Conversion-Immersion

[Dr. Walter]

Of course, my religious beliefs are based upon my study and understanding of the Scriptures. So are yours.

That does not make them right does it? It must harmonize with the scriptures and your position cannot harmonize with the scriptures and your inability or refusal to answer my questions above in my previous post prove it.

Again, do your candidates for baptism have any change of mind and heart from what is described in Ephesians 4:18 which is the unregenerate condition BEFORE you baptize them? So does Romans 10:10 occur in baptism? If so, then how do YOU know who you are to baptize?


Rom. 10: 10 For with the heart man believeth unto righteousness; and with the mouth confession is made unto salvation.

Are your candidates for baptism unrepentant, unconfessing, unbelievers?

 

[adisciplinedlearner]

Yes, we should not believe any teaching that is inconsistent with or contrary to the Holy Scriptures, but why criticize me for saying my beliefs are based upon my understanding of God's word?

 

[Dr. Walter]

Yes, we should not believe any teaching that is inconsistent with or contrary to the Holy Scriptures, but why criticize me for saying my beliefs are based upon my understanding of God's word?

I didn't! You were asked a direct question for a direct personal application clealy stated. You answered it! I simply pointed out the clear application of your answer to DHK's own testimony of salvation.

However, again, you have not answered my questions that I have repeated over and over again.

Again, do your candidates for baptism have any change of mind and heart from what is described in Ephesians 4:18 which is the unregenerate condition BEFORE you baptize them? So does Romans 10:10 occur in baptism? If so, then how do YOU know who you are to baptize?


Rom. 10: 10 For with the heart man believeth unto righteousness; and with the mouth confession is made unto salvation.

Are your candidates for baptism unrepentant, unconfessing, unbelievers?

 

[adisciplinedlearner]

Yes, Romans 10:10 is carried out in baptism, during which a sinner repents, believes, and confesses Christ. Those sinners who are baptized have heard the gospel and expressed their interest in finding the forgiveness of their sins on the basis of Christ's death, burial, and resurrection.

Sinners repent, believe, and are baptized in order to have their sins forgiven, or to be justified. Upon their baptism, they are New Covenant Christians.

 

[DHK]

Bad example, DHK. You had already been baptized some 22 years earlier so of course you were saved. The second "two years later" time was of no effect other than as a testimony.

What a farce! Infant baptism is the superstition of Hindus that a few molecules of hydrogen and oxygen are going to wash away your sins. I got news for you. It will send you straight to Hell. Anabaptists paid with their own blood for the denial of that doctrine and "re-baptizing" those who were truly born again. The name was pejorative, given to them by their enemies. They rejected the name, and claimed that they were not baptizing again (ana), but baptizing them for the first time, for infant baptism is not baptism at all. Christ never commanded to baptize infants. He commanded to baptize those that were saved, particularly those who had become disciples (Mat.28:19,20).
As an infant till the age of 20 when I was saved I was a member of the family of the devil and as lost as a headless chicken. I wasn't saved, and you lie if you say I was. When I trusted Christ as my Savior at the age of 20 the Holy Spirit entered into my life, and by the power of Christ, dwelt within me. He changed my life such as it never was before. Only Christ can do and make the changes in my life that happened at that age. It was not baptism; it was Christ.

 

[Dr. Walter]

I have gone around this merry go round with you numerous times and I know when you get pinned, you run to the refuge of "All I know is" and then start back repeating your false doctrine as fact and scriptural as though it has no serious problems that completely refute it. I placed in front of you a dilemma that you cannot possibly get out of except claiming "All I know is..." However, that does not remove the dilemma at all. The Biblical evidence I presented proves your doctrine is false as there is no rational way around the evidence but to ignore it and pretend it does not exist - "All I know is......" and then continue to repeat your error as fact.

Yes, Romans 10:10 is carried out in baptism, during which a sinner repents, believes, and confesses Christ. Those sinners who are baptized have heard the gospel and expressed their interest in finding the forgiveness of their sins on the basis of Christ's death, burial, and resurrection.

Sinners repent, believe, and are baptized in order to have their sins forgiven, or to be justified. Upon their baptism, they are New Covenant Christians.

Thank you for finally answering with a yes as your position demanded a yes. So you are consistent.

Your candidates for baptism are unrepentant and unbelievers so why would they suddenly have a change of mind and heart when they step into the waters of baptism and decide to confess repentance from sins and faith in Christ in water and not before?

You can't have your cake and eat it to! Ephesians 4:18 and Romans 7:8 describes the unregenerate state and it denies that while in that condition they are at ENMITY with God. So how do you get someone who is at ENMITY with God to be baptized if that ENMITY is not removed until baptism?

The unregenerate state is a state of rebellion against the authority of God (Rom. 8:7) so how do you get someone who is in rebellion against the authority of God to enter into baptism?

The unregenerate state is a state of incompetency to understand spiritual things and IGNORANCE so how do you get someone blind and ignorant of the spiritual state to enter into the waters of baptism?

