another different type of discussion about baptism

[kayanne]

Rather than hijack the "so who here is concerned" thread (an excellent one, imo) I would like to discuss baptism in a little different way than is normally done.

It is not crystal clear whether or not baptism is essential for salvation. Of course people who think it is essential believe the Bible is clear on it; conversely people who believe in faith alone believe the Bible is clear on that. There are millions of scholars, theologians, and educated Christians on both sides of the issue, so obviously it is not crystal clear. If it were, we would not be having these endless debates. Agreed??

Now, we have another thread going on in this forum that's a zillion pages long, with a "scripture verse ping-pong tournament" now in overtime. I don't want this thread to be another ping-pong tournament please.

For those who believe baptism is not essential:
would you at least agree that baptism is very important, and that every person who accepts Christ's forgiveness absolutely should be baptized?
Could I even further suggest that a person who stubbornly refuses to obey even this easily obeyed command of God, might give us cause to question their understanding of "if you love me, you will keep my commandments"?......dare I say such a refusal would cause me to question their seriousness about wanting Christ in their life? (not saying we are to judge another person's salvation, but a cavalier attitude and refusal to be baptized is a pretty big red flag in my opinion). Except in very rare circumstances (ie a person accepts Christ as he is dying, and never has the chance to be baptized), there is no reason for a Christian to refuse baptism---so rather than dwell on "baptism is not essential" how about we tell people about Jesus, and if/when they make Him a part of their life, we tell them that now they should be baptized. They should, right?....even if you don't believe they must?

For those who believe baptism IS essential:
Can you see where "faith alone" people (the vast majority of whom ARE baptized), in their exaltation of Christ's sufficiency, believe that it detracts from Christ's "It is finished" to say that anything other than saving faith is needed for salvation?

Here's my position: I have asked Jesus to be my savior. I have been baptized. Is it both of those facts that assures me of my salvation? I don't know! Does God require me to believe that my baptism played a part in my salvation? I don't think so.

Thoughts? And please.....no scripture verses to "prove" your side about baptism being essential or not. Go to the other thread for that, please. I started this thread to find common ground, respect for each side, and humility as we realize that "now we see through a glass dimly."
blessings, kayanne

[WesWoodell]

Here's my position: I have asked Jesus to be my savior. I have been baptized. Is it both of those facts that assures me of my salvation? I don't know!

Jesus said that whoever believes and is baptized will be saved. A real belief in God (or faith) causes a person to want to follow God's commands - if a person claims to believe in God yet refuses to strive to follow His commands then I do not believe they really believe in God.

Thoughts? And please.....no scripture verses to "prove" your side about baptism being essential or not.

LoL - do you understand what you're asking? That attitude is the reason there's so much confusion out there right now!

"Don't use God's infallible Word to explain or understand - just tell me your opinion."

:scratch:

[FaithAlone]

would you at least agree that baptism is very important, and that every person who accepts Christ's forgiveness absolutely should be baptized?
Could I even further suggest that a person who stubbornly refuses to obey even this easily obeyed command of God, might give us cause to question their understanding of "if you love me, you will keep my commandments"?......dare I say such a refusal would cause me to question their seriousness about wanting Christ in their life? (not saying we are to judge another person's salvation, but a cavalier attitude and refusal to be baptized is a pretty big red flag in my opinion). Except in very rare circumstances (ie a person accepts Christ as he is dying, and never has the chance to be baptized), there is no reason for a Christian to refuse baptism---so rather than dwell on "baptism is not essential" how about we tell people about Jesus, and if/when they make Him a part of their life, we tell them that now they should be baptized. They should, right?....even if you don't believe they must?


I keep telling myself I'm going to quit posting about this because it frustrates me so, but I would agree with the above quote. I would have to say that when I was a member of the Church of Christ (I'm speaking for my church and only that one) that if someone trusted in Christ as their Lord in Savior and was baptized, but did not believe that that baptism was part of what saved them, they were not considered saved. Does this ring true to you guys who believe that baptism is essential? I can't say for sure and maybe this sounds like I'm being judgemental and close-minded but I am the opposite and think that if you're trusting in anything other than Christ to save you then maybe you aren't saved, but I'm not the judge of that and I hope that the faith that comes before baptism will be what God is looking for in your heart.

[kayanne]

LoL - do you understand what you're asking? That attitude is the reason there's so much confusion out there right now!

"Don't use God's infallible Word to explain or understand - just tell me your opinion."

:scratch:

See---right off the bat you're being condescending, instead of giving me the benefit of the doubt that I am a reasonable person, a genuine Christian, and that what I have posted may have some value.

And yes, I realize that it may have sounded like I value opinions more than God's Word. That is absolutely not the case. If you read through the "so who else here is concerned" thread as background to this thread, it would hopefully help you understand where I'm coming from.

I don't think it's my attitude that is causing the confusion. I think it is the "scripture ping-pong" that is causing the confusion, plus stirring up tension, pride, and condescension----at the neglect of clearly commanded teachings about love and humility.

I'm not saying we shouldn't try to figure out what the Bible says about anything. Not at all!! But I think it's time to wave a white flag on some of these divisive issues, and stop implying (or sometimes straight out saying) that people who disagree with "our correct interpretation" are ridiculous, stupid, unable to study the Bible properly, are twisting the Bible to make it say whatever they want, or any number of other uncharitable remarks and attitudes that accompany these debates.

