Why do Mormons and Baptists deny the need for historical evidence?

[Wittenberger]

You just don't get it! Ask the Catholic what it is that this person believes in? Ask the Catholic what he means by "believe"! Ask this Catholic what he means by "repent."

Again, gospel salvation is justification by grace ALONE through faith ALONE in Christ ALONE without any kind of works performed in or by the believer.

Faith alone in Christ alone means the only hope embraced for salvation is the Person and substitutionary righteusness of Jesus Christ and that is wholly sufficient in an of itself alone.

I don't believe a sinner's prayer saves anyone. I don't believe walking an aisle, signing a card, raising your hand saves anyone.

Let me be more specific:

If a man living in a country where there are few Christians of any kind, who has never heard anything about Christianity, but finds a bible in Chinese, reads the Book of John where God says, "For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever, believes in him, shall not perish but have everlasting life."

He then reads Romans where God says; "If you confess with thy mouth the Lord Jesus, and believe in thine heart that God has raised him from the dead, thou shalt be saved."

This man, after finishing reading these verses, prays to God, believes in Christ Jesus as his Lord, as his one and only God, and repents of his sins, and determines to follow Christ's ways.

There are no churches in his village. He travels to the largest nearby city and there finds a Catholic Church.

The Catholic Church hears his profession of faith, and accepts him as a believer, as a Christian. They then give him instruction that tells him he needs to be baptized and then do good works to maintain his salvation as the RCC (wrongly) interprets the Book of James.

This man proceeds to be baptized a Catholic and live a life trying his best to follow the will of Christ.

To you, is this man saved? Is he a Christian?

 

[Wittenberger]

The only one spouting false doctrine is you, so it is you who needs to repent.

You have a lot of gall, or lack of sense, as a newcomer to post trash like this, equating us with Mormons and Jehovah's Witnesses.

You have gone over the line.

You are NOT a Baptist! You have started your own denomination and appointed yourself its "archbishop". This is EXACTLY what is wrong with the Reformed branch of Christianity: every one of you think that the inner voice you hear is the Holy Spirit. In your case, the "Holy Spirit" has obviously led you to splinter the Body of Christ yet once again.

Since the Holy Spirit can't be telling all of you totally opposite truths, most of you are listening to someone else's voice: your own or maybe that of Satan himself!

 

[Squire Robertsson]

Wittenberger, why don't you shake Baptist Board's dust off from your sandals.

Your folks killed my folks for a good 200 years (14x-16x) in Western Europe and well into 18x in Russia. Not to mention, the Swedes were persecuting Baptists well into the 19th century. So, unless you're willing to acknowledge the Baptist blood split through the years, you have little to nothing to say to me. (FYI the Muensterites are\were an aberration. So, don't bother bringing them up.)

 

[Moriah]

Where in the Bible does it say Christ’s body and blood are present at Communion?

Q: What verses in Scripture can be cited that teach "that BOTH bread and wine AND Christ's true body
and blood are present in the Lord's Supper?

A: All three accounts of the institution of the Lord's Supper in the Gospels (Matthew 26:26-29; Mark
14:22-25; Luke 22:14-23) explicitly state that Jesus took BREAD, blessed it, broke it, and gave it to his
disciples saying, "Take, eat; this [i.e., this BREAD, which I have just blessed and broken and am now
giving to you] is my body." Jesus uses similar language in referring to "the cup" (of wine) as "his blood."
A plain and straightforward reading of these words leads to the conclusion that BOTH bread AND body,
BOTH wine AND blood are present in the consecrated elements of the Lord's Supper.

As I have said before, Jesus had not shed his blood yet on the cross, the cup had fruit of the vine, and the bread was bread. The fruit of the vine and the bread were symbolic of the Covenant Jesus was making. Jesus had not yet given up his body, yet you want us to believe that Jesus was giving his body and blood before the cross.

Perhaps the most explicit expression of this truth, however, is found in 1 Cor. 10:16-17, where Paul
writes: "The cup of blessing that we bless, is it not a participation in the blood of Christ? The bread that
we break, is it not a participation in the body of Christ? Because there is one bread, we who are many
are one body, for we all partake of the one bread." Paul clearly says here that we all "partake" of
"BREAD" when we receive the Lord's Supper--even as we also partake of and "participate in" the true
body of Christ. And he says that we all "partake" of the wine (the cup), even as we also partake of the
true blood of Christ.

