing is done so that people understand what the Christian faith teaches. You're drawing a false dichotomy between teaching and building relationships. Everything has its place and learning how to act and treat others is part of catechizing.

No. You are making a straw man argument. I'm not talking about catechizing. I'm talking about confirmation, specifically in the Catholic and Lutheran denominations, where they teach crap that's not in the Bible and people have lukewarm faith or ultra-Pharisaical legalism because of it.

We do good works not to earn salvation but for the good of our neighbor which helps build relationships. If all we are interested in is building relationships we can all go see a therapist for that.

Relationships are all Jesus is interested in, so I guess He should go see a therapist too. And if you disagree, I would encourage you to start citing things that don't trace back to a relationship with Jesus rather than trying to put words in my mouth that simply are not there.

The Bible teaches the sacraments I cite and so the catechism explains the sacraments.

The Bible does not teach anything about sacraments. The Bible teachings the difference between proper and improper living, and what true Christianity looks like, and ultimately, what our relationships- with God and others- looks like. None of it is imperative. All of it is dependent.

But your gripe does not seem to be with the catechism but with what the catechism is based on--the Scriptures. You have come up with some new plan that you think is better than the plan that Jesus gave and have determined that His plan is no longer relevant.

And you again are coming up with a straw man argument, as if that gives you a better position to argue against what I'm claiming. It doesn't. Do try to slow down enough to read what I'm saying rather than trying to read into it. I have a problem with people who slice up the Bible into fancy packages and give burdens that are not there, namely the Catholic and Lutheran churches. Not the Bible itself.

I did not respond line by line to everything that you said but tried to respond to the main points you were making. If there is something that you do not believe I addressed please tell me.

How about the difference between taking the Bible as a whole rather than looking at narrow parts of it? How about the difference between legalism and relationship? How about the difference between a loving God that wants a relationship with us and a God that gives 20,000,000 requirements?

 

[wildboar]

Physical baptism is NOT part of that process. You have no evidence for saying so, and this is the kind of legalism I am talking about. Even in this same post you tell me one can be saved without it, yet you directly contradict that in the same post.

In Matthew 28:19 Jesus says it is, He says to make disciples by baptizing. That is the function of the participle in its relation to the main verb.

Red herring.

It's not a red herring unless your original statement about people being killed because they are baptized is a red herring.

Baptism, however, is not imperative, and making disciples is imperative. Do check your Greek words, and while you're at it you might want to read Romans 6, as I mentioned earlier:

I have checked my Greek words and the baptizing is a participle dependent upon the main verb which says to make disciples. It tells how to make disciples.

Physical baptism is symbolic of this concept. Physical baptism is not a requirement. So long as one understands the symbol and enacts what it symbolizes is good enough.

The example you provided does not separate water baptism from inner baptism and no Scripture does. No passage in Scripture speaks of baptism as a symbol. This is a man-made tradition born out of rationalism.

Why would we want to confuse people by saying it is a requirement when it is not? Isn't that lying?

I don't think we should speak of it as a requirement. We should speak of it as a good gift of God. If someone is a believer why would they neglect one of the cool gifts God is giving out?

No. You are making a straw man argument. I'm not talking about catechizing. I'm talking about confirmation, specifically in the Catholic and Lutheran denominations, where they teach crap that's not in the Bible and people have lukewarm faith or ultra-Pharisaical legalism because of it.

Confirmation is ceremony. People aren't taught anything during confirmation. They say what they believe. Catechizing is generally the process that leads up to confirmation. The bulk of Luther's catechism deals with the ten commandments which show us our own sin and how we are to treat our neighbor. It's hard to think of any better way of learning how to develop humility and build relationships. It is the passing down of the faith handed down as described in Scripture. People have a lukewarm faith or ultra-Pharasaic legalism because of their own sinful nature--not because of confirmation. It seems like you have a lot of hate in your heart that you need to deal with.

How about the difference between taking the Bible as a whole rather than looking at narrow parts of it? How about the difference between legalism and relationship? How about the difference between a loving God that wants a relationship with us and a God that gives 20,000,000 requirements?

The Lutheran confessions do not teach legalism. Legalism is the belief that we earn our salvation through our obedience to the law. The Lutheran confessions and the Lutheran services teaches that we are poor miserable sinners and that Christ shed His blood and paid for all our our sins. God has given us His good gifts in Word and Sacrament. It is evangelicals who have turned baptism into an act of obedience.

 

[Zebra1552]

In Matthew 28:19 Jesus says it is, He says to make disciples by baptizing. That is the function of the participle in its relation to the main verb.

I'm going to go ahead, then, and post the Greek for you. Let's see what the participle comes before/after.

Mat 28:19 "Go4198 therefore3767 and make3100 disciples3100 of all3956 the nations1484, baptizing907 them in the name3686 of the Father3962 and the Son5207 and the Holy40 Spirit4151,

G4198
πορεύομαι
poreuomai
Thayer Definition:
1) to lead over, carry over, transfer
1a) to pursue the journey on which one has entered, to continue on one’s journey
1b) to depart from life
1c) to follow one, that is: become his adherent
1c1) to lead or order one’s life
Part of Speech: verb

G3767
ου[FONT=&quot]̓͂[/FONT]ν
oun
Thayer Definition:
1) then, therefore, accordingly, consequently, these things being so
Part of Speech: particle

G3100
μαθητεύω
mathe[FONT=&quot]̄[/FONT]teuo[FONT=&quot]̄[/FONT]
Thayer Definition:
1) to be a disciple of one
1a) to follow his precepts and instructions
2) to make a disciple
2a) to teach, instruct
Part of Speech: verb

G3100
μαθητεύω
mathe[FONT=&quot]̄[/FONT]teuo[FONT=&quot]̄[/FONT]
Thayer Definition:
1) to be a disciple of one
1a) to follow his precepts and instructions
2) to make a disciple
2a) to teach, instruct
Part of Speech: verb

G3956
πα[FONT=&quot]͂[/FONT]ς
pas
Thayer Definition:
1) individually
1a) each, every, any, all, the whole, everyone, all things,everything
2) collectively
2a) some of all types
Part of Speech: adjective

G1484
ε[FONT=&quot]̓[/FONT]́θνος
ethnos
Thayer Definition:
1) a multitude (whether of men or of beasts) associated or living together
1a) a company, troop, swarm
2) a multitude of individuals of the same nature or genus
2a) the human family
3) a tribe, nation, people group
4) in the OT, foreign nations not worshipping the true God, pagans, Gentiles
5) Paul uses the term for Gentile Christians
Part of Speech: noun neuter

G907
βαπτίζω
baptizo[FONT=&quot]̄[/FONT]
Thayer Definition:
1) to dip repeatedly, to immerse, to submerge (of vessels sunk)
2) to cleanse by dipping or submerging, to wash, to make clean with water, to wash one’s self, bathe
3) to overwhelm
Part of Speech: verb

Funny, that reads 'Therefore go (as you go) make disciples of all nations', then comes the next clause. The participle is before 'make disciples' not 'baptize'. Looks like you're wrong there. But just for fun, let's say Jesus does require physical baptism. How does that fit in with your statement that people go to heaven without it? If it's a requirement, then you can't get into heaven without it. So which is it? Do people get into heaven without it, or is it a requirement?

