comments on baptism debate

[HappyGiraffe]

have been asked to make any observations I had on the debate on Baptism and Salvation that is on going between Cbk/Aggie and Jeffderuyter.

Wasn't told I needed 100 posts before I can make a comment in this section so I've spent the last 20 mins making pointless remarks in other threads to get my posts up :D
The exchange has brought up alot of good points and I'm impressed with the civil nature of the discussion.

I intend to make comments on Hebrews chapter 11, Mark 16:16 today Romans 16, James chapter 2, Corinthians and Colossians tomorrow.

Hebrews 11

I intend to make comments on Hebrews chapter 11, Mark 16:16, Romans 16, James chapter 2, Corinthians and Colossians.

1. Myself and Aggie found out that there can be two words given to the same person/idea in scripture when discussing Elders and Bishops. The same can be true of one word taking multiple meanings. The technical name given to the assumption one word = one person/idea is the fallacy of equivocation.

The description given to faith is evidently varied in it uses in scripture. The uses of this word are as such [ Source- the online Greek Lexicon ]

1) conviction of the truth of anything, belief; in the NT of a conviction or belief respecting man’s relationship to God and divine things, generally with the included idea of trust and holy fervour born of faith and joined with it 1a) relating to God

1a1) the conviction that God exists and is the creator and ruler of all things, the provider and bestower of eternal salvation through Christ

1b) relating to Christ

1b1) a strong and welcome conviction or belief that Jesus is the Messiah, through whom we obtain eternal salvation in the kingdom of God.

1c) the religious beliefs of Christians

1d) belief with the predominate idea of trust (or confidence) whether in God or in Christ, springing from faith in the same

2) fidelity, faithfulness

2a) the character of one who can be relied on

The assumption made by Cbk and Aggie is that Faith always means, at least in relation to Hebrews chapter 11 is 1b1 in the list above.

I will try to show that their example of Hebrews 11 is irrelevant to the discussion of faith in its application for salvation, but rather is a description of that given in the first part of 1a1- the conviction that God exists and is the creator and ruler of all things or as Strong’s defines it as assurance.

A quick glance at the usage of faith in the early part of the New Testament shows that its almost synonymous usage today of “do you have faith” meaning are you a Christian is not so. Example can be found in Matthew 14:31 where Peter didn’t lose faith that Jesus was Christ, or that he was walking, rather it was he lost the assurance. Faith is used in other ways which salvation plays no part.

Before getting to grips with the passage a glance at the Greek. Vincent states Without the article, indicating that it is treated in its abstract conception and not merely as Christian faith. It is important that the preliminary definition should be clearly understood since the foll wing examples illustrate it. The key is furnished by verse 27 “as seeing him who is invisible.” Faith which is not seen by senses. It rests on it, acts on it even though all facts seen to contradict it. In Hebrews faith is seen more as trust in divine promises.

The desired listeners to the letter we already saved Christians, we wouldn’t expect a gospel message as a evangelist would give rather one of a fellow Christian up-building and encouraging believers in Christ. As it was hinted by Jeff the Christians were under persecution, under going trials. I believe he has narrowed it down too much to specifically trials, instead of the general idea of reliance and assurance on God. “ Christianity was persecuted. The disciple of the Christians was apparently fading as they withdrew from regular meetings [ Acts 10:25 ]” D. A. Carson, Introduction to The New Testament.

Now into the actual verse. It goes to length to describe what it means by faith. “ Being sure of what we hope for and certain of what we do not see”

It is in two parts

1. It is an assurance that God will perform everything that he has promised to us, see Romans 8:26 aswell.

2. It is the evidence of things not seen. Faith demonstrates to the eye of the mind the reality of those things that cannot be seen by the eye. John Gill describes it as “a firm persuasion of the power, faithfulness, and love of God in Christ”

Hebrews 11:4 "By faith Abel offered God a better sacrifice than Cain did"

In this example, we see NO trials that were upon Abel; nor was a requirement made. We do, however, see that Abel was performing an ACTION. Abel was free to do as he pleased. No trials and no command; but still we see ACTION. And this was defined as faith.

