Christmas Hypocrites

Absolutely,

Eph.2:10 For we are his workmanship, created in Christ Jesus unto good works, which God hath before ordained that we should walk in them.

The believer is created unto good works and ordained that we should walk in them. I only point out that for the unbeliever (Isa.64:6) that in God's sight they are but filthy rags, and can do nothing to merit salvation.
Anyway enough said. Have a merry Christmas.
DHK

 

Okay everyone...

After all the hubbub, I've decided to celebrate Christmas this year by putting up a tree, a nativity, lights, presents, candy, santa, reindeer, hershey's kisses, frequent trips to the 99 cent store, egg-nog, lots of caloric food, commercialism, and all the worldly trappingsthereof. I will also be publicly worshipping the Lord in church on the 24th, and with my kids at home on the 25th.

If it's a sin, then may God forgive me for my ignorance. If it's not a sin, then I thank God for this time of year and for letting me commemmorate His son's birth in my own imperfect way.

 

LOL! I wouldn't worry about committing a sin because you are celebrating the Lord's birth.

Have a very Merry Christmas with you family!

MEE

 

I attended my granddaughter's kindergarten Christmas Program, yesterday. She attends a public school. I thought it was interesting that the songs and stories included Santa Claus and Jesus. One of the songs was Away in a Manager.

 

It's a common mistake to think that sacred music is forbidden in scular schools. Since music is considered a matter of cultural education, schools are not legally forbidden from choosing sacred, especially when such sacred music is culsturally significant. The general legal rule of thumb is, if you have sacred music as impart of a Christmas program, the instructor should endeavor to find secular music as well. However, there's no stipulation that there must be the same representation in equal numbers. In other words, they can choose one secular piece and 8 sacred pieces. The local high school in my area, for example, is putting on a concert of "Handel's Messiah" for their Christmas concert. How cool is that??

Unfortunately, many public schools are still suffering from mangerphobia during the season. But the trend seems to be changing, albeit slowly.

 

DHK --

You know, I went back over this thread again, and I must have missed this somehow:

Thousands upon thousands were cruelly murdered in cold blood, after having first been inhumanely tortured by the inquistors. This is the Christianity that you so love and believe in.

I do hope you realize the degree of slander and inuendo which is involved here. This is not the Christianity I believe in. It is the work of MEN. Men who have the capacity to sin and who did sin.

The Christianity I believe in says to "love your enemies and do good to them who despitefully use you". I don't know how or why those who did these acts chose to either forget or ignore our Lord's words here.

Christianity is the teachings of Christ and our following of them. As such, I find nothing in the words of our Lord which state that I am to act as a judge over another soul and condemn that one to death because they are teaching rank heresy and error. I do find that I am to love people of that sort.

I would ask for an apology from you, but I sincerely doubt I would get one, so I will allow you whatever pleasure you get from insulting me and my convictions.

Cordially in Christ,

Brother Ed

 

Hi DHK,

You wrote, "Baptism is an ordinance, not a sacrament. It is something done in obedience to Christ's command, and carries symbolic meaning for the believer. "

It's interesting that it took 1500 years for Christians to figure this out. It looks like the gates of hell prevailed against Christ's Church for 15 centuries until John Calvin? (and, by the way, he condoned baptizing infants - not because he believed it imparted grace, but because he understood its covenantal implications as he began to strip baptism of its meaning; the Anabaptists completed his work - thus changing Christian doctrine outside of the Church)

You wrote, "Baptism doesn't save."

And St. Peter wrote, "Baptism, which corresponds to this, now saves you". (1 Peter 3:21)

I'll stick to what St. Peter teaches; not your complete contradiction of the Biblical witness.

Hi Brian,

First, let me note that Catholics are not the only ones to baptize infants. The Eastern Orthodox, Anglicans, Lutherans, Presbyterians, Reformed Christians, Methodists, and those who adhere to the Church of the Nazarene accept infant baptism. You may quickly notice that quite a few Sola Scriptura advocates lie within this category.. that is, individuals who adhere to the Biblical record alone for the definitive rule in matters of Christian faith and morality.

I highly encourage you to read through what the United Methodist Church has to say on the matter:
http://www.gbod.org/worship/articles/water_spirit/life.html#Anchor8
http://www.gbod.org/worship/articles/water_spirit/god_comes.html

You wrote, "In Acts Peter clearly says to Repent and be Baptized. In that order, Repent must come first according to this direct scripture."

