"The doctrine by which the church stands or falls."

[Agnus_Dei]

I think it’s important to understand what baptism is and just how it affects our salvation. As a catechumen receiving instruction in the Orthodox faith, baptism doesn’t give one a free ticket into heaven; one isn’t saved always saved from repeating not only a pre-formulated prayer or from the waters of baptism. Thus like the thief on the cross, a catechumen who’s never received Baptism can still be saved if he were to die.

Baptism is the way in which a person is actually united with Christ. The experience of salvation is initiated in the waters of baptism and how this happens is a mystery. The Apostle Paul teaches in Romans 6:1-6 that in baptism we experience Christ’s death and Resurrection. Through our baptism our sins are truly forgiven as promised by Holy Scripture, reaffirmed by the Church Fathers and the Creed, thus we are energized by our union with Christ to live a holy life.

Some would consider baptism to be only an outward sign of belief in Christ. This innovation has no historical or biblical precedent. Others reduce it to a mere perfunctory obedience to Christ's command (cf. Matthew 28:19, 20). Still others, ignoring the Bible completely, reject baptism as a vital factor in salvation. Orthodoxy maintains that these contempo¬rary innovations rob sincere people of the important assurance that baptism provides. Namely that they have been united to Christ and are part of His Church.
-

 

[D28guy]

Agnus Dei,

You say....

"Baptism is the way in which a person is actually united with Christ. The experience of salvation is initiated in the waters of baptism and how this happens is a mystery.....Some would consider baptism to be only an outward sign of belief in Christ. This innovation has no historical or biblical precedent."

Yet Almighty God says...

"34 So the eunuch answered Philip and said, “I ask you, of whom does the prophet say this, of himself or of some other man?”

35 Then Philip opened his mouth, and beginning at this Scripture, preached Jesus to him.

36 Now as they went down the road, they came to some water. And the eunuch said, “See, here is water. What hinders me from being baptized?”

37 Then Philip said, “If you believe with all your heart, you may.”
And he answered and said, “I believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God.”

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

The man in question was born again, regenerated, through faith in Christ alone...and then water baptised.

"43 To Him all the prophets witness that, through His name, whoever believes in Him will receive remission of sins.”

44 While Peter was still speaking these words, the Holy Spirit fell upon all those who heard the word.

45 And those of the circumcision who believed were astonished, as many as came with Peter, because the gift of the Holy Spirit had been poured out on the Gentiles also.

46 For they heard them speak with tongues and magnify God.
Then Peter answered,

47 “Can anyone forbid water, that these should not be baptized who have received the Holy Spirit just as we have?” 48 And he commanded them to be baptized in the name of the Lord. Then they asked him to stay a few days.

The people were regenerated through the Holy Spirit, and then...after that...they were water baptized.

That is both biblical and historical, Agnus. Water baprtism symbolises the inward regeneration which has happened previously through faith in Christ alone.

God could not possibly be any clearer.

Mike

 

[Matt Black]

Yet Almighty God also says:

For it is baptism which now saves you

- I Peter 3:21.

It's not a soteriological either/or but a both/and.

God indeed couldn't be clearer and that is how His Church has always done it.

 

[Agnus_Dei]

That is both biblical and historical, Agnus. Water baprtism symbolises the inward regeneration which has happened previously through faith in Christ alone.

D28guy, you still have yet to present to the class any verse that states we are saved through faith in Christ alone. None of your verses you seem to select point to the idea.

Furthermore, in regards to the eunuch, it seems that the one thing he gathered from Philip was the need to be baptized. But like any un-baptized adult Catechumen in the Orthodox Church, the eunuch needed to accept Christ then be baptized. The two go hand in hand.

We don’t read Philip telling the eunuch that he was wrong and didn’t need baptism, that all he needed was faith alone.

Obviously since you can’t produce for the class any proof both biblical and historical to this ‘tradition’ your sect holds. We have no choice but to discredit your views as being unbiblical.

The Lord is patient D28guy, one day you’ll discover the Truth, but only when you decide to stop following the traditions of men and start following Christ and His Church.
-

 

[Matt Black]

:applause:

 

[D28guy]

Agnus Dei,

"

D28guy, you still have yet to present to the class any verse that states we are saved through faith in Christ alone. None of your verses you seem to select point to the idea."

Needless to say, they do. I have posted the scriptural evidence many times. Others have posted the scriptural evidence many times. As I have shared with Matt, we cant force truth on anyone. We cant "open" anyones eyes. Only God can do that. But as long as people allow a "Teaching Majesterium" and authoritarian "Hierarchy" to command them what they must believe, the deception will continue unchecked.

"We don’t read Philip telling the eunuch that he was wrong and didn’t need baptism, that all he needed was faith alone."

