Church of Christ and Baptism

[Yeshua1]

"Roman Catholic Catechism clearly teaches that Rome views circumcision under the Old Covenant in the same exact sacramental sense as they veiw baptism under the New Covenant."
-----

I don't know what is meant by "exact same sacramental sense." which you posted on the 'Great Whore' thread, but
circumcision is not a Sacrament of the New Law but is a Sacrament of the Old Law.

The Roman Catechism states:

"Speaking of circumcision, a Sacrament of the Old Law which was given to Abraham, the father of all believers, the Apostle in his Epistle to the Romans, says: And he received the sign of circumcision, a seal of the justice of the faith." (Part II, "Proof from Scripture," citing Rom 4:11)

St. Thomas Aquinas also explains why the ceremonies of the Old Law (but not the sacrifices) were sacraments:

"The sacrifice of the New Law, viz. the Eucharist, contains Christ Himself, the Author of our Sanctification: for He sanctified 'the people by His own blood' (Heb 13:12). Hence this Sacrifice is also a sacrament. But the sacrifices of the Old Law did not contain Christ, but foreshadowed Him; hence they are not called sacraments. In order to signify this there were certain sacraments apart from the sacrifices of the Old Law, which sacraments were figures of the sanctification to come. Nevertheless to certain consecrations certain sacrifices were united." (ST, Ia-IIae, Q.101, A.4, ad 2 -- http://bit.ly/1h76WUX)

So circumcision was like unto baptism in that they both are Sacraments of Faith which remit sins, original and actual, but because circumcision was done in view of the future merits of Christ and baptism is done with a view towards the past and present, their modes are different.

St. Paul himself draws the comparison between baptism and circumcision:

"In whom also you are circumcised with circumcision not made by hand, in despoiling of the body of the flesh, but in the circumcision of Christ: buried with him in baptism, in whom also you are risen again by the faith of the operation of God, who hath raised him up from the dead." (Col 2:11-12)

Baptism and circumcision are the Sacrament of Faith by which a person professes faith in Christ. Therefore, it is impossible to try to oppose faith to the sacrament and ask in which part justification is achieved. It may be that a person receives the gift of Faith prior to baptism, as with those in Ephesus (Acts 19:1-5). But with infants, who cannot have Faith of their own (save for Our Lady*), rely entirely upon baptism to receive the gift of Faith.

St. Augustine writes:

"Now believing is nothing else than having faith; and accordingly, when, on behalf of an infant as yet incapable of exercising faith, the answer is given that he believes, this answer means that he has faith because of the sacrament of faith, and in like manner the answer is made that he turns himself to God because of the sacrament of conversion, since the answer itself belongs to the celebration of the sacrament. Thus the apostle says, in regard to this sacrament of Baptism: 'We are buried with Christ by baptism into death.' [Rom 6:4] He does not say, 'We have signified our being buried with Him,' but 'We have been buried with Him.' He has therefore given to the sacrament pertaining to so great a transaction no other name than the word describing the transaction itself.

"Therefore an infant, although he is not yet a believer in the sense of having that faith which includes the consenting will of those who exercise it, nevertheless becomes a believer through the sacrament of that faith. For as it is answered that he believes, so also he is called a believer, not because he assents to the truth by an act of his own judgment, but because he receives the sacrament of that truth." (Ep 98, par. 9-10)
So both through circumcision and baptism, a child receives the gift of faith and through that faith, is justified. It is possible for adults to receive the gift of faith and be justified prior to baptism but here we should also distinguish between an intellectual belief, which lays the groundwork for faith, and faith itself, which is a gift of God and not a simple belief. This is why it is not possible to oppose faith to the Sacrament of Faith, although there are cases in which a person may receive the gift of faith prior to receiving the Sacrament. It also may happen a person receives baptism but does not receive the gift of faith because they reject it through disbelief and thus the person is not justified. (ST, IIIa, Q.69, A.9, resp. -- http://bit.ly/1h7gnDH)

Between circumcision and baptism, baptism is the greater Sacrament because it not only remits original and actual sins and incorporates a person into the body of the faithful but also remits all punishments due to sin (ST, IIIa, Q.70, A.4, ad 5 -- http://bit.ly/1h79zGh)

So the water baptism itself remits original Sin, regenerates a baby to be born again, but that ONLY covers past sins, as one MUST co operate with the sacramental grace system in order to make sure they earn and keep merits, as the blood of jesus not sufficient to eterally pardon and cleanse from all sins?

They can mortal sins that undo/overcome the cleansing of the blood of Son of god himself then?

 

[Walter]

So the water baptism itself remits original Sin, regenerates a baby to be born again, but that ONLY covers past sins, as one MUST co operate with the sacramental grace system in order to make sure they earn and keep merits, as the blood of jesus not sufficient to eterally pardon and cleanse from all sins?

