Next you will be telling me that water baptism saves a person, which would contradict the nature of God on how He redeems the remnant, which is the same way in the OT as the NT; faith alone. Romans 10 is the discussion on the whole thing;
Yes, of course! We are obligated to hold fast to the teaching of the Apostles, which is that we are saved when we are born again through water and Spirit in baptism.
Baptism is not offered by the Church without a profession of faith, though. However, faith is never “alone”. It is always accompanied by the works that God has prepared beforehand, that we should walk in them, and by hope, and charity. It abides eternally with this, of which the greatest is love. Have you never wondered, Tanner, why the Apostles taught that love was the greatest, if “faith is alone”.?
will confirm what every other place in the Bible teaches on the purpose of water baptism. Consider the infant; first they are not immersed, which in the basic sense of the word baptizō “to immerse” “to submerge”; sprinkling is not immersion is it?
The Bible reflects what the Apostles taught, which is that we are saved “through water”, just as those persons of faith in the OT. Peter even gives specific examples of this.
Yes, immersion is the fullest sign of baptism. However, no one is 'sprinkled". If there is not enough water to immerse, it is poured over the candidate. Sprinkling is used during various liturgies to remind us of our baptismal promises and the many gifts bestowed upon us when we were saved by the HS circumcising our hearts.
Water baptism is a command; it is the public proclamation of the believers association with Christ in His death, burial and resurrection.
It is a command, and our separated brethren use it as a “public proclamation”. However, this is not an Apostolic teaching. Personally, I don’t think there is anything wrong with it, any more than there is nothing wrong with altar calls (in spite of the fact that the communities have no “altar”. But in Apostolic times, and for 300 years after, baptisms were all done in secret, because it was a captial offense. They were only done in the presence of believers, so there was no point of a “public proclamation” other than to get martyred.
In fact to believe that water baptism can remove any sin; is to deny the cross sufficiency to fully impute Christ’s righteousness to the believer. Denying, even part, of the work on the cross in any manner is denying the sufficiency of Jesus.
I am sure it seems this way to a person who does not understand baptism. Contrary to what you believe, though, it is BECAUSE of Jesus’ all sufficient sacrifice on the cross that we can be joined with Him in his death and resurrection through baptism. In baptism " you were washed, you were sanctified, you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and in the Spirit of our God.
No one is cleansed, justified and sanctified apart from the HS, who is the one who circumcises our hearts. In baptism the HS clothes us with Christ, so that we can become His righteousness.
Gal 3:27-28
27 For as many of you as were baptized into Christ have put on Christ.
It is only by grace, through faith, that we are able to “put on Christ”.
Our Reformed brethren also agree with this, but they separate the water from the Spirit in a way the Apostles did not.
Which is the Baptism where God actually dwells in a believer and before He can actually and really dwell He must cleanse and make you a holy and undefiled temple to dwell in?
- Water 2) Holy Spirit or 3) Fire Which is it Church?
They are not separated, Tanner. Jesus has merged them together in Himself. For Christians, there is only ONE BAPTISM!
Eph 4:4-6
There is one body and one Spirit, just as you were called to the one hope that belongs to your call, 5 one Lord, one faith, one baptism, 6 one God and Father of us all, who is above all and through all and in all.
The water, HS, fire, suffering are all elements of the ONE BAPTISM. If you are going to try to extract doctrine from scripture, instead of receiving it from the Apostles, at least try to account for all the Scriptures! If you do that, you will be much closer to what the Apostles actually believed and taught.
When you say the whole household; where does it say that the household had small children or infants?
Are you suggesting that these Jewish households did not have them? Honestly!
Or have you imposed on the Word again? Furthermore; the whole household that would be baptized would also have to hear the gospel message and come to repentance and accept Jesus as both Lord and Savior. The fact that it says the whole household was baptized assumes automatically they were told about the gospel and they believed what they had heard. Praise God that the entire household believed!
I agree, and I think that households followed the choice of the head of the house, and that baptism was given to everyone, infants, children, slaves etc.
Does an infant have the ability to make that free-will decision? Nothing more needs to be said to put such a notion to rest.
I suppose this is true for a person who does not understand that baptism replaced circumcision as the entrance rite into the Kingdom. For those that accept this teaching of the Apostles, there is no reason to withhold it from infants and children, and complete precedent.
Back to the topic, do you think the promises that parents make to raise their children in the faith prove that Catholics do not “know the Lord”?
many Catholics I know just don’t talk about it like evangelicals do.
:banghead:
When Catholics talk about “working out salvation” this is what is meant.
:shrug:
