R
revscott
Guest
Oh, sorry about that. I know nothing of Druidism. What are your thoughts on the Bible as a Druid?
- Status
E
Esdra
Guest
Hi Threadstarter,
Did Jesus say in Mt 19:14 that he would consider baptizing them? No he didn’t. Let’s read further:
Verse 15: "When he had placed his hands on them, he went on from there. " So he didn’t baptize them, right?
Actually this is what we do in Baptist Churches - we, better said the pastor, places the hand on the, mostly, Baby.
A baby simply can’t decide. And by the way a baby is saved to 100% - because it can not sin. and we are not liable for the original sin either! Jesus took it with him on the cross. The original Sin was crucified with him, together with all other sins people have done so far until his death! This is the reason why we can get in contact again with God, our father in heaven, through our messias Jesus Christ. if we have accepted Jesus as our Master of our life - we can come to him at any time and he will forgive us - he will ask his and our father, our Lord in heaven for mercy in us and we can be sure that he will forgive us thru his unbelievable mercy. Isn’t that great? That’s one of the reasons why I became Baptist!
Later on then it can (in the meantime our Child is about 8-12) - it can decide himself/herself if it wants to go with jesus or not and is baptized then.
In the Baptist Churches Baptizm is no Holy Sacrament as it is in the Catholic Church or the Lutherian Evangelical church (where there are also infant baptizms). It is a public sign that you love jesus and are his disciple.
So acutally inviting Jesus into one’s heart is even more important than Baptizm itself.
I think Jesus meant in Joh 3,5 not that infants should be baptized. Young children can’t decide.
God is so merciful, if a Child dies without being baptized he will certainly not throw it in hell!
I think the willfull decision to Jesus is all you need.
Have a look at the bible verses:
Yet to all who received him, to those who believed in his name, he gave the right to become children of God. (Joh 1,12)
and not “who are baptized”.
Baptizm then is only a visual, public sign that one believes in Jesus.
Or at this one here:
“Whoever believes in him is not condemned, but whoever does not believe stands condemned already because he has not believed in the name of God’s one and only Son.”
(Joh 3,18) - again it doesn’t say “not baptized”.
Finally have a look at Luther: Sola fide, sola gratia, sola scriptura, solus Christus!
God bless you all,
Esdra
Did Jesus say in Mt 19:14 that he would consider baptizing them? No he didn’t. Let’s read further:
Verse 15: "When he had placed his hands on them, he went on from there. " So he didn’t baptize them, right?
Actually this is what we do in Baptist Churches - we, better said the pastor, places the hand on the, mostly, Baby.
A baby simply can’t decide. And by the way a baby is saved to 100% - because it can not sin. and we are not liable for the original sin either! Jesus took it with him on the cross. The original Sin was crucified with him, together with all other sins people have done so far until his death! This is the reason why we can get in contact again with God, our father in heaven, through our messias Jesus Christ. if we have accepted Jesus as our Master of our life - we can come to him at any time and he will forgive us - he will ask his and our father, our Lord in heaven for mercy in us and we can be sure that he will forgive us thru his unbelievable mercy. Isn’t that great? That’s one of the reasons why I became Baptist!
Later on then it can (in the meantime our Child is about 8-12) - it can decide himself/herself if it wants to go with jesus or not and is baptized then.
In the Baptist Churches Baptizm is no Holy Sacrament as it is in the Catholic Church or the Lutherian Evangelical church (where there are also infant baptizms). It is a public sign that you love jesus and are his disciple.
So acutally inviting Jesus into one’s heart is even more important than Baptizm itself.
I think Jesus meant in Joh 3,5 not that infants should be baptized. Young children can’t decide.
God is so merciful, if a Child dies without being baptized he will certainly not throw it in hell!
I think the willfull decision to Jesus is all you need.
Have a look at the bible verses:
Yet to all who received him, to those who believed in his name, he gave the right to become children of God. (Joh 1,12)
and not “who are baptized”.
Baptizm then is only a visual, public sign that one believes in Jesus.
Or at this one here:
“Whoever believes in him is not condemned, but whoever does not believe stands condemned already because he has not believed in the name of God’s one and only Son.”