They can mortal sins that undo/overcome the cleansing of the blood of Son of god himself then?[/QUOTE]

It remits Original Sin. I don't think this is news to you, Yeshua1, but it has nothing to do with whether or not Christ's shed blood is sufficient or not. His blood takes away the 'sins of the whole world'. "If we confess our sins, he is faithful and just, and will forgive our sins and cleanse us from all unrighteousness" (1 John 1:9). Catholics, Anglicans, Orthodox and even Lutherans believe that for sins committed after baptism, a different sacrament is needed. It has been called penance, confession, and reconciliation, each word emphasizing one of its aspects. Lutherans and Anglicans have corporate confession each week during their liturgy, as do Catholics and Orthodox. Some Anglicans and Lutherans also practice private confession with a priest/minister. During his life, Christ forgave sins, as in the case of the woman caught in adultery (John 8:1–11) and the woman who anointed his feet (Luke 7:48). He exercised this power in his human capacity as the Messiah or Son of man, telling us, "the Son of man has authority on earth to forgive sins" (Matt. 9:6), which is why the Gospel writer himself explains that God "had given such authority to men" (Matt. 9:8).
We believe that the Church is the continuation of Christ's presence among us since He is no longer visibly here to forgive sins. So, we believe, Christ gave this power to His Church. Matthew 28:20. God had sent Jesus to forgive sins, but after his resurrection Jesus told the apostles, ‘As the Father has sent me, even so I send you.’ And when he had said this, He breathed on them, and said to them, ‘Receive the Holy Spirit. If you forgive the sins of any, they are forgiven; if you retain the sins of any, they are retained’ (John 20:21–23).

 

[Walter]

Yeshua1, it must be frustrating that you can't find a scintilla of evidence that ANYONE believed the way you do in the Early Church. You have to put blinders on to everything written after the close of the canon because all the writings support the Catholic position. Some of the even were instructed at the feet of the Apostles. But you would rather follow some 'johnny come lately' reformer 1,500 years removed from the time our Lord and His Apostles walked this earth.

The Didache



"Confess your sins in church, and do not go up to your prayer with an evil conscience. This is the way of life. . . . On the Lord’s Day gather together, break bread, and give thanks, after confessing your transgressions so that your sacrifice may be pure" (Didache 4:14, 14:1 [A.D. 70]).



The Letter of Barnabas



"You shall judge righteously. You shall not make a schism, but you shall pacify those that contend by bringing them together. You shall confess your sins. You shall not go to prayer with an evil conscience. This is the way of light" (Letter of Barnabas 19 [A.D. 74]).



Ignatius of Antioch



"For as many as are of God and of Jesus Christ are also with the bishop. And as many as shall, in the exercise of penance, return into the unity of the Church, these, too, shall belong to God, that they may live according to Jesus Christ" (Letter to the Philadelphians 3 [A.D. 110]).

"For where there is division and wrath, God does not dwell. To all them that repent, the Lord grants forgiveness, if they turn in penitence to the unity of God, and to communion with the bishop" (ibid., 8).



Irenaeus



"[The Gnostic disciples of Marcus] have deluded many women. . . . Their consciences have been branded as with a hot iron. Some of these women make a public confession, but others are ashamed to do this, and in silence, as if withdrawing from themselves the hope of the life of God, they either apostatize entirely or hesitate between the two courses" (Against Heresies 1:22 [A.D. 189]).



Tertullian



"[Regarding confession, some] flee from this work as being an exposure of themselves, or they put it off from day to day. I presume they are more mindful of modesty than of salvation, like those who contract a disease in the more shameful parts of the body and shun making themselves known to the physicians; and thus they perish along with their own bashfulness" (Repentance 10:1 [A.D. 203]).



Hippolytus



"[The bishop conducting the ordination of the new bishop shall pray:] God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ. . . . Pour forth now that power which comes from you, from your royal Spirit, which you gave to your beloved Son, Jesus Christ, and which he bestowed upon his holy apostles . . . and grant this your servant, whom you have chosen for the episcopate, [the power] to feed your holy flock and to serve without blame as your high priest, ministering night and day to propitiate unceasingly before your face and to offer to you the gifts of your holy Church, and by the Spirit of the high priesthood to have the authority to forgive sins, in accord with your command" (Apostolic Tradition 3 [A.D. 215]).



Origen



"[A final method of forgiveness], albeit hard and laborious [is] the remission of sins through penance, when the sinner . . . does not shrink from declaring his sin to a priest of the Lord and from seeking medicine, after the manner of him who say, ‘I said, "To the Lord I will accuse myself of my iniquity"’" (Homilies on Leviticus 2:4 [A.D. 248]).