The author of Hebrews is most likely refering back to Luke 11:50 where the first martry, Abel’s, death is said to be expected in [that] generation. This backs up what Jeff and myself have been saying all along, it’s a encouraging of those who are being persecuted.

The example of Abraham is used for the purpose of trusting in God’s will, even though circumstances and events seem to suggest it is the wrong thing to do. Once more relevant if the author is wanting to emphasis the assurance of God, rather than talking about salvation as you suggest is being described.

Mark 16:16



I do not accept that the verses quoted are part of the original Bible, for these reasons

The two earliest manuscripts of the New Testament, the Codex Sinaiticus and the Codex Vaticanus.
Many others mark it with asterisks or comment indicating the originals lacked it. The latin texts, Eusbius and Jerome say it is spurious, as do Clement, Origen.

There are variations in the end of chapter 16 which differ from the rest of the text, the style of the vocabulary and style differ from the rest of the text. Words appear in it which are appear no-where else in the Bible.

Even those manuscripts that do include a longer ending differ within themselves.

I hope my comments have broadened the horizon on this debate.

[cbk]

For the sake of simplicity and flow, and without getting into whether or not your list of the definitions of FAITH are complete and/or presented in their entirety, I will have to politely state that you are INCORRECT in your perception as to our definition of faith being catorgized as:

"a strong and welcome conviction or belief that Jesus is the Messiah, through whom we obtan eternal salvation in the kingdom of God."

Again, we state that this assumption in regards to our definition of FAITH is incorrect, especially in regards to the presentation of our examples from Hebrews. We do understand, however, that a reader my derive the conclusions which you have because the subject IS on water baptism. However, in reading the posts in which we have made, it should be quite clear that the definition (from the list in which you have provided) is most accurately catogorized as the VERY ONE in which you present.

That faith is the 'conviction that God exists and is the creator and RULER of ALL things.'

Notice, that GOD is the RULER of ALL things. This is a major point of faith that we present in our look into the examples of Hebrews. And, because GOD is RULER of ALL things, we acknowledge that we are SUJECT to this ruler and are therefore, by FAITH (this conviction), expected to SUBJECT ourselves to HIS authority by being obedient to his decrees.

Forget the meaning of water baptism for a minute and let us focus on Faith. Which is the CONVICTION that GOD is in control and that we are SUBJECT TO his authority. As we have expressed, an individual with this type of faith will be obedient to His decrees. And it makes no difference IF trials are open us or not.

As you have stated, Faith is, primarily, a matter of assurance in the promises of God. But, living faith is a matter of acting with the assurance in the promises of God. Are you trying to state that living faith ONLY exists where their is persecution?? I pray not!

Therefore, whether or not the audience is under persecution or not is of utmost irrelevance when we consider that living faith is living action in accordance to God's Will.

By faith, although I am not persecuted, I have the hope of being united with Christ Jesus in the resurrection. BY faith, although I am not persecuted, I am certain that by being obedient to the Will of God, I will receive the inheritance.

But, in regards to Hebrews, I will ask the following. (Although, as I have stated, the emotional intent that the writer may have been promoting does not, in any way, negate the fact that living faith is expressed through living action.) In regards to the faith of those who marched around the walls of Jericho, what was their persecution??? For it is stated that by FAITH they marched around the walls. Is it not true that THEY were not the ones being persecuted. That they were, in fact, the instrument OF persecution to those on the interior of the city?

And WHERE was Moses' persecution AS he was being raised in the household of Pharoah? In verse 24, we are shown that BY Faith, Moses chose to be treated differently. And from this, we can see that HE could have chosen DIFFERENTLY. But, HE chose to be treated differently. And the reason was probably because his Faith was in the fact that DISobedience to the Will of God, who is the supreme ruler, will bring about more persecution than all the Egyptians could muster. And, also, that active obedience to the Will of God was necessary.

I believe this is called 'HOLY FEAR.' Which -- to those who have living faith in God -- will motivate believers to be obedient to the Heavenly decrees.

Therefore, in conclusion, I will reaffirm that the definition of FAITH (in which we speak) IS NOT the 'strong and welcome conviction or belief that Jesus is the Messiah, through whom we obtain eternal salvation in the kingdom of God.'

