THE importance of baptism AND BEING "IN CHRIST"

[Tangible]

Eph 4:4 (ESV) There is one body and one Spirit—just as you were called to the one hope that belongs to your call— 5 one Lord, one faith, one baptism, 6 one God and Father of all, who is over all and through all and in all.

Gal 3:27 (ESV) For as many of you as were baptized into Christ have put on Christ.

 

[Schroeder]

Aside from the summery you've provided of what you believe, sir, is there any reason to think that they aren't the same Baptism?

I would say it is a summary or what the scriptures say of which i believe. I was just interested in what his thinking was, or his point of view. Its obviouse what I think it is. It is not water baptism. I found his post interesting which is why i was asking. But I am assuming when you say "same", it the same of what I already believe it is. why do you assume its 'water" baptism. Here is a guestion. It keeps being said that this "water" baptism is a ordance or command for us to do. Some argue it is needed to receive the holy spirit some for forgiveness etc etc. BUT why would Christ command us to do an act or anything for that matter while we are still unsaved? I have yet to figure this out. here we are unsaved without the Spirit in us, outside of God, and we are told to do something for our salvation for our sins, If this was even possible wouldnt you think the cross thing was kind of silly to do. If we were able to do an act for our sins to have them forgiven the crucification was for nothing. To say the water doesnt save or do anything but God through this does it etc etc is still wrong becasue we ares till in our sins and wouldnt do it, why would we do it outside of being saved. OR how are we obediant outside of salvation? again If we could do this Then his death was just done to make the "water" baptism work. But if that is true all this talk about once for all for the sins of many in rom 5 and many other places doesnt fit. Scripture would speak of the cross as the deed done to help in letting God do the work THROUGH water baptism and communion etc. But it doesnt does it? by the way NOBODY seems to want to really answer these guestion, how about you.

 

[Schroeder]

Eph 4:4 (ESV) There is one body and one Spirit—just as you were called to the one hope that belongs to your call— 5 one Lord, one faith, one baptism, 6 one God and Father of all, who is over all and through all and in all.

1 cor 12:13 "For we all are BAPTIZED BY ONE SPIRIT into one body-......" SO I would think by this verse the baptism spoke of here is SPirit baptism. It would also go with john 7:37-38 " ......If anyone is thirsty let him come to me and drink(which goes with chpter 6 escp. verse 35) Whoever believes in me as the scvriptures said, streams of living water will flow from within him.. by this he meant the SPIRIT, whom those who believed in him would later receive." read eph 1:13-14, gal 3:2,14,22

Gal 3:27 (ESV) For as many of you as were baptized into Christ have put on Christ.

read luke 24:49 "I am going to send you what my father has promised; but stay in the city untill you have been CLOTHED with power from on high" what did they receive, the SPIRIT. YOUR verse finishes with HAVE CLOTHED yourselves with Christ. that is what being baptized by the Spirit does. The spirit CLOTHES you or covers you so your sins are not seen by God. that is how we become white as snow, but still are in our flesh.

 

[Tangible]

There is no reason to split baptism into a "water baptism" and a "Spirit baptism" - they are one.

Eph. 4:5 One Lord, one faith, one baptism.
John 3:5 No one can enter the kingdom of God unless he is born of water and the Spirit.
Titus 3:5 He saved us through the washing of rebirth and renewal by the Holy Spirit.
1 Cor 12:13 For in one Spirit we were all baptized into one body—Jews or Greeks, slaves or free—and all were made to drink of one Spirit.

This was the understanding was universally accepted by the Church from the time of the Apostles until well after the Radical Reformation was in full swing - about 1600 years.

Eph 1:13 In him you also, when you heard the word of truth, the gospel of your salvation, and believed in him, were sealed with the promised Holy Spirit, 14 who is the guarantee of our inheritance until we acquire possession of it, to the praise of his glory.

Gal 3:2 Let me ask you only this: Did you receive the Spirit by works of the law or by hearing with faith?

Yes, the Holy Spirit is also given through the proclamation of the Gospel. The Holy Spirit, faith, salvation, justification are all given to us by God through the physical Means of Grace - Word and Sacrament. In the same way that God uses the speech mechanisms of the speaker, sound waves in air, and the hearing mechanisms of the hearer, God ALSO uses the Word in the water of baptism to deliver to us his Holy Spirit.

The Sacrament of Holy Baptism is a work of God, not of men. It is Gospel, not Law.

 

[judechild]

But it doesnt does it? by the way NOBODY seems to want to really answer these guestion, how about you.

I will certainly try my best sir, though I'll admit I'm still uncertain as to what, exactly, your question is.

So, I'll attempt to give the Catholic view of Baptism and then I hope we may enter into discussion on the points in question.

The opening paragraph of the Catechism of the Catholic Church on Baptism is as follows: "Holy Baptism is the basis of the whole Christian life, the gateway to life in the Spirit (vitae spiritualis ianua), and the door which gives access to the other sacraments. Through Baptism we are freed from sin and reborn as sons of God; we become members of Christ, are incorporated into the Church and made sharers in her mission: 'Baptism is the sacrament of regeneration through water and in the word' (CCC 1213).

To unpackage this a bit; we believe that the saving value of the Cross is communicated to the person through Baptism and that the Grace obtained through Baptism cleanses the person of sin, releases her from the bondage of sin, and communicates the Grace to enter the Promised Land. In the first point, the nature of Baptism was prefigured most specifically in the flood of Noah, which cleansed the earth of sins, and now does the same for the person (Genesis 7). The second point is shown through the Israelite people crossing through the Red Sea, where Pharaoh held them captive; now Baptism frees the person from slavery to sin. The final point is prefiguared in the People of God passing through the Jordan River and coming into the land of Israel; just as the Baptized pass through to the Heavenly Jerusalem.

That is the basics of the typograhical view of Baptism.

You mentioned that you believe that any act done to affect our Salvation would make Jesus' sacrifice pointless. I do not believe this to be so. In numerious places, Baptism is seen as connected to Salvation. One example of this is 1 Peter 3:20-21: "... God patiently waited in the days of Noah during the building of the ark, in which a few persons, eight in all, were saved through water. / This prefigured baptism, which saves you now. It is not a removal of dirt from the body but an appeal to God or a clear conscience, through the resurrection of Jesus Christ." Certainly, in this passage, Baptism is not seen as adding to the cross, but that it communicates the grace of the cross.

St. Cyril of Jerusalem is another who believes that the water and spiritual aspects are one and the same Baptism. He says: "For the lot of those still clothed in the rough garments of their sins is on His left hand, because they did not attain the grace of God, which is given through Christ, in the regeneration of Baptism. I do not mean corporal regeneration, but the spiritual regeneration of the soul" (Catecheses, I, AD 343).

Perhaps you could tell me if I'm getting to the point of the question you've challenged me to answer. Again, though, I have difficulty because I don't really know what that question is.

 

[Schroeder]

I will certainly try my best sir, though I'll admit I'm still uncertain as to what, exactly, your question is.

the guestion is the sentences that end in a guestion mark. not to be to sarcastic.

So, I'll attempt to give the Catholic view of Baptism and then I hope we may enter into discussion on the points in question.

The opening paragraph of the Catechism of the Catholic Church on Baptism is as follows: "Holy Baptism is the basis of the whole Christian life, the gateway to life in the Spirit (vitae spiritualis ianua), and the door which gives access to the other sacraments. Through Baptism we are freed from sin and reborn as sons of God; we become members of Christ, are incorporated into the Church and made sharers in her mission: 'Baptism is the sacrament of regeneration through water and in the word' (CCC 1213).