Cyprian of Carthage



"The apostle [Paul] likewise bears witness and says: ‘ . . . Whoever eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord unworthily will be guilty of the body and blood of the Lord’ [1 Cor. 11:27]. But [the impenitent] spurn and despise all these warnings; before their sins are expiated, before they have made a confession of their crime, before their conscience has been purged in the ceremony and at the hand of the priest . . . they do violence to [the Lord’s] body and blood, and with their hands and mouth they sin against the Lord more than when they denied him" (The Lapsed 15:1–3 (A.D. 251]).

"Of how much greater faith and salutary fear are they who . . . confess their sins to the priests of God in a straightforward manner and in sorrow, making an open declaration of conscience. . . . I beseech you, brethren, let everyone who has sinned confess his sin while he is still in this world, while his confession is still admissible, while the satisfaction and remission made through the priests are still pleasing before the Lord" (ibid., 28).

"inners may do penance for a set time, and according to the rules of discipline come to public confession, and by imposition of the hand of the bishop and clergy receive the right of Communion. [But now some] with their time [of penance] still unfulfilled . . . they are admitted to Communion, and their name is presented; and while the penitence is not yet performed, confession is not yet made, the hands of the bishop and clergy are not yet laid upon them, the Eucharist is given to them; although it is written, ‘Whosoever shall eat the bread and drink the cup of the Lord unworthily, shall be guilty of the body and blood of the Lord’ [1 Cor. 11:27]" (Letters 9:2 [A.D. 253]).

"And do not think, dearest brother, that either the courage of the brethren will be lessened, or that martyrdoms will fail for this cause, that penance is relaxed to the lapsed, and that the hope of peace [i.e., absolution] is offered to the penitent. . . . For to adulterers even a time of repentance is granted by us, and peace is given" (ibid., 51[55]:20).

"But I wonder that some are so obstinate as to think that repentance is not to be granted to the lapsed, or to suppose that pardon is to be denied to the penitent, when it is written, ‘Remember whence thou art fallen, and repent, and do the first works’ [Rev. 2:5], which certainly is said to him who evidently has fallen, and whom the Lord exhorts to rise up again by his deeds [of penance], because it is written, ‘Alms deliver from death’ [Tob. 12:9]" (ibid., 51[55]:22).



Aphraahat the Persian Sage



"You [priests], then, who are disciples of our illustrious physician [Christ], you ought not deny a curative to those in need of healing. And if anyone uncovers his wound before you, give him the remedy of repentance. And he that is ashamed to make known his weakness, encourage him so that he will not hide it from you. And when he has revealed it to you, do not make it public, lest because of it the innocent might be reckoned as guilty by our enemies and by those who hate us" (Treatises 7:3 [A.D. 340]).



Basil the Great



"It is necessary to confess our sins to those to whom the dispensation of God’s mysteries is entrusted. Those doing penance of old are found to have done it before the saints. It is written in the Gospel that they confessed their sins to John the Baptist [Matt. 3:6], but in Acts [19:18] they confessed to the apostles" (Rules Briefly Treated 288 [A.D. 374]).



John Chrysostom



"Priests have received a power which God has given neither to angels nor to archangels. It was said to them: ‘Whatsoever you shall bind on earth shall be bound in heaven; and whatsoever you shall loose, shall be loosed.’ Temporal rulers have indeed the power of binding; but they can only bind the body. Priests, in contrast, can bind with a bond which pertains to the soul itself and transcends the very heavens. Did [God] not give them all the powers of heaven? ‘Whose sins you shall forgive,’ he says, ‘they are forgiven them; whose sins you shall retain, they are retained.’ What greater power is there than this? The Father has given all judgment to the Son. And now I see the Son placing all this power in the hands of men [Matt. 10:40; John 20:21–23]. They are raised to this dignity as if they were already gathered up to heaven" (The Priesthood 3:5 [A.D. 387]).



Ambrose of Milan



"For those to whom [the right of binding and loosing] has been given, it is plain that either both are allowed, or it is clear that neither is allowed. Both are allowed to the Church, neither is allowed to heresy. For this right has been granted to priests only" (Penance 1:1 [A.D. 388]).



Jerome



"If the serpent, the devil, bites someone secretly, he infects that person with the venom of sin. And if the one who has been bitten keeps silence and does not do penance, and does not want to confess his wound . . . then his brother and his master, who have the word [of absolution] that will cure him, cannot very well assist him" (Commentary on Ecclesiastes 10:11 [A.D. 388]).



Augustine



"When you shall have been baptized, keep to a good life in the commandments of God so that you may preserve your baptism to the very end. I do not tell you that you will live here without sin, but they are venial sins which this life is never without. Baptism was instituted for all sins. For light sins, without which we cannot live, prayer was instituted. . . . But do not commit those sins on account of which you would have to be separated from the body of Christ. Perish the thought! For those whom you see doing penance have committed crimes, either adultery or some other enormities. That is why they are doing penance. If their sins were light, daily prayer would suffice to blot them out. . . . In the Church, therefore, there are three ways in which sins are forgiven: in baptisms, in prayer, and in the greater humility of penance" (Sermon to Catechumens on the Creed 7:15, 8:16 [A.D. 395]).