Of course, we are supposed to take this bread and drink seriously; it is in remembrance of Jesus!

Similarly, in 1 Cor. 11:26, Paul says: "For as often as you eat this bread and drink
the cup, you proclaim the Lord's death until he comes." Paul expressly states here that when we receive

Did you not read that? We proclaim the Lord’s death when we eat the bread and drink we do this in remembrance of Jesus.

the Lord's Supper we are "eating bread" and "drinking the cup" (wine), but he goes on to say that those
who eat this bread and drink this cup are also partaking of the true body and blood of Christ.

Can you quote the scripture exactly.

So "real" is this participation in Christ's body and blood, in fact, that (according to Paul) those who
partake of the bread and wine "in an unworthy manner" are actually guilty of "profaning the body and
blood of the Lord" (1 Cor. 11:27). (Partaking of the Lord's Supper "in a worthy manner," of course, is not
something that we "do" or "accomplish" on the basis of our "personal holiness" or "good works." It
means receiving God's free and gracious gifts of life and forgiveness offered in the Lord's Supper in true
repentance produced by the work of the Spirit through God's Law and in true faith in Christ and his
promises produced by God's Spirit through the Gospel).

Usage: We urge you to contact an LCMS pastor in your area for more in-depth discussion.

To eat and drink the Lord’s Supper in an unworthy manner is a warning about not being disrespectful. The people who were eating at the Lord’s Supper in an unworthy manner did not wait for others to eat first, to make sure the poor were fed, and people were getting drunk on the wine.

 

[Michael Wrenn]

You are NOT a Baptist! You have started your own denomination and appointed yourself its "archbishop". This is EXACTLY what is wrong with the Reformed branch of Christianity: every one of you think that the inner voice you hear is the Holy Spirit. In your case, the "Holy Spirit" has obviously led you to splinter the Body of Christ yet once again.

Since the Holy Spirit can't be telling all of you totally opposite truths, most of you are listening to someone else's voice: your own or maybe that of Satan himself!

Repent of your false teachings and return to the true, historically verifiable doctrines of the Christian faith!

You are a liar from hell! I was appointed archbishop by Archbishop Rodney Rickard of the Primitive Catholic Church; he was validly ordained in the Old Catholic succession. I did not appoint myself! Do NOT lie about me!

My fellowship is called the Celtic ANABAPTIST Communion; we adhere to the four Baptist freedoms and other Baptist principles!

I highly resent you telling me that I am listening to the voice of Satan! My communion ministers to the spiritual descendants you Magisterial Protestants murdered in the name of Jesus! Considering your highly offensive tone, manner, and accusatory and false posts, I submit that it is YOU who are listening to the voice of Satan. You are not my brother; you are the voice of hell. You need to leave this forum. Your intent is clearly to malign the beliefs of the people here with your false and haughty accusations.

As much as I have vehemently disagreed with some members here, I have never thought anyone should be banned -- until you. You should be kicked out of here; you have abused the privilege to post here.

 

[DHK]

I'm not going to start arguing with you over the Lord's Supper because you Baptists insist on the literal meaning of baptism (immersion in water) but you refuse to believe the literal meaning of "this cup, this bread IS my blood, is my body".

Words have meanings.
1. The word baptidzo means immersion.
2. All those baptized were baptized by immersion. For example the Ethiopian Eunuch did not take of his ample supply of water, perhaps in a canteen equipped for a rich man traveling over a desert. A few drops would have been enough in either pouring or sprinkling. But he waited until there was a large body of water, big enough for "both of them to go down into the water and come back up out of the water."

John the Baptist went into the middle of the Jordan River and baptized by immersion there.
Jesus and his disciples baptized near Salim "because there was much water there."

This doctrine of symbolic Lord's Supper was invented in the 1500's by Zwingli.

Your opinion backed up by your opinion worth your opinion, value of which is nothing but your opinion.

I bet the good Lord has given him a swift kick in the behind for leading so many Christians astray with this false teaching.

I don't presume to be God.

I asked for historical evidence. You and your Baptist brothers refuse to give it.

The Bible is the best historical book I know of. You don't want the history of the Bible. Is it so inferior that you honor the ECF and secular sources greater than God's inspired Word??

Again you are using the same excuses to deny the need for historical evidence as do the Mormons.

