Maybe they just don’t find them all that compelling. :nope:
I would like to know, hoosierdaddy, if you believe that baptism is necessary for salvation? Do you believe in infant baptism? You don’t believe in free will. So what do you think of free-will Baptists?
This is from the Church of Christ (tahoechurchofchrist.com/baptism.htm)
.
Thanks, Della.
The godless and fanatical opinions of the Anabaptists. I guess Luther did not subscribe to the essential vs. non-essential contsruct, at least when it came to baptism. He certainly showed no love to his Protestant brothers (Anabaptists). Luther clearly saw infant baptism as biblical, yet other Protestants do not. Moreover, there is no clear indication of infant baptism in the Bible. In fact, the belief in infant baptism came down to us in clearer form through Sacred Tradition.
I don’t think baptism is essential in the sense that I do not consider those who have different views as not my brothers and sisters in Christ. Do I consider it important? Of course! I wouldn’t join a church that didn’t practice infant baptism. Even Catholicism considers churches that don’t believe in baptismal regeneration or infant baptism as Christians, so how essential do you really think it is? Would you consider someone who denies the Trinity as a Christian? My point was not that there were no Protestants who believe this, but that you said there were many. So I was asking you to document some of the many.
If baptism is of utmost importance what is the Trinity? Super Duper utmost? I don’t believe Jesus is talking about Baptism in John 3:5. Neither do I believe baptism is mandatory for salvation.
You are begging the question in reference to Jesus saying baptism is necessary for salvation. I don’t see it as necessary for salvation either, so I agree with the Baptist on this point.
Yes, baptism divides in the sense that worship in different denominations, but it doesn’t divide in the most important sense, that is we don’t consider each other brothers and sisters.
You mean they consider baptismal regeneration as incompatible with justification by faith alone. I too don’t see how the two concepts fit together, but I don’t condemn those(i.e. Lutherans ) who do.
I have granted that we have disagreements on baptism, but my point is the overwhelming majority of us still consider each other brothers and sisters. No, I do not believe in baptismal regeneration.
I don’t think this is the right thread to get into a discussion of infant baptism, but believe me I have biblical reasons. My position had been a credo-baptist for most of my life and didn’t change it without believing there was biblical reasons for it.
Michael, you are swinging at the wind. I’ve never said there was not disagreement. This is not the issue. My point was simply that it is not essential and this is demonstrated that Protestants with different views on the subject by large still consider each brothers and sisters.
The anabaptists had many more problems then baptism. However, Luther consider Reformers who didn’t believe in baptismal regeneration as brothers in the Reformation.
Your position was that Scripture is God’s final and full revelation, so the Gospel (or Good News…of Jesus) would by the very essence of this statement be required to be found (in it’s entirety) within the Scriptures. My original question still remains unaddressed…if Scripture is God’s final and full revelation, where does it say as much in the Scripture. Philipians 3:18 , “For many walk, of whom I have told you often, and now tell you even weeping, that they are the enemies of the cross of Christ”, would have to be fairly creatively reconstructed to support ANY position you have taken thus far.Now, in regards to the previous post…they are not “loaded questions”, they are very legitimate. You just can’t answer them without conflicting with your own presupposed theology.
**Yes they are. I think I did a pretty fine job answering it myself. :dancing: **
Pushing that aside, where in the Scripture does it say that doctrinal unity is based on the Gospel ? Next question, in logical procession, is, can you qualify what the definition of “Gospel” is ? Catholics contend that your statement about doctrine is true, but the Gospel is not confined to the books Matthew, Mark, Luke and John, but is the total message of Jesus the Christ as He entrusted it to His Apostles. Your mission, should you choose to accept it, is to prove Scripturally that the Gospel message is limited to the first four books of the New Testament and nothing else.
The Gospel is “Good News”. Basically, the death and resurrection of Jesus Christ done on behalf of sinners to give them the free gift of eternal life if they believe in Him. He then promises that He will never cast them out, that they have "eternal life’, etc. I’m sure you will find every Protestant Christian to believe in this. The question is, do you?
EVERY Christian (even Catholics !!!) believe this, and I wonder what exactly “essential doctrine” consists of, but that is also another thread.
Perhaps Philippians 3:18? I’m sure there are more. The heart of the Bible is Christ and the Gospel. Doctrinal unity is based on the Gospel. If one Church believes in quiet reverance but another Church believes in dancing and clapping and singing with loud voices, what does it matter? Their doctrinal unity is in the Gospel. LOL you assume that I believe the Gospel to be limited to the first four books of the New Testament?I’ll get back to you when I can stop laughing.
Karl Keating’s book is called “Catholicism and Fundamentalism”. The book exposes the fallicies in the beliefs held by fundamentalist christians. You know, showing that the sola scriptura is not biblical, and many other of the beliefs held as “gospel” by fundamentalists.
Thanks for the correction. Now do you understand the context of my remark? I said someone on this board was a Catholic fundamentalist and it was called an insult. My point in return is that Karl Keating’s book is labeling Protestants as fundamentalists. Is that an insult?
No I haven’t, but I’ve probably heard all the arguments he makes one way or the other.
Sorry about that. I typically don’t proof, because of time constraints. I’m typing off the top of my head and my brain is moving faster than my fingers. The last sentence was my attempt to say, just as Keating believers there are many Protestant fundamentalists( and I would agree him), I also believe there are just as many Catholic fundamentialists.
Do you consider Jehovah Witnesses as your brothers? If not, then clearly you must have some kind of super essential distinction which they have broken. What is it?
