"denominational baptism"

[ex cathedra]

Baptism, rightly understood, is a response of a repentant believer. It really doesn't matter that one knows all the intricate doctrinal points concerning the practice, only that one intends to live his life for God.

NO WRONG


baptism rightly understood
is once again God doing for us .
washing away sins
saving or strengthining  through faith in Jesus
enabling us to live that new life in Christ.

look at the baptism verses them selves, it doesnt take a rocket scientist to see what baptism claims has to be God at work.

who else could wash away our  sins or save us in baptism as the bible verse say it does.


 

[DCR]

Ugh.

"Denominational baptism has the authority of that denomination rather than the authority of the Bible."

"There's no Biblical authority whatsoever for denominational baptism."

"Jesus never authorized denominations.  And so, if Jesus never authorized denominations, then how could He have authorized denominational baptism?  It's not possible, is it?"


Seems to largely be a circular strawman argument built on a platform of presuppositions.  C'mon, dude, do you really think anyone believes that the baptism they practice has the authority of their denomination "rather than" the authority of the Bible?  Of course, other than the reference to Catholicism, it's all too vague to even know what he considers to be a "denomination" and what he doesn't.  I speculate that he probably would label any other group outside of his own exclusive affiliation to be a denomination where his group isn't.  Everything else he says follows from that presupposition.



"Jesus never authorized denominations.  And so, if Jesus never authorized denominations, then how could He have authorized denominational baptism?  It's not possible, is it?"

Well, duh, of course.   

Talk about straw men .
Jesus also did not forbid like minded people worshiping together and even forming denominations to pool resources to gether to spread the gospel to help those in need with Gods FORGIVING  gospel message and TO HELP with humanitarian efforts.
IN CHRISTIAN LIBERTY I have the right to worship with like minded christians
are you familar with a christian's  freedom?
things that God has neither forbidden or commanded comes into that relm.

Fairly old post your responding to there.  I had to read through it a couple of times to even figure out what I was talking about or what I was responding to. 

Just to clarify something... the italicized statements in the post you quoted above are not my views or my statements.  Those statements are quotations from the video posted in the OP of this thread.  Actually, what I was responding to were those statements, as I actually had problems with those statements, which is actually what I was criticizing here.

I actually agree with what you say above.

[Mere Nick]

At the risk of being called a Budist I agree with HR on this one.

You wouldn't be called a "Budist" but you might be called a "stiffer".

What's a Budist, anyway?  Sounds like someone who believes in the supremacy of Budweiser over all other beers.

[marc]

When I had my last kidney stone, I drank Bud, and it tasted good.  Does that make me a Budist?

[Mere Nick]

When I had my last kidney stone, I drank Bud, and it tasted good.  Does that make me a Budist?

If you believe it's the king of beers, then, yeah.  I had a couple of Smithwicks tonight in an Irish pub next door to where my wife and I ate Italian grub.  Smithwicks are ok, though, because of Bro. Raccoon John Smith, or something like that.

[Arkstfan]

When I had my last kidney stone, I drank Bud, and it tasted good.  Does that make me a Budist?

If you believe it's the king of beers, then, yeah.  I had a couple of Smithwicks tonight in an Irish pub next door to where my wife and I ate Italian grub.  Smithwicks are ok, though, because of Bro. Raccoon John Smith, or something like that.

If I confessed I prefer Michelob Amber would you still fellowship me?

[Mere Nick]

When I had my last kidney stone, I drank Bud, and it tasted good.  Does that make me a Budist?

If you believe it's the king of beers, then, yeah.  I had a couple of Smithwicks tonight in an Irish pub next door to where my wife and I ate Italian grub.  Smithwicks are ok, though, because of Bro. Raccoon John Smith, or something like that.

If I confessed I prefer Michelob Amber would you still fellowship me?

I doubt any of the others I fellowship would claim to be free of error, either.  While my beer selection is sound and yours and Marc's are clearly not, there may be other areas in my life where I have shortcomings to deal with, too.

[HRoberson]

When I had my last kidney stone, I drank Bud, and it tasted good.  Does that make me a Budist?

If you believe it's the king of beers, then, yeah.  I had a couple of Smithwicks tonight in an Irish pub next door to where my wife and I ate Italian grub.  Smithwicks are ok, though, because of Bro. Raccoon John Smith, or something like that.

If I confessed I prefer Michelob Amber would you still fellowship me?

I doubt any of the others I fellowship would claim to be free of error, either.  While my beer selection is sound and yours and Marc's are clearly not, there may be other areas in my life where I have shortcomings to deal with, too.

Kumbaya, my Lord........

[Mere Nick]

Kumbaya, my Lord........

Well, the thread is about "denominational baptism", so how could one reasonably expect to leave beer selection out of the discussion?

[marc]

Not to mention the whole baptism-in-kool-ade issue.

[Mere Nick]

Not to mention the whole baptism-in-kool-ade issue.

If someone wanted to get baptized at your congregation and when they went to the baptistry they found some prankster had dumped in lots of kool-ade, would they go ahead and baptize or drain and refill?  I don't know about ours. 