It's not a red herring unless your original statement about people being killed because they are baptized is a red herring.

My statement was made about any believer, not just those in America. So yes, it is a red herring.

I have checked my Greek words and the baptizing is a participle dependent upon the main verb which says to make disciples. It tells how to make disciples.

The NAS disagrees with you, and all we have thus far is your word- which is shown to be wrong with the NAS and Strong's numbering. My money's on the NAS and Strong's.

The example you provided does not separate water baptism from inner baptism and no Scripture does. No passage in Scripture speaks of baptism as a symbol. This is a man-made tradition born out of rationalism.

No, Scripture does not talk about it as a symbol, not directly. But let's think about that. Baptism back then meant to:
"1) to dip repeatedly, to immerse, to submerge (of vessels sunk)
2) to cleanse by dipping or submerging, to wash, to make clean with water, to wash one’s self, bathe
3) to overwhelm"
...dunk someone in water. How is that any different from being buried and being brought back to life? Or dying to the sinful nature and being born again in the Spirit?

Or do you have more claims of a man-made conspiracy? If all you have is claims, then I'm not going to be worried. Do back them.


Originally Posted by godschild

Why would we want to confuse people by saying it is a requirement when it is not? Isn't that lying?

I don't think we should speak of it as a requirement. We should speak of it as a good gift of God.

What is the purpose of this gift, then? So, you got dunked in water? So what? What does that mean? Paul has no problem talking about it as a symbol. Isn't the symbolism more important than the symbol itself?

If someone is a believer why would they neglect one of the cool gifts God is giving out?

Perhaps because on its own this gift does nothing?

Originally Posted by godschild

No. You are making a straw man argument. I'm not talking about catechizing. I'm talking about confirmation, specifically in the Catholic and Lutheran denominations, where they teach crap that's not in the Bible and people have lukewarm faith or ultra-Pharisaical legalism because of it.

Confirmation is ceremony. People aren't taught anything during confirmation. They say what they believe.

Which does absolutely nothing. It was Christ who said that the inside is more important than the outside. Thank you for further proving my point.

Catechizing is generally the process that leads up to confirmation. The bulk of Luther's catechism deals with the ten commandments which show us our own sin and how we are to treat our neighbor. It's hard to think of any better way of learning how to develop humility and build relationships. It is the passing down of the faith handed down as described in Scripture. People have a lukewarm faith or ultra-Pharasaic legalism because of their own sinful nature--not because of confirmation. It seems like you have a lot of hate in your heart that you need to deal with.

In Scripture, the passing down was done individually, in a mentor-disciple relationship, not a classroom. And this method was far more effective than the mass production lines we see today, as it emphasizes quality not quantity. Are you going to blame that change also on sin nature?
The hate I have in my heart is directed towards anything that puts a barrier between Christ and people, even if that means offending people like you. And that hate is not the topic of this discussion. Red herring.

The Lutheran confessions do not teach legalism. Legalism is the belief that we earn our salvation through our obedience to the law. The Lutheran confessions and the Lutheran services teaches that we are poor miserable sinners and that Christ shed His blood and paid for all our our sins. God has given us His good gifts in Word and Sacrament. It is evangelicals who have turned baptism into an act of obedience.

My Bible teaches me that I'm a saint because of Christ's work, not a 'poor miserable sinner'. My Bible teaches me that once I confess and believe I'm no longer a 'poor miserable sinner' but a child of God. My Bible also teaches Christ as the center and author of our faith, not Luther or the sacraments.

From Wikipedia:

Legalism, in Christian theology, is a pejorative term referring to an over-emphasis on law or codes of conduct, or legal ideas, usually implying an allegation of misguided rigor, pride, superficiality, the neglect of mercy, and ignorance of the grace of God or emphasizing the letter of law over the spirit. Legalism is alleged against any view that obedience to law, not faith in God's grace, is the pre-eminent principle of redemption. Its opposite error is antinomianism, which is alleged against a view that moral laws are not binding.

That sounds a lot like the what the sacraments end up doing to Lutherans and Catholics for the masses. Ignoring the concept of the law for the letter of the law. And imagine that, it's oft only used as a charge against 'salvation by obedience' theology. Which, incidentally enough, is something similar to what Catholicism teaches with Purgatory.


I also wonder how that answers all these questions:

How about the difference between taking the Bible as a whole rather than looking at narrow parts of it? How about the difference between legalism and relationship? How about the difference between a loving God that wants a relationship with us and a God that gives 20,000,000 requirements?

 

[wildboar]

The participle is before 'make disciples' not 'baptize'. Looks like you're wrong there.

"Go" is a participle as well--it is an aorist participle. "Baptizing" is a present participle. Both participles are dependent upon the main verb which is "Make disciples." So you could translate it as:

"Having gone, disciple all nations, by baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit."

I'm not trying to brag but I do have my B.A. in Greek and do know what I'm talking about.

But just for fun, let's say Jesus does require physical baptism. How does that fit in with your statement that people go to heaven without it? If it's a requirement, then you can't get into heaven without it. So which is it? Do people get into heaven without it, or is it a requirement?

I don't believe I have ever spoken of baptism as a "requirement." Baptism and teaching are the means through which God has chosen to make disciples and so someone could come to faith through the teaching and be hit by a truck right afterwards or something. But baptism is one of God's good gifts to us. So if we refuse to receive God's good gifts, how can we consider ourselves to be believers.

What is the purpose of this gift, then? So, you got dunked in water? So what? What does that mean? Paul has no problem talking about it as a symbol. Isn't the symbolism more important than the symbol itself?

Paul never talks about it as symbol. He says it unites us with Christ and we read in the Gospels and Acts that it gives remission of sins. Where does Paul say it is a symbol?

I will try to answer more of the questions later.

 

[Zebra1552]

"Go" is a participle as well--it is an aorist participle. "Baptizing" is a present participle. Both participles are dependent upon the main verb which is "Make disciples." So you could translate it as:

"Having gone, disciple all nations, by baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit."

I'm not trying to brag but I do have my B.A. in Greek and do know what I'm talking about.

And the people who translate Bible's don't know what they're talking about? Claims do not refute scholarly material. Not by a long shot. But if you want a duel of claims, I could just tell you that I stopped by an old prof's office (he has his doctorate in Greek) and he notes that "baptism and teaching are not imperative to discipleship". But that would be countering one claim with another and gets us nowhere, because we both could be lying just to say we're right.

I am also going to mention that the participle is not 'go', it is 'therefore'. 'Baptizing' is a verb, not a participle. See last post. For your benefit, I've gone though and fixed the formatting/tech issue CF caused in my last post. Have fun with continuing to claim Greek grammar rules.