The truth is, you don't and you know it. You know fully well that inward state MUST change prior to baptism or you don't get them into the waters of baptism. Your position does not harmonize with John demanding the "fruits" of repentance BEFORE baptizing (Mt. 3:-8).

 

[adisciplinedlearner]

All I know is that God's preregenerating grace must be operative in people's lives for them to have a sincere interest in Christ. No man can create this sincere interest.

 

[adisciplinedlearner]

I agree with Brother DHK that it is the Lord Jesus Christ who changes lives. He uses many instruments in doing so, including gospel preachers.

 

[Dr. Walter]

All I know is that God's preregenerating grace must be operative in people's lives for them to have a sincere interest in Christ. No man can create this sincere interest.

Oh nooooo! I am not giving you an escape hatch with this kind of nonsense. You don't know anything because you cannot prove what you just stated because you cannot overturn the Biblical evidence I gave you. So don't give me this "all I know" baloney because you have no basis in Scritpure to say that or for anyone else to believe you. You are in a dilemma and the claim of ignorance coupled with "all I know" is a farce! Deal with the evidence or repent of your false doctrine.

 

[Dr. Walter]

I agree with Brother DHK that it is the Lord Jesus Christ who changes lives. He uses many instruments in doing so, including gospel preachers.

"smooth as oil and slippery as a snake"

 

[Dr. Walter]

All I know is that God's preregenerating grace must be operative in people's lives for them to have a sincere interest in Christ. No man can create this sincere interest.

So they express interest in Christ but have not professed Christ! So anyone who simply expresses interest in Christ you will baptize in order for them to be regenerated IN baptism? Is regeneration in baptism the cause for believing and expressing Christ or is it the consequence?

 

[DHK]

I agree with Brother DHK that it is the Lord Jesus Christ who changes lives. He uses many instruments in doing so, including gospel preachers.

So you have changed your mind. Baptism had nothing to do with my salvation. It was Christ that changed me. He did so when I put my faith in trust in Him, two years before I was baptized. Then my life was transformed by the power of Christ. Baptism made me wet. That is all.

 

[lori4dogs]

Get a life Lori!
There is no need to slander the Bible Presbyterians or the Free Presbyterians, both of whom I have met, especially the Bible Presbyterians, of whom my wife was when I met her. In fact I visited her church a few times and talked with the pastor on occasion. If slander is your argument, propped up by hatred and name-calling you have no argument.

I showed you plainly how the Free Presbyterian use the words sacrament and ordinance interchangeably, even in their own statement of faiths. What do you want, an affidavit proving that this is true? Shame on you!

Presbyterian bigots eh? You stoop that low? I just told my wife that you called her that. She doesn't have much respect for you. She is a member of this board also though she doesn't post much. You do know there is a penalty against using such harsh language against other members of this board.

Both churches repudiate baptismal regeneration.
The Bible Presbyterians state that there must be a reaffirmation of faith, that is a person must come to a place where they put their faith in Christ, that is where they are save. This is not confirmation; but actual salvation.
The Free Presbyterians leave it up to individual members but make is clear that baptismal regeneration is not taught in their church.

Your slander is not acceptable.
Learn to read.

I NEVER called you wife a bigot. You bear false witness which is a sin. I said there are 'bigots within the Free Presbyterian Church'. Ian Paisely first and foremost. Catholics ALSO believe there must come a place where they put their faith in Christ or they are NOT saved. You just can't get that through you heard. You think that just because a Catholic has got wet through baptism he is saved for all eternity regardless of his relationship with Christ. That is a LIE that you keep asserting.

 

[DHK]

I NEVER called you wife a bigot. You bear false witness which is a sin. I said there are 'bigots within the Free Presbyterian Church'. Ian Paisely first and foremost. Catholics ALSO believe there must come a place where they put their faith in Christ or they are NOT saved. You just can't get that through you heard. You think that just because a Catholic has got wet through baptism he is saved for all eternity regardless of his relationship with Christ. That is a LIE that you keep asserting.

"They" includes more than just one person.

Furthermore, let me ask you this?
Can a Jehovah Witness be saved? The answer is no. Why? Because they deny the deity of Christ, making Christ a created being, an angel to be specific.

Following the same logic, Can a Roman Catholic be saved? No. Why? Because they deny the New Birth (salvation), claiming that it is only water or baptism. Baptism does not save anyone. Only Christ can save. Those (all Roman Catholics) who believe in Catholic theology cannot be saved in as much as J.W.'s cannot be saved because of their doctrine. Baptism does not save. Christ does. It is that simple. You cannot have a relationship with Christ through baptism. I have not spoken any lie. I have spoken the truth regarding RCC theology and why it is impossible for them to be saved. Their theology dictates that it is impossible, as long as they believe their own theology.

 

[DHK]

I NEVER called you wife a bigot. You bear false witness which is a sin. I said there are 'bigots within the Free Presbyterian Church'. Ian Paisely first and foremost. Catholics ALSO believe there must come a place where they put their faith in Christ or they are NOT saved. You just can't get that through you heard. You think that just because a Catholic has got wet through baptism he is saved for all eternity regardless of his relationship with Christ. That is a LIE that you keep asserting.

