Announcement

Collapse

Ecclesiology 201 Guidelines

Discussion on matters of general mainstream Christian churches. What are the differences between Catholics and protestants? How has the charismatic movement affected the church? Are Southern baptists different from fundamentalist baptists? It is also for discussions about the nature of the church.

This forum is primarily for Christians to discuss matters of Christian doctrine, and is not the area for debate between atheists (or those opposing orthodox Christianity) and theists. Inquiring atheists (or sincere seekers/doubters/unorthodox) seeking only Christian participation and having demonstrated a manner that does not seek to undermine the orthodox Christian faith of others are also welcome, but must seek Moderator permission first. When defining “Christian” for purposes of this section, we mean persons holding to the core essentials of the historic Christian faith such as the Trinity, the Creatorship of God, the virgin birth, the bodily resurrection of Christ, the atonement, the future bodily return of Christ, the future bodily resurrection of the just and the unjust, and the final judgment. Persons not holding to these core doctrines are welcome to participate in the Comparative Religions section without restriction, in Theology 201 as regards to the nature of God and salvation with limited restrictions, and in Christology for issues surrounding the person of Christ and the Trinity. Atheists are welcome to discuss and debate these issues in the Apologetics 301 forum without such restrictions. Additionally, there may be some topics that within the Moderator's discretion fall so outside the bounds of mainstream orthodox doctrine that may be more appropriately placed within Comparative Religions 101.

Forum Rules: Here
See more
See less

Believer's Baptism

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #31
    Originally posted by Cow Poke View Post
    Yeah, I always got a kick out of the gangsters on TV bringing their babies in for baptism, when they had no intention at all of "raising them in the nurture and admonition of the Lord".
    Now now - there is a patron saint of prostitutes and thieves, after all.
    1Cor 15:34 Come to your senses as you ought and stop sinning; for I say to your shame, there are some who know not God.
    .
    ⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛
    Scripture before Tradition:
    but that won't prevent others from
    taking it upon themselves to deprive you
    of the right to call yourself Christian.

    ⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛

    Comment


    • #32
      Originally posted by Sparko View Post
      And in 6:5 He says it is symbolic (likeness)

      For if we have become united with him in the likeness of his death, we will certainly also be united in the likeness of his resurrection (NET)
      ESV translates it as "5 For if we have been united with him in a death like his, we shall certainly be united with him in a resurrection like his."

      And the NET translation continues:

      "6 We know that our old man was crucified with him so that the body of sin would no longer dominate us, so that we would no longer be enslaved to sin. 7 (For someone who has died has been freed from sin.)"

      And there is no indication in the text that Paul has changed the topic from what happens in baptism to something else, so even if NET is correct in translating it as "likeness of his death/resurrection", the context of the passage itself seems to indicate that this "likeness" is more than just a symbolic (in the modern sense) likeness. Paul is saying that in baptism our "old man" really was crucified with Christ, and not just symbolically (using the word in it's modern sense).

      Comment


      • #33
        Originally posted by Chrawnus View Post
        I was baptized as an infant. Even if I did come to believe in believer's baptism I see no reason why I couldn't just believe that my baptism would be valid simply by me consenting, after the fact, to my parents' decision to get me baptized.
        Because Baptism is part of your "public profession" - in some cultures, they don't worry a whole lot when you "decide to accept Christ", but when you are actually baptized, that's seen as a sign that "this guy really means it!" One of our missionaries explained (I think it was French Guiana) that it was thought "you can always change your mind" prior to baptism, but once you were publicly baptized, "that's it!"

        (And, no, I'm not offering that as my own argument - just showing that, to many, baptism is a fundamental principle of "I am now a Christ follower")

        And, I'd be interested to hear comments on why somebody would think Jesus was publicly baptized as an adult, and was there any kind of claim that He was previously baptized as an infant?
        The first to state his case seems right until another comes and cross-examines him.

        Comment


        • #34
          Originally posted by tabibito View Post
          Now now - there is a patron saint of prostitutes and thieves, after all.
          and lost causes, Glory be!
          The first to state his case seems right until another comes and cross-examines him.

