Baptism confusion

[Timothy_Piper]

I suppose you imagine Noah and his family escaped the **sprinkling **of rain?

This all “interesting” spiritualizing but does not hold water with respect to deeper theology. The Arc has deeper theological dimension. It both The Church as the Body of Christ AND the Bride of Christ being purified and brought safely through the deluge.

You are disordered in trying to draw parallels between the word “seal” viz the the door to the Arc. The seal of the Holy Spirit is a MARK (as in a signet ring’s seal) NOT a seal in the sense of virginity as you would attempt to make it here (although there are valid theological connections to Mary here as the Arc of the Covenant). You are mixing too many metaphors and cross-wiring semantics because you completely lack any apostolic context and are trying to reverse engineer the bible to fit to your preconceived and externally taught private revelations that somone without any biblical scholarship or apostolic teaching has put into your head.

This is complete hooey. Christ came to save not to judge and condemn. The second coming is when He comes as Just Judge. When Christ spoke in parables He ALWAYS gave an explanation. The parables were used to silence and confound the wise and to silence and humble them. They immediately put Jesus in the role of teacher-student relationship since none could fathom divine wisdom without his teachings. And this is another reason why you should not try to invent your own interpretations of scripture outside of the apostolic teaching context.

It sounds to me like your modus operandi here is all based on a gnostic like search for hidden wisdom and mysteries locked away in hidden scripture meaning. But the core gospel message is very simple really - repent - be baptised - love God and neighbor (charity) – pray - be merciful to each other - stay true to teachings and the authority of The Church as the pillar and foundation of Truth.

You are using these forums as a sounding board to flesh out a new theology that works for you. But Christianity while highly compatible with reason is not premised on head knowledge but rather the law of love written on each man’s heart. God has a plan for The children and the mentally handicapped who lack the intellectual facilities - its called baptism.

This is just not so. The very first message we hear is “REPENT for the kingdom of God is at hand.” Before Christ even chose any apostles it was just John the Baptist BAPTISING a baptism of repentance. Christ kicked it up a notch when he entered the waters and sanctified them by his Holy presence and preached that we must be baptised. But the BREATH of God, the very same breath that danced over the oceans of earth in Genesis before there was land was AGAIN breathed on ADAM and AGAIN on The Apostles when Chrsist gave the apostolic authority to forgive sins and baptise in his name and teach His gospel. No one but the apostolic Church, the Catholic Church has this God breathed authority and guarantee of guidance by the Holy Spirit.

A prayer that is said daily in Catholic masses world wide has a passage from Zacharias’s Prophecy:
Luke 1:76-77 And you, child, will be called the prophet of the Most High;
For you will go on BEFORE THE LORD TO PREPARE HIS WAYS; 77 To give to His people the knowledge of salvation By the forgiveness of their sins,

Did you see and hear that? BY THE FORGIVENESS OF THEIR SINS is what ushers in the teaching of salvation. And it all starts with John the Baptist doing what? Teaching salvation by repentance and baptism and Christ ratifying it be submitting to baptism also.

Your other SERIOUSLY flaw here is imagining that salvation is a one time event and done deal after speaking some magical words (sinner’s prayer???) or after gaining some head knowledge (it’s just too bad for the out of luck and grace children and mentally handicapped huh?).

You have So many errors and poor assumptions in your thinking and personal theology that its very hard to even know where to start to help get you sorted out here.

We need to take your zeal and get in harnessed to a true apostolic teaching framework and directed toward building up Christ’s Church.

James

Thank you for even more blessing James; I count it as all joy and praise God for folks like you and pray He will one day soon give you the blessings you have given me for His Namesake.

I will not respond to you from this point forward unless it is warranted; you are not here to learn nor to teach, but rather to slander those that disagree with your preconceived notions as you have demonstrated on only two posts. I wish you the very best in your religious walk. God bless >)

 

[Randy_Carson]

I suppose you imagine Noah and his family escaped the **sprinkling **of rain?

This all “interesting” spiritualizing but does not hold water with respect to deeper theology. The Arc has deeper theological dimension. It both The Church as the Body of Christ AND the Bride of Christ being purified and brought safely through the deluge.

You are disordered in trying to draw parallels between the word “seal” viz the the door to the Arc. The seal of the Holy Spirit is a MARK (as in a signet ring’s seal) NOT a seal in the sense of virginity as you would attempt to make it here (although there are valid theological connections to Mary here as the Arc of the Covenant). You are mixing too many metaphors and cross-wiring semantics because you completely lack any apostolic context and are trying to reverse engineer the bible to fit to your preconceived and externally taught private revelations that somone without any biblical scholarship or apostolic teaching has put into your head.