Well there are a few problems here. ONE there is no passages that speak to this statement of " the door which gives access to OTHER sacraments". IT assumes that baptyism spoken in scripture is always of WATER. Though every time it refers to WATER it uses the word water. like act 10, and when BY THE WAY john the baptist makes a CLEAR point of saying His is of Water but Christ is of the SPirit. JTB never once said his was water but the one after me will be of both water and spirit. Baptism is never spoken of as through water and the word.

To unpackage this a bit; we believe that the saving value of the Cross is communicated to the person through Baptism and that the Grace obtained through Baptism cleanses the person of sin, releases her from the bondage of sin, and communicates the Grace to enter the Promised Land. In the first point, the nature of Baptism was prefigured most specifically in the flood of Noah, which cleansed the earth of sins, and now does the same for the person (Genesis 7). The second point is shown through the Israelite people crossing through the Red Sea, where Pharaoh held them captive; now Baptism frees the person from slavery to sin. The final point is prefiguared in the People of God passing through the Jordan River and coming into the land of Israel; just as the Baptized pass through to the Heavenly Jerusalem.

That is the basics of the typograhical view of Baptism.

The first part I agree with except it is the SPIRIT Baptism spoke by JTB and 1 cor 12:13. Note that in all three instance of the old testament water analogies they never got WET. And it was not the people that did the work. Ill go further into this below

You mentioned that you believe that any act done to affect our Salvation would make Jesus' sacrifice pointless. I do not believe this to be so. In numerious places, Baptism is seen as connected to Salvation. One example of this is 1 Peter 3:20-21: "... God patiently waited in the days of Noah during the building of the ark, in which a few persons, eight in all, were saved through water. / This prefigured baptism, which saves you now. It is not a removal of dirt from the body but an appeal to God or a clear conscience, through the resurrection of Jesus Christ." Certainly, in this passage, Baptism is not seen as adding to the cross, but that it communicates the grace of the cross.

1 peter 3:20 is often used I know but it is not speaking of water baptism. For one it states it does not remove dirt, which to me means it isnt about WATER, h2o. Second if you read heb 11 your see that noah built the ark which SAVED them. the water didnt do it. his FAITH in believing in God did. becasue he built the ark. This makes sence becasue the water did not save anything it destroyed everything. The water prefigured baptism(spirit) becasue it was the work of GOD. God flooded the earth not noah, all noah did was believe what god told him to do, which was to build an ark. What does the ark prefigure CHRIST. SO what you believe is said in this verse is bad interpretation becasue it is based on a preconceived view of water baptism and not scripture.

St. Cyril of Jerusalem is another who believes that the water and spiritual aspects are one and the same Baptism. He says: "For the lot of those still clothed in the rough garments of their sins is on His left hand, because they did not attain the grace of God, which is given through Christ, in the regeneration of Baptism. I do not mean corporal regeneration, but the spiritual regeneration of the soul" (Catecheses, I, AD 343).

Perhaps you could tell me if I'm getting to the point of the question you've challenged me to answer. Again, though, I have difficulty because I don't really know what that question is.

well the main guestion was and is. If rom 8:7-10 is true, that being in flesh we cannot please God, that if the SPirit is not in you you do not belong to Chirst, then how do we submit to an sacrament or rite or ordances of water baptism to receive this SPirit, which brings us to submit or be obediant to God? Your theology says in our flesh,sin, we willingly submit to obey a command of Chirst to receive the thing for which it makes it possible to be obediant to Him. And it also forgives our sin AND helps with the other sacraments. That was the whole point of the Cross was it not. That we could NEVER be obediant to do the work neccessary to deal with our sins. Yet in a way your saying we can. It seems the cross was done just to make us able. But there is nothing remotely close to this in scripture. reads rom 5:18-19 ONE ACT of righteouseness was justification that brings life to ALL MEN. YOur theology says it takes Christ act and ours in water baptism to do this.

 

[Schroeder]

There is no reason to split baptism into a "water baptism" and a "Spirit baptism" - they are one.

Eph. 4:5 One Lord, one faith, one baptism.
John 3:5 No one can enter the kingdom of God unless he is born of water and the Spirit.
Titus 3:5 He saved us through the washing of rebirth and renewal by the Holy Spirit.
1 Cor 12:13 For in one Spirit we were all baptized into one body—Jews or Greeks, slaves or free—and all were made to drink of one Spirit.

They are not one. JTB amkes a clear distinction of this when he says I came baptising with WATER but the one after me he will baptize with the SPirit. When scripture speaks of baptism it uses key words to make this point. in 1 cor 10 peter says WATER. Eph 4:5. what about 1 cor 12:13 " For by ONE SPIRIT we aree all BAPTIZED into ONE BODY". Sort of goes with the one lord one faith one baptism does it not.
john 3:5--- verse 6 sums it up flesh gives birth to flesh spirit gives birth to spirit. water is earthly therefor it represents flesh. Christ spirit baptises us and gives us the spirit which is our new birth. We are BORN AGAIN, a second time. Nicodemus didnt get this idea, which is why he states it in verses 5-6. he then says in verse 8 so it is with those BORN OF THE SPIRIT. he doesnt say born of water and spirit like he should haver if that was what he meant in verse 5, and he wouldnt have spoke verse 6.

titus 3:5--the spirit does the rebirth and renewal. the word washing doesnt mean and never has meant water baptism. To make it say what your trying to make it it would read "rebirth by baptism and renewal by the spirit"
not sure abot the 1 cor 12:13 it ruins your other passages as I showed. the DRINK part can be seen and understood reading john 6:35

This was the understanding was universally accepted by the Church from the time of the Apostles until well after the Radical Reformation was in full swing - about 1600 years.

dont see it in scripture so the apostles didnt hold this view at all.

Eph 1:13 In him you also, when you heard the word of truth, the gospel of your salvation, and believed in him, were sealed with the promised Holy Spirit, 14 who is the guarantee of our inheritance until we acquire possession of it, to the praise of his glory.

Gal 3:2 Let me ask you only this: Did you receive the Spirit by works of the law or by hearing with faith?

Yes, the Holy Spirit is also given through the proclamation of the Gospel. The Holy Spirit, faith, salvation, justification are all given to us by God through the physical Means of Grace - Word and Sacrament. In the same way that God uses the speech mechanisms of the speaker, sound waves in air, and the hearing mechanisms of the hearer, God ALSO uses the Word in the water of baptism to deliver to us his Holy Spirit.

The Sacrament of Holy Baptism is a work of God, not of men. It is Gospel, not Law.

Were is scripture that states this "physical means of grace" cant find it. I cant find anything close to what you just said in scripture. heck gal 3:2,14,22 seems to contradict it rather well. what about heb. 9:10, external regulation until the new order.

 

[judechild]

the guestion is the sentences that end in a guestion mark. not to be to sarcastic.

While I am well aware of that point of grammer, sir, I hope you can understand that your writing style causes much confusion for me.

Well there are a few problems here. ONE there is no passages that speak to this statement of " the door which gives access to OTHER sacraments". IT assumes that baptyism spoken in scripture is always of WATER. Though every time it refers to WATER it uses the word water. like act 10, and when BY THE WAY john the baptist makes a CLEAR point of saying His is of Water but Christ is of the SPirit. JTB never once said his was water but the one after me will be of both water and spirit. Baptism is never spoken of as through water and the word.