I don't believe I have ever spoken of baptism as a "requirement."

You just did.

Baptism and teaching are the means through which God has chosen to make disciples and so someone could come to faith through the teaching and be hit by a truck right afterwards or something. But baptism is one of God's good gifts to us. So if we refuse to receive God's good gifts, how can we consider ourselves to be believers.

Paul never talks about it as symbol. He says it unites us with Christ and we read in the Gospels and Acts that it gives remission of sins.

We read in 1 John that confession gives forgiveness of sins.

Where does Paul say it is a symbol?

Why does it need to be said in order to exist?
It's implied:
Rom 6:1 What shall we say then? Are we to continue in sin so that grace may increase?
Rom 6:2 May it never be! How shall we who died to sin still live in it?
Rom 6:3 Or do you not know that all of us who have been baptized into Christ Jesus have been baptized into His death?
Rom 6:4 Therefore we have been buried with Him through baptism into death, so that as Christ was raised from the dead through the glory of the Father, so we too might walk in newness of life.
Rom 6:5 For if we have become united with Him in the likeness of His death, certainly we shall also be in the likeness of His resurrection,
Rom 6:6 knowing this, that our old self was crucified with Him, in order that our body of sin might be done away with, so that we would no longer be slaves to sin;
Rom 6:7 for he who has died is freed from sin.
Rom 6:8 Now if we have died with Christ, we believe that we shall also live with Him,
Rom 6:9 knowing that Christ, having been raised from the dead, is never to die again; death no longer is master over Him.
Rom 6:10 For the death that He died, He died to sin once for all; but the life that He lives, He lives to God.
Rom 6:11 Even so consider yourselves to be dead to sin, but alive to God in Christ Jesus.
Rom 6:12 Therefore do not let sin reign in your mortal body so that you obey its lusts,
Rom 6:13 and do not go on presenting the members of your body to sin as instruments of unrighteousness; but present yourselves to God as those alive from the dead, and your members as instruments of righteousness to God.
Rom 6:14 For sin shall not be master over you, for you are not under law but under grace.

You may want to note the Greek for Baptism, by the way. It doesn't JUST mean physical immersion in water.

I will try to answer more of the questions later.

"Try not. Do or do not. There is no try."
-Yoda

You may want to start posting some references for your claims, especially when it's your word against other Bible translations:

(ASV) Go ye therefore, and make disciples of all the nations, baptizing them into the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit:

(CEV) Go to the people of all nations and make them my disciples. Baptize them in the name of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit,

(ESV) Go therefore and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit,

(NAS77) "Go therefore and make disciples of all the nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit,

(NASB) "Go therefore and make disciples of all the nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit,

(RV) Go ye therefore, and make disciples of all the nations, baptizing them into the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Ghost:

(YLT) having gone, then, disciple all the nations, (baptizing them--to the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit,

 

[wildboar]

Which does absolutely nothing. It was Christ who said that the inside is more important than the outside. Thank you for further proving my point.

Jesus was talking about dietary laws. He was not saying that it doesn't matter if people confess Him or not. Jesus said that if people do not confess Him they are not His disciples.

[QUOT=godschild]The NAS disagrees with you, and all we have thus far is your word- which is shown to be wrong with the NAS and Strong's numbering. My money's on the NAS and Strong's.
[/QUOTE]

How does the NAS disagree with me? "Baptizing" is a participle in English.

No, Scripture does not talk about it as a symbol, not directly. But let's think about that. Baptism back then meant to:
"1) to dip repeatedly, to immerse, to submerge (of vessels sunk)
2) to cleanse by dipping or submerging, to wash, to make clean with water, to wash one’s self, bathe
3) to overwhelm"
...dunk someone in water. How is that any different from being buried and being brought back to life? Or dying to the sinful nature and being born again in the Spirit?

Or do you have more claims of a man-made conspiracy? If all you have is claims, then I'm not going to be worried. Do back them.

God accompanies the inward reality with the outward sign just as the Holy Spirit descended upon Jesus at His baptism and the Holy Spirit descended upon those who were baptized at Pentecost.

In Scripture, the passing down was done individually, in a mentor-disciple relationship, not a classroom. And this method was far more effective than the mass production lines we see today, as it emphasizes quality not quantity. Are you going to blame that change also on sin nature?
The hate I have in my heart is directed towards anything that puts a barrier between Christ and people, even if that means offending people like you. And that hate is not the topic of this discussion.

When I was catechized it was all about Jesus so I don't know how that puts up a barrier and there were about nine of us being catechized--hardly a mass production. I happen to remember in the book of Acts groups of people meeting to listen to the Apostles speak to them, it was not always one on one.

My Bible teaches me that I'm a saint because of Christ's work, not a 'poor miserable sinner'. My Bible teaches me that once I confess and believe I'm no longer a 'poor miserable sinner' but a child of God. My Bible also teaches Christ as the center and author of our faith, not Luther or the sacraments.

The Bible teaches us that on this side of eternity we are both saint and sinner. It was the Publican who went home justified. I absolutely affirm that Jesus is the author of my faith. I never made claims that Luther was. But God works through means and because of the work of Christ God has promised to give faith through baptism.

That sounds a lot like the what the sacraments end up doing to Lutherans and Catholics for the masses. Ignoring the concept of the law for the letter of the law. And imagine that, it's oft only used as a charge against 'salvation by obedience' theology. Which, incidentally enough, is something similar to what Catholicism teaches with Purgatory.

Roman Catholics teach that the mass is something which the priest performs to earn grace as part of their justification. Lutherans teach that grace is offered freely. I have no clue what you mean about Purgatory. The sacraments are not something we do but God's gifts to us.

And the people who translate Bible's don't know what they're talking about? Claims do not refute scholarly material. Not by a long shot. But if you want a duel of claims, I could just tell you that I stopped by an old prof's office (he has his doctorate in Greek) and he notes that "baptism and teaching are not imperative to discipleship". But that would be countering one claim with another and gets us nowhere, because we both could be lying just to say we're right.

I never claimed that baptism and teaching were imperatives. I said they were participles as they are translated in every version you posted except the CEV. Like I've said a few times now, participles are dependent upon the main verb which is "Disciple" and so they explain how we are to disciple.

Please reread your own post. Oun (Therefore) is a particle, not a participle.

 

[Zebra1552]

Jesus was talking about dietary laws. He was not saying that it doesn't matter if people confess Him or not. Jesus said that if people do not confess Him they are not His disciples.

I highly doubt that:
Mat 23:23 "Woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! For you tithe mint and dill and cummin, and have neglected the weightier provisions of the law: justice and mercy and faithfulness; but these are the things you should have done without neglecting the others.
Mat 23:24 "You blind guides, who strain out a gnat and swallow a camel!
Mat 23:25 "Woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! For you clean the outside of the cup and of the dish, but inside they are full of robbery and self-indulgence.
Mat 23:26 "You blind Pharisee, first clean the inside of the cup and of the dish, so that the outside of it may become clean also.
Mat 23:27 "Woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! For you are like whitewashed tombs which on the outside appear beautiful, but inside they are full of dead men's bones and all uncleanness.