To the contrary, I state that this faith is more in line with the one in which you have presented. That it is the 'conviction that God exists and is the creator and RULER of all things.' And, it is this conviction, this faith, that leads as to the obedience that makes our faith ALIVE.

[HappyGiraffe]

Thanks for the quick reply.

Here are some points. Im afraid because of time my points are sharp, they demonstrate this lack of time rather than any annoyance.
[ will also explain spelling errors ]

I have tried to show that Hebrews chapter 11 is dealing with a perticular type of "faith." That of assurance that God's promises to us will be done, even though it appears unlikely. This is to be differentiatedfrom faith as someone who asks " do you have faith in Christ."

Bearing in mind that Hebrews 11's use of faith means assurances of what God has promised us despite circumstances might make us think otherwise, this then would have no relation to your argument that Faith as in "what should I do to be saved" "believe [ have faith ] on the Lord Jesus Christ" Acts 16:31 ] needs any action.
To put it another way;
In Hebrews 11 is not talking 1. about the assurance demonstrated by Cornelius that Jesus is Lord, 2.it is showing the assurance of Christians that their God looks after them. You need number 1. being discussed for your point to be valid.

I feel you aren't seeing the difference uses of faith. The word is used so often to mean the faith demonstrated by the sinner coming to Christ that it is hard to use it for anything else. That was not the case in the 1st century.

As you have stated, Faith is, primarily, a matter of assurance in the promises of God. But, living faith is a matter of acting with the assurance in the promises of God. Are you trying to state that living faith ONLY exists where their is persecution?? I pray not!No, it is relevant all the time, persecution is a time where it is excersied. I have faith [ assurance in God's faithfullness ] that God will keep holding the universe together.
But these people needed reminded of God's faithfullness and promises. I already pointed out this was written to already saved Christians- its not about salvation or faith in that sense, but these Christians were starting to faulter and get worried. They needed pointing out that their God "will not leave you or not forsake you" not "its not just believing in Christ that gets you saved but you have to do something"


None of the examples given have to do with salvation, they do have do to with God's faithfullness. I do not see how any listener would believe it has relevence to the faith they showed to accept Christ died for them, but rather relevant to having faith in God's protection/guidance. As I see it, you are would need the first to be in view, not the latter for the conclusion you dervive from the passage.

By faith, although I am not persecuted, I have the hope of being united with Christ Jesus in the resurrection. BY faith, although I am not persecuted, I am certain that by being obedient to the Will of God, I will receive the inheritance. Agreed again. But assurance is used in lots of different ways.
You transpose the assurance in Heb. 11 to apply to every instance of faith. You have commited the fallacy I noted first of all of equivication, that one definition or application of a word apply to all uses of that one word. Languages are never that straight forward.

But, in regards to Hebrews, I will ask the following. (Although, as I have stated, the emotional intent that the writer may have been promoting does not, in any way, negate the fact that living faith is expressed through living action.) In regards to the faith of those who marched around the walls of Jericho, what was their persecution??? For it is stated that by FAITH they marched around the walls. Is it not true that THEY were not the ones being persecuted. That they were, in fact, the instrument OF persecution to those on the interior of the city?I stated that Jeff was too heavy on the trial/persecution area. The authors point is more generic than it. This point is although circumstances seem against you- God is in control.
What better demonstration is there than going against a city wall with some trumpets ?

And WHERE was Moses' persecution AS he was being raised in the household of Pharoah? In verse 24, we are shown that BY Faith, Moses chose to be treated differently. And from this, we can see that HE could have chosen DIFFERENTLY. But, HE chose to be treated differently. And the reason was probably because his Faith was in the fact that DISobedience to the Will of God, who is the supreme ruler, will bring about more persecution than all the Egyptians could muster. And, also, that active obedience to the Will of God was necessary.
I think verse 27 sums it up " he persevered because he saw him who is invisible"

Again while we are concentrating on this verse, do you think the audiance would believe the message to be to persevere in their adversity, to have assurance that God will help them, or is it likely they thought to be saved they needed to do something.

