Posted on 02/05/2011 11:07:42 AM PST by Gamecock
penguin pic
but is professional so requires subscription to download.
http://www.webshots.com/pro/photo/3277584?path=/archive-99201102-february-2011
The Apostle PAUL says to FOLLOW Paul, WHO FOLLOWS Christ Jesus. The RC follows Peter and the Pope...not Paul...
Paul was NOT sent to Baptize. 1 Corinthians 1:17 For Christ send me NOT to baptize, but to preach the gospel... In Acts 2:38 Peter reply is correct: for Peter here is primarily preaching to JEWS.
BUT Baptism is NOT an ordinance for salvation today. Even Peter understood that Paul was correct (see 2 Peter 3:15-17).
If the RC quote Scriptures like Mk 16:15-16 & Romans 6:4 & Col 2:12: 2 Peter 3:16 they that are unlearned and unstable wrest, as they do also the other scriptures, unto their own destruction.
They take these Scriptures, especially Romans 6:4 & Col 2:12, out of context to support baptism for today: Mk 16:15-16, Romans 6:4, Col 2:12 - do NOT support correctly rightly dividing the truth for baptism for today. Let me explain just one major mistake they make in Romans 6:4:
Romans 6:4 Therefore we are buried with him by baptism (SPIRITUAL baptism, NOT water) into death
Even Christ Jesus speaks of a SPIRITUAL baptism in the Gospels (see Gospel of John 1:33: the same is HE that baptizeth in the Holy Spirit [this is NOT water baptism]). Romans 6:4 is NOT water baptism: it is ONLY spiritual baptism BY THE HOLY SPIRIT. The Holy Spirit DOES NOT WATER baptize anyone in this age of the Grace of God!
Baptism was an Old Testament ordinance FOR THE Jews ONLY, evident since Jesus WAS SENT [first] to the Jews to preach the Gospel of the Kingdom: which was clearly taught in all the Old Testament Scriptures [which were given us us all BY GOD, not by man, not by RC].
Neither can the Roman Catholic's rightly understand Colossians 1:18: And HE [CHRIST] is the HEAD of the BODY, THE CHURCH: who is the beginning, the firstborn from the dead; that in all things HE might have the preeminence.
Christ is to have ALL preeminence and glory and honor, God does not share HIS not preeminence and glory with some religious organization that fails to follow and understand the ministry of PAUL!
CRONOS post:
so Paul was sent to preach and others were sent to baptise -- as the Bible says, we each have our own gifts.
Our Lord tied the forgiveness of sins to faith and Baptism: "Go into all the world and preach the gospel to the whole creation. He who believes and is baptized will be saved."
Mk 16:15-16 He said to them, “Go into all the world and preach the gospel to all creation. 16 Whoever believes and is baptized will be saved, but whoever does not believe will be condemned.
Romans 6:4 We were therefore buried with him through baptism into death in order that, just as Christ was raised from the dead through the glory of the Father, we too may live a new life.
Col 2:12. having been buried with him in baptism, in which you were also raised with him through your faith in the working of God, who raised him from the dead. We believe we are united with Christ by baptism and nourished by the Eucharist.
Our Lord voluntarily submitted himself to the baptism of St. John, intended for sinners, in order to "fulfill all righteousness (Matt 3:15) The Lord himself affirms that Baptism is necessary for salvation (John 3:5) 5 Jesus answered, “Very truly I tell you, no one can enter the kingdom of God unless they are born of water and the Spirit.
Baptism is necessary for salvation for those to whom the Gospel has been proclaimed and who have had the possibility of asking for this sacrament (Mark 16:16). The different effects of Baptism are signified by the perceptible elements of the sacramental rite. Immersion in water symbolizes not only death and purification, but also regeneration and renewal. Thus the two principal effects are purification from sins and new birth in the Holy Spirit
Acts 2:38 Peter replied, “Repent and be baptized, every one of you, in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins. And you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit.
From the catechism
You can't argue that scripture explicitly says Repent and be baptised and "He who believes and is baptized will be saved." --> again, a very clear statement, just like that of the Eucharist.
ph
Oh, I believe it. Absolutely.