[Jim Woodell]

I keep telling myself I'm going to quit posting about this because it frustrates me so, but I would agree with the above quote. I would have to say that when I was a member of the Church of Christ (I'm speaking for my church and only that one) that if someone trusted in Christ as their Lord in Savior and was baptized, but did not believe that that baptism was part of what saved them, they were not considered saved. Does this ring true to you guys who believe that baptism is essential? I can't say for sure and maybe this sounds like I'm being judgemental and close-minded but I am the opposite and think that if you're trusting in anything other than Christ to save you then maybe you aren't saved, but I'm not the judge of that and I hope that the faith that comes before baptism will be what God is looking for in your heart.

I do appreciate the conciliatory spirit that is obvious in the original post on this thread, and I would say to FaithAlone that your experience and what you were taught in the "Church of Christ" you attended is very unfortunate. It is because of false teachings about this Biblical subject that folks like yourself cut and run.

I can tell you that this does not ring true with me or what is taught at the Downtown Church of Christ where I am a member. I also believe that if you trust in anything other than Christ to save you, you have missed the mark! How much tolerance God will have for the foolishness of men will be left to God.

None of this distracts from the fact that baptism is in the Bible and is (should be) a faith response to the death, burial and resurrection of Jesus Christ. At the DT Church, where I attend, we do not require a person be rebaptized who has already, "believed and been baptized." Some of the folks who argue against the necessity of baptism require a person from other fellowships to be immersed again to join their church.

Thank you for the post and for reminding us that God wants all believers to be one (John 17:20-21).

[Andyman_1970]

"Don't use God's infallible Word to explain or understand - just tell me your opinion."


First, why does every discussion a Christian have "have" to involve the Bible?

Second, Kayanne here is trying to take some of the "sting" out of the discussions we have had on other thread regarding this subject - I think the overiding priority here is to be respectful of others - as Jesus was.

Third, both sides of this issue have thrown the Scritpures around and both sides are presenting their interpretation (dare is say opinion) on this subject.

Anyway............Kayanne, I applaud your effort with this thread..... :thumbsup:

I'll even answer the question from the OP - as someone who believes baptism is not essential for salvation, I do beleive it is very important - it is one of the two sacraments that the NT church is to observe.

[FaithAlone]

Jim Woodell, it sounds like your church is alright but why do you go to a church with a name that is known for other doctrine? I guess I'm a little guilty of the same thing because I go to a baptist church even though I don't consider myself a baptist. I just agree with their doctrine for the most part and my husband is the youth pastor. Both of us would be very happy in a non-denominational church though. OK so that's getting way off the subject. I do not despise baptism in the least. I think it is a wonderful thing that is a step of obedience in your walk with Christ but I believe you are sealed with the Holy Spirit when you are saved and can be a Christian without ever being baptized. I do believe all believers should be baptized.

[MG]

So, with all that being said, a fairly new believer, such as myself, stumbles upon these threads and gets discouraged because they have not been baptized. I may be overly simplistic, but I thought scripture was clear on the salvation part.....Christ alone. All other things were done out of love and obedience... I have not been baptized, but you can ...bet your skinny that I am saved by Grace and my reward is in heaven!

[kayanne]

So, with all that being said, a fairly new believer, such as myself, stumbles upon these threads and gets discouraged because they have not been baptized. I may be overly simplistic, but I thought scripture was clear on the salvation part.....Christ alone. All other things were done out of love and obedience... I have not been baptized, but you can ...bet your skinny that I am saved by Grace and my reward is in heaven!

MG,
It is not my intention to discourage anyone! Quite the opposite actually. If you've been around here for very long, you'll have noticed that some of these discussions do get a bit, ahem, heated and rude.

I'm just trying to find some common ground and respect for people of differing opinions.

And no, I don't think you can say scripture is "clear" on the salvation part being Christ alone---many do believe baptism is required (and in their defense I have to say there are many scriptures that do seem to say that, even though many other scriptures seem to say something else).

I know it can be frustrating as a new Christian (or even an oldie like myself) to realize that the Bible is difficult to understand. So I try to focus on what's clear, learn what I can about what's unclear, and be respectful of different interpretations.

May I ask if you are considering being baptized at some point in the future? Do you have questions about baptism that you are trying to resolve before taking that step? I am definitely not trying to put you down, but I can say that, essential or not, baptism is important and I hope you'll give much thought and prayer to doing so.

blessings, and welcome to the faith! kayanne :wave:

[daverain]

.





There are millions of scholars, theologians, and educated Christians on both sides of the issue, so obviously it is not crystal clear. If it were, we would not be having these endless debates. Agreed??



WRONG (=NOT agreed).

Jesus speaks of BLIND SCRIBES (in Church leadership)


Jesus WARNS against FALSE TEACHERS

"Beware the leaven of the pharisees"

Jesus warns us of: WOLVES IN SHEEPS CLOTHING.


I DECLARE, that certain FALSE-DOCTRINE is DELIBERATE.


GREED is motivation for many a LIAR behind a 'pulpit'.




-Peace in Christ.





.

