First Baptist elects Jeffress

[allischalmers]

<<Say who? not you, that.s the truth and the whole truth >>

I just did say. You must not be paying any attention.

And THAT’S the truth.

You must have been sleeping when you were attenting that Baptist Church that teaches the fullness of the truth

 

[bpbasilphx]

<>

By the very defintion of “Baptist”, there are NONE that teach the fulness of the truth.

 

[allischalmers]

<>

By the very defintion of “Baptist”, there are NONE that teach the fulness of the truth.

so define “Baptist”

 

[Lee]

Once you become a Christain and live it…you just know

Amen brother!!! And those first Christians were Catholic. They not only were saved by Baptism into the the Body of Christ, his Church, but by receiving the very Blood and Body of Jesus Christ in the Eucharist. Amen Amen Amen.

 

[allischalmers]

Amen brother!!! And those first Christians were Catholic. **They not only were saved by Baptism **into the the Body of Christ, his Church, but by receiving the very Blood and Body of Jesus Christ in the Eucharist. Amen Amen Amen.

but the Bible does not in any way teach salvation by water baptism and anyone that depends on water baptism to be saved is not saved at all

 

[bpbasilphx]

<>

Then St. Peter wasn’t saved, because he wrote, “Baptism doth now save us.”

1 Peter 3:21
The like figure whereunto even baptism doth also now save us (not the putting away of the filth of the flesh, but the answer of a good conscience toward God,) by the resurrection of Jesus Christ:

Would you like to try again?

 

[rtconstant]

Well, I learned something! So, how did Baptists acquire your name if you believe that baptism is not necessary for salvation?

To answer your question the name Baptist derives in a similar fashion as did the ana-baptist name. Because they re-baptised. Even though Baptist don’t put much worth in baptism spiritually they do believe that church membership (meaning the local congregation) requires baptism for membership. If you baptised in a fashion other than full submersion in a protestant Church after a profession of faith then you must re-baptized. Also if you ever realize that your initial profession of faith didn’t take and thus you make a new profession then you will be baptized again.

An example would be say a member gets divorced. Baptist don’t believe in re-marriage (or at least aren’t supposed to) so if the member meets someone else and gets married they will be banned from holding any position within the local congregation. But if they realize that they really weren’t saved before then they can give a new profession of faith which washes away their previous sins and then they’ll be re-baptized into the membership of the local congregation. Thus they start over new.

So while baptism doesn’t hold any special value there is a surprising amount of it that can take place.

On this subject I was speaking to a dear friend of mine this week (a baptist) and he was telling me that he has been getting a little annoyed with his church. This surprised me since he has always seemed to really like it. Anyway, his girlfriend is wanting to get baptized but has essentially been denied. Apparently this congregation has taken the whole spiritually void baptism thing to such an extreme they just stopped doing it. What’s really strange is that this is technically keeping her from becoming a member, and apparently there is a line of people all of whom want baptism and are basically being denied. Very strange.

Now before anybody jumps on the above that is an extremely odd situation in a baptist church. Even though they don’t put much stock in it baptist are usually very good about baptizing those who have not been baptized. I just mentioned the above because it kind of related and I thought it an interesting event.

BTW if anyone is curious baptists use the proper formula in their baptisms and as such their baptisms are valid.

 

[JohnPaul0]

To answer your question the name Baptist derives in a similar fashion as did the ana-baptist name. Because they re-baptised. Even though Baptist don’t put much worth in baptism spiritually they do believe that church membership (meaning the local congregation) requires baptism for membership. If you baptised in a fashion other than full submersion in a protestant Church after a profession of faith then you must re-baptized. Also if you ever realize that your initial profession of faith didn’t take and thus you make a new profession then you will be baptized again.

BTW if anyone is curious baptists use the proper formula in their baptisms and as such their baptisms are valid.

Thanks. I’m trying to understand why the “ordinance” of baptism is, from the Baptists’ standpoint, meaningless to God for one’s salvation, but essential for Baptists for church membership. I suppose they would say that God wants it that way.

So, they seem to be ascribing to God that salvation is a free gift with nothing required other than an act of faith, but, to live out that salvation in a Church, you have to jump through the submersed hoop of baptism. I wonder where that is in the Bible*.*

 

[RevDrNorth]

<>

Then St. Peter wasn’t saved, because he wrote, “Baptism doth now save us.”

