Rules adjustment

[Edial]

Hi folks.

After some disagreement among the members concerning the role of water baptism in a life of a believer, the rules were adjusted the following way.
(Additions in red)

2. No Promotion of works, observances or water baptism as a means to gain salvation or righteousness, or any other merit, or as mandatory to Christian living. Baptism however is seen as a sign of obedience to Christ.
http://www.christianforums.com/t7846693/

Thanks,
In Christ,
Ed

 

[Optimax]

Water baptism is an affirmation of being buried with Christ and risen to newness of life.

 

[Edial]

Water baptism is an affirmation of being buried with Christ and risen to newness of life.

I see what you mean ... I changed the wording to this ...

Baptism however may be discussed as a sign of obedience to Christ.

 

[murjahel]

The Bible says 'be filled with the Spirit' but we do not believe that all not filled with the Spirit are unsaved. The Bible says 'wives submit yourselves unto your husband'.. but if one does not we do not preach they are going to hell.
We are told to 'fear not' 80 times, but if you get afraid you are not going to hell.

The one problem with 'obedience' to the 'water baptism' command, is that some may want to say then one is going to hell if they do not, cannot, or do not know to be water baptized.

That then, is disregarding the first part of our rule...
2. No Promotion of works, observances or water baptism as a means to gain salvation or righteousness, or any other merit, or as mandatory to Christian living. Baptism however is seen as a sign of obedience to Christ.

So, I agree fully that water baptism is wonderful, but we must not make it a mandatory requirement due to its 'command' nature. Jesus said He summed up all the 'commands' with 'love God... and love your neighbor'... and those are the two we need to have... and that new nature endowed upon us at salvation makes those possible.

 

[ByTheSpirit]

have you ever considered obeying God is the way you show you love him? (John 14:15) Actually Jesus says that is the only way to receive the Spirit is to obey him. So did Peter in Acts.

 

[murjahel]

Water baptism is an affirmation of being buried with Christ and risen to newness of life.

Yes, that is a beautiful way to describe water baptism, and it is 'affirming' what Jesus did for us in salvation, and it is a wonderful testimony to the world. We should do it, it is obedience to do so. If one had great paranoia of water, and being immersed, it would not send them to hell fire for not doing it... and we could pray for healing of that fear, instead of condemning their choice not to be baptized... If God does heal them, they would normally then want to be baptized.

 

[Biblicist]

Hi folks.

After some disagreement among the members concerning the role of water baptism in a life of a believer, the rules were adjusted the following way.
(Additions in red)

2. No Promotion of works, observances or water baptism as a means to gain salvation or righteousness, or any other merit, or as mandatory to Christian living. Baptism however is seen as a sign of obedience to Christ.
http://www.christianforums.com/t7846693/

Thanks,
In Christ,
Ed

Having read through this statement a number of times I need to raise a serious concern, or more properly, a complaint in that this decision is moving into very dangerous ground. Even though I reject the view that water baptism is necessary for someone to obtain salvation, a persons long term outright refusal to be water baptised will undoubtedly place them in a very precarious situation.

There are many denominations, including those who are Pentecostal who make water baptism compulsory for either local congregation membership and before anyone can take up a senior office; where by default, we say that if anyone flatly refuses to be water baptised then they are simply not suitable candidates for formal local church membership or for important roles in the congregation.

I can understand that for anyone who speaks in tongues (as evidence of being born again) and who believes in once-saved-always-saved, then water baptism or for that matter, even leading a holy life are almost irrelevant but the OSAS position is also incorrect which is outside of this post. In my strong opinion, we need to avoid making any definitive statements that limit or negate our obligation to be water baptised once we have been born again.

We need to not only allow for vigorous debate as to our obligations to be water baptised but also with how someones longterm refusal to obey this strong Scriptural command could lead to serious problems down the track.

 

[murjahel]

H

We need to not only allow for vigorous debate as to our obligations to be water baptised but also with how someones longterm refusal to obey this strong Scriptural command could lead to serious problems down the track.

We do have debate forums for those debates.. If we allowed those kind of debates, we would have serious problems here... for oneness groups, Mormons, and everyone would come here to disagree with our stated beliefs.

