Acts 2:38 Baptism of the Holy Spirit

[Shiranui117]

Hi Shiranui, Yes, It has been going in circles from the beginning with e.r.m.; now with you.

Yep, and this might be my last post as long as neither of us have anything to add.

In the various translations of "Corresponding to that," one has these:"like figure"; "an antitype"; "a picture of"; "symbolizes "; "after a true likeness"; "which figure "; "a symbol of immersion"; "nunc similis formae"; Therefore, it is the Scriptures which in all translations and, in context, the message is salvation through Jesus Christ. Baptism shows/demonstrates that salvation "through the resurrection of Jesus Christ." Not in or by the act of baptism.

Yes, and the passing through the Red Sea and the surviving of the Flood are "types" of Baptism. I've already put forth all the evidence proving and demonstrating the act of Baptism being more than symbolic. Now it's just down to mere insistence that each side is right.

The context of those verses attest to the fact.

That's wonderfully specific.

Shiranui, Why did Jesus say to "Search the Scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me."??(John 3:39) Jesus said(John17:17), "Sanctify them through thy truth: thy word is truth." Jesus never claimed to say/speak/or teach anything, but as the Father had given HIM to relay to the People.
In Isa.8:20, it is the Scriptures which correctly guides one----NOT the sayings of mankind. " To the law and to the testimony: if they speak not according to this word, [it is] because [there is] no light in them".

Therefore, who is the Authority--GOD through the Scriptures OR mankind by his lustful biases?? Your answers are pointing to the latter.

Man, that false dichotomy ALWAYS comes up...

Shiranui, "those people" were the ones who the Holy Spirit prophetically said would "fall away" and teach contrary to the "truths" given by GOD.

And how do you know it was the early, apostolic Church that fell away? Why couldn't that "falling away" refer to something like the Great Schism, or the Protestant Revolution (whether it be the Catholics or the Protestants falling away in this instance, I don't really care) or some other "falling away" in the future?

Yes, they did try to "reinterpret" "valid sounding reasons" for their erroneous teachings.

Do you often connect random word phrases like that? ._.

The Sabbath is just one of those false teachings.---as you demonstrated. (in Acts 15; and Acts20:7)

Wait, what? You're confusing me now. ._.

Did you overlook/or just ignore Acts 15:21?? and the many scriptures where Jesus Kept the Sabbath as did Paul and that teaching in the synagogues was on Sabbath?

Because we Christians hadn't gotten kicked outta the synagogues yet.

Also, Acts 24:14 counters your ecf's reasonings concerning Acts20:7, "But this I confess unto thee, that after the way which they call heresy, so worship I the God of my fathers, believing all things which are written in the law and in the prophets:" (and that emphasizes the validity of Isa.8:20, again.)

So Paul's playing his " faithful, innocent Jew" card to get himself out of trouble with the law here, and saying that he's not a heretic as the Jews call him, but rather he believes the Law and the Prophets, which point to Christ and were fulfilled by Christ.

Shiranui, "In the earliest days of the church" the Apostles were told to finish the work Jesus started---"To the Jew first and then the Gentile". In Daniel the prophecy was, (Dan.9:24), "to finish the transgression". The Jewish "nation" had already rejected their Messiah---now by going to the Synagogues, those ambassadors for the Kingdom could explain those truths of the Scriptures(which testify of ME) to the Peoples(Jews and Gentiles) assembled there for a witness. The record(Scriptures) reflects their answers.

Yeah...

Eusebius's comments was "faith"---"We Changed"

Way to string together two vaguely related phrases that don't even show up in the original quote.

Lev.23:1-3, explains that the Sabbath wasn't just a day free from labor(work), but a day of holy convocation(assemblage) with the Lord and GOD of All Creation. Isa.58:13, gives GOD'S View(as well as Ex.20:8-11), "If thou turn away thy foot from the sabbath, [from] doing thy pleasure on my holy day; and call the sabbath a delight, the holy of the LORD, honourable; and shalt honour him, not doing thine own ways, nor finding thine own pleasure, nor speaking [thine own] words:..." How can one "give glory to GOD" by disobeying GOD? That Commandment is one of the TEN---and carries the death penalty for "breaking". Right?

You got a problem with the argument, then take it up with Paul and the Romans, lol.

Shiranui, The "universal church" was established by the "Go ye and teach", but you are failing to acknowledge the Prophecies of the Scriptures. There was a "falling away". That "power" is still exercising its contrary to GOD's teachings. It did rule and persecute GOD's People for 1260 years. It did sustain a set back for awhile, but now is ready for the second phase of its prophesied life before Jesus comes again.

For 1260 years? When did that start and end? Who're the legit Christians now?

That power gave birth to many "daughters". Therefore, GOD'S Church is only a "Remnant" of the "professed believers", but it will be the Triumphant Church.

And pray tell, out of the thousands of churches that claim continuity and adherence to the original Apostles, yet have no visible evidence to prove it, which church is the true one?

Look at that prophecy again,(2Thess.2:3-4, 8), "Let no man deceive you by any means: for [that day shall not come], except there come a falling away first, and that man of sin be revealed, the son of perdition; Who opposeth and exalteth himself above all that is called God, or that is worshipped; so that he as God sitteth in the temple of God, shewing himself that he is God.....And then shall that Wicked be revealed, whom the Lord shall consume with the spirit of his mouth, and shall destroy with the brightness of his coming: "

And how do we know that falling away took place in the early Church?

 

[e.r.m.]

Jesus was baptized and didn't even need to be cleansed.I believe Christians have attributed different meanings to baptism from the original meaning but that does not mean that Jesus delineated a new meaning in the new covenant.

It is nice to know my concept isn't new but I don't always agree with Zwingli on everything. I certainly don't agree with Calvin on many things and most likely don't agree with some of the concepts of Luther either. As for Roman Catholic theology, I believe it to be highly flawed.

I believe it is as Jesus says in John 3 that never the twain shall meet. No doubt physical things can accompany spiritual things but a presence of the physical thing does not connote the presence of the spiritual thing. However no-one will ever be aware of the spiritual thing unless something physical is done to proclaim it.

Jesus was baptized and didn't even need to be cleansed.
He was the only one unless you know of another person of age that hasn't sinned.

I believe Christians have attributed different meanings to baptism from the original meaning but that does not mean that Jesus delineated a new meaning in the new covenant.
Mark 16:16 He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved; but he that believeth not shall be damned.
Here's a meaning other than for Jesus fulfilling all righteousness.

Peter reverberated this new significance in
1 Peter 3:21 and Acts 2:38.


It is nice to know my concept isn't new but I don't always agree with Zwingli on everything. I certainly don't agree with Calvin on many things and most likely don't agree with some of the concepts of Luther either. As for Roman Catholic theology, I believe it to be highly flawed.
It is not new, but it does not go back as far as the Bible. It was a reformation idea.
I wholeheartedly agree that catholic theology is highly flawed. I wouldn't be surprised if I find you quote Zwingli in the future.


I believe it is as Jesus says in John 3 that never the twain shall meet. No doubt physical things can accompany spiritual things but a presence of the physical thing does not connote the presence of the spiritual thing. However no-one will ever be aware of the spiritual thing unless something physical is done to proclaim it.
First of all, John 3 says nothing of the kind. The quote "never the twain shall meet" comes from Rudyard Kipling, in his Barrack-room ballads, 1892, talking about the gulf of understanding between India and England. I'm finding in you an increased tendency to get your doctrine from the Bible and other sources.

And sure they can know. If God says in advance it'll happen, then we trust God that it's done. Hence there is no need for a proclaiming theology. And especially since the Bible never assigns a proclaiming purpose to baptism, then no.

 

[e.r.m.]

Shiranui111,

I'll address this in pieces, because there's a lot.

In Mark 16:16 and Acts 2:38, adults are the audience.
Jesus does say that we must believe and be baptized. So what's wrong with getting baptized as a baby and then growing up in the faith and believing? They still believe and are baptized.
John 12:48-50 There is a judge for the one who rejects me and does not accept my words; that very word which I spoke will condemn him at the last day. [49] For I did not speak of my own accord, but the Father who sent me commanded me what to say and how to say it. [50] I know that his command leads to eternal life. So whatever I say is just what the Father has told me to say."