1 Peter 3:21
The like figure whereunto even baptism doth also now save us (not the putting away of the filth of the flesh, but the answer of a good conscience toward God,) by the resurrection of Jesus Christ:

Would you like to try again?

Well…actually this is an incomplete understanding of the scripture. Peter goes on to say "not as removal of dirt from the body but as an appeal to God for a clear conscience (outward symbol of an inward relationship with God). That phrase does not imply Baptism saves.

Baptism is an outward symbol of an inner reality (see Gal 3:27)

Justification is by faith…not works see Eph 2:8-9

The argument that Baptism is necessary for salvation repeats an argument used by Paul’s opponenets in terms of circumcision see Gal 3:10

There is much much more scripture I could quote in support of the Protestant view (than there is space to write it). Baptists appear ot have an apostolic view of Baptism.

Rev North

 

[JohnPaul0]

Well…actually this is an incomplete understanding of the scripture. Peter goes on to say "not as removal of dirt from the body but as an appeal to God for a clear conscience (outward symbol of an inward relationship with God). That phrase does not imply Baptism saves.

Hello, Reverend! Please let me propose something for your considersation. The Catholic Church calls baptism “the sacrament of faith” (CCC Paragraph 1253 )scborromeo.org/ccc/para/1253.htm

What the Church means by this statement is that it is within baptism that the salvific effects of faith come to be applied to the believer. You see this is 1 Pet 3:21. As you yourself note, Peter refers to the “removal of dirt” which is an obvious reference to baptism. What he is saying is that baptism doesn’t save you because your body gets a bath but that because, in that bath, you make an “appeal to God for a clean conscience.” See? It’s not an outward symbol of an inner reality, but an outward method of obtaining that reality.

Baptism is an outward symbol of an inner reality (see Gal 3:27)

You read this passage as if the “clothing with Christ” occurred before baptism, but it can just as well be read that the clothing with Christ occurred because of baptism.

Justification is by faith…not works see Eph 2:8-9

Let’s stick with baptism right now.

The argument that Baptism is necessary for salvation repeats an argument used by Paul’s opponenets in terms of circumcision see Gal 3:10

No, Paul was discussing works of the Jewish law. Here we are discussing a Christian rite…

There is much much more scripture I could quote in support of the Protestant view (than there is space to write it). Baptists appear ot have an apostolic view of Baptism.

Rev North

I really like how you phrased this because the Apostles most certainly did hold that we are saved by baptism:

Letter of Barnabas (written between AD 70 132):
“In this way He says that we descend into the water full of sins and foulness, and we come up bearing fruit in our heart, having fear and hope in Jesus in the spirit.”

Justin, 1st Apology (~140 AD) [61] “Whoever is convinced and believes that what they are taought and told by us is the truth, and professes to be able to live accordingly, is instructed to pray and to beseech God in fasting for the remission of their former sins, whle we pray and fast with them. Then they are led by us to a place where there is water; and there they are reborn in the same kid of rebirth in which we ourselves were reborn; in the name of God, the Lord and Father of all, and of our Savior, jesus Christ, and of the Holy Spirit they receive the washing with water. For Christ said, 'Unless you be reborn, you shall not enter into the kingdom of heaven.” …The reason for doing this, we have learned from the Apostles."

God bless!

 

[allischalmers]

<>

Then St. Peter wasn’t saved, because he wrote, “Baptism doth now save us.”

1 Peter 3:21
The like figure whereunto even baptism doth also now save us (not the putting away of the filth of the flesh, but the answer of a good conscience toward God,) by the resurrection of Jesus Christ:

Would you like to try again?

Sure !
1 Peter 1:19 is fairly clear-christ suffered fo our sins, the Just for the unjust, that He might gring to God. He was put to death, as far as His body was concerned, but raised again by the power of th Holy Spirit.
Verse 19 tells us that it was by the same Holy Spirit that He went and preached to the spirits in preson. Notice that it does not say that they were in prison when He preached to them. the next verse makes it clear that thay were not. There we see that they were the men who lived in Noah’s day. These men heard Noah preaching to them (and here we learnthat it wes Christ preaching to them through Noah). However they were disobedient; they rejected the message. As a result, they are now in prison awaiting the day of jufgment.
Only those who entered the ark are are saved by (or throught) water. It was the ark that saved them not the literal water. The ark saved them throught or in the midst of the water. (Those who were in the water perihed, whereas those who were preserved throught the storm of water were spared.
Now in verve 21, Pter makes a spiritual applicatin. Christ is the ark of safety. He was baptized in the waters of death. Those who are spiritually baptized into His death are saved. It is because they are in Christ that they are safe.
Therefore, baptism really does save us - not our baptism in literal water, but Christ baptism into death and our idenification with Him in it

