That would mean becoming a Baptist!
-
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!
Which denomination do you consider the second best after your own?
- Thread starter Lucian Hodoboc
- Start date
Jesus Saves!
Active Member
4There is one body, and one Spirit, even as ye are called in one hope of your calling; 5One Lord, one faith, one baptism, 6One God and Father of all, who is above all, and through all, and in you all.
I believe our faith must be in Christ. A lot of people say they believe the Baptist faith or Holiness Faith. But, the only way to God is through a new birth by faith in Jesus Christ. Being a Baptist is a broad term in the days we live in. From one church to the next there can be lots of differences in beliefs even though they all have Baptist in their name. I go to a Baptist church, but my faith is in Christ.
I believe our faith must be in Christ. A lot of people say they believe the Baptist faith or Holiness Faith. But, the only way to God is through a new birth by faith in Jesus Christ. Being a Baptist is a broad term in the days we live in. From one church to the next there can be lots of differences in beliefs even though they all have Baptist in their name. I go to a Baptist church, but my faith is in Christ.
Lucian Hodoboc
New Member
And what faith might that be?
Steve Allen
Member
Your baptismal Faith.And what faith might that be?
Sent from my Pixel 2 using Tapatalk
You can just say "Southern Baptist"
.
Interesting, perhaps Lucian could tell us what he remembers about his baptism?
Steve, keep in mind you are posting on Baptist Board. We are unashamedly denominational. So, "baptismal faith" is a null term here. Since we do not consider what happens to an infant to be Biblical baptism.
Lucian Hodoboc
New Member
I was a baby, so I don't remember it. Nowhere in The Bible does it say that baptism has to be remembered for it to be valid. If that was the case, people with Alzheimer's would have to be rebaptized every day.
You don't remember getting baptized, as if you have Alzheimer's. Since your position is Alzheimer's patients "would have to be rebaptized (sp) every day" because they don't remember being baptized, does the same need apply to you? Do you need to be re-baptized? What would additional baptisms accomplish? For that matter, what did your being baptized as a baby accomplish for you?
There is only one historical answer - it removes the stain of "Original Sin".
Is the historical answer Biblical? If so, please provide chapter and verse. My question was addressed to Lucian Hodoboc's expressed position in post #88.
Here is the verse which is used in a required baptism for salvation:
KJV 1 Peter 3:21 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:
While you did address Hodoboc, this is a public forum and you asked in a public way.
I don't know if Hodoboc is Catholic or not or whether he believes the ERROR of baptismal regeneration.
But he does give that impression.
Hodoboc is of the Orthodox faith, btw. The Early Church sure believed in baptismal regeneration. In fact, you don't find it in dispute. But, what we find written by the earliest Christians outside of the New Testament regarding the nature of baptism is generally ignored by Baptists. It HAS to be ignored because it doesn't support Baptists belief in 'believers baptism'. However, we should look at what was being written yet AGAIN by the earliest followers of Christ and see what was recorded.
I think Origen bears mentioning.. Why? Three times he mentions infant baptism among them calling it the custom of the church and of apostolic origin.
It’s clear his witness takes it back at least to the second century. He didn’t make this up: he reports an established custom. Neither he nor Cyprian see infant baptism as an innovation of their time. Along with it is the claim in Origen that it is of apostolic origin.
Luke 2:21-24 Thus, it was fitting that those offerings that, according to the law, customarily cleanse stain, should be made. They were made for our Lord and Savior, who had been “clothed with stained garments” Zech 3:3 and had taken on an earthly body. Little children are baptized “for the remission of sins.” Whose sins are they? When did they sin? Or how can this explanation of the baptismal washing be maintained in the case of small children, except according to the interpretation. “No man is clean of stain, not even if his life upon the earth had lasted but a single day.” Job 14:4-5 Through the mystery of Baptism, the stains of birth are put aside. For this reason, even small children are baptized. For, “unless a man be born again of water and spirit, he will not be able to enter into the kingdom of heaven.” Jn 3:5
[Origen, *Homilies on Luke, 14, 5] ~240 AD
[citing Ps 51:7] “. . . by which he indicates that every soul that is born according to the flesh is tainted with iniquity and sin.
. . .