[daverain]

.


Also, please consider that many who declare baptism in water to be UN-NECESSARY,

HAVE BEEN BAPTISED IN WATER.

(So please, let's not be too quick to 'judge' others as 'rejecting God', or something of this nature.)


.

[Jim Woodell]

Jim Woodell, it sounds like your church is alright but why do you go to a church with a name that is known for other doctrine? I guess I'm a little guilty of the same thing because I go to a baptist church even though I don't consider myself a baptist. I just agree with their doctrine for the most part and my husband is the youth pastor. Both of us would be very happy in a non-denominational church though. OK so that's getting way off the subject. I do not despise baptism in the least. I think it is a wonderful thing that is a step of obedience in your walk with Christ but I believe you are sealed with the Holy Spirit when you are saved and can be a Christian without ever being baptized. I do believe all believers should be baptized.

I will answer the first part of your post: I would not say, even at our church, that some might claim 'baptismal regeneration' as it has been referred to. That is not what the Bible teaches. Every group will likely have some things, either in teaching or practice that we don't particularly agree with. You can spend your life being frustrated over those things are focus on becoming like Christ. I have taken my eyes off Christ to often, and others have also.

The Church of Christ has had (and still does in the minds of some) the reputation of being the group that thinks everyone is going to hell except them, or "They are the folks that don't use instrumental music." These things seem to have detracted from the truth that anywhere, anytime a group of Christians want to band together as a community of believers and take the Bible as their guide that they can be Christ's Church in that place and not belong to any denomination. They would not be Baptist, Episcopalian, Methodist, Luthern, etc, etc.

Although I do not agree with your last two sentences I will withhold any response for another thread and thank you for your comments.

[kayanne]

.


Also, please consider that many who declare baptism in water to be UN-NECESSARY,

HAVE BEEN BAPTISED IN WATER.

(So please, let's not be too quick to 'judge' others as 'rejecting God', or something of this nature.)


.

Dave, I'm sorry, I have no idea what you're trying to say. Of course people who don't consider baptism necessary are baptized anyway (since they view it as very important).

And in regard to your previous post, (above the one I quoted), by definition, "crystal clear" means indisputable, not debateable, so I don't think we could say the necessity (or lack thereof) of baptism is crystal clear.

Please don't turn this thread into another debate. I believe there must surely be other Christians who would prefer to focus on common ground than on differences; who can humbly say "I don't have this whole Bible figured out!"; and who would like to fellowship with other Christians for the joy of it, rather than for the ego boost of winning an argument. I for one am starving for that kind of Christian fellowship!!! Jesus help me.

kayanne

[daverain]

.




I don't think we could say the necessity (or lack thereof) of baptism is crystal clear.



I'm sorry.

I disagree with you.


I feel teachings of Christ CAN be

'crystal clear'.


You see, whenever I've:
------------------------

listened to the BLIND SCRIBES (within church leadership)...


Here's what I get:
-----------------

What a horrible-noise they indeed make.


It's like 'fingernails on a black-board' if you will.


AND/OR


Some dark-foul-disgusting-beast,

lifting it's ugly-head,


and letting out a 'horrible-screech'

just before it attacks.

----------------------------------------
(Aaaah! Their hideous-noise! Aaaah!)
----------------------------------------


But...


As for the words of Christ...
---------------------------

What lovely COMFORTable music.


"My sheep hear My Voice."



-Peace of Christ to you.



.

[- DRA -]

Rather than hijack the "so who here is concerned" thread (an excellent one, imo) I would like to discuss baptism in a little different way than is normally done.

It is not crystal clear whether or not baptism is essential for salvation. Of course people who think it is essential believe the Bible is clear on it; conversely people who believe in faith alone believe the Bible is clear on that. There are millions of scholars, theologians, and educated Christians on both sides of the issue, so obviously it is not crystal clear. If it were, we would not be having these endless debates. Agreed??

Now, we have another thread going on in this forum that's a zillion pages long, with a "scripture verse ping-pong tournament" now in overtime. I don't want this thread to be another ping-pong tournament please.

For those who believe baptism is not essential:
would you at least agree that baptism is very important, and that every person who accepts Christ's forgiveness absolutely should be baptized?
Could I even further suggest that a person who stubbornly refuses to obey even this easily obeyed command of God, might give us cause to question their understanding of "if you love me, you will keep my commandments"?......dare I say such a refusal would cause me to question their seriousness about wanting Christ in their life? (not saying we are to judge another person's salvation, but a cavalier attitude and refusal to be baptized is a pretty big red flag in my opinion). Except in very rare circumstances (ie a person accepts Christ as he is dying, and never has the chance to be baptized), there is no reason for a Christian to refuse baptism---so rather than dwell on "baptism is not essential" how about we tell people about Jesus, and if/when they make Him a part of their life, we tell them that now they should be baptized. They should, right?....even if you don't believe they must?

For those who believe baptism IS essential:
Can you see where "faith alone" people (the vast majority of whom ARE baptized), in their exaltation of Christ's sufficiency, believe that it detracts from Christ's "It is finished" to say that anything other than saving faith is needed for salvation?

Here's my position: I have asked Jesus to be my savior. I have been baptized. Is it both of those facts that assures me of my salvation? I don't know! Does God require me to believe that my baptism played a part in my salvation? I don't think so.