 

[Jordan Kurecki]

So the water baptism itself remits original Sin, regenerates a baby to be born again, but that ONLY covers past sins, as one MUST co operate with the sacramental grace system in order to make sure they earn and keep merits, as the blood of jesus not sufficient to eterally pardon and cleanse from all sins?

They can mortal sins that undo/overcome the cleansing of the blood of Son of god himself then?[/QUOTE]

It remits Original Sin. I don't think this is news to you, Yeshua1, but it has nothing to do with whether or not Christ's shed blood is sufficient or not. His blood takes away the 'sins of the whole world'. "If we confess our sins, he is faithful and just, and will forgive our sins and cleanse us from all unrighteousness" (1 John 1:9). Catholics, Anglicans, Orthodox and even Lutherans believe that for sins committed after baptism, a different sacrament is needed. It has been called penance, confession, and reconciliation, each word emphasizing one of its aspects. Lutherans and Anglicans have corporate confession each week during their liturgy, as do Catholics and Orthodox. Some Anglicans and Lutherans also practice private confession with a priest/minister. During his life, Christ forgave sins, as in the case of the woman caught in adultery (John 8:1–11) and the woman who anointed his feet (Luke 7:48). He exercised this power in his human capacity as the Messiah or Son of man, telling us, "the Son of man has authority on earth to forgive sins" (Matt. 9:6), which is why the Gospel writer himself explains that God "had given such authority to men" (Matt. 9:8).
We believe that the Church is the continuation of Christ's presence among us since He is no longer visibly here to forgive sins. So, we believe, Christ gave this power to His Church. Matthew 28:20. God had sent Jesus to forgive sins, but after his resurrection Jesus told the apostles, ‘As the Father has sent me, even so I send you.’ And when he had said this, He breathed on them, and said to them, ‘Receive the Holy Spirit. If you forgive the sins of any, they are forgiven; if you retain the sins of any, they are retained’ (John 20:21–23).

The Roman Catholic church doesn't even have the proper mode of Baptism and it baptizes unregenerate men into the church as babies.

A church that is made up of unregenerate men without the proper form of baptism is not the true church of Christ.. regardless of that though..Jesus is the way the truth and the life...not any church

 

[Jordan Kurecki]

Yeshua1, it must be frustrating that you can't find a scintilla of evidence that ANYONE believed the way you do in the Early Church. You have to put blinders on to everything written after the close of the canon because all the writings support the Catholic position. Some of the even were instructed at the feet of the Apostles. But you would rather follow some 'johnny come lately' reformer 1,500 years removed from the time our Lord and His Apostles walked this earth.

Judas was instructed by Jesus. And we all know how he turned out.
Your argument is null and void.

The early church fathers are not the final authority. The bible is. and it does not teach Baptismal Regeneration.

The Thief on the cross refutes Baptismal Regeneration.

 

[The Biblicist]

"Roman Catholic Catechism clearly teaches that Rome views circumcision under the Old Covenant in the same exact sacramental sense as they veiw baptism under the New Covenant."
-----

I don't know what is meant by "exact same sacramental sense." which you posted on the 'Great Whore' thread, but
circumcision is not a Sacrament of the New Law but is a Sacrament of the Old Law.

The Roman Catechism states:

"Speaking of circumcision, a Sacrament of the Old Law which was given to Abraham, the father of all believers, the Apostle in his Epistle to the Romans, says: And he received the sign of circumcision, a seal of the justice of the faith." (Part II, "Proof from Scripture," citing Rom 4:11)

St. Thomas Aquinas also explains why the ceremonies of the Old Law (but not the sacrifices) were sacraments:

"The sacrifice of the New Law, viz. the Eucharist, contains Christ Himself, the Author of our Sanctification: for He sanctified 'the people by His own blood' (Heb 13:12). Hence this Sacrifice is also a sacrament. But the sacrifices of the Old Law did not contain Christ, but foreshadowed Him; hence they are not called sacraments. In order to signify this there were certain sacraments apart from the sacrifices of the Old Law, which sacraments were figures of the sanctification to come. Nevertheless to certain consecrations certain sacrifices were united." (ST, Ia-IIae, Q.101, A.4, ad 2 -- http://bit.ly/1h76WUX)

So circumcision was like unto baptism in that they both are Sacraments of Faith which remit sins, original and actual, but because circumcision was done in view of the future merits of Christ and baptism is done with a view towards the past and present, their modes are different.

