The Nicene Creed is not Christian

[ewq1938]

No, he's not. I don't understand how you can say that.... Matt. 3-11 says Repentance. It does not say forgiveness. If you read it for what is says, it does not say they are forgiven.

It says Baptism for the remission of sins. That is forgiveness.

 

[ewq1938]

But does baptism alone forgive you of sins? That is the debate here.

Yes.

Mat_3:6 And were baptized of him in Jordan, confessing their sins.

Act_22:16 And now why tarriest thou? arise, and be baptized, and wash away thy sins, calling on the name of the Lord.

Mar_1:4 John did baptize in the wilderness, and preach the baptism of repentance for the remission of sins.

remission

G859
ἄφεσις
aphesis
Thayer Definition:
1) release from bondage or imprisonment
2) forgiveness or pardon, of sins (letting them go as if they had never been committed), remission of the penalty
Part of Speech: noun feminine
A Related Word by Thayer’s/Strong’s Number: from G863
Citing in TDNT: 1:509, 88

 

[aspen]

I am sure you would also agree that Jesus, himself, is not Christian enough, right? Where does the apostasy end? My God.........
I am doing it again....... I may need to be banned. I can no longer self regulate.

 

[DPMartin]

Zeke

Its your job to prove your point you posted, and the statements you have a problem with. And you’ve got a problem with acknowledgment of one baptism for the remission of sins. And the statement is merely the acknowledgment of "one baptism for the remission of sins" again said by Peter much smarter then you are in such matters "be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins,". Hence you question the authority invested in Peter by Christ Himself.

So what’s up there Zeke you trying to deceive us or what? Acknowledgment of what a Apostles states, is as Christian as it gets. To say what you have to say about what a Apostle states like Peter, is a lie, and the work of false witnessing.

KJV
Act:2:38: 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.

Scripture isn’t written to the tunnel vision fool, its written to the wise, as in they are wise because they seek the Lord’s Wisdom in the statements that are made in the bible. And since you say you don’t understand baptism in the Spirit of which John the Baptist stated of Jesus the Christ and in do believe I have quoted to you then there’s no discussion left.

 

[ewq1938]

Zeke

Its your job to prove your point you posted, and the statements you have a problem with. And you’ve got a problem with acknowledgment of one baptism for the remission of sins. And the statement is merely the acknowledgment of "one baptism for the remission of sins" again said by Peter much smarter then you are in such matters "be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins,". Hence you question the authority invested in Peter by Christ Himself.

Amen to that! Some people do not know the full truth about Baptism and it's purpose.

 

[zeke25]

I am sure you would also agree that Jesus, himself, is not Christian enough, right? Where does the apostasy end? My God.........
I am doing it again....... I may need to be banned. I can no longer self regulate.

Hang in there aspen. I think you're doing great. zeke25

 

[aspen]

Thanks for being gracious zeke - it means a lot. I am really sorry for lashing out.

 

[zeke25]

Thanks for being gracious zeke - it means a lot. I am really sorry for lashing out.

Aspen,

What I find extremely hypocritical is the stance that all of the Calvinists on this post are taking. “Unconditional Election” means they can do absolutely nothing to contribute to their salvation. If they do, then they are infringing upon the sovereignty of God. They can’t even say “I repent” because that is considered a work. No works allowed by man, God is sovereign in their theological camp. Yet, here they are vehemently defending the “work” of baptism. Hey guys, you can’t have it both ways. No works allowed, or your TULIP crumbles into petals. Or, admit that your theology is bogus and go rent a flat bed truck, mount a huge tub of water on it, hire a couple of muscle men, and drive around down dunking as many people as you can grab, baptizing them and washing their sins away. Once again, who needs the shed Blood of Christ, now you have water baptism that is even more effective?

Er, except for one thing. They don’t believe one must have their sins washed away in order to be saved. After all, they are pre-picked prior to being placed in their mother’s womb. So they already have salvation, and the washing away of their sins is an after thought, if they bother with it at all.

So, you see, we are talking apples when they talk oranges. They love the confusion. We are never on the same page, therefore we will never reach a mutual understanding, until they start studying the Bible for what it says instead of what John Calvin says it says.

Once again, they keep repeating the same Scriptures as if they will carry more weigh if used multiple times. Let’s look at one of the new ones, Acts 22:16. Did Paul repent and have his sins washed away by the Blood of Christ prior to being baptized? Or, was he hell bound until those baptismal waters washed him clean? The answer is obvious to me when taking into account the whole counsel of God.

Zeke25

 

[aspen]

I am not equipped mentally, to give feedback.

 

[Doug_E_Fresh]

I just want to throw my two cents into the mix, and say that if one is going to be civil in talking out these issues, one must deal with them independently of the others, and without getting emotionally involved. If one cannot make a new post to argue about: the creed(s), or calvanism, I suggest one must stay on topic, or end the tangent.

 

[zeke25]

I just want to throw my two cents into the mix, and say that if one is going to be civil in talking out these issues, one must deal with them independently of the others, and without getting emotionally involved. If one cannot make a new post to argue about: the creed(s), or calvanism, I suggest one must stay on topic, or end the tangent.

Doug,

Staying on topic is always desirable, but sometimes a tangent is necessary. Without the knowledge of a person's theology you can dialogue all day long with no hope of reaching any type of mutual understanding. It was very important for me to point out: "So, you see, we are talking apples when they talk oranges."

Our words and concepts are mutually exclusive. So unless we all come to the same page, we will never reach an agreement or understanding. Calvinist theology and Christian theology are mutually exclusive. So, why beat each other over the head over with words that each define differently? Let's take my position as an example. I say that Christian theology excludes Calvinism. They say that Calvinism is Christian. They have a different definition of Christianity than I do. Are we ever going to agree on the same definition of what Christianity means? No, we never will. So, our discussion after that is fruitless.

Born again is another example, and I could continue with more. When they say born again, they see it as a doctrine with their Calvinist glasses on. When I say it, I see it as a doctrine through my theological glasses. Do they mean the same thing in both theologies. No, they don't. But even this they will argue to death. They will insist that their perspective is not different. There's no where to go with these mindsets. The only thing one can do is pray that the captives be set free.

Zeke25

 

[zeke25]

I am not equipped mentally, to give feedback.

Sorry Aspen, I'm not trying to put you on overload. My prayers are with you. But consider, that some of your disorientation might be an attack of the enemy in the form of simple word or doctrine definitions, such as my brief explanation in post #31. If the enemy of our souls can have us dizzy with redefining words (but never telling us that is what he has done), then we are forever at a disadvantage. Does democracy mean the same thing to the US as it does to Russia - No. And on and on we go. Your anchor is Christ, none other will deliver you.

Sincerely,
Zeke25

 

[Doug_E_Fresh]

I just feel that a lot of assumptions are being made by everyone when it's not even known what people do, and do not understand about their own, or their opponents position. I think that it would be more simplistic and beneficial to view people's thoughts as output from a framework, and that it is better to define the framework to begin having discussion. As it is well known for example, some people call themselves "3-point calvanists", but it is also known that you must agree to all "5-points" to be considered a "true" calvanist. It seems like from the posts, you're lumping everyone who is defending "baptism for the forgiveness of sins" as a calvanist. Please forgive my lack of perception if that's not what you mean. Because it seems to me you're the only one mentioning calvanism in this whole thread from the beginning. Just for full-disclosure: I'm not a calvanist. I know the doctrine in and out, and personally I don't find it is possible to logically follow it. Also, I haven't voiced a side until now, but I do see various correlations of scripture that have not been referenced here that think bring up some good points about our faith as Christians in general. I'll disclose that I am on the side that says being baptised into the family of God forgives my sins.

 

[Barrd]

First of all, Jesus Himself was baptized.
Should we not follow His example?


Mat 3:13 Then cometh Jesus from Galilee to Jordan unto John, to be baptized of him.
Mat 3:14 But John forbad him, saying, I have need to be baptized of thee, and comest thou to me?
Mat 3:15 And Jesus answering said unto him, Sufferit to be so now: for thus it becometh us to fulfil all righteousness. Then he suffered him.
Mat 3:16 And Jesus, when he was baptized, went up straightway out of the water: and, lo, the heavens were opened unto him, and he saw the Spirit of God descending like a dove, and lighting upon him:
Mat 3:17 And lo a voice from heaven, saying, This is my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased.

We are expressly told baptize new believers.
Should we not obey the voice of our Lord and Savior?

Mat 28:18 And Jesus came and spake unto them, saying, All power is given unto me in heaven and in earth.
Mat 28:19 Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost:
Mat 28:20 Teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you: and, lo, I am with you alway, even unto the end of the world.Amen.

For what little my opinion might be worth, here it is.
It is all about attitude. If all you are doing is following some church, then all that is going to happen when you go down into the water is that you are going to get wet.
On the other hand, if your heart is focused on Jesus...

 

[zeke25]

First of all, Jesus Himself was baptized.
Should we not follow His example?


Mat 3:13 Then cometh Jesus from Galilee to Jordan unto John, to be baptized of him.
Mat 3:14 But John forbad him, saying, I have need to be baptized of thee, and comest thou to me?
Mat 3:15 And Jesus answering said unto him, Sufferit to be so now: for thus it becometh us to fulfil all righteousness. Then he suffered him.
Mat 3:16 And Jesus, when he was baptized, went up straightway out of the water: and, lo, the heavens were opened unto him, and he saw the Spirit of God descending like a dove, and lighting upon him:
Mat 3:17 And lo a voice from heaven, saying, This is my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased.

We are expressly told baptize new believers.
Should we not obey the voice of our Lord and Savior?

Mat 28:18 And Jesus came and spake unto them, saying, All power is given unto me in heaven and in earth.
Mat 28:19 Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost:
Mat 28:20 Teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you: and, lo, I am with you alway, even unto the end of the world.Amen.

For what little my opinion might be worth, here it is.
It is all about attitude. If all you are doing is following some church, then all that is going to happen when you go down into the water is that you are going to get wet.
On the other hand, if your heart is focused on Jesus...

Hello The Barrd,
Welcome to the forum. To bring you up to date a little: No one here in this thread is disagreeing with being baptized. According to the opening post (OP), the discussion is whether or not one's sins are forgiven by undergoing water baptism. The Nicene Creed states that it does, that is why the OP and title of this thread refers to the Nicene Creed. The mention of Calvinism in the OP was not the subject, but it was part of the story told - and as I mentioned later it could've been Methodists or some other persuasion. The story, accurately told, was about a Calvinist congregation, but it was not the focus.

Quickly some Calvinists came to the thread and gave me the impression that they had to defend their Calvinist brothers. And if that meant they had to defend the erroneous idea that water baptism could wash sins away and a lying deceptive Calvinist leadership, then they followed the party line. I really didn't see any attempt by any of them, other than poster #2, to separate the two issues: i.e., Calvinism and baptism forgiving sins. It seemed to be an all or nothing mentality takeover and assault. So be it. That's want they wanted, so that's what they got. I, originally, had no intention of critiquing Calvinist theology. I have actually been avoiding it like the plague for over a year now.

I've had dialogue with a couple of the posters here as far back as a year or more and the Calvinist issue never came up (and I could have easily made it an issue, but chose not to). But those who jumped to the defense of Calvinism lost sight of the real issue of the Nicene Creed claiming that baptism forgives sins. They wanted to talk about Calvinism. Okay, they got what they wanted, who am I to say whether or not my Father wanted me to do so at this time.

Let me give you an example of what happened. I said, "Man that is an ugly hat you're wearing."

"How dare you call me ugly."

"I didn't call you ugly, I said your hat is ugly, there is a big difference."

"I'm not going to let you get away with calling me ugly."

And on and on it goes. A little maturity on their part would have turned the discussion in the proper direction. A little understanding and discernment on their part would have turned the discussion in the proper direction. But they couldn't separate an ugly hat from their own face. They think it's the same thing. I don't. Many Calvinists want to discuss things through Calvin's theological glasses. And until they get that settled, nothing else is important. Here's a conversation I had years ago with a Calvinist. He said, "I have the complete works of John Calvin. I will not discuss any Scriptures with you any more. You must quote from Calvin's work only." (This guy was also a published author). I responded, "I have his complete works also." We didn't talk any more after that. Why bother? I'm not going to make Calvin the center of my theology. I have Christ, why do I need a man?

zeke25

 

[zeke25]

I just feel that a lot of assumptions are being made by everyone when it's not even known what people do, and do not understand about their own, or their opponents position. I think that it would be more simplistic and beneficial to view people's thoughts as output from a framework, and that it is better to define the framework to begin having discussion. As it is well known for example, some people call themselves "3-point calvanists", but it is also known that you must agree to all "5-points" to be considered a "true" calvanist. It seems like from the posts, you're lumping everyone who is defending "baptism for the forgiveness of sins" as a calvanist. Please forgive my lack of perception if that's not what you mean. Because it seems to me you're the only one mentioning calvanism in this whole thread from the beginning. Just for full-disclosure: I'm not a calvanist. I know the doctrine in and out, and personally I don't find it is possible to logically follow it. Also, I haven't voiced a side until now, but I do see various correlations of scripture that have not been referenced here that think bring up some good points about our faith as Christians in general. I'll disclose that I am on the side that says being baptised into the family of God forgives my sins.

Doug,

You said,"Because it seems to me you're the only one mentioning calvanism in this whole thread from the beginning." Post #35 was for you too.

If a person shows himself to be a Calvinist and wants to make that a point of discussion, then I may go there with him. But I'm not going to grade him as a 3-pointer or 5-pointer. They can have that argument amongst themselves. I do have an opinion, but I'm keeping it.

I'm sorry to hear that you think water baptism can wash sins away.

zeke25

 

[Born_Again]

Yes.

Mat_3:6 And were baptized of him in Jordan, confessing their sins.

Act_22:16 And now why tarriest thou? arise, and be baptized, and wash away thy sins, calling on the name of the Lord.

Mar_1:4 John did baptize in the wilderness, and preach the baptism of repentance for the remission of sins.

remission

G859
ἄφεσις
aphesis
Thayer Definition:
1) release from bondage or imprisonment
2) forgiveness or pardon, of sins (letting them go as if they had never been committed), remission of the penalty
Part of Speech: noun feminine
A Related Word by Thayer’s/Strong’s Number: from G863
Citing in TDNT: 1:509, 88

Mat_3:6 And were baptized of him in Jordan, confessing their sins.

Do you know anything about sentence structure? That is a two parter... They WERE baptized <--- first event. Confessing their sins <----- 2nd second event.

Act_22:16 And now why tarriest thou? arise, and be baptized, and wash away thy sins, calling on the name of the Lord.

And be baptized <----- first event AND wash away thy sins <--- second event. How do they do that? by..... Calling the name of the Lord i.e. asking for forgiveness.

Mar_1:4 John did baptize in the wilderness, and preach the baptism of repentance for the remission of sins.

This one can be a little muddy.. but, Look at it this way... The act of a baptism its self cannot repent on your behalf. You have to physically repent of your sins. This is how you are saved. To be baptized is to be born again in Christ. But, you must also acknowledge you are a sinner and repent. So if you combine the act of baptism and repenting since you are doing them at the same time, yes it is a single event, BUT, baptism alone, the physical act, does not erase sin.

God Bless,

BA

I don't understand your strawman logic here, at all.

 

[ewq1938]

This one can be a little muddy..

lol....muddy only because you are trying to make the scriptures say something they don't. Baptism itself washed away sins. Confessing sins is not the same as asking forgiveness either.

The act of a baptism its self cannot repent on your behalf.

Baptism washed sins away. It still does.

 

[Doug_E_Fresh]

@Zeke25

I'm sorry to hear that you think water baptism can wash sins away.

Where did I say that? I said:

I'll disclose that I am on the side that says being baptised into the family of God forgives my sins.

I never even mentioned water. What I believe about baptism has nothing to do with water. I think the problem is that you're assuming that all definitions of baptism include the use of water, specifically. Otherwise I don't think that you would call what i'm referring to as baptism. Correct me if I'm wrong about that.

 

[Barrd]

Uh...how can water wash away sins? It's just water.
Unless your heart is involved, all you're going to get from being baptized is wet.
But John the Baptist told us that Jesus would baptize us with the Holy Spirit and with fire. That cannot happen unless the heart is involved...God's heart calling to your heart.
How will you answer Him?