Ahhh, but you left out the other passage of scripture I provided.

Cornelius and those with him who heard the gospel and excecised saving faith alone in Christ were clearly regenerated as they were listening to the message. No water baptism, no "good works" at all. They were simply listening and believing, and the Holy Spirit indwelt them and placed them into the body of Christ, sealed for the day of redemption.. We know this is true because they...prior to water baptism...spoke in tongues as the Spirit gives utterance.

Mike

 

[Agnus_Dei]

Ahhh, but you left out the other passage of scripture I provided.

Cornelius and those with him who heard the gospel and excecised saving faith alone in Christ were clearly regenerated as they were listening to the message. No water baptism, no "good works" at all. They were simply listening and believing, and the Holy Spirit indwelt them and placed them into the body of Christ, sealed for the day of redemption.. We know this is true because they...prior to water baptism...spoke in tongues as the Spirit gives utterance.[/FONT]

Still Mike Acts 10:43-48 says nothing of faith alone. We still see water Baptism working hand in hand. Furthermore Mike, simply speaking in tongues doesn’t mean one is automatically saved. And where in Acts Mike do we read that these Gentiles were sealed until the day of redemption?

What we can gather in Acts 10:43-48, is that the unsaved Gentiles desired water baptism, since Peter asked the Jews if anyone should forbid water that these Gentiles not be baptized. It’s also noted by Peter’s question that he wanted the believing Jews to understand that salvation was not just for the Jews only.

If speaking in tongues were a sign of salvation and baptism wasn’t an essential part of ones salvation, then why would Peter even ask the Jews why any should forbid these Gentiles water to be baptized?
-

 

[D28guy]

Agnus Dei,

I posted...

"Cornelius and those with him who heard the gospel and excecised saving faith alone in Christ were clearly regenerated as they were listening to the message. No water baptism, no "good works" at all. They were simply listening and believing, and the Holy Spirit indwelt them and placed them into the body of Christ, sealed for the day of redemption.. We know this is true because they...prior to water baptism...spoke in tongues as the Spirit gives utterance"

And you, incredibly, said...

"Still Mike Acts 10:43-48 says nothing of faith alone."

It stuns the mind.

Its just almost incomprehensible. Its mind boggling.

Agnus, you are a *classic* example of the kind of brainwashing that the hierarchial "gestapo" of the Catholic church is capable of inflicting upon its victims. Whether you are Catholic or not, you have been victimized by its cultic methods.

In this passage of scripture, they were doing nothing but listening and believing as Christ is being preached, they were indwelt with the Holy Spirit and born into the family of God, and you are...unbelievably...capable of uttering...

"Acts 10:43-48 says nothing of faith alone."

Its just exactly like when I and others post multitudes of verses as clear as this one...

"For it is by grace that you are saved, through faith. And that not of yourself, it is the gift of God. Not of works, lest anyone should boast"

...and, stunningly, you and poor Matt and others are actually, incredibly, capable of posting something like this...

"Still waiting for you to post one scripture that says we are justified by faith alone".

Its just so very very very sad to see what can happen to the thinking processes of clearly bright people, as a result of the cultic influence of the Romish hierarchial indoctrinators.

Exceedingly sad.

With a broken heart,

Mike

 

[D28guy]

Agnus Dei,

"If speaking in tongues were a sign of salvation..."

Speaking in tongues is not a sign of salvation, in the sense that most people do not speak in tongues when they believe. Some do, but not all. We are justified in Gods sight by faith in Christ alone, whether we speak in tongues or not.

The reason its relevant in this case (what we have been discussing) is that because they did speak in tongues we know for certain that they had been saved...before being water baptised.

"and baptism wasn’t an essential part of ones salvation, then why would Peter even ask the Jews why any should forbid these Gentiles water to be baptized?"

Because Peter knew they were born again, and so they could be water baptised. Water baptism is "believers" baptism. One must be born again for the symbolism of water baptism to mean anything.

The reason the Jews were questioning is because gentiles being included as being Gods people was a new thing. Gods granting the Holy Spirit to the Gentiles was proof that God approved of it.

Hope that helps,

Mike

 

[Agnus_Dei]

Mike, I know this is the internet and I can’t speak s-l-o-w-l-y for you to understand, but the key WORD we are looking for Mike is ALONE…A-L-O-N-E. Now again Mike, in the following verse that you keep repeating, show the class where the WORD…..alone appears. To make this easy Mike, just list the two words that appear at the beginning and at the end of the word….alone.

