Not that I have much to offer in this debate we have going on, but your last post made me have a flashback of reading loyboy's book he wrote about Acts. Sounded awfully familar...does anyone else beside twi teach that Acts was a transitional book? (I am asking this sincerely since I don't have a clue.) :blink:
There are some TWI offshoots that teach it in various forms. But I don't believe there is any real Scriptural proof of such an idea. If the meaning of baptism changed after the day of Pentecost, there is nothing in Paul's or any of the other Epistles.
At risk of going round in circles Mark..which 'baptism' are you talking about.?
There is 'water' 'spirit' 'fire' 'sufferings' to mention some.
I'll go for the 'spirit', works for me. One Lord, one faith, one body, one baptism etc..
Reading the gospels one gets a general sense of Jesus trying to get people to move in a new direction and the church epistles has Paul trying to do the same.
In that respect I guess the book of Acts could be looked at as 'transitional.'
One of the reasons 'baptism' is still a dilema for some maybe is that as soon as they read the word 'baptism' they immediatey associate it with water when in reality the word used in the greek denotes 'immersion'.
Used mainly when talking about water or dyeing it becomes 'hard' for people to understand a 'spiritual immersion'.
At risk of going round in circles Mark..which 'baptism' are you talking about.?
There is 'water' 'spirit' 'fire' 'sufferings' to mention some.
I'll go for the 'spirit', works for me. One Lord, one faith, one body, one baptism etc..
Reading the gospels one gets a general sense of Jesus trying to get people to move in a new direction and the church epistles has Paul trying to do the same.
In that respect I guess the book of Acts could be looked at as 'transitional.'
One of the reasons 'baptism' is still a dilema for some maybe is that as soon as they read the word 'baptism' they immediatey associate it with water when in reality the word used in the greek denotes 'immersion'.
Used mainly when talking about water or dyeing it becomes 'hard' for people to understand a 'spiritual immersion'.
When the word baptism is used with the words holy spirit, it is referring to the baptism of holy spirit. But there are a number of places where the word baptism is used by itself. VPW always used to point out "it doesn't say water there." But when you carefully examine how it's used in Acts, you find that the word baptized without any other qualifier is a short way of saying baptized in the name of Jesus, or baptized in the name of the Lord.
Now we were taught that to be baptized in the name of Jesus was the same as being baptized in the holy spirit. But this can't be if you read Acts 8:15,16: "Who, when they were come down, prayed for them, that they might receive the Holy Ghost: (For as yet he was fallen upon none of them: only they were baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus.)"
Acts 2:38 also makes a distinction between baptism in the name of Jesus and receiving the holy spirit: "Then Peter said unto them, Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins, and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost." Also, Acts 19:4-6: "Then said Paul, John verily baptized with the baptism of repentance, saying unto the people, that they should believe on him which should come after him, that is, on Christ Jesus. When they heard this, they were baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus. And when Paul had laid his hands upon them, the Holy Ghost came on them; and they spake with tongues, and prophesied."
Plus there are records which specifically identify it with water, such as Philip and the Eunuch in Acts 8, and Peter's command to baptize the Gentiles in Acts 10.
By the way, I pointed out in another post that "one baptism" in Ephesians 6 has nothing to do with different types of baptism; the context is unity in the church because we all have the same faith, same Lord, same baptism, etc.
We must be careful not to dismiss something based on just a couple of verses. I was gradually convinced of the error in The Way's doctrine about baptism, when I studied the whole subject and considered how many passages of scripture relating to the subject fit together.
To me it's simple. Confess, Jesus, Lord, believe, raised, shalt be SAVED.
speaking in tongues, Christ in you, OUTWARD MANIFESTATION of INWARD REALITY.
I think Rafs' got the right idea..'If you're saved and you know it clap your hands' (or drop the tail chasing).
Of course you're entitled to believe what you want. I'm just surprised by how many ex-TWI people still hold to their "research methods" of taking a few verses out of context that support their doctrine, and reading things into other scriptures, despite evidence from others that contribute to the overall picture. And this even when they have seen so many other TWI doctrines disproved.
