If you say so...
I don't need to keep arguing with you...
If you have the assurance that what you are doing isn't necromancy, then more power to you. Every servant, to His own Master, stands or falls.
Last edited:
BAPTISM
- Thread starter marksman
- Start date
-
Welcome to Christian Forums, a Christian Forum that recognizes that all Christians are a work in progress.
You will need to register to be able to join in fellowship with Christians all over the world.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!
I don't need to keep arguing with you...
If you have the assurance that what you are doing isn't necromancy, then more power to you. Every servant, to His own Master, stands or falls.
BAPTISM
Some say it is an ordinance, some say it is a commandment.
Some say it regenerates, some say it does not
I think it would be much more accurate to observe that what all Protestants greatly have in common is a denial of the Catholic distinctives (Mary, papacy, communion of saints, an infallible Church, etc.). But even then it’s not unanimous. Lutherans and Anglicans pray for the dead (C. S. Lewis believed in purgatory, and Wesley believed in some sort of intermediate state). Anglo-Catholics agree with us on several matters. Lutherans believe in the Real Presence, in a way not too far from our view).
That said, there is profound commonality, in the joint rejection of distinctively Catholic doctrines.
Acts 22:16
Romans 6:3-4 (cf. Romans 8:11, 1 Cor 15:20-23, Col 2:11-13)
1 Corinthians 6:11
Mark 16:16
Titus 3:5
John 3:5
Protestants can’t even figure out whether it regenerates or not. Some say it does; others deny it. Martin Luther certainly agreed baptism is central doctrine: right in the center of soteriology:
But when it comes to your own internal disagreements, that is something else altogether. Baptism is the classic example of non-unity in important matters (not just the so-called “secondary” ones), which is why I have always highlighted it as an example of a disproof of the Protestant authority principle and of perspicuity of Scripture in (miserable) application.
All the major Lutheran denominations hold to baptismal regeneration. According to Mead’s Handbook of Denominations (I have a 1970 ed.), Lutherans accept Luther’s Small Catechism and Large Catechism, both of which clearly teach baptismal regeneration. The Smalcald Articles were also written by Luther. The Formula of Concord, also accepted by most if not all Lutheran bodies, states in its Article XII, section on “Erroneous Articles of the Schwenkfelders”:..
“We reject and condemn these errors . . .: 3. That the water of Baptism is not a means whereby the Lord God seals the adoption of sons and works regeneration.
Of course, to get out of this dilemma, you can always argue that Lutherans are not Protestants, or that Luther wasn’t the founder of Protestantism.
This discussion continues at https://www.patheos.com/blogs/davearmstrong/2017/01/dialogue-protestant-unity-central-doctrines-baptism-test-case-vs-jerry-walls.html?
Further reading: Infant Baptism: A Fictional Dialogue
Some say it is an ordinance, some say it is a commandment.
Some say it regenerates, some say it does not
I think it would be much more accurate to observe that what all Protestants greatly have in common is a denial of the Catholic distinctives (Mary, papacy, communion of saints, an infallible Church, etc.). But even then it’s not unanimous. Lutherans and Anglicans pray for the dead (C. S. Lewis believed in purgatory, and Wesley believed in some sort of intermediate state). Anglo-Catholics agree with us on several matters. Lutherans believe in the Real Presence, in a way not too far from our view).
That said, there is profound commonality, in the joint rejection of distinctively Catholic doctrines.
Acts 22:16
Romans 6:3-4 (cf. Romans 8:11, 1 Cor 15:20-23, Col 2:11-13)
1 Corinthians 6:11
Mark 16:16
Titus 3:5
John 3:5
Protestants can’t even figure out whether it regenerates or not. Some say it does; others deny it. Martin Luther certainly agreed baptism is central doctrine: right in the center of soteriology:
But when it comes to your own internal disagreements, that is something else altogether. Baptism is the classic example of non-unity in important matters (not just the so-called “secondary” ones), which is why I have always highlighted it as an example of a disproof of the Protestant authority principle and of perspicuity of Scripture in (miserable) application.
