WOULD YOU LIKE TO JOIN A NEW TESTAMENT CHURCH?

[Brakelite]

The passages about Jesus our high priest and how He obtained salvation for us, say nothing about His washing with water in any way.

KJV Exodus 30:18-21
18 Thou shalt also make a laver of brass, and his foot also of brass, to wash withal: and thou shalt put it between the tabernacle of the congregation and the altar, and thou shalt put water therein.
19 For Aaron and his sons shall wash their hands and their feet thereat:
20 When they go into the tabernacle of the congregation, they shall wash with water, that they die not; or when they come near to the altar to minister, to burn offering made by fire unto the LORD:
21 So they shall wash their hands and their feet, that they die not: and it shall be a statute for ever to them, even to him and to his seed throughout their generations.

Between the sacrifice and the entering into the temple, we also, as priests into our God, need to be baptized.

KJV 1 Corinthians 10:1-4
1 Moreover, brethren, I would not that ye should be ignorant, how that all our fathers were under the cloud, and all passed through the sea;
2 And were all baptized unto Moses in the cloud and in the sea;
3 And did all eat the same spiritual meat;
4 And did all drink the same spiritual drink: for they drank of that spiritual Rock that followed them: and that Rock was Christ.

Israel, between the sacrifice and Sinai, were baptized.

KJV Acts 2:38, 41
38 Then Peter said unto them, Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins, and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost.
41 Then they that gladly received his word were baptized: and the same day there were added unto them about three thousand souls.

KJV Acts 22:16
16 And now why tarriest thou? arise, and be baptized, and wash away thy sins, calling on the name of the Lord.

 

[Illuminator]

Water baptism is the symbolic washing of the flesh, that represents the inward washing of regeneration done by the Holy Spirit:

Regarding baptism, nowhere in Scripture is water and spirit separated.

Tit 3:5 Not by works of righteousness which we have done, but according to his mercy he saved us, by the washing of regeneration, and renewing of the Holy Ghost;

If water baptism was truly necessary for salvation, it would be a work of righteousness

Paul is talking about works of the law, not good works.

it would be a work of righteousness

[/QUOTE]No, it is a work of obedience.

but the above verse says we are saved apart from works of righteousness, by internal washing of regeneration and renewing of the Holy Spirit- not by outer washing of the flesh.

I have never seen anyone wash their hands with symbolic water. Jesus was quite clear on this point, He said "...born of WATER and the Spirit". If He meant "symbolic water", He would have said so. But He didn't.

If water baptism is for salvation, instead of a symbolic rite, then Jesus was baptized for salvation by John the Baptist. And Johns baptism was for those who repented - so by that logic, Jesus was a sinner who was saved by repentance and baptism.

John 1:32 – when Jesus was baptized, He was baptized in the water and the Spirit, which descended upon Him in the form of a dove. The Holy Spirit and water are required for baptism. Also, Jesus’ baptism was not the Christian baptism He later instituted.
Jesus’ baptism was instead a royal anointing of the Son of David (Jesus) conferred by a Levite (John the Baptist) to reveal Christ to Israel, as it was foreshadowed in 1 Kings 1:39 when the Son of David (Solomon) was anointed by the Levitical priest Zadok. See John 1:31; cf. Matt. 3:16; Mark 1:9; Luke 3:21.

John 3:3,5 – Jesus says, “Truly, truly, unless one is born of water and the Spirit, he cannot enter the kingdom of God.” When Jesus said “water and the Spirit,” He was referring to baptism (which requires the use of real, wet physical water, and the work of the Spirit).

Other scriptures make clear that it’s the repentance and calling on the name of the lord that saves us, not the water baptism which accompanies faith and repentance.

Pitting "calling on the name of the lord" against water baptism is a false "either/or" dichotomy. It's "both/and", not "either/or.
Mark 16:16 – Jesus says that he who believes and is baptized will be saved. However, the Church has always taught that baptism is a normative, not an absolute necessity. There are some exceptions to the rule because God is not bound by His sacraments.