Water baptism is important, and good, beneficial... but to debate it as mandatory for salvation is going far to far... Many have died without it, are we going to dash their surviving loved ones hope of them being in heaven? Of course not... the desire for argument on every issue is a desire for contention that is un-Scriptural...

Romans 14:1-3 (KJV)
1 Him that is weak in the faith receive ye, but not to doubtful disputations.
2 For one believeth that he may eat all things: another, who is weak, eateth herbs.
3 Let not him that eateth despise him that eateth not; and let not him which eateth not judge him that eateth: for God hath received him.

We have seen those kind of disputations, and it may keep one from being bored to see a horrible fight... but not often does anyone come out more like Jesus after those 'enjoyable' fights... LOL

 

[Biblicist]

We do have debate forums for those debates.. If we allowed those kind of debates, we would have serious problems here... for oneness groups, Mormons, and everyone would come here to disagree with our stated beliefs.

Water baptism is important, and good, beneficial... but to debate it as mandatory for salvation is going far to far... Many have died without it, are we going to dash their surviving loved ones hope of them being in heaven? Of course not... the desire for argument on every issue is a desire for contention that is un-Scriptural...

Romans 14:1-3 (KJV)
1 Him that is weak in the faith receive ye, but not to doubtful disputations.
2 For one believeth that he may eat all things: another, who is weak, eateth herbs.
3 Let not him that eateth despise him that eateth not; and let not him which eateth not judge him that eateth: for God hath received him.

We have seen those kind of disputations, and it may keep one from being bored to see a horrible fight... but not often does anyone come out more like Jesus after those 'enjoyable' fights... LOL

I fully agree that water baptism is not necessary for someone to obtain salvation but we need to avoid any rules that limit our ability to declare that water baptism is still an obligation that must (or cannot) be ignored by the new convert.

As for it being a contentious issue, even though we just went through a rather interesting thread on this question, I was of the opinion that even though it was certainly lively I found it to be rather stimulating. If we were to limit any debate/discussion on water baptism simply because it may raise the ire of some then we may as well ban any promotion of the classic-Pentecostal view that the Baptism in the Holy Spirit is either one of subsequence or soteriological or that the tongues is the sole evidence of the BHS.

As for the promotion of water baptism as being a compulsory pre-requisite for someone to be saved, then I would be happy to see a mod send a PM to the poster but we need to avoid any rules that limit debate (or even vigorous debate) on this issue. We are certainly right to denounce any view that says that water baptism is a must before anyone can be born again and receive the Holy Spirit, but we must not limit (or be seen to be limiting) any discussion regarding the obligation that all believers must quickly be water baptised.

If the portion in the following paragraph, that I have placed in bold was removed, then I feel that it would be satisfactory as it mentions that water baptism is not necessary for someone to obtain salvation. The portion that I have placed in bold erroneously suggests that water baptism is not a compulsory obligation on the part of the new convert - which is an extremely dangerous thing to promote.

2. No Promotion of works, observances or water baptism as a means to gain salvation or righteousness, or any other merit, or as mandatory to Christian living. Baptism however is seen as a sign of obedience to Christ.​

 

[murjahel]

Isuggests that water baptism is not a compulsory obligation on the part of the new convert - which is an extremely dangerous thing to promote.

2. No Promotion of works, observances or water baptism as a means to gain salvation or righteousness, or any other merit, or as mandatory to Christian living. Baptism however is seen as a sign of obedience to Christ.​

The Bible says
'go ye into all the world and preach the gospel to every creature'...
'love your neighbor as yourself'
'to be perfect as our Father in heaven
etc etc...

all are commands... all are obedience if we keep them... but still our salvation is 'not of works' it is by grace... and if we accept that grace... obedience to water baptism will follow, loving one's neighbor will come, we will witness and provide in different ways to get the gospel to the world, we will seek to be perfect though we may never reach the perfection of the Father, but we will move in that direction...

so... to take one of the 'works' and make it the ONE that one must do to be saved, or go to hell if one doesn't ... negates GRACE.