"For it is by grace that you are saved, through faith. And that not of yourself, it is the gift of God. Not of works, lest anyone should boast"

Now Mike, like a good Orthodox Christian I desire to be, I like to just let the Holy Scriptures speak for themselves, instead of trying to force the Scriptures to say what they don’t say. So let’s present to the class what all evangelicals, yourself included, like to do and that’s conveniently leave off verse 10 of Ephesians 2.

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

 

[Heavenly Pilgrim]

Agnus Dei: Now Mike, like a good Orthodox Christian I desire to be, I like to just let the Holy Scriptures speak for themselves, instead of trying to force the Scriptures to say what they don’t say.

HP: To interpret the Scriptures literally is one thing……but could you be taking the word 'literal' to a far 'too literal' extreme? :tonofbricks: :smilewinkgrin:

 

[Agnus_Dei]

HP: To interpret the Scriptures literally is one thing……but could you be taking the word 'literal' to a far 'too literal' extreme? :tonofbricks: :smilewinkgrin:

When I say “let the Scriptures speak for themselves” I don’t mean take a literal take on every aspect of the Scriptures, only don’t force upon Scripture words that don’t exist there.
-

 

[DHK]

I think it’s important to understand what baptism is and just how it affects our salvation. As a catechumen receiving instruction in the Orthodox faith, baptism doesn’t give one a free ticket into heaven; one isn’t saved always saved from repeating not only a pre-formulated prayer or from the waters of baptism. Thus like the thief on the cross, a catechumen who’s never received Baptism can still be saved if he were to die.

I think it's important to understand what bapism is and just how it affects our salvation. As a catechumen receiving instruction in Hindu faith, baptism doesn't give one a free ticket to nirvana. One isn't "saved" from repeating pre-formulated prayers, or from repeated baptisms in the Ganges River. Thus the thief on the cross, a catechumen who's never received baptism, can still be saved if he does better in his next reincarnation when he has a better chance to be baptized with holy water.

Baptism is the way in which a person is actually united with Christ.

Baptism is the way in which a person is actually united with the great Brahma.

The experience of salvation is initiaatted in the waters of baptism and how this happens is a mystery.

The experience of forgiveness of sins is initiated in the baptismal waters of the Ganges River, and how this happens is a mystery.

The Apostle Paul teaches in Romans 6:1-6 that in baptism we experience Christ’s death and Resurrection. Through our baptism our sins are truly forgiven as promised by Holy Scripture, reaffirmed by the Church Fathers and the Creed, thus we are energized by our union with Christ to live a holy life.

The Vedas are Scriptures which are much older than the Bible. They teach that water washes away sin just like the Catholics and Orthodox; but that is not what Romans 6:1-6 teaches. I wonder if Catholics have been reading too much of the Vedic Scriptures and not enough of the Bible. Hindus and Catholics do have much in common.

Some would consider baptism to be only an outward sign of belief in Christ.

The Apostle Paul did. That is what he taught in Romans 6:3,4

This innovation has no historical or biblical precedent.

So much for the Apostle Paul being a Biblical precedent.

Others reduce it to a mere perfunctory obedience to Christ's command (cf. Matthew 28:19, 20).

And so it is. And you just gave the Scripture to back it up. :thumbs:

Still others, ignoring the Bible completely, reject baptism as a vital factor in salvation.

This is what happens when you accept the Bible teaching by rejecting baptism as having anything to do with salvation, and also accept the Hindu teaching that baptism washes away sin. Off to the Ganges you go.

Orthodoxy maintains that these contempo¬rary innovations rob sincere people of the important assurance that baptism provides. Namely that they have been united to Christ and are part of His Church.
-

I see. And do you classify the Apostle Paul as "a contemporary innovation?"

 

[Agnus_Dei]

I think it's important to understand what bapism is and just how it affects our salvation. As a catechumen receiving instruction in Hindu faith, baptism doesn't give one a free ticket to nirvana. One isn't "saved" from repeating pre-formulated prayers, or from repeated baptisms in the Ganges River. Thus the thief on the cross, a catechumen who's never received baptism, can still be saved if he does better in his next reincarnation when he has a better chance to be baptized with holy water.
Baptism is the way in which a person is actually united with the great Brahma.

The experience of forgiveness of sins is initiated in the baptismal waters of the Ganges River, and how this happens is a mystery.

The Vedas are Scriptures which are much older than the Bible. They teach that water washes away sin just like the Catholics and Orthodox; but that is not what Romans 6:1-6 teaches. I wonder if Catholics have been reading too much of the Vedic Scriptures and not enough of the Bible. Hindus and Catholics do have much in common.

Come on DHK, you actually going to think that just because the Hindu’s view their water’s of baptism the same, as you say, to the Early Church, means that the Early Church stole the idea form them?