They don't realize that if Jesus had drunk blood, it would have made Him unclean, rendering Him incapable of being the perfect sinless sacrifice fulfilling the righteous requirements of the Law.
Likewise, if He had demanded that the twelve break the Law during the Last Supper.
Not to mention that Peter told God three times during the vision on the roof episode in Acts that he had never eaten anything unclean. Either Peter never did, or he lied to God.
Obviously Peter understood the requirements of the Law and would not have drank if he thought Jesus meant it was actual blood considering his continual tendency to wimp out when around Jews as far as following the Law.
Claiming that the cup was really Jesus' blood fails on so many levels, and yet no matter what the evidence provided from Scripture, Catholics will deny it and back their church with their dying breath.
[roamer_1:] My contention is that the context is inferred in the Scripture - not ordained. IOW, there is no place where we are commanded to baptize children
Then look at your justification for you position.
[roamer_1:] but that may well mean (probably does mean) those in the house capable of taking the decision.
You can’t do one thing in the first instance then use what you discredited in your second.
I don't understand the conflict you see... My position is that one cannot baptize by proxy - Baptism must be partaken personally, and inherent in that, one must be able to knowingly participate.
The efficacy of baptism is not in the water, or the incantation - the effective "circumcision without hands" takes place in the act - the participation - and is defined, IMHO, by inward acceptance.
Therefore, it can have no effect on one who is not knowingly participant, nor can it be accomplished by proxy. Ergo, an infant cannot be baptized.
With that in mind, when the Bible speaks of a man and his whole house being baptized, the implication cannot be understood to mean infants too, but only those members of the house who are sentient, capable of reason, and thereby, capable of taking the decision - IOW adults...
Does that explain it better?
Note: One can argue the point of reason, the age of reckoning, as it were, but there is no one I know of that would determine an infant capable of such things.
Salvation doesn’t come from baptism in either instance. The salvation is from Jesus perfect sacrifice.
Agreed - Yet the passage refers to being saved:
[Cynical Bear:] don’t mean to stick my nose in here but when the jailor asked “what must I do to be saved”, the answer was “believe on the Lord Jesus and you will be saved-and your house”.
... And that is the defense for infant baptism...
Yet we all know families who have fallen away members, who had been baptized as infants, raised in YHWH in the home, yet are decidedly lawless, and without apparent grace...
And conversely, many of those will find Christ later in life, in an experience of repentance...
Many, not ALL.
So it occurs to me that regardless of any other thing, salvation does not, cannot occur severally (barring some unknown mystery of YHWH), but each one in his own time, wherein, the general rule would presumably apply: Repent, be Baptized, Receive the Spirit.
Otherwise, one must be of the position that those who are recalcitrant, yet baptized into Christ in infancy, will receive a free pass.
Baptism is the symbol of the being washed by His blood. The salvation of children is tied to the covering of the parent.
That is presumed, not defined - And that is the point.
True. Because the New Covenant refers to the Old:
1Jn 5:1 Everyone who believes that Jesus is the Christ has been born of God. And everyone who loves Him who begets also loves him who has been born of Him.
1Jn 5:2 By this we know that we love the children of God, whenever we love God and keep His commandments.
1Jn 5:3 For this is the love of God, that we keep His commandments, and His commandments are not burdensome.
(e-Sword: MKJV)
Discussions and debates that attempt to leverage single passages or Books of the Bible and ignore their relationship to the Synoptic Gospels and the Beatitudes are both vain and empty.
Precisely so - But rather, any interpretation that does not consider the WHOLE Word of YHWH presumes to make YHWH a liar.
LOL! i come home from work, turn on my computer and see you didn’t answer either of my questions, but instead have one more for me.
are you interested in a dialogue or is this a cross-examination?
i think i already answered 3 or 4 questions from you and you didn’t show me the same courtesy by answering just two of mine.
don’t misunderstand, we both know why you didn’t answer them.
to those following this, my two questions were something to the effect,
1. tell me what group of believers that existed in every century from the 1st to the 16th who believed that water baptism ( i feel the need to add “water” although it is redundant, since Ephesians teaches there is only one baptism ) was not for the remission of sins, but merely ceremonial done as a first act of obedience.
