Rules adjustment

[Biblicist]

Isn't say, not committing adultery seen as obedience? Honouring your parents?

Mmmm...could that maybe come under "works", where some people simply find it too hard to work at not being unfaithful.

 

[ByTheSpirit]

You are correct.
However, the word "disobey" relates to a general disobedience to Christ, not only in one or two things.

Not everyone can turn the other cheek.
This in itself will not disqualify one from Heaven.

Disobedience is a lifestyle.

True, I don't see singular instances of slipping as meeting what Paul wrote. It really comes down to something I can not see, their heart.

Sometimes the loudest amens and hallelujahs come from people that may not even enter heaven, while the ones we are sure will not may be the first ones in.

I don't mean to sound critical of people, I know I (like Apollos) need to work on my approach, but what matters to me is people following Jesus. Isnt he great?!

 

[Edial]

...

I wonder . . . does CF expect that all their mods etc are water baptised - I know, I'm a bad boy, I will have to go away and "light a candle"!!

No.
We expect all of our staff are Christians who believe the Nicene Creed.

 

[Optimax]

Salvation without works is no salvation at all because salvation is seen by works.
However, one is saved when just the buds of the fruit are seen, not the whole fruit - the branches and the vine (John 15).
God sees the good works within our confessional soul once we believe - these are the buds of the fruit.

Deathbed conversions bear an immediate fruit (works) ... that only God sees.

Define what you mean by works.

The only "work" required for being saved is the corresponding action of faith.


In some form a person hears the message of Jesus.

They believe.

The corresponding "work" is confessing Him before people.

Rom 10:9
That if thou shalt confess with thy mouth the Lord Jesus, and shalt believe in thine heart that God hath raised him from the dead, thou shalt be saved.
KJV


Paul said it here.

2 Cor 4:13
We having the same spirit of faith, according as it is written, I believed, and therefore have I spoken; we also believe, and therefore speak;
KJV

 

[Edial]

Being baptized is not obedience.

One can be obedient and be baptized without the foggiest idea of why they did it except for..........................

One is baptized recognizing the purpose for it.

To be buried with Christ and raised in newness of life.

Rom 6:4
Therefore we are buried with him by baptism into death: that like as Christ was raised up from the dead by the glory of the Father, even so we also should walk in newness of life. KJV

You are correct.
It also is a command of Christ and commands are obeyed.

 

[Optimax]

You are correct.
It also is a command of Christ and commands are obeyed.

What particular scripture are you referencing?

 

[Edial]

That's really interesting, I hadn't realised this.

Yes, some in a more conservative Lutheran churches would baptize infants only on certain Sundays and never during Lent.
Infant baptism is indicative of God's grace upon a child.
And if a child died already baptized the understanding is the baby died under God's grace.
So, some mothers are freaking out when some Lutheran pastors get that stubborn and legalistic.
The parents however are allowed to baptize their own children even in the sink ... as long as it is done in the name of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit.

Thanks,
Ed

 

[Edial]

What particular scripture are you referencing?

Matthew 28 the great commission.

 

[Biblicist]

No.
We expect all of our staff are Christians who believe the Nicene Creed.

Even though my remark was somewhat tongue-in-cheek, as CF adheres to the Nicene Creed, then I guess that this would be with the original 325AD edition and not with the revised 381AD update which states:

"In one holy catholic and apostolic Church; we acknowledge one baptism for the remission of sins; we look for the resurrection of the dead, and the life of the world to come. Amen".​

Does this mean that CF are saying that water baptism is necessary for salvation? I know, I know, I will now have to go and “light another candle” - I'm starting to quickly run out of them.

 

[ByTheSpirit]

ZzZzZing!

 

[Edial]

Even though my remark was somewhat tongue-in-cheek, as CF adheres to the Nicene Creed, then I guess that this would be with the original 325AD edition and not with the revised 381AD update which states:

"In one holy catholic and apostolic Church; we acknowledge one baptism for the remission of sins; we look for the resurrection of the dead, and the life of the world to come. Amen".​

Does this mean that CF are saying that water baptism is necessary for salvation? I know, I know, I will now have to go and “light another candle” - I'm starting to quickly run out of them.

Excellent question.

In CF we added some asterisks to that.

http://www.christianforums.com/rules/#faq_rule_0
I acknowledge one baptism for the remission of sins**. (Ephesians 4:5; Acts 2:38)
I look for the resurrection of the dead, (John 11:24; 1Corinthians 15:12-49; Hebrews 6:2; Revelation 20:5)
and the life of the world to come. (Mark 10:29-30)
AMEN. (Psalm 106:48)

*The word "catholic" (literally, "complete," "universal," or "according to the whole") refers to the universal church of the Lord Jesus Christ and not necessarily or exclusively to any particular visible denomination, institution, or doctrine.

**May be interpreted as baptism is a matter of obedience and not a requirement for salvation or as a regenerating ordinance.