I agree that repentence is a prerequisite for baptism for those than can repent. Since baptism is the instrument by which the new life of grace is given to a person, it contradicts the very nature of baptism to give it to one who does not wish to live this new life of grace whereby their soul is indwelt by the Holy Trinity.

You wrote, "That is what scripture says directly. Thus we can conclude that Baptism is not for an infant because repentance and belief need to come first."

Thus you can conclude that, but I don't come to that conclusion because I understand that babies are born without the life of God in their souls (this is what Original Sin is) and that they are unable to repent.

If these children die before the Age of Reason, before they are able to commit personal sin (from which they would repent; but since they have nothing to repent of, they need not repent), before they can accept Jesus Christ as their personal Lord and Saviour (they still need a Saviour because they do not have the life of the Holy Spirit in their souls and they are headed for hell), and before they can make the decision to be baptized, they still need to receive the indwelling presence of the Trinity in their souls in order to be saved (by the Saviour) and enjoy heaven.

Jesus Christ, in Luke 18:15 and following, tells us that infants must not be prevented from coming to him and that the kingdom of God belongs to them.

In John 3:3, Jesus tells Nicodemus that no one can see the kingdom of God without being born from above.

Now, if the kingdom of God is for infants, and if no one can see the kingdom of God without being born from above, then there must be a way for infants to enter the kingdom of God by being born from above.

This is a fact that you can't slide by.

If being born from above means accepting Jesus Christ as your personal Lord and Saviour through a personal decision (which, by the way, is a prerequisite for baptism for someone who can reason for themselves), then you, Brian, have prevented the possibility of infants from entering the kingdom of God de facto.

If being born from above means receiving baptism, then infants can indeed be brought to Jesus and may enter the kingdom of God (the Church) through baptism.

I concur with Augustine, who wrote "Who is so impious as to wish to exclude infants from the kingdom of heaven by forbidding them to be baptized and born again in Christ?" (Augustine, On Original Sin 2, 20).

You wrote, "Don't you believe what the Bible says Carson?"

Absolutely. Don't you?

"eight persons were saved through water. Baptism, which corresponds to this, now saves you." (1 Peter 3:20-21)

Paul also does something very peculiar in his Epistle to the Colossians. Paul notes that baptism has replaced circumcision (Col. 2:11–12). In that passage, he refers to baptism as "the circumcision of Christ" and "the circumcision made without hands."

Of course, usually only infants were circumcised under the Old Law; circumcision of adults was rare, since there were few converts to Judaism. If Paul meant to exclude infants, he would not have chosen circumcision as a parallel for baptism.

This comparison between who could receive baptism and circumcision is an appropriate one. In the Old Testament, if a man wanted to become a Jew, he had to believe in the God of Israel and be circumcised. In the New Testament, if one wants to become a Christian, one must believe in God and Jesus and be baptized. In the Old Testament, those born into Jewish households could be circumcised in anticipation of the Jewish faith in which they would be raised.

Thus in the New Testament, those born in Christian households can be baptized in anticipation of the Christian faith in which they will be raised. The pattern is the same: If one is an adult, one must have faith before receiving the rite of membership; if one is a child too young to have faith, one may be given the rite of membership in the knowledge that one will be raised in the faith. This is the basis of Paul’s reference to baptism as "the circumcision of Christ" — that is, the Christian equivalent of circumcision.

Every great Christian saint throughout the first fifteen centuries of the Church stands with me on this issue. You are unable to point out the writing of one single great Christian theologian, scholastic, saint, pope, mystic, doctor, or apologist who argued that baptism is just a symbol contrary to the universal teaching of the universal Church.

That's a profound, enduring silence!!

This is such an integral and foundational doctrine to the Christian faith that to repudiate it is of indescribable folly.. especially for one who has been educated so greatly on the matter.

Basil the Great wrote, "This then is what it means to be ‘born again of water and Spirit’: Just as our dying is effected in the water [Rom. 6:3; Col. 2:12–13], our living is wrought through the Spirit. In three immersions and an equal number of invocations the great mystery of baptism is completed in such a way that the type of death may be shown figuratively, and that by the handing on of divine knowledge the souls of the baptized may be illuminated. If, therefore, there is any grace in the water, it is not from the nature of water, but from the Spirit’s presence there" (The Holy Spirit 15:35).

John Chrysostom wrote, "[N]o one can enter into the kingdom of heaven except he be regenerated through water and the Spirit, and he who does not eat the flesh of the Lord and drink his blood is excluded from eternal life, and if all these things are accomplished only by means of those holy hands, I mean the hands of the priest, how will any one, without these, be able to escape the fire of hell, or to win those crowns which are reserved for the victorious? These [priests] truly are they who are entrusted with the pangs of spiritual travail and the birth which comes through baptism: by their means we put on Christ, and are buried with the Son of God, and become members of that blessed head" (The Priesthood 3:5–6).

Cyril of Jerusalem wrote, "Since man is of a twofold nature, composed of body and soul, the purification also is twofold: the corporeal for the corporeal and the incorporeal for the incorporeal. The water cleanses the body, and the Spirit seals the soul. . . . When you go down into the water, then, regard not simply the water, but look for salvation through the power of the Spirit. For without both you cannot attain to perfection. It is not I who says this, but the Lord Jesus Christ, who has the power in this matter. And he says, ‘Unless a man be born again,’ and he adds the words ‘of water and of the Spirit,’ ‘he cannot enter the kingdom of God.’ He that is baptized with water, but is not found worthy of the Spirit, does not receive the grace in perfection. Nor, if a man be virtuous in his deeds, but does not receive the seal by means of the water, shall he enter the kingdom of heaven. A bold saying, but not mine; for it is Jesus who has declared it" (Catechetical Lectures 3:4)

Augustine wrote, "It is this one Spirit who makes it possible for an infant to be regenerated . . . when that infant is brought to baptism; and it is through this one Spirit that the infant so presented is reborn. For it is not written, ‘Unless a man be born again by the will of his parents’ or ‘by the faith of those presenting him or ministering to him,’ but, ‘Unless a man be born again of water and the Holy Spirit.’ The water, therefore, manifesting exteriorly the sacrament of grace, and the Spirit effecting interiorly the benefit of grace, both regenerate in one Christ that man who was generated in Adam" (Letters 98:2)

John wrote, "Amen, amen, I say to you, no one can enter the kingdom of God without being born of water and Spirit" (John 3:5)

Paul wrote, "Christ loved the church and handed himself over for her to sanctify her, cleansing her by the bath of water with the word" (Ephesians 5:26)

Peter wrote "eight persons were saved through water. Baptism, which corresponds to this, now saves you" (1 Peter 3:20-21)

Justin, who died to the lions in the Colisseum for the faith, wrote "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).

Brian, I don't for a moment doubt your sincerity as a believer in the Lord Jesus Christ, and I have a particular fondness for you on this board because of how your faith shows forth splendidly in your posts. Now, you only need to mend your faith, which is the cause of your salvation with baptism, which is the instrument of your salvation. What good is the homerun hitter without his bat, the instrument of his killer swing?

You have a heart; I can see that, and I embrace what good you have to bring to the board with open reception.

However, I cannot for a moment come to agree with you that baptism is just a symbol and that therefore it isn't necessary for salvation, and I will continue to present the timeless, 2000 year-old teaching of Scripture and the Church irregardless of your sincerity with St. Augustine who wrote concerning infant baptism, "This the Church always had, always held; this she received from the faith of our ancestors; this she perseveringly guards even to the end" (Augustine, Sermon. 11, De Verb Apost). I appreciate sincerity, but I appreciate the truth more than sincere falsehood.

The path to hell is paved with good intentions. The path to heaven is paved by the Lord Jesus Christ as his teaching and life is fed to us through Holy Mother Church in the Christian liturgy.

Why are you sitting in prison?

May God bless you tonight and always,

Carson

[ December 21, 2002, 01:04 AM: Message edited by: Carson Weber ]

 

I realize that it is not what you "believe in," as a personal belief. I know that. But it is the Church and the Church's beliefs and actions that you represent. You have come here to defend their beliefs primarily, and to some degree their actions. As an apologist for the Catholic Church you are representing the Catholic Church and what it stands and has stood for. Is that not fair?
DHK

 

I wish you would stick with what Peter teaches. Peter wrote in 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:

"Baptism doth also now save us." What does it save from, Carson? Does the text say that baptism saves from sin? Does the text say that baptism saves from Hell? or from the penalty of our sin? It saves, yes; but from what? To answer that question you have to look at verse 20:
"eight souls were saved by water." Were they saved from their sins? NO! Remember, Noah had already found grace in the sight of the Lord, before he had even started work on the ark. He was already a saved man. The water did not save them from their sins. It did not save them from Hell, or from the penalty of their sins, etc. What did the water save Noah from. It saved them from the destruction of the world. It set them apart from the perishing world, as they were kept safe in the ark.