When Jesus sets a precedence, it's not up to is to play with the order according to our own preference. Yes the audience were adults, they were the intended audience. What wrong with messing with how Jesus said it, is that we have no assurance of salvation if we make up our own doctrine. There is no difference scripturally between infant baptism and a merely symbolic baptism. Neither are in scripture, it just depends on the direction of one's deviation.

Also, in Acts 2:38, the Apostles are speaking to an adult audience. As I (think I) said before, adult converts must make a profession of faith prior to baptism. That is the context in which we find this verse: Thousands of converts professing their new faith in Christ, and then being baptized.
I see that more as a confession that Jesus is Lord according to Romans 10:9-10, and that confession is to Jesus. The ethiopian eunuch's baptism wasn't very public. It was him, Phillip, and his driver. It's great whenever a baptism is public, but the Bible doesn't require it.

They are certainly prerequisites for converts, we're agreed on that.
Yes.

Will get to the rest later today, God willing.

But Baptism is more than just for the forgiveness of sins. It is also for the coming of the Holy Spirit and being brought to new life in Christ. Yes, true, infants are not guilty of any sins. However, is it not still beneficial for them to die to their sinful nature and right off the bat begin a Christian life?

I would like to see a source for this, since the Augustinian idea of original sin wasn't around for hundreds of years before Augustine, and even then, the idea was only held in the Roman church; it was not held among any church in the East. The concept of "original sin" was a VERY small minority teaching.

Rather, the Orthodox position is that we inherit the consequences of Adam's sin--i.e. mortality and an inclination to sin, as well as estrangement from God.

Romans 5:13 Nevertheless death reigned from Adam to Moses, even over those who had not sinned according to the likeness of the transgression of Adam, who is a type of Him who was to come.
Romans 5:21 so that as sin reigned in death, even so grace might reign through righteousness to eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord.
Romans 6:23 For the wages of sin is death, but the gift of God is eternal life in Christ Jesus our Lord.

Do you see the vicious cycle here? Would we not want to baptize our children before they get caught in that, freeing them from the control of sin and death?

Also, the early Church was NOT Roman Catholic.

What do you mean, Holy Spirit not included?[/QUOTE]

 

[e.r.m.]

Shiranui111,

I'll address this in pieces, because there's a lot. I may not get to all of it today.

In Mark 16:16 and Acts 2:38, adults are the audience.
Jesus does say that we must believe and be baptized. So what's wrong with getting baptized as a baby and then growing up in the faith and believing? They still believe and are baptized.
John 12:48-50 There is a judge for the one who rejects me and does not accept my words; that very word which I spoke will condemn him at the last day. [49] For I did not speak of my own accord, but the Father who sent me commanded me what to say and how to say it. [50] I know that his command leads to eternal life. So whatever I say is just what the Father has told me to say."

When Jesus sets a precedence, it's not up to is to play with the order according to our own preference. Yes the audience were adults, they were the intended audience. What wrong with messing with how Jesus said it, is that we have no assurance of salvation if we make up our own doctrine. There is no difference scripturally between infant baptism and a merely symbolic baptism. Neither are in scripture, it just depends on the direction of one's deviation.

Also, in Acts 2:38, the Apostles are speaking to an adult audience. As I (think I) said before, adult converts must make a profession of faith prior to baptism. That is the context in which we find this verse: Thousands of converts professing their new faith in Christ, and then being baptized.
I see that more as a confession that Jesus is Lord according to Romans 10:9-10, and that confession is to Jesus. The ethiopian eunuch's baptism wasn't very public. It was him, Phillip, and his driver. It's great whenever a baptism is public, but the Bible doesn't require it.

They are certainly prerequisites for converts, we're agreed on that.
Yes.

But Baptism is more than just for the forgiveness of sins. It is also for the coming of the Holy Spirit and being brought to new life in Christ. Yes, true, infants are not guilty of any sins. However, is it not still beneficial for them to die to their sinful nature and right off the bat begin a Christian life?
The sinful nature is actually the flesh, in the greek. Since neither Jesus, nor the apostles saw a need for a child to be baptized for the reason you're giving, then why are we going to try to help God out? Just trust Him the way he left it. Plus, who's to say an infant will receive the Holy Spirit if they're immersed in water? No one ever promised that.

I would like to see a source for this, since the Augustinian idea of original sin wasn't around for hundreds of years before Augustine, and even then, the idea was only held in the Roman church; it was not held among any church in the East. The concept of "original sin" was a VERY small minority teaching.

Rather, the Orthodox position is that we inherit the consequences of Adam's sin--i.e. mortality and an inclination to sin, as well as estrangement from God.

Romans 5:13 Nevertheless death reigned from Adam to Moses, even over those who had not sinned according to the likeness of the transgression of Adam, who is a type of Him who was to come.
Romans 5:21 so that as sin reigned in death, even so grace might reign through righteousness to eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord.
Romans 6:23 For the wages of sin is death, but the gift of God is eternal life in Christ Jesus our Lord.

Do you see the vicious cycle here? Would we not want to baptize our children before they get caught in that, freeing them from the control of sin and death?

Also, the early Church was NOT Roman Catholic.

What do you mean, Holy Spirit not included?[/QUOTE]

 

[e.r.m.]

Shiranui117,

I would like to see a source for this, since the Augustinian idea of original sin wasn't around for hundreds of years before Augustine, and even then, the idea was only held in the Roman church; it was not held among any church in the East. The concept of "original sin" was a VERY small minority teaching.
What I've read so far confirms what you say. The first belief leading to infant baptism is a sort of welcoming into the Christian community. The whole family thing. It wasn't Biblical. (Ask if you wish to know why I say this), but it slowly took over the thinking in later cemturies. My next endeavor will be to find out how that got started. St. Augustine only strenthened the practice of infant baptism with his idea of original sin and/or the sinful nature. He won debates with Pelagius, etc. I did find the perfect reference for men postponing baptism till the deathbed and then I lost it. Will find it again.

Rather, the Orthodox position is that we inherit the consequences of Adam's sin--i.e. mortality and an inclination to sin
I agree, but not sure if the inclination to sin was inherited.

as well as estrangement from God. Romans 5:13 Nevertheless death reigned from Adam to Moses, even over those who had not sinned according to the likeness of the transgression of Adam, who is a type of Him who was to come.
This is not the text of Romans 5:13.

Romans 5:21 so that as sin reigned in death, even so grace might reign through righteousness to eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord. Romans 6:23 For the wages of sin is death, but the gift of God is eternal life in Christ Jesus our Lord. Do you see the vicious cycle here?
No.

Would we not want to baptize our children before they get caught in that, freeing them from the control of sin and death?
That is definitely a St. Augustine argument against Pelagius. The inherited inclination argument needs support from scriptures. The idea that baptism helps a child in any way whatsoever needs serious support from scripture. The idea that an infant would receive the Holy Spirit with immersion in water needs support.

Also, the early Church was NOT Roman Catholic.
I totally agree!!!

What do you mean, Holy Spirit not included?
I meant that the provision God provides for minors via their parents in Deuteronomy, Colossians, and Ephesians, etc. doesn't ask for the Holy Spirit.

 

[e.r.m.]

Shiranui117,

What we agree with:
1. Baptism is not merely symbolic.
2. Baptism's purpose is salvation and Holy Spirit.
3. Baptism initially was for adults.
4. Catholic church was not the early church.

What we disagree with:
1. The current order of belief/repentance & baptism.
2. Infants and the Holy Spirit.
3. Sinful nature.
4. Degree of liberty with the Bible.

 

[Shiranui117]

Shiranui117,

I'll address this in pieces, because there's a lot. I may not get to all of it today.

John 12:48-50 There is a judge for the one who rejects me and does not accept my words; that very word which I spoke will condemn him at the last day. [49] For I did not speak of my own accord, but the Father who sent me commanded me what to say and how to say it. [50] I know that his command leads to eternal life. So whatever I say is just what the Father has told me to say."

When Jesus sets a precedence, it's not up to is to play with the order according to our own preference. Yes the audience were adults, they were the intended audience. What wrong with messing with how Jesus said it, is that we have no assurance of salvation if we make up our own doctrine. There is no difference scripturally between infant baptism and a merely symbolic baptism. Neither are in scripture, it just depends on the direction of one's deviation.

Alright, point taken.

I see that more as a confession that Jesus is Lord according to Romans 10:9-10, and that confession is to Jesus. The ethiopian eunuch's baptism wasn't very public. It was him, Phillip, and his driver. It's great whenever a baptism is public, but the Bible doesn't require it.

Yep@the confession. And agreed, a baptism done out in the middle of the woods in a river with just the baptizer and the baptized is just as legit as a public baptism; the number of people watching you doesn't make a difference.

The sinful nature is actually the flesh, in the greek. Since neither Jesus, nor the apostles saw a need for a child to be baptized for the reason you're giving, then why are we going to try to help God out? Just trust Him the way he left it. Plus, who's to say an infant will receive the Holy Spirit if they're immersed in water? No one ever promised that.

We have more sins than just of the bodily kind. Sin can also come from our mind, heart and spirit. But what exactly do you mean, "the flesh?" Do you mean just our physical bodies, or something else?

Shiranui117,
What I've read so far confirms what you say. The first belief leading to infant baptism is a sort of welcoming into the Christian community. The whole family thing. It wasn't Biblical. (Ask if you wish to know why I say this), but it slowly took over the thinking in later cemturies. My next endeavor will be to find out how that got started. St. Augustine only strenthened the practice of infant baptism with his idea of original sin and/or the sinful nature. He won debates with Pelagius, etc. I did find the perfect reference for men postponing baptism till the deathbed and then I lost it. Will find it again.

I'll make it easy for you: Constantine the Great, the Emperor who legalized Christianity and convoked the Council of Nicaea, was baptized on his deathbed. Deathbed baptisms originally done with the idea that, if one was baptized immediately before death, there was basically no opportunity to sin.

I agree, but not sure if the inclination to sin was inherited.

Alright, then would you agree that Adam's sin introduced a rift in the relationship between God and the human race, and that even upon birth there is this sort of disconnect between God and the child, though NOT a rift big enough to warrant damnation by any means, and certainly not a fault on the part of the child, but simply an inherited condition?

This is not the text of Romans 5:13.

Whoops, Romans 5:14. Next verse.

No.

Is there anything about my point you need clarified, or do you reject the premise that sin leads to death, and that fear of death tempts people to sin?

That is definitely a St. Augustine argument against Pelagius. The inherited inclination argument needs support from scriptures. The idea that baptism helps a child in any way whatsoever needs serious support from scripture. The idea that an infant would receive the Holy Spirit with immersion in water needs support.

Actually, I just remembered one of the big reasons that infant baptism was allowed in the first place: It's so the kids could have access to the Sacraments from youth, especially to the Eucharist--which the early Christians believed was mystically the Body and Blood of Christ--and partake of the sacramental graces.

I meant that the provision God provides for minors via their parents in Deuteronomy, Colossians, and Ephesians, etc. doesn't ask for the Holy Spirit.

Interesting. Can you elaborate?

Shiranui117,

What we agree with:
1. Baptism is not merely symbolic.
2. Baptism's purpose is salvation and Holy Spirit.
3. Baptism initially was for adults.
4. Catholic church was not the early church.

What we disagree with:
1. The current order of belief/repentance & baptism.
2. Infants and the Holy Spirit.
3. Sinful nature.
4. Degree of liberty with the Bible.

Yes, this is a good summary. Glad to see this is a civil and orderly discussion. I'm enjoying it

 

[e.r.m.]

Alright, point taken.

Yep@the confession. And agreed, a baptism done out in the middle of the woods in a river with just the baptizer and the baptized is just as legit as a public baptism; the number of people watching you doesn't make a difference.

We have more sins than just of the bodily kind. Sin can also come from our mind, heart and spirit. But what exactly do you mean, "the flesh?" Do you mean just our physical bodies, or something else?


I'll make it easy for you: Constantine the Great, the Emperor who legalized Christianity and convoked the Council of Nicaea, was baptized on his deathbed. Deathbed baptisms originally done with the idea that, if one was baptized immediately before death, there was basically no opportunity to sin.

Alright, then would you agree that Adam's sin introduced a rift in the relationship between God and the human race, and that even upon birth there is this sort of disconnect between God and the child, though NOT a rift big enough to warrant damnation by any means, and certainly not a fault on the part of the child, but simply an inherited condition?

Whoops, Romans 5:14. Next verse.

Is there anything about my point you need clarified, or do you reject the premise that sin leads to death, and that fear of death tempts people to sin?

Actually, I just remembered one of the big reasons that infant baptism was allowed in the first place: It's so the kids could have access to the Sacraments from youth, especially to the Eucharist--which the early Christians believed was mystically the Body and Blood of Christ--and partake of the sacramental graces.

Interesting. Can you elaborate?

Yes, this is a good summary. Glad to see this is a civil and orderly discussion. I'm enjoying it

Glad too.

I'll elaborate a little later.

 

[sincerly]

Yep, and this might be my last post as long as neither of us have anything to add.

Yes, and the passing through the Red Sea and the surviving of the Flood are "types" of Baptism. I've already put forth all the evidence proving and demonstrating the act of Baptism being more than symbolic. Now it's just down to mere insistence that each side is right.

Hi Shiranui, due to my computer being unstable, I lost my reply to this post four days ago. I apologise for the delay in getting back to you.
A symbol can never be "more than what it stands for"---Baptism is only symbolic of the mission Jesus Christ came to fulfill---the death, burial, and resurrection of the Repentant Believer into a new spiritual Being freed from the guilt of Sin BY/THROUGH THE BLOOD OF JESUS.
That is the TRUTH which the HOLY SPIRIT reveals to those who are willing to Believe and submit their lives in obedience to Follow.

That's wonderfully specific.

Yes,"The context of those verses attest to the fact." that the subject is concerning Jesus Christ and Dedemption/buying back/saving as seen in vs.1:18-25

Shiranui, Why did Jesus say to "Search the Scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me."??(John 3:39) Jesus said(John17:17), "Sanctify them through thy truth: thy word is truth." Jesus never claimed to say/speak/or teach anything, but as the Father had given HIM to relay to the People.
In Isa.8:20, it is the Scriptures which correctly guides one----NOT the sayings of mankind. " To the law and to the testimony: if they speak not according to this word, [it is] because [there is] no light in them".

Therefore, who is the Authority--GOD through the Scriptures OR mankind by his lustful biases?? Your answers are pointing to the latter.

Man, that false dichotomy ALWAYS comes up...

There is nothing False concerning the Truth of the scriptures nor the context in which the meaning is revealed.

And how do you know it was the early, apostolic Church that fell away? Why couldn't that "falling away" refer to something like the Great Schism, or the Protestant Revolution (whether it be the Catholics or the Protestants falling away in this instance, I don't really care) or some other "falling away" in the future?

Timed prophecy, history, Paul's writings, Jesus' Revelation to John.(all of which have been posted.)

Yes, they did try to "reinterpret" "valid sounding reasons" for their erroneous teachings

Do you often connect random word phrases like that? ._.

They wouldn't be "random" had you left them in context of your answer.

The Sabbath is just one of those false teachings.---as you demonstrated. (in Acts 15; and Acts20:7)

Wait, what? You're confusing me now. ._.

The confusion comes from misunderstanding the scriptures and their context.

Did you overlook/or just ignore Acts 15:21?? and the many scriptures where Jesus Kept the Sabbath as did Paul and that teaching in the synagogues was on Sabbath?

Because we Christians hadn't gotten kicked outta the synagogues yet.

The "followers of the WAY" were not called "Christians" at that time. They were "called Christians" later. Those Christians were still worshiping on the seventh Day Sabbath. Renember, Eusebius said "We transferred" the Sabbath observances to Sunday.
It wasn't the Sabbath that caused the "Believers" to be "kicked out", but the reason the Jewish people rejected Jesus in the first place. They didn't believe HIM to be who they were expecting.

Also, Acts 24:14 counters your ecf's reasonings concerning Acts20:7, "But this I confess unto thee, that after the way which they call heresy, so worship I the God of my fathers, believing all things which are written in the law and in the prophets:" (and that emphasizes the validity of Isa.8:20, again.)

So Paul's playing his " faithful, innocent Jew" card to get himself out of trouble with the law here, and saying that he's not a heretic as the Jews call him, but rather he believes the Law and the Prophets, which point to Christ and were fulfilled by Christ.

