Christian - Baptism

1, and 2. From what you and many others think,people just get their own undersanding from the scriptures and if everyone sees things differently ,well thats ok. My friend that is not what (2Peter 1:20-21) says at all. The bible says scritpure is of NO PRIVATE interpretation. WE must read the bible and get the very meaning God wanted us to have when he breathed those words (inspired). We can understand the bible by reading,studying,and dwelling upon the very word of God

Click to expand...

First of all, you don't seem to realize the continuity of Biblical interpretation that exists between most major denominations. This is not a "private" thing. It is an agreement between different parts of the one Body. WE do read the Bible -- and WE do strive for correct meaning. There are hundreds of seminarys full of theologians and exegetes who do that very thing. Why do you assume that WE do not read and strive for proper interpretation? Because WE disagree sometimes? That's the nature of the very human Body that Christ dwells within.

Secondly, you're dismissing one of God's greatest gifts to us -- the human mind. God expects us to think; God wants us to think. To say that we "must not let our minds guide us" is ludicrous and dangerous. And hogwash.

Thirdly, much of the Bible was not written as a textbook. There are narrative histories (much of it interior, as opposed to exterior history), there is poetry (in what way can either the Psalms or the Song of Solomon be considered "textbooks?"), there is an account of a dream, there are accounts of prophecy. All of this is the interior story of God's relationship with God's people. And very little of it reads like a Chilton's manual.

3. My friend,the first denomination was the Roman CatholicChurch.There was a church before the Roman Catholic Church and it was the church of Christ (Mt 16:18) (Rom 16:16). The Roman Catholic Church broke off from the Church of Christ.

Click to expand...

That's ridiculous. The Church is the Church, and has always been the Church. The Roman Catholics and the Eastern Catholics had a parting of the ways -- but even that did not consitute denominationalism. The Roman and Eastern bishops claim a fairly accurate historic succession of authority that comes very close to the Apostles. That doesn't sound like denominationalism to me.

I don't think you know what "ecumenism" means. The Church has always been ecumenical. The Roman Church has always been ecumenical. The Eastern Church has always been ecumenical. Most protestant denominations are in process of becoming more ecumenical and less "provencial."

In truth, every group changes how it operates, in order to include more people -- or, to put it a better way, to make worship more meaningful and accessible for worshipers. I can guarantee you that your group does not worship "the same way" as the ancient church worshiped.

WE do not have the mind of Christ if we are all doing different things in worship,have differnt ways of a person entering the church,etc. -- That is called confusion and God is not the author of confusion (1Cor.14:33).

Click to expand...

We aren't all doing different things in worship. We all ascribe glory to God, we confess, we praise, we give thanks, we hear the Word (Hebrew scripture, Psalm, Christian testament, gospel), we teach, we proclaim our faith, we pray, we intercess for others, we give alms and offerings, we celebrate our oneness in the Eucharistic meal.

We don't all enter the Church in different ways. We all confess faith in Christ and are baptized.

I'm confused, yes. But I'm confused as to what differences you're referring to?

sojourner said:

First of all, you don't seem to realize the continuity of Biblical interpretation that exists between most major denominations. This is not a "private" thing. It is an agreement between different parts of the one Body. WE do read the Bible -- and WE do strive for correct meaning. There are hundreds of seminarys full of theologians and exegetes who do that very thing. Why do you assume that WE do not read and strive for proper interpretation? Because WE disagree sometimes? That's the nature of the very human Body that Christ dwells within.

Secondly, you're dismissing one of God's greatest gifts to us -- the human mind. God expects us to think; God wants us to think. To say that we "must not let our minds guide us" is ludicrous and dangerous. And hogwash.

Thirdly, much of the Bible was not written as a textbook. There are narrative histories (much of it interior, as opposed to exterior history), there is poetry (in what way can either the Psalms or the Song of Solomon be considered "textbooks?"), there is an account of a dream, there are accounts of prophecy. All of this is the interior story of God's relationship with God's people. And very little of it reads like a Chilton's manual.


That's ridiculous. The Church is the Church, and has always been the Church. The Roman Catholics and the Eastern Catholics had a parting of the ways -- but even that did not consitute denominationalism. The Roman and Eastern bishops claim a fairly accurate historic succession of authority that comes very close to the Apostles. That doesn't sound like denominationalism to me.

