The Independent Catholic Movement

My, sounds like the catholic church hmmm?

Kidding! HA! Or am I?

In Christ,
jason

 

Jason,

Go back to the other thread where we are discussing this, before I have to get after ya!

 

Just having some fun with my christian (even event though he is catholic) brother!

 

Yes I am saved. If I were not saved I would still be a Catholic. The Bible says "You must be born again." "Except a man be born again he cannot enter into the kingdom of God." Have you been born again? The Catholic Church teaches that this means baptism. "You must be born of water and of the spirit." Any Catholic on this forum will tell you that the water there refers to baptism. Born again therefore refers to baptism. I was born again when I was 20, not by baptism, but when I trusted Christ as my Saviour, when I put my faith in His precious blood as the atoning sacrifice for my sins. He at that time forgave my sins (all of them). He gave me the gift of eternal life (which I possess right now).

The fact that you say, according to your own catechism and belief system, that you are born again according to baptism, means that you are not saved, cannot be saved. You are trusting in your works to save you. Baptism is a work and cannot save. Only Christ can save. The church cannot save. Sacraments cannot save. Only faith in Christ, and His shed blood can save. You must be born again.
DHK</font>[/QUOTE]Well thanks for all of that.

Now how about the second question.

"I ask not to judge, but merely wonder if you feel that your participation on this forum in regards to Catholics and the Church honestly show the fruits of someone who is saved?"

Does your participation show the fruits of someone who is saved?

As you will no doubt say yes, why don't you back it up with an answer to my continuing question about your claim to a 20 minute Mass?

You see, it is my opinion that someone who is saved would have at least a passing respect for truth. Such a person would take care in not misrepresenting the beliefs and practices of others.

So, what do you say?

Ron

 

DHK,

You changed the subject to this, and you had never answered his earlier question. You are really good at dodging questions you don't want to answer.

[ April 08, 2002, 04:58 PM: Message edited by: GraceSaves ]

 

The above back quote is long but I think that it is enlightening.

Notice your first reference to a twenty minute Mass. It was not qualified in terms of your memory and it was said within the context of attempting to show how little time is spent on Scripture during a Mass.

When called on it, you modified the time to 30 minutes. Still short by half, in any Church on any Sunday.

I find it interesting that your memory serves so poorly, especially since you say that you attended Mass every Sunday until you were saved. How old were you then? Twenty? So we are not talking about faint distant childhood experiences but those of an adult.

"No one answered directly to that question."

As I have previously said, you link words together in a way meant to deceive. I challenged you repeatedly all over the board, in many different threads on your assertion of a 20 minute Mass. Do you think that, "No one answed directly to that question," becomes truth because you have some sort of technicality to hide behind, like none of my protests against it were attached directly to that particular post?

Now comes the new dissembling of the truth. "Perhaps location had to do with it."

I hav attended Masses in three different countries in four different languages. In large cathederals and small chapels in the woods. In the compay of thousands and with as few as five present. The location and the language have nothing to do with the length of time. But you know this.

"So why in this thread are you so hung up on the length of the mass, something that was discussed in an entirely different thread. And it appears that you did not even read the posts carefully (as usual)."

Because this is the thread where you finally gave in to my persistence.

It is an issue, because I do not abide with someone making deliberate false representations about my beliefs, my faith, my Church, and my brothers and sisters in that Church.

It is an issue because truth matters.

"Is this your tactic of changing the topic at your convenience to ignore the question: Have you been born again, Scripturally? Not by baptism, but by the Holy Spirit of God?"

It is not I who changed the topic. My question which you have been dodging through all these threads was two parts:

What is your evidence of a twenty minute Mass?

And is a love of Scripture compatible with a lack of respect for truth in general?

Having your answer on a 20 minute Mass, probably every memory you have about your experience with Catholics may safely be discounted, if not discarded, as terribly flawed and not trust worthy.

I'm still waiting for an answer to the other question because I sincerely feel that you have little respect for truth and I wonder how you reconcile this with being saved.

[ April 08, 2002, 05:23 PM: Message edited by: trying2understand ]

 

Anyone with a deep respect for truth will recognize that amongst Christians, there are many MANY disagreements on what is true and what is not. You have respect ONLY for what you believe to be true, and not what others do. This is not respect.