I have read the Book of Mormon, and I teach cults. Have you done either?
The book of Mormon teaches that Jesus was born in Jerusalem. There are dozens of factual historical mistakes in the Book of Mormon. Gleason Archer in his Introduction to the Old Testament Appendices lists about three pages of them. Here are some of them:

[FONT=&quot]In 1 Nephi 2:5-8, it is stated that the river Laman emptied into the Red Sea. Yet neither in historic nor prehistoric times has there ever been any river in Arabia at all that emptied into the Red Sea. Apart from an ancient canal which once connected the Nile with the Gulf of Suez, and certain wadis which showed occasional rainfall in ancient times, there were no streams of any kind emptying into the Red Sea on the western shore above the southern border of Egypt.[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]Second Nephi states that only the family of Lehi, Ishmael, and Zoram were left in Jerusalem in 600 b.c. to migrate to the New World. These totaled fifteen persons, plus three or four girls, or no more than twenty in all. Yet in less than thirty years, according to 2 Nephi 5:28, they had multiplied so startlingly that they divided up into two nations (2 Nephi 5:5-6, 21). Indeed, after arriving in America in 589 b.c., they are stated to have built a temple like Solomon’s. Now Solomon’s temple required 153,000 workers and 30,000 overseers (1 Kings 5:13, 15; 6:1, 38; 9:20-21; 2 Chronicles 2:2, 17-18) in seven and a half years. It is difficult to see how a few dozen unskilled workers (most of whom must have been children) could have duplicated this feat even in the nineteen years they allegedly did the work. Nor is it clear how all kinds of iron, copper, brass, silver, and gold could have been found in great abundance (2 Nephi 5:15) for the erection of this structure back in the sixth-century b.c. America.[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]According to Alma 7:10, Jesus was to be born at Jerusalem (rather than in Bethlehem, as recorded in Luke 2:4 and predicted in Micah 5:2).[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]Helamen 14:20, 29 states that darkness covered the whole earth for three days at the time of Christ’s death (rather than three hours, as recorded in Matthews 27:45 and Mark 15:33), or beyond Easter morning, which would have made it impossible for the woman at the tomb to tell whether the stone had been rolled away from its mouth.[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]Alma[/FONT][FONT=&quot] 46:15 indicates that believers were called “Christians” back in 73 b.c. rather than at Antioch, as Acts 11:26 informs us. It is difficult to imagine how anyone could have been labeled Christian so many decades before Christ was even born.[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]Heamen 12:25-26, allegedly written in 6 b.c., quotes John 5:29 as a prior written source, introducing by the words “We read.” It is difficult to see how a quotation could be cited from a written source not composed until eight or nine decades after 6 b.c.[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]Quite numerous are the instances in which the Mormon scriptures, said to have been in the possession of the Nephites back in 600 b.c., quote from or allude to passages or episodes found only in exilic or postexilic books of the Old Testament. Sever examples follow.[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]1. First Nephi 22:15 states: “For behold, saith the prophet, the time cometh speedily that Satan shall have no more power over the hearts of the children of men; for the day soon cometh that all the proud and they who do wickedly shall be as stubble; and the day cometh that they must be burned.” Compare this with Malachi 4:1 (ca. 435 b.c.): “For, behold, the day cometh, that shall burn as an oven; and all the proud, yea, and all that do wickedly, shall be stubble: and the day that cometh shall burn them up, saith the Lord of hosts, that it shall leave them neither root nor branch.”[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]2. Second Nephi 26:9: “But the Son of righteousness shall appear unto them; and he shall heal them, and they shall have peace with him, until three generations shall have passed away.” Compare this with Malachi 4:2: “But unto you that fear my name shall the Sun of righteousness arise with healing in his wings; and ye shall go forth and grow up as calves of the stall.” Note the confusion between Son and Sun, which could only have originated from their similar sound in the English language.[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]3. 3. Third Nephi 28:21-22: “And thrice they were cast into a furnace and received no harm. And twice they were cast into a den of wild beasts; and behold they did play with the beasts as a child with a suckling lamb, and received no harm.” Compare this with Daniel 3 and 5 where such adventures befell Shadrach, Meshach, and Abednego, along with Daniel himself. It is difficult to understand how these Mormon believers could have had experiences just like those related in the book of Daniel, which was not even composed until several decades after their alleged departure for the New World in 589 b.c. (Daniel could have found written form only after the fall of Babylon to the Persians in 539 b.c., since it contains at least fifteen Persian loanwords.)