I don't think you know what "ecumenism" means. The Church has always been ecumenical. The Roman Church has always been ecumenical. The Eastern Church has always been ecumenical. Most protestant denominations are in process of becoming more ecumenical and less "provencial."

In truth, every group changes how it operates, in order to include more people -- or, to put it a better way, to make worship more meaningful and accessible for worshipers. I can guarantee you that your group does not worship "the same way" as the ancient church worshiped.


We aren't all doing different things in worship. We all ascribe glory to God, we confess, we praise, we give thanks, we hear the Word (Hebrew scripture, Psalm, Christian testament, gospel), we teach, we proclaim our faith, we pray, we intercess for others, we give alms and offerings, we celebrate our oneness in the Eucharistic meal.

We don't all enter the Church in different ways. We all confess faith in Christ and are baptized.

I'm confused, yes. But I'm confused as to what differences you're referring to?

Click to expand...

Please tell me how the church I attend worships?

Then please tell me how the church of the bible worshipped in the first century?

Then tell me where the church I attend and the church of the first century differ in worship?

This might get interesting !!!

Especially since you guarantee we do not worship like the church of the first century.

in love Baerly

Baerly said:

Please tell me how the church I attend worships?

Click to expand...

AofF 1:11 ...Let them worship how, were, and what them may.

Then please tell me how the church of the bible worshipped in the first century?

Click to expand...

1st and 2nd centry christians are differnt from most of there beliefs are defiled amoung most christian orginizations...

Then tell me where the church I attend and the church of the first century differ in worship?

Click to expand...

Consider the lilies of the field...

Baerly said:

Please tell me how the church I attend worships?

Then please tell me how the church of the bible worshipped in the first century?

Then tell me where the church I attend and the church of the first century differ in worship?

This might get interesting !!!

Especially since you guarantee we do not worship like the church of the first century.

in love Baerly

Click to expand...

1) The early Church used wine. And worshiped in Greek or Hebrew.
Does your Church use wine, or grape juice? Do you speak Greek or Hebrew?

2) The early Church worshiped in secret, to avoid being killed by the Romans.
Does your church worship in secret? Does open, public worship make worship more accessible to you?

3) The early believers thought of themselves as basically Jewish, and they worshiped together in the synagogues, until the Jews kicked them out.
Does your church think of yourselves as basically Jewish, and do you worship together in the synagogue?

Strike three...

Prior to Rome's persecution, the early Church didn't worhip in secret, since Rome's general persecution didn't begin right away

The first believers in the church in Jerusalem didn't need to think of themselves as basically Jewish.......becuz they WERE Jewish.
The early church, thankfully, never worshipped "in the synagogues" since, as John's Revelation 3:7-9, among other places, brings out: they were the church. Not the synagogue, neither a synagogue.
Except for the unenlightened concept of many in Jerusalem such as James
(Jm 2:2; Ac 21:20-24; 15:19-21).
Thanx

The first believers in the church in Jerusalem didn't need to think of themselves as basically Jewish.......becuz they WERE Jewish.

Click to expand...

That further proves my point. Is Baerly's church comprised of Jews?

The early church, thankfully, never worshipped "in the synagogues" since, as John's Revelation 3:7-9, among other places, brings out: they were the church. Not the synagogue, neither a synagogue.

Click to expand...

And other misconceptions...

Except for the unenlightened concept of many in Jerusalem such as James

Click to expand...

Unenlightened? James, the brother of Jesus??? Holy crap!

You get the impression that I am...what? Enlightened? Not enlightened? Or just "Christian Lite" -- all the religion, half the guilt?

James, the apostle, the brother of Jesus, in charge of the Church in Jersalem unenlightened? First of all, I think we can quite safely assume that Jesus' apostles were enlightened. Second, I wonder what twisted criterion you're basing that assessment on?

148 what?
the word u wrote in 146

James, the apostle, the brother of Jesus, in charge of the Church in Jersalem unenlightened?
in at least one respect.
Since i'm tryin to answer your question, would u b kind to answer mine:
Wuz James immaculate or infallible (147)?

First of all, I think we can quite safely assume that Jesus' apostles were enlightened.
Tha wuz why i stressed, and wrote, only unenlightened "concept," in post 145.
For instance, Peter was unenlightened in both Mt 16:22-23; Ac 10:14; Gal 2:11-13; and other places and the Lord enlightened him.
God's Light (1 Jn 1:5; Jn 1:4-9)

Second, I wonder what twisted criterion you're basing that assessment on?
i dispute that Jm 2:2; Ac 21:20-24; 15:19-21 twist James' words; or that the rest of the Scripture's "twisted."
Thanx

Spank you for the judgment.:redcard:

Don't you think it's sort of difficult to tell what color the socks are when you're stumbling around in the dark, too?