[cbk]

HappyGiraffe, we are in agreement with much.

As I have pointed out in the formal debate, those undergoing water baptism are doing so, not simply because of the act of Jesus dying for their sins, it is done because of GOD's grace, GOD's promises, and GOD's gifts to us.

In regards to Hebrews, in these examples, we are highlighting the FACT that BECAUSE of a person's FAITH in regards to GOD (not merely the sacrifice of Jesus), people still function in obedience and confidence to the WILL of God and the DECREES and COMMANDS OF God.

Yes, as you have noted, persecution is a TIME when this faith is expressed. But, ALSO, times of NONpersecution are times when this faith is expressed. It makes no difference whether persecution exists or not. It does, however, make a difference if your belief in the promises of God lead you to action, performance, and obedience. Whether it be the call of Abraham to leave his land or an army marching around the city walls. God, through Heavenly decree, makes the promise, man takes the necessary steps. No different than the decree to be baptized by water.

What is promised is Romans 6? That we will be united with Christ in the resurrection. This is a promise of God. And it takes the active faith that is demonstrated in Hebrews to accomplish what is to take place in Romans 6. Not the sole belief that Jesus died for our sins -- for the individual be baptized by water ALREADY has this faith. But, the belief that by being obedient to the plans of GOD, we will be united with Christ in the resurrection.

This type of faith is relevant, significant, and meaningful to all. It makes no difference if such an individual has just heard the Gospel message or if an individual has been following God for 60 years. And, it makes no difference if such an individual is currently under persecution, is going to be under persecution, or has never been under persecution.

Jesus has bridged the gap between man and God. But, it is God who put this bridge into place. It is God who shows us the way. Therefore, my faith is in God and my actions are in response to this faith in God.

As in the case of water baptism, we have God to thank that he has given us the way to die to sin and walk in newness of life. The faith that you express (where we have assurance that God will keep his promises) is what motivates us to act in accordance to God's will and be baptized by water. It is not simply a faith that Jesus died for our sins.... If that were the case, then I would not debate the necessity of water baptism to begin with. But, because of the link to God and the call to have faith in the promises of God, I promote the necessity to actively embrace the plans of God.

[HappyGiraffe]

Im glad we agree that we should trust God. I dont really see how it fits in baptism or why you referenced to Faith - Action since its a different type of faith in view from that surely in view with " believe on Lord Jesus and you will be saved". However- Romans 6:3




First a key phrase in this discussion will be “baptized into.” It occurs as far as I can tell five times in four verses in the New Testament.
Before any detailed study first note the preposition eis. It should be fairly significant that eis can have the meaning “with respect to”

Here are the four verses


1. Rom 6:3 which we have been commenting on
2. 1 Cor 10:2 “and all were baptized into Moses in the cloud and in the sea”

3. 1 Cor 12:13 For by one Spirit we were all made to drink of one Spirit”

4. Gal 3:27 “ For all of you who were baptized into Christ have clothed yourselves with Christ”



It always means, with respect to, to be publicly identified with the thing you are being baptized into.

Robertson notes: First aorist passive indicative of baptizw. Better, "were baptized unto Christ or in Christ." The translation "into" makes Paul say that the union with Christ was brought to pass by means of baptism, which is not his idea, for Paul was not a sacramentarian. eivis at bottom the same word as en. Baptism is the public proclamation of one's inward spiritual relation to Christ attained before baptism. See Gal 3:27 where it is like putting on an outward garment or uniform. Robertsons New Testament Word Pictures

Now with reference to “ we may TO live” which version is it ?
The reason im asking is the Greek word that you have translated as “may” which suggest that “because of that we are now able to…” is the Greek word for walk, or to make ones way. Therefore why most translations translate it is “ we should live” verse 6 makes this clear “Knowing this, that our old man is crucified with him, that the body of sin might be destroyed, that henceforth we should not serve sin.”

Also note the highly symbolic nature of the verse, we have not actually died with him, we have died “with respect to his death” if you want to phrase it as such.

Conclusion
These points on these two key phrases in the passage changes the meaning that we can derive from it. Not that “baptism is a step of faith” but it is prompting us to refrain from sin, this idea is again shown in verse 12.

