Christian: Salvation

[athanasius]

Hello. This is just a piece of historical knowledge. Not only does the new testament allude to baptism by pouring(Titus 3:5-7)(not just by immersion) but tghe ancient apostolic custom used both immersion and pouring. thjis can be in a document called the "Didache" which was written around 70 Ad most scholars suggest.

It is not inspired scripture, but it was possibly the earliest catechsim the church ever had and it existed around the same time as some of the apostles such as John. This document is believe to be the "teaching or didache of the twelve apostles" and at least shows us what early Christians were practicing and viewing baptism to be.

Here is a snippit.

"7:1 But concerning baptism, thus shall ye baptize.
7:2 Having first recited all these things, baptize {in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit} in living (running) water.
7:3 But if thou hast not living water, then baptize in other water;
7:4 and if thou art not able in cold, then in warm.
7:5 But if thou hast neither, then pour water on the head thrice in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit. (Didache A.D. 70 7:1-5)

I hope that helps people understand why we Catholics use both immersion and pouring in our baptism. I have seen both immersion at a Catholic church and pouring. Both to us is legitimate.

God bless you all

Speaking Christ truth in Love,
athanasius

 

[Baerly]

19. This is to answere writer thinking poor little babies are born into sin.

Bible Lessons: Total Hereditary Depravity - The Argument Against ... [SIZE=-1]Bible Lessons - Total Hereditary Depravity - The Argument Against the Doctrine of Original Sin - There is no greater threat to practicing true Christianity ...
www.preachersfiles.com/total_hereditary_depravity/000777.htm - 16k - Cached - Similar pages[/SIZE]

 

[Baerly]

Hello. This is just a piece of historical knowledge. Not only does the new testament allude to baptism by pouring(Titus 3:5-7)(not just by immersion) but tghe ancient apostolic custom used both immersion and pouring. thjis can be in a document called the "Didache" which was written around 70 Ad most scholars suggest.

It is not inspired scripture, but it was possibly the earliest catechsim the church ever had and it existed around the same time as some of the apostles such as John. This document is believe to be the "teaching or didache of the twelve apostles" and at least shows us what early Christians were practicing and viewing baptism to be.

Here is a snippit.

"7:1 But concerning baptism, thus shall ye baptize.
7:2 Having first recited all these things, baptize {in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit} in living (running) water.
7:3 But if thou hast not living water, then baptize in other water;
7:4 and if thou art not able in cold, then in warm.
7:5 But if thou hast neither, then pour water on the head thrice in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit. (Didache A.D. 70 7:1-5)

I hope that helps people understand why we Catholics use both immersion and pouring in our baptism. I have seen both immersion at a Catholic church and pouring. Both to us is legitimate.

God bless you all

Speaking Christ truth in Love,
athanasius

I can tell you respect your church fathers,Elders,or what ever you call them.

But would it be correct if we baptized people today in the same manner in which we find in (Acts 8:37-39)? That would be total immersion in water to remit sins
(Acts 2:38) (Acts 22:16).

Could it be done like this today and be pleasing to God? Baerly

 

[athanasius]

Mr Baerly said
But would it be correct if we baptized people today in the same manner in which we find in (Acts 8:37-39)? That would be total immersion in water to remit sins (Acts 2:38) (Acts 22:16).Could it be done like this today and be pleasing to God?"

My response:
I have already answerd this in my previous post # 141 so I wil just quote it again for Mr baerly.



I hope that helps people understand why we Catholics use both immersion and pouring in our baptism. I have seen BOTH IMMERSION at a Catholic church and POURING. Both to us is legitimate As (Titus 3:5-7) and the Didache seem to imply.

God bless you all
Athanasius

 

[writer]

142 This is to answere writer thinking poor little babies are born into sin.
Is that also your answer to David "I was brought forth in iniquity, and in sin did my mom conceive me," Psalm 51:5, Baerly?
Thanks

 

[Baerly]

142 This is to answere writer thinking poor little babies are born into sin.
Is that also your answer to David "I was brought forth in iniquity, and in sin did my mom conceive me," Psalm 51:5, Baerly?
Thanks

Is it possible That David was brought into this world of iniquity?



According to (Ezekiel 18:20) a person cannot bear the iniquity of the father... But the soul that sinneth (IT) shall die (Rom.3:23 ; 6:23) (1John 3:4). It is clear the person who sins is responsible for his own sins,no one else.

This verse (Ezekiel 18:20) and (Psalm 51:5) cannot oppose one another,they must harmonize somehow.

Sin is transgression of the law,babies do not know nothing about a law.

Sin is not passed down through time by birth, This is Calvinist teaching and it is contrary to bible teachings.

Jesus was a baby once,he was born of a woman,does that mean he also was depraved, sinful?

Please go to preachersfiles.com and look up Calvinism or Original Sin.

You can also go to missionprinting.us and click on publications.

Here is another lesson on Original Sin / Calvinism:
http://www.gospelpreceptor.com/YoderG01.htm

 

[Baerly]

142 This is to answere writer thinking poor little babies are born into sin.
Is that also your answer to David "I was brought forth in iniquity, and in sin did my mom conceive me," Psalm 51:5, Baerly?
Thanks

Here is a few verses to think about also: (Isa.7:14-16) (Mt.18:3) (1Cor.14:20).

Also would you contend that Jesus was born a sinner since he was born of woman.He was a baby.

Sin cannot be passed along by or through birth (Ezekiel 18:20).