(Joh 3,18) - again it doesn’t say “not baptized”.
Finally have a look at Luther: Sola fide, sola gratia, sola scriptura, solus Christus!
God bless you all,
Esdra
R
rinnie
Guest
Um Richard once again we have the same problem. You are saying something completely different from what Paul is saying. Paul is telling us we are called to the new covenant. Then he is saying HE is Christ’s ambassador through whom God appeals. If you continue to 6:1-10 You can clearly see that Paul is not only exercising his ministry of reconciliation he is discribing how his ministry is exercised.
I do not see where we are ALL called to be Priests. That is not what that gospel is saying thats for sure. Paul is talking about himself.
Of course we are all callled to be spread the good news and be disciples of Christ. But we are not all called to be infallible teachers. How can we as fallible men be infallible teachers. Is that not what you are saying? What does the bible say Richard? Who Richard, did Jesus say are the infallible teachers? I believe when you find that scripture will understand quite clear what I am trying to tell you. Let me know when you find that answer.
Back to my last question also who again does the bible state is the pillar of truth?
Another question Richard if we are all called to be infallible teachers of the faith why does Romans 1:1-7 seem to be in total conflict with you. Why would Paul say that an apostle is set apart for the gospel of God? He speaks of an undivided allegiance to the Lord of the Church. In Titus II: For this reason I left you in Crete so that you might set right what remains to be done and APPOINT PRESBYTERS in ever town
Does that not mean appoint Priests???Looking forward to your response
R
rinnie
Guest
Sorry Esdra not according to the word of God. Is is through Baptism that we are cleansed from our sin (get it the cleansing waters of baptism). You need to show me also where the bible states when Jesus placed his hands on them they did not receive he Holy Spirit.
Also Esdra why do you put so much restraint on Christ. You do not think that Christ knows the mind of a Child and who and who are not his Children
Also Esdra In Mark it say Whoever believes AND is baptized will be saved does it not.
What about John it says NO ONE enters heaven without baptism of water and spirit!
Also back to Mark where does it say you must believe to be baptised? Also could you tell me how you are so sure that if a infant is baptised and God forbid is called to the next world that the child would not believe and accept Christ? How can you know this? What makes you think that CHrist does not know the mind of an infant? Again why do you put so many restrictions on our dear Lord and Savior. I was taught that Christ knows the mind of all.
I am also very sorry to hear that you Church rejects Baptism as a Holy Sacrament
S
sdtouchton
Guest
Why do babies need to be baptized?
Through Adam’s sin, sin touches even the soul of the infant. Psalm 51:5:
Psalm 51: 2 Wash me thoroughly from my iniquity, and cleanse me from my sin! 3 For I know my transgressions, and my sin is ever before me. 4 Against thee, thee only, have I sinned, and done that which is evil in thy sight, so that thou art justified in thy sentence and blameless in thy judgment. 5 Behold, I was brought forth in iniquity, and in sin did my mother conceive me. 6 Behold, thou desirest truth in the inward being; therefore teach me wisdom in my secret heart. 7 Purge me with hyssop, and I shall be clean; wash me, and I shall be whiter than snow.
Job 14:1-4
1 "Man that is born of a woman is of few days, and full of trouble. 2 He comes forth like a flower, and withers; he flees like a shadow, and continues not. 3 And dost thou open thy eyes upon such a one and bring him into judgment with thee? 4 Who can bring a clean thing out of an unclean? There is not one.
Since birth, man is unclean. Only Jesus can make one clean. But one starts off unclean, according to Job and Psalms.
Paul develops the concept of original sin further in Romans 5:12-19. Let us look at some of these verses:
Romans 5:12
Therefore as sin came into the world through one man and death through sin, and so death spread to all men because all men sinned–
Because of one man’s sin, all sin? What in the world is that? What causes all men to sin? One man’s sin? That is Adam’s sin. If it was just that all men, happen to coincidentally ‘choose’ to sin, why does Paul mention Adam as foundational to that choice? It is that Adam’s sin causes men to be bent towards sin. Otherwise there would be no reason to mention Adam. What is that? Original sin.