 

[Optimax]

Ephesians mentions one baptism.

Eph 4:5
One Lord, one faith, one baptism , KJV

Guess what?

It is not by water.

 

[murjahel]

Even though my remark was somewhat tongue-in-cheek, as CF adheres to the Nicene Creed, then I guess that this would be with the original 325AD edition and not with the revised 381AD update which states:

"In one holy catholic and apostolic Church; we acknowledge one baptism for the remission of sins; we look for the resurrection of the dead, and the life of the world to come. Amen".​

Does this mean that CF are saying that water baptism is necessary for salvation? I know, I know, I will now have to go and “light another candle” - I'm starting to quickly run out of them.

where that reference is in the Bible refers to the 'spiritual baptism into the death of Christ for our death...' Salvation is that spiritual baptism. Water baptism is the symbolic testimony of what happened there... so the Nicene Creed does not teach the necessity of having to have the shadow of the reality to be saved... The reality of being baptized into Christ happened the moment we accepted Jesus, and that could have been in a waterless desert... on a battlefield dying of a wound, ... the spiritual baptism into His death is only demonstrated by a later (moments or years later) in water baptism

 

[Biblicist]

ZzZzZing!

You made mention of the Nicene Creed back in your recent thread on baptism which absolutely none of us (I mean absolutely zilch) chose to respond to. Of course we can also add in the dreaded Filioque addition which saw the separation of the Eastern and Western Churches.

Creeds - they are complicated things that often seem to represent a young childs attempt at setting up a minefield.

 

[Edial]

Define what you mean by works.

The only "work" required for being saved is the corresponding action of faith.


In some form a person hears the message of Jesus.

They believe.

The corresponding "work" is confessing Him before people.

Rom 10:9
That if thou shalt confess with thy mouth the Lord Jesus, and shalt believe in thine heart that God hath raised him from the dead, thou shalt be saved.
KJV


Paul said it here.

2 Cor 4:13
We having the same spirit of faith, according as it is written, I believed, and therefore have I spoken; we also believe, and therefore speak;
KJV

The regenerative work of Holy Spirit gives us life once we believe.
That life produces works.
Death cannot produce works, but life can.

Once we are alive in Christ, everything we do that is a will of God is good works ... confession of Christ being one of the works.

 

[murjahel]

Is the rule going to be as stated earlier in this thread... is this debate going to change anything, or can I leave and be assured things are already settled?

debate for the fun of it is not fun... not for me...

will check back for the answer in a few minutes...

 

[murjahel]

after it is settled, one more question...
when the rule is stated, and defined as to what it has always meant, are posts and threads that have broken that rule going to be closed due to having taught it wrong??? I vote yes, for those threads were breaking this rule...

 

[Edial]

True, I don't see singular instances of slipping as meeting what Paul wrote. It really comes down to something I can not see, their heart.

Sometimes the loudest amens and hallelujahs come from people that may not even enter heaven, while the ones we are sure will not may be the first ones in.

I don't mean to sound critical of people, I know I (like Apollos) need to work on my approach, but what matters to me is people following Jesus. Isnt he great?!

Yes, Jesus IS great.

To him some hallelujahs and amens are just words and a quiet contrition of heart sounds volumes.

Christianity is not complicated.
It is easy as long as you are sincere in your faith.

 

[Biblicist]

where that reference is in the Bible refers to the 'spiritual baptism into the death of Christ for our death...' Salvation is that spiritual baptism. Water baptism is the symbolic testimony of what happened there... so the Nicene Creed does not teach the necessity of having to have the shadow of the reality to be saved... The reality of being baptized into Christ happened the moment we accepted Jesus, and that could have been in a waterless desert... on a battlefield dying of a wound, ... the spiritual baptism into His death is only demonstrated by a later (moments or years later) in water baptism

Okay, even though my posts are becoming somewhat light-hearted, your view that "Salvation is that spiritual baptism" has certainly gained some attention over the years; even though it certainly provides a way around the obligatory need for water baptism (after someone has been born again of the Spirit), it has seemingly been dismissed by probably virtually all Biblical scholars. Years back I looked at this view as an option but eventually I had to fall in line with the accepted position.

The solution that you have provided does at least raise the point that water baptism has been a bit of a thorn in the side of the church for a long time; particularly with Pentecostals as we differ from the evangelicals as we place a far stronger demand for the BHS being evidenced by tongues.

I could be wrong, and I am more than happy to be corrected, but I have always seen the Nicene Creed as pointing to the necessity of water baptism; I know that various denominations have struggled over this particular addition.

 

[Edial]

after it is settled, one more question...
when the rule is stated, and defined as to what it has always meant, are posts and threads that have broken that rule going to be closed due to having taught it wrong??? I vote yes, for those threads were breaking this rule...

Well, we can either do thread cleanups or close and start again.

I would need the list of threads and I take a look at it.

PM me the list.