[/FONT]

See the OP of this thread to hear the Mormons say the EXACT SAME THING: "We don't need historical evidence. We have the Holy Spirit who tells us in our hearts that we are right!"

Your OP is despicable. The Baptists honor honest history. The Book of Mormon is full of appended and revised history, history that doesn't even exist.
There is no contradiction in the Bible; the book of Mormon is full of contradiction.
You, yourself, turn a blind eye to actual history and have swallowed the RCC revised history hook, line, and sinker. That is unfortunate. It is sad when people don't do their homework and gullibly swallow what others tell them.

This circular argument is straight from the pit of hell! It has given rise to the splintering of the Church and the growth of non-Christian sects like the Mormons and JW's.

Whose argument is circular. My argument is that the Word of God is my final authority. Your argument is in unbelief.

Repent of your false teachings, my Baptist/evangelical brothers and sisters! Return to the true, historically verifiable, doctrines of the faith which have existed for 2,000 years!

It seems obvious to me which one of needs to repent. I stand on the Word of God, and have ever since I came out of the RCC. The RCC is not a Christian church, never was and never will be a Christian church. Its gospel, so-called is one that Paul calls accursed. Yet that is the one you call historical, and one that you are preaching that people should return to.
You are right. Repentance is needed.

 

[Wittenberger]

Wittenberger, why don't you shake Baptist Board's dust off from your sandals.

Your folks killed my folks for a good 200 years (14x-16x) in Western Europe and well into 18x in Russia. Not to mention, the Swedes were persecuting Baptists well into the 19th century. So, unless you're willing to acknowledge the Baptist blood split through the years, you have little to nothing to say to me. (FYI the Muensterites are\were an aberration. So, don't bother bringing them up.)

I don't know why you Baptists are getting so sensitive all of a sudden? If you did not want non-Baptists challenging your beliefs then for goodness sake why did you create this forum?

I believe that you have been backed into a very uncomfortable corner. You are not used to it.

I am not here to insult you. I am here to share the truth with you. I have been where you are. I know how you think. I am trying to shine some fresh light into your thinking.

If I have personally offended anyone, I apologize. But if I have offended you for preaching the true Gospel of Jesus Christ, I cannot apologize. Ban me if you must, but I think you should seriously question why you have this forum in the first place. If you want only Baptists and evangelicals, disband this forum.

 

[Wittenberger]

You are a liar from hell! I was appointed archbishop by Archbishop Rodney Rickard of the Primitive Catholic Church; he was validly ordained in the Old Catholic succession. I did not appoint myself! Do NOT lie about me!

My fellowship is called the Celtic ANABAPTIST Communion; we adhere to the four Baptist freedoms and other Baptist principles!

I highly resent you telling me that I am listening to the voice of Satan! My communion ministers to the spiritual descendants you Magisterial Protestants murdered in the name of Jesus! Considering your highly offensive tone, manner, and accusatory and false posts, I submit that it is YOU who are listening to the voice of Satan. You are not my brother; you are the voice of hell. You need to leave this forum. Your intent is clearly to malign the beliefs of the people here with your false and haughty accusations.

As much as I have vehemently disagreed with some members here, I have never thought anyone should be banned -- until you. You should be kicked out of here; you have abused the privilege to post here.

You can sure dish it out, Michael, but you cannot take it.

You have made several very rude and insulting comments to me previously. I hit back and now I'm from "hell". Some of you "Baptists" need to get a little thicker skin!

 

[Michael Wrenn]

You can sure dish it out, Michael, but you cannot take it.

You have made several very rude and insulting comments to me previously. I hit back and now I'm from "hell". Some of you "Baptists" need to get a little thicker skin!

I never posted a lie about you, and I never said you were listening to the voice of Satan; you did both in one post! I can take anything, if it is honest and not a personal attack. You can bet I will defend myself.

You accuse me of listening to the voice of Satan. You must be familiar with that voice yourself.

How dare you tell anyone on here to repent!

 

[Wittenberger]

I never posted a lie about you, and I never said you were listening to the voice of Satan; you did both in one post! I can take anything, if it is honest and not a personal attack. You can bet I will defend myself.

I did not say you were listening to Satan. Go back and look. I said that not all of you can be listening to the Holy Spirit, SOME of you are either listening to yourself or listening to Satan.