So... not going to argue here... you have stated your view... you saw mine...

that rule has been there for a long time... now added is the explanation that 'water baptism' is not an exception to the other works.... that does not mean we should not obey the Lord's command... it only means one cannot say that it is 'MANDATORY' FOR SALVATION...


Philippians 4:5 (KJV)
5 Let your moderation be known unto all men. The Lord is at hand.

Does that mean if I am overweight and disobeyed the rule on moderation, I am going to hell? or if I watch football games all day on NY day, I am immoderate, and therefore disobeying that command, am disobedient, and therefore headed for hell... ??? We do want to obey the Lord, but in defining one command and making it the ONE that all must keep or end up in hell is wrong... Let the Holy Spirit do the convicting... just preach the gospel (good news)...

 

[ByTheSpirit]

Or we can just do like the Apostles and church of Acts did and baptize people immediately... That would solve the entire issue and no one would be upset about it. Well some would because their numbers would drop, less would be saved because they have to physically show themselves to a crowd, no more easy believism... I wish I could visit Francis Chan's old congregation, he did things that way, in fact I posted a link to him explaining this in my teaching thread.

What would be wrong with that?

 

[Edial]

I fully agree that water baptism is not necessary for someone to obtain salvation but we need to avoid any rules that limit our ability to declare that water baptism is still an obligation that must (or cannot) be ignored by the new convert.

As for it being a contentious issue, even though we just went through a rather interesting thread on this question, I was of the opinion that even though it was certainly lively I found it to be rather stimulating. If we were to limit any debate/discussion on water baptism simply because it may raise the ire of some then we may as well ban any promotion of the classic-Pentecostal view that the Baptism in the Holy Spirit is either one of subsequence or soteriological or that the tongues is the sole evidence of the BHS.

As for the promotion of water baptism as being a compulsory pre-requisite for someone to be saved, then I would be happy to see a mod send a PM to the poster but we need to avoid any rules that limit debate (or even vigorous debate) on this issue. We are certainly right to denounce any view that says that water baptism is a must before anyone can be born again and receive the Holy Spirit, but we must not limit (or be seen to be limiting) any discussion regarding the obligation that all believers must quickly be water baptised.

If the portion in the following paragraph, that I have placed in bold was removed, then I feel that it would be satisfactory as it mentions that water baptism is not necessary for someone to obtain salvation. The portion that I have placed in bold erroneously suggests that water baptism is not a compulsory obligation on the part of the new convert - which is an extremely dangerous thing to promote.

2. No Promotion of works, observances or water baptism as a means to gain salvation or righteousness, or any other merit, or as mandatory to Christian living. Baptism however is seen as a sign of obedience to Christ.​

The last sentence added should make water baptism in a way "mandatory" (without actually saying so), since obedience to the commands of Christ is a sign of whether or not one is saved.
The text above it also provides a "way out" for folks who were not taught correctly about baptism as being a command and were not baptized.

The rules we make are man-made rules and not perfect.
We are trying to do the best we can with skills we have.

Thanks,
In Christ,
Ed

 

[ByTheSpirit]

The last sentence added should make water baptism in a way "mandatory" (without actually saying so), since obedience to the commands of Christ is a sign of whether or not one is saved.
The text above it also provides a "way out" for folks who were not taught correctly about baptism as being a command and were not baptized.

The rules we make are man-made rules and not perfect.
We are trying to do the best we can with skills we have.

Thanks,
In Christ,
Ed

I think as long as sincere discussion can be had things should work out fine.

 

[Edial]

Or we can just do like the Apostles and church of Acts did and baptize people immediately... That would solve the entire issue and no one would be upset about it. Well some would because their numbers would drop, less would be saved because they have to physically show themselves to a crowd, no more easy believism... I wish I could visit Francis Chan's old congregation, he did things that way, in fact I posted a link to him explaining this in my teaching thread.

What would be wrong with that?

Of course.
In the Bible people did not need to go through the months of classes in order to get baptized.
This is a church tradition.
In some denominations we also associated baptism with the local church membership, which in itself is another tradition.
2000 years is a long time. Traditions develop.

These things we can debate all we want.