St. Paul himself draws the comparison between baptism and circumcision:

"In whom also you are circumcised with circumcision not made by hand, in despoiling of the body of the flesh, but in the circumcision of Christ: buried with him in baptism, in whom also you are risen again by the faith of the operation of God, who hath raised him up from the dead." (Col 2:11-12)

Thank you for proving my point! However, from this point forward you interpetation contradicts Romans 4:9-11. Paul says that justification was already obtained "in uncircumcision" and explicitly denies it was obtained "in circumcision." Hence, as a "sign and seal" it pertained only to a Post-justification EXTERNAL symbol and seal.

The phrase "in uncircumcision" refers to the life of Abraham prior to circumcision whereas the phrase "in cirucumcision" refers to the life of Abraham AFTER circumcision. Paul expliclty denies and repudiates the idea that justification was obtained "in circumcison" or the Post-circumcised life of Abraham.

Hence, you have thoroughly repudiated the doctrine of Roman Catholic Sacramentalism and in so doing condemned the whole soteriological teaching of Roman Catholicism BECAUSE for their doctrine to be true Abraham would have had to be justified "in circumcision" and Paul utterly and explicitly denies that.

Rom. 4:10 How was it then reckoned? when he was in circumcision, or in uncircumcision? Not in circumcision, but in uncircumcision.
11 And he received the sign of circumcision, a seal of the righteousness of the faith which he had yet being uncircumcised: that he might be the father of all them that believe, though they be not circumcised; that righteousness might be imputed unto them also:

Roman Catholicism teaches that justification and regeneration occurs IN SACRAMENTS, regardless if they are Old Testament or New Testament sacraments and Rome acknowledges that circucmision is exactly parallel to baptism as a sacrament in its relationship to the Old Covenant.

You can quote all the UNINSPIRED writings of theologians you want but the INSPIRED writings of Paul completely and utterly repudiate the whole Roman Catholic sacramental soteriology.

 

[Walter]

Abraham is an exception in terms of baptism and not in regards to any acts of the obedience of faith. When the issue is seen in these terms then that point becomes clearer for a number of reasons. First, because Paul is quoting Genesis 15:6, but this doesn't mean that Abraham was first justified at this point. That would be impossible because we know that he pleased God by an act of supernatural faith (Hebrews 11:8) when he responded to God's call in Genesis 12. Consequently, Abraham received the gift of the Holy Spirit prior to the event to which Paul refers in Romans 4. Therefore Paul was only referring to an event of justification, or an increase of it, rather than the beginning of Abraham's justification. Then in Genesis 17 God made a covenant with Abraham which stipulated that to be part of God's covenant people one must be circumcised. Of course, this physical circumcision was only a type and shadow of the true spiritual circumcision of baptism.

In book 4, ch. 24 of On Baptism, Against the Donatists Augustine explains how those under the Old Covenant received circumcision as a sign of the covenant even when people like Abraham already had faith prior to circumcision. Here he explains how baptism is not simply a sign like the Old Covenant of circumcision, but it actually effects regeneration. He then compares Cornelius to Abraham and explains how Cornelius received the Holy Spirit prior to being baptized which was the event of his regeneration. In other words, Augustine is saying that Cornelius only received a portion of the grace of the Holy Spirit prior to his baptism. It was only in his baptism that he received the fullness of the Holy Spirit. But since Abraham lived prior to the outpouring of the Spirit in the NT, his reception looked forward to the NT and thus actually depended on it. That's why the example of Abraham, while being a real case of justification, was nevertheless somewhat of an incomplete sign of justification while baptism is the real event of the outpouring of the Holy Spirit.
http://newadvent.org/fathers/14084.htm

 

[DHK]

Abraham is an exception in terms of baptism and not in regards to any acts of the obedience of faith. When the issue is seen in these terms then that point becomes clearer for a number of reasons. First, because Paul is quoting Genesis 15:6, but this doesn't mean that Abraham was first justified at this point. That would be impossible because we know that he pleased God by an act of supernatural faith (Hebrews 11:8) when he responded to God's call in Genesis 12. Consequently, Abraham received the gift of the Holy Spirit prior to the event to which Paul refers in Romans 4. Therefore Paul was only referring to an event of justification, or an increase of it, rather than the beginning of Abraham's justification. Then in Genesis 17 God made a covenant with Abraham which stipulated that to be part of God's covenant people one must be circumcised. Of course, this physical circumcision was only a type and shadow of the true spiritual circumcision of baptism.

Paul does not use Abraham in a context of baptism. Abraham is an OT character. No one is saved through baptism as Paul demonstrates. Romans 4 begins and ends with Abraham. Abraham was justified by faith and faith alone. Then chapter five continues and begins this way:

Romans 5:1 Being therefore justified by faith, we have peace with God through our Lord Jesus Christ;
--Not by works but by faith is one justified. This verse is very plain and clear. The Bible says nothing of works in chapter four or five. It is by faith and faith alone that a man is justified. Baptism is entirely out of the question.