Here is a lesson to check out if you wish:

http://www.christiancourier.com/articles/read/we_baptize_babies_a_response

 

[writer]

146 Is it possible That David was brought into this world of iniquity?
It's not only possible, it's for sure.
After "in sin did my mom conceive me," Psalm 51:5

According to (Ezekiel 18:20) a person cannot bear the iniquity of the father... But the soul that sinneth (IT) shall die...
David didn't "bear his mother's sin." He was "conceived in sin"

(Rom.3:23 ; 6:23) (1John 3:4).
For all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God...For the wages of sin is death, but the gift of God is eternal life in Christ Jesus our Lord...Everyone who practices sin practices lawlessness also, and sin is lawlessness.
All sin becuz all have sin

It is clear the person who sins is responsible for his own sins,no one else.
It's clear to me that persons' sins generally affect others. Not no one else

Sin is transgression of the law,babies do not know nothing about a law.
Sin is lawlessness, babies and fetuses don't need to be.
As the prophet wrote: "in sin did my mother conceive me," Psalm 51:5

Sin is not passed down through time by birth,
To the contrary, as the prophet, and the apostle, wrote: "in sin did my mother conceive me," Psalm 51:5;
"through the disobedience of one man the many were constituted sinners," Rm 5:19

147 Sin cannot be passed along by or through birth (Ezekiel 18:20).
To the contrary: Ezekiel 18:20 speaks of sharing iniquity in the sense of guilt and punishment. It refers not to the biological transferrance and inheritance of sin, as does Romans 5:19 and Psalm 51:5

146 This is Calvinist teaching and it is contrary to bible teachings.
To the contrary: David and Paul were before Calvin. They were not Calvin. Calvin lived around the 1500s. Paul lived in the 000s AD. David lived, and wrote, around 3 millenia before Calvin. David and Paul cannot be contrary to the Bible. Because their writing is the Bible

146 Jesus was a baby once,he was born of a woman,does that mean he also was depraved, sinful?
147 would you contend that Jesus was born a sinner since he was born of woman.He was a baby.
No. Jesus had no biological human father. He's God.
It's as Paul the apostle wrote:
"the woman is out from the man, so also is the man through the woman," 1 Cor 11:12.
The operative word for sakes of this discussion being "through"

(Isa.7:14-16) (Mt.18:3) (1Cor.14:20).
The Lord Himself will give you a sign: Behold the damsel will conceive and bear a son, and she will call His name Immanuel.
He said, Truly I say to you, Unless you turn and become like little children, you shall by no means enter into the kingdom of the heavens.
Mt 18:3 refers to natural humility of children, esp vis a vis adults:
"In that hour the disciples came to Jesus, saying, Who then's the greatest in the kingdom of the heavens?...He therefore who will humble himself like this little child, he's the greatest in the kingdom of the heavens," 18:1, 4.
Brothers, don't be children in your understanding, but in malice be babes and in your understanding be full-grown.
1 Cor 14:20 refers to the lack of designed, "malice aforethought," of babes. Many of them have nearly no thought at all.
Thanks

 

[Baerly]

I thought for sure WRITER you would have all kinds of scripture refuting the article I put in my last post. It was a lesson entitled "We Baptize Babies" .. A RESPONSE by Wayne Jackson / The Christian Courier

I thought the lesson was rather good myself, but what do I know.-- in love Baerly

 

[Baerly]

This notion of Original Sin really bothers me. I found a good lesson on this topic. Please enjoy:


Bible Lessons: Total Hereditary Depravity - The Argument Against ... [SIZE=-1]Bible Lessons - Total Hereditary Depravity - The Argument Against the Doctrine of Original Sin - There is no greater threat to practicing true Christianity ...
www.preachersfiles.com/total_hereditary_depravity/000777.htm - 16k - Cached - Similar pages[/SIZE]


[SIZE=-1]in love Baerly[/SIZE]

 

[sojourner]

The logic in the article only works if one does not consider selfish motivation as the basis for sin. When we sin, we "miss the mark," because we're aiming at our own target, instead of aiming for God. When we're selfish -- we sin. When we're selfless -- we don't sin.

In a certain sense, who is more selfish than an infant? All an infant knows is its own wants and needs -- and getting them fulfilled. It is not aware of the needs of others. This occupation with our own wants and needs in infancy is the seed that breeds sin when we begin to be aware of the needs of others, but choose, instead, to satisfy our own urges.

It is the natural state of the human to see things from a self-perspective, rather than walking in the shoes of others. This is what (I believe) infant baptism symbolizes -- that the child will be raised in an environment where it will be taught to continually see things from the perspective of others, instead of self. That way, the seed of sin will not flourish and take root in that individual.

 

[Baerly]

I found a good lesson on Baptizing Infants, Enjoy.

http://www.preachersfiles.com/infant_baptism/000524.htm

 

[sojourner]

Points I, II, and III do not refute any claim made by most groups who celebrate infant baptism. In fact, they support the claims of those groups. Point IV.1 is a basic point of truth, as well. Points IV.2-6 are points of interpretation. The parents do these things on the child's behalf, providing, as I said, a growing environment that is spiritually nurturing.

 

[writer]

150 This notion of Original Sin really bothers me.
It should. Sin's in u from your origin. Like me. And all human beings. Except Christ

149 I thought for sure WRITER you would have all kinds of scripture refuting the article I put in my last post. It was a lesson entitled "We Baptize Babies"
Since u agree w/ me that baptizing babies isn't baptism, and i agree w/ u that baptizing babies is not baptism, why would i want to refute u over this, or u refute me---since we agree? The answer is: i wouldn't.
Thanks

 

[sojourner]

An Episcopal priest and a pentecostal preacher were having coffee together one day. The pentecostal asked, "Do you believe in infant baptism?"
The priest replied, "Believe in it? Good gracious, I've seen it!"