Baptism saves us in a symbolic picture as it sets apart from a world of sin, setting us unto a life with a risen Saviour.
Look at the text again:
"(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:"
Baptism does not wash away sin. It does not put away the filth of the flesh. Peter makes that plain. It is symbolic. It is the answer of a good conscience toward God (that which I received when I was saved, and still have because I am saved), by the resurrection of Jesus Christ.
Peter never said that baptism saves one from sin. You cannot find that in Scripture.
DHK

 

Hi DHK,

Your post above is so littered with contradictions and hoop-jumping that I really had to decide whether to even take the time to respond to it. As you can see, I decided in the affirmative.

You asked, "What does [baptism] save from, Carson? Does the text say that baptism saves from sin?"

No, the text does not say "baptism saves us from sin" verbatum. But, that is what it means.

I come to this conclusion by naturally reading "saves us" within its immediate context: that is, the sentence it is a part of

"Baptism, which corresponds to this, now saves you, not as a removal of dirt from the body but as an appeal to God for a clear conscience, through the resurrection of Jesus Christ"

The word for "appeal" is of the Greek eperotao, which essentially means "to ask of", not "an answer to". Your translation that you present above is pre-loaded with your same anti-sacramental bias.

What do we need to clear our consciences from? Last time I checked, DHK, it was that nasty disease we have called SIN. How do we do this? By being united with the Paschal Mystery of Jesus Christ (his life, passion, death, and resurrection).

You then wrote, "Baptism does not wash away sin" as a commentary to "Baptism, which corresponds to this, now saves you, not as a removal of dirt from the body but as an appeal to God for a clear conscience, through the resurrection of Jesus Christ".

That's an unnecessary and unwarranted conclusion because Peter does not say that Baptism "doesn't wash away sin". Peter demonstrates precisely the opposite. He tells us that it does not save us by removing physical dirt from our physical bodies but rather by appealing to God to clear our consciences of sin through what Jesus Christ did for us.

Peter is saying that Baptism isn't just a ritual washing of dirt from the body, but far more than that! It's a sacramental reality that saves us from our sin through uniting us to the death and resurrection of Jesus Christ!

I challenge all of the readers of this thread to carefully compare DHK's explanation above with my own by slowly comparing our analysis of the Biblical text with distanced, neutral eyes (as hard and difficult as that may be with all of our presumptions and preconceptions) and to ask yourself which explanation presented holds the most internal integrity.

God bless you,

Carson

[ December 21, 2002, 01:31 AM: Message edited by: Carson Weber ]

 

"Eight souls were saved by water."
The text doesn't say saved from sins here either. Peter is making a comparison. Are you going to read into this passage "saved from sins," also because "that is what it means."
DHK

 

DHK: What would baptism save from if not sins? The boogey-man? Just admit that you're wrong and move on -- it's not so hard as you think it is! I think I'll add here Acts 22:16 "...be baptized, and wash away thy sins..." and Acts 2:38 "Repent, and be baptized...for the remission of sins..." -- It's quite obvious that "baptism saves" (1 Peter 3:21) and that it saves FROM SINS!

Tuor says:

Tuor, can you honestly say that believing in an all-seeing, all-knowing being other than Jehovah is not idolatry? Children today are told that there is a fat guy in a red suit who "sees them while they're sleeping and knows when they're awake" and then they are instructed to offer him drink offerings and cookie offerings. Not only that, but their incentive to be "good" is that "he sees them." Is this not idolatry? Would it not be the same if parents told their children "Allah brings you presents, so worship him"? It's idolatry either way. Furthermore, in modern movies concerning this fat guy, children are shown basically praying to him. Would you, Tuor, instruct your children to pray to this fat man rather than to God?