This is complete hooey. Christ came to save not to judge and condemn. The second coming is when He comes as Just Judge. When Christ spoke in parables He ALWAYS gave an explanation. The parables were used to silence and confound the wise and to silence and humble them. They immediately put Jesus in the role of teacher-student relationship since none could fathom divine wisdom without his teachings. And this is another reason why you should not try to invent your own interpretations of scripture outside of the apostolic teaching context.

It sounds to me like your modus operandi here is all based on a gnostic like search for hidden wisdom and mysteries locked away in hidden scripture meaning. But the core gospel message is very simple really - repent - be baptised - love God and neighbor (charity) – pray - be merciful to each other - stay true to teachings and the authority of The Church as the pillar and foundation of Truth.

You are using these forums as a sounding board to flesh out a new theology that works for you. But Christianity while highly compatible with reason is not premised on head knowledge but rather the law of love written on each man’s heart. God has a plan for The children and the mentally handicapped who lack the intellectual facilities - its called baptism.

This is just not so. The very first message we hear is “REPENT for the kingdom of God is at hand.” Before Christ even chose any apostles it was just John the Baptist BAPTISING a baptism of repentance. Christ kicked it up a notch when he entered the waters and sanctified them by his Holy presence and preached that we must be baptised. But the BREATH of God, the very same breath that danced over the oceans of earth in Genesis before there was land was AGAIN breathed on ADAM and AGAIN on The Apostles when Chrsist gave the apostolic authority to forgive sins and baptise in his name and teach His gospel. No one but the apostolic Church, the Catholic Church has this God breathed authority and guarantee of guidance by the Holy Spirit.

A prayer that is said daily in Catholic masses world wide has a passage from Zacharias’s Prophecy:
Luke 1:76-77 And you, child, will be called the prophet of the Most High;
For you will go on BEFORE THE LORD TO PREPARE HIS WAYS; 77 To give to His people the knowledge of salvation By the forgiveness of their sins,

Did you see and hear that? BY THE FORGIVENESS OF THEIR SINS is what ushers in the teaching of salvation. And it all starts with John the Baptist doing what? Teaching salvation by repentance and baptism and Christ ratifying it be submitting to baptism also.

Your other SERIOUSLY flaw here is imagining that salvation is a one time event and done deal after speaking some magical words (sinner’s prayer???) or after gaining some head knowledge (it’s just too bad for the out of luck and grace children and mentally handicapped huh?).

You have So many errors and poor assumptions in your thinking and personal theology that its very hard to even know where to start to help get you sorted out here.

We need to take your zeal and get in harnessed to a true apostolic teaching framework and directed toward building up Christ’s Church.

James

Well said, and welcome back.

I’ve missed you in these threads, brother. What kept you?

 

[Randy_Carson]

Thank you for even more blessing James; I count it as all joy and praise God for folks like you and pray He will one day soon give you the blessings you have given me for His Namesake.

Why do you routinely make these insincere gestures? Do you feel that doing so makes you a better Christian even when all recognize that you are not actually ACCEPTING the correction you are being given?

I will not respond to you from this point forward unless it is warranted; you are not here to learn nor to teach, but rather to slander those that disagree with your preconceived notions as you have demonstrated on only two posts. I wish you the very best in your religious walk. God bless >)

Wow. You’re throwing in the towel on CentralFLJames after only two posts. I understand completely…he’s good, isn’t he?

I’m please to hear that learning is a part of your expectation.

Could you share with us one or two things that you have learned about scripture or theology from the Catholics who have interacted with you? A “Gee, I didn’t know that” or “I hadn’t considered that possibility” experience would be nice to hear.

 

[Timothy_Piper]

problem I have is Peter says ‘saved through water’…he is using it as a positive example of the new baptism, he is not refering tho the death of the waters - why would he be saying the death prefigures baptism that now saves…
i guess your interpretation (ie: …killed everything…) may also suggest the water acted as a cleansing of humanity, saving humainity so we could read the water as being a symbol of salvation through cleansing of conceince and removal of non belief
then ontop of this jesus says born of water and spirit in jn 3:5
what is the water in john 3:5 for you?
does it have a different meaning to you than the death in the noah story (I assume it does)
do you say water in john 3:5 is