Thoughts? And please.....no scripture verses to "prove" your side about baptism being essential or not. Go to the other thread for that, please. I started this thread to find common ground, respect for each side, and humility as we realize that "now we see through a glass dimly."
blessings, kayanne

Kayanne,

I believe that baptism is a requirement to be saved under the gospel of Christ.

Yes, I do understand the reasoning of those who promote salvation by "faith only". The difference is in our approach to studying Scripture, which has absolutely nothing to do with baptism. It is the lesson that Jesus taught in Matt. 4:5-7 and Matt. 22:23-33. It involves accepting the understanding of a passage of Scripture without comparing it to other passages. Truth will harmonize. In a nutshell, misunderstanding this principle explains how folks reach all the conclusions that they do -- regardless of the subject they are studying or discussing -- because they accept one passage alone as the sole source of truth on a particular topic, and fail or refuse to accept the truth that other passages teach. To illustrate, I use Matthew chapter 2 to show how things are supposed to work. That chapter discusses Jesus. It says He was born in Bethlehem, called out of Egypt, and was a Nazarene. Which aspect is true? Likewise, which is true -- John 3:16; Luke 13:3,5; Matt. 10:32-33, or Mark 16:16?

I hope you don't mind my Scriptural references. Frankly, without them I am afraid that God and His word don't receive the respect and consideration they deserve e.g. 1 Pet. 4:11a, Rom. 10:17. :bow:

In His service,
. . . DRA

[New_Wineskin]

Rather than hijack the "so who here is concerned" thread (an excellent one, imo) I would like to discuss baptism in a little different way than is normally done.

It is not crystal clear whether or not baptism is essential for salvation. Of course people who think it is essential believe the Bible is clear on it; conversely people who believe in faith alone believe the Bible is clear on that. There are millions of scholars, theologians, and educated Christians on both sides of the issue, so obviously it is not crystal clear. If it were, we would not be having these endless debates. Agreed??


Ah ... no . I stated that in one of the other threads and people don't like the idea that water baptism is not clear . In fact , many people don't like the idea that *anything* that they thought was important was not clear in the Scriptures . But , I agree with you .



Now, we have another thread going on in this forum that's a zillion pages long, with a "scripture verse ping-pong tournament" now in overtime. I don't want this thread to be another ping-pong tournament please.


Hey . Good luck with that . But , you at least asked nicely . I appreciate the way you put that . :)



For those who believe baptism is not essential:
would you at least agree that baptism is very important, and that every person who accepts Christ's forgiveness absolutely should be baptized?


I agree that baptism is important but not *water* baptism . To say that one *should* be water baptised is the same as saying that it is essential for salvation . If it isn't essential for salvation , I see no reason why it is a "should" . But , I will read on to see what else you have to say ...



Could I even further suggest that a person who stubbornly refuses to obey even this easily obeyed command of God, might give us cause to question their understanding of "if you love me, you will keep my commandments"?......dare I say such a refusal would cause me to question their seriousness about wanting Christ in their life? (not saying we are to judge another person's salvation, but a cavalier attitude and refusal to be baptized is a pretty big red flag in my opinion). Except in very rare circumstances (ie a person accepts Christ as he is dying, and never has the chance to be baptized), there is no reason for a Christian to refuse baptism---so rather than dwell on "baptism is not essential" how about we tell people about Jesus, and if/when they make Him a part of their life, we tell them that now they should be baptized. They should, right?....even if you don't believe they must?


Now my agreeing with *that* definitely would be the same as my agreeing with water baptism being essential for salation . I see no difference between "should" and "must" .



Here's my position: I have asked Jesus to be my savior. I have been baptized. Is it both of those facts that assures me of my salvation? I don't know! Does God require me to believe that my baptism played a part in my salvation? I don't think so .


It appears that now that you have done want you think that you should do , you are wondering if you should believe correctly about whether you need to believe you must have done it or only must "should" have done it . Next , we could ask if we must believe that we must believe if we must or should believe that water baptism is essential . It can get a bit weird .



Thoughts? And please.....no scripture verses to "prove" your side about baptism being essential or not. Go to the other thread for that, please. I started this thread to find common ground, respect for each side, and humility as we realize that "now we see through a glass dimly."
blessings, kayanne

Great ending !!

[New_Wineskin]

See---right off the bat you're being condescending, instead of giving me the benefit of the doubt that I am a reasonable person, a genuine Christian, and that what I have posted may have some value.

And yes, I realize that it may have sounded like I value opinions more than God's Word. That is absolutely not the case.


You didn't sound like that at all . You were quite clear .

[kayanne]

The difference is in our approach to studying Scripture, which has absolutely nothing to do with baptism. It is the lesson that Jesus taught in Matt. 4:5-7 and Matt. 22:23-33. It involves accepting the understanding of a passage of Scripture without comparing it to other passages. Truth will harmonize. In a nutshell, misunderstanding this principle explains how folks reach all the conclusions that they do -- regardless of the subject they are studying or discussing -- because they accept one passage alone as the sole source of truth on a particular topic, and fail or refuse to accept the truth that other passages teach.

