M
-
Christian Chat is a moderated online Christian community allowing Christians around the world to fellowship with each other in real time chat via webcam, voice, and text, with the Christian Chat app. You can also start or participate in a Bible-based discussion here in the Christian Chat Forums, where members can also share with each other their own videos, pictures, or favorite Christian music.
If you are a Christian and need encouragement and fellowship, we're here for you! If you are not a Christian but interested in knowing more about Jesus our Lord, you're also welcome! Want to know what the Bible says, and how you can apply it to your life? Join us!
To make new Christian friends now around the world, click here to join Christian Chat.
I apologize if that is what you took from my reply. I was responding to this part of your comment " "Nothing alone" will save us". It is our belief, faith as it is used here, that leads us to obey his commands. If we are not obeying his commands, do we really believe in him, or are we just saying that we believe in him. So how are we saved? I personally believe (when I mesh all the scriptures relating to salvation together) that it is simply "By grace through faith". I'm sure that others come to a different conclusion. Who is wrong? I'll leave that to others to decide.
Again. I apologize for not being clearer.
M
MsLimpet
Guest
as much as i enjoyed being baptized in H[SUB]2[/SUB]O, and as well as it is that we should do this,
i can't pretend that the book doesn't also say things like this:
And as Moses lifted up the serpent in the wilderness,
even so must the Son of man be lifted up:
That whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have eternal life.
(John 3:14-15)
and this:
if you confess with your mouth that Jesus is Lord
and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved.
(Romans 10:9)
and never says anywhere anything about "the one who is not baptized ... "
but about the one who does not put their trust in Him.
Only Jah saves. there is no other way but through His Son. no amount of works and no amount of water can accomplish this. "salvation is found in no one else"
does that mean one should not be immersed in H[SUB]2[/SUB]O publicly, as a testament of your good conscious toward God? of course not.
but my faith is not in a shadow; it is in the substance.
I AGREE for sure..........It pleased God by the foolishness of preaching to save them that BELIEVE.....rather simple at the the end of the day.......
Believe=saved<-----the simplicity that is in Christ!
Your notion that infants have no sin is unbiblical and therefore false. It stems from your thinking that there is no original sin. We have discussed this elsewhere and you have not been able to refute clear scriptures that have all of mankind, regardless of age, as sinners (Rom.3). Which means that infants are in need of baptism just as much adults.
Having sin is never an issue of age or of mental or intellectual capacity.
Your assertion that infants are incapable of believing is also unbiblical and therefore false. When John the baptist was yet even in his mother's womb, he leaped of joy at the greeting of Mary (Luke 1:41). That means he understood what was happening and had faith in God already at that point.
Believing or not believing in God is never an issue of age or of mental or intellectual capacity.
Children of believers are to be baptized since the covenant promises also applies to them (Acts 2:38-39).
There is nothing in Rom 3 that says infants are born sinners. Paul said of himself in Rom 7:8,9 he was not born a sinner but sin was something that sprang up in him later in his life.
John said sin is transgression of the law. Sin is not just an idea passed from one person to another, Eze 18:2-4, 19.20. Infants have not transgressed the law by lying, stealing ,murder, etc therefore no transgression = not a sinner. Paul said of Jacob and Esau in Rom 9:11 that the unborn twins had done no good or evil. Not having done evil/transgression they were not sinners. Mt 19 Jesus said "Suffer little children, and forbid them not, to come unto me: for of such is the kingdom of heaven" The kingdom of heaven is not made up of lost, unforgiven reprobate sinners. Those with severe mental disability are innocent as infants.
John moving within his mother somehow "proves" he was a believer is too preposterous to be believable. John moved because of the excitement of his mother hearing a loud voice from Mary. Children do move within the mother Gen 25:21,22. Lightfoot's commentary says " For John, while he was an embryo in the womb, knew no more what was then done, than Jacob and Esau when they were in Rebekah's womb knew what was determined concerning them."
In Acts 2:39 "children" in the context refers to descendants not infants.
