ECT The Gospel Proper

[Idolater]

Think about what you're saying. It's speculation that infants were baptized and no command nor evidence that any ever were.

I suggest to you only believers being baptized is what makes this statement true.
Heb. 8:11
And they shall not teach, each one his neighbor
and each one his brother, saying, ‘Know the Lord,’
for they shall all know me,
from the least of them to the greatest.

100% of Christians know God because believers are baptized into to Christ.
Gal. 3:27 For as many of you as were baptized into Christ have put on Christ.

I suggest speculation is not sufficient to change scripture.
Acts 14:23 And when they had appointed elders for them in every church, with prayer and fasting they committed them to the Lord in whom they had believed.

What if one of those churches didn't have a man to appoint as elder? Could a boy or woman be appointed based on that speculation?

I agree of course that nothing that is very important ought to be determined based purely on speculation, but here we have a difference in what we consider to be valid evidence. As a Catholic, theologically, I receive that infant baptism was practiced very early on in the Church, and you do not value such information as heavily as I do. To me, this evidence, which was authorized by Church bishops, is sufficient to prove that infant baptism is permissible, if not outright recommended to Christian parents.

But again, even if we disagree on infant baptism, Catholic babies are baptized as infants, and then, when they've reached the age of reason, they are asked to confess the Christian creed before receiving the Confirmation chrism anointing, which confirms them as being in full communion with the Church. So these people were baptized, and confessed Christian faith, and doesn't that, eventually, satisfy the requirements of Mark 16:16 KJV?

 

[john w]

I agree of course that nothing that is very important ought to be determined based purely on speculation, but here we have a difference in what we consider to be valid evidence. As a Catholic, theologically, I receive that infant baptism was practiced very early on in the Church, and you do not value such information as heavily as I do. To me, this evidence, which was authorized by Church bishops, is sufficient to prove that infant baptism is permissible, if not outright recommended to Christian parents.

But again, even if we disagree on infant baptism, Catholic babies are baptized as infants, and then, when they've reached the age of reason, they are asked to confess the Christian creed before receiving the Confirmation chrism anointing, which confirms them as being in full communion with the Church. So these people were baptized, and confessed Christian faith, and doesn't that, eventually, satisfy the requirements of Mark 16:16 KJV?

Why do you not circumcise babies, both male/female?

 

[Idolater]

Why do you not circumcise babies, both male/female?

What makes you think I don't.

 

[john w]

What makes you think I don't.

Do you? Including females?

Log in...lose your mind.

 

[Idolater]

Do you? Including females?

Sure why not.

Log in...lose your mind.

Nice. :up:

 

[john w]

I agree of course that nothing that is very important ought to be determined based purely on speculation, but here we have a difference in what we consider to be valid evidence. As a Catholic, theologically, I receive that infant baptism was practiced very early on in the Church, and you do not value such information as heavily as I do. To me, this evidence, which was authorized by Church bishops, is sufficient to prove that infant baptism is permissible, if not outright recommended to Christian parents.

But again, even if we disagree on infant baptism, Catholic babies are baptized as infants, and then, when they've reached the age of reason, they are asked to confess the Christian creed before receiving the Confirmation chrism anointing, which confirms them as being in full communion with the Church. So these people were baptized, and confessed Christian faith, and doesn't that, eventually, satisfy the requirements of Mark 16:16 KJV?

Do you Romans also instruct, and satisfy the requirements of Mark 16:17-18 KJV?:

17 And these signs shall follow them that believe; In my name shall they cast out devils; they shall speak with new tongues;

18 They shall take up serpents; and if they drink any deadly thing, it shall not hurt them; they shall lay hands on the sick, and they shall recover.



Drink some anti-freeze, and not be hurt...........


Roman Catholic frauds, asserting that all of the bible is about you, directed towards you, and is for your obedience, thus "proving" anything you want.

 

[john w]

Sure why not.
Nice. :up:

Circumcising females-right, Col. Klink. You are dismissed.

 

[Idolater]

Circumcising females-right, Col. Klink. You are dismissed.

Well that's a load off.

 

[Idolater]

Do you Romans also instruct, and satisfy the requirements of Mark 16:17-18 KJV?:

17 And these signs shall follow them that believe; In my name shall they cast out devils; they shall speak with new tongues;

18 They shall take up serpents; and if they drink any deadly thing, it shall not hurt them; they shall lay hands on the sick, and they shall recover.

'Exorcism' is a real thing. As to 'new tongues,' idk, maybe these are the tongues that were not known then, like the Native American languages?

I don't know anyone who takes up serpents or drinks poison and lives. But 'Extreme unction' is the anointing of the sick. Speaking of which, I've become intrigued that some Catholic clergy are more liberal about which conditions justify the celebration of this sacrament. They don't all require that the recipient is on death's door. The anointing of the sick sounds like it could be very nice.

Drink some anti-freeze, and not be hurt...........

Yeah I don't know anyone who does this. 'Got me there.

Roman Catholic frauds, asserting that all of the bible is about you, directed towards you, and is for your obedience, thus "proving" anything you want.

The Bible is for the Body of Christ, yes. It's not all written to the Church, but it is all for the Church.

 

[turbosixx]

But again, even if we disagree on infant baptism, Catholic babies are baptized as infants, and then, when they've reached the age of reason, they are asked to confess the Christian creed before receiving the Confirmation chrism anointing, which confirms them as being in full communion with the Church. So these people were baptized, and confessed Christian faith, and doesn't that, eventually, satisfy the requirements of Mark 16:16 KJV?

It looks like it does but I would suggest it's a perversion. For example, why not baptize them once they do believe just as instructed? We see Paul baptizing someone that had already been baptized. Which brings up the question. Why are infants baptized at all since there are no commandments nor examples?

 

[john w]

Do you Romans also instruct, and satisfy the requirements of Mark 16:17-18 KJV?:

17 And these signs shall follow them that believe; In my name shall they cast out devils; they shall speak with new tongues;

18 They shall take up serpents; and if they drink any deadly thing, it shall not hurt them; they shall lay hands on the sick, and they shall recover.

Non responsive-evasion:

'Exorcism' is a real thing. As to 'new tongues,' idk, maybe these are the tongues that were not known then, like the Native American languages?

Do you Romans also instruct, and satisfy the requirements of Mark 16:17-18 KJV?:

17 And these signs shall follow them that believe; In my name shall they cast out devils; they shall speak with new tongues;

18 They shall take up serpents;


No, you don't-you lied.

I don't know anyone who takes up serpents or drinks poison and lives.

Confirmed-he admits that he does not satisfy the requirements of Mark 16:17-18 KJV, making his argument for infant baptism, employing Mark 16:16 KJV, a fraud, as he selectively ignores the verses that follow, deceitfully spinning them.

But 'Extreme unction' is the anointing of the sick.

No, you just lied, as you do not "they shall lay hands on the sick, and they shall recover."

You side stepped it, spamming this "Extreme Unction" made up Catholic jazz, spinning it as ""they shall lay hands on the sick, and they shall recover."

Yeah I don't know anyone who does this. 'Got me there.

Confirmed-he admits that he does not satisfy the requirements of Mark 16:17-18 KJV, making his argument for infant baptism, employing Mark 16:16 KJV, a fraud, as he selectively ignores the verses that follow, deceitfully spinning them.

The Bible is for the Body of Christ, yes. It's not all written to the Church, but it is all for the Church.

He admits that the bible is not "all written to the Church."


Thus, dispensationalists, including myself, have the same interpretive right to say the same. Mark 16 ff. is not written to the boc.


QED.