"Water and the Word", or, if you prefer, "Water and the Spirit" (Matt. 3:5). Either way, it means the same thing sir. As for everything not being explicitly stated in Scripture, that is because neither I nor the Catholic Church espouse Sola Scriptura. Yet, it is also a part of Catholic Theology that the Scriptures do not contain error because both Scripture and Tradition flow from the same source, which is God. So Tradition and Scripture are not in contradiction. My point in posting the Catechism paragraph was providing the view of the Catholic Church on the subject; it was not arguementative.

In addition, I do not claim that John the Baptist was performing Sacramental Baptism. His baptism was based on the proselyte baptism of the Qumran community - of which it is now thought John may have been a member (unfortuately, I cannot provide a reliable internet source for this). His baptism prefiguared the new Baptism ("cleared the way", as He did for Christ Himself) which Jesus would bring; the Baptism "in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit" (Matt. 28).

The first part I agree with except it is the SPIRIT Baptism spoke by JTB and 1 cor 12:13. Note that in all three instance of the old testament water analogies they never got WET. And it was not the people that did the work.

Another example of Typology is the bronze serpant in the desert (Numbers 21:4-9). Note that it represents Christ, but Christ was not a snake. It does not matter that the people didn't get wet. The point is they had to pass through the water. Why, if may I ask, is it so obvious to you that 1 Cor. 12:13 does not involve Baptism of water?

1 peter 3:20 is often used I know but it is not speaking of water baptism. For one it states it does not remove dirt, which to me means it isnt about WATER, h2o.

There seems to me to be no reason for Peter to make reference to the removal of dirt, unless this Baptism were actually done with water. Peter is refering to the fact that water is involved, but expands it by saying that it is not just a removal of dirt. Otherwise, why bring this washing up at all? If I was to make the statement "This post is not the pixles on your screen"; it is because the words here point to something beyond themselves and are not just random dots. It would be ridiculous for me to say that, though, if you weren't reading my words on a computer screen.

Second if you read heb 11 your see that noah built the ark which SAVED them. the water didnt do it. his FAITH in believing in God did. becasue he built the ark. This makes sence becasue the water did not save anything it destroyed everything.

Right, it destroyed sin, which Baptism now does. Again, I point to 1 Peter 3:20-21 on that. St. Augustine saw the Ark as a prefiguarment of the Church.

The water prefigured baptism(spirit) becasue it was the work of GOD. God flooded the earth not noah, all noah did was believe what god told him to do, which was to build an ark. What does the ark prefigure CHRIST. SO what you believe is said in this verse is bad interpretation becasue it is based on a preconceived view of water baptism and not scripture.

Sir, if my interpretation is bad, it will be shown that way over time. In the meantime, I say again that this prefigurement of Baptism speaks of the destruction of sin, not of the Salvation of individuals. That is the subject of the other examples I gave. The view which you call preconceived is not of my own making, it is what I have come believe is the constant Tradition of the Church. Here is another quote from St. Cyril of Jerusalem:

"Now turn from the old to the new, from the figure to the reality. There we have Moses sent from God to Egypt. Here, we have Christ sent forth from His Father into the world. There, so that Moses might lead forth an afflicted people out of Egypt. Here, so that Christ might rescue those who are oppressed in the world under sin. There, the blood of a lamb was the spell against the destroyer. Here, the bolld of the Lamb without blemish, Jesus Christ, is made the charm to scare evil spirits. There, the tyrant was pursuing that ancient people all the way to the sea. And here, the daring and shameless spirit, the author of evil, follows you even to the streams of salvation. The tyrant of old was drowned in the sea; and this present one disappears in the water of salvation" (Catechieses; IXX). That last sentence is very powerful, I think.

well the main guestion was and is. If rom 8:7-10 is true, that being in flesh we cannot please God, that if the SPirit is not in you you do not belong to Chirst, then how do we submit to an sacrament or rite or ordances of water baptism to receive this SPirit, which brings us to submit or be obediant to God?

Thank you sir. You can only come to God because He comes to you first. Without the Grace He gives, we could not even know Him. The mode He has established to communicate this Grace and Salvation is through the Cross, by Baptism. Hence, Christ says on the day of the Resurrection: "Whoever believes and is baptized will be saved" (Mk 16:16). Another Old Testament prefigurement is a prophecy in Ezekial: "I will sprinkle clean water upon you, and you shall be clean from all your uncleannesses, and from all your idols I will cleanse you" (Ezek 36:25). We certainly can do nothing on our own, but the Grace of God gives us the Grace to come to the Sacrament of Baptism.

You've questioned my theology on the grounds of a person being able to work towards her salvation, which while it is not a view I hold, is still worth a response. A question I have for you, though, is that if the Cross of Christ requires no response, are all people saved?

 

[Tangible]

dont see it in scripture so the apostles didnt hold this view at all.

Because, of course, they wrote down everything they believed in the Universal Compendium of Apostolic Theology. Didn't your church get their copy?

Were is scripture that states this "physical means of grace" cant find it.

Where in scripture is this word "Trinity"? I can't find it.

Schroeder, it's clear we're not going to agree on this. You see support for your view and I see support for my view in the same scriptures. God will sort it all out some day.

Peace to you.

 

[SpiritDriven]

Baptism is Spiritual not Ritual......

You cannot save yourself via your own works, by attending to be Baptised via Water.
A baby can be Baptised and grow up to be a Murderer hardened by God for that purpose, God hardens and shows mercy to whom he desires.

Later on that Murderer may come to know Jesus via the Will of God...as that is the only reason anybody believes, because God draws.

He receives Spiritual Baptism.....

Belief in Jesus Christ is all that is required....God directs your steps....the Lord has no need of human hands to save...all.

If anybody wants to undergo Water Baptism, they can, God sees the Heart.
The Ritual is not a neccesary requirement of Salvation, nither is Communion, belief in Jesus Christ is.

People read the Bible for themselves these days....and those chosen by God to be part of the elect come to know these things.

It was God who grew them Spiritualy, tradiionalist will always argue and promote tradition, but all they do with Scripture is make the Cross of Christ Void, with their alledged wisdom.

Christian Pharisee is the term I have heard used in refering to them, they are more interested in tradition than truth.

They cannot handle the Truth and they do not want to hear it....like the Pharisees that Stoned Steven....the Truth grieves them.

 

[Schroeder]

While I am well aware of that point of grammer, sir, I hope you can understand that your writing style causes much confusion for me.

yes I know my grammar stinks my spelling is wrose, sorry. To big a hurry my computer shuts down on me.

"Water and the Word", or, if you prefer, "Water and the Spirit" (Matt. 3:5). Either way, it means the same thing sir. As for everything not being explicitly stated in Scripture, that is because neither I nor the Catholic Church espouse Sola Scriptura. Yet, it is also a part of Catholic Theology that the Scriptures do not contain error because both Scripture and Tradition flow from the same source, which is God. So Tradition and Scripture are not in contradiction. My point in posting the Catechism paragraph was providing the view of the Catholic Church on the subject; it was not arguementative.

Here are a view verse on traditions. matt. 15:3-9, coll. 2:8. i hold no tradtions becasue they are corruptable by man. i interprate scripture with scripture. makes it fail proof. Apparently they are in contradiction becasue there arte many other denom. that disagree and some within the denom that disagree.

In addition, I do not claim that John the Baptist was performing Sacramental Baptism. His baptism was based on the proselyte baptism of the Qumran community - of which it is now thought John may have been a member (unfortuately, I cannot provide a reliable internet source for this). His baptism prefiguared the new Baptism ("cleared the way", as He did for Christ Himself) which Jesus would bring; the Baptism "in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit" (Matt. 28).

i dont either but he did seperate the two rather clearly. Matt. 28 is not a command to creat a new rite or sacrament, nothing in this passage even suggests that. He wasnt speaking of water baptism any ways here. he was useing the term to show they would once they believed become immersed into the Church which happens to be of the Father son and holy ghost seeing how they are one and the same.

