I'm still waiting with baited breath for Frank's definition of NT Christianity
Yours in Christ
Matt
Yours in Christ
Matt
-
Welcome to Baptist Board, a friendly forum to discuss the Baptist Faith in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to all the features that our community has to offer.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!
Baptism prior to the 1520s
- Thread starter Matt Black
- Start date
NT Christianity=OT Christianity-Mosaic Law +Church.
Selah,
Bro. James
Selah,
Bro. James
Meaning?
Yours in Christ
Matt
Yours in Christ
Matt
Meaning: "Saved by Grace through Faith, not of ourselves, the gift of God, not of works, there is no boasting, we are His workmanship created in Christ Jesus unto good works which God has before ordained that we should walk in them." A paraphrase of Eph. 2:8-10.
Also: Eph. 3:21, "Unto Him be glory in the church...".
Salvation in the OT is the same as in the NT--grace through faith.
No one has ever been saved by their works.
Selah,
Bro. James
Also: Eph. 3:21, "Unto Him be glory in the church...".
Salvation in the OT is the same as in the NT--grace through faith.
No one has ever been saved by their works.
Selah,
Bro. James
Bro. James - you are actually affirming antinominism - whatever you think to the contrary. Baptism is the faith-response to the gospel ... it is the 'washing of regeneration', not only according to scripture, but according to Luther, Calvin, and the early Baptists, Calvinist and General, including Benjamin Keach and Thomas Grantham. You're gross oversimplification is simply an american perversion of the gospel, of the same ilk with the four spiritual laws.
NT Christianity wasn't pristine. If it was, we wouldn't have had the Epistles.
Plus wot Dean sed.
Yours in Christ
Matt
Plus wot Dean sed.
Yours in Christ
Matt
Doubting Thomas
Active Member
[resurfacing]
Dean....good answer
Matt...good point about the Epistles.
[/resubmerging]
Affirming "Antinomianism"(the correct spelling??)
"Name calling" is no argument at all. Stereo-typing and generalizations do not make good debate.
Shall we discuss the biblical "Doctrines of Grace" and see how "the Laws of God" relate to the Gospel? (T-U-L-I-P-S)
Other suggested topics:
1. The Mosaic Law as applied to Jews--then as to Gentiles
2. The Law which was fulfilled at Calvary
3. The "perfect Law of liberty"
4. The "Law" written on the tabernacle of the heart
5. Redemption from the "curse" of the Law
Selah,
Bro. James
P.S. Baptism is a picture of death, burial and resurrection. It "washes away" nothing--except perhaps a little soil.
[ June 04, 2005, 06:33 AM: Message edited by: Bro. James ]
"Name calling" is no argument at all. Stereo-typing and generalizations do not make good debate.
Shall we discuss the biblical "Doctrines of Grace" and see how "the Laws of God" relate to the Gospel? (T-U-L-I-P-S)
Other suggested topics:
1. The Mosaic Law as applied to Jews--then as to Gentiles
2. The Law which was fulfilled at Calvary
3. The "perfect Law of liberty"
4. The "Law" written on the tabernacle of the heart
5. Redemption from the "curse" of the Law
Selah,
Bro. James
P.S. Baptism is a picture of death, burial and resurrection. It "washes away" nothing--except perhaps a little soil.
[ June 04, 2005, 06:33 AM: Message edited by: Bro. James ]
Were that to be the only definition of NT Christianity, again there would be no need for the epistles - I refer you to my earlier answer and ask my earlier question again: what do you mean by NT Christianity
DT - good to have you back
Yours in Christ
Matt
Matt:
The new testament is divine. The saints of the kingdom are not divine. This does not change the waht new testament Christianity is just becaseu some chose not to practice and teach as per Mat. 28:18-20. When one does not comply with the will of Christ, he makes up his own defintion, this has been going on for ages. This is precisely the reason we have denominationalism. When one follows and practices all things by the authority of Christ, he is a Christian.
The new testament is divine. The saints of the kingdom are not divine. This does not change the waht new testament Christianity is just becaseu some chose not to practice and teach as per Mat. 28:18-20. When one does not comply with the will of Christ, he makes up his own defintion, this has been going on for ages. This is precisely the reason we have denominationalism. When one follows and practices all things by the authority of Christ, he is a Christian.
Acts 22:16 says it washes away sins.
I Pet 3:21 is exactly the opposite of what you say. There is also an antitype which now saves us--baptism (not the removal of the filth of the flesh, but the answer of a good conscience toward God), through the resurrection of Jesus Christ,
From this verse, it clearly teaches that something saves us, what is it? What is it's purpose? Not the removal of the filth of the flesh, as you have suggested.
Baptism is for the remission of sins (Acts 2:38). The same phrase is used in Matt 26:28, which states that Jesus' blood was shed for the remission of sins. This is the only time this phrase is used not in conjunction with baptism. We can see the real meaning of the phrase in Matt 26:28. Jesus blood shed in order for people to obtain the forgiveness of sins. We are baptized in order to obtain the remission of sins. Same phrase, same meaning. It takes some serious mental gymnastics to twist or attempt to explain away this verse.