Also at the risk of going in circles, I thought I'd touch on some of the points in your post.
Because it was a part of the old testament law, just as circumcision was.
Where is water baptism the way John preached it in the Old Testament law? It isn't. The OT had washings (referred to in Hebrews 9 as being obsolete) but these were not baptism as John preached it. John preached a baptism of repentance, which included full immersion, while OT washings consisted of washing articles such as cups and pots, or parts of the body, such as hands, feet, etc. Also, with OT washings, one washed one's own hands or feet, while baptism was done to the baptized person by a baptizer. And finally, OT washings were done periodically, while John's baptism of repentance was done once as a sign of repentance and turning one's heart toward God.
When reading the book of Acts one MUST remember the book of Acts is not a doctrinal epistle written to the church to establish church doctrine. The book of Acts was written to show us the transition between the Gospels and the Epistles.
Where is that defined? In PFAL, but not in the Bible.
The book of Acts shows us the practices, functions, works and actions of God in the believers in the first century. It also shows us how God intervened (on a number of occassions) to correct the early believers wrong practices and actions.
The first century believers did not get everything right - doctrinally speaking. To assume the early Christians did do everything right would to be blind to God's intevention in their lives in many cases.
That is true. But you don't read anywhere in Acts OR the Epistles, where God corrected them for baptizing in water.
We see God's intervention in the lives of these early believers to correct their actions because they did not clearly understand that Jesus Christ was the end of the law. This is one of the reasons why they kept many legalistic practices...
This is true. And Paul discusses at length how we are not under the law and how the shadows of the OT covenant pointed to the New Covenant. But NOWHERE in any of his epistles does he state that water baptism was an OT shadow pointing to NT spirit baptism. What he does say (in Acts 19) is that John's baptism in water (which was not an OT ritual, but something new) pointed to the baptism in the name of Jesus Christ, because it was not until Jesus offered himself as the sacrifice for the remission of sins that baptism had any real power. Only after that did Jesus promise the baptism of the holy spirit, which was ADDED TO the baptism of repentance.
In Acts 11:14 this happened before there was any 'water baptism' because here in this record Peter is only unfolding to these Jews by undeniable evidence of how God moved to bring the new birth into manifestation...
It doesn't say anywhere in this record that he did not baptize them in water.
It wasn't 'water baptism' that convinced these Jews the Gentiles received the holy spirit, it was the evidence of 'speaking in tounges'. All the water in the world would never have convice these hardened Judeans that the Gentiles had also received the holy spirit. Even prior to this record, Peter wouldn't have even touched, let alone eaten anything considered common or unclean. Here these Jews were questioning Peter why he went in to men who were uncircumcised, and also why he ate with them. (Maybe it had something to do with the vision the Lord gave to him in Act 10 earlier?)
So what was it that convinced these Jews in Acts 11 that the Gentiles were saved and had received the Holy Ghost? Was it Peter relaying to these Judeans about the Gentiles "Can any man forbid baptismal water? No, it was only this one thing - they (the Gentiles) had spoken in tounges. Then in Acts 11:15 it says, it happened to them also as it did on us ... AS he was speaking to those of the circumcision.
Absolutely. This is WHY the receiving of holy spirit had to come first. But once that had taken place, Peter said that nobody could forbid these Gentiles from being baptized in the name of the Lord, and thus becoming members of the body of Christ. When Peter said "Who was I that I could withstand God" he was referring to denying the Gentiles the opportunity to be baptized into the Church. THAT is what would have been "withstanding God." The old TWI interpretation of this passage, that he realized the error of his ways and didn't go ahead and baptize them in water, ignores the whole point of the passage. It has nothing to do with any issue about whether baptism was to be with water or spirit. That simply was not the issue. But we were taught in PFAL to read the passage this way.
WHERE'S THE COMMAND OF WATER TO THESE OF THE CIRCUMCISION?