Another example of Typology is the bronze serpant in the desert (Numbers 21:4-9). Note that it represents Christ, but Christ was not a snake. It does not matter that the people didn't get wet. The point is they had to pass through the water. Why, if may I ask, is it so obvious to you that 1 Cor. 12:13 does not involve Baptism of water?

Well they had to BELIEVE before they could do it. Well it states that " for we are all BAPTIZED BY ONE SPIRIT..." I dont see the water or word part anywhere there. Why do you suppose it means both. Are you suggesting there is no spirit baptism. that when we are water baptized we receive the spirit OR we receive the spirit baptism, which makes TWO baptisms.

There seems to me to be no reason for Peter to make reference to the removal of dirt, unless this Baptism were actually done with water. Peter is refering to the fact that water is involved, but expands it by saying that it is not just a removal of dirt. Otherwise, why bring this washing up at all? If I was to make the statement "This post is not the pixles on your screen"; it is because the words here point to something beyond themselves and are not just random dots. It would be ridiculous for me to say that, though, if you weren't reading my words on a computer screen.

WHY NOT. water is used alot to show cleansing without the use of water. It is also used to speak of thirst but not with water h2o. as in john 7:37-39. water is often spoken of as an analogy for the Spirit. Which is why he would say not the removal of dirt, becasue it is not h2o he is refering to. And the water in this case isnt even referring to h2o specifically but what the water does. He could have easily said "flood"

Right, it destroyed sin, which Baptism now does. Again, I point to 1 Peter 3:20-21 on that. St. Augustine saw the Ark as a prefiguarment of the Church.

water baptism you mean which isnt true. the only thing that destroyed sin is BLOOD heb 9:22. It just so happens the only way we get to this blood is through christ, the only way to Christ is through the Cross, the only way to the cross is through the Spirit. which is why JTB said Christ would baptize with the Spirit and why he never spoke of it until after his death or right before it. john 7:37-39

Sir, if my interpretation is bad, it will be shown that way over time. In the meantime, I say again that this prefigurement of Baptism speaks of the destruction of sin, not of the Salvation of individuals. That is the subject of the other examples I gave. The view which you call preconceived is not of my own making, it is what I have come believe is the constant Tradition of the Church. Here is another quote from St. Cyril of Jerusalem:

thats true and I think sense its not really yours but your past preist or what ever it has been shown to be in error. Christ defeated sin on the Cross or I should say when he rose from the dead. That WORK was done for us. IF we had any say or ability to do it why did he die and rise from the dead. you keep running in circles. again this view makes the cross only partly suffecient to conguer sin.

"Now turn from the old to the new, from the figure to the reality. There we have Moses sent from God to Egypt. Here, we have Christ sent forth from His Father into the world. There, so that Moses might lead forth an afflicted people out of Egypt. Here, so that Christ might rescue those who are oppressed in the world under sin. There, the blood of a lamb was the spell against the destroyer. Here, the bolld of the Lamb without blemish, Jesus Christ, is made the charm to scare evil spirits. There, the tyrant was pursuing that ancient people all the way to the sea. And here, the daring and shameless spirit, the author of evil, follows you even to the streams of salvation. The tyrant of old was drowned in the sea; and this present one disappears in the water of salvation" (Catechieses; IXX). That last sentence is very powerful, I think.

Not really. it all was dealt with on the cross and his ressurection. They really need to reread their bibles. well they cant but you can. All those ONCE FOR ALL passages dont really fit their rheology well, seeing how it had to be finished inwater baptism for them.

Thank you sir. You can only come to God because He comes to you first. Without the Grace He gives, we could not even know Him. The mode He has established to communicate this Grace and Salvation is through the Cross, by Baptism. Hence, Christ says on the day of the Resurrection: "Whoever believes and is baptized will be saved" (Mk 16:16). Another Old Testament prefigurement is a prophecy in Ezekial: "I will sprinkle clean water upon you, and you shall be clean from all your uncleannesses, and from all your idols I will cleanse you" (Ezek 36:25). We certainly can do nothing on our own, but the Grace of God gives us the Grace to come to the Sacrament of Baptism.

mark 16:16 is not water baptism. again read john 7:37-39. john 3:16-18. you cannot be spirit baptized unless you believe and accept christ. And God knows the heart so you cannot fool him. you can however get water baptized know matter how your heart is. getting water baptized is not showing your heart is true God knows this already. read acts 10:43 with 15:8. shows my point. you ignore the verse I gave you. If rom 8 says what it says. am I getting this passage wrong. So God grace lets us come to him in our sins, when scripture says we are not obediant. Well i think that is true in a sense but we do nothing but BELIEVE john 6:29

You've questioned my theology on the grounds of a person being able to work towards her salvation, which while it is not a view I hold, is still worth a response. A question I have for you, though, is that if the Cross of Christ requires no response, are all people saved?

But it does reguire a responce. i never stated it didnt. we must believe and accept hiim into our hearts. just as acts 15:8 speaks of. Just as Christ said whoever believes in me as the SCRIPTURES say streams of LIVING WATER will flow from within them.

 

[Schroeder]

Because, of course, they wrote down everything they believed in the Universal Compendium of Apostolic Theology. Didn't your church get their copy?
Where in scripture is this word "Trinity"? I can't find it.

Schroeder, it's clear we're not going to agree on this. You see support for your view and I see support for my view in the same scriptures. God will sort it all out some day.

Peace to you.

of course. they all end this way. Showing scripture to interprate scripture usely makes one stop discussions. but your right God will sort it out some day. Even though I think the scripture he wrote do a good job right now. i wouldnt say the same scriptures becasue you seem to ignore the ones i use to make my points. leaning on traditions is not a good way of interpratations. traditions of men are corruptable just as Spiritdriven says.

 

[judechild]

Here are a view verse on traditions. matt. 15:3-9, coll. 2:8. i hold no tradtions becasue they are corruptable by man. i interprate scripture with scripture. makes it fail proof. Apparently they are in contradiction becasue there arte many other denom. that disagree and some within the denom that disagree.

Here is another view verse on Tradition: "There fore, brothers, stand firm and hold fast to the traditions that you were taught, either by an oral statement or by a letter of ours" (2:15). Yes, the verses you reference warn against "human tradition" (col. 2:8). Human tradition is not what I am refering to; you will need to show me that the Tradition of the Church is only human tradition. The Tradition I'm speaking of is the believe that "the Church, in her doctrine, life, and worship perpetuates and transmits to every generation all that she herself is, all that she believes" (CCC 78). It is the Tradition that makes the Church "the pillar and foundation of Truth" (1 Tim 3:15).

You say that you compare Scripture with Scripture and that makes you infallible; I do not believe that is so. In fact, I may go so far as to say that is a human tradition. Allow me to suggest, sir, that you do in fact follow traditions. Let's take the subject of our discussion, for example: Baptism. The verses I've given you, you have attempted to explain because of a view you have on the Scriptures as a whole, and on the nature of Salvation. I've done the same thing. My view is based on the Tradition of the Catholic Church, because I do not trust myself, but I have come to believe that the Church's Tradition is a part of Divine Revelation.

i dont either but he did seperate the two rather clearly. Matt

If you say so sir. If you accept only Scripture, though, where in the Bible does it say that "once they believed [they] become immersed into the Church which happens to be of the Father son and holy ghost seeing how they are one and the same."?