Romans 5:14
Yet death reigned from Adam to Moses, even over those whose sins were not like the transgression of Adam,
How can death reign from Adam onward if there was no original sin? Why does death reign, even if it was not like the sin that Adam chose?
Romans 5:15
15 But the free gift is not like the trespass. For if many died through one man’s trespass, much more have the grace of God and the free gift in the grace of that one man Jesus Christ abounded for many.
Through one man’s trespass, many die. That is what original sin does. Paul explicitly says that one man’s sin, spreads to many. What is that except original sin? Why do all later in life choose to sin? Because of that one man’s sin spreading to all. That is original sin. Thus, one is bent towards sin, even from birth.
biblicalproof4catholicfaith.blogspot.com/2010/03/why-do-babies-need-to-be-baptized.html
Through Adam’s sin, sin touches even the soul of the infant. Psalm 51:5:
Psalm 51: 2 Wash me thoroughly from my iniquity, and cleanse me from my sin! 3 For I know my transgressions, and my sin is ever before me. 4 Against thee, thee only, have I sinned, and done that which is evil in thy sight, so that thou art justified in thy sentence and blameless in thy judgment. 5 Behold, I was brought forth in iniquity, and in sin did my mother conceive me. 6 Behold, thou desirest truth in the inward being; therefore teach me wisdom in my secret heart. 7 Purge me with hyssop, and I shall be clean; wash me, and I shall be whiter than snow.
Job 14:1-4
1 "Man that is born of a woman is of few days, and full of trouble. 2 He comes forth like a flower, and withers; he flees like a shadow, and continues not. 3 And dost thou open thy eyes upon such a one and bring him into judgment with thee? 4 Who can bring a clean thing out of an unclean? There is not one.
Since birth, man is unclean. Only Jesus can make one clean. But one starts off unclean, according to Job and Psalms.
Paul develops the concept of original sin further in Romans 5:12-19. Let us look at some of these verses:
Romans 5:12
Therefore as sin came into the world through one man and death through sin, and so death spread to all men because all men sinned–
Because of one man’s sin, all sin? What in the world is that? What causes all men to sin? One man’s sin? That is Adam’s sin. If it was just that all men, happen to coincidentally ‘choose’ to sin, why does Paul mention Adam as foundational to that choice? It is that Adam’s sin causes men to be bent towards sin. Otherwise there would be no reason to mention Adam. What is that? Original sin.
Romans 5:14
Yet death reigned from Adam to Moses, even over those whose sins were not like the transgression of Adam,
How can death reign from Adam onward if there was no original sin? Why does death reign, even if it was not like the sin that Adam chose?
Romans 5:15
15 But the free gift is not like the trespass. For if many died through one man’s trespass, much more have the grace of God and the free gift in the grace of that one man Jesus Christ abounded for many.
Through one man’s trespass, many die. That is what original sin does. Paul explicitly says that one man’s sin, spreads to many. What is that except original sin? Why do all later in life choose to sin? Because of that one man’s sin spreading to all. That is original sin. Thus, one is bent towards sin, even from birth.
biblicalproof4catholicfaith.blogspot.com/2010/03/why-do-babies-need-to-be-baptized.html
R
Richard_Kastner
Guest
I was just reading through this thread and I saw this post which I guess I missed.
rinnie, I am really struggling with just exactly what it is you are objecting to in my explainations. You seem to be agreeing with my conclusions, but not with the way I arrived at them. If this is right, you are agreeing that Jesus is telling us in Jn.3:5Jesus answered, Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except a man be born of water and of the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God. that only adults who are born again (accept Jesus as thier Lord and Savior) are capable of being baptised (The outward sign of that acceptance) If this is the case we have no disagreement.Thats my point I am trying to stress to you Richard. Of course Jesus always meant what he said and always said what he meant. But you cannot take it upon yourself to intrepret scripture. You have been doing it according to what you read and how YOU think it should be. IF someone would want to argue they could say Jesus said MAN, of course I know what Jesus meant. But I am showing you how people can pick scripture apart to make it say what they want it to say, instead of what it says. Which is exactly what you are trying to do!
