• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Christian: Salvation

lunamoth

Will to love
sojourner said:
1) Yes, because it is the Church's rule for common prayer, common worship and common catechism. It is not a "creed book." If it were, it would be called that. As it stands, it is a "book of common prayer." The Episcopal Church does not subscribe to sola scriptura. Never has.

First of all, the Book of Common Prayer is not "revised." What you're looking at is an "edition." Namely, the 1979 edition. The last edition before that was in 1928. Secondly, if you check that edition of the BCP against the current edition, you will find that the Articles of Religion were not changed when they were included in the printing of the 1979 edition. Revision of the contents of the BCP happens with respect to the language ("King's English" vs. modern English.) There were some changes in the order of worship, in order to render the liturgy more true to ancient and ecumenical forms, plus some minor changes in the rubrics (rules for performing the rites) reflecting a rule that is more reasonable for the 20th century Church. The Articles of Religion have not been revised since their ratification in 1801.

#'s 3, 4, 5, 6 and 7 are all arguments of Biblical interpretation. Neither I, nor the Church can help it if you choose to interpret scripture one way, use that interpretation to form the ground of all truth, and then condemn the rest of us for interpreting it another way.

#3 is in the Apostle's Creed (yes, the ECUSA is a creedal body).
#4, No. It means that the Holy Spirit guides us to choose God's way. Without the influence of the Holy Spirit, we choose our way.
#5, you would consider it contrary. The Episcopal Church does not. That's why you're not an Episcopalian. The difference between the ECUSA and you is that the ECUSA doesn't believe that your mortal soul is in danger if you don't hold the exact same beliefs as them.
#6, Do you feed your babies, even though they are too young to understand why their bodies need nutrition? Is it mother's milk, or soy product? It is the Spirit that is efficacious in baptism -- neither the water, itself, nor the act. The elements and actions are an outward sign of an inward grace.
#7, Yes. And, by and large, they're very good at it! The diaconate, presbyterate and bishopric are not seen as positions of authority, but positions of servitude. Christ is our Authority.

The word of God is available to us also through Holy Tradition. Your fears are grounded in your interpretation. The ECUSA is not dependent upon the way Baerly interprets the Bible, but upon the way the Tradition has been handed down through the Apostolic Succession. I'm sorry this position is causing you to worry about my soul.

P.S. You're mistaken. I do not attend the Episcopal Church. I was a member in good standing in the past -- in fact, a postulant for Holy Orders at one time. I now serve a different denomination, but my theology remains close to the ECUSA.

Well done Soj. I'm happy (and not surprised) to see our responses closely aligned. Thank you also for the clarifications to those answers I did not fully recall.

luna
 

sojourner

Annoyingly Progressive Since 2006
Baerly said:
Hi Lunamoth, Does it concern you if the Episcopal Church does things in worship according to there traditions which are contrary to the bible? One scripture which would apply here is (Gal.1:6-9).We are told to DO all things in the name of the Lord (Col.3:17). It is my understanding this means by the authority of the Lord. In other words we must have authority for all the things we do. The bible says God will reject the peoples worship if it is not in spirit and in truth (John 4:24) (Mt.15:9).

In Spirit means the right attitude

In Truth means according to the words of Jesus (the New Testament)
(John 17:17) (John 8:32).

WE must understand the plan of salvation before one is baptized.

We learn this from reading (Acts 8:30).The Spirit told Philip to go and help the Ethiopian eunich.The first thing Philip said to the eunich was, Do you understand what your reading? Here we learn understanding the gospel preceeds obeying the gospel (Rom.6:3-6,16-18).

Also please notice we learn from a child the holy scriptures which are able to make us WISE UNTO SALVATION WHICH IS IN CHRIST (2Tim.3:14,15).

Notice the child must LEARN the scriptures which in turn makes them wise UNTO
(or towards) salvation..... please notice what the scriptures are given for (instruction) in righteousness.

Also (Mt.28:19) shows us that TEACHING must take place before we baptize anyone.Then after they obey the gospel they are taught to observe all things Jesus commanded (vs)20.That is infact what the N.T. is all about.

Then we learn that we can understand scriptures when we read the bible (Eph.3:3,4).