How does the NAS disagree with me? "Baptizing" is a participle in English.

The Bible isn't written in English. It's in Greek.

God accompanies the inward reality with the outward sign just as the Holy Spirit descended upon Jesus at His baptism and the Holy Spirit descended upon those who were baptized at Pentecost.

And the outward signs are symbolic of the inward realities. Thank you for proving my point.

When I was catechized it was all about Jesus so I don't know how that puts up a barrier and there were about nine of us being catechized--hardly a mass production. I happen to remember in the book of Acts groups of people meeting to listen to the Apostles speak to them, it was not always one on one.

That hardly refutes my point about quality over quantity. And I distinctly remember the groups having far more fellowship than we see today, as well as people who DID do things one on one. Your experience is with one church in one group. You're not the only person going though confirmation.

The Bible teaches us that on this side of eternity we are both saint and sinner. It was the Publican who went home justified. I absolutely affirm that Jesus is the author of my faith. I never made claims that Luther was. But God works through means and because of the work of Christ God has promised to give faith through baptism.

No, God has not promised to 'give faith through baptism'. That's nowhere in the Bible.

Roman Catholics teach that the mass is something which the priest performs to earn grace as part of their justification. Lutherans teach that grace is offered freely. I have no clue what you mean about Purgatory. The sacraments are not something we do but God's gifts to us.

Odd how every single sacrament requires something on our part. Sounds like works to me.

I never claimed that baptism and teaching were imperatives. I said they were participles as they are translated in every version you posted except the CEV. Like I've said a few times now, participles are dependent upon the main verb which is "Disciple" and so they explain how we are to disciple.

You say they are imperative when you question whether or not someone can be a believer without 'accepting God's good gifts' and include baptism in those 'good gifts'. Are you done contradicting yourself?
Also, are you done ignoring the Greek behind the words for the sake of having your sacraments?

 

[wildboar]

Godschild:

Are you just being argumentative for the sake of being argumentative? Would it be at all possible for us to stay focused without all your assumptions?

I highly doubt that:

Matthew 10:32 " Therefore whoever confesses Me before men, him I will also confess before My Father who is in heaven.

The Bible isn't written in English. It's in Greek.

Yes, it's a participle in Greek and English. I mentioned the NAS because you brought it up and claimed that its translation was somehow contrary to what I was saying. It's not my fault you refuse to admit when you're wrong and don't know the difference between a particle and a participle.

And the outward signs are symbolic of the inward realities. Thank you for proving my point.

My position is that they accompany the inward realities. You are claiming that they have nothing to do with when the inward reality takes place.

That hardly refutes my point about quality over quantity. And I distinctly remember the groups having far more fellowship than we see today, as well as people who DID do things one on one. Your experience is with one church in one group. You're not the only person going though confirmation.

My experience proves that your statement is guilty of the logical fallacy of hasty generalization. There is nothing inherent with the catechizing process itself that sets up barriers to Christ. There are numerous creeds found throughout Scripture itself and these were repeated and handed down along with the Apostolic message.

No, God has not promised to 'give faith through baptism'. That's nowhere in the Bible.

Acts 2:38 Then Peter said to them, "Repent, and let every one of you be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins; and you shall receive the gift of the Holy Spirit.

Odd how every single sacrament requires something on our part. Sounds like works to me.

When I was baptized I wasn't doing anything except maybe pooping. Baptism is always a passive verb when applied to a person. A person is baptized. It's not something they do. It's something done to them. In regards to the Lord's Supper all we do is receive. To describe it as something the person does would be like describing the receiving of nourishment that a baby receives as something he does. He's just receiving a good gift from his mother.

You say they are imperative when you question whether or not someone can be a believer without 'accepting God's good gifts' and include baptism in those 'good gifts'. Are you done contradicting yourself?

I never said that baptism is imperative. Once again, I said it is a participle, not a particle and that participles are dependent upon the main verb in the sentence.

There is no contradiction in what I have said so far. You're retranslating everything I said in your head and so it appears contradictory to you.

Think of it this way. You're walking down the street and you come across a starving man who hasn't eaten for a month. You tell him, "Take and eat this food that I have for you." Nobody would think that the starving man eating was some good work he was doing. He's merely receiving a good gift given to him. He could refuse to admit he is starving and say he has no need for your food. He could realize he's starving but think he's far too gone for your food to help him. He could realize he's starving but deny that you have any food. Or he could decide that he's starving but that he will wait until God sends food directly into his body apart from any human agent.

Our sinful nature is always trying to make us doubt God. Through His Word both read and preached we learn that Christ died for our sins. We receive that forgiveness through hearing the Gospel preached to us, reading the Scriptures, being baptized, and receiving the Lord's Supper. So God tell us in the Scriptures that each one of these things is for the forgiveness of sins. None of them are things that we do but things that are given to us. So if we believe what God says about these good gifts in the Scriptures why wouldn't we partake of them? If we really believe Christ, why would we refuse them? When we deny that God works through physical things we deny the incarnation. Christ came to redeem whole people--which includes both body and soul. Jesus used mud to heal people. If we deny that God can work through physical elements we put ourselves in the same place as Naaman the leper.

2 Kings 5:10-14 And Elisha sent a messenger to him, saying, "Go and wash in the Jordan seven times, and your flesh shall be restored to you, and you shall be clean." 11 But Naaman became furious, and went away and said, "Indeed, I said to myself, 'He will surely come out to me, and stand and call on the name of the LORD his God, and wave his hand over the place, and heal the leprosy.' 12 "Are not the Abanah and the Pharpar, the rivers of Damascus, better than all the waters of Israel? Could I not wash in them and be clean?" So he turned and went away in a rage. 13 And his servants came near and spoke to him, and said, "My father, if the prophet had told you to do something great, would you not have done it? How much more then, when he says to you, 'Wash, and be clean'?" 14 So he went down and dipped seven times in the Jordan, according to the saying of the man of God; and his flesh was restored like the flesh of a little child, and he was clean.

 

[Zebra1552]

Godschild:

Are you just being argumentative for the sake of being argumentative? Would it be at all possible for us to stay focused without all your assumptions?

I am staying focused. I've been focused all week. And I'm arguing this because I think it's important enough.

Matthew 10:32 " Therefore whoever confesses Me before men, him I will also confess before My Father who is in heaven.

Dude, you tell me to stay focused?

Confirmation is ceremony. People aren't taught anything during confirmation. They say what they believe.

Which does absolutely nothing. It was Christ who said that the inside is more important than the outside. Thank you for further proving my point.