The epistles of Paul are straight forward in reporting. You can believe what you desire, but the same GOD of the OT is the SAME GOD of the NT and Paul was zealous in his understanding of that BEING before and after his conversion. The Teachings remained the same with the Sacrificing of Animals shifting in focus to "Jesus the Lamb of GOD".

Eusebius's comments was "faith"---"We Changed"

Way to string together two vaguely related phrases that don't even show up in the original quote.

However, the "We changed" is reflective of the many other "we changed" beliefs which came about by that usurping "power" claiming to be speaking for the Creator GOD and deceiving all who will listen.

You got a problem with the argument, then take it up with Paul and the Romans, lol.

For 1260 years? When did that start and end? Who're the legit Christians now?

And pray tell, out of the thousands of churches that claim continuity and adherence to the original Apostles, yet have no visible evidence to prove it, which church is the true one?

And how do we know that falling away took place in the early Church?

I don't have a problem with any of the Scriptures---just your answers/interpretations are contradictory to the scriptures as pointed out. Starting with baptism's purpose being the means of "Saving" a person.

The "legit" Christians are as Rev.12:17, describes, "And the dragon was wroth with the woman, and went to make war with the remnant of her seed, which keep the commandments of God, and have the testimony of Jesus Christ".
NOT those "changes made by man in the councils of men" Or their "man made Traditions".

 

[Shiranui117]

Hi Shiranui, due to my computer being unstable, I lost my reply to this post four days ago. I apologise for the delay in getting back to you.

Ahh, sucks about your computer. It's all good. Don't worry about it.

A symbol can never be "more than what it stands for"---Baptism is only symbolic of the mission Jesus Christ came to fulfill---the death, burial, and resurrection of the Repentant Believer into a new spiritual Being freed from the guilt of Sin BY/THROUGH THE BLOOD OF JESUS.
That is the TRUTH which the HOLY SPIRIT reveals to those who are willing to Believe and submit their lives in obedience to Follow.

You say this, even though I have posted Scripture to the contrary. Ahh well, this is the fruit of Sola Scriptura--it always comes down to interpretation vs. interpretation, no way to distinguish right from wrong, as both can be made to look equally plausible...

Yes,"The context of those verses attest to the fact." that the subject is concerning Jesus Christ and Dedemption/buying back/saving as seen in vs.1:18-25

Alright, one verse that you can make an argument against. How about all the others I've posted so far?

There is nothing False concerning the Truth of the scriptures nor the context in which the meaning is revealed.

Yeah, but there is something false about you always assuming that "man-made traditions" are always directly and diametrically opposed to Scripture itself. No matter what way you want to slice it, there's no getting away from man-made interpretations of Scripture. You yourself have your own man-made interpretation of Scripture. The only difference between you and a member of an organized church is, you come up with your own interpretations. Members of organized churches accept the interpretations of others.

Timed prophecy, history, Paul's writings, Jesus' Revelation to John.(all of which have been posted.)

"timed" history? All you've done is said that people WILL fall away from the Church. Nothing about your quotes have said WHEN, aside from your own insistence of the notion. If you have anything that definitively states that the Church would fall away and DID fall away within 100 years after Jesus' death, then let me know.

They wouldn't be "random" had you left them in context of your answer.

Except, I didn't even use those words in those combinations or those contexts. You're taking one or two words that I said, if I even said them in the first place, and are twisting them around.

The confusion comes from misunderstanding the scriptures and their context.

No, first you said that the Sabbath is the day on which we should be worshipping. Then when I post Scripture saying that Christians didn't HAVE to worship on the Sabbath, you agreed with me.

The "followers of the WAY" were not called "Christians" at that time. They were "called Christians" later. Those Christians were still worshiping on the seventh Day Sabbath. Renember, Eusebius said "We transferred" the Sabbath observances to Sunday.

And I've already explained why.

It wasn't the Sabbath that caused the "Believers" to be "kicked out", but the reason the Jewish people rejected Jesus in the first place. They didn't believe HIM to be who they were expecting.

Well yeah, why else would the Jews kick the Christians out? They kicked us out because we believed in Jesus. I never said that we got kicked out of the synagogue because we read the Scriptures on the Sabbath.

Also, Acts 24:14 counters your ecf's reasonings concerning Acts20:7, "But this I confess unto thee, that after the way which they call heresy, so worship I the God of my fathers, believing all things which are written in the law and in the prophets:" (and that emphasizes the validity of Isa.8:20, again.)

I've already responded to this. Why are you repeating it?

The epistles of Paul are straight forward in reporting. You can believe what you desire, but the same GOD of the OT is the SAME GOD of the NT and Paul was zealous in his understanding of that BEING before and after his conversion. The Teachings remained the same with the Sacrificing of Animals shifting in focus to "Jesus the Lamb of GOD".

Where did I say otherwise? You're starting to go off on odd angles here...

However, the "We changed" is reflective of the many other "we changed" beliefs which came about by that usurping "power" claiming to be speaking for the Creator GOD and deceiving all who will listen.

Such as, what else?

I don't have a problem with any of the Scriptures---just your answers/interpretations are contradictory to the scriptures as pointed out. Starting with baptism's purpose being the means of "Saving" a person.

Except, I've already definitively shown from Scripture that Baptism IS a means of salvation. Would you like me to show you where it says that in the Bible again?

The "legit" Christians are as Rev.12:17, describes, "And the dragon was wroth with the woman, and went to make war with the remnant of her seed, which keep the commandments of God, and have the testimony of Jesus Christ".
NOT those "changes made by man in the councils of men" Or their "man made Traditions".

And just who ARE these Christians? When I ask you who this faithful remnant of the Church is, just answering "The remnant that keeps God's word" isn't helpful. It's hopelessly vague and meaningless. The exchange ends up looking something like this:
"Who/what is the faithful remnant of the Church?"
"The remnant that's faithful to God."
"And who/what is that remnant exactly?"
"The faithful one!"

Do you see how that kind of answer doesn't help the person asking the question?

I'm also going to note that you didn't answer the question of how we know that the falling away took place in the early Church.

 

[sincerly]

A symbol can never be "more than what it stands for"---Baptism is only symbolic of the mission Jesus Christ came to fulfill---the death, burial, and resurrection of the Repentant Believer into a new spiritual Being freed from the guilt of Sin BY/THROUGH THE BLOOD OF JESUS.
That is the TRUTH which the HOLY SPIRIT reveals to those who are willing to Believe and submit their lives in obedience to Follow.

You say this, even though I have posted Scripture to the contrary. Ahh well, this is the fruit of Sola Scriptura--it always comes down to interpretation vs. interpretation, no way to distinguish right from wrong, as both can be made to look equally plausible...

Yes, even, Satan/the serpent made his answers "look equally plausible"(And Eve was deceived). I have shown you what distinguishes GOD'S Truths from any which are false.---Isa.8:20.
That is why Paul commended the Bereans (Acts17:11); they searched the Scriptures daily to make sure Paul was teaching the Scriptures correctly.

Yes,"The context of those verses attest to the fact." that the subject is concerning Jesus Christ and Dedemption/buying back/saving as seen in vs.(1 Peter)1:18-25

Alright, one verse that you can make an argument against. How about all the others I've posted so far?

Shiranui, 1pet.3:21 is the verse upon which is claimed "baptism saves". It, also, contains the identifing thing which does the "Saving"---"By the resurrection of Jesus Christ".(which is being ignored in your answers.)

There is nothing False concerning the Truth of the scriptures nor the context in which the meaning is revealed.

Yeah, but there is something false about you always assuming that "man-made traditions" are always directly and diametrically opposed to Scripture itself. No matter what way you want to slice it, there's no getting away from man-made interpretations of Scripture. You yourself have your own man-made interpretation of Scripture. The only difference between you and a member of an organized church is, you come up with your own interpretations. Members of organized churches accept the interpretations of others.

Shiranui, The Scriptures, read in context, give the true meaning which doesn't require man to be in contradiction to GOD'S in contextual meaning.
Jesus reprimanded the Jews for placing their "man made traditions" and "man made commandments" in place of GOD'S. Mark 7:1-13
As above, My answers have been in agreement with the context.

Timed prophecy, history, Paul's writings, Jesus' Revelation to John.(all of which have been posted.)

"timed" history? All you've done is said that people WILL fall away from the Church. Nothing about your quotes have said WHEN, aside from your own insistence of the notion. If you have anything that definitively states that the Church would fall away and DID fall away within 100 years after Jesus' death, then let me know.