          Comment


          • #35
            Originally posted by Chrawnus View Post
            I think the Holy Spirit is at work to draw people to God and them to faith even before baptism (otherwise no one would even choose to get baptized in the first place), but that by itself doesn't invalidate what Paul is clearly teaching about baptism. When it comes to the thief on the cross I can see two options that doesn't conflict with infant baptism. One being that he underwent a so called baptism of desire, that is to say the mere fact that he would have desired to undergo a baptism if only he had the opportunity was enough for God to give him the benefit that He normally confers in baptism. The second option being that even if baptism is the normal means through which God circumcises our heart and gives us a new nature, that doesn't preclude God Himself from at times granting people the benefits of baptism through other means. The fact that we are commanded to baptize people for the forgiveness of sins doesn't mean that God Himself is bound to only forgive those who get baptized.
            That is known as "rationalizing"

            The simplest and most logical answer is that you are saved when you believe. And that is when you become "a new creature" - because you now are declared righteous and have eternal life. Every verse about being saved includes "belief" even the ones mentioning baptism. So the common denominator is faith.

            Now we aren't instantly changed into perfect beings, that is what sanctification is. A process. But when we believe we have eternal life.

            Jesus even says you must be born of the spirit to have eternal life and that to be born of the spirit you have to believe in him (John 3)





            I was baptized as an infant. Even if I did come to believe in believer's baptism I see no reason why I couldn't just believe that my baptism would be valid simply by me consenting, after the fact, to my parents' decision to get me baptized.
            Why wouldn't you want to be baptized as a conscious and voluntary confession to your congregation and to Jesus? Are you afraid of water?

            and just assenting to what your parents did is not the same as YOU doing it, as Christ commands.

            Comment


            • #36
              Originally posted by Cow Poke View Post
              and lost causes, Glory be!
              I think there are couple of skeptics here on TWeb who would benefit from having someone pray to saint Jude on their behalf.*


































              *I am in no way shape or form condoning praying to the saints by this statement.

              Comment


              • #37
                Originally posted by Sparko View Post
                Why wouldn't you want to be baptized as a conscious and voluntary confession to your congregation and to Jesus? Are you afraid of water?
                I've had people, particularly Lutherans, tell me "Because that's saying that my Baptism wasn't good enough!" In which case, I think they have some pride issues.

                and just assenting to what your parents did is not the same as YOU doing it, as Christ commands.
                How would we even know what our parents did unless they told us?

                Meanwhile.....


                infant baptism.jpg
                The first to state his case seems right until another comes and cross-examines him.

                Comment


                • #38
                  Originally posted by tabibito View Post
                  likeness isn't symbolic, it is analogous to - not exactly the same as. (there was being buried in a tomb, not water: being bodily dead for 3 days as opposed to not bodily dead at all etc.) And verse 3 shows that we are baptised into his death (rather than being baptised into our own deaths.) Then there is the whole remission of sins thing which occurs in baptism.
                  so it was symbolic then. We didn't actually die.

                  And again, you are forgiven when you believe, otherwise you could not have eternal life at that point.

                  Acts 2:38
                  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.

                  "for" can mean "because of"

                  And as I said there are places in the bible where people got the Holy Spirit before baptism.

                  Comment


                  • #39
                    ομοιωμα does not mean symbolic. But that's only Koine Greek.
                    1Cor 15:34 Come to your senses as you ought and stop sinning; for I say to your shame, there are some who know not God.
                    .
                    ⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛
                    Scripture before Tradition:
                    but that won't prevent others from
                    taking it upon themselves to deprive you
                    of the right to call yourself Christian.

                    ⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛

                    Comment


                    • #40
                      At the risk of being the broken record..... again, I'm far more concerned with "if you were to die right now, do you know for sure...."

                      I don't believe Baptism is necessary for Salvation, so I always try to resolve that first issue (Salvation) first. Generally, I have found that people who have their "Salvation" settled don't have any problem following that up with Believer's Baptism.
                      The first to state his case seems right until another comes and cross-examines him.