All the major Lutheran denominations hold to baptismal regeneration. According to Mead’s Handbook of Denominations (I have a 1970 ed.), Lutherans accept Luther’s Small Catechism and Large Catechism, both of which clearly teach baptismal regeneration. The Smalcald Articles were also written by Luther. The Formula of Concord, also accepted by most if not all Lutheran bodies, states in its Article XII, section on “Erroneous Articles of the Schwenkfelders”:..
“We reject and condemn these errors . . .: 3. That the water of Baptism is not a means whereby the Lord God seals the adoption of sons and works regeneration.
Of course, to get out of this dilemma, you can always argue that Lutherans are not Protestants, or that Luther wasn’t the founder of Protestantism.
This discussion continues at https://www.patheos.com/blogs/davearmstrong/2017/01/dialogue-protestant-unity-central-doctrines-baptism-test-case-vs-jerry-walls.html?
Further reading: Infant Baptism: A Fictional Dialogue
BreadOfLife
Well-Known Member
- Jan 2, 2017
- 20,936
- 3,387
- 113
- Faith
- Christian
- Country
- United States
Sure I did.
I proved that "Baptism" is never defined in Scripture - but it IS defined in the historically contemporary document, The Didache - in the exact SAME language.
This is what detectives refer to as an "open and shut case" .
Denial is NOT a valid argument . . .
BreadOfLife
Well-Known Member
- Jan 2, 2017
- 20,936
- 3,387
- 113
- Faith
- Christian
- Country
- United States
TRANSLATION:
"I don't have any evidence, so I'll bow out now."
That's what I thought . . .
H. Richard
Well-Known Member
Okay then I guess the Holy Spirit got it wrong because fact are facts. But I see you just want to bury them in a smoke screen of accusations about me. I did not make James write what he said to the Jews and you can't convince me that his writing are for those under grace when all he is teaching is law.
He wrote as the Jews see it under the law and he wrote to the JEWS ONLY (James 1:1) or are you saying the Holy Spirit got it wrong. Turn about is fair play.
The book of James was not, was not, was not written to the Gentiles who are under grace no matter how much you want it to be.
If you were fair you would see that in Acts 21:20 the Jews were mad at Paul for teaching that the Jews no longer had to keep the law but they were not mad a James so anyone with common sense can see that James was not teaching what Paul was teaching about the law. But of course you will not be able to see that because you just don't want to.
Don't call me friend since we are not friends. Religious people use James statement about faith as a yoke around the heads of those who have been made children of God by faith in God's grace.
Even Paul taught that obedience to the law was important.
You should consider Romans 5:5 (kjv) w/ Romans 13:8-10 (kjv) and Galatians 5:14 (kjv).
Also, if Paul wrote the book of Hebrews, there is more evidence from there by Paul, in Hebrews 8:8-10 (kjv) and Hebrews 10:16 (kjv).
But you would have to exclude John as an apostle to fully exclude the teaching that obedience to the law is important. Consider 1 John 5:3 (kjv) and 2 John 1:6 (kjv).
And Paul further exalted the law to make it honourable in Romans 8:4 (kjv) and in Romans 8:7 (kjv).
Jesus said, If you love me, you will obey my commandments.
It is not obedience to the law that Paul was fighting against; rather, he was fighting against obeying the law for the wrong reasons.
Certain people thought that they were justified through keeping the law. And this was competing in their hearts for the faith that justifies us through faith in the blood of Christ.
The blood of Jesus sanctifies us and cleanses us, Hebrews 13:12 (kjv), Hebrews 10:29 (kjv), 1 John 1:7 (kjv).
Therefore if we are justified through His blood, there will be a certain holiness of character that appears in us.
And this holiness of character translates into us not violating the law (1 Corinthians 15:34 (kjv)); because sin is the transgression of the law (1 John 3:4 (kjv)).
There is no law that will condemn any of our behaviour if we are bearing the fruit of the Spirit, Galatians 5:22-23 (kjv).
The translation is actually, "I will leave you to argue with the Holy Spirit from here on in."
H. Richard
Well-Known Member
But that is not what is being taught. Most certainly following God's law would make a very good world. But, as the scriptures teach """"NO MAN CAN KEEP THE LAW OF MOSES. Or do you disagree with this?