Sherianui, Dan.7:15-28, Doesn't give a specific date for the four universal kingdoms or the Timing of Jesus Christ coming and possessing all kingdoms. However, Daniel was given and recorded informatiom which allows one to arrive at some of the "timing".
That last "beast was the Roman empire". It would break up into ten "kingdoms". One of those would be different from the rest. That ecclesiastical power is the one that does the persecuting of GOD'S people- and will continue to the end of time.
In Daniel 8, the media-Persia kingdom is being taken over by the Grecian Empire. Followed by the Roman empire----All history and fulfilled. What is of interest is the 2300 day prophecy of the Sanctuary.
The Beginning of that prophecy is seen in (9:24-27) with the 70 weeks which brings the time to 3 1/2 years after the crucufixion/resurrection. However, there is still 1810 years of that prophecy left from the the stoning of stephen("to finish the transgression").
The "falling away" and the break up of the Roman Empire occur after Stephen's death--during that 1810 year period.(1260 years of it would be in persecuting the people of GOD---called the "dark ages". That would start soon after Justinian decreed the head of the Eastern and Western divisions to the Roman Bishop about (533 AD.)
Constantine had Decreed that the Sabbath be "changed 3-7-321 AD" to the venerable day of the sun.

The confusion comes from misunderstanding the scriptures and their context.

No, first you said that the Sabbath is the day on which we should be worshipping. Then when I post Scripture saying that Christians didn't HAVE to worship on the Sabbath, you agreed with me.

The scripture you posted didn't say that the Sabbath had been changed. How could I have agreed with you. Those were assumptions by you. However, anyone can believe and worship whatever one wants on any day that suits them---It just will not BE AS GOD STATED, BLESSED, AND SANCTIONED.

And I've already explained why.

What you explained was contrary to the scriptures and Eusebius.

Well yeah, why else would the Jews kick the Christians out? They kicked us out because we believed in Jesus. I never said that we got kicked out of the synagogue because we read the Scriptures on the Sabbath.

The synagogues were Jewish places of worship. The Apostles and Believers went to inform the Jews and Gentiles that were there to learn of GOD that the Messiah had come and had fulfilled HIS mission of Salvation. Those Apostles/writers of the epistles were worshiping in the Synagogues because that was the True Sabbath Day of GOD and they believed it so.

I've already responded to this. Why are you repeating it?

The scriptures you posted and the answers you gave indicate that Paul was sanctioning Sunday as the changed day of worship---which his attestion disputes.

Where did I say otherwise? You're starting to go off on odd angles here...

No, just keeping the focus on Jesus as the means of Salvation by the Sacrifice HE DID rather than by baptism which was a symbolization of the act by Jesus.

Such as, what else?

Those are for another topic.

Except, I've already definitively shown from Scripture that Baptism IS a means of salvation. Would you like me to show you where it says that in the Bible again?

Had those been "definitely shown" there would no dispute. See above.

And just who ARE these Christians? When I ask you who this faithful remnant of the Church is, just answering "The remnant that keeps God's word" isn't helpful. It's hopelessly vague and meaningless. The exchange ends up looking something like this:
"Who/what is the faithful remnant of the Church?"
"The remnant that's faithful to God."
"And who/what is that remnant exactly?"
"The faithful one!"

Do you see how that kind of answer doesn't help the person asking the question?

I'm also going to note that you didn't answer the question of how we know that the falling away took place in the early Church.

It isn't who they are, but how is one measuring up to the Scriptural Isa.8:20 and Rev.12:17

 

[Shiranui117]

Yes, even, Satan/the serpent made his answers "look equally plausible"(And Eve was deceived). I have shown you what distinguishes GOD'S Truths from any which are false.---Isa.8:20.
That is why Paul commended the Bereans (Acts17:11); they searched the Scriptures daily to make sure Paul was teaching the Scriptures correctly.

You haven't given anything concrete. Isaiah 8:20 doesn't help, because first you'd have to ask, "How do we interpret the word against which the Prophets are judged?" Christians look at the Scripture, and say that Jesus was the Messiah, because His word matches up to and fulfills Scripture. The Jews look at the Scripture, and say that Jesus did not match up to or fulfill Scripture.

Shiranui, 1pet.3:21 is the verse upon which is claimed "baptism saves". It, also, contains the identifing thing which does the "Saving"---"By the resurrection of Jesus Christ".(which is being ignored in your answers.)

I have never denied that the death and Resurrection of Christ saves us. I invite you to look through every single one of my posts, and show everyone where I have said otherwise. Rather, I have repeatedly said, as stated in the Scriptures, that through baptism we are baptized into the death and Resurrection of Christ--that is, baptism is the means by which we enter into the saving grace of Christ's death and Resurrection.

John 3:5 Jesus answered, “Most assuredly, I say to you, unless one is born of water and the Spirit, he cannot enter the kingdom of God.

Romans 6:1-11 What shall we say then? Shall we continue in sin that grace may abound? 2 Certainly not! How shall we who died to sin live any longer in it? 3 Or do you not know that as many of us as were baptized into Christ Jesus were baptized into His death? 4 Therefore we were buried with Him through baptism into death, that just as Christ was raised from the dead by the glory of the Father, even so we also should walk in newness of life. 5 For if we have been united together in the likeness of His death, certainly we also shall be in the likeness of His resurrection, 6 knowing this, that our old man was crucified with Him, that the body of sin might be done away with, that we should no longer be slaves of sin. 7 For he who has died has been freed from sin. 8 Now if we died with Christ, we believe that we shall also live with Him, 9 knowing that Christ, having been raised from the dead, dies no more. Death no longer has dominion over Him. 10 For the death that He died, He died to sin once for all; but the life that He lives, He lives to God. 11 Likewise you also, reckon yourselves to be dead indeed to sin, but alive to God in Christ Jesus our Lord.


Galatians 3:27
For as many of you as were baptized into Christ have put on Christ.

Shiranui, The Scriptures, read in context, give the true meaning which doesn't require man to be in contradiction to GOD'S in contextual meaning.
Jesus reprimanded the Jews for placing their "man made traditions" and "man made commandments" in place of GOD'S. Mark 7:1-13
As above, My answers have been in agreement with the context.

In the Church, man-made traditions are not held above God's. The man-made traditions given to us by the Apostles are there to defend the Traditions of God--not to replace or overshadow them.

It is your opinion that your interpretation is correct.

Timed prophecy, history, Paul's writings, Jesus' Revelation to John.(all of which have been posted.)
Sherianui, Dan.7:15-28, Doesn't give a specific date for the four universal kingdoms or the Timing of Jesus Christ coming and possessing all kingdoms. However, Daniel was given and recorded informatiom which allows one to arrive at some of the "timing".
That last "beast was the Roman empire". It would break up into ten "kingdoms". One of those would be different from the rest. That ecclesiastical power is the one that does the persecuting of GOD'S people- and will continue to the end of time.
In Daniel 8, the media-Persia kingdom is being taken over by the Grecian Empire. Followed by the Roman empire----All history and fulfilled. What is of interest is the 2300 day prophecy of the Sanctuary.
The Beginning of that prophecy is seen in (9:24-27) with the 70 weeks which brings the time to 3 1/2 years after the crucufixion/resurrection. However, there is still 1810 years of that prophecy left from the the stoning of stephen("to finish the transgression").
The "falling away" and the break up of the Roman Empire occur after Stephen's death--during that 1810 year period.(1260 years of it would be in persecuting the people of GOD---called the "dark ages". That would start soon after Justinian decreed the head of the Eastern and Western divisions to the Roman Bishop about (533 AD.)

So in other words, Scripture never states exactly when the falling away would take place. Your own interpretation of Scripture and your own reading of history gives you this date and this conclusion.

Constantine had Decreed that the Sabbath be "changed 3-7-321 AD" to the venerable day of the sun.

Wait, where are you getting this?

The scripture you posted didn't say that the Sabbath had been changed. How could I have agreed with you. Those were assumptions by you. However, anyone can believe and worship whatever one wants on any day that suits them---It just will not BE AS GOD STATED, BLESSED, AND SANCTIONED.