1. holy spirit 2. people/physical birth/water in womb 3. word of god
   perhaps the water is a symbol of the cleansing of the conscnenice, but i believe the action of submitting to being baptised in water is required per mark 16:16 and as shown in the story of the eunach/philllip acts 8:36
   (I mean it is actually called ‘baptised’ when he gets out of the water…after he declares belief in jesus… i dont see it getting much more clearer than that, apart from Jesus being baptised in water and the HS descending after getting out of water)
   So if the eunachs christian baptism in water is called baptism … then is it not somewhat clear that when john says ‘He will baptise with the HS’, that christian baptism involves water and spirit, like jesus says in John 3:5.
   you appear to be against ritual/sacrament… but is not jesus sacrafice one of the biggest fullfillments of ritual there is… (something that atleast protestants recall in the lords supper symbolically ) it was a required physical submission of himself.
   dont we walk in his path (in some limited way) by submitting to being born again in water/spirit?have you also seen the action between jesus and Peter regarding the washing of Peter feet…(I am not saying this is a sign of baptism) but Jesus says to Peter that unless he does it Peter can have not part with him…john 13:8 … ignoring the use of water in this story, this is definately a ritual (in positive sense of the word)….john 13:15 For I have given you an example that ye should do as I have done to you…
   correct true immersion/conversion is in the heart/consience/beilief, but I beilieve this also reveals itself in the actual/required submission of self to the act of being submersed/sprinkled in water. just as jesus literally had to go through with all he endured…
   see above per above - plus - johns baptism in water is superseded by the christian baptism in water as highlighted by john himself, illustrated by jesus in his baptism, and by Paul when he differentiates the christian baptism from Johns in Act 19:2-5, with christian water baptism shown with eunach in acts 8:36
   how were the OT saints saved to you…would be better to understand b4 trying to respond here sure sounds right, does not mean water baptism is not also required At what point is the person saved? ignoring requirements to abide in him after baptism, i say it is per jesus words in jn 3:5 water and spirit, and mark 16:16 (incl water baptism) with exceptions as god not bound by sacrament per thief on cross, martyrdom etc…

The only apparent exception is Acts 2:38 because the way it is rendered in English does not give the context. can you elaborate, if you have time…
power of religions? - are you against religion? are you saying that religion/tradition corrupt the message…
james 1:26-27

For Acts 3:38 to be consistent with the overwhelming evidence of the rest of Scripture it should read “Repent for the forgiveness of your sins and you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit (and or then) each of you be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ.”

It is repentance that allows God to move and justifies a person, then immediately seals the Christian by the Holy Spirit, then as the first act of obedience and to proclaim the faith publicly identifying Christians with Christ, Christians are water baptized. This is why the thief on the cross did not need to be water baptized, he confessed his sins and repented and therefore was forgiven all his transgressions & justified. Furthermore, you will never find a “sprinkling” anywhere except in the OT purification ceremony, which is a picture of repentance and being washed from the stains of sin, which is why Jesus said to Nicodemus, unless one is “born of water and spirit”…etc.

It is truly the power of the Holy Spirit in all of this.

You asked something about if I had something against religion? I believe religion is man at his worst, not at his best. Jesus demonstrated this by the 7 woes given to the religious leaders, which were representative of the religion of the Jews. This was Jesus greatest condemnation and probably brought Him the greatest sorrow as it does for me as well.

I can’t make it any plainer or simpler; it is after all the work of the Holy Spirit to lead those to Christ & the understanding of His word & spiritual discernment. If one would take the time to see what John the Baptist said of Christ in regards to baptism of the Holy Spirit; one would know the point at which a person is really saved in relation to the whole of the Gospel.

As far as the Old Testament saints, look at Hebrews 11 or Romans 4 concerning Abraham. What is striking in Hebrews 11 is the very last verse, where it says the OT saints did not receive the promises because Christ had not dies yet, but God counted their FAITH ALONE as righteousness and that their sins would be covered by the atonement of Jesus Christ as part of the New Covenant, which is the same way NT Christians are saved.

 

[Timothy_Piper]

Why do you routinely make these insincere gestures? Do you feel that doing so makes you a better Christian even when all recognize that you are not actually ACCEPTING the correction you are being given?

There in lies the problem; their is no correction, only finger pointing and slander, no teaching of error and “you are wrong & I am right because I said so or because 2000 years says so”, which is what folks do when they cannot stand on the 3 legs of the Trinity. One knows there is a real problem when one cannot understand where the power of the Truth comes from in the life of each Christian, which is the Holy Spirit leading each Christian to the wisdom and knowledge of God. 1 Corinthians 1:30 is one clear example of this among many others.

Wow. You’re throwing in the towel on CentralFLJames after only two posts. I understand completely…he’s good, isn’t he?

I’m please to hear that learning is a part of your expectation.

Could you share with us one or two things that you have learned about scripture or theology from the Catholics who have interacted with you? A “Gee, I didn’t know that” or “I hadn’t considered that possibility” experience would be nice to hear.

I have an idea of how you define good, but it is not in my understanding of good. Nearly all my interaction so far has been on the “you don’t know or that is your opinion or you are wrong with no contextual explanation of why something is wrong & more important, point to what is right”. I will have to put some thought into what you asked because surely one can learn something from everyone.

 

[Timothy_Piper]

Why do you routinely make these insincere gestures?

I did not address this. You say it is “insincere”, but no it is very sincere because it truly is a blessing and I do count it as joy! I do thank God and I am grateful to be here.

 

[CentralFLJames]

I stand on my first assertion that you are good at pointing fingers and have shown no ability to refute error and teach the truth as presented in Scripture. Again, I thank God for the blessing you give and do pray He will return the same toward you.