                      Comment


                      • #41
                        Originally posted by Sparko View Post
                        That is known as "rationalizing"

                        The simplest and most logical answer is that you are saved when you believe. And that is when you become "a new creature" - because you now are declared righteous and have eternal life. Every verse about being saved includes "belief" even the ones mentioning baptism. So the common denominator is faith.

                        Now we aren't instantly changed into perfect beings, that is what sanctification is. A process. But when we believe we have eternal life.

                        Jesus even says you must be born of the spirit to have eternal life and that to be born of the spirit you have to believe in him (John 3)
                        In that same passage he also says that you need to be born of water and spirit to enter the kingdom of heaven. Faith/belief certainly has a role in the process, and God is working in a believer even before baptism (or else they wouldn't even be able to come to faith and decide that they want to be baptized), but that doesn't invalidate all the passages where it's clearly taught that baptism saves, and that our old nature is put to death in baptism.




                        Originally posted by Sparko View Post
                        Why wouldn't you want to be baptized as a conscious and voluntary confession to your congregation and to Jesus? Are you afraid of water?

                        and just assenting to what your parents did is not the same as YOU doing it, as Christ commands.
                        I'm not afraid of water, I just don't see why my infant baptism wouldn't be valid. My conscious and voluntary confession that I want to live as a Christian should be enough to validate my baptism, regardless of how long the duration between the physical act and my act of confessing with the mouth.
                        Last edited by JonathanL; 05-24-2019, 02:39 PM.

                        Comment


                        • #42
                          Originally posted by tabibito View Post
                          ομοιωμα does not mean symbolic. But that's only Koine Greek.

                          Since we didn't die physically, then it is symbolic. And if you want to argue it was a spiritual death, then you have to explain why Jesus didn't die a spiritual death but a physical one. It can't be actual because it doesn't correspond 1 to 1. That is simple logic. The solution is that it is symbolic.

                          Comment


                          • #43
                            Originally posted by Chrawnus View Post
                            In that same passage he also says that you need to be born of water and spirit...
                            I think he was talking about the physical birth (honey, my water broke) and the spiritual birth. He even deals with the question about "how can I go back in my Mother's Womb?". -- Jesus answered, “Very truly I tell you, no one can enter the kingdom of God unless they are born of water and the Spirit. 6 Flesh gives birth to flesh, but the Spirit gives birth to spirit".
                            The first to state his case seems right until another comes and cross-examines him.

                            Comment


                            • #44
                              Originally posted by Chrawnus View Post
                              In that same passage he also says that you need to be born of water and spirit to enter the kingdom of heaven. Faith/belief certainly has a role in the process, and God is working in a believer even before baptism (or else they wouldn't even be able to come to faith and decide that they want to be baptized), but that doesn't invalidate all the passages where it's clearly taught that baptism saves, and that our old nature is put to death in baptism.
                              Jesus was contrasting a natural birth with a spiritual rebirth. "Water" is a natural birth (you are born in water: amniotic fluid) - If you want to call baptism the water, then you would be saying that the spiritual rebirth can't be baptism since they are being contrasted. He explains it in the next verse: "Flesh gives birth to flesh, but the Spirit gives birth to spirit." - there is no mention of baptism, only belief.

                              16 For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son, that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life. 17 For God did not send his Son into the world to condemn the world, but to save the world through him. 18 Whoever believes in him is not condemned, but whoever does not believe stands condemned already because they have not believed in the name of God’s one and only Son.

                              Comment


                              • #45
                                Originally posted by Cow Poke View Post
                                I think he was talking about the physical birth (honey, my water broke) and the spiritual birth. He even deals with the question about "how can I go back in my Mother's Womb?". -- Jesus answered, “Very truly I tell you, no one can enter the kingdom of God unless they are born of water and the Spirit. 6 Flesh gives birth to flesh, but the Spirit gives birth to spirit".
                                That interpretation doesn't make any sense to me. The discussion that Jesus has with Nicodemus is about what is required for a man to be born again. In that case why would he even mention that being born of water is a requirement to be born again, since by your interpretation everyone already is born of water? Saying that you have to be born of water to be born again implies that there are people who aren't born of water.

                                Comment

                                widgetinstance 221 (Related Threads) skipped due to lack of content & hide_module_if_empty option.
                                Working...
                                X