Luke 23:43 – the good thief, although not baptized, shows that there is also a baptism by desire, as Jesus says to him that he will be in paradise. It should also be noted that when Jesus uses the word “paradise,” He did not mean heaven. Paradise, from the Hebrew “sheol” meant the realm of the righteous dead. This was the place of the dead who were destined for heaven, but who were captive until the Lord’s resurrection. Hence, the good thief was destined for heaven because of his desire to be with Jesus.

Matt. 20:22-23; Mark 10:38-39; Luke 12:50 – there is also a baptism by blood. Lord says, “I have a baptism to be baptized with” referring to His death. Hence, the Church has always taught that those martyred for the faith may be saved without water baptism (e.g., the Holy Innocents).
SACRAMENT OF BAPTISM

Acts 3:19, repentance is what gets our sins forgiven, not repentance and water.

Repentance when we sin, yes. Water baptism is done only once.

Protestants divide into five major camps concerning the central rite of initiation into the Christian faith:
1.) Infant baptismal regeneration (e.g., Lutherans, Anglicans, Orthodox).
2.) Adult baptismal regeneration (e.g., Churches of Christ).
3.) Symbolic-only infant baptism (e.g., Presbyterians).
4.) Symbolic-only adult baptism (e.g., Baptists).
5.) No baptism required at all (e.g., Quakers, Salvation Army).
+1 new one: a waterless baptism.

Since this debate hasn’t been able to be resolved, many simply deny that baptism is “central".

Yet the Bible insists on the crucial nature of baptism:
Mark 16:16 “He who believes and is baptized will be saved; …
”Titus 3:5 “He saved us … by the washing of regeneration and renewal in the Holy Spirit” (cf. Jn 3:5)1 Peter 3:21 “Baptism, which corresponds to this [Noah’s ark], now saves you, …”The Apostle Paul referred to “one Lord, one faith, one baptism” (Eph 4:5). The Catholic, when studying the Bible, wants to know if his interpretations are in line with those of the Church and apostolic tradition. In this way, doctrinal unity can be maintained.

It’s not that Scripture is so unclear and esoteric that it is an utter mystery and an undecipherable “code” that only Holy Mother Church can break, and that no individual can possibly understand. Rather, the Church is required to speak authoritatively as to what Holy Scripture teaches, just as it spoke authoritatively with regard to what books were to be included in Scripture. Holy Scripture remains inherently what it is: God’s inspired, infallible written revelation.

Tradition in the Bible (particularly for St. Paul) is not an individualistic thing, kept by each person as an esoteric “secret,” as the gnostic heretics would have it. No, it is obviously a corporately held entity. It is held in common by the Church, as the collectivity of Christians. And as this deposit of faith was one unified teaching, there necessarily had to be one Church to preserve and promulgate it.
The clarity of Scripture and the role of the Church -

 

[Truther]

Water baptism is the symbolic washing of the flesh, that represents the inward washing of regeneration done by the Holy Spirit:

Tit 3:5 Not by works of righteousness which we have done, but according to his mercy he saved us, by the washing of regeneration, and renewing of the Holy Ghost;

If water baptism was truly necessary for salvation, it would be a work of righteousness - but the above verse says we are saved apart from works of righteousness, by internal washing of regeneration and renewing of the Holy Spirit- not by outer washing of the flesh.

If water baptism is for salvation, instead of a symbolic rite, then Jesus was baptized for salvation by John the Baptist. And Johns baptism was for those who repented - so by that logic, Jesus was a sinner who was saved by repentance and baptism.

Other scriptures make clear that it’s the repentance and calling on the name of the lord that saves us, not the water baptism which accompanies faith and repentance.

Acts 3:19, repentance is what gets our sins forgiven, not repentance and water.

That takes care of the acts 2:38 proof text.

Repentance is what saves us, the water baptism that follows is symbolic of our inner washing and regeneration.

Acts 16 the jailer was told that belief is how to be saved, then was water baptized- he was not told that baptism that followed was part of being saved.