I'll move onto James chapter 2 next.

[cbk]

Have yet to read your entire post. I will get to it. But, HappyGiraffe, I need you to clarify something for me, for I do not understand why you do not understand the significance of water baptism and faith in God.

Do you not believe that it is the Will of God for men to be baptized by water? I believe so. And, with that, there begins a link between baptism of water and having faith in the promises of God.

[InquisitorKind]

Scriptural Comments

One of the themes of the opening statement was that baptism was preached as part of the Gospel:

In fact, Christ Jesus, himself, instituted water baptism and made it a requirement.

Barring a discussion of why this text should not be considered inspired Scripture, how can such a conclusion concerning Jesus’ soteriology be reconciled with the rest of His words? For example, in Mark 2, a man is forgiven of his sins without being baptized. Regardless of whether or not baptism is a work, this man’s justification before God ocurred without baptism. Also consider John 3, where Christ teaches that it is belief which allows someone to enter into eternal life, or a number of other passages, such as Luke 7:50, 18:10-14 and 23:39-43. Where in these passages did Jesus state that baptism is required for justification?

We therefore affirm that baptism for the remission of sins is necessary for our salvation.

Aside from the passages previously quoted, many other Scriptural references deny this assertion; passages like Romans 4:3 and Galatians 3:6 state that faith is what justifies a person before God, not a combination of faith and baptism.

Historical Issues

In the baptism debate, the following question was asked:
Was baptism of water preached as part of the complete Gospel message in the early church?

Baptism was almost universally preached for the remission of sins in the early church. However strange this might seem, this is a point that Evangelicals should accept as historical fact; this is because what the early church believed shouldn’t be the standard for theological truth. It’s significant that most of the early church held to it, but it doesn’t mean that anyone who opposes baptismal rengeneration is automatically wrong. When people appeal to the beliefs of the early church as evidence that their belief is correct, they often don’t take into account passages like 2 Kings 22:8-13. Not only did the fathers fail, as they had “not listened to the words of this book,” but the Scriptures themselves had been lost. In other words, the idea of the visible church almost universally professing an incorrect doctrine is far from the realm of impossibility.

Regardless, there were believers in the early church that rejected baptismal regeneration. Tertullian wrote a treatise on baptismal regeneration in response to opponents of baptismal regeneration:

www.ccel.org/fathers2/ANF...70_3245623 (http://www.ccel.org/fathers2/ANF...70_3245623)

Although many early church fathers supported baptismal regeneration, some didn’t even speak on the issue at all. For example, where does Clement of Rome support baptismal regeneration? Instead of supporting such a concept, he supports justification through faith alone, excluding even works done in righteousness (First Clement 32). Asserting that fathers who didn’t comment on baptismal regeneration must have actually believed in it is fallacious.

~Matt

[HappyGiraffe]

I need you to clarify something for me, for I do not understand why you do not understand the significance of water baptism and faith in God.

Do you not believe that it is the Will of God for men to be baptized by water? I believe so. And, with that, there begins a link between baptism of water and having faith in the promises of God.
I had intended to make preliminary points but cos I wasn't allowed to post without 100 posts I guess when it got round to being able to post it slipped my mind.
I believe that every christian should be baptized of course. Just as all Christians should break bread as commanded to. I do not believe it has any relation to salvation. It publically shows your faith in God.
I believe it is an outward symbol of your salvation, not a process or in anyway contingent for salvation.

[cbk]

I had intended to make preliminary points but cos I wasn't allowed to post without 100 posts I guess when it got round to being able to post it slipped my mind.
I believe that every christian should be baptized of course. Just as all Christians should break bread as commanded to. I do not believe it has any relation to salvation. It publically shows your faith in God.
I believe it is an outward symbol of your salvation, not a process or in anyway contingent for salvation.
I do not want to jump to conclusions. For, your answer could be taken a number of ways, and I am still unclear as to your specific belief. Do you believe it is the Will of God for man to be baptized by water?

