Water Baptism is not a command in scripture

[OrthodoxyUSA]

the picture in the corner is suppose to show the difference between vatican catholics and orthydoxy? how? by their clothes?

I am not showing you the differences. (That would be a rather lon list.)

I am stating that the differences between the two are as obvious and stand out as much as the striking difference in the appearance of these two men... a picture being worth a 1000 words...

Does that make sence?

 

[Schroeder]

Now your just becoming offensive.

This proves to me that you have no idea of what Orthodoxy is....

We are NOT the same as the Catholic Church. That would only be true in someones imagination. You see the B/W picture in the lower right?

The Orthodox Church and the Vatican Catholic Church are as different as these two men appear.

Christ is the only head of The Church and we are led by the Holy Spirit and run by council.

Forgive me...

I am not saying you are the same as the caholics at all. the term used for the Church as a few differnet names depending on your denomination, some call it this some call it that but they all represent the Church, not church. I said Christ is the only head, that i agree, but you are wrong saying there is a council for the Church, there is for a church but not The Church. There is the catholic church and the Catholic Church, which is The Church or all believers. So yes in your view you are the Catholic Church just with a different name. no your not the catholic church. Notice big C little c. So im hardly being offensive. what is offensive is saying one is over the other, we are all a part of the Church, just we all have to many theologies that split us up into denom. i am just presenting one that does and showing why it shouldnt

 

[OrthodoxyUSA]

I am not saying you are the same as the caholics at all. the term used for the Church as a few differnet names depending on your denomination, some call it this some call it that but they all represent the Church, not church. I said Christ is the only head, that i agree, but you are wrong saying there is a council for the Church, there is for a church but not The Church. There is the catholic church and the Catholic Church, which is The Church or all believers. So yes in your view you are the Catholic Church just with a different name. no your not the catholic church. Notice big C little c. So im hardly being offensive. what is offensive is saying one is over the other, we are all a part of the Church, just we all have to many theologies that split us up into denom. i am just presenting one that does and showing why it shouldnt

Hey... that's O.K. Schroeder,

We will just have to disagree... I can respect someones right to be wrong.

I am finished with this subject.

Forgive me...

 

[OrthodoxyUSA]

I am not saying you are the same as the caholics at all.

Check your wording in you post.... that is exactly what you said.

Forgive me...

 

[Schroeder]

Here again, you are not presenting your agruement in the manor of a Quaker!

Peace be with you...Pam

Did i not use the thy shalt and so on. That post was not a arguement, besides i discuss not argue. There is no quaker manor it should be Christ manner. which it wasnt because i im just trying to understand there view. I think it was just misread. or misunderstood. BUT why did you go from Quaker to Catholic. seems like a large change of view or way of worship. the quaker mannor is of peace and simplisity. I try but im not perfect. that is why i might of said im a baptist quaker, My view on war is not quit that of quakers. I not for it, but to me it is inevitable at times. But it still does niether side any good.

 

[djconklin]

Water Baptism is not a command in scripture

No were in scripture is this idea commanded, it was used, but only for a time, just as John the baptist said it would be, and Christ baptism would increase and his decrease. It is very misinterpreted by most all denominations and is a burdone, not because of its use but in how it is interpreted to be used and why and or how or when, none of which is ever mentioned in scripture, why because it is not a part of the Gospel message, Which is solely about Christ and his Spirit.

1) You are correct that baptism is not "commanded" in the Bible. However, there are many Scriptures where baptism is recognized as one step of becoming a Christian. The experience of the Ethiopian and other accounts in Acts spring to mind.

2) Baptism is not a burden and is quite easily accomplished.

3) While there are no explicit "rules" about baptism given in Scripture how it is done (by immersion) accompanied by confession of sins and accepting Jesus as your Savior is quite apparent by studying the Scrptures 'to show thyself approved".

4) It is only as one accepts Jesus as your Savior and have been baptized by the Spirit is baptism by water accepted by God.