Please DHK, every atheist worth his salt can show a pagan tradition comparable to our Christian faith…the Trinity, Virgin Birth, the Resurrection…ect
-

 

[Eliyahu]

Agnus and Matt,

1. What kind of good works did the Robber at the Cross do in order to go to the Paradise?


2. Jesus said this:

Acts 1:
5 For John truly baptized with water; but ye shall be baptized with the Holy Ghost not many days hence.

1) Were you baptized with the Holy Spirit?

2) Was it before Water Baptism or after Water Baptism? Or did Water Baptism become the Spiritual Baptism?

3) Does the Holy Spirit always enter a person at the time of his or her water baptism?

 

[Agnus_Dei]

Agnus and Matt,

1. What kind of good works did the Robber at the Cross do in order to go to the Paradise?


2. Jesus said this:

Acts 1:
5 For John truly baptized with water; but ye shall be baptized with the Holy Ghost not many days hence.

1) Were you baptized with the Holy Spirit?

2) Was it before Water Baptism or after Water Baptism? Or did Water Baptism become the Spiritual Baptism?

3) Does the Holy Spirit always enter a person at the time of his or her water baptism?

I explained in an earlier post the Orthodox view of Baptism, in which DHK made a mockery out of.

Baptism washes away our sins and restores the image of Adam and thus one enters into the saving shelter of the Church. Through Chrismation, one receives the Gifts of the Holy Spirit and is therefore ‘sealed’ through which we become partakers of the fullness of Christ. Even all this won’t guarantee you a free ticket into heaven…we still have to workout our own salvation in both fear and trembling. We still have to finish the race, as St. Paul says. But being in Christ’s Church, which acts as a hospital, we begin the healing and we are given the tools necessary to finish the race.

This doesn’t mean that Orthodoxy has a monopoly on God or that salvation only exist within the Orthodox Church. But Christ did establish a Church and within that Church we find the fullness of the faith, but God’s not limited in that capacity. I won’t encourage my cousin who’s involved in a Methodist Church that has an AA program, b/c that’s were God wants him as a recovering alcoholic. He knows that he can slip up and fall, but he’s working out his own salvation and that’s where he feels he can obtain that and that’s where God meets him.

As for the thief on the Cross, if you ever see an Orthodox Church, you will notice that on the dome is a Cross. It’s a Russian 3 bar Cross. The top bar bears the sign “Jesus of Nazareth, King of the Jews”; reminding us that Christ is King of Glory!! The footboard, which was used by the Roman executioners in Christ’s time is slanted up on the right for the thief who repented and entered Paradise and down on the left for the thief who railed at Christ and was damned.
-

 

[BobRyan]

Through Chrismation, one receives the Gifts of the Holy Spirit

Did you have a Bible text for that?

in Christ,

Bob

 

[Agnus_Dei]

Did you have a Bible text for that?

Chrismation or Chrism is the same as confirmation, which we see in many protestant mainline denominations. In Acts 2:38 we read those who were baptized received the Gift of Holy Spirit. During the early years of Christianity, the transmission of the gifts of the Holy Spirit to the baptized were given by the Apostles through the laying of hands.

Now when the Apostles at Jerusalem heard that Samaria had received the word of God, they sent to them Peter and John, who came down and prayed for them that they might receive the Holy Spirit, for it had not yet fallen on any of them, but they had only been baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus. Then they laid their hands upon them and they received the Holy Spirit. (Acts 8:14-17)​

As the Church spread throughout the world and the number of baptized increased, it was not possible to continue the practice we see recorded in Samaria. The Apostles introduced the use of sanctified Chrismation, through anointing with oil, taken from the Old Testament in Exodus 30:22-25.

Thus in regard to Chrismation only, the laying on of hands was replaced with anointing one with oil. We see this in the Early Church History. The laying on of hands is still practiced today in the Church, but only in regard to newly ordained priests or bishops.

As for myself, whose already been baptized, I will not be re-baptized, but I will receive Chrismation.

Blessings
-

 

[BobRyan]

So nothing actually in scripture showing that the Acts 8 result ever occured via annointing with oil?

 

[Agnus_Dei]

So nothing actually in scripture showing that the Acts 8 result ever occured via annointing with oil?

LOL Bob, you asked if Chrismation was biblical. I explained what Chrismation was and showed you definitively the biblical precedent and how and why the Early Church practiced this and why this practice warranted change in regard to oil as the Church grew.

Eventhough the Church teaches Apostolic Succession, it would still be impossible for even the sucessors to lay hands on every baptized Christian.

Can you show me where anointing with oil isn’t biblical Bob?

Can you show me Bob where Christ instructed His Apostles to lay hands on newly Baptized Christians?

Can you explain why those in Acts had yet to receive the Holy Spirit, yet they were baptized?
-