I can only conclude by your conspicuous brevity, lack of intelligent rebuttal and by the presence of insincere gratuities and your selfrightious-judgemtalism that you lack any substantial ability to disprove the truth I have shared with you and the meekness to admit you are wrong. Yet we both know that what I have said is already implanted considerable doubt in your own private views. In time if you can learn to accept correction you will eventually come to embrace the truth Catholics are giving you.

But if you won’t learn the truth in a timely manner I will find satisfaction in knowing that the truth has silenced you from spreading the errors you are trying to teach here without any apostolic or personal pedigree to teach. What Catholics teach is what has been handed down to us for 2,000 years of apostolic teaching tradition – it is not our own personal opinions.

James

 

[CentralFLJames]

Thank you for even more blessing James; I count it as all joy and praise God for folks like you and pray He will one day soon give you the blessings you have given me for His Namesake.

I will not respond to you from this point forward unless it is warranted; you are not here to learn nor to teach, but rather to slander those that disagree with your preconceived notions as you have demonstrated on only two posts. I wish you the very best in your religious walk. God bless >)

You are cutting yourself off from interacting with me because of all the wonderful blessings and “joy” I have brought you through our encounter here? Why does this sound so duplicitous and insincere?

Then to say that I have slandered you? How so? I have been completely factual and emotionally neutral in presenting the truth to you. You do seem to have a fundamental lack of context for what these forums are about though. Timothy, YOU are a guest here and Catholics are here to teach and if need be defend our faith from anti-Catholic polemics and false teachings. You don’t really think that you as a non-Catholic are going to be accepted by Catholics as a teacher and covert to your faith do you? Do you???

The entire Catholic faith is based on preconceived notions - notions TAUGHT and handed down to us from the apostles. If you don’t like that you might as well just go into “listen only mode” since you are going to get a lot of Catholic teaching when you come into these forums and try to teach the teachers things that have never before been heard or spoken in Christ’s Church for 2000 years (except briefly by heretics that were excommunicated if they did not concede to the apostolic teaching).

James

 

[Timothy_Piper]

As the Westminster Confession says: “The Lord Jesus, as king and head of his Church, hath therein appointed a government in the hand of Church officers, distinct from the civil magistrate…It belongeth to synods and councils, ministerially, to determine controversies of faith, and cases of conscience;…Isa 9:6-7; Mat 28:18-20; Acts 20:17, 28; 1 Cor 12:28; 1 Thes 5:12; 1 Tim 5:17; Heb 13:7, 17, 24; Mat 18:17-20; Acts 15:15, 19, 24, 27-31; 16:4”

So when there’s a controversy of faith, for example, over what baptism is and what it does, then it’s given to the teaching authority of the Church to determine the answer. So on the authority of Christ, if I disagree with the Church then the Church is correct, not me.

Personally, I prefer what God has said and means by what He says; regardless of human wisdom, which is foolishness before God. Those, having received the Gift of God also have the “mind of Christ”, reject the foolishness of men.

SECTION III: All synods or councils, since the Apostles’ times, whether general or particular, may err; and many have erred. Therefore they are not to be made the rule of faith, or practice; but to be used as a help in both.[5]

1. Eph. 2:20; Acts 17:11; I Cor. 2:5; II Cor. 1:24; cf. Isa. 8:19-20; Matt. 15:9
   mbrem123.com/creeds/wcf_31.php

 

[CentralFLJames]

Personally, I prefer what God has said and means by what He says; regardless of human wisdom, which is foolishness before God. Those, having received the Gift of God also have the “mind of Christ”, reject the foolishness of men.

SECTION III: All synods or councils, since the Apostles’ times, whether general or particular, may err; and many have erred. Therefore they are not to be made the rule of faith, or practice; but to be used as a help in both.[5]

1. Eph. 2:20; Acts 17:11; I Cor. 2:5; II Cor. 1:24; cf. Isa. 8:19-20; Matt. 15:9
   mbrem123.com/creeds/wcf_31.php

From your comments and using your own standard of judgement we can make the following conclusions:

1. You imagine that you enjoy a special and possibly unique “Gift of God” that empowers you with a private and infallible status that lets you pick and choose what councils, creeds, and teachings of men are “Godly” and which are not and that no one else here has that gift.
2. That the reformers who believed in the “total depravity” of man and his incapability of doing anything good on his own (and who among themselves could agree on nothing save the evils of of Catholics and the pope when they were not persecuting each other) somehow escaped their total depraved condition for at least a few moments in time to: A) pass a perfect infallable divine judgment on The Catholic Church (the only church in Christendom for 1500 years save the Orthodox who are in schism but also part of us) to declare it corrupt and in need of complete reformation and b) Somehow manage to rebuilt the church to a perfect blueprint of a reformed Church but which results in the utter chaos of 37,000+ reformed/Protestant conflicted denominations all in tension and competition with each other?
3. That ALL the Reformed Churches MAY be subject to error as defined by themselves in the various confessions (see the paragraph you reference from the Westminster confession) and their own admission of being Total Depraved and inclined to do evil.