Oh, I never said that the Sabbath was changed. I just said that Sunday had become the primary place of worship, because that was the day on which Christ rose. We don't COMPLETELY disregard the Sabbath:

The Eastern Orthodox church distinguishes between "Sabbath" (Saturday) and "Lord's Day" (Sunday), and both continue to play a special role for the faithful. Many parishes and monasteries will serve the Divine Liturgy on both Saturday morning and Sunday morning. The church never allows strict fasting on any Saturday (except Holy Saturday) or Sunday, and the fasting rules on those Saturdays and Sundays which fall during one of the fasting seasons (such as Great Lent, Apostles' Fast, etc.) are always relaxed to some degree. During Great Lent, when the celebration of the Liturgy is forbidden on weekdays, there is always Liturgy on Saturday as well as Sunday. The church also has a special cycle of Bible readings (Epistle and Gospel) for Saturdays and Sundays which is different from the cycle of readings allotted to weekdays. However, Lord's Day, being a celebration of the Resurrection, is clearly given more emphasis. For instance, in the Russian Orthodox Church Sunday is always observed with an All-Night Vigil on Saturday night, and in all of the Orthodox Churches it is amplified with special hymns which are chanted only on Sunday. If a feast day falls on a Sunday it is always combined with the hymns for Sunday (unless it is a Great Feast of the Lord). Saturday is celebrated as a sort of leave-taking for the previous Sunday, on which several of the hymns from the previous Sunday are repeated.
In part, the reason Orthodox Christians continue to celebrate Saturday as Sabbath is because of its role in the history of salvation: it was on a Saturday that Jesus "rested" in the tomb after his work on the cross. For this reason also, Saturday is a day for general commemoration of the departed, and special requiem hymns are often chanted on this day.
The Ethiopian Orthodox church (part of the Oriental Orthodox communion, having about 40 million members) observes both Saturday and Sunday as holy, but places extra emphasis on Sunday.

What you explained was contrary to the scriptures and Eusebius.

How?

 

[Shiranui117]

The synagogues were Jewish places of worship. The Apostles and Believers went to inform the Jews and Gentiles that were there to learn of GOD that the Messiah had come and had fulfilled HIS mission of Salvation. Those Apostles/writers of the epistles were worshiping in the Synagogues because that was the True Sabbath Day of GOD and they believed it so.

Then why were Christians also worshipping on Sunday, even in the Book of Acts?

The scriptures you posted and the answers you gave indicate that Paul was sanctioning Sunday as the changed day of worship---which his attestion disputes.

So the Scriptures I posted indicate that Paul was sanctioning Sunday as the day of worship? Thank you kindly.

No, just keeping the focus on Jesus as the means of Salvation by the Sacrifice HE DID rather than by baptism which was a symbolization of the act by Jesus.

At this point, I'm considering just dropping this conversation. It's fruitless, not going anywhere, and neither of us is going to budge on our positions until the Second Coming.

Had those been "definitely shown" there would no dispute. See above.

See above.

Originally Posted by Shiranui117
And just who ARE these Christians? When I ask you who this faithful remnant of the Church is, just answering "The remnant that keeps God's word" isn't helpful. It's hopelessly vague and meaningless. The exchange ends up looking something like this:
"Who/what is the faithful remnant of the Church?"
"The remnant that's faithful to God."
"And who/what is that remnant exactly?"
"The faithful one!"

Do you see how that kind of answer doesn't help the person asking the question?

I'm also going to note that you didn't answer the question of how we know that the falling away took place in the early Church.

It isn't who they are, but how is one measuring up to the Scriptural Isa.8:20 and Rev.12:17

Congratulations and thank you for proving my point.

 

[e.r.m.]

Shiranui117,

Yep@the confession. And agreed, a baptism done out in the middle of the woods in a river with just the baptizer and the baptized is just as legit as a public baptism; the number of people watching you doesn't make a difference.
Great.

We have more sins than just of the bodily kind. Sin can also come from our mind, heart and spirit. But what exactly do you mean, "the flesh?" Do you mean just our physical bodies, or something else?
σάρξ,n \{sarx}
1) flesh (the soft substance of the living body, which covers the bones and is permeated with blood) of both man and beasts 2) the body 2a) the body of a man 2b) used of natural or physical origin, generation or relationship 2b1) born of natural generation 2c) the sensuous nature of man, "the animal nature" 2c1) without any suggestion of depravity 2c2) the animal nature with cravings which incite to sin 2c3) the physical nature of man as subject to suffering 3) a living creature (because possessed of a body of flesh) whether man or beast 4) the flesh, denotes mere human nature, the earthly nature of man apart from divine influence, and therefore prone to sin and opposed to God
Either the sinful nature the Bible is referring to is referring to the consequences of physical existence, biochemical and such, and/or the inclination to sin as you say.
If it is the latter, then we need to come up a scriptures that the Holy Spirit kills this inclination. Am not saying it doesn't exist, but I've been inclined to seeing the flesh as flesh. If you can show me, then I'll look at it (the sinful nature) considering this new information.

I'll make it easy for you: Constantine the Great, the Emperor who legalized Christianity and convoked the Council of Nicaea, was baptized on his deathbed. Deathbed baptisms originally done with the idea that, if one was baptized immediately before death, there was basically no opportunity to sin.
Yeah, pretty much. I am still looking for how it fits into the timeline.

Alright, then would you agree that Adam's sin introduced a rift in the relationship between God and the human race
Yes.

and that even upon birth there is this sort of disconnect between God and the child, though NOT a rift big enough to warrant damnation by any means, and certainly not a fault on the part of the child, but simply an inherited condition?
No. Definitely not. Only physical death for the child (mortality in other words).

Whoops, Romans 5:14. Next verse.
Ok.

Is there anything about my point you need clarified, or do you reject the premise that sin leads to death, and that fear of death tempts people to sin?
I agree with that.

Actually, I just remembered one of the big reasons that infant baptism was allowed in the first place: It's so the kids could have access to the Sacraments from youth, especially to the Eucharist--which the early Christians believed was mystically the Body and Blood of Christ--and partake of the sacramental graces.
I guess. But I will be looking into the timeline. It all fits somehow.
Plus, would love to know when and how the term sacraments came to exist. This term makes things confusing.

Interesting. Can you elaborate?
Deuteronomy 6:7 Impress them on your children. Talk about them when you sit at home and when you walk along the road, when you lie down and when you get up. 8 Tie them as symbols on your hands and bind them on your foreheads. 9 Write them on the doorframes of your houses and on your gates.

Ephesians 6:6 Children, obey your parents in the Lord, for this is right. 2 “Honor your father and mother”—which is the first commandment with a promise— 3 “so that it may go well with you and that you may enjoy long life on the earth.”[a] 4 Fathers,[b] do not exasperate your children; instead, bring them up in the training and instruction of the Lord.

Colossians 3:20 Children, obey your parents in everything, for this pleases the Lord.
21 Fathers,[c] do not embitter your children, or they will become discouraged.

The Word seems to indicate this was enough.

Luke 18:15 People were also bringing babies to Jesus for him to place his hands on them. When the disciples saw this, they rebuked them. 16 But Jesus called the children to him and said, “Let the little children come to me, and do not hinder them, for the kingdom of God belongs to such as these. 17 Truly I tell you, anyone who will not receive the kingdom of God like a little child will never enter it.”

Jesus told us to become like them (the kingdom of God belongs to such as these). The kids are ok.

 

[e.r.m.]

1. e.r.m., I have shown the context verses which counter the "opinions" you have concluded from a single "and". Also, shown other groups of verses which show that your "opinion" for the "purpose of baptism" to by wrongly interpreted.
Symbolic is as valid a description of a thought/subject as is parable. It, also, gives the intended meaning.
Because it destroys your false assumption is no reason to not use the word "symbolism" to show the linkage expressed within consecutive verses.
Nor am I interested in your erroneous theology---as has been proven.

2. The scriptures are actuate which I have given---the inferring has all been on your part---so stop projecting.

1. e.r.m., I have shown the context verses which counter the "opinions" you have concluded from a single "and".
Your context is highly subjective. What make context weighty is when you can show one explict scripture (at least) as an anchor for all your context scripture. Otherwise, it's all based on your word. It's a house of cards.

Also, shown other groups of verses which show that your "opinion" for the "purpose of baptism" to by wrongly interpreted.
Very simple. You cannot discount or disregard explicit scriptures on baptism without explicit scriptures. Explicit scriptures just hold too much weight.