 

[Schroeder]

Hey... that's O.K. Schroeder,

We will just have to disagree... I can respect someones right to be wrong.

I am finished with this subject.

Forgive me...

Yes so can i, and what is offensive is my grammer and spelling. Nice having the discussion with you.

 

[ImSoBlessed]

I am not showing you the differences. (That would be a rather lon list.)

I am stating that the differences between the two are as obvious and stand out as much as the striking difference in the appearance of these two men... a picture being worth a 1000 words...

Does that make sence?

no because dressing different has nothing to do with anything...one has a beard and one diesn't who cares...that really has nothin to do with nothing...

 

[OrthodoxyUSA]

Yes so can i, and what is offensive is my grammer and spelling. Nice having the discussion with you.

Your grammer and spelling is just as good as anyone elses here!

Forgive me...

 

[OrthodoxyUSA]

no because dressing different has nothing to do with anything...one has a beard and one diesn't who cares...that really has nothin to do with nothing...

O.K. ...... So not everyone gets it... thats alright too.

Forgive me...

 

[Schroeder]

1) You are correct that baptism is not "commanded" in the Bible. However, there are many Scriptures where baptism is recognized as one step of becoming a Christian. The experience of the Ethiopian and other accounts in Acts spring to mind.

2) Baptism is not a burden and is quite easily accomplished.

3) While there are no explicit "rules" about baptism given in Scripture how it is done (by immersion) accompanied by confession of sins and accepting Jesus as your Savior is quite apparent by studying the Scrptures 'to show thyself approved".

4) It is only as one accepts Jesus as your Savior and have been baptized by the Spirit is baptism by water accepted by God.

i should note that i am not against it being done. just that that it must be done because it is commanded. To show thy self approved is not a one time act it is a life you lead. No it is not a burdone unless you make it one which i think many denom have done.

 

[djconklin]

i should note that i am not against it being done. just that that it must be done because it is commanded. To show thy self approved is not a one time act it is a life you lead. No it is not a burdone unless you make it one which i think many denom have done.

Can you show me in Scripture where it says that one should not be baptized? In fact, in Acts doesn't it virtually say that in every instance where one became a believer one was baptized? Doesn't the Bible "command" us to be "baptized with water and the Spirit"? Again, baptism is not a burden--no denomination that I know of makes it onerous--can't imagine how that could be done either.

 

[PassthePeace1]

Did i not use the thy shalt and so on. That post was not a arguement, besides i discuss not argue. There is no quaker manor it should be Christ manner.

I wasn't refering to the type of language, but rather the way you are presenting your arguement. Quakers removed all outward forms of the institutional church, and when you read all of the documents it wasn't because they believed that they were necessarily "unscriptural" (to do so would have to admit scripture was an authority), but rather because they were unneccesary because "Christ would come to teach Himself"

BUT why did you go from Quaker to Catholic. seems like a large change of view or way of worship. the quaker mannor is of peace and simplisity.

Because the Light Within, reveal the full Truth to me...lol...just that simple.

Peace be with you...Pam

 

[Schroeder]

Can you show me in Scripture where it says that one should not be baptized? In fact, in Acts doesn't it virtually say that in every instance where one became a believer one was baptized? Doesn't the Bible "command" us to be "batized with water and the Spirit"? Again, baptism is not a burden--no denomination that i know of makes it onerous.

No not specifacally. the closest is Hebrew 9:10 They are only a matter of food and drink and various ceremonial washings- EXTERNAL regulations applying until the time of the new order. Some would say this doesnt deal with the new external regulations but i dont see how it wouldnt. But that is why i say i am not against it totally. I can say without a doubt that it was not a command. There is no command in scripture to baptize with water and spirit. Show the passage that would suggest this thinking. John 3:3 is not that one. it is of natural birth which nicodemus was thinking and the Spirit birth Christ was speaking of being born again. verse 6 shows this true. flesh of flesh spirit of spirit. also John 6:63 proves it as well. Not to be picky but in Acts 11 21-24 speaks of many comming to Christ but not being baptized in water. It was used to show or make a point at the time. It was a tradition or habit, it was done because it was common at the time. Christ never put any significance on it ever.