James, the apostle, the brother of Jesus, in charge of the Church in Jersalem unenlightened?
in at least one respect.
Since i'm tryin to answer your question, would u b kind to answer mine:
Wuz James immaculate or infallible (147)?

Click to expand...

First of all, I think we can quite safely assume that Jesus' apostles were enlightened.
Tha wuz why i stressed, and wrote, only unenlightened "concept," in post 145.
For instance, Peter was unenlightened in both Mt 16:22-23; Ac 10:14; Gal 2:11-13; and other places and the Lord enlightened him.
God's Light (1 Jn 1:5; Jn 1:4-9)

Click to expand...

One is either enlightened, or not. Enlightenment doesn't work like a flashlight, with an on/off switch...

This is nuts. It has nothing to do with the OP, other than a convoluted association with the argument of Biblical interpretation. You've succeeded in alienating most of the Church in this thread. Now you're beginning to alienate the apostles. Who's next? God?

150 One is either enlightened, or not. Enlightenment doesn't work like a flashlight, with an on/off switch...
in my humble experience, i can be helped, or enlightened, in some things, while perhaps remaining unclear, or stubborn, in others.
That might be a process both of salvation 'n disciplin.
In Peter's case in Mt 16, in one regard, Jesus, who's God incarnate, said:
"Blessed are you, Simon Barjona, because flesh and blood hasn't revealed this to you,
but My Father who's in the heavens, and I also say to you that you're Stone..."
And, at least in the Writing, shortly afterward He said to Peter:
"Get behind Me, Satan! You're a stumbling block to Me, for you're not setting your mind on the things of God, but on the things of man."
Now was Peter a flashlight (in this case, as in many others)?
In one sense Yes.
Or was He blessed in one regard, but in another, in regard to denying himself, not so blessed at that instant?
What about when he denied Christ three times?
Was his flashlight on or off?
Did he hide it under a bushel?
Or did he place it on a lampstand, for all to see, like on the Day of Pentecost (Ac 2)?
What do u think Sojourner?

This is nuts.
Seems rational to me.
"He has a demon and is insane. Why do you listen to Him?" Jn 10:19.
"You're insane, Paul. But Paul said, I'm not insane, most excellent Festus, but I'm uttering words of truth and soberness...King Agrippa, do you believe the prophets? I know that you believe..." Ac 26:24-28

the OP,
what's OP?

You've succeeded in alienating most of the Church in this thread.
what "Church"?
i can't say that i'm sad, since the "Church" of Jesus' day murdered Him

Now you're beginning to alienate the apostles.
By sayin James not infallible?
Self-proclaimed infallibility in teaching is not of the apostles. It may be somethin of religion

Who's next? God?
i wuz born alienated. That's why i needed to be born again

Enlightenment is a spiritual state of being, not a stage of intellectual development.

OP means "Original Post of the thread."

The Church -- the Body of Christ. There's only one. How many have eyes but cannot see...

Enlightenment is not something that is self-proclaimed. I think it's safe to assume that those whom Jesus chose to teach and to carry out his ministry in the world are enlightened individuals. Nobody said anything about "infallibiblity"...except you.

i wuz born alienated.

Click to expand...

OK...so why would you find it necessary to alienate others?

Enlightenment is a spiritual state of being, not a stage of intellectual development.
your intellect's part of your being. In any case, r u suggesting i said the Light didn't become a life-giving Spirit?

Enlightenment is not something that is self-proclaimed.
Tha mebbe why the Pope din't claim infallibility in teachin faith 'n morals

I think it's safe to assume that those whom Jesus chose to teach and to carry out his ministry in the world are enlightened individuals.
i think it'z safe to say that claimin others (other than GodMan), or yourself, r infallible, is unenlightened. In addition, w/o the Light, no one's enlightened

Nobody said anything about "infallibiblity"...except you.
To the contrary: in the 1800's a Pope proclaimed publicly that him and those in his office teach infallibly, in their position, on faith and morals.
And you're rite: u never answered my question about James.
Thanx

Linus said:

Romans Chapter 6.