Symbolic is as valid a description of a thought/subject as is parable. It, also, gives the intended meaning.
You don't have the authority to say what "they" intended, what they "meant", but didn't say.
The New Testament was not written in such a way from the beginning as if symbolism was going to be the purpose of baptism. There are no explicit phrases confirming this conjecture, there are "no" examples of such, there is no culture surrounding symbolic baptisms. In Peter and Paul (1981), some protestant director or script writer made sure Anthony Hopkins (playing Paul) told someone that "baptism is just a symbol!" Baptists ALWAYS AND WITHOUT EXCEPTION throw in some form of the word 'symbolic'and/or 'public profession of faith' to the discussion of baptism. This culture involves other dynamics. The NT Testament church would have developed these if they believed as modern day baptists do.


Because it destroys your false assumption is no reason to not use the word "symbolism" to show the linkage expressed within consecutive verses.
Nor am I interested in your erroneous theology---as has been proven.
The fact that the Bible does not is a scathing indictment if not utter condemnation of the symbolic purpose of baptism. If you believe otherwise, then you stand on the same shaky "context" of infant baptism. They use your argument: is no reason to not use the words "infant baptism" ALL THE TIME. The only difference between you and infant baptism adherents is the direction of deviation from what's "written."


2. The scriptures are actuate which I have given---the inferring has all been on your part---so stop projecting.
I've given Book, Chapter, and verse for what I believe. You've given only context without any anchors.

 

[sincerly]

Then why were Christians also worshipping on Sunday, even in the Book of Acts?

Shiranui, It seems context is a problem with your understanding. Paul was passing through and strengthening the Believers on his Journeying. He was to leave the next morning. Sabbath had just ended and the Believers came together (Acts20:6-13)to break bread and Paul preached to them.(all night--departing at "break of day".)
Remember that a "day" was reckoned from "sunset to sunset"; therefore, the first day of the week was NOT a day of worship for Paul or the congregation of believers at Troas.
The "breaking of bread" was seen in Acts 2:42 where the Believers had all things in common and continued steadfastly in the doctrine and fellowship and "in breaking of bread"/common meals. (Remember, deacons were appointed because of disputing And Passover had now passed.)

The scriptures you posted and the answers you gave indicate that Paul was sanctioning Sunday as the changed day of worship---which his attestion disputes[/quote.

So the Scriptures I posted indicate that Paul was sanctioning Sunday as the day of worship? Thank you kindly.

You posted, but neither Paul nor I agreed.

No, just keeping the focus on Jesus as the means of Salvation by the Sacrifice HE DID rather than by baptism which was a symbolization of the act by Jesus.

At this point, I'm considering just dropping this conversation. It's fruitless, not going anywhere, and neither of us is going to budge on our positions until the Second Coming.

Whatever you decide! Baptism is only symbolic in meaning. Remember, the Thief will be saved and he wasn't baptized. However, Jesus Christ's shed blood was for him as well as for all believers.

It isn't who they are, but how is one measuring up to the Scriptural Isa.8:20 and Rev.12:17

Congratulations and thank you for proving my point.

Sheranui, One isn't saved by a "religion", "belonging to a group with identical thoughts/", or "deniers"----The only persons who will be among those "elected" by GOD are those who are Obedient to HIS Stated and recorded WILL.
In Rev.18:1-4, is this last invitation: "And I heard another voice from heaven, saying, Come out of her, my people, that ye be not partakers of her sins, and that ye receive not of her plagues."

 

[sincerly]

1. e.r.m., I have shown the context verses which counter the "opinions" you have concluded from a single "and"....

Your context is highly subjective. What make context weighty is when you can show one explict scripture (at least) as an anchor for all your context scripture. Otherwise, it's all based on your word. It's a house of cards.

Hi e.r.m., It isn't My context, but the context which precedes the verse you are twisting to falsely claim that baptism has the power to save rather than the redemption was by and through Jesus Christ. That "anchor" is seen in those verses of 1:18-25. It is your supposition which is the "house of cards".

Also, shown other groups of verses which show that your "opinion" for the "purpose of baptism" to by wrongly interpreted.

Very simple. You cannot discount or disregard explicit scriptures on baptism without explicit scriptures. Explicit scriptures just hold too much weight.

It is those preceding verses which show that the "saving" was --"by the resurrection of Jesus Christ". Therefore, the symbolism shown by the wording "like figure". Those are "explicit".

Symbolic is as valid a description of a thought/subject as is parable. It, also, gives the intended meaning.

You don't have the authority to say what "they" intended, what they "meant", but didn't say.
The New Testament was not written in such a way from the beginning as if symbolism was going to be the purpose of baptism. There are no explicit phrases confirming this conjecture, there are "no" examples of such, there is no culture surrounding symbolic baptisms. In Peter and Paul (1981), some protestant director or script writer made sure Anthony Hopkins (playing Paul) told someone that "baptism is just a symbol!" Baptists ALWAYS AND WITHOUT EXCEPTION throw in some form of the word 'symbolic'and/or 'public profession of faith' to the discussion of baptism. This culture involves other dynamics. The NT Testament church would have developed these if they believed as modern day baptists do.

No! I'm not the Authority---That is the Scriptures which you are not believing in order to propagate your own philosophy/opinion.
The NT began with John the Baptist Baptizing in water for REPENTANCE--- Which was still a symbolic act.

Because it destroys your false assumption is no reason to not use the word "symbolism" to show the linkage expressed within consecutive verses.
Nor am I interested in your erroneous theology---as has been proven.

The fact that the Bible does not is a scathing indictment if not utter condemnation of the symbolic purpose of baptism. If you believe otherwise, then you stand on the same shaky "context" of infant baptism. They use your argument: is no reason to not use the words "infant baptism" ALL THE TIME. The only difference between you and infant baptism adherents is the direction of deviation from what's "written."

e.r.m., "like figure" is symbolic and is at the beginning of that verse under consideration. Any "scathing indictment" is to linking "saved" to baptism's purpose and ignoring the "BY THE RESURRECTION OF JESUS CHRIST".

2. The scriptures are actuate which I have given---the inferring has all been on your part---so stop projecting.

I've given Book, Chapter, and verse for what I believe. You've given only context without any anchors.

e.r.m, just where do you think the context of those verses to be? And the "anchors" are within the "context".

 

[e.r.m.]

sincerly,

The only difference between you and infant baptism adherents is the direction of deviation from what's "written."
First, I didn't mean to personalize it. I mean it as "the only difference between the symbolic baptism belief and infant baptism is the direction of deviation from what's written."

Hi e.r.m., It isn't My context, but the context which precedes the verse you are twisting to falsely claim that baptism has the power to save rather than the redemption was by and through Jesus Christ. That "anchor" is seen in those verses of 1:18-25. It is your supposition which is the "house of cards".

It is those preceding verses which show that the "saving" was --"by the resurrection of Jesus Christ". Therefore, the symbolism shown by the wording "like figure". Those are "explicit".
This being the only verse in the NT that uses the word symbol says that water symbolizes (KJV - like figure) baptism. Whereas the Bible does not say baptism symbolizes anything. There is no anchor for baptism's purpose to symbolize...
The disparity between the ubiquitous baptist insistence that baptism's purpose is to symbolize something and the Bible's silence on the matter is striking.

No! I'm not the Authority---That is the Scriptures which you are not believing in order to propagate your own philosophy/opinion.
The NT began with John the Baptist Baptizing in water for REPENTANCE--- Which was still a symbolic act.
Who in the Bible referred to John's baptism as a symbolic act?

Any "scathing indictment" is to linking "saved" to baptism's purpose and ignoring the "BY THE RESURRECTION OF JESUS CHRIST".
BY THE RESURRECTION OF JESUS CHRIST doesn't stand alone.
and this water symbolizes baptism that now saves you also ...by the resurrection of Jesus Christ,
They fit perfectly.

Zwingli was the guy who was obsessed with symbolism. He mainstreamed this idea.

e.r.m, just where do you think the context of those verses to be? And the "anchors" are within the "context".
Sorry, not sure what you're asking here. Would you please elaborate?

 

[sincerly]

:sad4:

sincerly,

(1)The only difference between you and infant baptism adherents is the direction of deviation from what's "written."
First, I didn't mean to personalize it. I mean it as "the only difference between the symbolic baptism belief and infant baptism is the direction of deviation from what's written."

