Christian Forums

Was it Martin Luther and his friends that took 5 anti-baptist down to the river and drowned them?

Oh well, at least the anti-baptist went to heaven even if it was under duress.

Anabaptists

(Don't know that "Martin Luther and his friends" did this, though I have heard of accounts of if taking place...)

Quote from: churchmember on Tue Nov 06, 2007 - 20:46:45
Will anyone stand up for the true teachings on baptism?

That it is not for infants but for those at the age of accountability.
That it is for those wanting remission of sins.
For those that have faith in Christ to remit their sins at baptism. 

Will anyone stand for the truth?

On infant baptism, you are just plain wrong.

Gen. 17:12, Lev. 12:3 - these texts show the circumcision of eight-day old babies as the way of entering into the Old Covenant - Col 2:11-12 - however, baptism is the new "circumcision" for all people of the New Covenant. Therefore, baptism is for babies as well as adults. God did not make His new Covenant narrower than the old Covenant. To the contrary, He made it wider, for both Jews and Gentiles, infants and adults.

Job 14:1-4 - man that is born of woman is full of trouble and unclean. Baptism is required for all human beings because of our sinful human nature.

Psalm 51:5 - we are conceived in the iniquity of sin. This shows the necessity of baptism from conception.

Matt. 18:2-5 - Jesus says unless we become like children, we cannot enter into heaven. So why would children be excluded from baptism?

Matt 19:14 - Jesus clearly says the kingdom of heaven also belongs to children. There is no age limit on entering the kingdom, and no age limit for being eligible for baptism.

Mark 10:14 - Jesus says to let the children come to Him for the kingdom of God also belongs to them. Jesus says nothing about being too young to come into the kingdom of God.

Mark 16:16 - Jesus says to the crowd, "He who believes and is baptized will be saved." But in reference to the same people, Jesus immediately follows with "He who does not believe will be condemned." This demonstrates that one can be baptized and still not be a believer. This disproves the Protestant argument that one must be a believer to be baptized. There is nothing in the Bible about a "believer's baptism."

Luke 18:15 – Jesus says, "Let the children come to me.

Agree with Broach or not (and in this case I do),
you gotta admit:

he has shown that some Catholics know their
way around the Bible!

I see more evidence in Scripture for infant
baptism than "an age of reason."

Some might even call that a clear teaching

I guess we don't need Christ and his gospel anymore.  Just get baptized.

Another false gospel.

Quote from: Robert Pate on Wed Nov 07, 2007 - 08:00:29
I guess we don't need Christ and his gospel anymore.  Just get baptized.

Another false gospel.

Au contraire my dear friend Pate, without Christ, baptism would just be another empty ritual where one gets merely wet...

what about this passage? and i am not going to jump into the frying pan on this one..

1Jo 1:7      But if we walk in the light, as he is in the light, we have fellowship one with another, and the blood of Jesus Christ his Son cleanseth us from all sin.

just wondering what to do with this scripture if it is water that cleanses us from sins

Why can't we just agree that Jesus wants us to be baptized and leave it at that?  When we focus on one aspect of baptism (it being for the remission of sins) to the exclusion of all else the Bible teaches on it, and then use that to define away the majority of the Christian community as not being Christians at all we are using baptism to divide rather than to unite.  Division is a greater sin that being a person of genuine faith who is mistaken about the nature and purpose of baptism.

We should not confuse contending for the faith with contending for our private interpretations of the Bible.  Contending for the faith refers to a life of faith in which we pursue faith against all obstacles.

It has always amazed me how members of the Church of Christ have heard, believed, repented, confessed and been baptized, and Baptist have done same, and both done these things because of their faith in Christ yet members of the Church of Christ refuse to even consider Baptist as Christians.

Quote from: johntwayne on Wed Nov 07, 2007 - 09:22:49
Why can't we just agree that Jesus wants us to be baptized and leave it at that? 

Count me in!

Quote from: Serenity432001 on Wed Nov 07, 2007 - 09:25:45

Quote from: johntwayne on Wed Nov 07, 2007 - 09:22:49
Why can't we just agree that Jesus wants us to be baptized and leave it at that? 

Count me in!

me three! that is why i did not want to jump into the frying pan, as I am baptized, and most Christians are as well.

Quote from: johntwayne on Wed Nov 07, 2007 - 09:22:49
Why can't we just agree that Jesus wants us to be baptized and leave it at that?  When we focus on one aspect of baptism (it being for the remission of sins) to the exclusion of all else the Bible teaches on it, and then use that to define away the majority of the Christian community as not being Christians at all we are using baptism to divide rather than to unite.  Division is a greater sin that being a person of genuine faith who is mistaken about the nature and purpose of baptism.