You assumed I was putting you in the last category. You know what they say about assuming.

I thought you said that you were appointed a bishop and then you appointed yourself as Archbishop. If I read that incorrectly, I apologize.

You have the right to be appointed or appoint yourself Pope of your new denomination for all I care. I was just pointing out that you Reformed have split more than any other branch of Christianity.

I have no ill will against you, Michael. I became defensive after your repeated insults and attacked back. Not the Christian thing to do. I apologize to you.

 

[Michael Wrenn]

I don't know why you Baptists are getting so sensitive all of a sudden? If you did not want non-Baptists challenging your beliefs then for goodness sake why did you create this forum?

I believe that you have been backed into a very uncomfortable corner. You are not used to it.

I am not here to insult you. I am here to share the truth with you. I have been where you are. I know how you think. I am trying to shine some fresh light into your thinking.

If I have personally offended anyone, I apologize. But if I have offended you for preaching the true Gospel of Jesus Christ, I cannot apologize. Ban me if you must, but I think you should seriously question why you have this forum in the first place. If you want only Baptists and evangelicals, disband this forum.

As for me personally, I welcome the widest possible representation of the Christian faith. I have been a member of and posted on Baptist forums, Anglican forums, Catholic forums, Methodist forums, Presbyterian forums, Nazarene forums.

I am not afraid of being presented with differing beliefs. What I object to is the manner in which you present those beliefs. You have absolutely no right to equate anyone's beliefs here with Mormons and Jehovah's Witnesses, for example. You have no right to tell any of us to repent. You need to repent for your haughty and self-righteous manner.

 

[Wittenberger]

For all the harsh language used by both Baptists and non-baptists on this site, I am shocked to find out that "repent of your false doctrine" is such a grevious insult.

But if it is against the "rules", I apologize.

I guess I should just say: "your doctrine is from the Pit!"??? That seems to be acceptable.

 

[Michael Wrenn]

I did not say you were listening to Satan. Go back and look. I said that not all of you can be listening to the Holy Spirit, SOME of you are either listening to yourself or listening to Satan.

You assumed I was putting you in the last category. You know what they say about assuming.

I thought you said that you were appointed a bishop and then you appointed yourself as Archbishop. If I read that incorrectly, I apologize.

You have the right to be appointed or appoint yourself Pope of your new denomination for all I care. I was just pointing out that you Reformed have split more than any other branch of Christianity.

I have no ill will against you, Michael. I became defensive after your repeated insults and attacked back. Not the Christian thing to do. I apologize to you.

First of all, even the office of archbishop in the CAC is not the same as in other denominations. Your snide remark about appointing myself pope is a continuance of your insults, so what good is your apology. Further, how could any legitimate minister appoint himself to anything.

Secondly, I am NOT Reformed; I am almost as opposed to Reformed theology as I am to Romanism.

It would probably be best if I stopped responding to you. I'll tell you this, though: You are unwise to come in here telling everybody they are wrong, that they should repent, and return to the infant baptizing state-church ideology that was responsible for centuries of murder of our spiritual ancestors.

 

[Michael Wrenn]

For all the harsh language used by both Baptists and non-baptists on this site, I am shocked to find out that "repent of your false doctrine" is such a grevious insult.

But if it is against the "rules", I apologize.

I guess I should just say: "your doctrine is from the Pit!"??? That seems to be acceptable.

What I find insulting and offensive is your telling people to repent and return to denominations whose "tradition" included killing others for Jesus.

Tell me my doctrine is false all you want, but don't try to recruit me into a state-church theological system. Just because you can't forcefully impose that on people anymore doesn't mean the ideology has changed.

 

[Steadfast Fred]

I don't know why you Baptists are getting so sensitive all of a sudden? If you did not want non-Baptists challenging your beliefs then for goodness sake why did you create this forum?

I believe that you have been backed into a very uncomfortable corner. You are not used to it.

The Squire is not backed into a corner at all.

I am not here to insult you. I am here to share the truth with you. I have been where you are. I know how you think. I am trying to shine some fresh light into your thinking.

You are here to share the truth? Really? So tell us, ... when are you going to start?

If I have personally offended anyone, I apologize. But if I have offended you for preaching the true Gospel of Jesus Christ, I cannot apologize. Ban me if you must, but I think you should seriously question why you have this forum in the first place. If you want only Baptists and evangelicals, disband this forum.