It is not the water that cleanses us, but the blood.
We all do both - follow and practice by the authority of Christ but also fail to comply with His will; the latter is called sin and I would respectfully submit that you are no more immune to this than the rest of us, and that therefore the group of believers with whom you meet are as much a denomination as those of the rest of us here.
If the teaching of Jesus is all that one needs to follow, I presume therefore you do not condemn same-sex relationships, since neither did Jesus...?
Yours in Christ
Matt
This is typical Enlightenment thinking, in which Baptism is simply a compliance with no real meaning. In this philosophy, baptism is simply an outward testimony which conveys absolutely nothing. How Calvin must be turning in his grave to see those calling themselves after his name put a gnostic wedge between the natural and the spiritual. And the 'Restoration Movement' was likewise faulty (though many modern followers no longer hold this error) by keeping the divorce between faith, and faith-expressed-in-baptism and making baptism an additional requirement to faith; a compliance necessary to salvation. And the Baptists (US kind) and others likewise have abandoned faith-baptism and replaced it with the non-apostolic response of faith called the altar call, invented by baby sprinklers who had no room for a sacrament of conversion in their theology. Maybe one day the evangelical church will awake from its 'enlightenment' slumber.
Hi All, I am jumping in here but have not read but the first page so if I repeat what was said I am sorry.
Matt said something in his first post that I have said many times. In the early church Baptism was to "sign on the doted line". It was an open commitment to Christ. It was an outward expression which made everyone around know the alligence of the person Baptized. With the Baptism came persecution. To be baptized was to say "I belong to Christ" or I belong to "The Way". This was very serious and opened the believer up to physical and verbal persecutions. In the year 2005 much has changed and so has Baptism. Baptism does not in and of itself open a person up to persecution and is not a sure sign of ones faith in Christ. We proclaim our faith now by confessing it to others and by joining a local assembly, which will typically meet in a building with a name on it (Racine Bible Church, in my case).
Also, I saw right away someone mention Acts 2:38. This verse is so widely used and abused it drives me crazy. Peter was addressing a question from a group of jews and directed his answer to the "house of Isreal". The repentance he spoke of was for "Isreal to repent of putting to death the Son of God and becoming an ememy of God. The Baptism and repentance was to put them in a position to receive Christ and be saved. Just thought I would correct the direction that that verse takes some folks.
In Christ,
Brian
Matt said something in his first post that I have said many times. In the early church Baptism was to "sign on the doted line". It was an open commitment to Christ. It was an outward expression which made everyone around know the alligence of the person Baptized. With the Baptism came persecution. To be baptized was to say "I belong to Christ" or I belong to "The Way". This was very serious and opened the believer up to physical and verbal persecutions. In the year 2005 much has changed and so has Baptism. Baptism does not in and of itself open a person up to persecution and is not a sure sign of ones faith in Christ. We proclaim our faith now by confessing it to others and by joining a local assembly, which will typically meet in a building with a name on it (Racine Bible Church, in my case).
Also, I saw right away someone mention Acts 2:38. This verse is so widely used and abused it drives me crazy. Peter was addressing a question from a group of jews and directed his answer to the "house of Isreal". The repentance he spoke of was for "Isreal to repent of putting to death the Son of God and becoming an ememy of God. The Baptism and repentance was to put them in a position to receive Christ and be saved. Just thought I would correct the direction that that verse takes some folks.
In Christ,
Brian
Baptism in Acts 2:38 was for the remission of sin. Not "because of" (hoti) but unto (eis) or in order to obtain. It doesn't matter what sins, because all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God (Rom 3:23). God commands all men everywhere to repent (Acts 17:30). Jesus said, "He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved" (Mark 16:16).
You are right about this passage being abused.
mman, Read the verse below in context. It is intended only for the House of Isreal. It has no bearing on how or what Gentiles do to be saved. It shows a Baptism like John's Baptism, not a believer Baptism as clearly shown later in Acts. Acts 2:38 does not mean that Baptism has something to do with salvation. Read below with an open mind and see what it says and who the auidence of Peter's was.
Acts 2 (KJV)
[32] This Jesus hath God raised up, whereof we all are witnesses.
[33] Therefore being by the right hand of God exalted, and having received of the Father the promise of the Holy Ghost, he hath shed forth this, which ye now see and hear.
[34] For David is not ascended into the heavens: but he saith himself, The LORD said unto my Lord, Sit thou on my right hand,
[35] Until I make thy foes thy footstool.
[36] Therefore let all the house of Israel know assuredly, that God hath made that same Jesus, whom ye have crucified, both Lord and Christ.
[37] Now when they heard this, they were pricked in their heart, and said unto Peter and to the rest of the apostles, Men and brethren, what shall we do?
[38] Then Peter said unto them, Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins, and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost.
[39] For the promise is unto you, and to your children, and to all that are afar off, even as many as the Lord our God shall call.
[40] And with many other words did he testify and exhort, saying, Save yourselves from this untoward generation.