Forgive me but this sounds like a formula for irrationality and even insanity - having one’s cake and eating it too. That Section III you reference reads like the Surgeon General’s cigarette warning on the pack of cigarettes - essentially “consume at your own risk since we are uncertain about anything but you may enjoy it anyway and we profit by it”. At least the drafters of the confession were honest in doubting their own legitimacy and infallibility – but they are forced to adapt a denominational buffet of options to cover their bases.

Timothy, based on the half dozen or so posts I have read of yours it seems to me that you have taken in bits and pieces of every major Protestant believe system under the sun and fashioned a Frankenstein sort of theology of dead, decaying and indefensible ideas that are as a corpus internally inconsistent and self-contradictory. What do you call your new religion and should we address your infallibleness as “Pope Timothy”? Forgive the sarcasm but you are really going non-linear on us here and not making a lot of sense…

James

 

[panevino]

For Acts 3:38 to be consistent with the overwhelming evidence of the rest of Scripture it should read “Repent for the forgiveness of your sins and you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit (and or then) each of you be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ.”

okay. but it doesn’t.

It is repentance that allows God to move and justifies a person, then immediately seals the Christian by the Holy Spirit, then as the first act of obedience and to proclaim the faith publicly identifying Christians with Christ, Christians are water baptized.

is not the idea of making baptism in water a public display a bit dangerous: (even if it is not linked to a prerequisite for salvation) ie: did we not do this and that in your name…deaprt from me…etc…
I dont mean for this to be a cheap shot, as I know you are not saying the public display is for salvation - your wording just jumped out at me as a public display/boast.

I think I see the submission of self to being baptised in ‘(literal water) and spirit’ as part of a complete package of that needs to be done together. as done by the eunach under phillip.

I have had this discussion before with others, and dont think we will convince eachother as we both think the opposing view depletes the sacrafice and instructions given by Jesus.

This is why the thief on the cross did not need to be water baptized, he confessed his sins and repented and therefore was forgiven all his transgressions & justified. Furthermore, you will never find a “sprinkling” anywhere except in the OT purification ceremony, which is a picture of repentance and being washed from the stains of sin, which is why Jesus said to Nicodemus, unless one is “born of water and spirit”…etc.

It is truly the power of the Holy Spirit in all of this.

you confused me a bit above,
are you saying that it is not literal water in the OT verse
apologies - i should read more of your posts…as you have probably gone over this a few times

You asked something about if I had something against religion? I believe religion is man at his worst, not at his best. Jesus demonstrated this by the 7 woes given to the religious leaders, which were representative of the religion of the Jews. This was Jesus greatest condemnation and probably brought Him the greatest sorrow as it does for me as well.
I can’t make it any plainer or simpler; it is after all the work of the Holy Spirit to lead those to Christ & the understanding of His word & spiritual discernment. If one would take the time to see what John the Baptist said of Christ in regards to baptism of the Holy Spirit; one would know the point at which a person is really saved in relation to the whole of the Gospel.

jesus still said to obey what they teach, but to not act as they do.
mat 23: 1 KJV Then spake Jesus to the multitude, and to his disciples, 2 Saying The scribes and the Pharisees sit in Moses’ seat: 3 All therefore whatsoever they bid you observe, that observe and do; but do not ye after their works: for they say, and do not

To me atleast jesus recognises a structure/teachers and authority ie: ‘Moses seat’…‘All therefore whatsoever they bid you observe’…

however as you know he clearly is destroys/hihglights the faults of thier hearts… in not living that faith theselves…

with regard to Religion
I think Jesus above shows a respect for the structure set up…(ie: religion?)

and the below verse appears to also illustrate a possible positive light on religion
(assuming the word is used in the modern sense)

James 1:26 (KJV) 26 If any man among you seem to be religious, and bridleth not his tongue, but deceiveth his own heart, this man’s religion is vain. 27 Pure religion and undefiled before God and the Father is this, To visit the fatherless and widows in their affliction, and to keep himself unspotted from the world.

As far as the Old Testament saints, look at Hebrews 11 or Romans 4 concerning Abraham. What is striking in Hebrews 11 is the very last verse, where it says the OT saints did not receive the promises because Christ had not dies yet, but God counted their FAITH ALONE as righteousness and that their sins would be covered by the atonement of Jesus Christ as part of the New Covenant, which is the same way NT Christians are saved.

they also had the atonment of sins through sacrafice presented by aaron etc…

have to go…

 

[Philthy]

Laura, Notice the sound bites, you will see more & more as this moves along. Rather than disproving; it becomes “one is just wrong”, whereas those of us that understand what God meant by what He said will show this through Scripture, not from sound bites and other sources from men. Again, it is not any fault of any one’s it is as Scripture said it would and will be. Also, those that do understand will admit when they are mistaken and we embrace the mistake as a blessing because we have gained more knowledge from above and rejoice in the correction.

