Featured Are some Baptists "historic revisionists " ?

Concerning going to the Bible (and reading into it), it would be a lot more Biblical, that is to make a Biblical case, to make the logical conclusion that before a pastor preaches he must go to his housetop or roof and receive direct revelation from God in the form of a vision (or even God speaking audibly) before he can consider himself qualified to preach.
That is what happened to Peter.
There are no infants in Cornelius's household--none recorded.
But we do have Peter's vision recorded--three times.
Therefore we should make the conclusion that every preacher should have direct revelation from God before he preaches in the form of such a vision. Right? This is a far more valid argument than the one you are making.

An argument made from silence is no argument at all.

 

When you see a turtle on a fence post you know it had assistance getting up there.

When you see manure being hauled out of a barn you know it has been housing livestock.

When you see vultures circling you know something beneath them is dead.

When you read of four entire households being baptized you know they dunked a baby here and there.

 

You're arguing from a useless assumption. I can take you to dozens of "households" right now in which you won't find a single infant.

Basically, in arguing for paedobaptism, you are arguing against that which scripture clearly states. Scripture clearly shows only those who have heard the word of God and have professed faith or believed on God were baptized. This has been shown to your camp many times over. How you don't see it in the scriptures is beyond me.

 

From J.T. Christian:

In fact no trace of infant baptism can be found until the fourth century.

It is time to give up your futile efforts in this effort to prove your man-made doctrine that a few drops of water can superstitiously cleanse away sin. It doesn't. It makes one wet and that is all.

 

We are not "anti-catholic", we are just pro scripture. You cannot claim infants where baptized in the house of Cornelius. You are not assuming infants are present. You actually contradict scripture. You are not assuming their are infants, you are going against scripture with Cornelius, claiming their was infants. Acts says "one who feared God with all his household". All of his household believed in the God of Israel. The results is 100% believers baptism. Infants are not God fearers. The have no mental capacity to come to that conclusion.

You are basing your doctrines on assumptions. That is incredibly dangerous. Going beyond scripture will lead to apostasy. It already has in fact.

 

Brother Zenas and Brother Lakeside,

All throughout makes it clear that one who does not "believe" in Jesus is not saved. (I think we can both agree on this). John 3:18 for example, "He that believeth on him is not condemned: but he that believeth not is condemned already, because he hath not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God." also John 3:36, "He that believeth on the Son hath everlasting life: and he that believeth not the Son shall not see life; but the wrath of God abideth on him". I could go on and on with passages, but I do not think you would debate me that scripture makes it clear one never believes has no claim to ever being saved. But, if baptism is a requirement for salvation, why does the Bible never once even say, "he that believeth and is not baptized is condemned"? If it is indeed a requirement, it would have been not in there not only once (which it isn't), but throughout the New Testament in a similar manner as continually living in unbelief in Christ is always equated with one being unsaved. The fact that it is not in there even once, is damming to the doctrine of "baptismal regeneration".

Also Brother Zenas and Lakeside, even if one were to grant you the few "baptismal regeneration" scriptures you present as indeed valid (which I don't), how come there are hundreds upon hundreds of New Testament and Old Testament scriptures one can point to in order to prove that faith or believing are certain evidences of salvation, but only perhaps 9 or 10 at most for the doctrine of "baptismal regeneration" as producing salvation?

Finally, Brother Lakside/Zenus, while I do not agree that baptism replaced circumcision in the New Covenant, I believe Catholics do, but then why wasn't circumcision a requirement for one to become righteous and go to Heaven in the old testament if they are analogous?

God bless,

Brother Joe

 

Good post sir.
I have seen the Didache mentioned, but have never read it. Good to know that is there.

 

Very good points.

 

Yeah, sure.
Ezekiel 3:3 And he said unto me, Son of man, cause thy belly to eat, and fill thy bowels with this roll that I give thee. Then did I eat it; and it was in my mouth as honey for sweetness.
--That was some biscuit wasn't it?

Zechariah 5:2 And he said unto me, What seest thou? And I answered, I see a flying roll; the length thereof is twenty cubits, and the breadth thereof ten cubits.
--This was the spacecraft I was talking about. It landed in South Dakota. Can you prove me wrong? :smilewinkgrin:

I hope that you are obedient to the Lord. Else some terrible judgement will come upon you and your wife and daughters.
Isaiah 3:17 Therefore the Lord will smite with a scab the crown of the head of the daughters of Zion, and the LORD will discover their secret parts.