Listen carefully Lori. If you call all IFB's bigots, then you are calling me a bigot whether or not you think you are. And that is precisely what you did. It is not acceptable.

Ian Paisley was not even mentioned as a noun, but rather as an adjective. You used the term "Ian Paisley bunch." Your comments were directed to a group of people. Thus they were misdirected. They were not directed personally against Paisley were they?

Did you follow the other link I gave you? Probably not. That statement of faith that I quoted was from the Nazareth Bible Presbyterian Church in Singapore. If I were to guess it was probably started by Timothy Tow. It is doubtful that he never met Paisley, as he is Bible Presbyterian, but I have met him (Dr. Tow). You seem to like to lump all Presbyterians in the same boat.

What was your quote:

I had no doubt that you would quote the FREE PRESBYTERIAN articles of faith which tries to bend over backward to squirm out of anything that might resemble a Catholic understanding of the word SACRAMENT being they are rabidly anti-Catholic. Try again with any other PRESBYTERIAN STATMENT OF FAITH. Presbyterians do not use the words SACRAMENT and ORDINANCE INTERCHANGABLY. Only the bigoted Free Presbyterians (Ian Paisley bunch) and you, try to wiggel out of what a SACRAMENT is

Timothy Tow, nor the Nazareth Bible Presbyterian Church are bigoted. Neither are ALL the members of the Free Presbyterian Church. Neither is my wife. I don't class her or all Free Presbyterians as rabid anti-Catholics. Your pronouns are in the plural making it all inclusive, not directed to one man. Watch what you say. Be careful of the personal attacks.

 

[billwald]

God can save (regenerate) anyone!

 

[DHK]

God can save (regenerate) anyone!

Yes he can. But he can't save a J.W. until the J.W. changes his view about Christ.
He can't save a Muslim until he changes his view about both Christ and Allah.
He can't save a Catholic until he changes his view about the New Birth or baptismal regeneration.

It is Christ that saves; but Christ saves through Christ's work on His Cross through His blood that was shed for us.

 

[Zenas]

Baptism does not save. Christ does. It is that simple. You cannot have a relationship with Christ through baptism.

Yes, Christ does save--through baptism. Peter said, "Baptism saves you." Ananias said to Paul, "Get up and be baptized, and wash away your sins." These are pretty straighforward sayings and their context only serves to show that they mean what they say. Where does the Bible expressly state that baptism does not save?

 

[Dr. Walter]

Yes, Christ does save--through baptism. Peter said, "Baptism saves you." Ananias said to Paul, "Get up and be baptized, and wash away your sins." These are pretty straighforward sayings and their context only serves to show that they mean what they say. Where does the Bible expressly state that baptism does not save?

Actually, you just picked what part of a text that suited you. Peter does not merely say "baptism saves you" but:

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:

Notice Peter does not say that baptism saves us by bringing us into spiritual union with Christ but "by the resurrection." It is called a "like" figure because the lifting up of the Ark by the flood waters is a also a type or figure of the resurrection of Jesus Christ.

Notice that "putting away of the filth of the flesh" is set in contrast to "the answer of a good conscience". It does not literally put away the filth of the flesh which is sin but it is a response of a conscience already good, cleansed by faith in Christ.

This is how water saved Noah and this is how baptism saves us "by the resurrection of Jesus Christ" which is the power of God over sin, death and hell. It presents the power of the gospel in FIGURE just as the Ark pictured it in figure.

 

[annsni]

]Baptism is the sign and seal of incorporation into Jesus Christ.[/B] In baptism we recognize and accept the grace of God that already exists in a person’s life. Baptism allows us to see that person as God’s child, to know the gift of God’s grace, and to celebrate God’s presence in human life, cleansed of sin, and given a new life in Jesus Christ.

DHK, Presbyterians baptise INFANTS and do not re-baptise later in life (your so-called 'believers baptism). They believe it to be a SACRAMENT in the true sense of the word despite what the anti-Catholic Free Presbyterian bigots try to do to distance themselves from anything looking Catholic. If they wanted to dedicate infants they would do just that and later baptise by 'believers baptism'. But they don't, do they??? They make it clear there is ONLY ONE BAPTISM in their statement of faith.

Have you been a Presbyterian? I have. I was married in a Presbyterian church and my husband was an elder for 8 years. We had two children when we were members at the Presbyterian church and we had a choice to either baptize the child or to dedicate. They did not believe in baptism being a sign of anything other than the dedication. It did not save a child. Did not keep them in a state of grace. It did nothing special other than be a time of dedication of the child to God from the parents. Thus it was a choice to the parents whether they wanted to do the ceremony as a baptism or a dedication. So your information is not correct. "Sacrament" in the Presbyterian church is QUITE different than "sacrament" in the Catholic church. I was Catholic once and I was Presbyterian once. I'd know the difference.