I do not see that John separated anything. If his Baptism is not Sacramental Baptism, as we've both agreed, then his Baptism is not relevant to the discussion. The Baptism which is vital is whether or not Sacramental Baptism is a combination of water and spirit, or of spirit only.

that when we are water baptized we receive the spirit OR we receive the spirit baptism, which makes TWO baptisms.

No sir, if Baptism has both physical and spiritual realities, it does not make it two baptisms anymore than you are two persons because you are both phyisical and spiritual. In fact, that is the reason for Sacraments; we are not pure spirits. As to why I believe it means both is because there is no reason to think it isn't. While you, sir, remain convinced that Jesus ordering the Apostles, on the day of the Resurrection, to "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" is not a reference to Sacramental Baptism, you have given me no sufficient reason to think the same. The Early Church agrees with me, you must show me why everyone prominent in the Early Church was wrong.

He could have easily said "flood"

Again, if you say so sir. If I may, though, I doubt that you would change your view, had Peter written "This prefigured 'the flood', which saves you now". You would simply explain that this "flood" is the flood of the Holy Spirit upon the believer. I say again that I do not necessarily disagree, but that this is accomplished through the Sacrament, as St. Peter says. What do you think of my "pixel" analogy?

water baptism you mean which isnt true. the only thing that destroyed sin is BLOOD heb 9:22.

Yes sir. But please notice that the Serpant in the desert also did not take away the poisen. Without the Cross of Christ, Baptism is worthless. In the Noah event, though, God sent the flood to destroy all that was evil in the world: "he said to Noah: 'I have decided to put an end to all mortals on earth; the earth is full of lawlessness because of them. So I will destroy them and all life on earth" (Gen. 6:13). This is the reason I (and, I believe, St. Peter) makes the connection between the destruction of sin, and Baptism.

Not really. it all was dealt with on the cross and his ressurection. They really need to reread their bibles. well they cant but you can. All those ONCE FOR ALL passages dont really fit their rheology well, seeing how it had to be finished inwater baptism for them.

You are misrepesenting the Sacrament. No one can deny that Christ's sacrifice was one for all; so what of it? James 2 is very specific that Salvation is not through faith alone. But we do belive that Christ has tied the saving power of the Cross to the Sacrament of Baptism.

It would be very hard, sir, for the Christians in Jerusalem to just pop open their Bibles at the time of St. Cyril; the Bible had yet to be definitively compiled (not for another 50 years). This is the value of Tradition.

mark 16:16 is not water baptism. again read john 7:37-39. john 3:16-18.

I have read it, and am not impressed.

you ignore the verse I gave you. If rom 8 says what it says. am I getting this passage wrong. So God grace lets us come to him in our sins, when scripture says we are not obediant. Well i think that is true in a sense but we do nothing but BELIEVE john 6:29
But it does reguire a responce. i never stated it didnt. we must believe and accept hiim into our hearts. just as acts 15:8 speaks of. Just as Christ said whoever believes in me as the SCRIPTURES say streams of LIVING WATER will flow from within them.

No, I did not ignore the verse you gave me, I'm simply not impressed by the view of it you give. So... how can it be that the Cross of Christ requires a response, if nothing we do affects our Salvation. If nothing we do affects our Salvation, I would expect that the acknoledgement of His existence is a very insignificant thing.

 

[SpiritDriven]

Hey Jude Child....
It sounds to me that you think there is some work of human hands involved in Salvation.

God does not need the assistance of human hands in any way at all to save all mankind.

Gods plan was to save all humankind before the first man was created....there is nothing we can do except trust and believe, in the Sovereign Power and Will of God in that regard.

Physical Water Baptism is just another control method used by the Church to get people though the door...money into the collection plate, control power, all the signs of things Satan needs too do, because he does not know who everybody is....God does though.

Traditionalists will always argue for Physical acts of your own partaken in to assure Salvation.

Oh ye of little Faith!

What the Traditionlists dont relise however is that when they interpret scripture to support their own view, that they are messing with the letter that kills.

God sees the Heart....you cannot argue around that with out being seen as a Cherry picking legalistivc Pharisee (A Christian Pharisee) they are far worse than the Pharisees of Jesus day.

I do not wish to offend in saying all this.....even if my Lord offended the Religiouse Elite with everything he said, everywhere he went, during his Earthly Ministry.

Peace

 

[Schroeder]

Here is another view verse on Tradition: "There fore, brothers, stand firm and hold fast to the traditions that you were taught, either by an oral statement or by a letter of ours" (2:15). Yes, the verses you reference warn against "human tradition" (col. 2:8). Human tradition is not what I am refering to; you will need to show me that the Tradition of the Church is only human tradition. The Tradition I'm speaking of is the believe that "the Church, in her doctrine, life, and worship perpetuates and transmits to every generation all that she herself is, all that she believes" (CCC 78). It is the Tradition that makes the Church "the pillar and foundation of Truth" (1 Tim 3:15).

(2:15) not sure where this verse is. I have read it just cant remember where. 1 tim. 3:15 "I f I am delayed, you will know how people ought to conduct themselves in God's household, which is the the church of the living God, THE PILLAR AND FOUNDATION OF THE TRUTH." the next verse speaks of Christ. I think He is the pillar and foundation of truth. read 4:9-10

You say that you compare Scripture with Scripture and that makes you infallible; I do not believe that is so. In fact, I may go so far as to say that is a human tradition. Allow me to suggest, sir, that you do in fact follow traditions. Let's take the subject of our discussion, for example: Baptism. The verses I've given you, you have attempted to explain because of a view you have on the Scriptures as a whole, and on the nature of Salvation. I've done the same thing. My view is based on the Tradition of the Catholic Church, because I do not trust myself, but I have come to believe that the Church's Tradition is a part of Divine Revelation.

I didnt say it makes me infallible. dont but thoughts in your head that automatically makes me wrong. I do not place my faith in human traditions becasue humans are fallible. the Bible is not. I place my faith in the Spirit God gave me to listen to. read 1 cor 2:8-116. and rom 12:1-11. It speaks of the SPirit helping us in understanding not church traditions. I have no problem useing pastor or preist and such to help us understand but I will not assume they now what there speaking of. I hold no sacramnet or ordances or any physical rite because they are human regulations that are not scriptual and easily distorted as al the denom have shown over the years in there disputs about them and how they work or what they do or how to do them. If it was so important the scriptures would have made them very easy to understand and get correct so the Church would not fuse and argue over them.

If you say so sir. If you accept only Scripture, though, where in the Bible does it say that "once they believed [they] become immersed into the Church which happens to be of the Father son and holy ghost seeing how they are one and the same."?

eph 1:13-14. To be in the Church one must be in Christ the SPirit is the one that unites us into Christ. rom 8:9-14. Spirit God and Christ are all spoke of in this passage as the same. 1 cor 12:12- goes into the Church and tells us how we become a part of it.

I do not see that John separated anything. If his Baptism is not Sacramental Baptism, as we've both agreed, then his Baptism is not relevant to the discussion. The Baptism which is vital is whether or not Sacramental Baptism is a combination of water and spirit, or of spirit only.