Laura -

You might to verify this willingness to admit when mistaken claim. My experience has shown that some people claim to be open to learning but simply are not. Dont take my word for it, though, there should be evidence on a thread if this is the case.

Blessings!

 

[Timothy_Piper]

okay. but it doesn’t.

It doesn’t in English. But the way it should read, does not effect the grammatical structure of the original Greek and the English translation appears to do that. If it is as you read it, then there is much Scripture that needs to be disregarded in its entirety.

is not the idea of making baptism in water a public display a bit dangerous: (even if it is not linked to a prerequisite for salvation) ie: did we not do this and that in your name…deaprt from me…etc…

It is a command & act of obedience. Romans 10 says "the word of faith which we are preaching, 9 that if you confess with your mouth Jesus {as} Lord, and believe in your heart that God raised Him from the dead, you will be saved; 10 for with the heart a person believes, resulting in righteousness, and with the mouth he confesses, resulting in salvation.

I think I see the submission of self to being baptised in ‘(literal water) and spirit’ as part of a complete package of that needs to be done together. as done by the eunach under phillip.

That would mean the complete package is a Gift from god with a string attached, which is no longer a Gift.

you confused me a bit above,
are you saying that it is not literal water in the OT verse
apologies - i should read more of your posts…as you have probably gone over this a few times

If I recall correctly - been a while since I looked at this aspect of purification; I believe it was with actual water.

jesus still said to obey what they teach, but to not act as they do.
mat 23: 1 KJV Then spake Jesus to the multitude, and to his disciples, 2 Saying The scribes and the Pharisees sit in Moses’ seat: 3 All therefore whatsoever they bid you observe, that observe and do; but do not ye after their works: for they say, and do not

this would take a lot of time to exposit in the way it should, but He is telling them to do as God has taught and not the works “they tell you to do”. This is very oversimplified and i apologize, but to really get tp the meat will take some time.

To me atleast jesus recognises a structure/teachers and authority ie: ‘Moses seat’…‘All therefore whatsoever they bid you observe’…

the OT is the shadow of what has been prohesized and Jesus is the substance of the things hoped for as revealed in the New Covenant, which is why the priesthood you know is a shadow from the past and not the reality of the “royal priesthood of all believers”.

with regard to Religion
I think Jesus above shows a respect for the structure set up…(ie: religion?)

and the below verse appears to also illustrate a possible positive light on religion
(assuming the word is used in the modern sense)

James 1:26 (KJV) 26 If any man among you seem to be religious, and bridleth not his tongue, but deceiveth his own heart, this man’s religion is vain. 27 Pure religion and undefiled before God and the Father is this, To visit the fatherless and widows in their affliction, and to keep himself unspotted from the world.

This is a simple way of saying true religion is obedience to the will and commands of Jesus; again oversimplifiying all that should be said here.

Religion in my opinion is man making God in His image; whereas to me Christianity is a Person that is very relational to those that love Him and that He loves.

they also had the atonment of sins through sacrafice presented by aaron etc…

have to go… Better go back and read some more on this; Scripture is very clear that these animal sacrifices did not remove sins or atone; they are just the shadow of the true atonement, which is Jesus crucified.

 

[Timothy_Piper]

Laura -

You might to verify this willingness to admit when mistaken claim. My experience has shown that some people claim to be open to learning but simply are not. Dont take my word for it, though, there should be evidence on a thread if this is the case.

Blessings!

Hey we agree on something.

 

[Philthy]

That would mean the complete package is a Gift from god with a string attached, which is no longer a Gift.

I dont understand this claim. Why is a gift with a string attached no longer a gift? Perhaps what is meant is that it isnt a completely free gift? We all agree, however, that there are some conditions attached to the free gift. If there were no conditions then we would be universalists, not Christians. Universalists believe that everyone is going to Heaven regardless of faith, works, etc. Christians believe otherwise - that some will not go to Heaven. So the free gift concept as it is portrayed here doesnt quite make sense. But even if we set the above aside, I still don’t see how one can claim baptism is a “string attached” while the other conditions that they do acknowledge as necessary - that you must “repent” and “confess” and “believe” and “follow Him” - are somehow conditions that don’t fall into the same category. It seems hypocritical to me. The need to “repent” is a string. The need to “confess” is a string. The need to “believe” is a string. The need to be “obedient” is a string.

In reality, Christs passion, death and resurrection, however, is a completely free, no strings attached gift that we are entirely dependant upon for our salvation. That fact, however, does not alter the gospel message that there are conditions attached to fully claiming that gift. That is why we have a bible, and teachers, etc. That is why some feel the need to interact with others on this forum to correct their faulty understandings so that they too can partake of gift. It is obvious that there are strings attached to the “free gift” otherwise we wouldnt need to discuss it.