 

[Clete]

Those before Christ were not saved the same way as those in Acts 2. God has provided something better for us as promised.
Heb. 11:32 And what more shall I say? For time would fail me to tell of Gideon, Barak, Samson, Jephthah, of David and Samuel and the prophets—

11:39 And all these, though commended through their faith, did not receive what was promised, 40 since God had provided something better for us, that apart from us they should not be made perfect.

I don't mean to suggest that nothing changed at all but merely that it was still the same program, the same dispensation. God was still working with and exclusively through Israel. There were a great many things that changed due to that fact that Jesus was the substance of many of the symbolic aspects of the law. It no longer made any sense to perform animal sacrifices just to give one easy example. My point is simply that until Paul it was all still about Israel and still about obeying the law (those aspects that no longer applied not withstanding).

Jesus commanded being baptized "in the name of". Surely there is scripture that tells us why, what it's for?

I have no doubt that there is. It isn't relevant.

That has to sound nuts to you but I assure you, I'm not trying to be difficult.

If baptism were required before Christ and Christ commanded a specific baptism "in His name", wouldn't it stand to reason it's required?

I would stand to reason that it was still required as of Christ's command and for some time after that as well, yes. However, as I've already mentioned, I'd fully expect that Jesus would command it and my doctrine would be in big trouble if He hadn't.

I suggest Naaman is very relevant because I hear people say getting wet does nothing. Would Naaman have been cleansed had he not gotten wet? Not just wet but wet AS instructed.

It isn't relevant because I've already conceded that water baptisms of all sorts were clearly required in the previous dispensation. There is no doubt whatsoever that if he had refused "getting wet" he'd have died of leprosy.

19 Go therefore and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit,


Does one verse taken out of context really nullify Jesus's command and Paul's examples of obeying that command? All baptisms up to "in the name of" are a shadow of that baptism.

As I keep saying, every argument you make that proves that Jesus not only baptized but required baptism(s) isn't going to touch my doctrine in the slightest. I fully concede and openly acknowledge that Jesus taught, commanded and practiced water baptism and that it was REQUIRED for salvation during His ministry and for some time (about a year) after His ascension as well. Nothing you can quote before Acts 9 (nor after Philemon) is going to touch my doctrine nor move me an inch.

Clete

 

[Right Divider]

As I keep saying, every argument you make that proves that Jesus not only baptized but required baptism(s) isn't going to touch my doctrine in the slightest. I fully conceded and openly acknowledge that Jesus taught, commanded and practiced water baptism and it was REQUIRED for salvation during His ministry and for some time (about a year) after His ascension as well. Nothing you can quote before Acts 9 is going to touch my doctrine nor move me an inch.

Clete

Those that cannot understand the dispensational change that occurred with Paul continue to point back to the "old stuff" and say "see there, don't you believe that". We do believe it, we just understand the change that they deny and ignore.

It's amazingly simple, but they just cannot see the truth. As I've said many, many times... in order to avoid the obvious, they see similar things as identical and completely ignore important differences. It's sad really.

 

[Clete]

The issue of Old Testament believers has come up itt, and I think it's informative to bolster our 'Gospel Proper' to ensure that all those who we are told truly believed, are 'covered' here.

I added the specific tenet that "God raises the dead," which we know explicitly (He11:19KJV) that Abraham believed. Now King David has entered the conversation, and so I think now that we should consider what it is that he believed. Being the author of so many 'Messianic' Psalms/prophecies, we perhaps ought to include in there how Jesus of Nazareth was the prophesied Christ/Messiah/Anointed One, who would be a King like David, a Prophet like Moses, and a Priest like Melchizedek. But does this bog down the details?

Yeah, I'd say way too many details.

Besides, what Abraham believed was that his wife would give birth to a son. His belief was credited to him as righteousness. The process for us is similar but the object of faith is quite different. Abraham, for example, had no concept whatsoever of God dying for his sins, nor about the Messiah rising from the dead nor was he required to have any idea about it. We today, on the other hand, understand that these concepts are entirely indespecible aspects of the gospel.

