Speedy Debate on belief and nothing else.

Hi Yelsew,

When we are born, we are not born into God's covenant family. If this were so, then we would not need to be "saved", for salvation entails the entrance into the household of God, the Church, God's covenant family.

We need to be "reborn" into God's covenant family, and the means for this rebirth is baptism, whereby we are baptized in the name of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit. This calling upon God's name by the minister of baptism (who acts in the person of Christ; Christ is the baptizer) is what makes baptism an oath. An oath is a swearing in the name of God, which is what we do at baptism. And the effect is the rebirth of the pagan into the covenant family of God.

What happened to Christ at his baptism happens to each of us at our baptism. The Holy Spirit descends upon us, and we are declared God's beloved sons, and so we are.

 

The Jews of the One True Church started by God at Sinai "believed what they had been taught" just as many who claim to belong to the "One True Church" do today.

That was "insufficient".

Mark 16 is referencing belief based on things taught by the Holy Spirit under the New Covenant where we do not say "each one to his neighbor KNOW the Lord for ALL shall know Me". It is belief in the truth - as revealed by the Holy Spirit in His Word. It is full acceptance of God's Word - the scripture rather than the ideas/foibles/traditions of man.

Being led by "The Holy Spirit" - not simply by your church tradition or culture. (as we saw in Mark 7:1-11.)

In Christ,

Bob

 

"Being led by "The Holy Spirit" - not simply by your church tradition or culture. (as we saw in Mark 7:1-11.)"

Bob raises false dichotomies once again. The Church is the pillar and foundation of the truth. Weren't the Jews led through the desert by a pillar of fire (God). They of course also followed Moses. (ever heard of the seat of moses. Mt. 23:2). When people rebelled against Moses it was the same as rebelling against God. Now the NT tells us "the Church is the pillar and foundation of the truth". To rebell against the Church, the pillar, and the man who sits on the seat of Peter, is to rebell against God. What happened to those who rebelled against Moses? Check out Korah and Dathan and even his own wife Miriam. It wasn't pretty.

Blessings

 

Carson Weber,

C.W. said, 'What happened to Christ at his baptism happens to each of us at our baptism. The Holy Spirit descends upon us, and we are declared God's beloved sons, and so we are.'

Ray is saying, 'Carson, are you saying then that before Christ was baptised by John the Baptist that He was not the Trinitarian God? When Christ walked this earth, as always, He was and is today, God the Father, God the Son, and God the Holy Spirit.

The descent of the dove and the voice was a confirmation of His mission in the world and of His public entrance into His ministry. The people saw the sign of the Spirit and heard the voice of Almighty God.

 

The sign of the covenant was ministered when Mary, the mother of our Lord, and Joseph presented Him to the priest shortly after His birth for the marking of the flesh. If infant baptism was required, in this time framework, at so early an age, Mary surely would have had Him baptized. And surely Jesus baptism at age thirty was not an example of what time framework is set for all adults. Most often adults who believe in Jesus were then baptized into the faith, in obedience to our Lord. At some time while Jesus was on earth household baptism was initiated for all little ones whose parent or parents found Jesus as Savior. [Acts 16:15] Perhaps it was at the beginning of the church age {Pentecost and after} that Jesus allowed infant baptism as the new sign of the covenant.

 

Hi Ray,

Carson, are you saying then that before Christ was baptised by John the Baptist that He was not the Trinitarian God?

No, I am not an adoptionist.

The sign of the covenant was ministered when Mary, the mother of our Lord, and Joseph presented Him to the priest shortly after His birth for the marking of the flesh.

That was the Old Covenant.

Baptism is the sign of the New Covenant.

Also, as circumcision - as sign of the Old Covenant - was administered to infants, so it is with baptism. No one is excluded from the New Covenant. God does not discriminate by age.

 

Yes and what he said had nothing to do with water baptism. We are baptized into the body of Christ by the Spirit, not by the water.

~Lorelei

 

Yes and what he said had nothing to do with water baptism. We are baptized into the body of Christ by the Spirit, not by the water.

~Lorelei </font>[/QUOTE]Is it that you don't see the word Baptism there. How much clearer can WATER AND SPIRIT be. Peter quite clearly relates water and spirit to baptism and the Holy Spirit in Acts 2:38. By your logic we should not believe in the trinity because Jesus doesn't use the word. Don't think you will find too many baptists agreeing with you on that one.

 

The NT church never had this understanding of that fact. In fact, when presented with what to do with those teaching circumcision as necessary for salvation, the Holy Spirit did NOT tell the elders that circumcision was replaced by baptism.