Even those on the day of Pentecost when the first gospel sermon was preached had to understand what they were doing (Acts 2:36-41),Please notice the word KNOW in (vs)36. Knowing that they had killed Jesus (the saviour) hurt them and it provoked them to seek the plan of salvation for the sin problem. That plan was told to them in (vs) 38. On that same day 3000 people were baptized
(or obeyed the gospel) when they gladly received the word of God (vs) 41. Notice the bible says they have to receive the word of God gladly to be a candidate to be baptized.

If we just get baptized without understanding what were doing or what Jesus done for us, we are just getting wet.

Please notice (Mk16:16) Belief+Baptized = Saved . This scripture also is teaching us the plan of salvation.It says one must believe first. I know what other people and religions say,but I am concerned with what Jesus said since it is his words which will judge us in the end (John 12:48).

The apostle Paul said the things I write unto you are the commandments of the Lord (1Cor.14:37).

If you can show me this in the bible I will believe it and teach it to others ------->Infant baptism is a sign of grace. Intellectual assent is a work. The Holy Spirit can fit in the tiniest drop of water. Baptism is an outward SIGN of an inner reality.

Speak as the oracles of God (1Peter 4:11).

(1Cor.4:6) ( Rev.22:18,19) (Deut.4:2) are all telling us not to add or subtract from the word of God.

Also notice (Gal.1:6-9) If anyone preach any other gospel let him be accursed
(or cut off from God).

in love Baerly

Herein lies the problem. Your understanding of what the Bible (and Jesus) says is different than that of the ECUSA. That doesn't automatically make them wrong (or you!)
 

sojourner

Annoyingly Progressive Since 2006
lunamoth said:
Well done Soj. I'm happy (and not surprised) to see our responses closely aligned. Thank you also for the clarifications to those answers I did not fully recall.

luna

I think some people are going to be very surprised when they arrive in heaven and are seated at the banquet between Gene Robinson and my very good friend, Mother Cathy, our former priest.
:camp:
 

sojourner

Annoyingly Progressive Since 2006
Notice the bible says they have to receive the word of God gladly to be a candidate to be baptized.

If we just get baptized without understanding what were doing or what Jesus done for us, we are just getting wet.

Please notice (Mk16:16) Belief+Baptized = Saved . This scripture also is teaching us the plan of salvation.It says one must believe first. I know what other people and religions say,but I am concerned with what Jesus said since it is his words which will judge us in the end (John 12:48).
I'd like something clarified. If we must believe in order to be baptized, and if we must be baptized in order to be saved...what happens to little children who die? are they consigned to damnation because they died before the "age of understanding?" And if God provides a way for them that circumvents the "necessity" of baptism, why doesn't God provide a way for all of us? What about mentally-handicapped adults? What about those who are too infirm to be immersed? What if one is on one's deathbed and no water is available? Where in the Bible do we find defined the limits of God's mercy, love and power to save? What are those limits? Are they arbitrary? What are the conditions of those limits?
 

Baerly

Active Member
sojourner said:
1) Yes, because it is the Church's rule for common prayer, common worship and common catechism. It is not a "creed book." If it were, it would be called that. As it stands, it is a "book of common prayer." The Episcopal Church does not subscribe to sola scriptura. Never has.

First of all, the Book of Common Prayer is not "revised." What you're looking at is an "edition." Namely, the 1979 edition. The last edition before that was in 1928. Secondly, if you check that edition of the BCP against the current edition, you will find that the Articles of Religion were not changed when they were included in the printing of the 1979 edition. Revision of the contents of the BCP happens with respect to the language ("King's English" vs. modern English.) There were some changes in the order of worship, in order to render the liturgy more true to ancient and ecumenical forms, plus some minor changes in the rubrics (rules for performing the rites) reflecting a rule that is more reasonable for the 20th century Church. The Articles of Religion have not been revised since their ratification in 1801.

#'s 3, 4, 5, 6 and 7 are all arguments of Biblical interpretation. Neither I, nor the Church can help it if you choose to interpret scripture one way, use that interpretation to form the ground of all truth, and then condemn the rest of us for interpreting it another way.