Jesus was talking about dietary laws. He was not saying that it doesn't matter if people confess Him or not. Jesus said that if people do not confess Him they are not His disciples.
​

I highly doubt that:
Mat 23:23 "Woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! For you tithe mint and dill and cummin, and have neglected the weightier provisions of the law: justice and mercy and faithfulness; but these are the things you should have done without neglecting the others.
Mat 23:24 "You blind guides, who strain out a gnat and swallow a camel!
Mat 23:25 "Woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! For you clean the outside of the cup and of the dish, but inside they are full of robbery and self-indulgence.
Mat 23:26 "You blind Pharisee, first clean the inside of the cup and of the dish, so that the outside of it may become clean also.
Mat 23:27 "Woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! For you are like whitewashed tombs which on the outside appear beautiful, but inside they are full of dead men's bones and all uncleanness.

Do try this focused thing.
​

Yes, it's a participle in Greek and English. I mentioned the NAS because you brought it up and claimed that its translation was somehow contrary to what I was saying. It's not my fault you refuse to admit when you're wrong and don't know the difference between a particle and a participle.

And what you've claimed about the verse- that discipling is somehow dependent on baptism and teaching- is wrong. The details don't really matter because you've ignored the conclusion.

My position is that they accompany the inward realities. You are claiming that they have nothing to do with when the inward reality takes place.

I claim that with confidence because you've got nothing to refute it.

My experience proves that your statement is guilty of the logical fallacy of hasty generalization. There is nothing inherent with the catechizing process itself that sets up barriers to Christ. There are numerous creeds found throughout Scripture itself and these were repeated and handed down along with the Apostolic message.

It's not a hasty generalization if true. You've only cited your experience and claimed that the process itself isn't to blame. I'm not claiming it is. I'm claiming the outcome isn't Godly.

Acts 2:38 Then Peter said to them, "Repent, and let every one of you be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins; and you shall receive the gift of the Holy Spirit.

The HS is not faith. Equivocation.

When I was baptized I wasn't doing anything except maybe pooping.

That's not baptism. That's infant dedication.

Baptism is always a passive verb when applied to a person. A person is baptized. It's not something they do. It's something done to them. In regards to the Lord's Supper all we do is receive. To describe it as something the person does would be like describing the receiving of nourishment that a baby receives as something he does. He's just receiving a good gift from his mother.

Infants never got baptized in NT times, it was a choice of the disciple to have it done. And as Paul says in Romans 6, it is a choice- to die with Christ and be reborn.

I never said that baptism is imperative. Once again, I said it is a participle, not a particle and that participles are dependent upon the main verb in the sentence.

And once again, when you say it is required, or say that one can't be a disciple without it, you do say it is imperative.

There is no contradiction in what I have said so far. You're retranslating everything I said in your head and so it appears contradictory to you.

Hardly. You started by saying baptism is required for discipleship. Then you said one can go to heaven without it. Then you said it's not required. Which is it? I can start going through quotes if you want, would that help?

Think of it this way. You're walking down the street and you come across a starving man who hasn't eaten for a month. You tell him, "Take and eat this food that I have for you." Nobody would think that the starving man eating was some good work he was doing. He's merely receiving a good gift given to him. He could refuse to admit he is starving and say he has no need for your food. He could realize he's starving but think he's far too gone for your food to help him. He could realize he's starving but deny that you have any food. Or he could decide that he's starving but that he will wait until God sends food directly into his body apart from any human agent.

Red herring.

Our sinful nature is always trying to make us doubt God. Through His Word both read and preached we learn that Christ died for our sins. We receive that forgiveness through hearing the Gospel preached to us, reading the Scriptures, being baptized, and receiving the Lord's Supper. So God tell us in the Scriptures that each one of these things is for the forgiveness of sins. None of them are things that we do but things that are given to us. So if we believe what God says about these good gifts in the Scriptures why wouldn't we partake of them? If we really believe Christ, why would we refuse them? When we deny that God works through physical things we deny the incarnation. Christ came to redeem whole people--which includes both body and soul. Jesus used mud to heal people. If we deny that God can work through physical elements we put ourselves in the same place as Naaman the leper.

You've got several problems with all of that:

1. You've not cited anywhere that says baptism is for the forgiveness of sins, and even if you did, it would contradict 1 John 1:9.
2. You've not cited anywhere that says baptism is a gift- you've just claimed it over and over again.
3. You've made several straw men and red herrings in this, noted by underlining.
4. You make several assumptions about forgiveness that simply are not backed in Scripture and come directly from your Lutheran handbook.

2 Kings 5:10-14 And Elisha sent a messenger to him, saying, "Go and wash in the Jordan seven times, and your flesh shall be restored to you, and you shall be clean." 11 But Naaman became furious, and went away and said, "Indeed, I said to myself, 'He will surely come out to me, and stand and call on the name of the LORD his God, and wave his hand over the place, and heal the leprosy.' 12 "Are not the Abanah and the Pharpar, the rivers of Damascus, better than all the waters of Israel? Could I not wash in them and be clean?" So he turned and went away in a rage. 13 And his servants came near and spoke to him, and said, "My father, if the prophet had told you to do something great, would you not have done it? How much more then, when he says to you, 'Wash, and be clean'?" 14 So he went down and dipped seven times in the Jordan, according to the saying of the man of God; and his flesh was restored like the flesh of a little child, and he was clean.

Red herring.

 

[wildboar]

And what you've claimed about the verse- that discipling is somehow dependent on baptism and teaching- is wrong. The details don't really matter because you've ignored the conclusion.

I did not say that discipling is dependent on baptism and teaching. I said that the participles baptizing and teaching are dependent upon the main verb "Disciple" which is an imperative. It's a simple grammatical fact, participles are dependent upon the main verb for how they should be understood. If I say John went to the store driving in his car--went would be the main verb and driving would be a participle dependent on the main verb. It would explain how he went to the store.

I'm claiming the outcome isn't Godly.

Everything should not be based on outcome and you are basing your statement on a small number of observations. We are called to be Christians not pragmatists.

 

[Zebra1552]

I did not say that discipling is dependent on baptism and teaching. I said that the participles baptizing and teaching are dependent upon the main verb "Disciple" which is an imperative. It's a simple grammatical fact, participles are dependent upon the main verb for how they should be understood. If I say John went to the store driving in his car--went would be the main verb and driving would be a participle dependent on the main verb. It would explain how he went to the store.

Then you need to work on clarity and not say things like, "Why would a real believer reject God's good gifts?"

Everything should not be based on outcome and you are basing your statement on a small number of observations. We are called to be Christians not pragmatists.

Why shouldn't our ministry as Christians be based on the outcome? Don't we want disciples?
I do not base my statement on a small number of observations. I base it on the number of people who leave the Lutheran church because of its many flaws.
Why can't we be pragmatic? Is there something wrong with being pragmatic? Doesn't being pragmatic produce better results than simply 'being a Christian' (whatever that means)?