Acts 2:38, for one place. There didn't need to be a lot of records of the COMMAND to baptize, since we read that whenever people heard the word and believed they were baptized.
That is why Acts 11:16 records Peter remembering the Lord's commandment - and it was not a command to be baptised in water, but rather the commandment of the LORD to be baptised with the Holy Ghost.
What Peter remembered was not a command of the Lord, it was a promise. "Then remembered I the word of the Lord, how that he said, John indeed baptized with water; but ye shall be baptized with the Holy Ghost." The Lord's command was to preach the gospel, and when people believed it they would be baptized in response. Jesus promised that when people repented and were baptized in his name, they would receive or be baptized with the holy spirit (Acts 2:38 again).
Peter did not command them to be baptized in the holy ghost; why would he, if he had seen that they had already received it and manifested it? The context of the chapter clearly indicates that Peter is commanding baptism with water, in the name of the Lord: "Can any man forbid [the, in the Greek] water, that these should not be baptized, which have received the Holy Ghost as well as we? And he commanded them to be baptized in the name of the Lord."
There is a definite distinction between the baptism of the holy ghost (which only Jesus would do) and the baptism in water in the name of Jesus (which the disciples did). I gave the references for that in the previous post. But NOWHERE does it state that one replaced the other. BOTH aspects were necessary. Jesus baptizes with holy spirit, but when a person believes the gospel and decides to repent and make Jesus his Lord, in order to partake of the saving power of Christ's blood for the forgiveness of sins, he is expected to be baptized.
1. None of the proponents of water baptism are saying that it is necessary for salvation. Some are saying that it is necessary in order to obey God's Word. Opinions vary.
2. Just because a verse does not specifically mention water, does not necessarily mean that water wasn't involved. Baptism can literally mean immersion in water, or it can be used figuratively. Context can tell us which.
3. Wierwille's take on a verse or concept sometimes was the correct one, sometimes not. His teaching often only "fit" if you ignored parts of the bible. Some on this thread are attepting to make it "fit" by considering topics that Wierwille didn't.
4. There are many apparent contradictions (or real ones, depending on your view) that Wierwille never touched. It is not "tail-chasing" to try to reconcile these. Despite a yearning for "the simplicity of the Word", its anything but simple.
1. None of the proponents of water baptism are saying that it is necessary for salvation. Some are saying that it is necessary in order to obey God's Word. Opinions vary.
I'm not sure that's true, Oakspear. Marks, yes or no, no verse quotes, no long explanations, etc. If a person truly believes Christ and has made him Lord, yet for some reason chooses not to be baptized (say, to your way of thinking, he was wrongly taught), yet he witnesses, wins others to Christ, prays, believes, etc...
I'm not sure that's true, Oakspear. Marks, yes or no, no verse quotes, no long explanations, etc. If a person truly believes Christ and has made him Lord, yet for some reason chooses not to be baptized (say, to your way of thinking, he was wrongly taught), yet he witnesses, wins others to Christ, prays, believes, etc...
is he saved?
You know I can't do a one-word answer. But I'll keep it short:
- Can God save somebody who is a good person? Absolutely
- Will God save somebody who is a good person, understands fully the doctrine of baptism, and intentionally makes the decision to reject being baptized? God's mercy is great...I can't say that He wouldn't.
- Can somebody truly make Jesus the Lord of His Life and reject being baptized? Other than if a person was improperly taught and has a faulty understanding, I don't see how it's possible. Having said that, a person could be improperly taught...and that fact would change everything.
Oh, by the way, do I believe that the terms born again and salvation are synonymous? No.
Sorry if this was too long, but it is as short as I can make it.
You know I can't do a one-word answer. But I'll keep it short:
- Can God save somebody who is a good person? Absolutely
- Will God save somebody who is a good person, understands fully the doctrine of baptism, and intentionally makes the decision to reject being baptized? God's mercy is great...I can't say that He wouldn't.
I'm actually to the "right" of you on this one. A person who believes that baptism is required who does not go through with it has not made Jesus his Lord. He's putting something else in the way.
- Can somebody truly make Jesus the Lord of His Life and reject being baptized? Other than if a person was improperly taught and has a faulty understanding, I don't see how it's possible. Having said that, a person could be improperly taught...and that fact would change everything.
Then it's not necessary. I disagree that such a person has been improperly taught, but bottom line is, if your thinking that it isn't necessary makes it unnecessary, then it's not necessary.
Oh, by the way, do I believe that the terms born again and salvation are synonymous? No.
I figured as much. I figured that early on, which is why I brought up soteriology. But that's a much longer discussion.
Sorry if this was too long, but it is as short as I can make it.
Then it's not necessary. I disagree that such a person has been improperly taught, but bottom line is, if your thinking that it isn't necessary makes it unnecessary, then it's not necessary.
Raf, you are missing the point I am getting at. I truly believe that baptism is an essential sacrament. That much hasn't changed. However, I also believe that God is truly merciful and that his mercy passes what I am capable of understanding. As a Catholic, we are often confronted with the question, what about somebody who lives a good life, intuitively understands that there is a creator, and endeavors to live his life in true reverence to that creator and in love to his fellow man. But this person has never heard the name of Jesus Christ. So is this person condemned to eternal damnation? The pat answer is that we believe that God is a God of mercy and that the judgement on this person will be less severe than that of a person who, knowing God, decides to reject Him. And, in fact, God's mercy may be such that this theoretical person who has never heard the name of Christ but who lived a "Christian"-like life may end up in heaven.
Note the words: may and could. Not will and shall. There is a difference.
That's why I worded my response as follows:
...Having said that, a person could be improperly taught...and that fact would change everything.
That fact would, in fact, change everything. Then the person may be dealt with as one who is ignorant, like the person who hasn't ever heard the name of Christ but who lived a good and proper life.
But what situation is that person in? A big maybe. If. Could. Hopefully.
Is that the same as saying it's not necessary? Not hardly.
The difference is that I am not willing to provide the condemnation to anybody. You won't find ME making a judgement that a person is going to hell. God is merciful. And its not my place to decline that mercy to anybody.
But knowing and trusting in God's mercy is different than remaining in intentional ignorance in order to FORCE God's mercy. There is a difference.
Mark..with all due respect you might just as well say that you are flying on 'blind faith' regarding salvation or else you are 'befuddled' regarding the significance of it, speaking in tongues, the new birth, the purpose and power of the holy spirit.
'believeth UNTO salvation', 'believeth UNTO righteousness'. Saved by grace and not works of any kind my friend.
Mark..with all due respect you might just as well say that you are flying on 'blind faith' regarding salvation or else you are 'befuddled' regarding the significance of it, speaking in tongues, the new birth, the purpose and power of the holy spirit.
'believeth UNTO salvation', 'believeth UNTO righteousness'. Saved by grace and not works of any kind my friend.
Even Sudo is more than likely saved, (I bet that's what REALLY agravates him !!)
Recommended Posts
Top Posters In This Topic
35
14
18
21
Popular Days
Nov 16
19
Nov 17
16
Nov 20
15
Nov 25
11
Top Posters In This Topic
Raf 35 posts
Allan 14 posts
Mark Clarke 18 posts
markomalley 21 posts
Popular Days
Nov 16 2005
19 posts
Nov 17 2005
16 posts
Nov 20 2005
15 posts
Nov 25 2005
11 posts
markomalley
Raf, Mark:
Link to comment
Share on other sites
CWF
Thanks, What the Hey.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Mark Clarke
There are some TWI offshoots that teach it in various forms. But I don't believe there is any real Scriptural proof of such an idea. If the meaning of baptism changed after the day of Pentecost, there is nothing in Paul's or any of the other Epistles.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Allan
At risk of going round in circles Mark..which 'baptism' are you talking about.?
There is 'water' 'spirit' 'fire' 'sufferings' to mention some.
I'll go for the 'spirit', works for me. One Lord, one faith, one body, one baptism etc..