Paul was told:

Act 22:16 And now why tarriest thou? arise, and be baptized, and wash away thy sins, calling on the name of the Lord.

That’s used to prove water baptism is part of salvation, but in Romans 10:13 we find that it’s the calling on the name of the lord that saves us, no water mentioned.

In fact Romans 10:8-13 is where Paul states what they, the apostles, teach on how to be saved, and
water baptism is missing in action as being part of salvation.

We are saved by believing in our heart and confessing with our mouth, that Jesus is Lord and that God raised Him from the dead, FOR with the heart, we BELIEVE UNTO RIGHTEOUSNESS, and with the MOUTH confession is made UNTO SALVATION, and whosoever CALLS UPON THE NAME OF THE LORD, SHALL BE SAVED.

No water required in Romans 10:8-13 where Paul iterates how to be saved.

And that’s what I mean when I say all scriptures must be considered on salvation.

When I do that, it’s clear that just because a few scriptures tack water baptism, which is a symbolic ritual that we’re indeed supposed to do, onto a statement about salvation - that doesn’t prove that the water baptism is for salvation - that’s because it’s a ritual for those saved by faith and repentance, and not part of how we get saved,

Shalom.

You just debunked and skipped Acts 2:38.

In the process, you stole the saints' mail and snuck it to sinners.

That is some crooked dealings.

 

[Curtis]

You just debunked and skipped Acts 2:38.

In the process, you stole the saints' mail and snuck it to sinners.

That is some crooked dealings.

I debunked nothing of the sort. Had you read all that I wrote and not just the edited part you posted, I answered all of that already.

Regarding baptism, nowhere in Scripture is water and spirit separated.

Tit 3:5 Not by works of righteousness which we have done, but according to his mercy he saved us, by the washing of regeneration, and renewing of the Holy Ghost;

Paul is talking about works of the law, not good works.

No, it is a work of obedience. I have never seen anyone wash their hands with symbolic water. Jesus was quite clear on this point, He said "...born of WATER and the Spirit". If He meant "symbolic water", He would have said so. But He didn't.

John 1:32 – when Jesus was baptized, He was baptized in the water and the Spirit, which descended upon Him in the form of a dove. The Holy Spirit and water are required for baptism. Also, Jesus’ baptism was not the Christian baptism He later instituted.
Jesus’ baptism was instead a royal anointing of the Son of David (Jesus) conferred by a Levite (John the Baptist) to reveal Christ to Israel, as it was foreshadowed in 1 Kings 1:39 when the Son of David (Solomon) was anointed by the Levitical priest Zadok. See John 1:31; cf. Matt. 3:16; Mark 1:9; Luke 3:21.

John 3:3,5 – Jesus says, “Truly, truly, unless one is born of water and the Spirit, he cannot enter the kingdom of God.” When Jesus said “water and the Spirit,” He was referring to baptism (which requires the use of real, wet physical water, and the work of the Spirit).

Pitting "calling on the name of the lord" against water baptism is a false "either/or" dichotomy. It's "both/and", not "either/or.
Mark 16:16 – Jesus says that he who believes and is baptized will be saved. However, the Church has always taught that baptism is a normative, not an absolute necessity. There are some exceptions to the rule because God is not bound by His sacraments.

Luke 23:43 – the good thief, although not baptized, shows that there is also a baptism by desire, as Jesus says to him that he will be in paradise. It should also be noted that when Jesus uses the word “paradise,” He did not mean heaven. Paradise, from the Hebrew “sheol” meant the realm of the righteous dead. This was the place of the dead who were destined for heaven, but who were captive until the Lord’s resurrection. Hence, the good thief was destined for heaven because of his desire to be with Jesus.

Matt. 20:22-23; Mark 10:38-39; Luke 12:50 – there is also a baptism by blood. Lord says, “I have a baptism to be baptized with” referring to His death. Hence, the Church has always taught that those martyred for the faith may be saved without water baptism (e.g., the Holy Innocents).
SACRAMENT OF BAPTISM
Repentance when we sin, yes. Water baptism is done only once.

