Baptism question

[ntchristian]

I see it as a deniable fact, since the New Testament teaches it. It is the authority not so called church fathers.

I appealed to Isaiah 53. John 12:38 and Romans 10:16.

Please do me this favor, present what you understand using a few clear texts of Scripture and deemed needed contexts. Like I have, such as Isaiah 53:6 and Isaiah 53:12 or how you thint it is to be better done. Thanks.

See, this is the problem in trying to interpret scripture apart from context. You come up with a meaning that was never there, that the authors of the scripture didn't intend and the first readers of it didn't see. So, the question is, if the NT teaches it as you maintain, why didn't the early church see it there? Why did it take 1500 years for someone to see it there? The reason is because it took 1500 years for anyone to read the NT with the mindset that Calvin and Luther had -- a legalist, rationalist mindset that was absent in the early church.

Further, a doctrine that was an expansion of the RCC Satisfaction theory, itself invented 1000 years after Christ, should be suspect and discarded on that basis alone.

See my post in the PSA thread for links dealing with Isaiah 53 and PSA.

One short and simple scripture support for my atonement view is where Jesus said that He came to give His life as a ransom.

 

[37818]

if the NT teaches it as you maintain, why didn't the early church see it there?

Well there is the Devil problem, 2 Corinthians 11:3, ". . . But I fear, lest by any means, as the serpent beguiled Eve through his subtilty, so your minds should be corrupted from the simplicity that is in Christ. . . ." 2 Corinthians 11:4, ". . . For if he that cometh preacheth another Jesus, whom we have not preached, or if ye receive another spirit, which ye have not received, or another gospel, which ye have not accepted, . . ."

One short and simple scripture support for my atonement view is where Jesus said that He came to give His life as a ransom.

". . . Even as the Son of man came not to be ministered unto, but to minister, and to give his life{soul} a ransom for many. . . " Personally do not see this truth to disallow PSA understanding.

 

[ntchristian]

Well there is the Devil problem, 2 Corinthians 11:3, ". . . But I fear, lest by any means, as the serpent beguiled Eve through his subtilty, so your minds should be corrupted from the simplicity that is in Christ. . . ." 2 Corinthians 11:4, ". . . For if he that cometh preacheth another Jesus, whom we have not preached, or if ye receive another spirit, which ye have not received, or another gospel, which ye have not accepted, . . ."

". . . Even as the Son of man came not to be ministered unto, but to minister, and to give his life{soul} a ransom for many. . . " Personally do not see this truth to disallow PSA understanding.

PSA can't be contained within Ransom/Christus Victor. It can be held alongside it. But it is not scriptural, else the early church would have held it.

 

[37818]

PSA can't be contained within Ransom/Christus Victor. It can be held alongside it. But it is not scriptural, else the early church would have held it.

I am not understanding how you come to your view from Scripture.
What the early churches believed is found in the New Testment documents. Being 1st century. The post Apostolic churches that you refer to, are post New Testament not being 1st century.

 

[Dave G]

Is it possible to receive scriptural baptism -- which I believe is baptism of a believer by immersion -- without joining a church?

Of course.
See Acts of the Apostles 8:26-40 regarding the Ethiopian eunuch.

In regards to "PSA", I recommend ignoring what has been taught by anyone historically, and simply read His word for yourself.
He will show each and everyone of His people what is true and what is false ( 1 Corinthians 2:6-16, 1 John 2:20-27, John 16:13 ).

 

[robycop3]

Is it possible to receive scriptural baptism -- which I believe is baptism of a believer by immersion -- without joining a church? Do you think there are pastors who would do this?

Of course. I was baptized by an evangelist, spent a few weex praying & studying Scripture whenever I could, formulating my beliefs according to Scripture, then seeking a church with similar beliefs as close to my own as possible. Besides the basic beliefs that every true Christian has, one of my most-important ones was (and is) that no man-made doctrine of faith/worship is true. Took a few months, but I finally found such a church. I'm in a IFB church that believes the same as I about man-made doctrines, & we don't follow any of them.

But just as I was saved before being baptized, I was baptized before joining a church.

 

[ntchristian]

I am not understanding how you come to your view from Scripture.
What the early churches believed is found in the New Testment documents. Being 1st century. The post Apostolic churches that you refer to, are post New Testament not being 1st century.

So you're saying a belief could be/was held and taught in the first century church, but from the year 101 onward it disappeared for 1500 years until miraculously rediscovered by Calvin and Luther. That stretches credulity.

I am saying that any doctrine that was truly taught and believed in the NT and first century church was also taught and believed in the early second century church. Conversely, if not held in the early second century, not taught in the first century.

 

[ntchristian]

Thanks robycop3 and Dave G for your posts.

 

[Salty]

So you're saying a belief could be/was held and taught in the first century church, but from the year 101 onward it disappeared for 1500 years ....

What evidence do you have that it was not practiced from 101-1500?
I believe it was practiced

 

[37818]

So you're saying a belief could be/was held and taught in the first century church, but from the year 101 onward it disappeared for 1500 years until miraculously rediscovered by Calvin and Luther. That stretches credulity.

You are being absurd about it.

I am saying that any doctrine that was truly taught and believed in the NT and first century church was also taught and believed in the early second century church. Conversely, if not held in the early second century, not taught in the first century.

Then it will agree with the New Testament. The post Apostolic irregular churches taught teaches contrary to the New Testament teachings.

 

[JesusFan]

PSA can't be contained within Ransom/Christus Victor. It can be held alongside it. But it is not scriptural, else the early church would have held it.

Psa is the view held by Jesus and Apostles, especially Paul!

 

[JesusFan]

You are being absurd about it.

Then it will agree with the New Testament. The post Apostolic irregular churches taught teaches contrary to the New Testament teachings.

Yes, as Apostle paul stated under inspiration that wolves would soon come into even early Church with wrong doctrines!

 

[37818]

Yes, as Apostle paul stated under inspiration that wolves would soon come into even early Church with wrong doctrines!

Acts of the Apostles 20:18-29.

 

[ntchristian]

What evidence do you have that it was not practiced from 101-1500?
I believe it was practiced

Which specific doctrine/practice?

 

[ntchristian]

You are being absurd about it.

Then it will agree with the New Testament. The post Apostolic irregular churches taught teaches contrary to the New Testament teachings.

Not sure what you're saying. The earliest churches held to NT teachings. PSA was not found in the first 1500 years after Jesus. That makes it a false doctrine. It is not taught in the NT, not believed in first century churches, unknown in churches after that, only invented by Calvin and Luther who were legalist Westerners. They came at atonement passages from a mindset completely foreign to the apostles who wrote the NT, and foreign to the earliest churches. They knew church history but to come up with their interpretation of the atonement, they had to completely ignore the early church. Although to his credit, Luther did combine PSA with Ransom/Christus Victor.