[ December 21, 2002, 02:23 AM: Message edited by: SolaScriptura in 2003 ]

 

Baptism does not save. Baptismal regeneration is one of the oldest heresies of regeneration. It is preposterous and superstitous to think that H20 has the power to save anyone. The Bible teaches no such thing; anyone who believes as much does not have a good understanding of soteriology.
Jeremiah points out the ridiculousness of such a belief:

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.
--Jestingly, he tells the Israelites that if they should take the strongest possible soaps avaible and scrub themselves, their sin would still remain. Water does not take away sin. Baptism does not take away sin. That is pure superstition.
It is only the blood of Jesus Christ that can wash away your sin. He is the one that died for you. He atoned for your sin on the cross. He paid the penalty for you. He sacrificed His life for you. And when he was there dying on the cross, He cried out in John 19:30 "It is finished," meaning the work of salvation is complete. There is nothing more that can be done. He was buried and the third day rose from the dead. If you by faith accept that sacrifice, he will grant to you forgiveness of sins and eternal life. He will give you salvation.
"For by grace are ye saved through faith and that not of yourselves; it is the gift of God, not of works; lest any man should boast." (Eph. 2:8,9)

That which I described to you, Christ's work on the cross, was God's doing--it was all of God, thus all of grace. We are saved by grace, the grace of God. By grace are ye saved through faith. You must accept that gift of salvation through faith and faith alone. It is not of works. Baptism is a work: it is something that man does and man receives. It is a work entirely of man. God does not do it; man does, albeit it is done in obedience to God (like prayer), it is still a work. We are not saved by our works. We are saved by the grace of God, through faith.
DHK

http://www.carm.org/doctrine/1Pet_3_21.htm

 

DHK, when will you stop being a psuedo-papist and think for yourself? Why are you still using the same tired old argument that baptism is a figure? It is quite plain that the flood is the figure and that it prefigures baptism. Baptism is no mere figure. OBSERVE:

NIV 1 Pet 3:21 "and this water symbolizes baptism that now saves you also--..."

ICB 1 Pet 3:21 "That water is like baptism that now saves you--..."

NRSV 1 Pet 3:21 "And baptism, which this prefigured, now saves you--..."

NASB 1 Pet 3:21 "Corresponding to that, baptism now saves you--..."

He was buried and the third day rose from the dead. You are correct on this, DHK. This, in fact, is why baptism saves!!! "...baptism doth also now save us...by the resurrection of Jesus Christ:" (1 Peter 3:21) WHY? (Rom 6:4 KJV) "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." -- Without baptism you CANNOT have newness of life! (Rom 6:5 KJV) "For if we have been planted together in the likeness of his death, we shall be also in the likeness of his resurrection:" -- To be in the likeness of Christ's resurrection (have newness of life) you must be baptized! As a seed cannot become a tree until it is planted into the ground, you cannot become a Christian until baptized into Christ!

[ December 21, 2002, 03:22 AM: Message edited by: SolaScriptura in 2003 ]

 

You guys are confusing????? All I can say is Baptism Saves those who want to be saved we all
have free will. Just like the two of you have the freedom to augue over the Subject of Baptism.....
Believe and be Baptised is what i believe in it is biblical i can not quote verse and line but i
just believe IT to be........ End of Subject.....

Rom

 

Again this is another picture. It says nothing about the necessity of being baptized at all. There is not even a command here to be baptized. Baptism is a picture. Death of the old life and rising again of a new life in Jesus Christ.
DHK

 

An interesting debate on the BBC web page:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/talking_point/2597481.stm

possibly Multi-faith leads to no faith.

My own view about Christmas is this, its the one time of year that most people go inside a church. If we take Christmas away we'll take the Christian message away from about 40% of the UK population.

Net

 

DHK --

I realize that it is not what you "believe in," as a personal belief. I know that. But it is the Church and the Church's beliefs and actions that you represent.

I knew that you were not man enough to apologize. The Church's beliefs are found in the councils of the Church and the Catholic Catechism. If you can find a council which advocated the murder of heretics, then I will back up and eat my words PUBLICLY.

The ball is now in your court, sir.

Brother Ed

Oh, and Phuuuuuulease do NOT dredge up that ridiculous piece of slander called "The Jesuit Oath" (or anything equivalent to it) and try to pass that off as equivalent to a Church Council. Try to use OFFICIAL CHURCH DOCUMENTS, if you know what they are!!!

PPS...read your words again. THIS is the Christianity YOU LOVE and believe in. You are accusing ME of loving that particular expression of Christianity. I do not. I am still considerably offended, just as much as if I said that the Fundamentalism you LOVE and PRACTICE and DEFEND is that of Jimmy Swaggart in a motel room with a girl named "Cherry Delight". Are you getting my drift yet, or do I have to bring out the crayons and paper for you?

[ December 21, 2002, 11:04 PM: Message edited by: CatholicConvert ]