About 33 years ago I was driving through Biltmore and passed a bank where someone had tossed a huge amount of soap powder into a fountain.  A huge mountain of suds ran out into the street.

[zoonance]

Not to mention the whole baptism-in-kool-ade issue.

If someone wanted to get baptized at your congregation and when they went to the baptistry they found some prankster had dumped in lots of kool-ade, would they go ahead and baptize or drain and refill?  I don't know about ours. 

About 33 years ago I was driving through Biltmore and passed a bank where someone had tossed a huge amount of soap powder into a fountain.  A huge mountain of suds ran out into the street.

I suspect we would drain and refill.  Out of respect:  1) for the person being baptized 2) for the name the person will be baptized into  3) for the church family  4) for the person's family and perhaps 5) for respect of scripture as well.   No, there is not "thou shalt not use flavored water or thou shalt use running water for that matter.  But He knows the difference between giving Him our best and our desire to win an argument amongst ourselves or prove a point.

[Livelysword]

Not to mention the whole baptism-in-kool-ade issue.

If someone wanted to get baptized at your congregation and when they went to the baptistry they found some prankster had dumped in lots of kool-ade, would they go ahead and baptize or drain and refill?  I don't know about ours. 

About 33 years ago I was driving through Biltmore and passed a bank where someone had tossed a huge amount of soap powder into a fountain.  A huge mountain of suds ran out into the street.

I suspect we would drain and refill.  Out of respect:  1) for the person being baptized 2) for the name the person will be baptized into  3) for the church family  4) for the person's family and perhaps 5) for respect of scripture as well.   No, there is not "thou shalt not use flavored water or thou shalt use running water for that matter.  But He knows the difference between giving Him our best and our desire to win an argument amongst ourselves or prove a point.

Lively:  What do you think about the following...


Heb 10:22  Let us draw near with a true heart in full assurance of faith, having our hearts sprinkled from an evil conscience, and our bodies washed with pure water.

[lancelot]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4RopHsJl6Ko

This seems to be a phrase made up just to inculcate confusion amongst less knowledgable Christians.

"Well your baptism is just a denominational baptism because it didn't have the proper authority, object, confession and technique. You need to be subject to the Lord's Church."

One needs to be subject to the Lord.

In order to do that, one must hear the gospel, believe it, and obey it.  The problem is that men are teaching all sorts of things that aren't true.  They are teaching, for example, that sprinkling or pouring is baptism.  They are teaching that men are saved before and without being baptized.

Let's suppose that someone teaches that a person believes and prays the sinner's prayer and is saved.  Whether he is baptized later for some reason (as a public confession of his faith) or sprinkled/poured or never immersed for any reason at all, does not matter to the one who teaches such a doctrine.

Can a doctrine that causes men to be lost (for sure those who are sprinkled/poured and those who were never immersed for any reason) save anyone? 

Lancelot

[blituri]

Many "scholars" even use the term BELIEVER'S BAPTISM because they don't know the old wool over the eyes trick.

Believer's baptism is actually an ancient form of initiation into pagan mystery cults. For instance the pipers wanted Jesus to sing or lament and dance as they piped.. After the INITIATION where "prophecy" or music induce madness was the purifying or purging power (Apollo, Abaddon is called the WASHER), then you washed away the results of inition. Jesus refused it and got killed.

That is used to say that one is SAVED either by predestination or by FAITH ONLY.  After they are saved BY FAITH only, then they go through a long period of study to make them worthy of full membership in the church: withoug baptism the Baptist system (is or was) that you did not observe communion or participate in any "liturgical" work UNTIL you were voted on and THEN you were worthy of being baptized.

I questioned a local Baptist lady and she says that it is not as obvert but that is still the agenda.

On the other hand, the prophecy of Isaiah which the eunuch understood, and the Arche or founding act of the Gospel by Mark quoting Malachi is that if you BELIEVE then you have the ability to be saved but you are NOT saved. The commands, bible examples and historical practice was that repentance followed by baptism FOR (in order) the remission of sins and only then would you have the gift of A (personal) holy spirit.

They get by with saying that they are baptized BECAUSE their sins have been remitted and they are saved. However, the word EIS is never in any sense used to mean BECAUSE OF but into, unto or FOR THE PURPOSE of entering something.

Catholics and Calvinists SPRINKLE as "baptismal regeneration" but the Church of Christ is the only group whose baptism is is FOR THE REMISSION OF SINS.  Or "arise and be baptized and wash away thy sins, calling on the name of the Lord."  Or Baptism SAVED because it is OUR request for A good conscience which is the same as A holy spirit (1 Peter 3:21).

Everyone but the church of Christ makes a major industry out of telling Jesus, the Apostles, the prophets and the historic understanding all liars.

Baptism is not a punched ticket on the joy buss to heaven but to BECOME a disciple or student of Christ. The people understood that from proselyte baptism or commercial (apprentice or disciplship) baptism. No one let you grasp the mysteries until after baptism: so says Paul in 2 Cor 3.