In book 4, ch. 24 of On Baptism, Against the Donatists Augustine explains how those under the Old Covenant received circumcision as a sign of the covenant even when people like Abraham already had faith prior to circumcision. Here he explains how baptism is not simply a sign like the Old Covenant of circumcision, but it actually effects regeneration. He then compares Cornelius to Abraham and explains how Cornelius received the Holy Spirit prior to being baptized which was the event of his regeneration. In other words, Augustine is saying that Cornelius only received a portion of the grace of the Holy Spirit prior to his baptism. It was only in his baptism that he received the fullness of the Holy Spirit. But since Abraham lived prior to the outpouring of the Spirit in the NT, his reception looked forward to the NT and thus actually depended on it. That's why the example of Abraham, while being a real case of justification, was nevertheless somewhat of an incomplete sign of justification while baptism is the real event of the outpouring of the Holy Spirit.
http://newadvent.org/fathers/14084.htm

First, Augustine is not an authority. He believed in a number of heresies. The Bible is our authority. I would throw the works of Augustine away. Concentrate on what the Bible says.
Cornelius could not be saved until he heard the Word of God.
Faith comes by hearing and hearing by the Word of God.
Peter went to his house, as he was commanded. He preached the Word. They were saved. After that they were baptized. Again the scriptures are so plain here how can you construe it to be otherwise. Just read Acts 19, not some heretic!

Acts 10:43 To him give all the prophets witness, that through his name whosoever believeth in him shall receive remission of sins.
44 While Peter yet spake these words, the Holy Ghost fell on all them which heard the word.
45 And they of the circumcision which believed were astonished, as many as came with Peter, because that on the Gentiles also was poured out the gift of the Holy Ghost.
46 For they heard them speak with tongues, and magnify God. Then answered Peter,
--This is the message.
Notice verse 43. There is no mention of baptism. Whosoever believeth in him shall receive receive remission of sins.
Salvation comes by faith in Christ.
--Verse 44: they heard, and in verse 44,45 it is evident they believed and were saved. The Holy Spirit came upon them because they believed.

Now what did Peter say:
Acts 10:47 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.
--He commanded them to be baptized after they were saved. It was symbolic, not a means of grace. It was done in obedience to the command given by Christ (Mat.28:19,20). It is purely symbolic and cannot save. They were saved already. The scriptures cannot speak with any more clarity and forcefulness than this.

 

[The Biblicist]

Abraham is an exception in terms of baptism and not in regards to any acts of the obedience of faith.

Abraham is given not as the exception of justification by faith but the model for all believers (Rom. 4:11-12) or all those of faith.

Abraham is the model for faith in regard to the covenant "symbol and sign" of justification for all believers.

When the issue is seen in these terms then that point becomes clearer for a number of reasons. First, because Paul is quoting Genesis 15:6, but this doesn't mean that Abraham was first justified at this point. That would be impossible because we know that he pleased God by an act of supernatural faith (Hebrews 11:8) when he responded to God's call in Genesis 12.

Abraham was justified by faith "in uncircumcision" and NOT IN CIRCUMCISION. Hence, it does not matter what points you care to select prior to circumcision he was already justified prior to circumcision and thus stood in the PERFECT TENSE position of justification from that point forward as Romans 5:1-2 proves using the Aorist and perfect tenses.

Consequently, Abraham received the gift of the Holy Spirit prior to the event to which Paul refers in Romans 4. Therefore Paul was only referring to an event of justification, or an increase of it, rather than the beginning of Abraham's justification.

Note the Aorist tense verb "justified" in Romans 4:11 prior to circumcision. This is a completed action. Note the Perfect tense verbs used in Romans 5:1-2 showing that this completed action stands complete from that point forward.

Then in Genesis 17 God made a covenant with Abraham which stipulated that to be part of God's covenant people one must be circumcised. Of course, this physical circumcision was only a type and shadow of the true spiritual circumcision of baptism.

Paul plainly says Abraham was NOT justified IN CIRCUMCISION (Rom. 4:10) while you plainly contradict that.

 

[Gerhard Ebersoehn]

"The ... reality... today is that people are dying and going to Hell"

The reality is that people are dying and not all are going to heaven. Thank goodness

 

[Gerhard Ebersoehn]

Paul does not use Abraham in a context of baptism. Abraham is an OT character. No one is saved through baptism as Paul demonstrates. Romans 4 begins and ends with Abraham. Abraham was justified by faith and faith alone. Then chapter five continues and begins this way:

Romans 5:1 Being therefore justified by faith, we have peace with God through our Lord Jesus Christ;
--Not by works but by faith is one justified. This verse is very plain and clear. The Bible says nothing of works in chapter four or five. It is by faith and faith alone that a man is justified. Baptism is entirely out of the question.