What you have been posting has not been "the true Gospel of Jesus Christ." You are posting hatred for those who have made professions of faith in Christ.

It needs to stop, Whittenberger. You have been attacking Baptists since the first day you posted on this board. You are not preaching the Gospel of Jesus Christ, you are preaching your own religion that has nothing to do with the true gospel.

 

[The Biblicist]

Let me be more specific:

If a man living in a country where there are few Christians of any kind, who has never heard anything about Christianity, but finds a bible in Chinese, reads the Book of John where God says, "For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever, believes in him, shall not perish but have everlasting life."

He then reads Romans where God says; "If you confess with thy mouth the Lord Jesus, and believe in thine heart that God has raised him from the dead, thou shalt be saved."

This man, after finishing reading these verses, prays to God, believes in Christ Jesus as his Lord, as his one and only God, and repents of his sins, and determines to follow Christ's ways.


Your scenario is imaginary! Let us look at a true to life Biblical scenario. A man has just come from Jerusalem and he is riding alone by himself reading Isaiah 53 - the gospel spelled out in the Old Testament but apparently God believes that is insuffcient for his salvation, as God says,

1 Cor. 2:14 But the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him: neither can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned.



as God sends a preacher to him as God says;


Rom. 10:14 How then shall they call on him in whom they have not believed? and how shall they believe in him of whom they have not heard? and how shall they hear without a preacher?
15 And how shall they preach, except they be sent?

And so, the preacher comes up to this man and asks,

"Understandest thou what thou readest? And he said, How can I, except some man should guide me?"

God would never send His people to a pagan church as His command is "come out of her my people and be not a partaker with her...." (Rev. 18:4).

The Catholic Church hears his profession of faith, and accepts him as a believer, as a Christian. They then give him instruction that tells him he needs to be baptized and then do good works to maintain his salvation as the RCC (wrongly) interprets the Book of James.

What a joke! You are stumbling over self-contradictions! You know full well that they reject him as being "saved" or being a "Christian" as they deny that anyone who is unbaptized is regenerated or had their sins remitted. Who has ever heard of an "unregenerated" and "unforgiven" Christian except in the mouth of heretics???!! They "instruct" because they do not believe he is either "saved" or a "Christian" until he is baptized.

You analogies are imaginary, incorrect and unbiblical.

 

[The Biblicist]

Summary of the Data Regarding Christian Baptism:

A. Paul clearly argues that baptism is the fulfillment of circumcision (Col 2.11 ff); it brings the reality of being brought into the covenant of grace, the redemptive family of God.

So Paul is pitted against Paul, how amusing! Paul explictly denies that circumcision has anything to do with justification by faith for not only Abraham but for "ALL WHO ARE OF FAITH" whether they are circumcised or uncircumcised:

Rom. 4:11 And he received the sign of circumcision, a seal of the righteousness of the faith which he had yet being uncircumcised: that he might be the father of all them that believe, though they be not circumcised; that righteousness might be imputed unto them also:
12 And the father of circumcision to them who are not of the circumcision only, but who also walk in the steps of that faith of our father Abraham, which he had being yet uncircumcised.

Gal. 6:15 For in Christ Jesus neither circumcision availeth any thing, nor uncircumcision, but a new creature.
16 And as many as walk according to this rule, peace be on them, and mercy, and upon the Israel of God.

So Paul does not teach that remission of sins or regeneration occurs in either baptism or circumcision but they are both equally "signs" of an already regenerated, justified, sin remitted believer!

When you depend upon your uninspired writings (Fathers) to interpret the scriptures you end up exactly with the same kind of interpretation of those Judaistic legalist who also interpreted scriptures according to their uninspired rabbi's (Elders).

 

[Steadfast Fred]

So Paul is pitted against Paul, how amusing! Paul explictly denies that circumcision has anything to do with justification by faith for not only Abraham but for "ALL WHO ARE OF FAITH" whether they are circumcised or uncircumcised:

Rom. 4:11 And he received the sign of circumcision, a seal of the righteousness of the faith which he had yet being uncircumcised: that he might be the father of all them that believe, though they be not circumcised; that righteousness might be imputed unto them also:
12 And the father of circumcision to them who are not of the circumcision only, but who also walk in the steps of that faith of our father Abraham, which he had being yet uncircumcised.