Very true. But that can only occur after baptism. Check out Romans 6:1-14.

Click to expand...

There is an old song that says "What can wash away my sins, nothing but the blood of Jesus." Heb 9:22 says "without the shedding of blood there is no remission" .
What does baptism mean? It simply means to wash. The only way your sins can be washed away is by the blood of Jesus, which happens when you repent of your sins, confess with your mouth, and believe in your heart that Jesus is Lord. The outward baptism in water is a confession that you have died to sin and now live in Christ. Water baptism is very important, but let's not make a ritual equivalent to the true power of the blood.

Enlightenment is a spiritual state of being, not a stage of intellectual development.
your intellect's part of your being. In any case, r u suggesting i said the Light didn't become a life-giving Spirit?

Click to expand...

I'm not suggesting anything other than that your use of the term "enlightenment" to designate whether someone agrees with what you think the Bible says, is wrong.

Enlightenment is not something that is self-proclaimed.
Tha mebbe why the Pope din't claim infallibility in teachin faith 'n morals

Click to expand...

How little you understand that which you dismiss.

I think it's safe to assume that those whom Jesus chose to teach and to carry out his ministry in the world are enlightened individuals.
i think it'z safe to say that claimin others (other than GodMan), or yourself, r infallible, is unenlightened. In addition, w/o the Light, no one's enlightened

Click to expand...

Once again, "infallibility" is not a characteristic of being "enlightened."

Nobody said anything about "infallibiblity"...except you.
To the contrary: in the 1800's a Pope proclaimed publicly that him and those in his office teach infallibly, in their position, on faith and morals.
And you're rite: u never answered my question about James.

Click to expand...

And are you aware of how few times a pope has spoken ex cathedra? (Which still has absolutely nothing to do with being enlightened.)

Dentonz said:

There is an old song that says "What can wash away my sins, nothing but the blood of Jesus." Heb 9:22 says "without the shedding of blood there is no remission" .
What does baptism mean? It simply means to wash. The only way your sins can be washed away is by the blood of Jesus, which happens when you repent of your sins, confess with your mouth, and believe in your heart that Jesus is Lord. The outward baptism in water is a confession that you have died to sin and now live in Christ. Water baptism is very important, but let's not make a ritual equivalent to the true power of the blood.

Click to expand...

I disagree. If your interpretation is correct, then the "washing" occurred for all creation, at the moment it was spilled out for us.

sojourner said:

I disagree. If your interpretation is correct, then the "washing" occurred for all creation, at the moment it was spilled out for us.

Click to expand...

There are many people that stink because they refuse to take a bath, not that they have no access to soap.

Jesus did shed his blood for all of mankind, however you can only recieve a gift with open hands.

Maybe everyone's had a bath, but many don't know they've had a bath. When one bathes, one usually takes care to not get dirty again, but someone who's still dirty will engage in further dirty activities.

Those of us who realize that we've been bathed, act as ones who've been bathed. Those of us who don't realize it continue to wallow in the mud.

sojourner said:

1) The early Church used wine. And worshiped in Greek or Hebrew.
Does your Church use wine, or grape juice? Do you speak Greek or Hebrew?

2) The early Church worshiped in secret, to avoid being killed by the Romans.
Does your church worship in secret? Does open, public worship make worship more accessible to you?

3) The early believers thought of themselves as basically Jewish, and they worshiped together in the synagogues, until the Jews kicked them out.
Does your church think of yourselves as basically Jewish, and do you worship together in the synagogue?

Strike three...

Click to expand...

# 1. Yes we use fruit of the vine (oinos). As we learn in (Acts 2:3-11) The Language we use when we worship, our God matters not.

# 2. WE worship in a society that allows us to worship as we wish, so this is a stretch. Your grasping for straws my friend. Although I have worshipped in Bulgaria where it was against the law to assemble,and we did it anyway. It was an offense which the government punished people for doing at that time.