Important? Yes. Needed for salvation under God's grace? NO.
The law acts as a schoolmaster to lead men to Christ. And therefore, those of us who do our best to keep it, if we keep it for the right reasons, hold the law up as a standard that shows men that they are sinners.
As it is written, we will be called great in the kingdom if we obey the least of these commandments and teach others to do so also. Because unless our righteousness exceeds that of the scribes and Pharisees, we will in no wise enter in to the kingdom of heaven.
This means that our righteousness must be on the inside and not just on the outside: the righteousness of faith and not the righteousness of the law:
Mat 23:25, Woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! for ye make clean the outside of the cup and of the platter, but within they are full of extortion and excess.
Mat 23:26, Thou blind Pharisee, cleanse first that which is within the cup and platter, that the outside of them may be clean also.
As it is written, we will be called great in the kingdom if we obey the least of these commandments and teach others to do so also. Because unless our righteousness exceeds that of the scribes and Pharisees, we will in no wise enter in to the kingdom of heaven.
This means that our righteousness must be on the inside and not just on the outside: the righteousness of faith and not the righteousness of the law:
Mat 23:25, Woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! for ye make clean the outside of the cup and of the platter, but within they are full of extortion and excess.
Mat 23:26, Thou blind Pharisee, cleanse first that which is within the cup and platter, that the outside of them may be clean also.
H. Richard
Well-Known Member
See reply 151. There are implications in some questions that are meant to show the other person, personally, in the wrong.
H. Richard
Well-Known Member
No person comes to Jesus until they know they are sinners AND CAN"T SAVE THEMSELVES BY THEIR OWN WORKS?. But the teaching that a person has to stop sinning in the flesh keeps people from under standing that Jesus kept the law FOR US. We do not have to keep it because we can't. But the religious think they keep the laws just as the Pharisees thought they were keeping it even though they plotted murder.
Matt 19:23-26
23 Then Jesus said to His disciples, "Assuredly, I say to you that it is hard for a rich man to enter the kingdom of heaven.
24 And again I say to you, it is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter the kingdom of God."
25 When His disciples heard it, they were greatly astonished, saying, "Who then can be saved?"
26 But Jesus looked at them and said to them, "With men this is impossible, but with God all things are possible."
NKJV
God made a way for sinners to be saved. He did not make them sinless in the flesh. Nor did He need to since He paid for all their sins of the flesh. God can make a sinful person righteous by giving them Jesus righteousness.
BreadOfLife
Well-Known Member
- Jan 2, 2017
- 20,936
- 3,387
- 113
- Faith
- Christian
- Country
- United States
No - it's simply YOUR refusal to accept a linguistic fact.
"Necromancy" simply doesn't mean what YOU want it to mean - and you've exhausted your position of simple denials in the face of all of the evidence I've presented. You're NOT alone.
There are MANY anti-Catholic arguments that have died the SAME death . . .
BreadOfLife
Well-Known Member
- Jan 2, 2017
- 20,936
- 3,387
- 113
- Faith
- Christian
- Country
- United States
Huh? Another impotent non-response from our friend mjrhealth?
Par for the course . . .
H. Richard
Well-Known Member
I take it that you are a Catholic. If I were in your place I would be ashamed to say that after all that has been in the news lately.
How can a Catholic say their Priests are men of God and represent Him when some of them are child molesters. Do they really think they are men of God?
Anyone that places their faith in a man's religious organization to save them is placing it on sand.
Indeed, if your answer to the question is that you are indeed attempting to say that all scripture is not inspired of God, then you are definitely in the wrong. But I want to hear it from the horse's mouth.
Who says I want it to mean what it means? I would love it if you could be justified in asking dead people to pray for you; there would be more people in heaven that way.
I think that the crux of the issue is that you want it to mean something else...which is why, after giving one definition from one dictionary, and didn't like the results, you decided on the definition that another dictionary would give you...your itching ears led you to go to a different (teaching) source for your information.
The scripture implicitly states:
2Ti 4:3, For the time will come when they will not endure sound doctrine; but after their own lusts shall they heap to themselves teachers, having itching ears;
Similar threads