#3 is in the Apostle's Creed (yes, the ECUSA is a creedal body).
#4, No. It means that the Holy Spirit guides us to choose God's way. Without the influence of the Holy Spirit, we choose our way.
#5, you would consider it contrary. The Episcopal Church does not. That's why you're not an Episcopalian. The difference between the ECUSA and you is that the ECUSA doesn't believe that your mortal soul is in danger if you don't hold the exact same beliefs as them.
#6, Do you feed your babies, even though they are too young to understand why their bodies need nutrition? Is it mother's milk, or soy product? It is the Spirit that is efficacious in baptism -- neither the water, itself, nor the act. The elements and actions are an outward sign of an inward grace.
#7, Yes. And, by and large, they're very good at it! The diaconate, presbyterate and bishopric are not seen as positions of authority, but positions of servitude. Christ is our Authority.

The word of God is available to us also through Holy Tradition. Your fears are grounded in your interpretation. The ECUSA is not dependent upon the way Baerly interprets the Bible, but upon the way the Tradition has been handed down through the Apostolic Succession. I'm sorry this position is causing you to worry about my soul.

P.S. You're mistaken. I do not attend the Episcopal Church. I was a member in good standing in the past -- in fact, a postulant for Holy Orders at one time. I now serve a different denomination, but my theology remains close to the ECUSA.

From what I gather from you, If a person or a group does not want to live by the pattern of the New Testament they are free to make their own rules up to live by.

Many people find comfort in this kind of thinking.

When the bible says we are not saved by faith ALONE (James 2:24) and someone says they are saved by faith ALONE,that is called a contradiction (or opposing the word of God).

The N.T. it tells us not to add or subtract from those words of the Lord. That means one must live by Sola Scriptura to please God. If that is not what it means, what does it mean? (Gal.1:6-9)(1Peter 4:11) (Deut.4:2) (1Cor.4:6).

It is my prayer that you and your family will all be in heaven. There is only one way for yall to make it,that is for yall to live by the New Testament will of the Lord.

The only way to be sure one is right spiritually is to harmonize all the scriptures of the new testament with what they believe.

To tell the truth to somone is true love (John 17:17).

WE know most of the time people are going to get mad (Mt.10:22), Still we teach the truth (1Peter 4:11).We know the odds before we ever leave the house to teach someone the bible (Luke 8:5-21).Take heed how ye hear and what ye hear (Mark 4:24) (John 12:48). -- in love Baerly
 

sojourner

Annoyingly Progressive Since 2006
From what I gather from you, If a person or a group does not want to live by the pattern of the New Testament they are free to make their own rules up to live by.

Not true. Our "rules to live by," as you put it, are based upon 1) scripture, 2) tradition and 3) reason. It has nothing to do with "making up our own rules," but has everything to do with interpreting the messages that we find in scripture, following the tradition of the Church Fathers, and tempering that with the capacity for reason given to us by God. We do want to live by the pattern set forth in the NT, and that's just what we're doing. Who's to say that "your" rules are any better than "our" rules???

When the bible says we are not saved by faith ALONE (James 2:24) and someone says they are saved by faith ALONE,that is called a contradiction (or opposing the word of God).

When the Bible says, "You see that a person is justified by works and not by faith alone" (Jas. 2:24) and the Bible also says, "They are now justified by his grace as a gift, through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus" (Rom. 3:24), we find a "contradiction" in the Biblical message that must be interpreted through reason (as well as through the Tradition) in order to arrive at meaning. We just haven't arrived at the same meaning you have. So what? Interpretations differ. None of that makes any difference to Jesus.

The N.T. it tells us not to add or subtract from those words of the Lord. That means one must live by Sola Scriptura to please God. If that is not what it means, what does it mean?
Sola Scriptura is a Protestant idea, first put forth during the Reformation. What did the 1500 years-worth of pre-Reformation Christians believe? They relied on what their leaders told them about Jesus. We rely on what our leaders (who are in the Apostolic Succession) tell us about Jesus, too. I have no idea what you think it means. I thought we had to love God and love our neighbor to please God.

It is my prayer that you and your family will all be in heaven. There is only one way for yall to make it,that is for yall to live by the New Testament will of the Lord.

Well...as for me and my house...we serve the LORD.
 

Baerly

Active Member
sojourner said:
I'd like something clarified. If we must believe in order to be baptized, and if we must be baptized in order to be saved...1.what happens to little children who die? are they consigned to damnation because they died before the "age of understanding?" And if God provides a way for them that circumvents the "necessity" of baptism, why doesn't God provide a way for all of us? What about mentally-handicapped adults? What about those who are too infirm to be immersed? What if one is on one's deathbed and no water is available? Where in the Bible do we find defined the limits of God's mercy, love and power to save? What are those limits? Are they arbitrary? What are the conditions of those limits?