#. 3. The book of Hebrews and the book of Galations deals with those who were going back to The Jewish ways and those who were giving up the faith. The bible says when they went back to the Jewish ways they had fallen from grace (Gal.4:22-31) and (Gal.5:4). They were to be known as Christians according to (Acts 11:26) and (Isa.62:2) and (Acts 4:12). Mostly Christians worshipped in their houses (Rom.16:5) (1Cor.16:19) (Col.4:15).

in love Baerly

Dentonz said:

There is an old song that says "What can wash away my sins, nothing but the blood of Jesus." Heb 9:22 says "without the shedding of blood there is no remission" .
What does baptism mean? It simply means to wash. The only way your sins can be washed away is by the blood of Jesus, which happens when you repent of your sins, confess with your mouth, and believe in your heart that Jesus is Lord. The outward baptism in water is a confession that you have died to sin and now live in Christ. Water baptism is very important, but let's not make a ritual equivalent to the true power of the blood.

Click to expand...

My friend ,the bible says sins are blotted out after repenting in (Acts 3:19). If that was all the bible said about the subject I would agree with you,BUT as Paul Harvey says that is not all the story. When we search the bible (John 5:39) for the REST of the story we learn that the bible also says that sins are washed away at the point of water baptism in (Acts 2:38 ; 22:16). When you take into consideration what (1Peter 3:21) says (BAPTISM SAVES) it is very clear to the good and honest heart that baptism is the point at which sins are washed away (Acts 22:16). The bible uses those very words "BE BAPTIZED AND WASH YOUR SINS AWAY (ACTS 22:16). There is no question that the blood of Jesus washes away sins,the question is at what point of obedience does this happen? (ACTS 22:16) make it very clear,IT IS AT THE POINT OF WATER BAPTISM.
Let me use the bible to help us understand this better. (Numbers 21:4-9) tells us about the The firey Serpent. First of all, Moses was commanded to make it. Had he not made it no one who had been bit would have lived. Then each of the individuals who were bit by the snake was required to LOOK at the brass serpent to be healed. Faith in God would not suffice without obedience.This was not SNAKE SALVATION. There was no power in the snake on the pole to heal. It was OBEY and be HEALED or DISOBEY and DIE.The brass snake was only an instrument God used to test the Israelites. Notice the order of healing: 1. Belief, 2. Obedience 3. Healing
Next we look to Naaman the lepor (2Kings 5). He had a maid which told him of a prophet who could heal his leprosy. Naaman had to travel to find the prophet first of all. Then when he found the prophet,HE told him to dip seven times in the Jordan river. Naaman was upset, like many people today are when water baptism is mentioned to wash away their sins.Naaman wanted to be cleansed another way. But Naaman had a friend who cared about him and convinced him to obey the prophet. Naaman goes and dips in the Jordan river seven times and is cleansed. Was it the water in the river that healed the leprosy? This was not water salvation. The question is WHEN was he cured of leprosy? It was after he done what the Lord had commanded through the prophet.The water was only an instrument God used to test the faith of Naaman. Naaman was not going to be healed until he had dipped seven times in the river Jordan. Notice the order of his healing : 1. Belief 2.Obedience 3. Cleansing
Next let's look at (John 9:6,7) at the blind man. Jesus comes upon this blind man and spits on the ground and annointed the eyes of the blind man and then sent him to go wash in the pool of Siloam (which is interpreted SENT). the bible says he went there and washed and came seeing. This was not clay and water salvation. Washing in the water did not explain HOW the blind man received his sight but WHEN. Jesus used the clay and water as instruments in testing the mans faith. Notice the order 1.Belief 2. Obedience 3. Healing.
The gospel of Christ must be obeyed as well as believed before pardon is granted. (Mark 16:16), says when one believes the facts and obeys the commands of the gospel,then he is blessed with salvation,and not until then (Rom. 6:17,18). Today we are tested with water baptism. Were told to believe (John 8:24),repent (Luke 13:3),confess (Acts 8:36-38), and immersion for the forgiveness of sins (Acts 2:38 ; 22:16). These steps are not the saviour,But these are the steps which all men must take to return to God. Baptism is the last act before salvation (Mark16:16) (Acts 2:38). Before one is baptized he is out of Christ,after one is baptized he is in Christ (GAl.3:27) (1Peter 3:21). Faith in God moves one to be baptized,as it moved the Israelites to look on the brass snake, Naaman to dip in the Jordan river,and the blind man to wash.
This is not water salvation.The water in baptism has no more power to cleanse from sin than the brass snake did in healing the Israelites,or the water did in healing Naaman, or the clay and water did in healing the blind man. The blood of Jesus is the only power to remove sin (Rev.1:5). Baptism is the time that the blood of Jesus washes away the sins of man (Rom.6:3) (Eph.1:7).

in love Baerly