So the claim that baptism is somehow a string that obviates the “free gift” of salvation doesnt really make sense and therefore an attempt to reject baptism as part of salvation on that basis must be rejected.

Blessings!

 

[Timothy_Piper]

I dont understand this claim. Why is a gift with a string attached no longer a gift?
How can it be a free Gift if their is an attachment to it? It cannot.

If there were no conditions then we would be universalists, not Christians. Universalists believe that everyone is going to Heaven regardless of faith, works, etc.

That’s is fine for you, but not for me because it is not what God has taught me or said in His Word; it is a human teaching.

 

[Philthy]

How can it be a free Gift if their is an attachment to it? It cannot.

I presume this comment means that when you used the term “gift” you meant to say “free gift”?

catholic = universal

catholic = universal, but does not have anything to do with Universalism. This is essentially a non-answer. Do you have nothing substantive to refute the fact that if salvation were “completely free” that we would all be saved and that there would be no need for any response (ie, string ) on our part? Or, perhaps could explain how the definition of catholic has anything to do with the discussion. I had also posted this comment:

Philthy:

I still don’t see how one can claim baptism is a “string attached” while the other conditions that they do acknowledge as necessary - that you must “repent” “confess” “believe” and “follow Him” - are somehow conditions that don’t fall into the same category. It seems hypocritical to me. The need to “repent”…to “confess”… to “believe” … to be “obedient” is a string.

And you responded with this:

Depends on what the reason for water Baptism; is it one doing or cooperating in order to receive the Free Gift… or are you doing out of obedience and love…?

Instead of addressing the issue - whether SOMETHING (ie string attached) or NOTHING (ie completely free) is required on our part, you instead introduced the MOTIVE of our response. Motive is critically important, but it does not determine whether a string is attached to the gift. How does a condition(ie string) suddenly become a non-condition(ie no strings) simply by being done with the proper motive ? All you have really done is demonstrate that a properly motivated response is the condition; you were supposed to be demonstrating that there were no conditions. See the difference?

As to the other part, remember that the Christian loves God because God first loved the Christian; otherwise their would be no repentance nor belief.

Of course, but the Christian must still respond (ie string) to that love. You are absolutely right, though, that God’s** love**, per se, is a free, unconditional gift. God loves everyone with NO STRINGS ATTACHED. That part we can agree on fully. The part that you are confusing is that SALVATION is equivalent to God’s love - it is not. If salvation and God’s love were equivalent, then everyone would go to Heaven (Universalism), but not everyone does. You may need to give this a little more thought…

I do understand what you mean because in human terms anything we do seems to be a work of some type; the difference as I understand is on one-hand God is moving to bring this person to faith and repentance, so He is working on the person, while the other says, God won’t move completely unless I cooperate to my salvation. One is truly a human work and the other is God moving the human.

I disagree with your last sentence. God is constantly moving and calling every single person he has created out of his infinite, unconditional, undying love. We, however, must respond - in love and faith - in order for his love to result in our being saved. He gives us every grace to accomplish this, and so every step of the way He is the author and instrument of our salvation, but we do have the ability(free will) to reject God’s love and end up in Hell.

My wife and I had this discussion on water baptism in light of the folks at the Church of Christ, who believe that one who is saved must be baptized (water) to be saved and those who are not baptized are not saved.

Church of Christ? Arent they a “bible only” church who doesnt rely upon “traditions of men”? Where would they come up with such an idea?

When you point out God’s exceptions to this, then the answer is always the same, God can chose to make exceptions as He wills…god moves how He chooses.

Seems reasonable to me…

(But it) Does not accord with the fact that He does not change His ways; that in effect would be to say He is not perfect. When God does make what appears to be an exception, He always explains the reason implictly or explicitly.

I think you are over-reaching on another relatively vague, theological speculation (God is unchanging) in order to try to prove a point. God’s accomplishment of various ends using various means does not mean that God is “changing” and it certainly doesnt imply that he is imperfect. The means he chooses is always perfectly wise, just and loving. Who are we to judge God??

I view that as human understanding of Gods salvation and the human need, fostered by pride, to do something in order to assist or help God in ones salvation.

How do you explain your presence on the forums then? Do you think God needs your help? Your actions reveal that you believe God;s Will is for us to cooperate in His plan of salvation. I agree with your actions - God includes us in His plan of bringing salvation to the world. That’s a very large part of why Christ became man and why we are described as the “body” of Christ - bodies accomplish things.

That’s is fine for you, but not for me because it is not what God has taught me or said in His Word; it is a human teaching.

Well that’s awfully convenient for you to say, but I reject it because it’s not what God has taught me or said in His Word - its just your opinion that you taught yourself.
You’re too funny…

Blessings!