That puts you at odds with the Church of Christ and other Protestant denominations. Anway, the ecumenical vision you have of Protestantism (we’re all brothers and sisters) is not a universally accepted fact among Protestantism. So I’ll add that to my list of things that divide Protestantism. I enjoy listening to a variety of Protestant programs, and I can assure you that not every Protestant denomination has this ecumenical vision. The programs I listen to range from Harold Camping’s Family Radio and Open Forums to the “Bible Answerman” and “the White Horse Inn.”
Of course. I’m sorry, if you got the impression that I was saying all Protestants were in perfect agreement. I was only trying to get you to document the many. You know we have 33,000 denominations and so far you have only mentioned 2 or 3
In general beliefs about Baptism does not separate Protestants. As a matter of fact we have people in our church who do not believe in infant baptism.Of course not. I don’t even consider all Protestants my brothers. However, I think Catholics often over hype the situation for polemical purposes.
All, I ask is that you be consistent. So if our disagreement on any point of doctrine means we are divided then apply the same standard to your church. And I can list a lot of them.
You are hitting at the wind Michael. I must have said something to lead you to believe that I thought “every” Protestant thought this way. Of course I know better than that. By the way, I’m a White Horse Inn type of Protestant. As you may have noticed, they have a Lutheran, a Reformed Baptist, and two URC members.
Where are the threads? Maybe I will chime in on one. In short though infant baptism is one of those things that result from good and necessary consequence. It carries over the Old Testament pattern of the children of adults who are in covenant with God are also included in the covenant. The NT nowhere rescinds this. The typical argument of show me where the NT says to baptism infants is a caricature of sola Scriptura just like the Catholic claim of show me where the Scriptures says it is the only infallible rule of faith. Nowhere does the Scripture say women are to receive communion, yet all credo-baptists allow them to partake. So, there are many other arguments that could be made from Scripture that I think are much stronger than the credo arguments.
Of course these are just assertions my friend. What evidence do you have that this is what the Apostles taught? Can you provide some documentation? I know they taught what a Bishop(i.e. Elder ) and a Deacon are. I believe the Scriptures teach we should baptize infants. I believe there is an apostolic succession based on the teaching of the Apostles and not a physical lineage( Old Covenant people used that one and it didn’t work ). Could you document the prayers for the dead or even the modern day Catholic view of priest?
I would need several posts and do more research to list all of the differences among Protestants. Baptism is a key issue that divides Protestants because some say it is necessary for salvation while others say it is not. They might ignore this difference, but the difference remains and it is substantial.Of course. I’m sorry, if you got the impression that I was saying all Protestants were in perfect agreement. I was only trying to get you to document the many. You know we have 33,000 denominations and so far you have only mentioned 2 or 3
Of course not. I don’t even consider all Protestants my brothers. However, I think Catholics often over hype the situation for polemical purposes.
All, I ask is that you be consistent. So if our disagreement on any point of doctrine means we are divided then apply the same standard to your church. And I can list a lot of them.
You are hitting at the wind Michael. I must have said something to lead you to believe that I thought “every” Protestant thought this way. Of course I know better than that. By the way, I’m a White Horse Inn type of Protestant. As you may have noticed, they have a Lutheran, a Reformed Baptist, and two URC members.
Where are the threads? Maybe I will chime in on one. In short though infant baptism is one of those things that result from good and necessary consequence. It carries over the Old Testament pattern of the children of adults who are in covenant with God are also included in the covenant. The NT nowhere rescinds this. The typical argument of show me where the NT says to baptism infants is a caricature of sola Scriptura just like the Catholic claim of show me where the Scriptures says it is the only infallible rule of faith. Nowhere does the Scripture say women are to receive communion, yet all credo-baptists allow them to partake. So, there are many other arguments that could be made from Scripture that I think are much stronger than the credo arguments.
Of course these are just assertions my friend. What evidence do you have that this is what the Apostles taught? Can you provide some documentation? I know they taught what a Bishop(i.e. Elder ) and a Deacon are. I believe the Scriptures teach we should baptize infants. I believe there is an apostolic succession based on the teaching of the Apostles and not a physical lineage( Old Covenant people used that one and it didn’t work ). Could you document the prayers for the dead or even the modern day Catholic view of priest?
There are a very few Protestants who say Baptism is necessary for salvation. Furthermore, you have understand what they mean when they say it. For example if a Lutheran says, but believes in justification by faith alone and people can be saved without it, then I don’t have a problem with that.
No one ignores the difference, but you want to make differences on baptism as an essential. I don’t see it as an essential in the sense that I still consider those with different beliefs about it as my brothers and sisters. However, I consider the Trinity an essential and therefore if we disagree we can have no fellowship.
There is no comparison between the scriptural argument for infant baptism and that of Papal Infallibility and the Marian dogmas. The analogy you are making is way beyond credulity.
Well everybody makes inference. Inferences are made that women should receive communion and inferences are made about the Trinity. Just because someone makes an argument against a position that does not make it a good or consistent argument. You have to learn just because someone says something that doesn’t mean you have refuted the principle I’m putting forth. You can always find someone who believes anything.
No, this isn’t going to work. When I make an argument I don’t tell you to go check out a book. Give the quotation and make your argument and then we can take it from there.
Actually I believe in infant baptism, but I don’t believe in baptismal regeneration. You seem to think that these two must go together.
Thanks, I will check it out. Not promising you I will enter into the fray just because the few Protestants here are already outnumbered so I don’t need to pile on.
There are many Protestants who see the arguments on infant baptism as being way beyond credulity. Papal infallibilty I infer from the promise Jesus made in Matthew 16:18-19 and the fact that the church is the pillar and foundation of truth. The marian dogmas I infer from Genesis 3:15, the first chapters of the Gospel of Luke, John 2, and John 19:26. This is reaffirmed by the constant teaching of the Church Fathers concerning Mary being the New Eve.