Reading the gospels one gets a general sense of Jesus trying to get people to move in a new direction and the church epistles has Paul trying to do the same.
In that respect I guess the book of Acts could be looked at as 'transitional.'
One of the reasons 'baptism' is still a dilema for some maybe is that as soon as they read the word 'baptism' they immediatey associate it with water when in reality the word used in the greek denotes 'immersion'.
Used mainly when talking about water or dyeing it becomes 'hard' for people to understand a 'spiritual immersion'.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Mark Clarke
When the word baptism is used with the words holy spirit, it is referring to the baptism of holy spirit. But there are a number of places where the word baptism is used by itself. VPW always used to point out "it doesn't say water there." But when you carefully examine how it's used in Acts, you find that the word baptized without any other qualifier is a short way of saying baptized in the name of Jesus, or baptized in the name of the Lord.
Now we were taught that to be baptized in the name of Jesus was the same as being baptized in the holy spirit. But this can't be if you read Acts 8:15,16: "Who, when they were come down, prayed for them, that they might receive the Holy Ghost: (For as yet he was fallen upon none of them: only they were baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus.)"
Acts 2:38 also makes a distinction between baptism in the name of Jesus and receiving the holy spirit: "Then Peter said unto them, Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins, and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost." Also, Acts 19:4-6: "Then said Paul, John verily baptized with the baptism of repentance, saying unto the people, that they should believe on him which should come after him, that is, on Christ Jesus. When they heard this, they were baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus. And when Paul had laid his hands upon them, the Holy Ghost came on them; and they spake with tongues, and prophesied."
Plus there are records which specifically identify it with water, such as Philip and the Eunuch in Acts 8, and Peter's command to baptize the Gentiles in Acts 10.
By the way, I pointed out in another post that "one baptism" in Ephesians 6 has nothing to do with different types of baptism; the context is unity in the church because we all have the same faith, same Lord, same baptism, etc.
We must be careful not to dismiss something based on just a couple of verses. I was gradually convinced of the error in The Way's doctrine about baptism, when I studied the whole subject and considered how many passages of scripture relating to the subject fit together.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Allan
To me it's simple. Confess, Jesus, Lord, believe, raised, shalt be SAVED.
speaking in tongues, Christ in you, OUTWARD MANIFESTATION of INWARD REALITY.
I think Rafs' got the right idea..'If you're saved and you know it clap your hands' (or drop the tail chasing).
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Mark Clarke
Of course you're entitled to believe what you want. I'm just surprised by how many ex-TWI people still hold to their "research methods" of taking a few verses out of context that support their doctrine, and reading things into other scriptures, despite evidence from others that contribute to the overall picture. And this even when they have seen so many other TWI doctrines disproved.
Edited by Mark ClarkeLink to comment
Share on other sites
Mark Clarke
What The Hey,
Also at the risk of going in circles, I thought I'd touch on some of the points in your post.
Where is water baptism the way John preached it in the Old Testament law? It isn't. The OT had washings (referred to in Hebrews 9 as being obsolete) but these were not baptism as John preached it. John preached a baptism of repentance, which included full immersion, while OT washings consisted of washing articles such as cups and pots, or parts of the body, such as hands, feet, etc. Also, with OT washings, one washed one's own hands or feet, while baptism was done to the baptized person by a baptizer. And finally, OT washings were done periodically, while John's baptism of repentance was done once as a sign of repentance and turning one's heart toward God.
Where is that defined? In PFAL, but not in the Bible.
That is true. But you don't read anywhere in Acts OR the Epistles, where God corrected them for baptizing in water.
This is true. And Paul discusses at length how we are not under the law and how the shadows of the OT covenant pointed to the New Covenant. But NOWHERE in any of his epistles does he state that water baptism was an OT shadow pointing to NT spirit baptism. What he does say (in Acts 19) is that John's baptism in water (which was not an OT ritual, but something new) pointed to the baptism in the name of Jesus Christ, because it was not until Jesus offered himself as the sacrifice for the remission of sins that baptism had any real power. Only after that did Jesus promise the baptism of the holy spirit, which was ADDED TO the baptism of repentance.
