Am I wrong

[Marymog]

Again, you have now crossed into denominational doctrines of baptism. I didn't get the impression she wanted to rehash denominational doctrines, but simply to point out that she didn't feel the necessity to be baptized repeatedly.

Here's the issue as I see it. Ritual or ceremonial baptism is an outward sign or proclamation of one's initiation and participation into a community of faith. This is something one does because they WANT to make this profession of faith. She doesn't want to. She see's no need to. Fair enough. I've made the same decision myself, not because I've already been baptized (I have), but because I don't feel like I belong to that faith community. There just simply isn't a level of belonging, trust, etc. that warrants me making the claim.

Thank you.

Who do you think would know more about doctrinal issues on baptism? The 1st century Christians? Or the 16th Christians?

 

[Marymog]

sigh when you say water baptism is part of salvation. you take away the cross the resurrection. along with redemption Christ paid for with his own blood. which equals to bing justified and sanctified .. my theory as you say has nothing to do with anabaptist .. maybe its best YOU TAKE HEED duhh

Nope, not true. Baptism is a PART of salvation. I haven't taking anything away and you clearly didn't read post #108 and 109. I left out some of what it takes for salvation. Here is my full list:

By believing in Christ (Jn 3:16; Acts 16:31)?
By repentance (Acts 2:38; 2 Pet 3:9)?
By baptism (Jn 3:5; 1 Pet 3:21; Titus 3:5)?
By the work of the Spirit (Jn 3:5; 2 Cor 3:6)?
By declaring with our mouths (Lu 12:8; Rom 10:9)?
By coming to a knowledge of the Truth (1 Tim 2:4; Heb 10:26)?
By maintaining the faith (Col 1:22-23; Mt 24:13)?
By works (John 5:28-29; Rom 2:6, 7; James 2:24)?
By grace (Acts 15:11; Eph 2:8)?
By his blood (Rom 5:9; Heb 9:22)?
By His righteousness (Rom 5:17; 2 Pet 1:1)?
By His cross (Eph 2:16; Col 2:14)?

Your theory does have to do with Anabaptist because the theory that water baptism is only a symbol (does not save you) was generally started with the Anabaptist and sadly to many protestants are falling for that lie.

 

[Marymog]

Not necessarily. Churches have every right to defend their beliefs. I have no right to barge in and tell the Klan that they need to start admitting blacks to Klan meetings. It's idiotic.

Church membership usually requires additional responsibilities. Some churches take these things seriously. Right off the bat, they're saying that her previous baptism wasn't legal. it was illegitimate. She's basically being told that she is a spiritual bastard. It's completely asinine.

Churches have the right to defend their beliefs..... but that doesn't make their defense legitimate. Think Westboro Baptist....

Without knowing the details of WHY they told her that her baptism wasn't legal we can only assume the WHY. Maybe they told her it wasn't legal because the other church didn't us the Trinitarian method?

 

[shnarkle]

Thank you.

Who do you think would know more about doctrinal issues on baptism? The 1st century Christians? Or the 16th Christians?

The doctrinal issues grow over time. Obviously the 16th century Christians would know considerably more.

 

[shnarkle]

Churches have the right to defend their beliefs..... but that doesn't make their defense legitimate. Think Westboro Baptist....

You don't seem to be following my argument. Did you catch my reference to the KKK? You don't think I used that example because I think they're a legitimate organization, do you? I don't really know much about the Westboro Baptists. I suppose I could assume they have filed all the paperwork necessary to validate themselves as a legitimate church. Therefore they have every right to banish, exile those who they feel do not uphold the tenets of their religion. They're just as legitimate as any other religion in this country. Or if you prefer, they're no more illegitimate than any other religion in this country.

Without knowing the details of WHY they told her that her baptism wasn't legal we can only assume the WHY. Maybe they told her it wasn't legal because the other church didn't us the Trinitarian method?

It doesn't matter why. What matter is that they don't agree. There's no point in seeking admission to an organization which holds doctrines one doesn't believe in.

As I pointed out earlier, she might as well check out the local synagogue while she's at it.

 

[Marymog]

You don't seem to be following my argument. Did you catch my reference to the KKK? You don't think I used that example because I think they're a legitimate organization, do you? I don't really know much about the Westboro Baptists. I suppose I could assume they have filed all the paperwork necessary to validate themselves as a legitimate church. Therefore they have every right to banish, exile those who they feel do not uphold the tenets of their religion. They're just as legitimate as any other religion in this country. Or if you prefer, they're no more illegitimate than any other religion in this country.