I wonder why it didn't seem good to the Holy Spirit to explain to them that baptism was the sign of the new covenant?

Paul has a very harsh letter to the Galatians who were teaching this same thing. They were teaching circumcision was necessary for Christians. Paul called this another gospel, he said those who were teaching it should be eternally condemned and opposed Peter to his face because he would separate himself from the gentiles for fear of those teaching this false gospel. Not once did Paul say, "don't you all realize, that baptism replaced circumcision as a sign of the new covenant?" No, this is what he said.

There is no human effort, no physical act that we can do to add to the Spirit. Acts 10 proves that we can have the Spirit before the water is ever applied. The Bible is clear that once we have the Spirit we are guaranteed an inheritance in heaven.

No, baptism is not a sign of the new covenant. It is an identification with Christ. Christ was baptized, not to receive the Spirit, but to show John who he was, to identify the Messiah to John and therefore the world.

~Lorelei

 

Carson Weber,

I agree with your last post. At this point in my Christian journey, I am not ready to affirm baptismal regeneration, though I do believe that infant baptism is the church age sign of the covenant, as the O.T. sign was, as you say, the indication of a covenant relationship to the Lord.

Baptism was ministered to the entire Christian family including little ones. Proof. Acts 16:15 and Acts 16:31 and other passages in the N.T.

 

Hi Lorelei,

You wrote, "We are baptized into the body of Christ by the Spirit, not by the water."

I would propose to you that Jesus, his Apostles, and the entire early Church that filled the entire civilized world did not place a dichotomy between the Spirit and the water.

"Jesus answered, 'Truly, truly, I say to you, unless one is born of water and the Spirit, he cannot enter the kingdom of God'" (John 3:5).

St. Justin Martyr was born a pagan but converted to Christianity after studying philosophy. He was a prolific writer and many Church scholars consider him the greatest apologist or defender of the faith from the 2nd century. He was beheaded with six of his companions some time between 163 and 167 A.D, and he wrote a defense of the Christian faith.

This is the introduction of his defense:

"To the Emperor Titus Ælius Adrianus Antoninus Pius Augustus Caesar, and to his son Verissimus the Philosopher, and to Lucius the Philosopher, the natural son of Caesar, and the adopted son of Pius, a lover of learning, and to the sacred Senate, with the whole People of the Romans, I, Justin, the son of Priscus and grandson of Bacchius, natives of Flavia Neapolis in Palestine, present this address and petition in behalf of those of all nations who are unjustly hated and wantonly abused, myself being one of them."

And this is an excerpt from the same epistle:

"As many as are persuaded and believe that what we [Christians] teach and say is true, and undertake to be able to live accordingly, and instructed to pray and to entreat God with fasting, for the remission of their sins that are past, we pray and fast with them. Then they are brought by us where there is water and are regenerated in the same manner in which we were ourselves regenerated. For, in the name of God, the Father ... and of our Savior Jesus Christ, and of the Holy Spirit (Matt. 28:19), they then receive the washing with water. For Christ also said, 'Unless you are born again, you shall not enter into the kingdom of heaven' (John 3:3)" (First Apology 61 [A.D. 151]).

 

Jesus, his apostles and the early church did indeed differentiate between the two.

Jesus clearly states that the Spirit baptism is different than the baptism with water performed by John the Baptist. To claim that Jesus meant that the Spirit would be given upon water baptism would mean that the disciples would have been baptized with water again in Acts 2 and that did not happen.

These people received the Spirit in the same way the disciples did, they even spoke in tongues. They had never been baptized before. Their Spirit baptism, the baptism that brought them into the body of Christ (1 Cor 12:13) happened before they ever saw water.

Christ baptizes us with the Holy Spirit and he will baptize those who reject Him with fire. Water baptism is clearly something different.

The evidence must come from God's Word, not what others have taught that it means.

~Lorelei

 

Do you have proof that these particular "families" included children who were unable to understand the gospel and make a decision for themself? I find no such evidence. Therefore these scriptures don't prove anything. All you can do is assume or speculate, hardly a solid foundation for trusting a doctrine.

~Lorelei

 

Jesus, his apostles and the early church did indeed differentiate between the two.

You say so, but Jesus said, "Truly, truly, I say to you, unless one is born of water and the Spirit, he cannot enter the kingdom of God". No dichotomy here.

For John baptized with water, but in a few days you will be baptized with the Holy Spirit

That was John's baptism, which was merely a baptism of repentence. However, Christian baptism is much more than John's baptism. It entails a conferral of the Holy Spirit.