I appreciate the kind way in which you shared your thoughts, but I would disagree that we differ significantly in our approach to studying the Bible. My church very much emphasizes the whole context of scripture, and comparing passages, etc. I certainly hope most Christians approach Scripture this way!


I hope you don't mind my Scriptural references. Frankly, without them I am afraid that God and His word don't receive the respect and consideration they deserve e.g. 1 Pet. 4:11a, Rom. 10:17. :bow:
You weren't clobbering anyone over the head with your opinions and interpretations, so your post was fine! I'll admit that my request for "no Scripture verses" was the first time in my life I've ever taken this approach to a subject! I really do love God's Word---I just hate to see verses turned into weapons of pride and anger for Christians to fire at each other.
blessings, kayanne


In His service,
. . . DRA[/QUOTE]

[kayanne]

I agree that baptism is important but not *water* baptism . To say that one *should* be water baptised is the same as saying that it is essential for salvation . If it isn't essential for salvation , I see no reason why it is a "should" .


Now my agreeing with *that* definitely would be the same as my agreeing with water baptism being essential for salation . I see no difference between "should" and "must" .



Hi New Wineskin,
Words can have different meanings to different people, particularly people of different geographical areas.
I have grown up with the word "should" meaning "ought to because it's a good thing to do," and "must" meaning "absolutely has to be so."

For example:
I "should" vacuum because the carpet is looking dirty (but the dirt police haven't arrived, holding a gun to my head, telling me I MUST vacuum.)

I "must" breathe. I have no choice. If I try to hold my breath I will pass out and resume breathing.

I "should" pray every day but there have been days when I did not.

I "must" never deny Christ as Savior and Lord---I would choose execution rather than deny Him, if my life were threatened for my faith.

Does this help at all? There are many things a Christian "should" do, but the only thing I am positive a Christian "must" do is trust Jesus as their Savior, for forgiveness of their sins. I don't know if a Christian "must" be baptized, but God knows my heart, knows that I have been baptized, and knows that I am struggling with understanding some things in the Bible.
kayanne

[New_Wineskin]

Hi New Wineskin,
Words can have different meanings to different people, particularly people of different geographical areas.
I have grown up with the word "should" meaning "ought to because it's a good thing to do," and "must" meaning "absolutely has to be so."

For example:
I "should" vacuum because the carpet is looking dirty (but the dirt police haven't arrived, holding a gun to my head, telling me I MUST vacuum.)

I "must" breathe. I have no choice. If I try to hold my breath I will pass out and resume breathing.

I "should" pray every day but there have been days when I did not.

I "must" never deny Christ as Savior and Lord---I would choose execution rather than deny Him, if my life were threatened for my faith.

Does this help at all? There are many things a Christian "should" do, but the only thing I am positive a Christian "must" do is trust Jesus as their Savior, for forgiveness of their sins. I don't know if a Christian "must" be baptized, but God knows my heart, knows that I have been baptized, and knows that I am struggling with understanding some things in the Bible.
kayanne

Acually , you help in my helping to show that "should" and "must" in this context are the same . Looking at your example :
[quote]
I "should" vacuum because the carpet is looking dirty (but the dirt police haven't arrived, holding a gun to my head, telling me I MUST vacuum.)
[quote]

Another way to say this is that , if you want the carpet looking dirty , you *must* vacuum ( or something else so that it no longer looks dirty ) . If it doesn't matter if the carpet is dirty , then there is no "should" . You have defined a condition that you don't like and a solution *must* be done to remedy the situation . You could come into my apartment and say , "you should vaccum " . I could say , "Why , it doesn't look dirty to me ?" . At that point , is there really a "should" ? It looks dirty to you , maybe *you* should vacuum my floor but not me . You say , "You should be water baptized ?" I say , "Why ? Was there a part of Christ's death and ressurection was insuffient for me ?" What does it prevent that wouldn't be if I didn't become water baptized ? Or , what does it initiate that wouldn't be if I didn't become water baptized ? What happens if I don't ? That is the question . If it is essential for salation , it answers itself . If not essential , well , it doesn't do anything for me but get me wet and it doesn't help others except perhaps encourage them to think that maybe they "must" do so . That would only perpetuate itself and nothing tangible comes of it . Now , it was helping an old lady accross the street where something good results , we may have something to talk about . :)


I understand that people use those words differently . But , that huge passage that you gave to provide reasons for the "should" was in every sense a statement that it is a "must" ... for me , that is . It was a lot more than it is a nice thing to do .

[Lutherrunner]

.





WRONG (=NOT agreed).

Jesus speaks of BLIND SCRIBES (in Church leadership)


Jesus WARNS against FALSE TEACHERS

"Beware the leaven of the pharisees"

Jesus warns us of: WOLVES IN SHEEPS CLOTHING.


I DECLARE, that certain FALSE-DOCTRINE is DELIBERATE.


GREED is motivation for many a LIAR behind a 'pulpit'.




-Peace in Christ.





.

you just think you have all the answers....you are acting just like the people we are talking about.....everything is black and white....you are right and everybody else is wrong......

[daverain]

.



you just think you have all the answers....you are acting just like the people we are talking about.....everything is black and white....you are right and everybody else is wrong......


Well...