Sooooo even though the Westboro Baptist church teaches that God hates gay people, Jews, soldiers etc. you still believe they are a legitimate representation of the teachings of Christ?

 

[Marymog]

It doesn't matter why. What matter is that they don't agree. There's no point in seeking admission to an organization which holds doctrines one doesn't believe in.

As I pointed out earlier, she might as well check out the local synagogue while she's at it.

Well, yes, it does matter why they don't agree. If she didn't receive a Trinitarian baptism then she wasn't properly baptized sooooo it does matter because only one can be right.

 

[Ezra]

Your theory does have to do with Anabaptist because the theory that water baptism is only a symbol (does not save you) was generally started with the Anabaptist and sadly to many protestants are falling for that lie.

at least i aint following for yours.. i have studied scripture and your theory does not hold water.. why was Christ baptized did he need salvation ? did the thief on the cross get baptized ? the answer is NO AND NO . baptism is symbolic it does not save. the Blood of Christ cleans us

 

[shnarkle]

Sooooo even though the Westboro Baptist church teaches that God hates gay people, Jews, soldiers etc. you still believe they are a legitimate representation of the teachings of Christ?

Why are you engaging in Strawman arguments? (Edit: Sorry, I should have posted that this was a Non Sequitur. Your conclusion doesn't follow from what I posted.) How do you come to that conclusion from what I posted? Nowhere do I claim that ANY of these churches follow Christ's teachings. I can't claim to be a Christian because of that simple fact.

 

[Marymog]

at least i aint following for yours.. i have studied scripture and your theory does not hold water.. why was Christ baptized did he need salvation ? did the thief on the cross get baptized ? the answer is NO AND NO . baptism is symbolic it does not save. the Blood of Christ cleans us

Wow....you have studied Scripture and my theory, which has been taught/practiced for 2,000 years doesn't hold water??? Soooo Christians have been wrong for 2,000 years but your Anabaptist belief that has been around for 500 years is right????

Christ was baptized because he led by example. He would never ask us to do what he wouldn't do.

Scripture does not tell us if the thief on the cross was baptized or not. He may have been...he may not have been. It was by faith and grace that he was saved. If he had the opportunity to be baptized as Jesus ordered (Matthew 28:19) and did by example he would have been baptized.....just like all the converts did at the time.

Scripture says baptism saves (1 Peter 3:21). Why are you teaching opposite of Scripture?

Curious Mary

 

[shnarkle]

Well, yes, it does matter why they don't agree. If she didn't receive a Trinitarian baptism then she wasn't properly baptized sooooo it does matter because only one can be right.

Perhaps, but again this is all beside the point. It doesn't matter who is right or wrong. The point is that they don't agree to begin with, and there's no point in joining a church you don't agree with.

 

[Ezra]

Scripture does not tell us if the thief on the cross was baptized or not

ya know what the more you post the more your lack of shows. so you nailed upon across and say to jesus . hey remember me then jesus says today you will be with me in paradise .then thief says wait take me down i have to be baptized before you kill me. i dont know what type koolaid your drinking.but this rmrk we dont know. dont even bother i have no time for your 2000 year old beelief

 

[Nancy]

ya know what the more you post the more your lack of shows. so you nailed upon across and say to jesus . hey remember me then jesus says today you will be with me in paradise .then thief says wait take me down i have to be baptized before you kill me. i dont know what type koolaid your drinking.but this rmrk we dont know. dont even bother i have no time for your 2000 year old beelief

Ah yes, the default "2000" year beliefs...seems Curious Mary forgot that Jesus said as SOON as He descended to the Father that many false teachers of false doctrine would enter the Church:
" When he spoke to the Ephesian elders before his final trip to Jerusalem he warned them that after his departure savage wolves would enter the flock from outside (Acts 20.29). Even more disturbingly he warned them that even from among themselves men would rise up speaking perverse things, to draw away the disciples after themselves."