Hi e.r.m., It isn't My context, but the context which precedes the verse you are twisting to falsely claim that baptism has the power to save rather than the redemption was by and through Jesus Christ. That "anchor" is seen in those verses of 1:18-25. It is your supposition which is the "house of cards".

It is those preceding verses which show that the "saving" was --"by the resurrection of Jesus Christ". Therefore, the symbolism shown by the wording "like figure". Those are "explicit".
(2)This being the only verse in the NT that uses the word symbol says that water symbolizes (KJV - like figure) baptism. Whereas the Bible does not say baptism symbolizes anything. There is no anchor for baptism's purpose to symbolize...
The disparity between the ubiquitous baptist insistence that baptism's purpose is to symbolize something and the Bible's silence on the matter is striking.

No! I'm not the Authority---That is the Scriptures which you are not believing in order to propagate your own philosophy/opinion.
The NT began with John the Baptist Baptizing in water for REPENTANCE--- Which was still a symbolic act.
(3)Who in the Bible referred to John's baptism as a symbolic act?

Any "scathing indictment" is to linking "saved" to baptism's purpose and ignoring the "BY THE RESURRECTION OF JESUS CHRIST".
(4)BY THE RESURRECTION OF JESUS CHRIST doesn't stand alone.
and this water symbolizes baptism(/u) that now saves you also ...by the resurrection of Jesus Christ,
They fit perfectly.

(5)Zwingli was the guy who was obsessed with symbolism. He mainstreamed this idea.

e.r.m, just where do you think the context of those verses to be? And the "anchors" are within the "context".
(6)Sorry, not sure what you're asking here. Would you please elaborate?

Hi e.r.m., I took the liberty to number your responses and to high-light certain portions---I hope you don't mind.

(6) I have been "elaborating" in my answers of these now almost 100 posts.
(5) I have never read any of Zwingli's works. The Biblical Scriptures are the Holy Spirit's directions to Eternal Life--not man's musings.(and that includes the contrary writings of all persons to the Scriptures)
(4) YOUR: "this water symbolizes baptism (/u) that now saves you also ...by the resurrection of Jesus Christ,
They fit perfectly."
[even though you left out "like figure" to begin the statement, you acknowledged that baptism is/was symbolic. That is the only way baptism can "fit". There is no saving power in just being immersed in water. Rom.6:1+ shows that "fit".

Baptism apart from the symbolism of a person dying with Jesus Christ and being buried with Christ and then Arising out of that tomb with HIM in newness of a spiritual life is meaningless. The essential ingredient in the salvation process is the Shed Blood of Jesus Christ. Acknowledging of one's sins, confession of them to GOD, Repentence of them, and accepting the Sacrifice of Jesus for one's sin debt(death),then being baptised(if possible) is the process of for salvation.
That doesn't mean one's freedom to(Choose) disobey has been voided. The Believer fights the battle of/to SIN/DISOBEDIENCE until death stops the reasoning process.

(3)""Who in the Bible referred to John's baptism as a symbolic act? "

e.r.m., the word "symbolic" or "symbol" or "symbolically" is not found in the KJV translation of the Scriptures. However, Peter in that verse under consideration uses an English phrase which means the same---"like figure". Jesus used baptism as a means of conveying the "re-birth" which a person must have----as did Paul,in Rom.6:

[(2)This being the only verse in the NT that uses the word symbol says that water symbolizes (KJV - like figure) baptism. Whereas the Bible does not say baptism symbolizes anything. There is no anchor for baptism's purpose to symbolize...
The disparity between the ubiquitous baptist insistence that baptism's purpose is to symbolize something and the Bible's silence on the matter is striking.
[/quote]

e.r.m., see above.
The "anchor" is seen in 1Pet.1:18-23; 2:21-25
"Silence" has no "striking" voice. That is used as a weapon of the enemy of souls to cove erroneous cleverly beguiling lies.

(1)The only difference between you and infant baptism adherents is the direction of deviation from what's "written."
First, I didn't mean to personalize it. I mean it as "the only difference between the symbolic baptism belief and infant baptism is the direction of deviation from what's written."

There is nothing in the written scriptures of the account that is a deviation from HIS TRUTH. The deviation is in your presented presentation and twisting as Peter states in 2Pet.3:14-17, "As also in all [his] epistles, speaking in them of these things; in which are some things hard to be understood, which they that are unlearned and unstable wrest, as [they do] also the other scriptures, unto their own destruction. "
Therefore, anyone who is counting on Baptism for salvation---without acknowledging/BELIEVING the essential Blood of Jesus Christ, as the saving factor-- will end up at the judgment throne very disappointed. (John3:16-18)

 

[e.r.m.]

sincerly,

Hi e.r.m., I took the liberty to number your responses and to high-light certain portions---I hope you don't mind.
I don't mind.

(6) I have been "elaborating" in my answers of these now almost 100 posts.
Was just adking clarification on that last point.

(5) I have never read any of Zwingli's works. The Biblical Scriptures are the Holy Spirit's directions to Eternal Life--not man's musings.(and that includes the contrary writings of all persons to the Scriptures)
Not saying you did read Zwingli's works. But as he set much of the foundation of what protestants believe today, many unwittingly quote him. Zwingli is the one who mainstreamed the symbolic purpose of baptism. That was his baby. No one in the Bible advocated for that.

(4) YOUR: "this water symbolizes baptism (/u) that now saves you also ...by the resurrection of Jesus Christ,
They fit perfectly."
[even though you left out "like figure" to begin the statement, you acknowledged that baptism is/was symbolic. That is the only way baptism can "fit". There is no saving power in just being immersed in water. Rom.6:1+ shows that "fit".
(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:
Even in KJV the like figure is from water unto baptism. Baptism is not made the like figure unto anything.

Baptism apart from the symbolism of a person dying with Jesus Christ and being buried with Christ and then Arising out of that tomb with HIM in newness of a spiritual life is meaningless. The essential ingredient in the salvation process is the Shed Blood of Jesus Christ. Acknowledging of one's sins, confession of them to GOD, Repentence of them, and accepting the Sacrifice of Jesus for one's sin debt(death),then being baptised(if possible) is the process of for salvation.
That doesn't mean one's freedom to(Choose) disobey has been voided. The Believer fights the battle of/to SIN/DISOBEDIENCE until death stops the reasoning process.
You misquote us again. We fully claim the blood of Jesus. Baptism conflicts in no way with Jesus's blood and sacrifice.

e.r.m., the word "symbolic" or "symbol" or "symbolically" is not found in the KJV translation of the Scriptures. However, Peter in that verse under consideration uses an English phrase which means the same---"like figure". Jesus used baptism as a means of conveying the "re-birth" which a person must have----as did Paul,in Rom.6:
What it says is that water conveyed the baptism. It never said baptism conveys anything. You're putting the cart before the horse.

[(2)This being the only verse in the NT that uses the word symbol says that water symbolizes (KJV - like figure) baptism. Whereas the Bible does not say baptism symbolizes anything. There is no anchor for baptism's purpose to symbolize...
The disparity between the ubiquitous baptist insistence that baptism's purpose is to symbolize something and the Bible's silence on the matter is striking.
[/quote]

e.r.m., see above.
The "anchor" is seen in 1Pet.1:18-23; 2:21-25
"Silence" has no "striking" voice. That is used as a weapon of the enemy of souls to cove erroneous cleverly beguiling lies.
What I said is that the disparity is striking. Baptists obsessively repeat to people how symbolic baptism is. The Bible doesn't repeat this obessively. It's just silent. The disparity is striking because if that was the belief, then somebody in the Bible would be obsessively repeating to people of a symbolic purpose for baptism.

There is nothing in the written scriptures of the account that is a deviation from HIS TRUTH. The deviation is in your presented presentation and twisting as Peter states in 2Pet.3:14-17, "As also in all [his] epistles, speaking in them of these things; in which are some things hard to be understood, which they that are unlearned and unstable wrest, as [they do] also the other scriptures, unto their own destruction. "
Therefore, anyone who is counting on Baptism for salvation---without acknowledging/BELIEVING the essential Blood of Jesus Christ, as the saving factor-- will end up at the judgment throne very disappointed. (John3:16-18)
Covered above.