Trying2Understand asked MANY times in that thread where you got that time from, as did Carson (it was there, I read it). You ignored it, becuase you made a false statement, which you are now trying your best to back away from (don't try and call it "average" now, because just a minute ago you said only the "high mass" or "midnight mass at Christmas" were long.

You assumed wrong.

 

Trying2Understand asked MANY times in that thread where you got that time from, as did Carson (it was there, I read it). You ignored it, becuase you made a false statement, which you are now trying your best to back away from (don't try and call it "average" now, because just a minute ago you said only the "high mass" or "midnight mass at Christmas" were long.

You assumed wrong.[/QB]</font>[/QUOTE]Two statements were made by me on the same thread on the same day. The latter statement had a question of clarification attached to it. Who ignored it? You did. If I was wrong, why didn't you clarify the statement then. This discussion is fruitless, and should have been ended long ago.

More importantly, have you been born again? If so, how? Tell me about it.

 

Yes, I have been born again, through the waters of Baptism. I was 12 days old, and was baptised in the name of the Father, of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit on April 17, 1983. From here on out I have been marked as a child of God, ever-growing in my understanding of his Word.

 

Yes, I have been born again, through the waters of Baptism. I was 12 days old, and was baptised in the name of the Father, of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit on April 17, 1983. From here on out I have been marked as a child of God, ever-growing in my understanding of his Word.</font>[/QUOTE]John 3:6 That which is born of the flesh is flesh; and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit.
7 Marvel not that I said unto thee, Ye must be born again.

Every one is born of the flesh. But not every one is born of the Spirit, and so Jesus says in verse 7, "Ye must be born again." You must be born a second time, by the Spirit of God, not by the waters of baptism, but by the Spirit of God.

When one receives Jesus Christ as Saviour, that is when he is old enough to intellectually know that he died for him personally and put his faith in His shed blood, then Christ by the power of His Spirit comes and takes up residence in that person's temple (body). He also adopts that one into His family. Before this time one is not a child of God, but of the devil (John 8:44; Eph.2:1,2).

John 1:12 But as many as received him, to them gave he power to become the sons of God, even to them that believe on his name:
13 Which were born, not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of God.
---I received Him; I became His son (child) by faith in his name. Verse 13 answers how. I was born not of the will of man (that includes baptism), but of God. I was born into God's family. I was born again by receiving Christ as my Saviour. I personally did that at the age of twenty.

James 1:18 Of his own will begat he us with the word of truth, that we should be a kind of firstfruits of his creatures.--Of God's own will, we were begotten or born. How? With the Word of Truth. I was born again with the Word of Truth. It is important to note that the Spirit of God works through the Word of God.

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.
--I was born again by the Word of God, not by anything temporal. Baptism, water, is temporal. Someday it will pass away. God's word will never pass away. We have his promise that it lives and abides for ever.

Acts 10:43 To him give all the prophets witness, that through his name whosoever believeth in him shall receive remission of sins.
47 Can any man forbid water, that these should not be baptized, which have received the Holy Ghost as well as we?
48 And he commanded them to be baptized in the name of the Lord. Then prayed they him to tarry certain days.
--In this passage the requirement for salvation is clear: "whosoever believes in him shall receive remission of sins." Many that were there did believe. To believe you must be old enough to have the intellectual capacity to believe, thus this act would automatically exclude infants. Peter seeing those who had believed, and consequently received the Holy Spirit, commands them to be baptized. Baptism in the New Testament always follows belief. Believe and then be baptized. An infant cannot believe. An infant cannot be born again. "Except a man be born again he cannot see the kingdom of God."
DHK

 

DHK, you simply astound me!

Silence on my part?

You assume that you are still right?

Utterly amazing!

DHK, be a man.

 

Hi DHK,

First of all, as I'm sure you are already well aware, on the "Catholic" doctrine of infant baptism, your belief is in the minority (of course not on this, The Baptist Board , but in the world of Christendom). Let me just say that, although we may have different understandings of the effects of the action, infant baptism is adhered to by not only the Catholic and Orthodox churches but also by Anglicans, Methodists, Presbyterians, Lutherans and most independent "Reformed" churches. So, this isn't a Catholic vs. Baptist issue.