2. tell me where in the Bible anyone was ever told to be baptized as an act of obedience or as a public display of what has already happened to them.
here are my answers, since i don’t think i will be getting any if form holds:
1. there are none, the Church has always taught what they received from the Apostles, namely baptism is for the remission of sins and receiving the Holy Spirit.
2. there are no Bible passages that teach this.
unfortunately, many have been taught this 16th century tradition of men, but it was unknown to the Apostles and their successors.
you are up.
Wrong, the Catholic Church follows Jesus. Paul was only sent to share His massage, not one of his own.
let’s make a deal, i will answer your questions, IF, AND ONLY IF, you agree to answer mine. i believe in having a dialogue where truth can be discovered, not in cross examinations that go no where. what do you say, do have a deal?
if yes, here’s my question:
Do you believe Jesus Christ is the Divine second person of the Trinity?
i gave you an easy, yes or no, question to start off!
I wasn’t contending with your view of baptism. I really have no firm view one way or another as I don’t believe it matters to salvation.
I was trying to point out to you that in the first instance you discredited a view by saying that it wasn’t specifically but only “inferred” and not “ordained. Then in the next view you stated “but that may well mean (probably does mean)”.
In the first instance you dismissed because it was specificaaly ordained and the second supported your claim by the phrase “may well mean” so wasn’t specifically ordained either.
Not a big deal. Was just pointing to the difference.
>>“believe on the Lord Jesus and you will be saved-and your house”.<<
Not necessarily a defense of infant baptism as much as an example of the children being covered under the parents.
i’m not saying that, Paul says that. sola scriptura, remember?
i am torn as to what is a clearer doctrine taught in the Bible and taught by the Church for 1,500 years before false teachers arose:
1. The Real Presence in the Eucharist.
or
2. Baptismal Regeneration.
Re-read Acts 2 for St Peter’s teaching.
I don't play stupid television game show games.
Besides, many others have asked you to answer questions before this which you have not. Until you start answering some, no dice.
Have you really been recruited to carry other's water for them? It's SOOOOO transparent.
Wrong, the Catholic Church follows Jesus. Paul was only sent to share His message, not one of his own.
you have hit the nail on the head, the Holy Spirit was showing Peter the Gospel was for Jew and Gentile alike.
besides, if Ephesians 4 is true and there is only one baptism, and they are claiming the Holy Spirit “baptized” Cornelius, then Peter commanding they be baptized again would make “two” baptisms. no matter how they twist the passages, it doesn’t fit.
besides the clear teaching of Scripture, we have the history of the Church for 1,500 to show what Faith they received from the Apostles, but if they don’t believe the Bible, they won’t be swayed by history.
Exactly right.
Besides,the answer is in my posting history. Find it.
gee, i already answered 3 or 4 of smvoice in this thread alone, boatbums as well!
i don’t know any Christian when presented the chance to proclaim the Divinity of our Lord and Savior, the one who died on the cross for our sins, would pass!!
makes me say, hhmmm!
i’m sure it is. hhmmmm
Yah, I get it - no offense taken...
I wasn’t contending with your view of baptism. I really have no firm view one way or another as I don’t believe it matters to salvation.
Nor do I believe it matters wrt salvation. Yet we are commanded (no uncertain terms) to perform it.
In the first instance you dismissed because it was specificaaly ordained and the second supported your claim by the phrase “may well mean” so wasn’t specifically ordained either.
Accepted. But what I infer is in line with the general meaning of Baptism in the whole of the Scriptures, which was my point.
IOW, The rule (what the Bible DOES declare) of baptism, loosely defined, is: repent, be baptized, receive the Spirit.
The symbolism around baptism reinforces that: The submersion is the old man dying, and the raising up is the new man, resurrected in Christ.
It is my opinion that infant baptism raises an exception to that rule, and a fault, in that the infant cannot participate knowingly, so there is no "old man dying"... so neither can there be a new man raised up in Christ.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.