Think about "Save Yourself" for a moment. Did you save yourself?? I know I didn't. No, there is more to what Peter is saying. The house of Isreal needed to repent and put themselves in a postion to be saved and in that sense they could save themselves. Hope that cleared that up.
In Christ,
Brian
Acts 2 (KJV)
[32] This Jesus hath God raised up, whereof we all are witnesses.
[33] Therefore being by the right hand of God exalted, and having received of the Father the promise of the Holy Ghost, he hath shed forth this, which ye now see and hear.
[34] For David is not ascended into the heavens: but he saith himself, The LORD said unto my Lord, Sit thou on my right hand,
[35] Until I make thy foes thy footstool.
[36] Therefore let all the house of Israel know assuredly, that God hath made that same Jesus, whom ye have crucified, both Lord and Christ.
[37] Now when they heard this, they were pricked in their heart, and said unto Peter and to the rest of the apostles, Men and brethren, what shall we do?
[38] Then Peter said unto them, Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins, and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost.
[39] For the promise is unto you, and to your children, and to all that are afar off, even as many as the Lord our God shall call.
[40] And with many other words did he testify and exhort, saying, Save yourselves from this untoward generation.
Think about "Save Yourself" for a moment. Did you save yourself?? I know I didn't. No, there is more to what Peter is saying. The house of Isreal needed to repent and put themselves in a postion to be saved and in that sense they could save themselves. Hope that cleared that up.
In Christ,
Brian
There's no question as to who he was talking to. He was talking to the Jews. But notice verse 39. Who do you think those that are "afar off" are? Obviously they weren't Jews, because they were all covered by "you, your children".
Did some other person believe for you? No, you have responsibility. If someone throws me a rope when I am about to drown and says, "Here, save yourself", I understand I have to grab the rope. Did I save myself? I did in that I grabbed the rope and trusted him who threw it to me. Without the rope, I would have drowned, so in that sense, I could have never saved myself.
Jesus said, Go into all the world and preach the gospel to every creature. He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved. He that disbelieveth shall be condemned.
Did Jesus say go only to the Jews? No. Did he say preach different gospels to different people? No. Preach THE GOSPEL.
He who believes and is baptized shall be saved, just like in Acts 2, which was preached to the Jews first then to the Greeks (Rom 1:16). The same gospel is for all.
You and itutut must be brothers.
Hi mman, I was just talking about Acts 2:38. The other verse you quoted is a different story and we don't need to debate that in this thread. Anyway, at least you admit that the qoute was for the Jews. Peter would not have answered a question directed at him from a group of jewish folk and answered as though Gentiles were there. The "afar off" is simply those down the line. He said children and the "afar off". Think about it. He would not have said your children's children and your children's children's children. No he had to say something that meant "all those generations to follow" and he chose "afar off" or what ever the greek word is for that, or at least the word Luke used was greek. Anyway by that act of repentent Baptism the House of Isreal could put themselves in a position to be saved. The next generation, I believe, would not have to do this because they weren't alive or were just small children when Jesus was put to death. That generation, which Peter calls an Untoward generation were the ones who needed to repent and be baptized and it would put all the rest of the jews down the line in a postion where they could Trust in Christ and be saved. My interpretation makes sense in light of what is being said and to whom it is being said. Your way to look at this verse is common but jjustdoes not meet a logical conclusion.
Yes the Gospel is for the world, AMEN!!!! The Gentiles could come to Christ without repenting of putting the death of the Son of God. The gentile could simply repent of their sins and trust in the power of the blood of Christ to save them, just as we all, including Jews do now.
Your rope anology works fine for the choice the Jews had to repent of what they had done to Jesus or not repent. In the true sense we can't save ourselves. Once we put us into the equation the perfection of Jesus and the true saving power of Jesus seem to be lessened because we are so horribly imperfect. Well I am anyway
In Christ, Have a great weekend!!
Brian
Yes the Gospel is for the world, AMEN!!!! The Gentiles could come to Christ without repenting of putting the death of the Son of God. The gentile could simply repent of their sins and trust in the power of the blood of Christ to save them, just as we all, including Jews do now.
Your rope anology works fine for the choice the Jews had to repent of what they had done to Jesus or not repent. In the true sense we can't save ourselves. Once we put us into the equation the perfection of Jesus and the true saving power of Jesus seem to be lessened because we are so horribly imperfect. Well I am anyway
In Christ, Have a great weekend!!
Brian
Matt:
Quote/
We all do both - follow and practice by the authority of Christ but also fail to comply with His will; the latter is called sin and I would respectfully submit that you are no more immune to this than the rest of us, and that therefore the group of believers with whom you meet are as much a denomination as those of the rest of us here.
Matt, I repectfully ask for you to PROVE IT! I Thes. 5: 21.
Quote/
We all do both - follow and practice by the authority of Christ but also fail to comply with His will; the latter is called sin and I would respectfully submit that you are no more immune to this than the rest of us, and that therefore the group of believers with whom you meet are as much a denomination as those of the rest of us here.
Matt, I repectfully ask for you to PROVE IT! I Thes. 5: 21.