Protestants divide into five major camps concerning the central rite of initiation into the Christian faith:
1.) Infant baptismal regeneration (e.g., Lutherans, Anglicans, Orthodox).
2.) Adult baptismal regeneration (e.g., Churches of Christ).
3.) Symbolic-only infant baptism (e.g., Presbyterians).
4.) Symbolic-only adult baptism (e.g., Baptists).
5.) No baptism required at all (e.g., Quakers, Salvation Army).
+1 new one: a waterless baptism.

Since this debate hasn’t been able to be resolved, many simply deny that baptism is “central".

Yet the Bible insists on the crucial nature of baptism:
Mark 16:16 “He who believes and is baptized will be saved; …
”Titus 3:5 “He saved us … by the washing of regeneration and renewal in the Holy Spirit” (cf. Jn 3:5)1 Peter 3:21 “Baptism, which corresponds to this [Noah’s ark], now saves you, …”The Apostle Paul referred to “one Lord, one faith, one baptism” (Eph 4:5). The Catholic, when studying the Bible, wants to know if his interpretations are in line with those of the Church and apostolic tradition. In this way, doctrinal unity can be maintained.

It’s not that Scripture is so unclear and esoteric that it is an utter mystery and an undecipherable “code” that only Holy Mother Church can break, and that no individual can possibly understand. Rather, the Church is required to speak authoritatively as to what Holy Scripture teaches, just as it spoke authoritatively with regard to what books were to be included in Scripture. Holy Scripture remains inherently what it is: God’s inspired, infallible written revelation.

Tradition in the Bible (particularly for St. Paul) is not an individualistic thing, kept by each person as an esoteric “secret,” as the gnostic heretics would have it. No, it is obviously a corporately held entity. It is held in common by the Church, as the collectivity of Christians. And as this deposit of faith was one unified teaching, there necessarily had to be one Church to preserve and promulgate it.
The clarity of Scripture and the role of the Church - [/QUOTE]

I stand by what I wrote. It was clear and concise and correct.

 

[Truther]

I debunked nothing of the sort. Had you read all that I wrote and not just the edited part you posted, I answered all of that already.




No, it is a work of obedience. I have never seen anyone wash their hands with symbolic water. Jesus was quite clear on this point, He said "...born of WATER and the Spirit". If He meant "symbolic water", He would have said so. But He didn't.

John 1:32 – when Jesus was baptized, He was baptized in the water and the Spirit, which descended upon Him in the form of a dove. The Holy Spirit and water are required for baptism. Also, Jesus’ baptism was not the Christian baptism He later instituted.
Jesus’ baptism was instead a royal anointing of the Son of David (Jesus) conferred by a Levite (John the Baptist) to reveal Christ to Israel, as it was foreshadowed in 1 Kings 1:39 when the Son of David (Solomon) was anointed by the Levitical priest Zadok. See John 1:31; cf. Matt. 3:16; Mark 1:9; Luke 3:21.

John 3:3,5 – Jesus says, “Truly, truly, unless one is born of water and the Spirit, he cannot enter the kingdom of God.” When Jesus said “water and the Spirit,” He was referring to baptism (which requires the use of real, wet physical water, and the work of the Spirit).

Pitting "calling on the name of the lord" against water baptism is a false "either/or" dichotomy. It's "both/and", not "either/or.
Mark 16:16 – Jesus says that he who believes and is baptized will be saved. However, the Church has always taught that baptism is a normative, not an absolute necessity. There are some exceptions to the rule because God is not bound by His sacraments.

Luke 23:43 – the good thief, although not baptized, shows that there is also a baptism by desire, as Jesus says to him that he will be in paradise. It should also be noted that when Jesus uses the word “paradise,” He did not mean heaven. Paradise, from the Hebrew “sheol” meant the realm of the righteous dead. This was the place of the dead who were destined for heaven, but who were captive until the Lord’s resurrection. Hence, the good thief was destined for heaven because of his desire to be with Jesus.