First, Augustine is not an authority. He believed in a number of heresies. The Bible is our authority. I would throw the works of Augustine away. Concentrate on what the Bible says.
Cornelius could not be saved until he heard the Word of God.
Faith comes by hearing and hearing by the Word of God.
Peter went to his house, as he was commanded. He preached the Word. They were saved. After that they were baptized. Again the scriptures are so plain here how can you construe it to be otherwise. Just read Acts 19, not some heretic!

Acts 10:43 To him give all the prophets witness, that through his name whosoever believeth in him shall receive remission of sins.
44 While Peter yet spake these words, the Holy Ghost fell on all them which heard the word.
45 And they of the circumcision which believed were astonished, as many as came with Peter, because that on the Gentiles also was poured out the gift of the Holy Ghost.
46 For they heard them speak with tongues, and magnify God. Then answered Peter,
--This is the message.
Notice verse 43. There is no mention of baptism. Whosoever believeth in him shall receive receive remission of sins.
Salvation comes by faith in Christ.
--Verse 44: they heard, and in verse 44,45 it is evident they believed and were saved. The Holy Spirit came upon them because they believed.

Now what did Peter say:
Acts 10:47 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.
--He commanded them to be baptized after they were saved. It was symbolic, not a means of grace. It was done in obedience to the command given by Christ (Mat.28:19,20). It is purely symbolic and cannot save. They were saved already. The scriptures cannot speak with any more clarity and forcefulness than this.

If you, DHK, here mean to say water baptism, then Paul made an unforgivable mistake, where he declared, "ONE baptism"!

And John the Baptist publicly made a FALSE declaration that he, baptised with water, but that The One Coming after him, would NOT baptise with WATER but with Fire Power of Truth "in the Name of the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit".

Christ's baptism ministered is the REBIRTH OR THE FIRST RESURRECTION OF THE ELECT OR SAVED BY THE HOLY SPIRIT OR BAPTISM IN THE HOLY SPIRIT.

Christian Faith has “ONE baptism”; NTHER.

 

[Gerhard Ebersoehn]

What did Peter say:

Acts 10:47
Can anyone forbid that because of water these should not be baptized which HAVE received the Holy Ghost, as well as we?" ---as well as we, received the ONLY REQUIRED baptism which is that of the Holy Spirit?!

NO! No one can!

 

[The Biblicist]

If you, DHK, here mean to say water baptism, then Paul made an unforgivable mistake, where he declared, "ONE baptism"!

And John the Baptist publicly made a FALSE declaration that he, baptised with water, but that The One Coming after him, would NOT baptise with WATER but with Fire Power of Truth "in the Name of the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit".

Christ's baptism ministered is the REBIRTH OR THE FIRST RESURRECTION OF THE ELECT OR SAVED BY THE HOLY SPIRIT OR BAPTISM IN THE HOLY SPIRIT.

Christian Faith has “ONE baptism”; NTHER.

The only one mistaken is you! The "one baptism" mentioned in the book of Ephesians is the only baptism commissioned to be administered by men to other men in Matthew 28:19 which is water baptism.

The Baptism in the Spirit is a limited and predicted and fulfilled baptism on the day of Pentecost. All scripture previous to Pentecost is predictive and pinpoints it happening on the day of pentecost - Acts 1:5 "not many days hence" and all scriptures after Pentecost speak of it as fulfilled - Acts 11:15-16.

Regeneration occurred BEFORE Pentecost (Jn. 3:3-6) and so can't be the baptism in the Spirit. The Great Commission baptism cannot be regeneration as it is administered by men to other men.

The baptism in the Spirit is an INSTITUTIONAL baptism of the new house of God as God always initially baptized in the Spirit every new "house of God" and did it but once at the beginning (Ex. 40:35; 1 Kings 7:1-3; Acts 2:1-3).

 

[Gerhard Ebersoehn]

The only one mistaken is you! The "one baptism" mentioned in the book of Ephesians is the only baptism commissioned to be administered by men to other men in Matthew 28:19 which is water baptism.

The Baptism in the Spirit is a limited and predicted and fulfilled baptism on the day of Pentecost. All scripture previous to Pentecost is predictive and pinpoints it happening on the day of pentecost - Acts 1:5 "not many days hence" and all scriptures after Pentecost speak of it as fulfilled - Acts 11:15-16.

Regeneration occurred BEFORE Pentecost (Jn. 3:3-6) and so can't be the baptism in the Spirit. The Great Commission baptism cannot be regeneration as it is administered by men to other men.

The baptism in the Spirit is an INSTITUTIONAL baptism of the new house of God as God always initially baptized in the Spirit every new "house of God" and did it but once at the beginning (Ex. 40:35; 1 Kings 7:1-3; Acts 2:1-3).

You have it your way for yourself, God speed; but for me and my house, thanks, but no thanks. As far as we are concerned what men do to other men is for the birds.

