question about Constantine

Waters of Baptism

Without any scripture to the contrary, one might conclude Acts 22:16 speaks of baptism washing away sin. However, there are many scriptures which very plainly contradict that conclusion. "Not by acts of righteousness which we have done, but according to His mercy He has saved us..."

"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..."

"Without the shedding of blood, there is no remission of sin."

Baptism is a work of righteousness. It requires two acts of righteousness: of the subject and of the administrator.

Do we need real presence in the bread to get to heaven too? Who has the magic words? Let us go to Mass today.

The price has been paid. Jesus' blood is on the altar--He paid for original sin too. He is the only priest--forever.

All scripture must harmonize. God did not author confusion.

Selah,

Bro. James

 

Amen and Amen! Sound theology. You just stopped too soon. Scripture must harmonize, so we must include baptism. Otherwise we should just tear out those 5 or 6 passages that absolutely require baptism and throw them away. Jesus paid the price but we must accept his grace. Otherwise everyone on earth would be bound for Heaven. He commanded us to be baptized. Peter explained that baptism saves us, that we are baptized for the remission of sins. It is not symbolic; it actually cleanses us of sin. It is spoken of by the prophet Ezekiel, was instituted by Christ and continues to be the common bond that exists among all Christians today.

I don't want to derail this extremely interesting thread, so that is all I will say here.

 

Grace plus works...

Does not "wash" if one takes the whole counsel of God. I have been "baptized" three times, one Extreme Unction. Which one washed my sins away? How about my sins from yesterday? Today? When did the thief on the cross get baptized? Jesus took him to paradise the day they died. Somebody must have been standing nearby--sprinkling holy water. How much water does it take to wash mortal sin away? I used to get rid of venial sin with a few Hail Marys.
Have you read about the anabaptists? They went to the death with their babies, refusing to baptize them. How soon we forget.

You are a baptist?

Strange.

Selah,

Bro. James

 

Which baptism washed your sins away? The first - since that was your only baptism - provided it was administered correctly.

 

Correctness of the administrator?

I am not sure. It may have been done by a Romish priest who has since been defrocked for who knows what. Who knows?

Maybe the second one got it: I was baptized by proxy in the Mormon Tabernacle, Salt Lake City, Utah by the authority of the LDS. Am I washed yet.? Then there is "purge-atory".

One can be baptized by every church on this globe and still go to Hell.

Now what?

Thank you, Lord, saving my soul...

I know whom I have believed and am persuaded that He is able to keep that which I have committed unto Him against that Day.

"...not of works lest any should boast "

Selah,

Bro. James

 

The unworthiness of the minister does not invalidate the sacrament. So I'd still plump for #1. The Mormon one was a bit silly, but we all make mistakes...

 

Some are genuine, some are counterfeit

Why, exactly would the LDS version be invalid?

What be the criteria for scriptural baptism per Henry VIII? Where did he get his authority?

We are still talking about Constantine and his exploits in paganized Christianity, right? History seems confused about his baptism: some say he was baptized by the Pope while in the kneeling position facing the chi rho, no similarity to Cai-ro, Egypt, or was it Mecca? Others say Connie was baptized on his deathbed by one named Eusebius. Some say he was not baptized at all.

Maybe he never got to purge-atory.

The quest for spotless garments continues.

Selah,

Bro. James

 

The LDS version would be invalid primarily because it was subsequent to the Catholic one, and there is only one baptism. It might also be invalid due to a defect in the necessary intent.

 

I am NOT a supporter of Constantine, but one thing I believe is reading the OTHER SIDE so to speak and backing up stuff I post on line with research.

I go to Fordham's university Medieval Sourcebook website to read about ole Constantine. Eusebius really makes clear what he was like...

http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/source/const1-laws2.html

http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/source/edict-milan.html

Look at this quote from the second one..., think fundies {me} who claim that the RCC was born when Constantine married Christianity and pagan Romanism were so very far off?

 

Hello Jillian, it’s nice to meet you.

>“we had desired formerly to bring all things into harmony with the ancient laws and public order of the Romans, and to provide that even the Christians who had left the religion of their fathers should come back to reason; since, indeed, the Christians themselves, for some reason, had followed such a caprice and had fallen into such a folly that they would not obey the institutes of antiquity”


That is an excerpt from the Edict issued by Galerius and Constantine which is referred to as the “Edict of Tolerance” because it revoked previous laws which had made Christianity illegal. The excerpt above (which it appears you are misunderstanding) is where Galerius is rehearsing Rome’s history with the Christian religion and how Rome had “formerly” attempted to “bring all things into harmony with the ancient laws and public order of the Romans,” which is Galerius’ polite way of saying Rome had persecuted Christians, even to death, in an attempt to force them to return to the pagan gods and public rites and services that had been followed by their fathers. But the efforts had failed and Rome saw that rather than Christians returning to their pagan roots as the persecution had been intended to accomplish, and yet unable by law to publicly worship God according to the Christian faith, they were instead left without any religious life at all. So Galerius then points out that since everything that could be done by law to force Christians to renounce Christ and return to paganism had failed, (and of course Galerius being the merciful and indulgent ruler that he was), he thought it high time to grant the same kind of indulgence to Christians as that given to all others in the empire and allow them to meet and worship openly and freely.

It appears you are misreading this edict to imply that Galerius was trying to get Christians to participate in paganism (and assuming that they did in fact do so, ergo your remarks) but that is simply not the case. The truth is that this edict is a very clear and powerful testimony to the faithfulness of those early Christians who refused to take part in pagan worship and its public services . . . even at the cost of their own lives.

I think it rather prudent of Galerius to note in his closing remark that, in light of how tolerant he was being to the Christians, for their own sakes they really should pray to God for his safety!

In Christ,
Deborah

 

I have been a Baptist my entire life, a deacon for 20 years, Sunday School teacher for 25 years. I just can't buy into the Baptist view of Baptism. I have read thousands of pages of Baptist literature and heard approximately 5,000 sermons by Baptist preachers (nearly all of them SBC), but I have never heard the phrase "the whole counsel of God." What does it mean? (Never mind, I found it. I don't own and rarely read the NKJV.)

 

The whole counsel of God

Is as fundamental to "Baptistic" faith and practice as "sola scriptura" which did not originate with M. Luther. All of The Word of God is in harmony.

You add evidence to the position that the terms Baptist and Christian have become plethoras of religious confusion. In other words: nominal concepts.

Your religious halo is remarkable, perhaps. So was the halo of Nicodemus--he too was a "master" of religion. See Jesus' remarks-- John Ch. 3, KJV, 1611.

Shalom,

Bro. James