 

[allischalmers]

The expression “not the removeal of the filth of the flesh” indicates that baptism with literal water is not in veiw. Water does have the effect of removing dirt from the body, but it cannot provide a good conscience toward God. Only my accociation with Christ in His death, burial and resurrection can do that.
the resurrection of Christ is emphasized in verse 21, because everything depend on that. If Christ had simply been baptized into death, but had never risen, the there could have been no salveation for us. But just as the ark survived the raging flood and brought it’s occupants to dry land, so Christ went through the article of death, rose again the third day and saves all who are "in Him’
Thus baptism saves us “through the resurrection of Jesus Christ,” His baptism, not ours

 

[JohnPaul0]

Sure !
1 Peter 1:19 … tells us that …Only those who entered the ark are are saved by (or throught) water. It was the ark that saved them not the literal water. The ark saved them throught or in the midst of the water. (Those who were in the water perihed, whereas those who were preserved throught the storm of water were spared.
Now in verve 21, Pter makes a spiritual applicatin. Christ is the ark of safety. He was baptized in the waters of death. Those who are spiritually baptized into His death are saved. It is because they are in Christ that they are safe.

Interesting thought about Christ being the ark, except that the verse specifically says that the people in the ark “were saved through water. This prefigured baptism, which saves you now.” (vv 20-21).

In the days of Noah, water destroyed the enemies of God, and today the water of baptism destroys our enemy: sin. That’s Peter’s point. You make the jump to say that Christ is the ark, but that’s not the point: the ark didn’t sink, but Christ was buried in the tomb.

You realize that we become identified with Christ when we are buried in baptism (Rom 6:3-5), but you have no basis for inserting the idea that it is a “spiritual” baptism when the text makes no such claim.

Cheers,
JohnPaul

 

[JohnPaul0]

Thanks. I’m trying to understand why the “ordinance” of baptism is, from the Baptists’ standpoint, meaningless to God for one’s salvation, but essential for Baptists for church membership. I suppose they would say that God wants it that way.

So, they seem to be ascribing to God that salvation is a free gift with nothing required other than an act of faith, but, to live out that salvation in a Church, you have to jump through the submersed hoop of baptism. I wonder where that is in the Bible*.*

Now I see more fully.

Baptists and Catholics agree that water baptism makes one a member of the Church.

For a Catholic, membership in the Church, the Body of Christ, is the equivalent of being saved.

For a Baptist, being saved is one thing --that has nothing to do with baptism–and church membership is another thing that does depend on baptism.

Water baptism, that is, because if we go by what allischalmers said, Baptists make a distinction between *spiritual *baptism which does save us and *water *baptism which does not. Presumably they divvy up the NT verses on baptism into the buckets of spiritual baptism and water baptism. This distinction is never made in the text itself, though.

So, I wonder how they explain 1 Cor 12:13 “For in one Spirit we were all baptized into one body…” Clearly, being “baptized into one body” means church membership, but it is done by the Holy Spirit, which they claim does not operate in the ordinance of baptism.

BTW, 1st Baptist’s statement of faith makes no mention of “spiritual baptism.” firstdallas.org/About/what_we_believe.html

Do they not want to confuse people, or does allischalmers not speak for all Baptists?

 

[allischalmers]

Now I see more fully.

Baptists and Catholics agree that water baptism makes one a member of the Church.

For a Catholic, membership in the Church, the Body of Christ, is the equivalent of being saved.

For a Baptist, being saved is one thing --that has nothing to do with baptism–and church membership is another thing that does depend on baptism.

Water baptism, that is, because if we go by what allischalmers said, Baptists make a distinction between *spiritual *baptism which does save us and *water *baptism which does not. Presumably they divvy up the NT verses on baptism into the buckets of spiritual baptism and water baptism. This distinction is never made in the text itself, though.

So, I wonder how they explain 1 Cor 12:13 “For in one Spirit we were all baptized into one body…” Clearly, being “baptized into one body” means church membership, but it is done by the Holy Spirit, which they claim does not operate in the ordinance of baptism.

BTW, 1st Baptist’s statement of faith makes no mention of “spiritual baptism.” firstdallas.org/About/what_we_believe.html

Do they not want to confuse people, or does allischalmers not speak for all Baptists?