If I were to argue the point Jesus said MAN not Woman. Do you see what I am saying, Of course I would be wrong according to the teachings of the Church. I know what the Church teaches ALL must be baptised. But if I were to choose to argue my point Scripture does indeed state MAN. That is what I am trying to show you that you are doing when you make the statements about baptism. You are doing just that!
R
rinnie
Guest
Also Dear Esdra you may want to continue reading John what happend after 6:18 Esdra try reading on to 6:22 it finishes the story!
C
cyberwolf001
Guest
A very dark work in some places, most of the good stuff had already been said before. Infact all of it had.
Also you should know the Druid group I belong to isn’t just Celtic but Pan Indo-European.
R
Richard_Kastner
Guest
Whoa, rinnie, Paul never mentions the new covenant. Are you speaking in your official capacity as spokesperson for the interpretive authority of the CC? Because if you are you better back up and read 2Cor,5:17-21again I have posted it above for your convienience.
Let’s take a close look at 2Cor.5:18& 20 18And all things are of God, who hath reconciled us to himself by Jesus Christ, and hath given to us the ministry of reconciliation;
20Now then we are ambassadors for Christ, as though God did beseech you by us: we pray you in Christ’s stead, be ye reconciled to God.
Now no matter how much you or your church wants this to say that only Paul is given the ministry of reconciliation or that only Paul is given an ambassadorship for Christ. THAT IS NOT WHAT THIS IS SAYING Read it again. It is saying “and hath given to us the ministry of reconciliation;” and “we are ambassadors for Christ” I’m sure you are aware of 2Peter 3:16As also in all his epistles, speaking in them of these things; in which are some things hard to be understood, which they that are unlearned and unstable wrest, as they do also the other scriptures, unto their own destruction. You really need to be a little more concientious in your exegesis. You not only have the potential of hurting someone who might believe your misinformation. You do it to your own destruction as Peter says.
How about Peter
1 Peter 2:9
But ye are a chosen generation, a royal priesthood, an holy nation, a peculiar people; that ye should shew forth the praises of him who hath called you out of darkness into his marvellous light;
No, that is not what I am saying. Jesus was and is the only person to walk the earth that is infallible. What I am saying is exactly what you said in your statement above.
**“Of course we are all callled to be spread the good news and be disciples of Christ.” **
Jesus never said there were infallible teachers, except for Him. That is why He tells us.
Matt.28:20Teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you:
Christ’s church.
Again never said we are called to be infallible teachers.
Romans 1
1Paul, a servant of Jesus Christ, called to be an apostle, separated unto the gospel of God,
2(Which he had promised afore by his prophets in the holy scriptures,)
3Concerning his Son Jesus Christ our Lord, which was made of the seed of David according to the flesh;
4And declared to be the Son of God with power, according to the spirit of holiness, by the resurrection from the dead:
5By whom we have received grace and apostleship, for obedience to the faith among all nations, for his name:
6Among whom are ye also the called of Jesus Christ:
7To all that be in Rome, beloved of God, called to be saints: Grace to you and peace from God our Father, and the Lord Jesus Christ.
Not sure what your getting at here.
continued
R
Richard_Kastner
Guest
Perhaps because an apostle is set apart for the gospel of God?
The v. you quote is in Titus 1:5 My translation has itHe speaks of an undivided allegiance to the Lord of the Church. In Titus II: For this reason I left you in Crete so that you might set right what remains to be done and APPOINT PRESBYTERS in ever town
Looking forward to your response
¶ For this cause left I thee in Crete, that thou shouldest set in order the things that are wanting, and ordain elders in every city, as I had appointed thee:
The word in my translation (KJV) as elders and yours as presbyters is presbyteros.
This from Strong’s concordance:
presbyteros
Outline of Biblical Usage 1) elder, of age,
a) the elder of two people
b) advanced in life, an elder, a senior
- forefathers
- a term of rank or office
- members of the great council or Sanhedrin (because in early times the rulers of the people, judges, etc., were selected from elderly men)
- of those who in separate cities managed public affairs and administered justice
c) the twenty four members of the heavenly Sanhedrin or court seated on thrones around the throne of God
I think 2b fits this application the best. In other words bishops, elders, presbyters are appointed by men as administrators and to preside over assemlies. No mention of priests here. So let’s go once again to 2Peter2:9 But ye [are] a chosen generation, a royal priesthood, an holy nation, a peculiar people; that ye should shew forth the praises of him who hath called you out of darkness into his marvellous light:
Peter says we shall be a nation of royal priests. Peter was quoting the old testament.
