Christian: Salvation (Jesus, ritual, Eden, incarnation, followers)

[Baerly]

Originally Posted by FerventGodSeeker

Simply untrue:
1. "let us draw near with a sincere heart in full assurance of faith, having our hearts sprinkled clean from an evil conscience and our bodies washed with pure water." Hebrews 10:22

2.Both sprinkling and immersion have been practiced since the early Church and both are fully acceptable forms of Baptism.

1. Hi, How are you? I am glad you brought up (Heb.10:22). Please notice the words "DRAW NEAR", Please tell me how we DRAW NEAR to God with a sincere heart? Drawing Near is refering to ACTION on the part of the person wanting to get near to God.The end of that verse is refering to water baptism (Titus 3:5)
(Acts 22:16). Notice (Acts 22:16) uses the word WASH also.
In the same Chapter (Heb. 10:16) it talks of the Law,the law is made for people to OBEY (Heb.5:8,9) (Heb.8:10) (Acts 10:34,35).

When we obey the law of God (N.T.LAW),we grow near to God (John 15:10,14).

He that doeth righteousnes is righteous (1John 3:7).

Whatsoever we ask,we receive of him,because we keep his commandments,and do those things that are pleasing in his sight (1John 3:22).

Our prayers are hindered when we do not obey the Lord(1Peter 3:12).

Please notice the opposite is also taught,when we stop obeying the N.T.LAW we end up outside of the grace of the Lord and lost acccording to (2 Peter 2:21).

2. Many things are practiced because of MENS DOCTRINES. This is very dangerous according to (Mt.15:9). Just because it is practiced does not make it right. What makes something right is when the word of God commands it to be done. That is called having the authority from the word of God.

We are to speak as the oracles of God (the bible) (1Peter 4:11).

Whatsoever ye do in word or deed do ALL in the name of the Lord (Col.3:17).

You claim (sprinkling and immersion) are both acceptable forms of baptism. I will preach it and teach it IF you can show me in the bible where it says such a thing (2Tim.2:2).That is all you got to do.

Who is deciding it is ok to sprinkle?

Where did they get their information?

Who is it you seek to please Men or God ? (Gal.1:10). If your following things men tell you to do and those things are not found in the bible,your actually following men rather than God.Following things men tell you to do will not save you. It will actually lead a person from God . There is a way which seems right to a man,the end thereof is the way of death (Prov.14:12). I pray you will follow Jesus.

in love Baerly

[sojourner]

Notice (Acts 22:16) uses the word WASH also.

Haven't you ever taken a shower (being sprinkled) to wash yourself?

Who is deciding it is ok to sprinkle?

Where did they get their information?

The elders of the Church. We can only derive from the Biblical example of immersion that immersion was the accepted "norm" for baptism at that time. That does not mean that norms cannot change over time and place.

I'm sure that, as early Christians were hunted down and slaughtered, they hoped to keep their "illegal" rituals as secret as possible. A baptism done indoors, away from prying eyes, is far less obvious to the casual observer than one done in a river or an outdoor tank. A wet head is not nearly so suspect as a wet body. A little font in the house, in which the hands might be washed, is not nearly so suspect as a large tank in which one might be immersed. It is also far more practical, when one had to carry water by hand, both in and out of the house.

I imagine that sprinkling was adopted as a very practical and safe matter for the early Christians, and became the "norm" after a while.

[Baerly]

Originally Posted by sojourner

Haven't you ever taken a shower (being sprinkled) to wash yourself?

Sure,but I was getting rid of dirt,not my sins. The bible gives the eample of HOW to be baptized in (Acts 8:38-39). Then that same bible says not to teach anything else or it is a perverted gospel (Gal.1:6-9) (1Tim.1:3). A perverted gospel has no power to save anyone.The Elders of your church do not have the authority to change the word of God (Galations 1:6-9) (John 12:48).



The elders of the Church. We can only derive from the Biblical example of immersion that immersion was the accepted "norm" for baptism at that time. That does not mean that norms cannot change over time and place.