Matt. 20:22-23; Mark 10:38-39; Luke 12:50 – there is also a baptism by blood. Lord says, “I have a baptism to be baptized with” referring to His death. Hence, the Church has always taught that those martyred for the faith may be saved without water baptism (e.g., the Holy Innocents).
SACRAMENT OF BAPTISM
Repentance when we sin, yes. Water baptism is done only once.

Protestants divide into five major camps concerning the central rite of initiation into the Christian faith:
1.) Infant baptismal regeneration (e.g., Lutherans, Anglicans, Orthodox).
2.) Adult baptismal regeneration (e.g., Churches of Christ).
3.) Symbolic-only infant baptism (e.g., Presbyterians).
4.) Symbolic-only adult baptism (e.g., Baptists).
5.) No baptism required at all (e.g., Quakers, Salvation Army).
+1 new one: a waterless baptism.

Since this debate hasn’t been able to be resolved, many simply deny that baptism is “central".

Yet the Bible insists on the crucial nature of baptism:
Mark 16:16 “He who believes and is baptized will be saved; …
”Titus 3:5 “He saved us … by the washing of regeneration and renewal in the Holy Spirit” (cf. Jn 3:5)1 Peter 3:21 “Baptism, which corresponds to this [Noah’s ark], now saves you, …”The Apostle Paul referred to “one Lord, one faith, one baptism” (Eph 4:5). The Catholic, when studying the Bible, wants to know if his interpretations are in line with those of the Church and apostolic tradition. In this way, doctrinal unity can be maintained.

It’s not that Scripture is so unclear and esoteric that it is an utter mystery and an undecipherable “code” that only Holy Mother Church can break, and that no individual can possibly understand. Rather, the Church is required to speak authoritatively as to what Holy Scripture teaches, just as it spoke authoritatively with regard to what books were to be included in Scripture. Holy Scripture remains inherently what it is: God’s inspired, infallible written revelation.

Tradition in the Bible (particularly for St. Paul) is not an individualistic thing, kept by each person as an esoteric “secret,” as the gnostic heretics would have it. No, it is obviously a corporately held entity. It is held in common by the Church, as the collectivity of Christians. And as this deposit of faith was one unified teaching, there necessarily had to be one Church to preserve and promulgate it.
The clarity of Scripture and the role of the Church -

I stand by what I wrote. It was clear and concise and correct.[/QUOTE]



What you wrote is just the opposite of what Peter commanded per Acts 2:38.

 

[Truther]

The passages about Jesus our high priest and how He obtained salvation for us, say nothing about His washing with water in any way.

The high priest was commanded "wash at the laver that ye die not".

Jesus was baptized to fulfill his part as our high priest(fulfill all righteousness).

We must wash in baptismal water that we die not also.(Acts 2:38, Mark 16:16).

 

[theefaith]

Is there more than one?

 

[Truther]

Is there more than one?

Jesus came to replace the OT high priest that God had originally set up.

In doing that, God even set up Jesus via another tribe.(Heb 7)

God changed the Law by changing the priesthood.

 

[theefaith]

Jesus came to replace the OT high priest that God had originally set up.

In doing that, God even set up Jesus via another tribe.(Heb 7)

God changed the Law by changing the priesthood.

Myra Jesus is high priest so who are the lower priests?

but Christ is both high priest Heb 8:1 (so there must be lower priests of the same order) and eternal priest. Heb 7:17
The office of a priest is to offer sacrifice, so Christ is eternal high priest and his sacrifice is also eternal, once for all
Once bloody on suffering and death on the cross but the self same sacrifice is offered eternally

holy communion is both a sacrifice and a sacrament

mal 1:11 For from the rising of the sun even unto the going down of the same my name shall be great among the Gentiles; and in every place incense shall be offered unto my name, and a pure offering: for my name shall be great among the heathen, saith the Lord of hosts.

a pure offering is a clean oblation aka an unbloody sacrifice

Rev 5:5 And one of the elders saith unto me, Weep not: behold, the Lion of the tribe of Judah, the Root of David, hath prevailed to open the book, and to loose the seven seals thereof.