A
AgeofKnowledge
Guest
Multiple threads are running with this topic. They should be consolidated. Here's my opening response: http://christianchat.com/bible-disc...fant-baptism-heretics-did-do.html#post1912209
Firstly, we have a historical record of the word "Catholic" (e.g. means 'universal' from the Greek καθόλου) being used in the Christian church by Christians to describe themselves and the Christian church as early as 107 AD (see Ignatius of Antioch's Letter to the Smyrnaeans), only about 9 years after the death of John. It would be impossible to assert correctly that all 'Catholics' throughout history are 'heretics' for one would have to damn every Christian from the second century to the Protestant Reformation which would be a blatantly and egregious error to make.
The truth is that it took centuries for Roman Catholicism to emerge as a distinct theological entity [respite with authoritarian false doctrine and practices] from the simple, self governing, independent New Testament Catholic assemblies that existed from the time of the apostles in the first century.
Now let's discuss infant baptism. The most important Christian theologian in Rome in his day was Hippolytus (170 AD–235 AD) who stated, "If [the children] cannot [answer for themselves], let their parents answer, or someone from their family" with respect to water baptism arguing that young children were “covered” by their Christian parents (or guardians if their parents were deceased).
Furthermore, it's important to note that third and fourth-century Christian writers speak of the baptism of infants as an apostolic custom, though in the New Testament itself, the only piece of potentially hard evidence extant from apostolic times is the reference to the baptism of “households” in Acts (up to four cases) and in Paul (once).
The four New Testament references are Acts 10:2 when Cornelius feared God “with all his household [syn panti tō oikō autou],” and Peter was sent to declare to him “a message by which you will be saved, you and all your household [kai pas ho oikos sou]” (Acts 11:14); for Peter’s visit, Cornelius called together “his relatives and close friends” (Acts 10:24), and when “the Holy Spirit fell on all who heard the word” spoken by Peter (Acts 10:44), the apostle commanded them [all] to be baptized (Acts 10:48); Acts 16:14–15, Lydia, whose heart the Lord had opened to Paul’s message, “was baptized, and her household [kai ho oikos autēs]”; Acts 16:31–32, Paul and Silas told the Philippian jailor “Believe in the Lord Jesus, and you will be saved, you and your household [su kai ho oikos sou],” and they “spoke the word of the Lord to him and to all that were in his house [pasin tois en tē oikia autou]”; at once the jailor “was baptized, and all those belonging to him [kai hoi autou hapantes]” (Acts 16:33), and “he rejoiced with all his household [panoikei] that he had believed in God” (Acts 16:34); and Acts 18:8, “Crispus, the ruler of the synagogue, believed in the Lord, together with all his household [syn holō tō oikō autou]; and many of the Corinthians hearing Paul believed and were baptized.” In 1 Corinthians 1:16 Paul writes that he “baptized the household of Stephen [ton Stephana oikon],” “the firstfruits of Achaia,” who “have devoted themselves to the service of the saints” (1 Cor 16:15).
As the story is told in some of these cases, it may be possible to equate the baptized with those who heard the word and believed, but in others the “household” that was “saved” may have been more extensive. In particular, those looking for apostolic evidence of infant baptism argue that the “households” which were “saved” and “baptized” will have included infants. However, in the estimation of those opposed to infant baptism, infants can hardly be said to have heard the word and believed and so will not have been baptized.
I will take the position that infant baptism certainly may have occurred historically in the church before the fourth century; however, it is not a theological requirement nor substitute for water immersion by one who has reached an age of where they can decide for themselves.
[Theological note: The classical modern debate on the early history of infant baptism is that between scholars Joachim Jeremias arguing for (see the 2004 edition of 'Infant Baptism in the First Four Centuries' by Joachim Jeremias) and Kurt Aland arguing against (see the 2004 edition of 'Did the Early Church Baptize Infants?' by Kurt Aland)].
Reference the 'Dictionary of the later New Testament and its developments. 1997 (R. P. Martin & P. H. Davids, Ed.) Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press. for a summary of that debate.
Firstly, we have a historical record of the word "Catholic" (e.g. means 'universal' from the Greek καθόλου) being used in the Christian church by Christians to describe themselves and the Christian church as early as 107 AD (see Ignatius of Antioch's Letter to the Smyrnaeans), only about 9 years after the death of John. It would be impossible to assert correctly that all 'Catholics' throughout history are 'heretics' for one would have to damn every Christian from the second century to the Protestant Reformation which would be a blatantly and egregious error to make.
The truth is that it took centuries for Roman Catholicism to emerge as a distinct theological entity [respite with authoritarian false doctrine and practices] from the simple, self governing, independent New Testament Catholic assemblies that existed from the time of the apostles in the first century.
Now let's discuss infant baptism. The most important Christian theologian in Rome in his day was Hippolytus (170 AD–235 AD) who stated, "If [the children] cannot [answer for themselves], let their parents answer, or someone from their family" with respect to water baptism arguing that young children were “covered” by their Christian parents (or guardians if their parents were deceased).
Furthermore, it's important to note that third and fourth-century Christian writers speak of the baptism of infants as an apostolic custom, though in the New Testament itself, the only piece of potentially hard evidence extant from apostolic times is the reference to the baptism of “households” in Acts (up to four cases) and in Paul (once).
The four New Testament references are Acts 10:2 when Cornelius feared God “with all his household [syn panti tō oikō autou],” and Peter was sent to declare to him “a message by which you will be saved, you and all your household [kai pas ho oikos sou]” (Acts 11:14); for Peter’s visit, Cornelius called together “his relatives and close friends” (Acts 10:24), and when “the Holy Spirit fell on all who heard the word” spoken by Peter (Acts 10:44), the apostle commanded them [all] to be baptized (Acts 10:48); Acts 16:14–15, Lydia, whose heart the Lord had opened to Paul’s message, “was baptized, and her household [kai ho oikos autēs]”; Acts 16:31–32, Paul and Silas told the Philippian jailor “Believe in the Lord Jesus, and you will be saved, you and your household [su kai ho oikos sou],” and they “spoke the word of the Lord to him and to all that were in his house [pasin tois en tē oikia autou]”; at once the jailor “was baptized, and all those belonging to him [kai hoi autou hapantes]” (Acts 16:33), and “he rejoiced with all his household [panoikei] that he had believed in God” (Acts 16:34); and Acts 18:8, “Crispus, the ruler of the synagogue, believed in the Lord, together with all his household [syn holō tō oikō autou]; and many of the Corinthians hearing Paul believed and were baptized.” In 1 Corinthians 1:16 Paul writes that he “baptized the household of Stephen [ton Stephana oikon],” “the firstfruits of Achaia,” who “have devoted themselves to the service of the saints” (1 Cor 16:15).
As the story is told in some of these cases, it may be possible to equate the baptized with those who heard the word and believed, but in others the “household” that was “saved” may have been more extensive. In particular, those looking for apostolic evidence of infant baptism argue that the “households” which were “saved” and “baptized” will have included infants. However, in the estimation of those opposed to infant baptism, infants can hardly be said to have heard the word and believed and so will not have been baptized.
I will take the position that infant baptism certainly may have occurred historically in the church before the fourth century; however, it is not a theological requirement nor substitute for water immersion by one who has reached an age of where they can decide for themselves.
[Theological note: The classical modern debate on the early history of infant baptism is that between scholars Joachim Jeremias arguing for (see the 2004 edition of 'Infant Baptism in the First Four Centuries' by Joachim Jeremias) and Kurt Aland arguing against (see the 2004 edition of 'Did the Early Church Baptize Infants?' by Kurt Aland)].
Reference the 'Dictionary of the later New Testament and its developments. 1997 (R. P. Martin & P. H. Davids, Ed.) Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press. for a summary of that debate.
Acts 2:38
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.
