-
Welcome to Baptist Board, a friendly forum to discuss the Baptist Faith in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to all the features that our community has to offer.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!
What do you concider false doctrine?
- Thread starter music4Him
- Start date
Marcia
Active Member
How someone is baptized (by immersion or sprinkling) is not an essential issue. The fact they should believe before being baptized is essential. And to believe that it is a sign of being saved and is not what saves you is essential.Originally posted by tamborine lady:
I think Wopik was on topic, sort of. He just didn't name anything specific.
But here's my thought on it. Lets say that I go to a church that teaches that to be baptized correctly, one has to be immersed in water completely.
Down the road there might be another church that teaches that a lttle sprinkle is enough.
I would consider their way false doctrine. However, they would say that I practice false doctrine!
Which way is right? Each church will say their way is the right way. (because that is what they have been taught.)
Peace!!
Tam
I think the Bible gives the example of immersion, so that is why I think is right but I don't think someone who gets sprinkled as a believer instead is not saved.
People get the secondary issues and essentials confused. Essentials have to do with the nature of God, nature of Christ, and how we are saved.
BobRyan
Well-Known Member
Infant Baptism INSTEAD of believers baptism strikes at the heart of what it means to obey Christ, to repent and be Baptized, to enter into the new birth.
By every measure of history - infant baptism was introduced on the following to points.
#1. The magic powers of the priest in performing sacraments that had "the power" to change the salvation status of an unknowing, unbelieving, unhearing infant.
#2. The idea that infants can not go to heaven if they die and are not Baptized. That they are not under grace in that case.
#3. The idea that this was so much the same as real baptism - that believer's baptism was no longer needed for one who had been baptized as an infant.
There is NO instance of this found in the NT author's writings. In the NT ALL who are baptized - HEAR and believe and are baptized.
In Christ,
Bob
By every measure of history - infant baptism was introduced on the following to points.
#1. The magic powers of the priest in performing sacraments that had "the power" to change the salvation status of an unknowing, unbelieving, unhearing infant.
#2. The idea that infants can not go to heaven if they die and are not Baptized. That they are not under grace in that case.
#3. The idea that this was so much the same as real baptism - that believer's baptism was no longer needed for one who had been baptized as an infant.
There is NO instance of this found in the NT author's writings. In the NT ALL who are baptized - HEAR and believe and are baptized.
In Christ,
Bob
tamborine lady
Active Member
Marcia and Bob,
I was talking about what FALSE doctrine is, and I was using baptism only as an example.
It is hard to say what false doctrine is, because it is in the eye of the beholder!!
The bible has specific things to say so that we can read it and study and get it right. But there are still people that read it and study and still get it wrong!!
Anyway, back on topic. This is not a thread about baptism, it's about false doctrine.
Peace,
Tam
BobRyan
Well-Known Member
I included infant Baptism in my list of false doctrine -- because by definition - false doctrine is doctrine that contradicts scripture.
My point is - as long as you have Christian groups that differ on points of scripture - they will always see what they DO agree with - as being scriptural and they will see differences on those same points - as not agreeing with scripture - and therefore "false doctrine".
How then could infant Baptism not be included?
In Christ,
Bob
My point is - as long as you have Christian groups that differ on points of scripture - they will always see what they DO agree with - as being scriptural and they will see differences on those same points - as not agreeing with scripture - and therefore "false doctrine".
How then could infant Baptism not be included?
In Christ,
Bob
Plenty of Baptist pastors have sprinkled folks in a wheelchair.
But now they do advertise a mechanical arm to grab a wheelchair to immerse those in wheelchairs. I certainly would not do that if the person had respiratory problems and did not feel comfortable with that.
tamborine lady
Active Member
Bob,
Just read your post again.
Sorry, I went to fast and missed your point. You're right! Carry on!!
Tam
Baptismal regeneration has been mentioned a couple of times already. I believe that this is not only a false doctrine, but heresy. It strikes at the heart of salvation, and the atoning sacrifice of Christ and what he has done for us.
If baptism saves, then it is taken one step farther to infant baptism. For it is baptism that will save the infants.
But even in churches that don't believe in infant baptism, there are many that believe baptism is essential to their salvation. That is baptismal regeneration--one of the oldest heresies of the church.
DHK
If baptism saves, then it is taken one step farther to infant baptism. For it is baptism that will save the infants.
But even in churches that don't believe in infant baptism, there are many that believe baptism is essential to their salvation. That is baptismal regeneration--one of the oldest heresies of the church.
DHK
When did that "heresy" start? Was it when Jesus said "Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost?"
Or, did it start when, "...Peter said, unto them, Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins, and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost?
Which one of these are "heresy?"
MEE
BobRyan
Well-Known Member
None of that is heresy. ALL who are TAUGHT may be baptized. All who are taught AND REPENT may be baptized.
Infants are neither taught nor found to repent.
And that is the problem.
As the RC historian Thomas Bokenkotter points out in pro-Catholic RC book "A Concise History of the Catholic Church" the introduction of the idea that priests had magic powers to save the souls of infants WITHOUT the infant hearing and accepting the Gospel - moved the elder away from the role as Bible teacher and into the role of one who has magic powers to perform sacraments that can change the status of the soul -- apart from hearing with faith, apart from accepting the Gospel, apart from repentance.