I'm actually saying EVERYBODY IS WRONG (except for Jesus):
-----------------------------------------------------------

(=TEST EVERYTHING!)

1.)

Jesus is the TRUTH.

("I AM the way, THE TRUTH, and the life.")


2.)

Jesus also says:

"Wherever TWO OR MORE (Christians) are gathered together IN AGREEMENT, there am I in the midst."

(Do you believe this?)

(How do you feel then, about listening to 'one man behind a microphone'? Will you not be given LIES?)



-Peace in Christ



.

[Lutherrunner]

.






Well...


I'm actually saying EVERYBODY IS WRONG (except for Jesus):
-----------------------------------------------------------

-Peace in Christ



.

Ok, I can deal with that then!......:thumbsup:

[W Jay Schroeder]

I wouldnt think most Quakers are not saved because they dont do water baptism. Its only important if you need it to be. If your strongly lead to do it then you shouldnt not do it. The act is not whats important its what is in your heart. Do you really think God sees anything but the heart. So I would argue against it being commanded because he never said it. They only one you could get close to him saying this is Matt. 28:19. One other is Acts 10 where Peter commands it. But that is about it for direct commands, one or two. It is said in 1 John that his commands are not burdensome, but obviuosly this one seems to be one for the Church so I doubt he commanded it. None of the others is, all Two of them.

[New_Wineskin]

.
"Wherever TWO OR MORE (Christians) are gathered together IN AGREEMENT, there am I in the midst."

(Do you believe this?)


I don't . That is a modernized misquote that has crept into the vernacular because it is used for something that it wasn't addressing .

Just a minor adjustment .

[daverain]

.





I don't . That is a modernized misquote that has crept into the vernacular because it is used for something that it wasn't addressing .

Just a minor adjustment .




Well. c'mon brother, please don't keep us in the dark.

Please tell us what you feel the passage means.





Peace in Christ.




.

[New_Wineskin]

Well. c'mon brother, please don't keep us in the dark.

Please tell us what you feel the passage means.

This is the second time that I am attempting to respond as the first was deleted by a system error . It won't be as good as the first and probably too brief .

It isn't about what what I think that the passage means . It is about how it has become almost universally misquoted because of how it is used . I have not found a translation that has that passage as "two or more" gather . But , people say it as if they *know* that is what it says . Why is that ? Well , people use it to justify the law for obtaining righteousness of "going to 'church'" . But , that passage isn't about the need for "going" to "church" . It is about Him being there when siblings agree . In context , it may mean more specifically when they agree on a judgement of a fellow believer . I don't quite buy that but I have heard some say something along those lines .

The phrase is "two or three" . People think that is being picky . But , if *I* misquoted it as "three or less" , we know what type of uproar would occur . Now , everyone knows that the Lord is with us all day long whether we are alone , with believers , and even with unbelievers . He is always close . Hey ... we are the temple of the Holy Spirit .

So , anyway ... just a minor correction . I am not under the Law . A pet peeve of mine is all . Not of the misquote . I don't care about accidentally misquoting the Scriptures . What gets under my skin is that bible thumpers ( not saying you ) who insist on the "bible" being the guide would misuse that passage and then , not even realize that they continue the practice of misquoting it . It is a perfect example of hypocrasy . Many do quote it correctly . Just as many actually believe that it is "two or more" .

I appologize for the interuption . :)

[Stinker]

If we were given notice by an extra-terrestrial force that was far superior to anything that human kind could ever imagine, that they were about to destroy the universe unless each human studied followed the New Testament objectively, there would be none of this bipartisanism of believe into Christ vs baptized into Christ.

[daverain]

.



Thank you, New_Wineskin.

The EXACT passage is:

For where two or three are gathered together in My Name, there am I in the midst of them. Matthew 18:20

I was wrong.

Now I know.


Absolutlely are Christians NOT under the LAW, but under Grace (see Galations 3:10).

We are NOT required to 'attend church' for our salvation.

(Although a 'hypothetical-greedy-false-church-pastor', would NOT teach you that.)



However...

"Where two or three are gathered together in My Name, there am I in the midst of them."

I STILL feel that where there is ONE (like a pastor behind a microphone), there WILL BE ERROR.

I feel IF one (ever) sins, this means there MUST be error somewhere in them.

(I've just demonstrated that myself)


I feel BECAUSE Jesus is/was/always will be: sinless , He spoke (and speaks), and is THE TRUTH.



Peace in Christ


.

[New_Wineskin]

I agree that one can have error . I also would say that the more that agree , the more an error can cause damage . Take the "Reformation" . Many agreed that they could attack those that disagreed with them . So , numbers don't ensure less error . As long as the One is there , one other or many others are in good shape .

[Jim Woodell]

I wouldnt think most Quakers are not saved because they dont do water baptism. Its only important if you need it to be. If your strongly lead to do it then you shouldnt not do it. The act is not whats important its what is in your heart. Do you really think God sees anything but the heart. So I would argue against it being commanded because he never said it. They only one you could get close to him saying this is Matt. 28:19. One other is Acts 10 where Peter commands it. But that is about it for direct commands, one or two. It is said in 1 John that his commands are not burdensome, but obviuosly this one seems to be one for the Church so I doubt he commanded it. None of the others is, all Two of them.