It doesn't say anywhere in this record that he did not baptize them in water.
Absolutely. This is WHY the receiving of holy spirit had to come first. But once that had taken place, Peter said that nobody could forbid these Gentiles from being baptized in the name of the Lord, and thus becoming members of the body of Christ. When Peter said "Who was I that I could withstand God" he was referring to denying the Gentiles the opportunity to be baptized into the Church. THAT is what would have been "withstanding God." The old TWI interpretation of this passage, that he realized the error of his ways and didn't go ahead and baptize them in water, ignores the whole point of the passage. It has nothing to do with any issue about whether baptism was to be with water or spirit. That simply was not the issue. But we were taught in PFAL to read the passage this way.
Acts 2:38, for one place. There didn't need to be a lot of records of the COMMAND to baptize, since we read that whenever people heard the word and believed they were baptized.
What Peter remembered was not a command of the Lord, it was a promise. "Then remembered I the word of the Lord, how that he said, John indeed baptized with water; but ye shall be baptized with the Holy Ghost." The Lord's command was to preach the gospel, and when people believed it they would be baptized in response. Jesus promised that when people repented and were baptized in his name, they would receive or be baptized with the holy spirit (Acts 2:38 again).
Peter did not command them to be baptized in the holy ghost; why would he, if he had seen that they had already received it and manifested it? The context of the chapter clearly indicates that Peter is commanding baptism with water, in the name of the Lord: "Can any man forbid [the, in the Greek] water, that these should not be baptized, which have received the Holy Ghost as well as we? And he commanded them to be baptized in the name of the Lord."
There is a definite distinction between the baptism of the holy ghost (which only Jesus would do) and the baptism in water in the name of Jesus (which the disciples did). I gave the references for that in the previous post. But NOWHERE does it state that one replaced the other. BOTH aspects were necessary. Jesus baptizes with holy spirit, but when a person believes the gospel and decides to repent and make Jesus his Lord, in order to partake of the saving power of Christ's blood for the forgiveness of sins, he is expected to be baptized.
Edited by Mark ClarkeLink to comment
Share on other sites
Oakspear
1. None of the proponents of water baptism are saying that it is necessary for salvation. Some are saying that it is necessary in order to obey God's Word. Opinions vary.
2. Just because a verse does not specifically mention water, does not necessarily mean that water wasn't involved. Baptism can literally mean immersion in water, or it can be used figuratively. Context can tell us which.
3. Wierwille's take on a verse or concept sometimes was the correct one, sometimes not. His teaching often only "fit" if you ignored parts of the bible. Some on this thread are attepting to make it "fit" by considering topics that Wierwille didn't.
4. There are many apparent contradictions (or real ones, depending on your view) that Wierwille never touched. It is not "tail-chasing" to try to reconcile these. Despite a yearning for "the simplicity of the Word", its anything but simple.
Edited by OakspearLink to comment
Share on other sites
CM
good points oakspear
also this is about John's baptism
which is more then just about water
figurative and literal
but preparing the way for the Lord
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Raf
I'm not sure that's true, Oakspear. Marks, yes or no, no verse quotes, no long explanations, etc. If a person truly believes Christ and has made him Lord, yet for some reason chooses not to be baptized (say, to your way of thinking, he was wrongly taught), yet he witnesses, wins others to Christ, prays, believes, etc...
is he saved?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
markomalley
You know I can't do a one-word answer. But I'll keep it short:
- Can God save somebody who is a good person? Absolutely
- Will God save somebody who is a good person, understands fully the doctrine of baptism, and intentionally makes the decision to reject being baptized? God's mercy is great...I can't say that He wouldn't.
- Can somebody truly make Jesus the Lord of His Life and reject being baptized? Other than if a person was improperly taught and has a faulty understanding, I don't see how it's possible. Having said that, a person could be improperly taught...and that fact would change everything.
Oh, by the way, do I believe that the terms born again and salvation are synonymous? No.
Sorry if this was too long, but it is as short as I can make it.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
CM
God can save anyone good or bad.
It's not our choice but his.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
CM
and this baptism of water and fire, does it not cleanse?
even the worst
for you know not when the lord will come
the times and the seasons are not in our hands
but a certain will and seeking of that which is not known
yes not known but known when it happens
and yes live righteously as best we know how
god respects humility and the proud will be unfilled
what? know ye not that the wisdom of God is greater then the wisdom of this world?
even his foolishness surpasses that which the carnal can comprehend
flexible - damn stratght
to this day and beyond
for there is no doctrine that can save to the uttermost
but a certain will and zero hour of open to the Lord Christ
Edited by CMLink to comment
Share on other sites
markomalley
Clay,
We don't usually agree on theological matters, but I thought that this was very well said!
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Raf
I'm actually to the "right" of you on this one. A person who believes that baptism is required who does not go through with it has not made Jesus his Lord. He's putting something else in the way.
Then it's not necessary. I disagree that such a person has been improperly taught, but bottom line is, if your thinking that it isn't necessary makes it unnecessary, then it's not necessary.I figured as much. I figured that early on, which is why I brought up soteriology. But that's a much longer discussion.
Cool beans.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
CM
Mark-I do appreciate your response.
it means more to me then you may know.
cuz this baptism is about the heart and not about an outward appearance
for it is the heart that believes
and confesses the Lord
a recognition of who is Lord
and to submit to his will
is the enlightenment we seek
known from the inside out
and not the other way around
Link to comment
Share on other sites
markomalley
Raf, you are missing the point I am getting at. I truly believe that baptism is an essential sacrament. That much hasn't changed. However, I also believe that God is truly merciful and that his mercy passes what I am capable of understanding. As a Catholic, we are often confronted with the question, what about somebody who lives a good life, intuitively understands that there is a creator, and endeavors to live his life in true reverence to that creator and in love to his fellow man. But this person has never heard the name of Jesus Christ. So is this person condemned to eternal damnation? The pat answer is that we believe that God is a God of mercy and that the judgement on this person will be less severe than that of a person who, knowing God, decides to reject Him. And, in fact, God's mercy may be such that this theoretical person who has never heard the name of Christ but who lived a "Christian"-like life may end up in heaven.
Note the words: may and could. Not will and shall. There is a difference.
That's why I worded my response as follows:
That fact would, in fact, change everything. Then the person may be dealt with as one who is ignorant, like the person who hasn't ever heard the name of Christ but who lived a good and proper life.
But what situation is that person in? A big maybe. If. Could. Hopefully.
Is that the same as saying it's not necessary? Not hardly.
The difference is that I am not willing to provide the condemnation to anybody. You won't find ME making a judgement that a person is going to hell. God is merciful. And its not my place to decline that mercy to anybody.
But knowing and trusting in God's mercy is different than remaining in intentional ignorance in order to FORCE God's mercy. There is a difference.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Raf
Fair enough.
Have a Corona.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Allan
Mark..with all due respect you might just as well say that you are flying on 'blind faith' regarding salvation or else you are 'befuddled' regarding the significance of it, speaking in tongues, the new birth, the purpose and power of the holy spirit.
'believeth UNTO salvation', 'believeth UNTO righteousness'. Saved by grace and not works of any kind my friend.
Mark..with all due respect you might just as well say that you are flying on 'blind faith' regarding salvation or else you are 'befuddled' regarding the significance of it, speaking in tongues, the new birth, the purpose and power of the holy spirit.
'believeth UNTO salvation', 'believeth UNTO righteousness'. Saved by grace and not works of any kind my friend.
Even Sudo is more than likely saved, (I bet that's what REALLY agravates him !!)
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Raf
Stuttering again, I see.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
markomalley
Skol
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Cynic
Among other things, Romanists and Unitarian miscreants need to change their beers:
www.calvinus.com
Edited by CynicLink to comment
Share on other sites
Raf
I believe this is why communion consists of bread and wine, and not words and doctrines.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.