You wrote:

I am amazed at how you conveniently did not include verses 4 and 5 of John 3. I'll include them since you forgot them:

" Nicodemus said to him, 'How can a person once grown old be born again? Surely he cannot reenter his mother's womb and be born again, can he?' Jesus answered, 'Amen, amen, I say to you, no one can enter the kingdom of God without being born of water and Spirit.' " (John 3:4-5)

What type of water do you think Jesus was referring to here?

I'll also point to Peter's words recorded in the Book of Acts: "Peter said to them, 'Repent and be baptized, every one of you, in the name Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins; and you will receive the gift of the holy Spirit." (Acts 2:38).

I think that both of these verses show clearly that baptism is somehow necessary for salvation. Of course this teaching was not restricted to adults, for Peter added, "For the promise is made to you and your children..." (Acts 2:39).

In his first letter, Peter also says, "Baptism...now saves you. It is not a removal of dirt from the body but an appeal to God for a clear conscience, through the resurrection of Jesus Christ..." (1 Peter 3:21).

Paul was commanded to "Get up and have yourself baptized and your sins washed away, calling upon his name." (Acts 22:16).

All of these verses explicitly link baptism with cleansing away of sins and salvation.

You wrote:

As I mentioned earlier, Peter clearly stated that the promises of Christ, available through baptism, were made to children as well as adults.

If you choose not to believe Peter on this matter, let's look at what Jesus himself had to say:

"And people were bringing children to him that he might touch them, but the disciples rebuked them. When Jesus saw this he became indignant and said to them, 'Let the children come to me; do not prevent them, for the kingdom of God belongs to such as these.'" (Mark 10:13-14).

"Not a child of God" indeed! Christ himself would surely be indignant at such a crass and presumptuous statement!

And in case there is any confusion over whether the children he recieved that day were old enough to choose to approach Jesus on their own, Luke, in his version of events, says that "People were bringing even infants to him..." (Gr, Proseferon de auto kai ta brephe - brephe means "infants") (Luke 18:15).

Jesus clearly said "for the kingdom of God belongs to such as these [the infants and children brought to Jesus by their parents]". Christ did not require of these infants a formal declaration of faith in order to be declared worthy of heaven. Who are we to impose such a restriction and to prevent babies and children from coming to Christ through baptism?

You quoted these wonderful verses from John's Gospel:

Amen and amen. Believers in Christ become children of God not by human means but only through God, who is the immediate source of new spiritual life. No Catholic would disagree with this.

You also wrote:

I rejoice that you received Christ Jesus and became his son. Thanks be to God.

I must admit, however, I don't know how you conclude that baptism is merely "the will of man". Are you forgetting that we baptize on the command of the Lord himself (the Great Commission) : "Go, therefore, and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the holy Spirit..." (Matthew 28:19).

You do know that the Catholic Church teaches (and has always taught) that those of age must make a conscious decision to accept the saving grace available through Christ. After all, the Scriptures make it clear that faith in Christ is necessary for salvation. The sacrament that marks this decision is known as Confirmation (where the person is "confirmed" in their Christian faith and sealed with the Holy Spirit).

Of course, believe it or not, we do have a point of agreement on something else. You see, even Baptists admit there is an exception to the "faith alone" rule for salvation, unless they want to automatically condemn all infants to hell who die before "making a decision for Christ."

Baptists make a necessary exception for infants regarding the necessity of faith for salvation so other Christians (including Catholics) cannot be criticized for making the same exception regarding baptism. The Bible gives us no way of bringing anyone to Jesus apart from baptism.

You wrote:

You say that you grew up Catholic, so I assume you were confirmed. Why did you choose to receive a sacrament that, by its very name, confirms your faith in Christ? I'm sorry it took you until age twenty to realize your need for a personal relationship with Jesus but I don't think you should blame your misunderstanding on the Catholic Church as a whole. Maybe you should blame your parish (which evidently did a pitiful job in catechizing you and educating you in the faith) or maybe your family (for the same reason).

Well of course they were made Christians through the will of God by the "word of truth"! They were adults and were believers before they were baptized. What kind of argument is this?

Almost all instances of new believers (and consequently of baptisms) mentioned in the New Testament deal with adults because Christianity was just beginning. All believers were "new converts" (or, "firstfruits") as it were; none of these people had been born into Christian households.

And how were they converted? Through the preaching of God's Word! But you are dealing with adult converts in this text (and, like I said, in most New Testament examples). This has nothing to do with infant baptism.

My last paragraph goes for these quotes, too.