Well he did. it rather obviouse. doesnt matter what you think of his baptism. he states his was in water but Chirst with the SPirit. john 3:5 speaks of water and spirit(the only place that buts both together) but he is speaking of being BORN Again not water baptism. he speaks of two births not just one at physical birth. nico is thinking this way. he makes this clear in verse 6. and in verse 8 he makes it clearer. SO it is with those born of the SPirit. clearly not instituting anything at all. clearly having spirit by itself wioth out water. read all the passages about our rebirth none of them speak of water being involved. this is scripture with scripture. So I agree the baptism wich is vital is wether it is water and spirit or just spirit. well this passage shows us it is just spirit verse 8. Jesus wasnt speaking of water baptism he was speaking of our rebirth.

No sir, if Baptism has both physical and spiritual realities, it does not make it two baptisms anymore than you are two persons because you are both phyisical and spiritual. In fact, that is the reason for Sacraments; we are not pure spirits. As to why I believe it means both is because there is no reason to think it isn't. While you, sir, remain convinced that Jesus ordering the Apostles, on the day of the Resurrection, to "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" is not a reference to Sacramental Baptism, you have given me no sufficient reason to think the same. The Early Church agrees with me, you must show me why everyone prominent in the Early Church was wrong.

there is no readon for sacraments when Christ did what was needed for our sins. again you do not give scriptural support. I have above. there is no difference between the three. there is no scripturae to support this was some sort of command for a sacrament of water baptism, especially when he NEVER taught about water baptism. There is no other place in scripture that says to use this phrase while dooing water baptism etc etc. The Chrurch has not even been started yet SO why would he being speaking about a sacrament to be done in the Church. The early Church is not the catholic church. there was the orthadox church which would say the same thing. they say the were around earlier. I just read scripture and use context. there is no scripture thats says this method is how we become disciples or make disciple or anything. YOur see that the word"in" could read "INTO" which is more to my liking. becasue when we believe we indeed become INTO the father son and holy Spirit. Thats is what the Body or Church is.

Again, if you say so sir. If I may, though, I doubt that you would change your view, had Peter written "This prefigured 'the flood', which saves you now". You would simply explain that this "flood" is the flood of the Holy Spirit upon the believer. I say again that I do not necessarily disagree, but that this is accomplished through the Sacrament, as St. Peter says. What do you think of my "pixel" analogy?

No place in scripture at all says this. That is the problem. and heb 11 says they were SAVED by faith in building the ARK. saved by faith is all over scripture. read heb 9:10. external regulations untill the new order or time of reformation. I personally call ordances and sacraments external regulations. DOnt see why he would say those in the past didnt really work but these new ones do, just because Christ died on the cross. You could say this if you have scripture to back up this claim. BUT you have yet shown the passages to prove it. Just give me a passage that shows without a doubt that we receive his grace through SACRAMENTS.

Yes sir. But please notice that the Serpant in the desert also did not take away the poisen. Without the Cross of Christ, Baptism is worthless. In the Noah event, though, God sent the flood to destroy all that was evil in the world: "he said to Noah: 'I have decided to put an end to all mortals on earth; the earth is full of lawlessness because of them. So I will destroy them and all life on earth" (Gen. 6:13). This is the reason I (and, I believe, St. Peter) makes the connection between the destruction of sin, and Baptism.

Baptism of the holy spirit yes. the flood destroyed sin or covered it up. same with our spirit baptism. christ did the work and when we have faith in him(builkding the ark) that he did we are covered by the SPirit. or clothed which is used a couple of times. Which is why it is used by peter. Noah was saved by faith. read heb 11:7 nmoah had nothing to do with the flood. all he had to do was have faith enough to believe what God was telling him. john 6:28-29 says the work of God is this, to BELIEVE in the one he as sent.

You are misrepesenting the Sacrament. No one can deny that Christ's sacrifice was one for all; so what of it? James 2 is very specific that Salvation is not through faith alone. But we do belive that Christ has tied the saving power of the Cross to the Sacrament of Baptism.

james 2 is about after salvation. our faith after salvation. we cannot claim to know Christ and not act like it. Again show me the passages that tells me Chirst has tied his saving power of the cross to the sacrament of baptism. Paul said he knew NOTHING but Christ crucified. He certainly did not tie these together.

It would be very hard, sir, for the Christians in Jerusalem to just pop open their Bibles at the time of St. Cyril; the Bible had yet to be definitively compiled (not for another 50 years). This is the value of Tradition.

TO a point i agree. doesnt mean everything they taught was correct. the scripture are clear that there were many false ideas around from the very beggining. and your so called church history is not very good. none of them are for that matter. becasue the Church is not the baptism or the orthadox or the catholic or the presbetyrians or the methodist or pentacostals etc etc.

I have read it, and am not impressed.

well you should be I am clearly way smarter then you. (thats a joke)

No, I did not ignore the verse you gave me, I'm simply not impressed by the view of it you give. So... how can it be that the Cross of Christ requires a response, if nothing we do affects our Salvation. If nothing we do affects our Salvation, I would expect that the acknoledgement of His existence is a very insignificant thing.

Show the view of them I should be taking. Dont quite get your guestion. but Ill try. Read john 6:29. Its the work of God. he draws us in to make the choice to believe or not. that is why we are to share the gospel. when we hear the gospel God pricks us and we make the choice to believe or not. The whole idea is is about WORKSI define it as rom 4 does. if one has to DO something to receive something it is a work. the something is generaly physical as it explains in this passage. to me getting water baptized is a work becasue it is something we must PHYSICALLY do. Doesnt matter if God does the work you think makers us saved. IF we do not do the physical act of water baptism will he do his part. For you the answer is no. therefor it is a work as dicribed in rom 4. john 6:29 says it is his work. scripture says in titus 3:5 we do NO work. rom 8 and 1 cor 1:2 says without the SPirit we cannot understand what God askes of us. SO how can we be saved through an act or work of water baptism while still in sin? you havent really answered this except to disregard it as unimpressed with how I interpret it. please interpret these some other way.

 

[judechild]

Hello Spiritdriven.

Well, we believe that the Sacraments are acts of Christ...

before I answer in-depth, though, I'd like to ask you: if you sincerely believed that a set of teachings and Traditions was from God, would you follow them?

 

[judechild]

(2:15) not sure where this verse is. I have read it just cant remember where. 1 tim. 3:15 "I f I am delayed, you will know how people ought to conduct themselves in God's household, which is the the church of the living God, THE PILLAR AND FOUNDATION OF THE TRUTH." the next verse speaks of Christ. I think He is the pillar and foundation of truth. read 4:9-10

"Which is the Church of God, the pillar and foundation of the Truth". I'm sorry, but I don't see that this particular sentence is refering to Jesus; of course He is the cornerstone of our faith, but a person should not mix metaphors in any writen work. Do you expect me to argue with 4:9-10 sir?

I didnt say it makes me infallible. dont but thoughts in your head that automatically makes me wrong.

Sir, I certainly don't mean to embarass you, but please come again?

Here, I'm just going to skip down...

there is no readon for sacraments when Christ did what was needed for our sins. again you do not give scriptural support.

Very well, I will try and give you more than I already have. I hold that there are two themes in Baptism: death and life, and that these themes have been prefigured in the Old Testament, to find their fullfilment in the New. I also assert that Sts. Paul and Peter recognize this, and consequently show a connection between Baptism - as an act of Grace, given by Christ - and Salvation.