 

[wildboar]

The HS is not faith. Equivocation.

That's what the Holy Spirit does is work faith in a person. The Bible also says that "baptism saves" which means that it works faith in a person. The Bible also says it is "for the remission of sins," there is no remission of sins apart from faith.

Infants never got baptized in NT times, it was a choice of the disciple to have it done. And as Paul says in Romans 6, it is a choice- to die with Christ and be reborn.

Just because infants are not specifically mentioned in baptism accounts does not mean that they were not present. Of all the specific baptism accounts in the New Testament the only individual ones were Paul, Jesus, and the Ethiopian eunuch none of whom had families to baptize. All the rest were household baptisms (Cornelius, Lydia, etc.). The head of the household came to believe and then they and their household were baptized. The Bible does not say that women in particular ever partook of the Lord's Supper either but I think it would be silly to conclude that they were never present.

Acts 2:38 Peter said to them, “Repent, and be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins; and you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit. 39 “For the promise is for you and your children and for all who are far off, as many as the Lord our God will call to Himself.”

The above says that baptism is for the remission/forgiveness of sins. Peter also says that promise is given to not only them but their children as well. This would be an odd statement to make to a Jewish audience if he didn't want them to have their children baptized. Jews were already used to circumcising their baby boys and they would naturally think that baptism would apply to their children as well. Peter doesn't deny this but affirms it.

Paul also equates circumcision with baptism in Colossians 2:

Colossians 2:11 and in Him you were also circumcised with a circumcision made without hands, in the removal of the body of the flesh by the circumcision of Christ; 12 having been buried with Him in baptism, in which you were also raised up with Him through faith in the working of God, who raised Him from the dead.

Baptism is never spoken of as a choice. Someone is baptized. It is something done to them.

I have to get back to work now, I'll respond to the rest later.

 

[wildboar]

I claim that with confidence because you've got nothing to refute it.

I already provided examples of the inner reality accompanying the outward sign--Jesus baptism, the baptisms at Pentecost etc. I also provided the example of Naaman but you just claim that any Scripture passage I provide is a red herring and don't deal with it.

Hardly. You started by saying baptism is required for discipleship. Then you said one can go to heaven without it. Then you said it's not required. Which is it? I can start going through quotes if you want, would that help?

You are misunderstanding what I am saying. Baptism is a means through which Jesus said disciples are made. Jesus also said that teaching is a means through which disciples are made. Ordinarily these things go hand in hand but there are rare instances in which someone is brought to faith through teaching without opportunity to receive baptism. This is far different from the person who refuses baptism and demonstrates unbelief in doing so.

You've got several problems with all of that:

1. You've not cited anywhere that says baptism is for the forgiveness of sins, and even if you did, it would contradict 1 John 1:9.
2. You've not cited anywhere that says baptism is a gift- you've just claimed it over and over again.
3. You've made several straw men and red herrings in this, noted by underlining.
4. You make several assumptions about forgiveness that simply are not backed in Scripture and come directly from your Lutheran handbook.

1. Mark 1:4, Luke 3:3, and Acts 2:38 all speak of baptism being for the remission/forgiveness of sins. None of these contradict what is said in 1 John 1:9. Forgiveness of sins is given through baptism, the Lord's Supper, and the preaching of the Gospel. It would only be contradictory if the claim was made that forgiveness was offered through one of these things. We shouldn't pit Scripture against Scripture.

2. When the Scriptures say be baptized it is a passive verb being used meaning that it is not something you do but something you receive. Since baptism is something you receive and gives the remission of sins then it is a gift. It's never described as an act of obedience or any of these other terms people use. It's never described as something we do.

3. You have not demonstrated that any of these things I've said are red herrings or straw men.

4. Scripture is my authority. I became a Lutheran because I became convinced from Scripture that what they teach is correct.

Then you need to work on clarity and not say things like, "Why would a real believer reject God's good gifts?"

The statement is still true as it stands. Please see above.

Why shouldn't our ministry as Christians be based on the outcome? Don't we want disciples?
I do not base my statement on a small number of observations. I base it on the number of people who leave the Lutheran church because of its many flaws.
Why can't we be pragmatic? Is there something wrong with being pragmatic? Doesn't being pragmatic produce better results than simply 'being a Christian' (whatever that means)?

I joined, others joined, some left. Some may have left because of flaws, others may have left because of flaws in themselves or unbelief. We need to trust in God and His plan. Church growth movements come and go. Just look at American history. The Great Awakening seemed wonderful at first but it was driven by emotions and very few led Christian lives afterwards. Look at the New Testament and especially the book of Revelation. The church conquers by being killed--nothing pragmatic about that. The ends never justify the means. Jesus calls for people who are willing to die rather than deny Him and His teachings--not people who are just interested in building relationships and having a good time. I figure if God created all that is he probably knows better than I do how to make disciples.

The REAL problem in the Lutheran church is that many have become pragmatic. They have become concerned with preserving the institution and church growth schemes rather than true discipleship done by baptizing and teaching. That's problem with things like Ablaze.

 

[Zebra1552]

That's what the Holy Spirit does is work faith in a person. The Bible also says that "baptism saves" which means that it works faith in a person. The Bible also says it is "for the remission of sins," there is no remission of sins apart from faith.

And for the fourth time, prove it. Cite Scripture.

Just because infants are not specifically mentioned in baptism accounts does not mean that they were not present. Of all the specific baptism accounts in the New Testament the only individual ones were Paul, Jesus, and the Ethiopian eunuch none of whom had families to baptize. All the rest were household baptisms (Cornelius, Lydia, etc.). The head of the household came to believe and then they and their household were baptized. The Bible does not say that women in particular ever partook of the Lord's Supper either but I think it would be silly to conclude that they were never present.

Acts 2:38 Peter said to them, “Repent, and be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins; and you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit. 39 “For the promise is for you and your children and for all who are far off, as many as the Lord our God will call to Himself.”

The above says that baptism is for the remission/forgiveness of sins. Peter also says that promise is given to not only them but their children as well. This would be an odd statement to make to a Jewish audience if he didn't want them to have their children baptized. Jews were already used to circumcising their baby boys and they would naturally think that baptism would apply to their children as well. Peter doesn't deny this but affirms it.

Your verse does not say you need baptism for the forgiveness of sins. There are two parts- repent and be baptized, and again, baptism is not just physical (as I have noted on several occasions and which you have not responded to).

Paul also equates circumcision with baptism in Colossians 2:

Colossians 2:11 and in Him you were also circumcised with a circumcision made without hands, in the removal of the body of the flesh by the circumcision of Christ; 12 having been buried with Him in baptism, in which you were also raised up with Him through faith in the working of God, who raised Him from the dead.

Baptism is never spoken of as a choice. Someone is baptized. It is something done to them.

Circumcision is symbolic for cutting off the sinful nature, same as baptism is symbolic for dying to old, birth of new. They still make the choice to be baptized. That's why you weren't baptized as an infant. Because it requires a choice. "Be baptized" is a command, not a request. It requires choice.