I totally agree. Infants most certainly cannot believe. But no doubt nonetheless God saves them. Who are we to deny them baptism? Nowhere in Scripture are we commanded to baptize only believing adults.

You wrote:

Of course we will have to consider the fact that, according to Scripture, the Church baptized entire households (see Acts 16:33 and 1 Corinthians 1:16) which could very well have included infants.

And how about the writings of Paul on circumcision? His words speak for themselves.

"In him you were also circumcised...with the circumcision of Christ. You were buried with him in baptism, in which you were also raised with him through faith in the power of God, who raised him from the dead." (Colossians 2:11-12).

Paul draws a clear parallel between circumcision and baptism, indicating that baptism, like circumcision, can be given to children as well as adults.

You wrote:

This sounds like a clear condemnation of infants to hell. Although I find such a broad damnation chilling, I wonder where you got this insight. I always thought we were to "judge not".

God Bless.

In Officio Agnus,
Deacon's Son

[ April 09, 2002, 11:30 AM: Message edited by: Deacon's Son ]

 

Wait a second...

Come to think of it, I must be nuts to try and defend infant baptism on the Baptist Board!!!

Boy, my lack of good judgement is growing.

(Just some lightheartedness. God bless you all.)

IOA,
Deacon's Son

[ April 09, 2002, 01:47 PM: Message edited by: Deacon's Son ]

 

Well of course they were made Christians through the will of God by the "word of truth"! They were adults and were believers before they were baptized. What kind of argument is this?

Almost all instances of new believers (and consequently of baptisms) mentioned in the New Testament deal with adults because Christianity was just beginning. All believers were "new converts" (or, "firstfruits") as it were; none of these people had been born into Christian households.

And how were they converted? Through the preaching of God's Word! But you are dealing with adult converts in this text (and, like I said, in most New Testament examples). This has nothing to do with infant baptism.

My last paragraph goes for these quotes, too.

I totally agree. Infants most certainly cannot believe. But no doubt nonetheless God saves them. Who are we to deny them baptism? Nowhere in Scripture are we commanded to baptize only believing adults.

You wrote:

Of course we will have to consider the fact that, according to Scripture, the Church baptized entire households (see Acts 16:33 and 1 Corinthians 1:16) which could very well have included infants.

And how about the writings of Paul on circumcision? His words speak for themselves.

"In him you were also circumcised...with the circumcision of Christ. You were buried with him in baptism, in which you were also raised with him through faith in the power of God, who raised him from the dead." (Colossians 2:11-12).

Paul draws a clear parallel between circumcision and baptism, indicating that baptism, like circumcision, can be given to children as well as adults.

You wrote:

This sounds like a clear condemnation of infants to hell. Although I find such a broad damnation chilling, I wonder where you got this insight. I always thought we were to "judge not".
</font>[/QUOTE]Before I address all the verses that you mentioned at the first of your quote let me make some comments about these in particular.
Concerning James 1:18, you say: "of course they were made Christians through the will of God by the "word of truth"! They were adults." You go on to say that "Almost all instances of new believers (and consequently of baptisms) mentioned in the New Testament deal with adults because Christianity was just beginning." Now what kind of logic is that? The Bible was written to whom?? Believers that were old enough to receive Christ as their Saviour, and thus be baptized. If your argument holds water then we have a Bible that was written to:
Infants who couldn't even change their own diaper, have the capacity to believe.
Infants who had no way of communicating to themselves much less "confess with their mouth the Lord Jesus and believe in their heart that God has raised in from the dead." (Rom.10:9)
So if the Bible was written to adults BECAUSE Christianity was just beginning, now that Christianity is out of its infancy, please produce the Bible for the real "infants" of Christianity.
What Bible do you now have for your 8 to 12 day old babies, and what are you going to teach them?

How were they converted you ask? Through the preaching of God's word was the answer. But then you protest, that is because they were all adults. You have lost your own battle. The gospel was never directed to infants and it is foolish to think that it was. It is also foolish think that there were no infants of Christian families from the time that Christ died until the time that the Book of James was written, if that seems to be what you are implying.
In your quote above you said, "we will have to consider the fact that, according to Scripture, the Church baptized entire households (see Acts 16:33 and 1 Corinthians 1:16) which could very well have included infants." Consider them all you want. But there is no mention of infants. Where there is no mention of infants you cannot read that into Scriptue for the sake of making up one of your own doctrines. It is not there. Show me one instance of an infant being baptized. Just one example. You won't find it. The household may very well have been all adults and no doubt was. You CANNOT make an argument from silence. You CANNOT build a doctrine from silence of Scripture.