Therefore, just because someone holds onto their 2000 year doctrines means nothing at all. Except they have adopted all of the false doctrine that came from that time also.

http://archive.churchsociety.org/crossway/documents/Cway_087_FalseTeachers.pdf

 

[Ezra]

Ah yes, the default "2000" year beliefs...seems Curious Mary forgot that Jesus said as SOON as He descended to the Father that many false teachers of false doctrine would enter the Church:

i can just see the thief nailed to a cross say hey pull the nails out so i can be baptized so i can go to heaven . i've heard it all saying scripture dont say might i add over 2000 years ago they was not allowed to have Bibles

 

[Marymog]

ya know what the more you post the more your lack of shows. so you nailed upon across and say to jesus . hey remember me then jesus says today you will be with me in paradise .then thief says wait take me down i have to be baptized before you kill me. i dont know what type koolaid your drinking.but this rmrk we dont know. dont even bother i have no time for your 2000 year old beelief

Hi Ezra,

My lack of what shows???? It is an incomplete sentence...

What I stated was a fact. The thief could have been baptized PRIOR to being hung on the cross alongside Jesus. Scripture does not tell us if he was or not. If you have evidence from Scripture that shows otherwise, please share it. I am not sure what is sooo controversial about that TRUE statement. As I stated, and which you failed to quote, was that he was saved by faith. What is your theory on how he was saved?

It makes me sad that you accept a 500 year old teachings of men but reject a 2,000 year old teaching of me that lived the closest to the time of Christ. Why would you accept the teachings of the men of the 16th century and reject the teaching of the men of the who lived 2,000 years ago?

Mary

 

[Marymog]

The doctrinal issues grow over time. Obviously the 16th century Christians would know considerably more.

Hi shnarkle,

How is it so obvious?

Using your theory the men of 21st century who disagree with the men of the 16th century would know considerably more. And the men of the 22nd century will know considerably more then anyone in history. Can you see how your theory is not logical?

Mary

 

[Marymog]

Ah yes, the default "2000" year beliefs...seems Curious Mary forgot that Jesus said as SOON as He descended to the Father that many false teachers of false doctrine would enter the Church:
" When he spoke to the Ephesian elders before his final trip to Jerusalem he warned them that after his departure savage wolves would enter the flock from outside (Acts 20.29). Even more disturbingly he warned them that even from among themselves men would rise up speaking perverse things, to draw away the disciples after themselves."

Therefore, just because someone holds onto their 2000 year doctrines means nothing at all. Except they have adopted all of the false doctrine that came from that time also.

http://archive.churchsociety.org/crossway/documents/Cway_087_FalseTeachers.pdf

Hi Nancy,

It is true that there were false teachers of false doctrine that entered the Church shortly after the death of Christ. If you can explain to me how the men of the 1st century Church, the ones who walked and talked with the Apostles, were wrong in their doctrine then I will join you and your crew.

Logically if there was a false teaching that means there was a true teaching. Can you name the TRUE teachings/teachers from the 1st century that you adhere to?

Gnosticism, QUARTODECIMANISM (that's a funny word), MONTANISM, Monarchianism.... to name a few..... are teachings about Christ from the 2nd century. Which one of those do you agree with and were NOT a false doctrine/teaching?

I look forward to your response.....Historical Mary

 

[shnarkle]

Hi shnarkle,

How is it so obvious?

Using your theory the men of 21st century who disagree with the men of the 16th century would know considerably more. And the men of the 22nd century will know considerably more then anyone in history. Can you see how your theory is not logical?

Mary

No. Not at all. You're misunderstanding what I'm pointing out here. It is obvious that there is more information as time goes on. I never suggested that any of it was accurate or even true. Your question was in regards to the amount only.

 

[shnarkle]

might i add over 2000 years ago they was not allowed to have Bibles

False. Anyone who could afford one, could purchase one from a scribe. The same was true for the Oral law when it was written down. You're thinking of the Catholic church's designs to keep their congregations ignorant which was some time later.

 

[Marymog]

Hello @LWK,

I don't go to Church. It is not something that sits well with me, but I have my reasons. I have not been part of a Christian community for many years now. I study alone, but God has never left me to walk alone, I usually have one person to walk with me, that I can share the things of God with, at any given time. For which I thank Him.

We each walk with God, in Christ Jesus, and are called into fellowship with The Father and with The Son in the spirit. The Holy Spirit uses His Word to quicken us, and lead us on into the knowledge of God, in Christ Jesus. We are never alone.

May His perfect will be done in us all, for His Name and Glory's sake.

In Christ Jesus
Chris

Hi charity,

Scripture makes it very clear that Jesus/Apostles taught and practiced that there is an identifiable Church with elders/bishops/deacons. That Church has the final authority on doctrine and who should be treated as a pagan/tax collector if they do not adhere to that doctrine.

Which passages from Scripture supports your practice of not going to a church (Christian community) with elders/bishops/deacons that have that authority?

Mary