I'm sure that, as early Christians were hunted down and slaughtered, they hoped to keep their "illegal" rituals as secret as possible. A baptism done indoors, away from prying eyes, is far less obvious to the casual observer than one done in a river or an outdoor tank. A wet head is not nearly so suspect as a wet body. A little font in the house, in which the hands might be washed, is not nearly so suspect as a large tank in which one might be immersed. It is also far more practical, when one had to carry water by hand, both in and out of the house.

I imagine that sprinkling was adopted as a very practical and safe matter for the early Christians, and became the "norm" after a while.

My friend, they should have been more fearful of God than those who might see their head wet from being baptized according to the bible (Mt.10:28) (Rom.11:22). Satan tries to get us worrying about anything except truth (2Cor.2:11). We are only saved by truth (John 17:17) (Gal.1:6-9). If we change thos WORDS up,they no longer have the saving power (Acts 11:14) (John 15:3).

[writer]

81 9;4,5...At this point Saul asks The Lord what Wilt thou have me to do?
To the contrary: In Acts 9:5 Paul says first "Who are you, Lord?"

Saul is asking what he needs to do about the sin in his life, just as those did in (Acts 2:37) asked what they needed to do about the sin of KILLING JESUS.
To the contrary: Saul, in Ac 22:10's "What shall I do, Lord?" is asking What shall I do period (question mark).
In 2:37 they asked "What should we do, brothers?" about the entirety of Peter's message, which had ended in 36 with Peter telling them that God had made Him both Lord and Christ, whom they had crucified

Notice Jesus does not tell Saul what to do to solve his sin problem.
Saul's sin problem before God alone was solved by God's sacrifice of His Son as Saul's Lamb and sin-offering, and Saul's faith into Him, that instant, Whom He spoke to. As Saul (Paul) said: "In this One everyone who believes is justified," Ac 13:39.
As the apostle Peter also said: "Everyone who believes into Him will receive forgiveness of sins," 10:43

Jesus in fact tells him to go to Ananius and he would tell him what to do to be saved
(Acts 11:14 ; 22:16).
To the contrary: Salvation in its fullest sense encompasses more than merely believing, more than being baptized, and more than merely believing and being baptized. Although they're all included, and can be all called "save."
Additionally, 11:14 does not record Saul and Ananias; and 22:16 doesn't utilize the word "saved." As don't Saul's testimonies in 9:1-30; 22:3-21; nor 26:1-29

Saul did not hear that gospel till he got to Ananius THREE DAYS after the Lord appeared to him on the road.
To the contrary: Saul met, and was saved by, the Gospel Himself enroute to Damascus

So it is IMPOSSIBLE for Saul to be saved on the road...
To the contrary: it's possible for the Savior to save. That's what saviors do.
Thanx

[sojourner]

Sure,but I was getting rid of dirt,not my sins. The bible gives the eample of HOW to be baptized in (Acts 8:38-39). Then that same bible says not to teach anything else or it is a perverted gospel (Gal.1:6-9) (1Tim.1:3). A perverted gospel has no power to save anyone.The Elders of your church do not have the authority to change the word of God (Galations 1:6-9) (John 12:48).

Sin is dirt, in Biblical thinking.

They're not the elders of "my church." I was speaking of the apostles -- the elders of the Church. And they absolutely did have the authority to teach and interpret God's will to the Church -- just as their successors do today.

The Acts passage is an account of "the story of the baptism of the eunuch." It is not a "how-to" manual for baptism.

My friend, they should have been more fearful of God than those who might see their head wet from being baptized according to the bible (Mt.10:28) (Rom.11:22). Satan tries to get us worrying about anything except truth (2Cor.2:11). We are only saved by truth (John 17:17) (Gal.1:6-9). If we change thos WORDS up,they no longer have the saving power (Acts 11:14) (John 15:3).