 

[Gerhard Ebersoehn]

O how I love the sound of Mozart! ... can live eternity with it in my ears .... HEAVEN!

 

[The Biblicist]

You have it your way for yourself, God speed; but for me and my house, thanks, but no thanks. As far as we are concerned what men do to other men is for the birds.

Look at the language in Matthew 28:19-20. He clearly says that "YE" will be administering the baptizing to "them." In Acts 2:41 we have this commission first administered: (1) they (apostles) preached the word and as many as received that preached word "were baptized" and then instructed in the apostolic doctrine.

Your theory is simply false as regeneration preceded the day of Pentecost and the baptism in the Spirit and thus the baptism in the Spirit cannot possibly be regeneration.

 

[Gerhard Ebersoehn]

Look at the language in Matthew 28:19-20. He clearly says that "YE" will be administering the baptizing to "them." In Acts 2:41 we have this commission first administered: (1) they (apostles) preached the word and as many as received that preached word "were baptized" and then instructed in the apostolic doctrine.

Your theory is simply false as regeneration preceded the day of Pentecost and the baptism in the Spirit and thus the baptism in the Spirit cannot possibly be regeneration.

Sure, regeneration is the work of the Holy Spirit, The Holy Spirit also is the seal and down payment of God's salvation. And when a man is overcome by the consciousness and knowledge of God's finished work for his redemption in Jesus Christ, he is baptised in the Name of the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit ONCE FOR ALL.

Look at the language in Matthew 28:19-20. There is no word or suggestion of water.

And look at the language in Matthew 28:19-20. It clearly says that "YE" -- the commissioned: the apostles -- "must baptise" -- it is Jesus' command to "them" -- to no others -- to baptise "all nations" -- i.e., the whole world -- "IN THE NAME".

<the language> contains nothing of individuals and nothing of others than the apostles who "must baptise" and nothing of 'in' or 'with water' but "in The Name".

 

[DHK]

Look at the language in Matthew 28:19-20. There is no word or suggestion of water.

contains nothing of individuals and nothing of others than the apostles who "must baptise" and nothing of 'in' or 'with water' but "in The Name"

Acts 8:38 And he commanded the chariot to stand still: and they went down both into the water, both Philip and the eunuch; and he baptized him.
39 And when they were come up out of the water, the Spirit of the Lord caught away Philip, that the eunuch saw him no more: and he went on his way rejoicing.

One baptism: They both went into the water. They both came out of the water: one baptism.

 

[Gerhard Ebersoehn]

[/SIZE]
Acts 8:38 And he commanded the chariot to stand still: and they went down both into the water, both Philip and the eunuch; and he baptized him.
39 And when they were come up out of the water, the Spirit of the Lord caught away Philip, that the eunuch saw him no more: and he went on his way rejoicing.

One baptism: They both went into the water. They both came out of the water: one baptism.

I am not so sure.

Philip was happy with -- as far as man may know -- the eunuch's status before the face of God simply having become a believer.
But no, an ignorant newcomer must teach him how to baptise, as if that which he had received without any of his own works, wasn't good enough.
I think the eunuch was an ungrateful and arrogant person taking advantage, who insisted on more and better than all Christians were contented with.

For me it is just the same as John Wesley who wasn't satisfied with the regenerating power of the Holy Spirit having given him faith, but who as it were had to coerce the Holy Spirit to bestow on him better gifts than 'just' faith and forgiveness.

Baptism "IN THE NAME" is not good enough; it leaves man's 'part' out. Which is where the eunuch took over the role of master of his own destiny.

 

[The Biblicist]

I am not so sure.

Philip was happy with -- as far as man may know -- the eunuch's status before the face of God simply having become a believer.
But no, an ignorant newcomer must teach him how to baptise, as if that which he had received without any of his own works, wasn't good enough.
I think the eunuch was an ungrateful and arrogant person taking advantage, who insisted on more and better than all Christians were contented with.

For me it is just the same as John Wesley who wasn't satisfied with the regenerating power of the Holy Spirit having given him faith, but who as it were had to coerce the Holy Spirit to bestow on him better gifts than 'just' faith and forgiveness.

Baptism "IN THE NAME" is not good enough; it leaves man's 'part' out. Which is where the eunuch took over the role of master of his own destiny.

In other words, you could care less what the Word of God says! "here is water" does not mean "here is water." Going down into the water and coming up out of the water means nothing to you. Calling it baptism means nothing to you!

Matthew 28:19 is an action administered by "ye" to "them" and it is called "baptizing" but that means nothing to you! The words "baptizing them" does not mean "baptizing them" but according to you it means that "ye" can regenerate them????

This kind of nonsense is only due to your unbiblical dogma and makes you no better of a interpreter of Scripture than Bob and his SDA dogma.