 

[panevino]

posted by Timothy Piper Quote:
As far as the Old Testament saints, look at Hebrews 11 or Romans 4 concerning Abraham. What is striking in Hebrews 11 is the very last verse, where it says the OT saints did not receive the promises because Christ had not dies yet, but God counted their FAITH ALONE as righteousness and that their sins would be covered by the atonement of Jesus Christ as part of the New Covenant, which is the same way NT Christians are saved.

posted by panevino …they also had the atonment of sins through sacrafice presented by aaron etc…

have to go…

posted by Timothy Piper : As far as the Old Testament saints, look at Hebrews 11 or Romans 4 concerning Abraham. What is striking in Hebrews 11 is the very last verse, where it says the OT saints did not receive the promises because Christ had not dies yet, but God counted their FAITH ALONE as righteousness and that their sins would be covered by the atonement of Jesus Christ as part of the New Covenant, which is the same way NT Christians are saved.

lev 6:1 (KJV) does seem pretty clear…(im no expert)

1 And the LORD spake unto Moses, saying, 2 If a soul sin, and commit a trespass against the LORD, and lie unto his neighbor in that which was delivered him to keep, or in fellowship, or in a thing taken away by violence, or hath deceived his neighbor; 3 Or have found that which was lost, and lieth concerning it, and sweareth falsely; in any of all these that a man doeth, sinning therein: 4 Then it shall be, because he hath sinned, and is guilty, that he shall restore that which he took violently away, or the thing which he hath deceitfully gotten, or that which was delivered him to keep, or the lost thing which he found, 5 Or all that about which he hath sworn falsely; he shall even restore it in the principal, and shall add the fifth part more thereto, and give it unto him to whom it appertaineth, in the day of his trespass offering. 6 And he shall bring his trespass offering unto the LORD, a ram without blemish out of the flock, with thy estimation, for a trespass offering, unto the priest: 7 And the priest shall make an atonement for him before the LORD: and it shall be forgiven him for any thing of all that he hath done in trespassing therein.

 

[Timothy_Piper]

I presume this comment means that when you used the term “gift” you meant to say “free gift”?
catholic = universal, but does not have anything to do with Universalism. This is essentially a non-answer. Do you have nothing substantive to refute the fact that if salvation were “completely free” that we would all be saved and that there would be no need for any response (ie, string ) on our part? Or, perhaps could explain how the definition of catholic has anything to do with the discussion. I had also posted this comment: Your church claims universalism, no one is saved apart from your church. That is my understanding on “universalism”. You probably are referring to something I am unfamiliar with. Added - I see below your definition, which does not fit my understanding and your definition is not the teaching of your church. How can I refute the Word of God concerning the Gift of Salvation; I will add nothing to it. The HS made that crystal clear through Paul in both Romans and Ephesians; so add whatever you want; I can’t refute what God has said through His Apostles and the Holy Spirit.

snipity

If salvation and God’s love were equivalent, then everyone would go to Heaven (Universalism), but not everyone does. You may need to give this a little more thought

 

[Timothy_Piper]

lev 6:1 (KJV) does seem pretty clear…(im no expert)

1 And the LORD spake unto Moses, saying, 2 If a soul sin, and commit a trespass against the LORD, and lie unto his neighbor in that which was delivered him to keep, or in fellowship, or in a thing taken away by violence, or hath deceived his neighbor; 3 Or have found that which was lost, and lieth concerning it, and sweareth falsely; in any of all these that a man doeth, sinning therein: 4 Then it shall be, because he hath sinned, and is guilty, that he shall restore that which he took violently away, or the thing which he hath deceitfully gotten, or that which was delivered him to keep, or the lost thing which he found, 5 Or all that about which he hath sworn falsely; he shall even restore it in the principal, and shall add the fifth part more thereto, and give it unto him to whom it appertaineth, in the day of his trespass offering. 6 And he shall bring his trespass offering unto the LORD, a ram without blemish out of the flock, with thy estimation, for a trespass offering, unto the priest: 7 And the priest shall make an atonement for him before the LORD: and it shall be forgiven him for any thing of all that he hath done in trespassing therein.

Hebrews 9
15 For this reason He is the mediator of a new covenant, so that, since a death has taken place for the redemption of the transgressions that were {committed} under the first covenant, those who have been called may receive the promise of the eternal inheritance. 16 For where a covenant is, there must of necessity be the death of the one who made it. 17 For a covenant is valid {only} when men are dead, for it is never in force while the one who made it lives.

You may want to look at the entire chapter; the death of animals I would call a temporary forgiveness, but not a true atonement which came form the one true sacrifice, which is Jesus Christ.

If you are really interested in more, then I would suggest chapters 7, 8 & 9. This is why their is no more sacrifice of any kind nor any reason for a levitical type of priesthood; it was all done away with in the New Covenant through the blood sacrifice of Jesus.