KJV
for There are at least 9 Greek words translated as 'for' if pros had been used it would mean 'in order to receive' but the preposition used is eis. Eis can mean a number of things including in light of, in recognition of, or because of.
Repentence that includes faith and trust in Jesus is sufficient for salvation.
Baptism is an act of obedience after salvation in which the believer identifies with Jesus in His death burial and ressurection.
If a person trusts in Jesus for salvation and is physically unable to be baptised or dies before they have opportunity to be baptised they are still saved.
also , contrary to 'common' fleshly belief, immersion (i.e. BURIAL) was always the practice.
not just in water, btw.
immersion also of the whole life in yahshua. not just a couple hours a week, nor 'convenient' nor 'comfortable' times and practices - nor what a person was 'willing' to give up.... no. everything - immersed in yahshua, all the time, abiding in constant union with yahweh in yahshua ; yes, union with Him always.
a far far cry from the heretical infant sprkling..... and heretical doctrines 'accepted' by the flesh, taught by demons, 'loved' by the wicked flesh and the world... denying yahshua as lord and promoting carnal and fleshly and demonic traditions of man in the one world church always.
not just in water, btw.
immersion also of the whole life in yahshua. not just a couple hours a week, nor 'convenient' nor 'comfortable' times and practices - nor what a person was 'willing' to give up.... no. everything - immersed in yahshua, all the time, abiding in constant union with yahweh in yahshua ; yes, union with Him always.
a far far cry from the heretical infant sprkling..... and heretical doctrines 'accepted' by the flesh, taught by demons, 'loved' by the wicked flesh and the world... denying yahshua as lord and promoting carnal and fleshly and demonic traditions of man in the one world church always.
If you believe that baptismis essential to salvation; I will conceed the point to this extent:
When a person receives the gift of saving faith (Eph 2:9) through God's grace; the Holy Spirit enters and abides in that person.
When John the Baptizer spoke of Jesus baptizing with fire; this is the baptism he spoke of. There is sound reason to dispute whether John was a Baptist since that denomination did not exist until more than 11 centuries later.
When a person receives the gift of saving faith (Eph 2:9) through God's grace; the Holy Spirit enters and abides in that person.
When John the Baptizer spoke of Jesus baptizing with fire; this is the baptism he spoke of. There is sound reason to dispute whether John was a Baptist since that denomination did not exist until more than 11 centuries later.
john was called john the immerser by the Jews. a lot of things the Jews (followers of Yahshua and not) and John the immerser believed were intrinsically and basically and crucially very different
from the much later
baptist denomination, if that's what you're referring to.
[h=1] Mark 1:4Complete Jewish Bible (CJB)[/h] [SUP]4 [/SUP]So it was that Yochanan the Immerser appeared in the desert, proclaiming an immersion involving turning to God from sin in order to be forgiven.
Complete Jewish Bible (CJB) Copyright © 1998 by David H. Stern. All rights reserved.
from the much later
baptist denomination, if that's what you're referring to.
[h=1] Mark 1:4Complete Jewish Bible (CJB)[/h] [SUP]4 [/SUP]So it was that Yochanan the Immerser appeared in the desert, proclaiming an immersion involving turning to God from sin in order to be forgiven.
Complete Jewish Bible (CJB) Copyright © 1998 by David H. Stern. All rights reserved.
Last edited:
I would read the KJ and then compare. I have never heard of Yochanan is that a eastern god or sumpin?
Catholics do not believe that people are born with a sin nature - Pelagianism, that there isn't something inherently wrong with human beings, I don't know how you get infant baptism and pelagianism together
J
JesusistheChrist
Guest
I choose the Spirit, the water and the blood:
"And there are three that bear witness in earth, the spirit, and the water, and the blood: and these three agree in one." (I John 5:8)
J
JesusistheChrist
Guest
Luke chapter 6
[46] And why call ye me, Lord, Lord, and do not the things which I say?