We should not confuse contending for the faith with contending for our private interpretations of the Bible.  Contending for the faith refers to a life of faith in which we pursue faith against all obstacles.

It has always amazed me how members of the Church of Christ have heard, believed, repented, confessed and been baptized, and Baptist have done same, and both done these things because of their faith in Christ yet members of the Church of Christ refuse to even consider Baptist as Christians.

The folks that refuse to consider Baptists as Christians don't really believe Mark 16:16

I just dont belive that dispensationalists are christians.. and unfortunately that encompasses a lot of baptists too.

Quote from: Tantor on Wed Nov 07, 2007 - 11:08:28
I just dont belive that dispensationalists are christians.. and unfortunately that encompasses a lot of baptists too.

You can believe whatever you want.  Doesn't make your belief right.

Quote from: johntwayne on Wed Nov 07, 2007 - 09:22:49.

It has always amazed me how members of the Church of Christ have heard, believed, repented, confessed and been baptized, and Baptist have done same, and both done these things because of their faith in Christ yet members of the Church of Christ refuse to even consider Baptist as Christians.

Not this c of C'er, but your point is well taken.

Quote from: Gary on Wed Nov 07, 2007 - 11:02:52

Quote from: johntwayne on Wed Nov 07, 2007 - 09:22:49
Why can't we just agree that Jesus wants us to be baptized and leave it at that?  When we focus on one aspect of baptism (it being for the remission of sins) to the exclusion of all else the Bible teaches on it, and then use that to define away the majority of the Christian community as not being Christians at all we are using baptism to divide rather than to unite.  Division is a greater sin that being a person of genuine faith who is mistaken about the nature and purpose of baptism.

We should not confuse contending for the faith with contending for our private interpretations of the Bible.  Contending for the faith refers to a life of faith in which we pursue faith against all obstacles.

It has always amazed me how members of the Church of Christ have heard, believed, repented, confessed and been baptized, and Baptist have done same, and both done these things because of their faith in Christ yet members of the Church of Christ refuse to even consider Baptist as Christians.

The folks that refuse to consider Baptists as Christians don't really believe Mark 16:16

Don't you remember, that verse is really not there.

Quote from: johntwayne on Wed Nov 07, 2007 - 09:22:49
Why can't we just agree that Jesus wants us to be baptized and leave it at that?  When we focus on one aspect of baptism (it being for the remission of sins) to the exclusion of all else the Bible teaches on it, and then use that to define away the majority of the Christian community as not being Christians at all we are using baptism to divide rather than to unite.  Division is a greater sin that being a person of genuine faith who is mistaken about the nature and purpose of baptism.

We should not confuse contending for the faith with contending for our private interpretations of the Bible.  Contending for the faith refers to a life of faith in which we pursue faith against all obstacles.

It has always amazed me how members of the Church of Christ have heard, believed, repented, confessed and been baptized, and Baptist have done same, and both done these things because of their faith in Christ yet members of the Church of Christ refuse to even consider Baptist as Christians.

That amazes me as well.

Someone says that there is too much talking about baptism here.  I don't see that as the case at all.  But I do see that there is an excessive amount of complaining about baptism being talked about too much.   And I also see a tremendous amount of bad attitude towards those that would seek to be nonsectarian christians only.  Sad. 

Churchmember,
The difficulty lies not in the message but rather in the hearts of the hearers. 

His servant,
dottie roberts

Quote from: Sherman Nobles on Thu Oct 25, 2007 - 08:32:35
Churchmember,

Several posts back you noted that you thought "being saved" was not a biblical term.  But of course, Eph.2.8-9, actually says "By grace you were saved..."  So, I'd like to ask again for you to please share your testimony, the events surrounding when were you saved?

Thanks,
Sherman

Churchmember,

Now many posts back you noted that you thought "being saved" was not a biblical term.  But of course, Eph.2.8-9 actually says "By grace you were saved..." So, I'd like to ask again for you to please share your testimony, the events surrounding when were you saved?  Or have you not been saved?

Thanks,
Sherman

Quote from: kamakaz on Wed Nov 07, 2007 - 08:38:14
what about this passage? and i am not going to jump into the frying pan on this one..

1Jo 1:7      But if we walk in the light, as he is in the light, we have fellowship one with another, and the blood of Jesus Christ his Son cleanseth us from all sin.

just wondering what to do with this scripture if it is water that cleanses us from sins

Quote from: Dottie on Wed Nov 07, 2007 - 12:39:43
Someone says that there is too much talking about baptism here.  I don't see that as the case at all.  But I do see that there is an excessive amount of complaining about baptism being talked about too much.   And I also see a tremendous amount of bad attitude towards those that would seek to be nonsectarian christians only.  Sad. 