[HappyGiraffe]

Do you believe it is the Will of God for man to be baptized by water?
Yes

[InquisitorKind]

Earlier I stated:

Barring a discussion of why this text should not be considered inspired Scripture, how can such a conclusion concerning Jesus’ soteriology be reconciled with the rest of His words?

The text I'm referring to is Mark 16:16, the reference to which was supposed to be included in my selected quotations of the OP.

I hope this didn't cause any confusion.

~Matt

[Dominus Fidelis]

For example, where does Clement of Rome support baptismal regeneration? Instead of supporting such a concept, he supports justification through faith alone, excluding even works done in righteousness (First Clement 32). Asserting that fathers who didn’t comment on baptismal regeneration must have actually believed in it is fallacious.


Did you just say Clement of Rome agrees with the Protestant heresy of "faith alone?"

Are you serious????

------

32:1 If any man will consider them one by one in sincerity, he shall understand the magnificence of the gifts that are given by Him.
32:2 For of Jacob are all the priests and levites who minister unto the altar of God;
32:3 of him is the Lord Jesus as concerning the flesh;
32:4 of him are kings and rulers and governors in the line of Judah ;
32:5 yea and the rest of his tribes are held in no small honour, seeing that God promised saying, {Thy seed shall be as the stars of heaven}.
32:6 They all therefore were glorified and magnified, not through themselves or their own works or the righteous doing which they wrought, but through His will.
32:7 And so we, having been called through His will in Christ Jesus,
32:8 are not justified through ourselves or through our own wisdom or understanding or piety or works which we wrought in holiness of heart, but through faith, whereby the Almighty God justified all men that have been from the beginning;
32:9 to whom be the glory for ever and ever.
32:10 Amen.

He doesnt say FAITH ALONE, he says FAITH, just like the Bible and just like Trent.

Remember Trent says that we are first justified by God alone, and neither faith or works can merit that justification!?

Why do you persist in making the fathers into protestants!?

CLEMENT OF ROME WAS A POPE!

And if you keep reading to chapter 34...you will see that he said works are required:

The good servant171 receives the bread of his labor with confidence; the lazy and slothful cannot look his employer in the face. It is requisite, therefore, that we be prompt in the practice of well-doing; for of Him are all things. And thus He forewarns us: "Behold, the Lord [cometh], and His reward is before His face, to render to every man according to his work."172 He exhorts us, therefore,173 with our whole heart to attend to this,174 that we be not lazy or slothful in any good work. Let our boasting and our confidence be in Him. Let us submit ourselves to His will. Let us consider the whole multitude of His angels, how they stand ever ready to minister to His will. For the Scripture saith, "Ten thousand times ten thousand stood around Him, and thousands of thousands ministered unto Him,175 and cried, Holy, holy, holy, [is] the Lord of Sabaoth; the whole creation176 is full of His glory."177 And let us therefore, conscientiously gathering together in harmony, cry to Him earnestly, as with one mouth, that we may be made partakers of His great and glorious promises. For [the Scripture] saith, "Eye hath not seen, nor ear heard, neither have entered into the heart of man, the things which He hath prepared for them that wait for178 Him."179

How can you claim such a thing Matt!! This is amazing!

:mad:

[cbk]

Scriptural Comments

Barring a discussion of why this text should not be considered inspired Scripture, how can such a conclusion concerning Jesus’ soteriology be reconciled with the rest of His words? For example, in Mark 2, a man is forgiven of his sins without being baptized. Regardless of whether or not baptism is a work, this man’s justification before God ocurred without baptism. Also consider John 3, where Christ teaches that it is belief which allows someone to enter into eternal life, or a number of other passages, such as Luke 7:50, 18:10-14 and 23:39-43. Where in these passages did Jesus state that baptism is required for justification?



Just looking at this part of your post, I will have to ask, why would Jesus put the cart before the horse?

To me, it is clear that when Jesus made these statements it was BEFORE he was crucified. Therefore, it was BEFORE his sacrificed blood was made AVAILABLE to the world. It was before the OLD LAW was nailed to the cross.

IF Christ Jesus would have preached water baptism, as defined in Romans 6, before he, himself, died, then Christ Jesus would have been doing something that is NOT in accordance to the Old Law. Christ HAD to die FIRST before God's gift of grace, His gift of baptism, could hold any meaning.