You do own these, right?
Isaiah 3:19 The chains, and the bracelets, and the mufflers,

Isaiah 3:20 The bonnets, and the ornaments of the legs, and the headbands, and the tablets, and the earrings,
--If you are from England the bonnet is the hood of the car.
I just purchased my tablet from Radio Shack, and I only wear a headband in extreme cold (minus 20 or below).

Stock up on these while they last:
Isaiah 3:22 The changeable suits of apparel, and the mantles, and the wimples, and the crisping pins,

Why? Because Judgment is about to come. Judgment upon all those who baptize infants. Beware:
Isaiah 3:24 And it shall come to pass, that instead of sweet smell there shall be stink; and instead of a girdle a rent; and instead of well set hair baldness; and instead of a stomacher a girding of sackcloth; and burning instead of beauty.
--You see the judgment of those who baptize babies?
They will be bald!

 

:laugh: :laugh:

 

No. Two times. First there is the natural birth, which is alluded to by Nicodemus but not at any time by Jesus. Then there is the spiritual birth---water through which the spirit is received. The water in question is most definitely not natural birth. In fact most Evangelical commentaries will quickly rule out the water as referring to natural birth. Then they get a little tongue tied trying to explain what it means because their soteriology doesn’t permit them to say it is referring to baptism, which of course it is. As for the thief on the cross, you must remember that Jesus is Lord of all. He has the power to admit anyone to Heaven He wants to, even unbelievers if He chooses to do so. So that argument is a straw man.

If you read back, you will see that McCree is the one who introduced the Church Fathers to this thread by bringing up a totally irrelevant doctrine espoused by Irenaeus. Anyway, no one in the Catholic Church holds the ECF’s out as being inspired. However, it is undeniable that they were close in time to the apostles. The culture they lived in was the same as the apostles; the language they spoke was the same as the apostles. They didn’t have to learn a foreign language in order to read the original Greek manuscripts. A couple of them were even taught directly by the apostles.

It’s no different, really, than relying on the writings of later scholars and commentators. People frequently quote the writings of the Reformers and even modern writers such as John MacArthur without receiving pejorative remarks from others. The real problem you have with quoting the Early Church Fathers is not that they are fallible men, but that they express Catholic ideas. And you probably find that unsettling, inasmuch as they were so close in time to the apostles.

 

The era of the "leader" makes no difference. MacArthur is for his dispensational view and draws plenty of heat. Much more than Leo 1, Origen, Constantine, or any other Catholic founder. No one draws as Mich heat as Olsteen and Calvin(especially Calvin) .....so yeah, attacks are levied because opponents believe them to be wrong. Early churches(as well as present day) were awful about going astray. One just needs to read Corinthians. Being close to the time of the Apostles did not give them any added advantage. With the huge influx of pagan converts and few teachers. Corruption of false teachings was accomplished very easily.

 

Titus 3:5 is very plainly speaking of water baptism.

You can peruse the New Testament and come up with probably a dozen ways to get saved. Some include baptism and some don’t. Do you really want to omit any of them?

Wrong comparison. Never does the Bible say circumcision takes away sin. However, it does say repeatedly that baptism takes away sin. Acts 2:38 for example.

All right, let me get this straight. The word “wash” has nothing to do with water. It’s a spiritual washing, notwithstanding the fact that Ananias in the same sentence had told Saul to be baptized.

I can tell by your postings that you are a smart guy (and I know you live in an area populated by lots of fine upstanding people) so you must know that your attempt to explain Acts 22:16 is plain malarkey.

 

No. No, no no. The Spirit is not received through baptism. No where in scripture does it tell us that we receive the Spirit by being baptized. If you are teaching that then you are teaching against the Holy Scriptures of God. If we required baptism to receive the Spirit unto the second birth then we have a works salvation. Then again, Catholics have no problem with a works salvation, apparently. But we don't have to keep sacraments. We don't even have to be baptized. We just have to believe on the Lord and call upon His name.