Jay,

Is it your position that if God commands something just once that we can ignore it?

A fellow told me once, for every time you can show me baptism in the Bible once I can show you faith 20 times. I think that is close to correct, but does that mean we can ignore anything that God commands???:confused: or that we should weigh the number of times God commands something to see if we should obey it??

God's commands are not burdensome, but it seems to me you are saying, "Oh, but here is one that is, BUT he only commanded it twice, so we can ignore it."

And by the way, what about Acts 2:38; 22:16?? Was God speaking through Peter and Ananias? Were these commands? Do you believe these words were only for that present audience and have no bearing on us today?

Also, if every Christian receives Holy Spirit baptism (and as you contend this is the one baptism) why did the Apostles have to leave Jerusalem and go to Samaria to impart the Holy Spirit?? (Acts 8:4-25) These folks had believed and were baptized (Mark 16:16; Acts 8:12-13). That had to be water baptism, since scripture is clear, "because the Holy Spirit had not yet come upon any of them" (Acts 8:16).

One reader said, "I'm not going to read these threads on baptism anymore because I get so frustrated!" My question is, why? I don't believe we get frustrated from enlightenment. When truth shines in the word is "Eureka!" That is if we really want the truth and that is the purpose of our search (Proverbs 2).

We really need to be honest with ourselves and the Word of God.:amen:

[W Jay Schroeder]

Jay,

Is it your position that if God commands something just once that we can ignore it?

A fellow told me once, for every time you can show me baptism in the Bible once I can show you faith 20 times. I think that is close to correct, but does that mean we can ignore anything that God commands???:confused: or that we should weigh the number of times God commands something to see if we should obey it??

God's commands are not burdensome, but it seems to me you are saying, "Oh, but here is one that is, BUT he only commanded it twice, so we can ignore it."

And by the way, what about Acts 2:38; 22:16?? Was God speaking through Peter and Ananias? Were these commands? Do you believe these words were only for that present audience and have no bearing on us today?

Also, if every Christian receives Holy Spirit baptism (and as you contend this is the one baptism) why did the Apostles have to leave Jerusalem and go to Samaria to impart the Holy Spirit?? (Acts 8:4-25) These folks had believed and were baptized (Mark 16:16; Acts 8:12-13). That had to be water baptism, since scripture is clear, "because the Holy Spirit had not yet come upon any of them" (Acts 8:16).

One reader said, "I'm not going to read these threads on baptism anymore because I get so frustrated!" My question is, why? I don't believe we get frustrated from enlightenment. When truth shines in the word is "Eureka!" That is if we really want the truth and that is the purpose of our search (Proverbs 2).

We really need to be honest with ourselves and the Word of God.:amen: For one I dont think that at all. I believe he gave two commands. Let us READ John 14:15-30 where he promises the Holy Spirit. It startes right off " If you love me, you will obey what i command." John 15:1-17 verse 12 " My command is this: Love each other as I have loved you" You misread what i said. He commanded two things Love one another and love thy God with all your heart. Thats its. he did not command any ordances. what about washing feet, this was no more commanded then water baptism and communion but not many people do it anymore. what Peter commanded was for them and not a Church command. Why would Paul say he was not sent to water baptize, He was directly taught by Christ, and why does it say in Hebrews 9:10 these ceremonies are not for the new order. EXTERNAL REGULATIONS. God now speaks to the heart and sees only the heart. Acts 8:12-17 To me this shows that water baptism is not that important and maybe this happened to show it was not the power of water baptism but the power of God. This shows that God is the saviour not acts you can do. All the rest you gave i have discused with you in the other threads. We should do all of Gods commands which where the two i gave you. The way you use Acts you would think this is the only scripture there is.

[daverain]

.





Jay,

Is it your position that if God commands something

just once

that we can ignore it?





Sir,

IF the bible said we

MUST be baptised,



THEN it's

'baptised by the Holy Spirit.'



which I'm pretty sure 'Jay', has indicated he believes.


..

(and that if Peter commanded others to be baptised in water, this is NOT to say that it was for their: SALVATION.

Jesus (not us) PAYS FOR OUR (=Christians) SALVATION.

This is

(I feel, yet please correct me if I'm wrong)

CLEARLY a belief

that has been made CLEAR

to you, as well.


Yet I feel,

you have yet

to even acknowledge,

that people believe this.



By continuing to go after 'Jay' (without acknowledging his legitimate-responses),

I see you as HARRASING an INDIVIDUAL.


If this is the case,

I woud politely ask you to:

Please refrain from further 'flaming' activities.


THAT would be a violation of the rules of this forum:



.: Forum Rule 1 :.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Rule No. 1 - No "Flaming"
1.1 You will not post any messages that HARASS, insult, belittle, threaten or flame another member or guest.
1.2 You may discuss another member's beliefs but there will be no personal (ad hominem) attacks on the member himself or herself.
1.3 You will not misquote another member regardless of context.
1.4 You will not directly state or otherwise imply that another member is not a Christian.


While perhaps one day these rules may change...
Please obey the current rules of this forum.

(Otherwise: One MIGHT find oneself in a little
'hot-water', shall we say.)





-Peace in Christ.






.