Ex.19:5Now therefore, if ye will obey my voice indeed, and keep my covenant, then ye shall be a peculiar treasure unto me above all people: for all the earth is mine:
6And ye shall be unto me a kingdom of priests, and an holy nation. These are the words which thou shalt speak unto the children of Israel.
Ok, this shows us that priests are appointed by God (if we keep His covenant [ten commandments]) and a priest is an intersessor. Heb. 7:24But this man, because he continueth ever, hath an unchangeable priesthood.
25Wherefore he is able also to save them to the uttermost that come unto God by him, seeing he ever liveth to make intercession for them.
Jesus the High priest intercedes on our (believers) behalf before the Father by the ministration of His blood. We on the other hand are given the ministry of reconciliation or the gospel. The good news that God has reconciled the world to Himself through the blood of Jesus.
2Cor.5:18And all things are of God, who hath reconciled us to himself by Jesus Christ, and hath given to us the ministry of reconciliation;
Why are you fighting against this rinnie? Is it because you feel inadequate to the task? Well of coarse you are. We all are. But when you think of the marvelous message that it is our priveledge to bring to the world our feelings of inadequecy should disappear.
Turn you eyes upon Jesus,
Look full in His wonderful face;
And the things of earth will
grow strangely dim
In the light of His glory and grace.
R
rinnie
Guest
No we are in total disagreement. There is no where in scripture that states only adults can be baptised. Actually scripture that state otherwise.
Tell me this why did Paul note that baptism replaced circumcision then? Why did he use the passage Col.2:11-12, If St Paul meant to exclude infants he would have never chosen circumcision as a parallel for baptism.
Tell me this do you believe what Paul said that Baptism replaced circumcision. Well then if you do agree with this, your theory of infants not being able to be Baptised because they were not capable just got shot in the pants.
The Old law infants were who got circumcised, it was quite rare for an adult. Baptism replaced circumcision.
In the OT if a MAN wanted to become a Jew he had to believe in the God of Israel he must be circumcised.
In the NT if a MAN wants to be a Christian he must be baptised.
In the OT those born into Jewish households could be circumcised in anticipation of the Jewish faith in which they were raised.
In the N.T those born into Christian households can be bpatised in anticiplation the the Christian faith they are to be raised in.
Same exact pattern.
If one is an adult it must have faith before receiving the rite of membership, if one is a child too young to have faith one may be given the rite in membership in the knowledge that one will be raised in the faith.
This is the WHOLE BASIS of Pauls reference to BAPTISM AS THE CIRCUMCISION OF CHRIST, WHICH IS EQUVALENT OF CIRCUMCISION.
This is my whole point which I am trying to explain to you Richard. You cannot even begin to understand the NT without understanding the OT.
They cannot contradict they must tie in to eachother. And if you have the true meaning which is SS and OT they do. IF not then you will never understand. You cannot get the full concept of the faith by picking verses out here and there. They must tie into together. They must.
Jesus never changed the O.T he fullfilled it. It was by his blood on the cross that replaced circumcision by Baptism. By Baptism we are circumcisied to his heart.
C
Cristian_B
Guest
Baptism represents the death and resurrection of Jesus Christ. That is done by faith. Can babies have faith?
S
sailorman76
Guest
Were does it state the Jesus was Baptized as a newborn.? He was baptized as he was beginning his ministry. Do any Christian believe that God wants any of us to go to Hell? If not how could not a child be saved by the saving Grace of God.
R
rinnie
Guest
[SIGN][/SIGN]
Wrong dude. Who should I believe you or Jesus. I will pick Jesus. If Jesus was the only infallible teacher then how could Jesus say to the Disciples. HE WHO HEARS YOU HEAR ME, AND HE WHO REJECT YOU REJECT ME? Do you accept or reject these words? If you reject them then you reject the scripture If you accept that scripture would you not agree that they were teaching with the authority of Christ to the extent they were indeed hearing Jesus Christ himself speaking. Then how could they dare to speak the words of Christ without being infallible in what they are saying.