Concerning Col.2:11,12, you say this "Paul draws a clear parallel between circumcision and baptism, indicating that baptism, like circumcision, can be given to children as well as adults." ---Paul draws no such no distinction at all. In fact he does the opposite in this chapter. Look at the entire context following the verses you quoted

13 And you, being dead in your sins and the uncircumcision of your flesh, hath he quickened together with him, having forgiven you all trespasses;
14 Blotting out the handwriting of ordinances that was against us, which was contrary to us, and took it out of the way, nailing it to his cross;
15 And having spoiled principalities and powers, he made a show of them openly, triumphing over them in it.
16 Let no man therefore judge you in meat, or in drink, or in respect of an holyday, or of the new moon, or of the sabbath days:
17 Which are a shadow of things to come; but the body is of Christ.

Referring to circumcision as one of those ordinances, he tells the Colossians that they have all been nailed at the cross, and taken out of the way, in verse 14. There is no comparison at all. He triumphed over all of these things. We have nothing more to do with circumcision. Baptism in no way relates to it.

Concerning your last comment, "I thought we were not supposed to judge." My statements had nothing to do with judging, they had to do with Scripture. The Bible says you must be born again. You must be able to believe in order to be born again. An infant cannot believe. An infant cannot be born again. I did not say an infant cannot go to Heaven. David made that abundantly clear when his infant died. God takes them in his mercy to heaven any way. That has nothing to do with the topic at hand. You must be born again.
DHK

 

I am amazed at how you conveniently did not include verses 4 and 5 of John 3. I'll include them since you forgot them:

" Nicodemus said to him, 'How can a person once grown old be born again? Surely he cannot reenter his mother's womb and be born again, can he?' Jesus answered, 'Amen, amen, I say to you, no one can enter the kingdom of God without being born of water and Spirit.' " (John 3:4-5)

What type of water do you think Jesus was referring to here?
</font>[/QUOTE]The question you ask here is a good question and needs a proper answer. The verses you provided did nothing to answer this question. We both agree that there is a certain amount of symbolism in the Bible, and this may be one of those places. That being said, let us review some basic principles of hermeneutics (Biblical interpretation), and then tackle the passage at hand.

1. Always interpret the passage literally, unless the context dictates otherwise.
2. Always look at the passage in its context: the verses before and after, the context of the chapter and even the book.
3. Always take into consideration the historical and cultural setting of the passage.
4. Consider the grammar of the passage.
5. Consider the practical application of the passage, comparing Scripture with Scripture.

1. Is it possible to interpret "water" of verse five literally? The answer is yes, and some do, but in this case the context of the passage does not necessarily. Literally water would refer to the birth water of verse 4. "Can he enter the second time into his mother's womb." It is possible that Jesus was drawing a direct parallel between the natural birth, being born of the flesh, and being born of the Spirit, a perfectly acceptable interpretation, and one held by many.
2. It is still possible that water was symbolic. If so, symbolic of what? Would it be baptism? To answer that question, consider point #3, the cultural setting. Is this what Nicodemus would have been thinking about when Jesus mentioned "water and the Spirit." Also, and perhaps more importantly, consider other Scripture and their association with this verse.
Nicodemus would not have been thinking of baptism at all. He was a Jew, a Pharisee, and had no need of being baptized. He had seen the mighty miracles of Christ, and wanted to know more of Christ, and the way of eternal life. To the Jew water had other associations, but it did not have the association of baptism. He would not have been thinking of this. And Jesus would not have used the term water, had he been referring to baptism, if he meant baptism. Water meant something else.
Jesus said to His disciples:

John 15:3 Now ye are clean through the word which I have spoken unto you.
---Water refers to the Word of God, consistently, as a purifying agent.

James 1:18 Of his own will begat he us with the word of truth, that we should be a kind of firstfruits of his creatures.
---Water refers to the Word of God. We are born again through the Word of God, and the Spirit of God.

1Peter 1:23 Being born again, not of corruptible seed, but of incorruptible, by the word of God, which liveth and abideth for ever.
---Water refers to the Word of God. We are born again by the Word of God, and by the Spirit of God.