These are very good and honest questions. I appreciate you asking.

1. Little children are born innocent,they have not sinned so they are ok spiritually.They do not separate from God spiritually till they are at the age they know right from wrong and they CHOOSE to do wrong (Rom.6:23) (Isa.59:1,2).
I know many teach ORIGINAL SIN but that is not what (Ezekiel 18:20) teaches.
(20)The soul that sins IT shall die. The son shall not bear the iniquity of the father,neither shall the father bear the iniquity of the son:the righteous of the righteous shall be upon him,and the wickedness of the wicked shall be upon him.
(21)But if the wicked will turn from all his sins that he has comitted,and keep all my statutes.and do that which is lawful and right,he shall surely live,he shall not die (Ezekiel 18:20,21) (Rom.15:4).

If a baby dies it goes to heaven beause it knows no sin (Ezekiel 18:20).

Those who teach poor children are born in sin are teaching Calvinism. The bible does not teach Calvinism,man does. If your interested more in this topic go to the preachersfiles.com or missionprinting.us look up Original Sin or Calvinism.

2.Everyone answeres to the same gospel plan (Rom 1:16). God takes care of babies and the feeble minded,they will go to heaven.Those who know right from wrong must obey the N.T. WILL of the Lord (Heb 5:8,9) (Acts 10:34,35).

The argument usually is brought up about those who are on their deathbeds. My answere is this,Jesus said ;

He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved (Mark 16:16).

Baptism saves (1Peter 3:21) (Acts 22:16). Do you want to be saved?

We baptize anyone who wishes to go to heaven. We find away to get it done,because the bible requires it. Many have been baptized in the hospital and near death.

WE find the limits of Gods love and mercy in the very words of Jesus himself (John 12:48) (John 14:15,21 ; 15:10,14) (John 3:21) (Titus 2:11,12).The power to save is in the gospel (Rom.1:16). When we obey that gospel we are made free from sin according to (Rom.6:3-6) , (Rom.6:18-19) (Acts 22:16).

We cannot be saved outside of Christ (Gal.3:27).The bible says there is only one way into Christ.

If we reject those saving words we have condemned ourselves (Acts 11:14 ; 13:46) .

You can learn more by going to missionprinting.us or thepreachersfiles.com

I will be glad to try and answere any questions you have. I have enjoyed studying the bible with you. I hope to study the bible with you again sometime.

I hope you have not perceived my passion as arrogance. My zeal is feuled by love for souls which will spend eternity somewhere.

Paul said of those he loved,They have a zeal of God,but not according to knowledge (Rom.10:1-3). He was very concerned about them.- in love Baerly
 

sojourner

Annoyingly Progressive Since 2006
We baptize anyone who wishes to go to heaven. We find away to get it done,because the bible requires it.

According to you, baptism must be by water, and by immersion. What other way can there be? How can a patient who is unable to be immersed in water be baptized?

Do you see how absolutes require us to come up with all kinds of provisos to mitigate the "limits" of God's grace? Grace is grace -- it's for all of us, and it's freely given. God created us to be human, with all of our foibles and vagaries. Don't you think God 1) takes all that into account, and 2) is mor gracious, open, loving, and accessible than we can possibly imagine? Don't you think that God has made it easier, rather than harder, for us to realize our acceptance to God?
 

Baerly

Active Member
sojourner said:
According to you, baptism must be by water, and by immersion. What other way can there be? How can a patient who is unable to be immersed in water be baptized?

Do you see how absolutes require us to come up with all kinds of provisos to mitigate the "limits" of God's grace? Grace is grace -- it's for all of us, and it's freely given. God created us to be human, with all of our foibles and vagaries. Don't you think God 1) takes all that into account, and 2) is mor gracious, open, loving, and accessible than we can possibly imagine? Don't you think that God has made it easier, rather than harder, for us to realize our acceptance to God?

The grace of our loving God is made abundantly clear in (Titus 2:11,12).