In Christ,
Bob
Infants are neither taught nor found to repent.
And that is the problem.
As the RC historian Thomas Bokenkotter points out in pro-Catholic RC book "A Concise History of the Catholic Church" the introduction of the idea that priests had magic powers to save the souls of infants WITHOUT the infant hearing and accepting the Gospel - moved the elder away from the role as Bible teacher and into the role of one who has magic powers to perform sacraments that can change the status of the soul -- apart from hearing with faith, apart from accepting the Gospel, apart from repentance.
In Christ,
Bob
I agree with Marcia's assessment here. Baptismal regeneration is a heresy that goes against the Bible's clear teaching concerning salvation. The Bible does not say to be baptized in order to be saved. It says that salvation is by grace through faith, that not of yourselves. It is a gift of God not of works lest any man should boast. (Eph.2:8,9)
Baptism is a work done by man, not by God. It is not part of salvation; it a work of obedience done after salvation.
DHK
Ray Berrian
New Member
I think you wrote about all of the heresies and I agree with whoever wrote that post. There may be one exception to your statements.
The N.T. at various intervals suggests that when an adult was baptized the children and perhaps even infants were included in this ceremony. Example: Acts 16:31. Paul and Silas baptized more than just the adult believer. It is an insult against Scripture to say that God only blesses an adult baptism. Also, in this same chapter not only Lydia was baptized but God says that 'her household' also was baptized. You are allowed to take this new step of faith.
Now the real question is what happens when a child or baby is baptized. At least we can safely believe that that baby is made a part of the spiritually caring congregation, just as circumcision was ministered by the O.T. people of God. This, at least, under the O.T. meant that the baby was included in the covenant. In the church of today the Elders of the church plus the pastor are responsible for the guidance of the little ones who have blessed Christian families in the congregation.
There are other passages than Acts sixteen; but even here I do not think we want to expunge the words of Scripture which say, ' . . . and thy house, or and her household.'
Baptismal regeneration is a belief that I am not fully convinced of at this time.
Berrian, Th.D.
Households included goats and sheep also. Are we then to assume that Paul baptized the goats and the sheep that were in the household. Until you can find an example of a goat, a sheep, or an infant being baptized, we believe that Scripture teaches (just as it says) that those who believe, repent, call, upon the name of the Lord shall be saved. All of the above words are action verbs, none of which an infant is capable of doing.
"If thou shalt confess with thy mout the Lord Jesus and believe in thy heart that God hath raised in him from the dead thou shalt be saved." It is impossible for an infant for to do that, to have the understanding of the gospel, and to believe on it. Only those who are capable of understanding, are capable of believing. Therefore baptismal regeneration is a heresy, especially as it applies to infants. It is an act of obedience taken by a beiever after salvation.
DHK
what I see as a false doctrine -- not supported in Scripture:
1) immortal soul doctrine
The Hebrew and Greek words translated into the English word "soul" have absolutely nothing to do with immortality, only MORTALITY.
check it out for yourselves:
http://www.ecclesia.org/truth/nephesh.html
http://www.ecclesia.org/truth/psuche.html
Wopik,
I see a false teacher that you are quoting from.
Here is what I found in the second link that you posted:
"The doctrine of the "Trinity" is nowhere found in the scripture."
"It is neither scriptural or reasonable to speak of one omnipotent, co-equal God rendering obedience to another co-equal part of the same one almighty God. "Obedience" implies distinction, and subjection of the obeyer to the obeyed. Note well Jesus' answer when he was tempted "
--This is an obvious denial of the deity of Christ. There is more that he writes to back this belief up. This man is a heretik, and what he writes is heresy. Thus to quote from his website is very suspect.
DHK
I see a false teacher that you are quoting from.
Here is what I found in the second link that you posted:
"The doctrine of the "Trinity" is nowhere found in the scripture."
"It is neither scriptural or reasonable to speak of one omnipotent, co-equal God rendering obedience to another co-equal part of the same one almighty God. "Obedience" implies distinction, and subjection of the obeyer to the obeyed. Note well Jesus' answer when he was tempted "
--This is an obvious denial of the deity of Christ. There is more that he writes to back this belief up. This man is a heretik, and what he writes is heresy. Thus to quote from his website is very suspect.
DHK
Here are my two cents
1. Denial of the Trinity
2. Denial of the two natures of Christ or seperation of the two natures.
3. Salvation by works or by faith and works.
4. Denial of the promise of salvation given through the mundane means of Holy Baptism
5. Denial of the Real physical presence of Christ in Holy Communion.
6. The idea that the sacraments are a work of man.
1. Denial of the Trinity
2. Denial of the two natures of Christ or seperation of the two natures.
3. Salvation by works or by faith and works.
4. Denial of the promise of salvation given through the mundane means of Holy Baptism
5. Denial of the Real physical presence of Christ in Holy Communion.
6. The idea that the sacraments are a work of man.
neal4christ
New Member
In response to your question that started the thread, sola scriptura and sola fide. I think these are two doctrines that have caused havoc in Christianity. Neither of them are biblical, yet so many hold to them. I don't understand.
In Christ,
Neal
In Christ,
Neal
tamborine lady
Active Member
And I don't understand what you are talking about.
What does sola scriptura and sola fide mean????
No wonder we have false doctrine when people still try to speak in latin or greek to the ordinary people.
Tam