You must be born of water and of the Spirit. You must be born again by the Word of God and of the Spirit of God. The Scripture seems to be very plain here, as we compare Scripture with Scripture.

I will discuss the other verses you mentioned in another post. The Bible does not teach salvation by baptism. The verses mentioned do not teach that either. The plain teaching of the Scripture is, "You must be born again." That can only take place when one is old enough to believe the Word of God, since the Word of God is one of the agents by which we are born again (1Pet.1:23).
DHK

 

Deacon's Son,
Here are some of the other verses that you had mentioned in your post:
"I'll also point to Peter's words recorded in the Book of Acts: "Peter said to them, 'Repent and be baptized, every one of you, in the name Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins; and you will receive the gift of the holy Spirit." (Acts 2:38)."
---In this verse the words "repent"and "your sins" are in the plural, and thus meant to be connected with each other. Repentance is necessary for salvation. It is necessary for the forgiveness of sins. "Baptism" a word used in the singular, follows repentance, but is not necessary for salvation. What Peter is saying here is, "All of you repent, each of you be baptized, and all of you will receive the forgiveness of sins. The baptism automatically follows the repentance, as a consequence of repentance. It is not necessary for the forgiveness of sins, as other Scriptures plainly show. The Bible does not contradict itself.

"I think that both of these verses show clearly that baptism is somehow necessary for salvation. Of course this teaching was not restricted to adults, for Peter added, "For the promise is made to you and your children..." (Acts 2:39)."
---The word "children is an obvious reference to descendants.
"To your children. In Joel, to their sons and daughters, who should, nevertheless, be old enough to prophesy. Similar promises occur in Isa 44:3, "I will pour my Spirit upon thy seed, and my blessing upon thine offspring," and Isa 59:21. In these and similar places, their descendants or posterity are denoted. It does not refer to children as children, and should not be adduced to establish the propriety of infant baptism, or as applicable particularly to infants." (Albert Barnes)

"In his first letter, Peter also says, "Baptism...now saves you . It is not a removal of dirt from the body but an appeal to God for a clear conscience, through the resurrection of Jesus Christ..." (1 Peter 3:21)."
---This verse was thoroughly discussed on another thread.
1Peter 3:20 Which sometime were disobedient, when once the longsuffering of God waited in the days of Noah, while the ark was a preparing, wherein few, that is, eight souls were saved by water.
21 The like figure whereunto even baptism doth also now save us (not the putting away of the filth of the flesh, but the answer of a good conscience toward God,) by the resurrection of Jesus Christ:
---The context is The Flood. Eight souls were saved by or out of the water. How were they saved? They were saved by entering into the ark, and the ark, immersed in the waters of the Flood, saved them. It was a physical salvation, not a spiritual one. They were saved from the physical destruction of the Old World. The means by which they were saved was the Ark.
The picture Peter is drawing, is one who is safely in the ark (Christ), though surrounded or immersed by the evils of the world around him, is safe or saved out of it, just as Noah was saved from the old world by the ark. We cannot do it on our own; our own self-righteousness cannot help us; "Not the putting away of the filth of the flesh;" but by the resurrection of Jesus Christ. I am baptized into Christ. He is my Ark.

"Paul was commanded to "Get up and have yourself baptized and your sins washed away, calling upon his name." (Acts 22:16)."
"The words of Ananias to Paul (22:16) need clarification. Some churchmen have extracted a concept of baptismal regeneration from the words be baptized and wash your sins away. A literal translation would reveal that there are two commands in the strict sense, each associated with a participle which can be taken as a command. The command be baptized is connected thus with the words get up, which are one word in Greek and a participle, while the command wash away your sins is connected with the participle calling on his name. Thus baptism does not cleanse from sin, but calling on the Lord (faith) does. To summarize by a more literal rendering: "having gotten up, be baptized; having called on the name of the Lord, be cleansed from your sins." (Evangelical Commentary of the Bible)

"All of these verses explicitly link baptism with cleansing away of sins and salvation."
---Obviously they do not.
DHK

 

DHK,

Thanks for the great Baptismal discussion...but why go so far offhand? We weren't arguing Baptism, and it'll be a really, really weird day when one of us manages to convince the other that he/she is right in regards to Baptism doctrinal differences.

How about we get back on track?