Churchmember,
The difficulty lies not in the message but rather in the hearts of the hearers. 

His servant,
dottie roberts

Dottie your words strike a chord with me!  There are definitely more than a handful that could no longer be considered supportive of the gospel.   They have become deserters of the faith! 
Salvation is found only in the church.  We must go only on the directives and examples laid out in the new testament regarding entrance into the church.    Acts 2:41 and 2:47 show that it was those that were scripturally baptized in Acts 2:38 that were added to the church. 

Quote from: Nordic Conqueror on Wed Nov 07, 2007 - 16:36:08

Quote from: Dottie on Wed Nov 07, 2007 - 12:39:43
Someone says that there is too much talking about baptism here.  I don't see that as the case at all.  But I do see that there is an excessive amount of complaining about baptism being talked about too much.   And I also see a tremendous amount of bad attitude towards those that would seek to be nonsectarian christians only.  Sad. 

Churchmember,
The difficulty lies not in the message but rather in the hearts of the hearers. 

His servant,
dottie roberts

Dottie your words strike a chord with me!  There are definitely more than a handful that could no longer be considered supportive of the gospel.   They have become deserters of the faith! 
Salvation is found only in the church.  We must go only on the directives and examples laid out in the new testament regarding entrance into the church.    Acts 2:41 and 2:47 show that it was those that were scripturally baptized in Acts 2:38 that were added to the church. 

Salvation is found only in Christ.  Scriptural baptism is in the name of Jesus Christ, that is why the disciples in Acts 19 were re-baptized.

Amen to that!

Sherman,
You know what I mean.   There is no "getting saved" in the denominational sense in the bible. 
We have directives and we have examples and the two are never in conflict. 

I don't boast of my own conversion!    That serves no purpose. 

Now if a man is lost and wants to what to do to be saved, there is a way to explain this to him that can be confidently backed up with scripture.   
But your way is in conflict and not only that but it rests upon highly speculative combinations of assumptions like our friend posted earlier in an attempt to justify infant baptism. 

I find it amusing that there are so many opposed to the truth of baptism that they would side with one that has God in the position of creating souls just to be damned.   That is the implication of the infant baptism position but then not many folks are thinking of the implications anymore of what they teach.     
If an infant is not baptized then he is damned?  Crazy and a lie to boot. 

Nordic said

.  We must go only on the directives and examples laid out in the new testament regarding entrance into the church.   

What you are talking about here is pattern theology.  Where are we commanded to follow this pattern?   Here are some questions I asked myself years ago on this pattern.

Must we follow all NT Commands?  If not why not?  Who gets to make the choice of which ones we will follow and which ones we can ignore?

Must we follow all approved NT examples?  If not why not?  who gets to make the decision which approved examples we must follow and which ones we can ignore.

I can not  think of any church not just coc that assemble and conduct themselves like the 1st century church.  I know some small groups that do but no institutionall (man made) church that does.  I love you my brother but I believe pattern theology is one that breeds arrogance and spiritual abuse. Later Johnb 

Quote from: kamakaz on Wed Nov 07, 2007 - 13:39:43

Quote from: kamakaz on Wed Nov 07, 2007 - 08:38:14
what about this passage? and i am not going to jump into the frying pan on this one..

1Jo 1:7      But if we walk in the light, as he is in the light, we have fellowship one with another, and the blood of Jesus Christ his Son cleanseth us from all sin.

just wondering what to do with this scripture if it is water that cleanses us from sins

I would argue that baptism is the point in which your soul comes in contact with the blood of Christ. Baptism is just the mechanism that God has chosen.

In John 13 We see the Son of God, the creator of the universe put on the apron of a slave and bend down and wash the diciples feet.  Peter objected and Jesus said if you don't let me do this you have no part with me.  He even washed the feet of Judas.  After doing this He said

13Ye call me Master and Lord: and ye say well; for so I am.

14If I then, your Lord and Master, have washed your feet; ye also ought to wash one another's feet.

15For I have given you an example, that ye should do as I have done to you.

16Verily, verily, I say unto you, The servant is not greater than his lord; neither he that is sent greater than he that sent him.

Hum a command from the Son of God and He calls it an example they they should follow.  Look plain to me yet I know of no CoC that wash feet.   A clear directive and an approved example yet you choose to ignore this command.  I am confussed help me understand.  Later Johnb

I'm not trying to argue, though it may seem this way; I would, however, like to understand your take on Acts 16:30-34.