Gal. 6:15 For in Christ Jesus neither circumcision availeth any thing, nor uncircumcision, but a new creature.
16 And as many as walk according to this rule, peace be on them, and mercy, and upon the Israel of God.

So Paul does not teach that remission of sins or regeneration occurs in either baptism or circumcision but they are both equally "signs" of an already regenerated, justified, sin remitted believer!

When you depend upon your uninspired writings (Fathers) to interpret the scriptures you end up exactly with the same kind of interpretation of those Judaistic legalist who also interpreted scriptures according to their uninspired rabbi's (Elders).

It's not that Paul is pitted against Paul, it is more like Whittenberger is pitted against the Truth.

 

[The Biblicist]

Summary of the Data Regarding Christian Baptism:

B. As circumcision was an oath-curse sign, so also baptism is best understood primarily as a water-ordeal sign of blessing and curse (1 Cor 10.1 ff; 1 Pet 3.20-22; Rom 6.3 ff), and not as many Baptists see it, as essentially total immersion in water,

Nowhere does the Bible ever say that baptism is a "oath-curse sign" but rather we are "BURIED with him by baptism" and thus it is a "sign" that publicly identifes the JUSTIFIED REGENERATED BELIEVER with the gospel essentials of Jesus Christ so that a BURIAL is depicted by that sign.

That is why God did not choose the term rantizo (sprinkle) or the term "epicheo" (pour) as neither could convey that "sign" which is the same "sign" as Jonah in the belly of the great fish - BURIAL in water. That is why one must be "baptized IN Jordan" rather than "by Jordan" and why one needs "MUCH water" instead of a little handful of water.

This is the nonsense one is led to believe when cults depart from the scriptures as their final authority and are led to interpret scripture by uninspired writings (Fathers).

 

[The Biblicist]

Summary of the Data Regarding Christian Baptism:


C. As circumcision was the ratification of God’s covenant promise (“I will be your God”) by passing through the curse-ordeal (the cutting of the foreskin), so too, baptism is a ratification of God’s oath by our passage through the ordeal element itself (water). And just as circumcision also included the element of consecration (“You will be my people”), so too does baptism (q.d., “this is my beloved son (daughter) with whom I am well pleased” Matt 3.17; and especially Rom 6.4-5). In both cases, the sacrament is the believer’s ratification of God’s sworn oath to keep His promise to be God to His people and to deliver them from the penalties of the curse due all those who break the covenant of works and the stipulations of the Sinaitic covenant made with Moses, and actually deliver what He has promised. This is seen by the fact that the covenant mediator Himself, Jesus Christ, became a curse for us (Gal 3.10-13: “Christ hath redeemed us from the curse of the law, being made a curse for us”).

More intellectual ignorance! Under the old covenant the circumcision of male babies was merely an extension of the same "sign" as salvation begins with NEW birth. Paul explicitly states what circumcision was a "sign" of and that is a "new creature" whether the individual was literally circumcised or not:

Gal. 6:15 For in Christ Jesus neither circumcision availeth any thing, nor uncircumcision, but a new creature.
16 And as many as walk according to this rule, peace be on them, and mercy, and upon the Israel of God.

The Abrahamic Covenant demonstrates the same truth:

Rom. 4:11 And he received the sign of circumcision, a seal of the righteousness of the faith which he had yet being uncircumcised: that he might be the father of all them that believe, though they be not circumcised; that righteousness might be imputed unto them also:
12 And the father of circumcision to them who are not of the circumcision only, but who also walk in the steps of that faith of our father Abraham, which he had being yet uncircumcised.


Can't get it plainer IF you have eyes to see (and apparently you do not). However, here is a little tidbit to help - Nicodemus was a circumcised Jew and yet needed to be "BORN AGAIN" demonstrating that his circumcision did not bring him into the Abrahamic covenant but only a New birth would. Thus neither does baptism bring anyone into the New Covenant but only NEW BIRTH does and the PHYSICAL birth preceded PHYSICAL circumcision under Abrahamic/Mosaic Covenants because circumcision is the "sign" that SPIRITUAL birth must always precede DIVINE RITES under the New Covenant.

However, when one follows UNINSPIRED interpreters (Fathers) instead of going directly to the scriptuers as did the more noble Bereans than one ends up with such nonsense and false doctrine that are found consistently throughout the Fathers.