Gods grace is extended to every man,but only those who follow those stipulations set by our loving God will be blessed with the grace (or forgiveness)of our Loving God.We learn this in reading and understanding (Titus 2:12). This verses helps to explain the New Testament in that it tells us to do some things and not to do others.Those are the perimeters set by Gods word (the New Testament).The limits of Gods grace is set by his word the bible (New Testament) (John 12:48) (2Cor.5:10) (Rom. 14:12) (2Cor.11:15) (Rev.14:13).

WE could look at the people who died in Sodom and ask Where were the limits of Gods grace? It is easy to see God does have a limit. God is just and a just God would have all men saved by the same gospel (1Tim.2:4). Only those who come to the KNOWLEDGE of truth and obey that truth will be saved (Rom.6:3-6)
(Rom.6:16-18)(John 17:17) (Eph.3:3,4) (1John 5:3)
(Luke 24:32) (John 8:31,32) (1John 3:7).

Please do not think it is (I) who says all men must be baptized (immersed) in water to be saved,the bible plainly states this for all to read and understand
(Acts 2:38 ; 22;16) (Mk 16:16) (1Peter 3:21) (Acts 8:38-39) . Many read and understand exactly what it says,the problem is that many do not accept it
(Acts 13:36). So they INTERPRET it to say what they want it to say (2Peter 3:16).

According to the word of God there is no other way. (Gal.1:6-9) tells us if any other way is preached other than which was delivered in the first century by the apostles,the person who preaches that other way is to be cut off from God (accursed). It (the gospel) cannot be changed with the blessings of God. I am reminded of Naaman the leper in (2kings 5). Do you think he was going to be saved any other way that the message he had already got? Nope,If he was going to be CLEANSED of his disease it was going to be by doing exactly what the prophet said and nothing else. So it is with us in the N.T. --- It is so simple to understand,but so hard for some to accept. I again point you to the leper called Naaman (2Kings 5).

To the patient who is unable to be immersed. What would cause a person be unable to be immersed? I cannot think of an instance where it would be impossible. Let us think of this persons life up to the point this individual was confined to a bed. How old would he be? Why did he not obey God before now? Was the plan of salvation available to this person all of his life to this point to which he is now confined to the bed? YES

The real question is why didn't this person obey the gospel earlier in his life? Hasn't God been patient with this individual all his life waitng for him to obey the gospel?

If the person still is in his right mind and willing, he can still be baptized,somehow.

I continue to point to (Mark 16:16) Believe + Is Baptized = Saved

Also (1Peter 3:21) Baptism Saves

We learn what baptism actually is when we read (Acts 8:38-39). The bible says they both went down into the water and came up out of the water. One cannot do that when sprinkling someone. Not to mention sprinkling is changing the word of God, and remember what( Galations 1:6-9) says about changing the word of God.Anyone who preaches any other thing than that which we delivered to you is to be cut off from God.

I hope this answeres your questions with a bible answere.If not ask me and I will try again. I really do appreciate honest questions about the word of God .

In all that we are talking about,we are really talking about eternity. Let's get it right according to God (1Peter 4:11) (1Thess.4:1). in love Baerly
 
Baerly said:
We learn what baptism actually is when we read (Acts 8:38-39). The bible says they both went down into the water and came up out of the water. One cannot do that when sprinkling someone. Not to mention sprinkling is changing the word of God
Simply untrue: "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

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

Baerly

Active Member
FerventGodSeeker said:
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

Annoyingly Progressive Since 2006
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

Active Member
sojourner said:
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

Active Member
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

Annoyingly Progressive Since 2006
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

Dreptcredincios Crestin
sojourner said:
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

Annoyingly Progressive Since 2006
JamesThePersian said:
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

Active Member
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

Dreptcredincios Crestin
sojourner said:
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
 

sojourner

Annoyingly Progressive Since 2006
JamesThePersian said:
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

This is not particularly on-topic with regard to baptism, but it's within the realm of saving acts. It's interesting that so many who insist upon a specific form for baptism, in order for that baptism to be efficacious, do not, as a general rule place a high priority upon the presence of Christ in the Eucharist..or particularly upon the place of the Eucharist itself in the worship of God and our participation in God's saving acts.

Back to the topic of baptism. I have heard it said that in very early baptisms, the candidate was held under until he/she had a near-death experience. I don't know if it's true, but the practice seems extreme (not that Xy wasn't possibly extreme in the early days...) and would certainly deter many from participating in the sacrament.
 
Top