You're accusing me of a strawman, but you're arguing from silence, or arguing from the writings of the Church Fathers. But who cares?! We have ONE Father, and He is above, enthroned in the highest of Heavens. He gave us His holy word for instruction, and He gave us His Spirit for guidance. I don't care what Irenaeus, or Justin Martyr, or Augustine wrote. I don't care what John MacArthur, Paul Washer, or John Piper wrote. I care what the Lord divinely inspired in the Bible. And what you are teaching is found nowhere within the Word of God. If you are teaching that a child can be baptized as a baby and that suffices for salvation then I'd say that's what Peter referred to as a damnable heresy.

 

Not a chance. You totally misrepresent the scriptures.

Titus 3:5 Not by works of righteousness which we have done, but according to his mercy he saved us, by the washing of regeneration, and renewing of the Holy Ghost;
--You contradict the verse itself. "The washing of regeneration" is "not of works of righteousness," that is baptism which is "a work of righteousness." It is some good work that man does, that man receives and that God has nothing to do with. In fact this very act is one that Jeremiah mocks:

Jer 2:22 For though thou wash thee with nitre, and take thee much soap, yet thine iniquity is marked before me, saith the Lord GOD.
--He mocks this baptism saying that no matter how many times you dip yourself, wash yourself, scrub yourself with the strongest soap possible, you will never wash away your sins.
--In the OT the sacrifice of an animal such as a bull or goat was necessary.

But in the NT:
Hebrews 10:4 For it is not possible that the blood of bulls and of goats should take away sins.

However:
Hebrews 9:22 And almost all things are by the law purged with blood; and without shedding of blood is no remission.
1 John 1:7 ... and the blood of Jesus Christ his Son cleanseth us from all sin.
--It is not baptism, but rather the blood of Christ that cleanses us from sin.
Baptism will do nothing but get you wet.
Baptism is a work. you contradict the verse saying it means baptism. Regeneration happened at the cross where Christ shed his blood. It must be appropriated by the sinner by faith. That is an impossibility for an infant who can neither understand the gospel nor accept it by faith.

1 Peter 1:23 Being born again, not of corruptible seed, but of incorruptible, by the word of God, which liveth and abideth for ever.

It is the other way around. Perhaps you should demand that every scripture should necessitate a mention of baptism if it is such an important requirement for salvation. The truth is that there is not even one single verse in the Bible which demands baptism as a requirement for salvation. The belief is a heresy, unknown in the first century.

I disagree with Tony that it is not a sign of being in a covenant community.
1. It is symbolic of the death, burial and resurrection of Jesus Christ.
2. It is symbolic of the believer's death to his old life of sin, and his resurrection to a new life in Jesus Christ. And that is what is taught in Romans 6:

Rom 6:3 Know ye not, that so many of us as were baptized into Jesus Christ were baptized into his death?
Rom 6:4 Therefore we are buried with him by baptism into death: that like as Christ was raised up from the dead by the glory of the Father, even so we also should walk in newness of life.
--Purely symbolic

Let's look at a couple of other translations of Acts 22:16

(ISV) What are you waiting for now? Get up, be baptized, and have your sins washed away as you call on his name.'

Even the old Geneva translation puts it this way:
(Geneva) Now therefore why tariest thou? Arise, and be baptized, and wash away thy sinnes, in calling on the Name of the Lord.

And what does it say in Romans 10:
Rom 10:9 That if thou shalt confess with thy mouth the Lord Jesus, and shalt believe in thine heart that God hath raised him from the dead, thou shalt be saved.
Rom 10:10 For with the heart man believeth unto righteousness; and with the mouth confession is made unto salvation.

Acts 22:16 obviously teaches that one's sins are washed away when one calls upon the Lord, the same truth that is taught in Romans 10:9,10. Baptism has nothing to do with it. If you know Greek and are able to check the Greek you would be able to find out the same thing.

Nowhere does the Bible teach that baptism is necessary for salvation.
Everywhere does the Bible teach that baptism must follow salvation which is by faith in Christ. Baptism is a step of obedience in the Christian faith, never done by an unbeliever or one has not put their faith and trust in Christ.

 

So.....I guess I don't need to reply.....DHK took care of about everything