 

[Edial]

I think as long as sincere discussion can be had things should work out fine.

Oh yes.
Spirit/Filled forum always had interesting discussion and debates.

People just need to take the losses and wins with grace.

 

[murjahel]

Edail:

So, we can discuss and debate many things about the goodness of water baptism, ... whether identical with church membership, discipleship joining, manner of doing it (sprinkle, pour, immerse)... but NOT with the teaching that it is mandatory for salvation... right?

 

[Edial]

Edail:

So, we can discuss and debate many things about the goodness of water baptism, ... whether identical with church membership, discipleship joining, manner of doing it (sprinkle, pour, immerse)... but NOT with the teaching that it is mandatory for salvation... right?

Right.

You may also discuss it as a matter of obedience or disobedience to the command of Christ, but not as a matter of salvation.

 

[geetrue]

Baptism was before Christ came and we all know the story of John baptizing Jesus with the Holy Spirit coming down on Jesus like a dove.

The truth is that we are saved by grace, called to walk like Jesus did even as St John said: 1john 2:6

"Whoever says that he lives in God must live as Jesus lived"

St Matthew 16:24

“If people want to follow me, they must give up the things they want. They must be willing even to give up their lives to follow me."



Search engines do not agree on what baptism really is:History of baptism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The Christian rite of baptism has similarities to Tevilah, a Jewish purification ritual of immersing in water which as in Christianity is required for conversion, but differs in that Tviliah is repeatable, while baptism is to be performed only once. John the Baptist, who is considered a forerunner to Christianity, used baptism as the central sacrament of his messianic movement.

So back to normal with the new rules change ... I don't think so. Someone has a burr under their saddle.

Saved by grace, "Yes" only by grace, "Yes" with or without the commitment of a public confession before the pastor baptizes the new convert ... ???

even cult groups have baptisms even the Hindus, even witches, even well meaning main stream denominations perform baptism in baptism pools right under the pulpit.

Change the rules that not all of us agree with this silly argument, ah ha.

What about olive oil anointing for healing and adjustments to ones soul could that be considered a baptism?

Salvation without works doesn't set right with me ... We are called to prove something with our faith and that to me includes works and confession before men of my faith that Jesus saved me on the cross at Calvary.

Let God be our judge and let us all live even as Jesus lived.

What do the other Christian forums have for rules? Do we all agree?

If we don't agree are we in danger of hell fire?

No of course not.

 

[murjahel]

Right.

You may also discuss it as a matter of obedience or disobedience to the command of Christ, but not as a matter of salvation.

then that is like you can discuss the verse 'Rejoice and be exceedingly glad (Mt 4) as a matter of obedience or disobedience to the command of Christ.. but one cannot thereby say that if one is not rejoicing they are disobeying Christ and not saved... Right?

Surely we should obey Christ's commands, all of them, but we are not anyone's judge.. only Jesus is the Judge...
so... if someone is too intimidated to be publicly immersed, or is fearful of drowning, or is in a hospital dying, etc... no one is going to say they have disobeyed a command that kept them from going to heaven?

 

[Biblicist]

The last sentence added should make water baptism in a way "mandatory" (without actually saying so), since obedience to the commands of Christ is a sign of whether or not one is saved.
The text above it also provides a "way out" for folks who were not taught correctly about baptism as being a command and were not baptized.

The rules we make are man-made rules and not perfect.
We are trying to do the best we can with skills we have.

Thanks,
In Christ,
Ed

Yes, words can certainly act as if they were a prickly minefield. Having read this and subsequent posts, then I am content that the rules simply forbid someone from saying that water baptism is a necessary pre-requisite for someone to be saved; which is a position which should be countered.

Your comment that we can "...discuss it as a matter of obedience or disobedience to the command of Christ, but not as a matter of salvation" is probably a good way to go about things.

As for those wayward souls who for some strange and odd reason stubbornly refused to be water baptised, then when the question arises, we can lovingly, gently, caringly ... show them the Scriptures so that they can be in full obedience to God's Word. It will also help them to gain formal membership and even take up a registered office with the AoG and many other Pentecostal, Evangelical and Reformed denominations.