Why is it that, according to the Church’s established custom secundum ecclesiae observationem], baptism is administered to infants also, when the Church’s baptism is administered “for the forgiveness of sins?” For, if there be nothing in infants that in any way demands remission and forgiveness, then the grace of baptism would indeed be superfluous.
[Origen, *Homilies on Leviticus, 8,3,5] ~240 AD
The Church received from the Apostles the tradition of giving baptism even to infants. For the Apostles, to whom were committed the secrets of divine mysteries, knew that there is in everyone the innate stains of sin, which must be washed away through water and the Holy Spirit.
[Origen, *Commentaries on Romans, 5,9] ~244 AD
Again, this is just Origen. Where are the writings of the Baptists who would naturally have disputed this belief as much as it is disputed on this board? What about the headstones of the babies found in the first centuries of the Church which recorded not only the date of the death but the date of their baptism.
I think Origen bears mentioning.. Why? Three times he mentions infant baptism among them calling it the custom of the church and of apostolic origin.
It’s clear his witness takes it back at least to the second century. He didn’t make this up: he reports an established custom. Neither he nor Cyprian see infant baptism as an innovation of their time. Along with it is the claim in Origen that it is of apostolic origin.
Luke 2:21-24 Thus, it was fitting that those offerings that, according to the law, customarily cleanse stain, should be made. They were made for our Lord and Savior, who had been “clothed with stained garments” Zech 3:3 and had taken on an earthly body. Little children are baptized “for the remission of sins.” Whose sins are they? When did they sin? Or how can this explanation of the baptismal washing be maintained in the case of small children, except according to the interpretation. “No man is clean of stain, not even if his life upon the earth had lasted but a single day.” Job 14:4-5 Through the mystery of Baptism, the stains of birth are put aside. For this reason, even small children are baptized. For, “unless a man be born again of water and spirit, he will not be able to enter into the kingdom of heaven.” Jn 3:5
[Origen, *Homilies on Luke, 14, 5] ~240 AD
[citing Ps 51:7] “. . . by which he indicates that every soul that is born according to the flesh is tainted with iniquity and sin.
. . .
Why is it that, according to the Church’s established custom secundum ecclesiae observationem], baptism is administered to infants also, when the Church’s baptism is administered “for the forgiveness of sins?” For, if there be nothing in infants that in any way demands remission and forgiveness, then the grace of baptism would indeed be superfluous.
[Origen, *Homilies on Leviticus, 8,3,5] ~240 AD
The Church received from the Apostles the tradition of giving baptism even to infants. For the Apostles, to whom were committed the secrets of divine mysteries, knew that there is in everyone the innate stains of sin, which must be washed away through water and the Holy Spirit.
[Origen, *Commentaries on Romans, 5,9] ~244 AD
Again, this is just Origen. Where are the writings of the Baptists who would naturally have disputed this belief as much as it is disputed on this board? What about the headstones of the babies found in the first centuries of the Church which recorded not only the date of the death but the date of their baptism.
We need to be careful as baptismal regeneration puts the power of water above the blood of Jesus Christ.
Hebrews 10:29 Of how much sorer punishment, suppose ye, shall he be thought worthy, who hath trodden under foot the Son of God, and hath counted the blood of the covenant, wherewith he was sanctified, an unholy thing, and hath done despite unto the Spirit of grace?
Hebrews 10:29 Of how much sorer punishment, suppose ye, shall he be thought worthy, who hath trodden under foot the Son of God, and hath counted the blood of the covenant, wherewith he was sanctified, an unholy thing, and hath done despite unto the Spirit of grace?
No thanksYou can just say "Southern Baptist"
Steve Allen
Member
No, it doesn't, because it's not the power of the water per se that's doing the regenerating, but of the Holy Spirit working through it. Because it's not the washing away of the filth of the flesh that saves us, but the answer of a good conscience towards God. And how is the conscience cleansed?
Sent from my Pixel 2 using Tapatalk
It isn't hard....if you say it real fast.No thanks
Good response Steve.
It isn't hard....if you say it real fast.
No thanks... no thanks....no thanks ... ya da
Is Al Moeller watching
Is Al Moeller watching
As a Southern Baptist I can affirm Al Mohler is watching. He is always watching, and he makes a list and checks it twice.No thanks... no thanks....no thanks ... ya da
Is Al Moeller watching