What kind of statement is this? So...the early Christians shouldn't have communicated with secret symbols...like the fish, or hidden out in the catacombs, or tried to protect each other by concealing their identities from those that sought to kill them??? They should have just been in the Romans' faces and been "slaughtered for Jesus?" How would that have benefitted or been advantageous to the spread of the gospel and the growth of the Church?

It's very easy for you, who live in a free country, to make these kinds of statements. But, in light of the environment in which the early Church found herself, it comes off as only so much hubris.

Do you seriously think that Jesus was more concerned with the details of the act itself, than he was with the willingness of the candidate to participate, or with the hospitality of the Church in offering the sacrament in whatever way they were able to offer it?

[James the Persian]

Originally Posted by sojourner

I imagine that sprinkling was adopted as a very practical and safe matter for the early Christians, and became the "norm" after a while.

No, it's a late (well post-Schism) and solely western development. Except for matters of economy, which are really quite rare, it's still the case that Orthodox baptisms must be done by triple immersion - sprinkling has never been accepted as a valid alternative.

James

[sojourner]

Originally Posted by JamesThePersian

No, it's a late (well post-Schism) and solely western development. Except for matters of economy, which are really quite rare, it's still the case that Orthodox baptisms must be done by triple immersion - sprinkling has never been accepted as a valid alternative.

James

Really??? I was not aware of that! I thought sprinkling was done long before that. Alrighty, then. Thanks for the info!

Still...I wonder if those who insist upon a strict adherence to baptismal practice are aware of the "triple dunk" aspect? Is that "Biblical," or was it a "later development" in the Eastern tradition?

[writer]

18 Let me just address one part of your lesson for now. Jesus wanted his followers to be one with him (Jesus),just as Jesus and the father were one (John 17:20- 23). Jesus was refering to speaking the same thing (1Cor.1:8-10) (1Peter 4:1) (Phlil.2:5).
To the contrary: being one with God the Father and His Son (Jesus Christ) in John 17 includes but's more than merely speaking the same thing. That's because the Father lives in His Son. And the Son lives inside His Father. So too They in the Spirit come to dwell inside the spirit of whoever believes into the Son, and as the One in whom Their believer dwells. Making God and man, just as in Christ, a corporate entity.
Vine. New Jerusalem. Body. House of God. Bride of Christ. Temple of Holy Spirit

19 Babies are not born into this world into sin. They are born innocent.
To the contrary: I was brought forth in iniquity, and in sin did my mom conceive me (Psalm 51:5)

If I understood the person who started this thread he thought all men were born sinful and passed it onto others through birth. (Ezekiel 18:20) teaches us otherwise,the son shall not bear the iniquitiues of the father,neither shall the father bear the iniquities of the son. The soul that sinneth it shall die.
To the contrary: Ezekiel 18:20 contradicts neither Psalm 51:5 nor Romans 5:12-21. Rather, Jehovah (the Triune God) in Ezek 18:20 speaks of specific chastisements for specific sins of His people, and is replying to a proverb of many in Israel somewhat accusing Jehovah by saying "The fathers eat sour grapes, and the children's teeth are set on edge," 18:2.
Thanks

[James the Persian]

Originally Posted by sojourner

Really??? I was not aware of that! I thought sprinkling was done long before that. Alrighty, then. Thanks for the info!

Still...I wonder if those who insist upon a strict adherence to baptismal practice are aware of the "triple dunk" aspect? Is that "Biblical," or was it a "later development" in the Eastern tradition?

I have no idea whether the triple immersion aspect was an early or later (it can't have been that late, though) development. The point is probably that, unlike the west, the east always retained a pretty good knowledge of Greek and the fact that baptism means immersion was, as a result, always taken literally except when circumstances rendered it impossible. Whilst Orthodox baptisms will rarely be performed any other way, we aren't particularly legalistic about it. My own baptism was done by sprinkling but as it used water and was in the name of the Trinity it was considered to be in a valid form, hence i was Chrismated only when I converted.

James