In Acts 19, Paul came to Ephesus. There he found some disciples of John and he said to them, "Did you receive the Holy Spirit when you believed?"

Did you catch that? Paul asked these disciples of John whether they had received the Holy Spirit when they believed, and what did they say?

"No, we have never even heard that there is a Holy Spirit."

But, they believed. So, shouldn't they have the Holy Spirit? What would be your next question? I'm sure it would be something like "Did you say the sinner's prayer?" But that isn't what Paul asked.

Paul asked them, "Into what then were you baptized?" and they answered, "Into John's baptism."

And Paul then makes the distinction between John's baptism and Christ's baptism: "John baptized with the baptism of repentance, telling the people to believe in the one who was to come after him, that is, Jesus."

On hearing this, they were baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus. And when Paul had laid his hands upon them, the Holy Spirit came on them; and they spoke with tongues and prophesied.

There's no distinction in Paul's mind, a distinction you claim is there, but I don't see it.

Then Peter said, "Can anyone keep these people from being baptized with water? They have received the Holy Spirit just as we have."

That's the thing about charismatic graces. The Holy Spirit can give the charismata to anyone, saved or unsaved, baptized or unbaptized. These are "gifts freely given" and they are distinct from the indwelling presence of the Trinity in one's soul.

The evidence must come from God's Word, not what others have taught that it means.

You mean, from God's Word as various Christian sects that arose out of the Anabaptist Reformation in the 1500's have come to misinterpret God's Word against the universal practice and belief throughout Christianity until their time.

 

Lorelei,

Let's hear your Baptistic explanation of these two verses and others with reference to 'household salvation.'

I said, 'Originally posted by Ray Berrian: Baptism was ministered to the entire Christian family
including little ones. Proof. Acts 16:15 and Acts 16:31 and other passages in the N.T.'

And Lorelei is saying, ' .'

 

Carson:
I would not say that about infant baptism as there is no divine evidence this took place. I would be going beyond that which is written.( I Cor. 4:6)

 

The disciples of Christ were "only" baptized by John.

Most of those on the day of Pentecost had "only" been baptized" by John.

The idea that John was pointlessly baptizing - is short-sighted. Since in fact - there were those who were baptized by John and died soon after - not knowing the significance of the death of Christ - or that it even took place.

The Holy Spirit is given in the form of supernatural gifts in Acts 2 AND in Acts 19. That is not the same thing as saying that the people of God were born-again WITHOUT the Holy Spirit.

Christ Himself rebukes Nicodemus for NOT knowing about the pre-Cross OT work of the Holy Spirit on the heart as "essential" for salvation.

"details".

In Christ,

Bob

 

Do you have proof that these particular "families" included children who were unable to understand the gospel and make a decision for themself? I find no such evidence. Therefore these scriptures don't prove anything. All you can do is assume or speculate, hardly a solid foundation for trusting a doctrine.

~Lorelei </font>[/QUOTE]I agree with Lorelei on this one.

"Even" in the case of Acts 16 the pre-requisite is that "They spoke the Word of God to him together with ALL that were in the house - and he was baptized with ALL his house".

In all these cases - when ALL in the household are baptized - all are hearing the word of God - all are receiving the Word of God - and All are baptized.

The "assumption" out of the void of what the text does not say is that "some did not understand or recieve the word of God. Some could not truly hear the Word of God - but were baptized anyway".

Even in Acts 2 - the formula given is that you must "repent and be Baptized".

Christ says that the Gospel is to be preached and all who believe are to be baptized.

The "magic sacrament" idea is missing.

IN 1 Peter 3 we see the part the Catholics like to quote "Corresponding to that baptism now saves you".

AND we see the "detail" they like to delete "NOT the magical-touching-of-holy-water-to-the-flesh but the APPEAL to God for a clean conscience".

IN Christ,

Bob

 

Lorelei:
The Bible teaches that water baptism is for the remission of sins ( I Pet. 3:21, Acts 8:12-16; 8:30-40; 2:38 ). Jesus was the ONLY ONE who could baptize with the Holy Spirit ( Mat. 3:11). The Baptism Jesus commanded is to last unitl the end of the world ( Mat. 28:19,20). The baptism Christ commanded has human administrators ( Mat. 28:19,20). The administrator of the baptism of Holy Spirit was the divine Christ (Mat. 3:11). There is only one baptism that saves. It is water baptism ( Eph. 4:4,5, I Pet. 3:21).