R
rinnie
Guest
R
rinnie
Guest
[SIGN][/SIGN]
I never said that. There are many Apostles of Christ not only Paul. I do not know where you got that. If you feel I said it I apologize I never did. I just quoted on that particular scripture.
P
paulp1002
Guest
I believe that RebeccaJ has provided a great response. In my case, I had agreed during our marriage to not baptize my son until he was older. This was a HUGE sacrafice that I was willing to make, in order to make the marriage work. However because of my Catholic beliefs and the fact that I would like to share those with my son, she has choosen to no longer be married to me and I do not have to make that HUGE sacrafice. I can proceed with the Holy Sacrament.
Y
yubasux95901
Guest
This is because many Protestant groups do not allow anyone to be baptized until they have reached the “age of understanding” (considered to be 7-8 years old in most churches, though it does vary from person to person). There is no point in baptizing an infant if they do not understand what is happening. Also, until someone reaches their particular “age of understanding” they are considered to be innocent like little children in the eyes of the Lord. Basically, if any person dies without the proper understanding of God and faith, they will die and go to heaven - baptized or not. Baptism is meant to be a conformation of your faith in Christ after you have been saved. If you are not saved and you are baptized, it doesn’t count.
E
Esdra
Guest
Hi rinnie,Sorry Esdra not according to the word of God. Is is through Baptism that we are cleansed from our sin (get it the cleansing waters of baptism). You need to show me also where the bible states when Jesus placed his hands on them they did not receive he Holy Spirit.
Also Esdra why do you put so much restraint on Christ. You do not think that Christ knows the mind of a Child and who and who are not his Children
Also Esdra In Mark it say Whoever believes AND is baptized will be saved does it not.
What about John it says NO ONE enters heaven without baptism of water and spirit!
Also back to Mark where does it say you must believe to be baptised? Also could you tell me how you are so sure that if a infant is baptised and God forbid is called to the next world that the child would not believe and accept Christ? How can you know this? What makes you think that CHrist does not know the mind of an infant? Again why do you put so many restrictions on our dear Lord and Savior. I was taught that Christ knows the mind of all.
I am also very sorry to hear that you Church rejects Baptism as a Holy Sacrament
I never said that Baptizm is not necessiary to enter heaven.
I just wanted to state that a Baby can’t decide for or against christ!
So if it dies, god will take it to him. It can’t sin and so also can’t make god angry so that he would throw it in hell “where will be weeping and gnarshing of teeth” (Mt 25,20).
Well, it could be that my argumentation is not that clear…
You can imagine that it is rather hard for me to discuss such complicated topics in a foreign language, which English is for me.
However I have found a nice quote for you, rinnie:
This is what I wanted to say. It is simply important that you get baptized when you really believe and want repentance.
As a Child younger than 8, or even worse, as Baby, you just can’t decide.
By the Way: you also force your child into a specific Religion by the infant baptizm.
So, if I would get a daughter or a son I would definitely raise her/him as a Christian. But I wouldn’t let her/him to be baptized.
When he/she cann decide herself for Christ, she should be baptized then. But for me she/he would total freedom which denomination she chooses… She/He can go to a pentecostal Church, a Baptist church, ar mennonite church or a methodist church etc. Yes, she/he could even go to the catholic church, if Jesus tells her so…
I mean the baptizm with water is really just a sign as I have stated in my previous post. (cf. Mk 1,8) It is much more important that you turn your heart to Jesus, that you repent, and ask Jesus to come into your life.
As far as I know after baptizm in my Baptist Church the pastor and another acquaintance or relative of the baptized Person spends the Holy Ghost - and this is the second baptizm - the baptizm with fire (cf. Mk 1,8; Apg 2,1-12)
So now, I do hope I articulated myself clearly about this topic why there is no infant baptizm in the Anabaptist and Baptist Churches and others.
Best wishes,
Esdra
E
Esdra
Guest
Very well stated, brother. Thank you. I could need some assistence in defending why there is no infant baptizm in some protestant denominations…
Best wishes,
Esdra
- Status