1.Christ lives a perfect life.
2.Christ dies as an unblemished lamb.
3.Christ's blood is made available for the forgiveness of sins.
4.Water baptism is THEN given to form a covenant between God and man THROUGH Christ Jesus' DEATH.

Consider the first passover in Egypt. Prior to APPLYING the blood of the sacrificed lamb to their doors, the slaves had to FIRST make a sacrifice and THEN apply the blood. It would be impossible to first apply the blood before the sacrifice.

In the same way, water baptism is the APPLYING of the blood/death of Christ upon ourselves. But FIRST the sacrifice had to be made.

[InquisitorKind]

32:6 They all therefore were glorified and magnified, not through themselves or their own works or the righteous doing which they wrought, but through His will.

He doesnt say FAITH ALONE, he says FAITH, just like the Bible and just like Trent.
Clement of Rome excludes all works, even works done in righteousness. That's justification by faith alone, and that excludes baptism.

Why do you persist in making the fathers into protestants!?
I don't. I suggest that you substantiate this claim, and that you do it somewhere else and link the material here. Your credibility is already lacking as it is.

CLEMENT OF ROME WAS A POPE!
We're discussing whether or not he believed in baptismal regeneration. If you want to discuss why this is another of many examples of early church fathers refuting Roman Catholic historical claims--that the church fathers were members of your denomination--we can do that elsewhere.

And if you keep reading to chapter 34...you will see that he said works are required:
Nothing you've posted refutes justification by faith alone. Where does he says works are required for justification before God? He doesn't.

How can you claim such a thing Matt!! This is amazing!

:mad:
Posting "furious" emoticons doesn't refute what I've written. Neither does anything else you've posted so far.

~Matt

[InquisitorKind]

IF Christ Jesus would have preached water baptism, as defined in Romans 6, before he, himself, died, then Christ Jesus would have been doing something that is NOT in accordance to the Old Law. Christ HAD to die FIRST before God's gift of grace, His gift of baptism, could hold any meaning.
Why are you changing your argument? First you said Christ himself intiated Baptismal regeneration (Mark 16:16). Now you're arguing that it didn't come "hold any meaning" until after his death. You're being inconsistent.

In the same way, water baptism is the APPLYING of the blood/death of Christ upon ourselves. But FIRST the sacrifice had to be made.
In light of the post-Christ death accounts, how do you conclude that baptism came to have "meaning" (to regenerate) after Jesus' death? Passages like Acts 10:44-48, Acts 19:2, Romans 4, etc. all point to people and events where justification before God occurred before or without baptism at all. These passages were written about events that took place after Jesus' death, and they aren't exceptions to the rule--they are the rule.

~Matt

[Dominus Fidelis]

If you are going to just insult me by saying things like...

"Your credibility is already lacking as it is."

...then I don't think you will even listen to me.

[cbk]

Why are you changing your argument? First you said Christ himself intiated Baptismal regeneration (Mark 16:16). Now you're arguing that it didn't come "hold any meaning" until after his death. You're being inconsistent.

Inconsistent? Did not Christ speak the words that I am refering to AFTER his death and resurrection? Did I not state that he inititated water baptism as a requirement AFTER his death and resurrection and NOT before? My statement would be inconsistant IF Christ had spoken these words BEFORE he sacrificed his own body in accordance to God's Will.

[nyj]

Moderator Note: People, if you haven't noticed, this is the Commentary and Debate Invitation Forum. Certain people in this thread have decided to cut out the words Commentary and Invitation.

If you want to debate, set up a formal debate. Any more debating in this thread and I'll trash individual posts (cause that'll hurt more than just closing off the thread).

PS: I suggest we remove all ad hominem from our posts too.

[nyj]

Upon further review, this thread will be closed. It was started, and has been populated with posts by people in the formal debate. This is the Non-Participant Commentary section.

Thread closed.

[kimber1]

*MOD HAT ON
this is not the place for debating as has already been mentioned. either discuss it in a respectful manner or this will be closed and i will commence handing out warnings. understood? thank you. continue...
*MOD HAT OFF