6 And I beheld, and, lo, in the midst of the throne and of the four beasts, and in the midst of the elders, stood a Lamb as it had been slain, having seven horns and seven eyes, which are the seven Spirits of God sent forth into all the earth.

a lamb (Jesus) slain as the victim of the salvation of all men

 

[Truther]

Myra Jesus is high priest so who are the lower priests?

but Christ is both high priest Heb 8:1 (so there must be lower priests of the same order) and eternal priest. Heb 7:17
The office of a priest is to offer sacrifice, so Christ is eternal high priest and his sacrifice is also eternal, once for all
Once bloody on suffering and death on the cross but the self same sacrifice is offered eternally

holy communion is both a sacrifice and a sacrament

mal 1:11 For from the rising of the sun even unto the going down of the same my name shall be great among the Gentiles; and in every place incense shall be offered unto my name, and a pure offering: for my name shall be great among the heathen, saith the Lord of hosts.

a pure offering is a clean oblation aka an unbloody sacrifice

Rev 5:5 And one of the elders saith unto me, Weep not: behold, the Lion of the tribe of Judah, the Root of David, hath prevailed to open the book, and to loose the seven seals thereof.

6 And I beheld, and, lo, in the midst of the throne and of the four beasts, and in the midst of the elders, stood a Lamb as it had been slain, having seven horns and seven eyes, which are the seven Spirits of God sent forth into all the earth.

a lamb (Jesus) slain as the victim of the salvation of all men

The Spirit filled Saint is a priest unto our God. Also a king

 

[theefaith]

The Spirit filled Saint is a priest unto our God. Also a king

the royal priesthood is not the priesthood that Christ is high priest but according to the order of Melchizedek

 

[Truther]

the royal priesthood is not the priesthood that Christ is high priest but according to the order of Melchizedek

You asked about lower priests, correct?

 

[Philip James]

And as this deposit of faith was one unified teaching, there necessarily had to be one Church to preserve and promulgate it.

Thus should one regard us: as servants of Christ and stewards of the mysteries of God.

Pax et Bonum!

 

[theefaith]

You asked about lower priests, correct?

no I asked about lower priests who offer the sacrifice of Christ in the order of Melchizedek

 

[theefaith]

Without the priesthood of Melchizedek offering the holy sacrifice of the mass there can be no holy communion or Eucharist (thanksgiving) it is a sacrifice and a sacrament

 

[theefaith]

Marksman pray tell; what is a New Testament church? Who is it’s founder?
By what authority does it exist? On what basis is it’s unity?

 

[Pearl]

Marksman pray tell; what is a New Testament church? Who is it’s founder?
By what authority does it exist? On what basis is it’s unity?

It is this sort of church that I belong to and it's founder was Jesus and it's head is Jesus and they try to live as the early Christians did.

It is an independent Christian Church which wants everyone to know that Jesus Christ came to offer a relationship with the Living God. This relationship is available to everyone who will chose to follow Him, and opens up to us a new dimension in our lives – Spiritual Life – set free from the guilt of any wrong we may have done in the past and able to communicate freely with God.

We place a strong emphasis on the Bible being God’s Word and His foremost way of communicating with mankind; we encourage everyone to discover the grace and generosity of our loving God and we seek to demonstrate our love for God and for each other.

About Us - CHURCH@Claremont (claremontbolton.co.uk)

 

[Truther]

no I asked about lower priests who offer the sacrifice of Christ in the order of Melchizedek

Never heard of them.

All I have read about in the NT is the priesthood of all born again believers under Jesus Christ, our high priest.

 

[Pearl]

Never heard of them.

All I have read about in the NT is the priesthood of all born again believers under Jesus Christ, our high priest.

Yes!!

 

[theefaith]

Never heard of them.

All I have read about in the NT is the priesthood of all born again believers under Jesus Christ, our high priest.

yes the royal priesthood

but Christ is not high priest in the royal priesthood but according to the order of Melchizedek
So there must be low priests of the same order