 

[Schroeder]

I wasn't refering to the type of language, but rather the way you are presenting your arguement. Quakers removed all outward forms of the institutional church, and when you read all of the documents it wasn't because they believed that they were necessarily "unscriptural" (to do so would have to admit scripture was an authority), but rather because they were unneccesary because "Christ would come to teach Himself"



Because the Light Within, reveal the full Truth to me...lol...just that simple.

Peace be with you...Pam

have you read Barclays Apology

 

[PassthePeace1]

have you read Barclays Apology

Yes, of course I have and his apology is based merely on subjective reasoning. Barclay's apology is very weak, and is easy to refut, because like just said it is based on subjective reasoning. He does not defend his apology, by and exegesis of Scripture; but rather pulls a few scriptures out of context to defend his claims. Mostly he is just giving his opinions, but that is just his opinon. And don't forget one of the attributes of Quakerism is religious tolerance, and did not set about trying to pick apart others groups beliefs. The Holy Experiment is a good expamle of that tolerance.

Let's face it Quakerism as it once was is gone, it was a genuine and sincere (although misguided) effort to recapture the NT church, but it failed....because it didn't build on a solid foundation.

Peace be with you...Pam

 

[Schroeder]

Yes, of course I have and his apology is based merely on subjective reasoning. Barclay's apology is very weak, and is easy to refut, because like just said it is based on subjective reasoning. He does not defend his apology, by and exegesis of Scripture; but rather pulls a few scriptures out of context to defend his claims. Mostly he is just giving his opinions, but that is just his opinon...there are other writers as well, and don't forget one of the attributes of Quakerism is religious tolerance. The Holy Experiment is a good expamle of that tolerance.

Let's face it Quakerism as it once was is gone, it was a genuine and sincere (although misguided) effort to recapture the NT church, but it failed....because it didn't build on a solid foundation.

Peace be with you...Pam

It failed because of modernization. Simplisity went out the window. He was raised in catholic theology. I have yet to see any one give me anything but short passages to prove water baptism or all the other things mentioned. It did not fail, its still around. just because it is not a large denom doesnt mean it is weak. The largest ones are weak and misguided. size means little. Its foundation was Christ and him crusified, and being lead by the Spirit. That is what Christianity is, nothing more. 1 John 5:10-20 What may i ask is needed to be added to this passage. Read all of 1 John and tell me how it does not sum up what christianity is about. What more do we need in our walk.

 

[OrthodoxyUSA]

All of them fail because of modernization.

The Church is no need of help... The Church is here to help us.

She does not need change, she was handed to us in perfection. Our nasty hands can do nothing except soil her.

The True Church is Changeless. It is the Orthodox Church.

 

[PassthePeace1]

It failed because of modernization. Simplisity went out the window. He was raised in catholic theology. I have yet to see any one give me anything but short passages to prove water baptism or all the other things mentioned. It did not fail, its still around. just because it is not a large denom doesnt mean it is weak. The largest ones are weak and misguided. size means little. Its foundation was Christ and him crusified, and being lead by the Spirit. That is what Christianity is, nothing more. 1 John 5:10-20 What may i ask is needed to be added to this passage. Read all of 1 John and tell me how it does not sum up what christianity is about. What more do we need in our walk.

No, it failed because it did not accomplish what it set out to do....to revive the NT Church.

I will be happy to layout in detail about baptism, but will have to do it later...I got to start getting things layout, and prepare supper.


Peace be with you...Pam

 

[statrei]

All of them fail because of modernization.

The Church is no need of help... The Church is here to help us.

She does not need change, she was handed to us in perfection. Our nasty hands can do nothing except soil her.

The True Church is Changeless. It is the Orthodox Church.

The Jews felt the same way when this upstart called Jesus dared say He was the Messiah. We know where that confidence got them.