John, what can I say??? This proves one of these two things:
hell…
bite your own self in the
bum, & you don’t even realize it!!Ah, but, Eden, that would be too reasonable!! You must follow bibleapologist’s
“logic”:
always right.
… )Zooey…you forgot to carry this to the end…After premise #2 you have to say:Ah, but, Eden, that would be too reasonable!! You must follow bibleapologist’s
Therefore, Whitsitt ishttp://bestsmileys.com/clueless/4.gif always wrong.
- Bibleapologist is a Baptist, & Baptists are
- Whitsitt disagrees with bibleapologist.
Ah, you may say, but Whitsitt is himself a Baptist?? Follow once more:
Therefore, Whitsitt doesn’t count!!
- Whitsitt:yup: stands to disprove bibleapologist’s argument.
- Bibleapologist:bigyikes: can’t have any of that!!
(Did I mention that I come from a long line of Baptists? I have had this http://bestsmileys.com/movingeyes/5.gifconversation again & again & again & again & again & again & again & again & :yawn:
Where does the phrase “spiritual baptism” appear in the Bible?"
It seems to me that the real issue to be determined is which is the Church which Jesus Christ founded. There are a few things that we know about this Church. They are as follows:
I’m sorry, but if my son, who has a mild form of autism, is never to understand fully the Gospel, you’re telling me I’m not to Baptize him?
Notworthy…your child is as welcome to the sacrament of baptism as any other child is
Here we have a good example of how the misinterpretation of one doctrine, which seems miniscule… ends up facilitating a whole plethora of doctrinal divergence.
So, a newborn baby is not a sinner… but that baby is born dead spiritually. That baby is not in need of forgiveness at birth, but is in need of a new birth… a spiritual new birth.
Odell, like I pointed out already, being born of water is your physical birth (from your mother’s womb). Jesus was saying that you must be born again… but first you must be born. Jesus was not referring to baptism.
You are spot on. All these arguments about doctrines will boil down to the authority issue. BA needs to prove that the only authority for religious dogma and praxis is the bible (leaving aside for now the whole question of the canon).
Karin, I know that, and you know that, but…Notworthy…your child is as welcome to the sacrament of baptism as any other child is
Baptism is not the initiation into the New Covenant… Spiritual birth is. Just as circumcision was not the initiation into the Abrahamic Covenant… being born of Abraham’s seed was.
Abraham was justified by his faith that God would do what He said He would. God made a covenant with Abraham AND HIS SEED (which is everyone born of his posterity).
Baptism is the outward expression of that inward circumcision… just as circumcision was an outward expression of that previous birth of Abraham’s seed which identified that child as an heir to the promise of Canaan.
A bold claim that you should’ve started a new thread to discuss, honestly.
“Therefore as sin came into the world through one man and death through sin, and so death spread to all because all sinned” Is this perhaps a case where “all” doesn’t mean “all,” John? Where “all” means “only those people who can commit actual sin”? Catholics take this passage at its face value: all have sinned, whether by contracting original sin from their participation on Adam’s sin, or by actually sinning themselves.
He’s in need of a new birth because he’s in need of a new Father, since his first father sinned and brought destruction on the world.
It doesn’t say spiritual death, it only says death.
And it says nothing of that sort either. Death doesn’t facilitate sin. Death is sin full-grown (James 1:15). Death is facilitated by sin. Oh Death, where is thy sting? The sting of death is sin.
Maybe you should baptize them and they can receive the Holy Spirit. For the promise is to you and your children and to all who are far off.
Pointing it out is not an argument. Provide historical and biblical support for your claims.
I’m glad our Lord decided to say such terribly obvious things. He was indeed the Good Teacher
That’s pure conjecture, only invented to substantiate a late development in theology. Please, show us patristic sources for this interpretation. Or, perhaps, when you find that lacking, you can show us where, in Greek literature, “born of water” ever referred to natural childbirth. When you find no evidence of that, perhaps you might consider giving up your anachronistic interpretation of John 3 and adopted the true, the historical, the Traditional interpretation.
Actually, he needs to prove more than that. He needs to prove that the only authority for religious dogma and praxis is himself interpreting the Bible.
No, you are looking at the earthly meaning. How else could a gentile, not born of Abraham’s seed, be welcome into the Covenant. Jesus, being the seed of Abraham’s, fulfills the covenental promise of God’s. In Baptism, we become part of this family.
Again, the OT laws foreshadow the NT Covenant. Whereas circumcision is symbolic of removing this uncleeaness, Baptism now saves you. It washes away the sins fulfilling what was promised in circumcision.
That’s where are two trains part tracks. Our repentence occurs before, during, and after our justification, which you well know that Catholics teach is a continuing process. We can attain Justification, lose it, and regain it.
Not unless they sealed their covenental promise by circumcision. That’s why gentiles HAD to be circumcised in order to enter the covenant, and not before.
I’m not sure if I agree totally with this statement. Abraham may be a type of Christ, but I see Abraham as a type of the Christian. He justified himself through his actions of faith, and he often failed, and then he justified himself again through his acts of faith. This sounds like the typical Christian repenting, falling, and repenting again.
Then you are not following the edicts of the Early Church even from biblical times. Baptism has ALWAYS been a rite of initiation into the Church. The Didache makes this claim in the first century, and numerous Church Fathers
John, with all do respect, I’d rather read Church doctrine, for I find that it rarely agrees with what you teach.
Baptism is how spiritual birth happens. That’s why the “washing of regeneration” in Titus has always been understood to refer to baptism. That why those who are “in Christ” are made “new creations” as per 2 Corinthians, and why baptism is the only biblical method for getting “into Christ” (Romans 6 and Galatians 3).
Was not Abraham our father justified by works, when he offered his son Isaac upon the altar?
The covenant was primarily between God and Abraham. It was only later extended to Abraham’s posterity (as one of the promises of the covenant).
It was more than just a sign. “Any uncircumcized male who is not circumcized in the flesh of his foreskin shall be cut off from his people; he has broken my covenant.”
If it was symbolic of repentance, why were 8 day-old babies circumcized?
Where do you get that? What have 8 day-old babies repented of?
It was also their circumcision, as per the verse I quoted earlier. Not to be circumcized is to reject the covenant.
Peter taught that it was through baptism (and repentance) that we receive the Holy Spirit, but you teach that the Holy Spirit indwells us through baptism. Who should we believe?
). I’ve seen the number of “Systematic Theology” books on the shelves of my local bookstore. I do not underestimate the power of the human intellect to explain things until it resolves its own cognitive dissonance, usually in favor of remaining in its current state of belief.