[47] Whosoever cometh to me, and heareth my sayings, and doeth them, I will shew you to whom he is like:
[48] He is like a man which built an house, and digged deep, and laid the foundation on a rock: and when the flood arose, the stream beat vehemently upon that house, and could not shake it: for it was founded upon a rock.
[49] But he that heareth, and doeth not, is like a man that without a foundation built an house upon the earth; against which the stream did beat vehemently, and immediately it fell; and the ruin of that house was great.
J
JesusistheChrist
Guest
Before Moses ever lifted up the serpent in the wilderness, all of the Israelites partook of the Passover lamb (a "type" of the crucified Christ), they all passed through the Red Sea (a "type" of water baptism) and they were all led by a cloud by day and a pillar of fire by night (a "type" of being baptized by the Holy Ghost and fire). Again, there are three which agree on this earth:
The Spirit, the water and the blood and we'd be wise not to ignore any of them.
I've already addressed Romans 10:9 on this thread. Again, if you truly believe that Jesus was raised from the dead, then you'll be water baptized in that such is the answer of a good conscience towards God. If one refuses water baptism? Well, that's an answer, too, but it's the answer of a bad conscience against God.
J
JesusistheChrist
Guest
The scriptures do mesh:
John chapter 3
[16] For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life.
[17] For God sent not his Son into the world to condemn the world; but that the world through him might be saved.
In order to be saved, we need to believe in God's "only BEGOTTEN Son".
Well, what does the word "begotten" mean when used in relation to Jesus Christ?
I could easily take you through every usage of it in the New Testament in relation to Jesus Christ to prove my point, but for now I'll only cite you one example:
Acts chapter 13
[26] Men and brethren, children of the stock of Abraham, and whosoever among you feareth God, to you is the word of this salvation sent.
[27] For they that dwell at Jerusalem, and their rulers, because they knew him not, nor yet the voices of the prophets which are read every sabbath day, they have fulfilled them in condemning him.
[28] And though they found no cause of death in him, yet desired they Pilate that he should be slain.
[29] And when they had fulfilled all that was written of him, they took him down from the tree, and laid him in a sepulchre.
[30] But God raised him from the dead:
[31] And he was seen many days of them which came up with him from Galilee to Jerusalem, who are his witnesses unto the people.
[32] And we declare unto you glad tidings, how that the promise which was made unto the fathers,
[33] God hath fulfilled the same unto us their children, in that he hath raised up Jesus again; as it is also written in the second psalm, Thou art my Son, this day have I begotten thee.
In fulfillment of what had been prophesied in the second Psalm, Jesus Christ was "begotten" on the day in which God raised Him from the dead. As such, to truly BELIEVE in God's "only BEGOTTEN" Son", one needs to BELIEVE in not only Christ's crucifixion WHICH IS INSUFFICIENT TO SAVE BY ITSELF, but ALSO in Christ's resurrection from the dead. Friends, if Christ hasn't been raised from the dead, THEN WE ARE STILL IN OUR SINS AND HOPELESSLY LOST:
I Corinthians chapter 15
[12] Now if Christ be preached that he rose from the dead, how say some among you that there is no resurrection of the dead?
[13] But if there be no resurrection of the dead, then is Christ not risen:
[14] And if Christ be not risen, then is our preaching vain, and your faith is also vain.
[15] Yea, and we are found false witnesses of God; because we have testified of God that he raised up Christ: whom he raised not up, if so be that the dead rise not.
[16] For if the dead rise not, then is not Christ raised:
[17] And if Christ be not raised, your faith is vain; ye are yet in your sins.
[18] Then they also which are fallen asleep in Christ are perished.
Look...
Anybody who truly BELIEVES that Christ was BOTH crucified AND raised from the dead will follow the Lord in the rite of water baptism. Anybody who truly doesn't BELIEVE the same won't. Period.
It's both scary and sickening to me that so many people are willing to spend hours/days/weeks/months/years of their lives arguing about how we allegedly don't need to be water baptized when it takes but a minute to actually be water baptized.
I honestly stand in doubt of some of you...