On the page that you directed to I do not even find the word baptise or baptism. Which really surprized me.

 

[allischalmers]

Now I see more fully.

Baptists and Catholics agree that water baptism makes one a member of the Church.

For a Catholic, membership in the Church, the Body of Christ, is the equivalent of being saved.

For a Baptist, being saved is one thing --that has nothing to do with baptism–and church membership is another thing that does depend on baptism.

Water baptism, that is, because if we go by what allischalmers said, Baptists make a distinction between *spiritual *baptism which does save us and *water *baptism which does not. Presumably they divvy up the NT verses on baptism into the buckets of spiritual baptism and water baptism. This distinction is never made in the text itself, though.

So, I wonder how they explain 1 Cor 12:13 “For in one Spirit we were all baptized into one body…” Clearly, being “baptized into one body” means church membership, but it is done by the Holy Spirit, which they claim does not operate in the ordinance of baptism.

BTW, 1st Baptist’s statement of faith makes no mention of “spiritual baptism.” firstdallas.org/About/what_we_believe.html

Do they not want to confuse people, or does allischalmers not speak for all Baptists?

When a person is baptized in a Baptist church they are not baptized in the church (body of Christ), they have already been baptized into the body of Christ (church) when they first believed.
They’re baptism is a statement of their identification with the death, bural and resurrection of Jesus Christ. they then become menbers of the local church.
and speaking of baptism, this past Sunday evening, two young couples, former Catholics, participated in beleivers baptism and became members of our Baptist Church. Praise the Lord !

 

[JohnPaul0]

On the page that you directed to I do not even find the word baptise or baptism. Which really surprized me.

Right, I was a little surprised, too, that the statement of faith is not on the main page. You have to down load or view the PDF file for

Read the FBD Articles of Faith
** **

 

[JohnPaul0]

When a person is baptized in a Baptist church they are not baptized in the church (body of Christ), they have already been baptized into the body of Christ (church) when they first believed.

Okay, so where in the New Testament is there a distinction made between being baptized into a particular church and baptized into the church?

They’re baptism is a statement of their identification with the death, bural and resurrection of Jesus Christ. they then become menbers of the local church.

So, from the Catholic standpoint, if someone becomes part of the Body of Christ, then that person is part of the church, and the “local church” is that church.

In your view, suppose someone became part of the Body of Christ, but never joined a “local church.” What then?

and speaking of baptism, this past Sunday evening, two young couples, former Catholics, participated in beleivers baptism and became members of our Baptist Church. Praise the Lord !

Them and probably a fair number of the rest of your congregation.uch:

 

[allischalmers]

Okay, so where in the New Testament is there a distinction made between being baptized into a particular church and baptized into the church?

At the very moment that a person first beleives the gospel, thay are baptized into Christ, they become one with Christ and share in his suffering, his death, his bural, and his resurrection. They also become a part of the Body of Christ which is the Church of which Christ is the head. They are totally, completely and one hundred per cent a part of of the Church and there is nothing they can do to become any more a part of the Church

So, from the Catholic standpoint, if someone becomes part of the Body of Christ, then that person is part of the church, and the “local church” is that church.

I agree, the local church is a part of THE CHURCH

In your view, suppose someone became part of the Body of Christ, but never joined a “local church.” What then?

Christains do not have to join a local church. We have a lot of people that come to our church and have never joined, but they still call themselves Baptist. However the Bible does say that Christains should meet together for worship.

Them and probably a fair number of the rest of your congregation.uch:

I could not quess how many of our congregation are former Catholics, I hope that there are a lot of them uch:

 

[JohnPaul0]

At the very moment that a person first beleives the gospel, thay are baptized into Christ, they become one with Christ and share in his suffering, his death, his bural, and his resurrection.

Can I ask, where does the New Testament show that believing is called being baptized? I can find a number of verses that make a distinction between believing and being baptized:

“Whoever believes and is baptized will be saved, but whoever does not believe will be condemned.” (Mk 16:16)

“Crispus, the synagogue ruler, and his entire household believed in the Lord; and many of the Corinthians who heard him believed and were baptized.” (Acts 18:8)

They also become a part of the Body of Christ which is the Church of which Christ is the head. They are totally, completely and one hundred per cent a part of of the Church and there is nothing they can do to become any more a part of the Church

Good! So, then, after this, why do they need to be baptized to join a local church?

Peace,
JohnPaul