 

[Zebra1552]

I already provided examples of the inner reality accompanying the outward sign--Jesus baptism, the baptisms at Pentecost etc. I also provided the example of Naaman but you just claim that any Scripture passage I provide is a red herring and don't deal with it.

Perhaps because both the Scriptures you cited were part of a point that was off topic?

You are misunderstanding what I am saying. Baptism is a means through which Jesus said disciples are made.

Where?

Jesus also said that teaching is a means through which disciples are made.

Where?

Ordinarily these things go hand in hand but there are rare instances in which someone is brought to faith through teaching without opportunity to receive baptism. This is far different from the person who refuses baptism and demonstrates unbelief in doing so.

And it's also different from the person that would be alienating others by being baptized. You have nothing to support the idea that baptism is required for discipleship.

1. Mark 1:4, Luke 3:3, and Acts 2:38 all speak of baptism being for the remission/forgiveness of sins. None of these contradict what is said in 1 John 1:9. Forgiveness of sins is given through baptism, the Lord's Supper, and the preaching of the Gospel. It would only be contradictory if the claim was made that forgiveness was offered through one of these things. We shouldn't pit Scripture against Scripture.

Mar 1:4 John the Baptist appeared in the wilderness preaching a baptism of repentance for the forgiveness of sins.

This talks about repentance- the repentance that goes with being born again, or dying to self and being born in the Spirit- not physical baptism. In context, your Luke verse does the same, as does your Acts verse. They do not speak of physical baptism, they speak of the inward change it symbolizes: repentance.

2. When the Scriptures say be baptized it is a passive verb being used meaning that it is not something you do but something you receive. Since baptism is something you receive and gives the remission of sins then it is a gift. It's never described as an act of obedience or any of these other terms people use. It's never described as something we do.

Yes it is. In Romans 6, which you have ignored for a third time.

3. You have not demonstrated that any of these things I've said are red herrings or straw men.

I don't need to. IF you want them to be relevant, then you need to PROVIDE the relevance not just cite random verses.

4. Scripture is my authority. I became a Lutheran because I became convinced from Scripture that what they teach is correct.

Then you need to start reading Scripture more objectively and stop looking at the teachings first.

The statement is still true as it stands. Please see above.

What's it standing on? You have no foundation for your statement. You have nothing to stand on. Ever heard of reasonable doubt? I've provided enough of it for a judge to throw out the case.

I joined, others joined, some left. Some may have left because of flaws, others may have left because of flaws in themselves or unbelief. We need to trust in God and His plan. Church growth movements come and go. Just look at American history. The Great Awakening seemed wonderful at first but it was driven by emotions and very few led Christian lives afterwards. Look at the New Testament and especially the book of Revelation. The church conquers by being killed--nothing pragmatic about that. The ends never justify the means. Jesus calls for people who are willing to die rather than deny Him and His teachings--not people who are just interested in building relationships and having a good time. I figure if God created all that is he probably knows better than I do how to make disciples.

God also told us to be 'as shrewd as serpents and as gentle as doves'. Being shrewd doesn't usually involve going and getting yourself killed over being baptized.

The REAL problem in the Lutheran church is that many have become pragmatic. They have become concerned with preserving the institution and church growth schemes rather than true discipleship done by baptizing and teaching. That's problem with things like Ablaze.

They ignore the fact that there are real people out there who live real lives and go through real hard times and need real answers instead of the cliche, 'just trust God and don't doubt'. They rely on the sacraments for their belief. That's the problem.

 

[wildboar]

And for the fourth time, prove it. Cite Scripture.

1 Peter 3:21 says baptism now saves us. In John 3 Jesus says a person must be born of water and the spirit to see the kingdom of God. And as I already said Mark 1:4, Luke 3:3, and Acts 2:38 all speak of baptism being for the forgiveness of sins. John the Baptist was actually baptizing people with water or he wouldn't need water to do it. You are continually assuming that every single time baptism is spoken of in some salvific sense that it can't possibly be water baptism but Scripture never says such a thing. You have created a separation in your mind between water baptism and some sort of mystical inner baptism that did not exist in the minds of the first century authors.

Acts 22:16 And now why are you waiting? Arise and be baptized, and wash away your sins, calling on the name of the Lord.'

Yes it is. In Romans 6, which you have ignored for a third time.

I've ignored it because it does not speak of baptism as an act of obedience or choice. It says that all who were baptized into Christ were baptized into His death and is speaking of water baptism.

Then you need to start reading Scripture more objectively and stop looking at the teachings first.

Perhaps I'm simply not explaining myself adequately but you really seem to have a problem with grammatical constructions even in English and cause and effect. I came to my conclusions from Scripture and then became a Lutheran.

I will answer more later.

 

[wildboar]

Circumcision is symbolic for cutting off the sinful nature, same as baptism is symbolic for dying to old, birth of new. They still make the choice to be baptized. That's why you weren't baptized as an infant. Because it requires a choice. "Be baptized" is a command, not a request. It requires choice.

Colossians 2:11-12 In Him you were also circumcised with the circumcision made without hands, by putting off the body of the sins of the flesh, by the circumcision of Christ, buried with Him in baptism, in which you also were raised with Him through faith in the working of God, who raised Him from the dead.

There is nothing in this passage which suggests that baptism is to be more exclusive in its application. It is more inclusive because females as well as males as baptized. There is nothing about baptism being a choice. There is nothing about baptism being a bare symbol. You are asking me to abandon the clear teaching that baptism is for the "remission of sins" for something that Scripture doesn't teach anywhere.

I made the claim that baptism and teaching are the means through which disciples are made and although I've cited the passage many times, I will post it again.

Matthew 28:19-20 "Go therefore and make disciples of all the nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, teaching them to observe all things that I have commanded you; and lo, I am with you always, even to the end of the age." Amen.

The participles "baptizing" and "teaching" are dependent upon the main verb "make disciples." They function as modal participles explaining how the task of "make disciples is to be carried out. They provide an explanation for how they are to make disciples.

And it's also different from the person that would be alienating others by being baptized. You have nothing to support the idea that baptism is required for discipleship.

Please see above. I have no reason to believe from Scripture that discipleship is to be carried out in any other way than baptizing and teaching. Matthew 28:19-20 is the only passage which deals specifically with how disciples are made.

God also told us to be 'as shrewd as serpents and as gentle as doves'. Being shrewd doesn't usually involve going and getting yourself killed over being baptized.

I'm just thinking through all the stories of martyrdom that I've heard both in recent years and the ancient church and I can't think of anyone who has been killed because they were baptized. It's not something you can even see on someone once they've been baptized. Circumcision you could see. People did business in the gymnasium where everyone was naked and you could see if someone was circumcised or not. You wouldn't be able to tell if someone were baptized.