[MG]

MG,
May I ask if you are considering being baptized at some point in the future? Do you have questions about baptism that you are trying to resolve before taking that step? I am definitely not trying to put you down, but I can say that, essential or not, baptism is important and I hope you'll give much thought and prayer to doing so.

blessings, and welcome to the faith! kayanne :wave:

Thanks kayanne. Baptism has crossed my mind. I do not have any immediate questions regarding, but if the time comes for me to do this ceremony, I would do it as a profession only, not as a means to heaven.

:wave:

[FaithAlone]

Just to stir up a little fun: in Acts 2:38 it says to repent and be baptized and you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit. For those of you (I know of a few but it may not inlcude anyone here) who believe that the Holy Spirit doesn't actually dwell in the believer but is the word of God, what do you have to say about this? Those believers didn't have the completed word of God. I just don't understand why so many people can accept all of the physical things but disregard anything spiritual. I know that's not what this post is about but this post just made me think about it.

[- DRA -]

Just to stir up a little fun: in Acts 2:38 it says to repent and be baptized and you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit. For those of you (I know of a few but it may not inlcude anyone here) who believe that the Holy Spirit doesn't actually dwell in the believer but is the word of God, what do you have to say about this? Those believers didn't have the completed word of God. I just don't understand why so many people can accept all of the physical things but disregard anything spiritual. I know that's not what this post is about but this post just made me think about it.

Romans 6:3-11 describes what occurs in baptism. What is physical about being united with Jesus' death, burial, and resurrection? Col. 2:12 says it is based on faith in the working of God. :bow:

[daverain]

.






Just to stir up a little fun: in Acts 2:38 it says to repent and be baptized and you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit.




In Acts (I forget the EXACT verse number, help, guys)....

We see Christians SPEAKING in tongues BEFORE being 'dunked'.

(=They HAVE The Holy Spirit)


What do YOU (plural) have to say about that?






Peace in Christ.





.

[daverain]

Romans 6:3-11 describes what occurs in baptism. What is physical about being united with Jesus' death, burial, and resurrection? Col. 2:12 says it is based on faith in the working of God. :bow:

Romans 6:3 to 11

NOWHERE even speaks of WATER baptism.

(can you say: Baptised by the Holy Spirit?)






Peace in Christ.





.

[Jim Woodell]

Romans 6:3 to 11

NOWHERE even speaks of WATER baptism.

(can you say: Baptised by the Holy Spirit?)

Peace in Christ.

Daverain. Where in this passage does it say anything about "baptised by the Holy Spirit?"

[daverain]

Daverain.

Where in this passage does it say anything about "baptised by the Holy Spirit?"




Jim.

It speaks in -THE BIBLE- about "baptised by The Holy Spirit."





Peace in Christ.





.

[- DRA -]

Romans 6:3 to 11

NOWHERE even speaks of WATER baptism.

(can you say: Baptised by the Holy Spirit?)

Peace in Christ.

.

Yes, I could say it -- but it wouldn't be true. So, I won't.

Consider. The baptism described in Rom. 6:3-11 is one that frees us from sin -- just like the expression "for the remission of sins" in Acts 2:38. That baptism was "in the name of Jesus Christ", as was the one in Acts 10:47-48, which is clearly identified as being in water. Therefore, the logic is that the baptism that frees us from sin is the baptism in the name of the Lord that was in water.

Have you considered the reasons Jesus gave for sending the Holy Spirit upon the apostles (see John 16:7-14)? Compare this passage with what occurs in baptism in Rom. 6:3-11. It is obvious that two entirely different things are being discussed in the passages.

[W Jay Schroeder]

Yes, I could say it -- but it wouldn't be true. So, I won't.

Consider. The baptism described in Rom. 6:3-11 is one that frees us from sin -- just like the expression "for the remission of sins" in Acts 2:38. That baptism was "in the name of Jesus Christ", as was the one in Acts 10:47-48, which is clearly identified as being in water. Therefore, the logic is that the baptism that frees us from sin is the baptism in the name of the Lord that was in water.

Have you considered the reasons Jesus gave for sending the Holy Spirit upon the apostles (see John 16:7-14)? Compare this passage with what occurs in baptism in Rom. 6:3-11. It is obvious that two entirely different things are being discussed in the passages. No kidding. the Holy Spirit does many things because it is the same as christ and God the Trinity. It was given to them the same way but the Spirit gave them these extra gifts so peeople will know they are from God. they were the first to spread the gospel were they not, it would only be wise to give them more so that there message would be believed. Chreist was no longer on earth yet they speak as if he kived in there hearts. no one would bel;ieve this message if they didnt have proof to show they were of God. This idea goes against what Christ himself said. in John 3:16 read after this in 3:27 John the baptist replied, " A man can receive only what is given him from heaven. how many times does Jesus say or the scriptures say whoever BELIEVES in the son is saved. John 3:21 speaks of GRACE But whoever lives by the truth comes into the light, so that it may be seen PLAINLY that what he has done has been done THROUGH GOD. Its all God not any act you do will give you anything. You wont want to please God if your not already saved. To beleive in the HEART that God raised Him from the dead and confess with your mouth and you will be saved. no water involved. you are distorting this "for the remission of sins" The blood does this not acts on your part. it was already done for you all you have to do is beleive it in your heart.