Let's begin in the Beginning. "In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth. Now the earth was a formless void, there was darkness over the deep, and God's spirit hovered over the water" (Gen. 1:1-2). Notice the rather strange presence of water here; I do not believe this is a mistake of Semetic cosmology. All life, everything really, is seen here as coming out of water; of course, it doesn't really, creation hasn't even begun yet, but do you notice that both water and the spirit are here? Connect this with Jesus' conversation to Nicodemus: "I tell you most solemnly, unless a man is born through water and the Spirit, he cannot enter the kingdom of God" (John 3:5). The same elements present in the 1st creation appear here in the 2nd, the re-birth of man's soul. Again, on the cross, the soldier pierced the side of Jesus and "immediately there came out blood and water" (John 19:35). As I'm sure you know, blood was seen as a person (or animal's) "life" or "spirit" (see, for example, Gen. 9:5). So, just as water is seen as the "primordial element" in the Old Testament, we now are given a picture of it as the primordial element in the new life.

Expanding on last point, Jesus also ties the Resurrection to Baptism. This is because He, on the very day of the Resurrection, tells His Apostles to "baptize them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit" (Matt. 28:19). On a side note, sir, I have considered your objection; you are correct to say that this is not necessarily an institution of a rite, as the Last Supper is, but that is of little consequence. I have also noticed your preference for the word "into" and suggest I am not informed enough in Greek to make an assertion one way or the other; unless you are, sir, I'd like us to leave it the way it is. The fact of the matter is that Jesus has connected new life with Baptism, signified by His own rising from the dead.

This begins to get into the main part of my writing this evening; the two themes of Baptism. Obviously, you cannot have the Resurrection without the Crucifixion, so there is my first assertion. And as St. Paul says that we are "baptised in his death. For we are buried together with him by baptism unto death: that, as Christ is risen from the dead by the glory of the Father, so we also may walk in newness of life. For if we have been planted together in the likeness of his death, we shall also be in the lifkeness of his resurrection" (Rom. 6:3-4). St. Paul, as you can see, has connected the themes of death and life (resurrection) into Baptism. Maybe you will rebutt again by saying that this is a "spiritual baptism"; yet I see no reason to think that at all. St. Peter, after all, when he was asked "'what must we do brothers'" responded by saying "'you must repent... and every one of you must be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins, and you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit'" (Acts 2:38).

And now I would like to revisit the Old Testament passages I have mentioned earlier, and show how the waters that prefigure Baptism are both life-giving, and death-dealing. During the flood of Noah, we see the death being dealt to everything that is evil, but also see the restoration of all that is good: "be fruitful, multiply, and fill the earth" (Gen. 9:1). In the event with Moses, note how death is dealt to Pharoah and his armies (Ex: 27-29), but also led to new life; the Israelites as God's people. It is also interesting to notice that, in the last account I have mentioned - about the Israelites passing through the Jordan river, that they are now lead by Josue, whose name is exactly identical, over the course of time, with that of Jesus.

In light of all of this, I see no reason to believe that St. Peter - as we have already seen, a man who performed Baptism by water and the Spirit as one act - was not speaking of Sacramental Baptism in 1 Peter 3:20-21.

As further regards the conversation with Nicodemus, I find it interesting that the early church uniformly believed Jesus was speaking of water baptism. Here is a quote from St. Justin Martyr, a second century philosopher and martyr (go figure):

"As many as are persuaded and believe that what we [Christians] teach and say is true, and undertake to be able to live accordingly, and instructed to pray and to entreat God with fasting, for the remission of their sins that are past, we pray and fast with them. Then they are brought by us where there is water and are regenerated in the same manner in which we were ourselves regenerated. For, in the name of God, the Father . . . and of our Savior Jesus Christ, and of the Holy Spirit [Matt. 28:19], they then receive the washing with water. For Christ also said, ‘Unless you are born again, you shall not enter into the kingdom of heaven’ [John 3:3]" (First Apology 61 [A.D. 151])).
​

You have objected to St. Cyril by hinting that he may have taught unorthodoxly. I can tell you that it would be impossible for that to be true on account that he was a very prominent bishop (Jerusalem was very important, of course). If he taught unorthodox teaching, their would be a recorded uproar from his contemperaries... but that is a discussion for another time. In the meantime, perhaps sir, you would prefer St. Augustine?

"And this is the meaning of the great sacrament of baptism which is solemnized among us, that all who attain to this grace should die to sin, as He is said to have died to sin, because He died in the flesh, which is the likeness of sin; and rising from the font regenerate, as He arose alive from the grave, should begin a new life in the Spirit, whatever may be the age of the body" (The Enchiridion, XLII).

​

Before you dismiss him too, please take note that it was he whom God inspired to defend the Book of Revelation at the Council of Hippo; without his input, the bishops were considering that it was not Scripure.

There is much more, sir, that I have yet to get into - Christ's own Baptism, especially - but that I hope I will have the opportunity to expound later. By the way, it is a point of Catholic dogma that Salvation is through the Grace of God alone; are we in agreement?

I apologize for not responding to the majority of your post, but you are probably tired of reading now anyway, so I will wait; if there is any specific point you would like to discuss from your previous post, please bring it up again.

 

[SpiritDriven]

Hello Spiritdriven.

Well, we believe that the Sacraments are acts of Christ...

before I answer in-depth, though, I'd like to ask you: if you sincerely believed that a set of teachings and Traditions was from God, would you follow them?

If the Sacraments are the acts of Christ, then why do you not publicy crucify every member of your denomination ? LOL

Please forgive me, I could not resist that one to make the point in reference to your teaching that the Sacraments are the acts of Christ.

The Traditions are from Men....the teaching is the interpretation of men of scripture.

The Baptism is Spritual not Physical, remember how John said about the one who comes after him will Baptise with the Holy Spirit and with Fire.

As a Christian all the acts of Christ are....already.... attributed to me, because Christ is in me.

I will tell you what though....I will meet you half way....on the issue of Faith.

If you believe you need Water Baptism to be saved....then that is neccesary for you.

If I believe that I am already saved, via Spiritual Baptism, I know that is all that is required of me in that regard.

I will bow out of this little debate now.


Grace and Peace to you....always !

 

[Schroeder]

"Which is the Church of God, the pillar and foundation of the Truth". I'm sorry, but I don't see that this particular sentence is refering to Jesus; of course He is the cornerstone of our faith, but a person should not mix metaphors in any writen work. Do you expect me to argue with 4:9-10 sir?

First you do not need to keep referring to me as SIR. Well I am not sure how you get TRADITIONS out of this either. It seems to me to read that the pillar and foundation is the living God, and 4:10 seems to suggest it is Christ. Unless you think it is the house of God, being the church of the living God, that is the pillar and foundation. But I think I will look deeper into this verse. Not that your right or anything. ha ha.

Very well, I will try and give you more than I already have. I hold that there are two themes in Baptism: death and life, and that these themes have been prefigured in the Old Testament, to find their fullfilment in the New. I also assert that Sts. Paul and Peter recognize this, and consequently show a connection between Baptism - as an act of Grace, given by Christ - and Salvation.

Well I place this theme with rebirth which is baptism for me as well just through the SPirit.

Let's begin in the Beginning. "In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth. Now the earth was a formless void, there was darkness over the deep, and God's spirit hovered over the water" (Gen. 1:1-2). Notice the rather strange presence of water here; I do not believe this is a mistake of Semetic cosmology. All life, everything really, is seen here as coming out of water; of course, it doesn't really, creation hasn't even begun yet, but do you notice that both water and the spirit are here? Connect this with Jesus' conversation to Nicodemus: "I tell you most solemnly, unless a man is born through water and the Spirit, he cannot enter the kingdom of God" (John 3:5). The same elements present in the 1st creation appear here in the 2nd, the re-birth of man's soul. Again, on the cross, the soldier pierced the side of Jesus and "immediately there came out blood and water" (John 19:35). As I'm sure you know, blood was seen as a person (or animal's) "life" or "spirit" (see, for example, Gen. 9:5). So, just as water is seen as the "primordial element" in the Old Testament, we now are given a picture of it as the primordial element in the new life.

Well I will say your analogies are interesting and not bad, but I see water as a cleansing agent not as a rite of water baptism. Which is why i see baptism as SPIRIT baptism. as titus 3:5 says. The Spirit does both. I would almost say the water anology does the washing and renewal. the cleansing anology. And water is used to describe the SPirit in the old and new.

Expanding on last point, Jesus also ties the Resurrection to Baptism. This is because He, on the very day of the Resurrection, tells His Apostles to "baptize them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit" (Matt. 28:19). On a side note, sir, I have considered your objection; you are correct to say that this is not necessarily an institution of a rite, as the Last Supper is, but that is of little consequence. I have also noticed your preference for the word "into" and suggest I am not informed enough in Greek to make an assertion one way or the other; unless you are, sir, I'd like us to leave it the way it is. The fact of the matter is that Jesus has connected new life with Baptism, signified by His own rising from the dead.

How is it of little conseguence if you make it Him speaking of water baptism. Well I agree he does relate new life with baptism, you thihnk water baptism I think SPirit baptism. WHY? becasue that is what JTB said Christ would do. baptize in the SPirit. IT makes sense seeing how he is not around to baptize in water and he never did this when he was on earth. And he is the one that saves us. Of course I think your say that is why he said all authority in heaven is given to me SO GO. and that this gives authority to the apostles to water baptize for them. but that only goes so far because PAul said he was not sent to baptize.

This begins to get into the main part of my writing this evening; the two themes of Baptism. Obviously, you cannot have the Resurrection without the Crucifixion, so there is my first assertion. And as St. Paul says that we are "baptised in his death. For we are buried together with him by baptism unto death: that, as Christ is risen from the dead by the glory of the Father, so we also may walk in newness of life. For if we have been planted together in the likeness of his death, we shall also be in the lifkeness of his resurrection" (Rom. 6:3-4). St. Paul, as you can see, has connected the themes of death and life (resurrection) into Baptism. Maybe you will rebutt again by saying that this is a "spiritual baptism"; yet I see no reason to think that at all. St. Peter, after all, when he was asked "'what must we do brothers'" responded by saying "'you must repent... and every one of you must be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins, and you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit'" (Acts 2:38).

NO I think Paul is speaking of rebirth and not sinning anymore or not living through the flesh. The use of INTO is used again here. because "into" means going from one place to another. Baptism means to immerse. which is the use here. In Baptism(spirit) we are immersed into Christ or Chirst into us. and If that is so thenm we are immersed into his death and his ressurection. Rom 8:11-13 speak of this same idea BUT he speaks or uses the word SPIRIT. Another use of is united which is the same as immersed or joined. Like dye in wool. Acts 2:38 is not about water baptism. He would not speak this way if you read context of what Jesus taught them. they never water baptized for this reason ( for forgiveness of sins and to receive the SPirit). int he past. even Paul in acts 10 when he asked them to be water baptized, when recalling the moment didnt even bring this part up. he spoke of this even in acts 11 and what does he recall. JTB said I baptize with water but He will baptize with the SPirit. and again in acts 15:8 he recalls it and again doesnt bring this water baptism up. The reason to me is that water baptism was used to show an association with the Church or belief in Christ. 1 cor 1 with Paul discussing it comes to mind.

And now I would like to revisit the Old Testament passages I have mentioned earlier, and show how the waters that prefigure Baptism are both life-giving, and death-dealing. During the flood of Noah, we see the death being dealt to everything that is evil, but also see the restoration of all that is good: "be fruitful, multiply, and fill the earth" (Gen. 9:1). In the event with Moses, note how death is dealt to Pharoah and his armies (Ex: 27-29), but also led to new life; the Israelites as God's people. It is also interesting to notice that, in the last account I have mentioned - about the Israelites passing through the Jordan river, that they are now lead by Josue, whose name is exactly identical, over the course of time, with that of Jesus.

Kind of like the Ark representing Christ or the passover meal etc. Again the water part was the work of God. the people had no part in it but to BELIEVE. john 6:29. Water represents CLEANSING. And God was the one who did the work. notice in all your references it was GOd who dealt with the water. Which is why I say it is a good analogy of the SPirit or often used with the SPirit. the SPirit cleanses us. I think of john 7:38-39. streams of LIVING WATER will flow from within them.

In light of all of this, I see no reason to believe that St. Peter - as we have already seen, a man who performed Baptism by water and the Spirit as one act - was not speaking of Sacramental Baptism in 1 Peter 3:20-21.

well as I showed acts 10:43-44, 11:15-16, 15:7-9 show, I think, that he wasnt.

As further regards the conversation with Nicodemus, I find it interesting that the early church uniformly believed Jesus was speaking of water baptism. Here is a quote from St. Justin Martyr, a second century philosopher and martyr (go figure):

"As many as are persuaded and believe that what we [Christians] teach and say is true, and undertake to be able to live accordingly, and instructed to pray and to entreat God with fasting, for the remission of their sins that are past, we pray and fast with them. Then they are brought by us where there is water and are regenerated in the same manner in which we were ourselves regenerated. For, in the name of God, the Father . . . and of our Savior Jesus Christ, and of the Holy Spirit [Matt. 28:19], they then receive the washing with water. For Christ also said, ‘Unless you are born again, you shall not enter into the kingdom of heaven’ [John 3:3]" (First Apology 61 [A.D. 151])).
​

sorry just dont see it. Jesus NEVER spoke of WATER baptism. Scripture does speak of water baptism and usely if not always places the word WATER with it.

You have objected to St. Cyril by hinting that he may have taught unorthodoxly. I can tell you that it would be impossible for that to be true on account that he was a very prominent bishop (Jerusalem was very important, of course). If he taught unorthodox teaching, their would be a recorded uproar from his contemperaries... but that is a discussion for another time. In the meantime, perhaps sir, you would prefer St. Augustine?

"And this is the meaning of the great sacrament of baptism which is solemnized among us, that all who attain to this grace should die to sin, as He is said to have died to sin, because He died in the flesh, which is the likeness of sin; and rising from the font regenerate, as He arose alive from the grave, should begin a new life in the Spirit, whatever may be the age of the body" (The Enchiridion, XLII).

​

Before you dismiss him too, please take note that it was he whom God inspired to defend the Book of Revelation at the Council of Hippo; without his input, the bishops were considering that it was not Scripure.

remember I am sola scripture. Says who. DOes he say God inspired him. And him defending revelations has no bearing on everything he spoke as truth.

There is much more, sir, that I have yet to get into - Christ's own Baptism, especially - but that I hope I will have the opportunity to expound later. By the way, it is a point of Catholic dogma that Salvation is through the Grace of God alone; are we in agreement?

I apologize for not responding to the majority of your post, but you are probably tired of reading now anyway, so I will wait; if there is any specific point you would like to discuss from your previous post, please bring it up again.

Yes I agree through grace alone. but the catholics say grace is through sacraments, correct, which i say is not grace alone. It is a work, I have gone into this so i will not here. I dont get tired of debating, I rather enjoy it. I learn alot this way. So please respond to what you did not get to. Helps to understand everyones point of view helps me understand mine better. I might not respond for a bit with thanksgiving and all.

 

[judechild]

Helps to understand everyones point of view helps me understand mine better. I might not respond for a bit with thanksgiving and all.

I understand; let's recess for now. I'll probably aim for Sunday for the date of my next post. Have a happy Thanksgiving Schroeder.