The jailer asks Paul and Silas what he must do to be saved.  The answer was "believe".  They were baptized afterward, but the answer was simply "believe".  Why wasn't "get baptized" the answer?

Quote from: churchmember on Wed Nov 07, 2007 - 19:57:25
Sherman,
You know what I mean.   There is no "getting saved" in the denominational sense in the bible. 
We have directives and we have examples and the two are never in conflict. 

I don't boast of my own conversion!    That serves no purpose. 

Now if a man is lost and wants to what to do to be saved, there is a way to explain this to him that can be confidently backed up with scripture.   
But your way is in conflict and not only that but it rests upon highly speculative combinations of assumptions like our friend posted earlier in an attempt to justify infant baptism. 

I find it amusing that there are so many opposed to the truth of baptism that they would side with one that has God in the position of creating souls just to be damned.   That is the implication of the infant baptism position but then not many folks are thinking of the implications anymore of what they teach.     
If an infant is not baptized then he is damned?  Crazy and a lie to boot. 

Churchmember,

Concerning a person being saved, or getting saved, I don't know what you mean, but I'm talking about a person being accepted by God, starting a personal relationship with God, as in being born of the Spirit.  That's what most churches (denominations or non) refer to when they speak of being saved.  It's going for darkness to light, from being a child of satan to being a child of God.  It's not about some day going to heaven, it's about being in the kingdom of heaven today.  That's what getting saved is all about, beginning a relationship with God, being accepted by Him, receiving Christ and being sealed by the Spirit, when the lights came on.

Concerning your reluctance to share your conversion experience, doesn't scpripture say something about overcoming by the blood of the lamb and the word of our testimony.  Didn't Paul share his testimony too.  

Concerning your beliefs about baptism, well, apparently they do not encorporate all of scripture, nor do they reflect the understanding of many people who love the Lord.  For example, you believe that in order to be saved one must be baptized, correct?  But Cornelius and his household were saved, accepted by God, and even baptized with the Holy Spirit based upon their faith and repentance before they were water baptized.  So, apparently salvation is based upon faith and repentance, and not upon water baptism. And they were baptized after they were saved.

Concerning your discussion with others about infant baptism, well, I've run out of time and must go for now, but will respond more later.

Blessings,
Sherman

Brian seems the pattern theologists have temporally left us so I will provide you with the pat answer.   "To understand what the bible is teaching on a subject to have to read all the Bible has to say on a suject.  People were at different points in their jouney toward salvation when they ask what must we do to be save so they got different answers.  You have to read all the acts of conversion to fully understand what one must do to be saved. "  I am a little rusty on my pattern theology but I think that is the jest of the answer you will get.  Later Johnb

Quote from: churchmember on Wed Nov 07, 2007 - 19:57:25
Sherman,
You know what I mean.   There is no "getting saved" in the denominational sense in the bible. 

Getting saved in the denominational sense?  That phrase doesn't make sense to mel.  No, it just doesn't make sense at all.  Who ever talks about "getting saved in the denominational sense"?  I've never heard anyone mention that - even in the "denominations" like church of Christ or Assembly of God.

Me thinks the paternist went to bed early tonight.  I am old and the CMA awars are over so I am going to bed also.  Later Johnb

Churchmember,

Concerning your disagreement with others over infant baptism.  Baptism is compared to circumcision, and circumcision was performed on the 8th day after a male child was born, as a sign of the Covenant of God with the community of faith.  Concerning children who die that have not been circumcized, I'm not sure what those who believe in baptizing children teach concerning that.  But of course, most people accept that God is just and gracious and far more loving than we can even concieve and thus would not damn to hell children that die.  Concerning the "age of accountability", if one considers the wonderings of the children of Israel in the desert before they took the promise land, it was those who were over 20 that were held accountable for their doubt and unbelief.  So maybe the age of accountability isn't until a person is 20.  And women were not accountable for their vows, unless their father or husband agreed to it; so maybe all women will not be held accountable.  Of course, I'm just kidding; the point I'm trying to make is that things are just not laid out as plainly as you think they are.  And, just because someone understands scripture differently than you do doesn't mean they are any more wicked and evil than you are, or love God any less. 

What age is the "age of accountability?  I know the song and dance that it is different for each individual.  So if one child understands the concept of right and wrong before God at age ten and dies one day later without being baptized then he is doomed to hell.  Another child is age 11 and has not come to under stand right and wrong before God and dies also without being baptized the he is safe.  Is that about the gest od it?  Later Johnb