It seems far more likely that Jesus is saying to be good, kind, honest, and gentle with those around you but not to foolish enough to think that everyone else around you is going to be nice to you. Some of them will persecute you and try to kill you. It would be foolish to give up baptism because this is a means through which God gives forgiveness of sins and Jesus said to baptize in order to make disciples. If people start to become interested in Jesus and we start discussing the Bible with them they're going to think that we are a bunch of hypocrites if they come to this passage and tell them that we are to scared to be baptized. In this very same passage Jesus says that if we refuse to confess Him before men we are not worthy to be called His disciple.

Matthew 10:16-39 Behold, I send you out as sheep in the midst of wolves. Therefore be wise as serpents and harmless as doves. 17 "But beware of men, for they will deliver you up to councils and scourge you in their synagogues. 18 "You will be brought before governors and kings for My sake, as a testimony to them and to the Gentiles. 19 "But when they deliver you up, do not worry about how or what you should speak. For it will be given to you in that hour what you should speak; 20 "for it is not you who speak, but the Spirit of your Father who speaks in you. 21 "Now brother will deliver up brother to death, and a father his child; and children will rise up against parents and cause them to be put to death. 22 "And you will be hated by all for My name's sake. But he who endures to the end will be saved. 23 "When they persecute you in this city, flee to another. For assuredly, I say to you, you will not have gone through the cities of Israel before the Son of Man comes. 24 "A disciple is not above his teacher, nor a servant above his master. 25 "It is enough for a disciple that he be like his teacher, and a servant like his master. If they have called the master of the house Beelzebub, how much more will they call those of his household! 26 "Therefore do not fear them. For there is nothing covered that will not be revealed, and hidden that will not be known. 27 " Whatever I tell you in the dark, speak in the light; and what you hear in the ear, preach on the housetops. 28 "And do not fear those who kill the body but cannot kill the soul. But rather fear Him who is able to destroy both soul and body in hell. 29 "Are not two sparrows sold for a copper coin? And not one of them falls to the ground apart from your Father's will. 30 "But the very hairs of your head are all numbered. 31 "Do not fear therefore; you are of more value than many sparrows. 32 " Therefore whoever confesses Me before men, him I will also confess before My Father who is in heaven. 33 "But whoever denies Me before men, him I will also deny before My Father who is in heaven. 34 " Do not think that I came to bring peace on earth. I did not come to bring peace but a sword. 35 "For I have come to 'set a man against his father, a daughter against her mother, and a daughter-in-law against her mother-in-law'; 36 "and 'a man's enemies will be those of his own household.' 37 "He who loves father or mother more than Me is not worthy of Me. And he who loves son or daughter more than Me is not worthy of Me. 38 "And he who does not take his cross and follow after Me is not worthy of Me. 39 "He who finds his life will lose it, and he who loses his life for My sake will find it.

The above is the context of the shrewd as serpents saying and none of it seems to be saying not to be baptized. If persecution is faced in a city we are told to go on to another city but nothing about not baptizing anymore. The passage says that men will hate us and kill us and that if we lay down our life for the sake of Christ we will find it.

They ignore the fact that there are real people out there who live real lives and go through real hard times and need real answers instead of the cliche, 'just trust God and don't doubt'. They rely on the sacraments for their belief. That's the problem.

I have never heard that cliche from a Lutheran minister. My wife and I have had some very difficult times in the past couple of years. We lost identical twins and the pastoral care we received was far better than anywhere else I've been. The pastor did a wonderful job of comforting us with God's Word and just speaking of it abstractly but applying it to us directly in our current situation. The sacraments are wonderful gifts that God has given us because they provide us with something objective. Someone might believe that Jesus died but not necessarily believe that Jesus died for them. They see their sins and think that they are far too horrible and that Jesus could not possibly have paid for their sins. But the sacraments apply this forgiveness of sins in a very personal way. I know I have been baptized, I know have received Christ's body and blood in the Lord's Supper. I know Jesus loves me because He gives me these wonderful gifts.

Otherwise people start navel gazing--they start looking to their own lives to determine whether or not they are really a Christian. If they are looking at their own works and they are honest they will conclude that they are damned. If they look to their faith they end up putting their faith not in Christ but in faith itself and always have to wonder if they believed hard enough or said the unbiblical sinner's prayer just right. But I know from the Scriptures that I am a sinner. I know that Christ did not die for the righteous but for sinners. I know I have been baptized. I know that Jesus feeds me. All these things direct me away from myself and to Christ.

 

[Zebra1552]

1 Peter 3:21 says baptism now saves us.

Not water baptism. Baptism in general. The word has multiple meanings. That gives reasonable doubt:
G908
βάπτισμα
baptisma
Thayer Definition:
1) immersion, submersion
1a) of calamities and afflictions with which one is quite overwhelmed
1b) of John’s baptism, that purification rite by which men on confessing their sins were bound to spiritual reformation, obtained the pardon of their past sins and became qualified for the benefits of the Messiah’s kingdom soon to be set up. This was valid Christian baptism, as this was the only baptism the apostles received and it is not recorded anywhere that they were ever rebaptised after Pentecost.
1c) of Christian baptism; a rite of immersion in water ascommanded by Christ, by which one after confessing his sins and professing his faith in Christ, having been born again by the Holy Spirit unto a new life, identifies publicly with the fellowship of Christ and the church.
Part of Speech: noun neuter

In John 3 Jesus says a person must be born of water and the spirit to see the kingdom of God.

Jesus also had just gotten asked if one had to reenter their mother's womb. Thus, a physical and a spiritual birth. When babies are born they are certainly born of water.

And as I already said Mark 1:4, Luke 3:3, and Acts 2:38 all speak of baptism being for the forgiveness of sins.

And as I already said, those verses do not necessarily talk about physical baptism.

John the Baptist was actually baptizing people with water or he wouldn't need water to do it. You are continually assuming that every single time baptism is spoken of in some salvific sense that it can't possibly be water baptism but Scripture never says such a thing.

Scripture certainly does give doubt that it's water baptism being talked about given the multiple meanings.

You have created a separation in your mind between water baptism and some sort of mystical inner baptism that did not exist in the minds of the first century authors.

It most certainly existed in their minds. Why do you think Jesus talked about being born of the Spirit? Why do you think Paul talked about being baptized 'immersed' into Christ's death and reborn with His resurrection? The separation exists, whether you want to admit it or not.

Acts 22:16 And now why are you waiting? Arise and be baptized, and wash away your sins, calling on the name of the Lord.'

Does water baptism literally wash sins away? No. It's metaphorical.

I've ignored it because it does not speak of baptism as an act of obedience or choice. It says that all who were baptized into Christ were baptized into His death and is speaking of water baptism.

Prove it.

Perhaps I'm simply not explaining myself adequately but you really seem to have a problem with grammatical constructions even in English and cause and effect. I came to my conclusions from Scripture and then became a Lutheran.

I will answer more later.

The only thing I have a problem with is people reading into the Bible.