What you're proposing would alter the discussion from "What must one believe to get saved?" to "What did people in the past have to believe to get saved?". That's a decidedly different question.

Clete

 

[Clete]

So it is the gospel according to Clete?

That's a stupid question.

Can you not read?

I think the question I'm wanting to explore is pretty clear to anyone with an IQ of 72 or higher.

Go ahead, try again. YOU CAN DO IT!

Clete

 

[Clete]

Those that cannot understand the dispensational change that occurred with Paul continue to point back to the "old stuff" and say "see there, don't you believe that". We do believe it, we just understand the change that they deny and ignore.

It's amazingly simple, but they just cannot see the truth. As I've said many, many times... in order to avoid the obvious, they see similar things as identical and completely ignore important differences. It's sad really.

I think that, for most, the blindness is not intentional. I've become convinced that in a great many cases, it is genuinely a paradigm level issue. It's like one of those optical illusions where you think it looks like one thing until someone shows you the hidden image. Then after you've seen it, you can't ever unsee it and it feels like it should have been obvious from the start and it becomes sort of difficult to understand why everyone doesn't see it.

Clete

 

[turbosixx]

My point is simply that until Paul it was all still about Israel and still about obeying the law (those aspects that no longer applied not withstanding).

I suggest to you that those on Pentecost were not saved under the law of Moses. The law changed.
Jesus could not have offered Himself for the peoples sins under that law of Moses.
Heb. 7:11 Now if perfection had been attainable through the Levitical priesthood (for under it the people received the law), what further need would there have been for another priest to arise after the order of Melchizedek, rather than one named after the order of Aaron? 12 For when there is a change in the priesthood, there is necessarily a change in the law as well. 13 For the one of whom these things are spoken belonged to another tribe, from which no one has ever served at the altar. 14 For it is evident that our Lord was descended from Judah, and in connection with that tribe Moses said nothing about priests.

Christ could not be high priest under the law of Moses.
Heb. 9:11 But when Christ appeared as a high priest of the good things that have come, then through the greater and more perfect tent (not made with hands, that is, not of this creation) 12 he entered once for all into the holy places, not by means of the blood of goats and calves but by means of his own blood, thus securing an eternal redemption.
Christ entered heaven as high priest and offered once and for all His blood for the sins of the people. Under a new covenant.
Heb. 9:5 Therefore he is the mediator of a new covenant, so that those who are called may receive the promised eternal inheritance, since a death has occurred that redeems them from the transgressions committed under the first covenant.

I have no doubt that there is. It isn't relevant.That has to sound nuts to you but I assure you, I'm not trying to be difficult.

I've never known you to be difficult. How do you know they aren't relevant if you haven't considered how it fits in to the gospel. Paul baptized believers. He must have believed it had/has a purpose.

It isn't relevant because I've already conceded that water baptisms of all sorts were clearly required in the previous dispensation. There is no doubt whatsoever that if he had refused "getting wet" he'd have died of leprosy.

I suggest the same applies to us today.
This is after Acts 9, he's talking about Acts 9 but it's near the end of Paul's life and he tells us he was baptized to wash away his sins.
Acts 22:16 And now why do you wait? Rise and be baptized and wash away your sins, calling on his name.’
Just like all the conversions we see back to Pentecost, they end in baptism. Where is Paul arguing against baptism instead of him practicing and preaching it.
Rom. 6:3 Do you not know that all of us who have been baptized into Christ Jesus were baptized into his death?
All of us who, that leaves out those who were not baptized.

As I keep saying, every argument you make that proves that Jesus not only baptized but required baptism(s) isn't going to touch my doctrine in the slightest. I fully concede and openly acknowledge that Jesus taught, commanded and practiced water baptism and that it was REQUIRED for salvation during His ministry and for some time (about a year) after His ascension as well. Nothing you can quote before Acts 9 (nor after Philemon) is going to touch my doctrine nor move me an inch. Clete

This is after Acts 9.
Acts 16:33 And he took them the same hour of the night and washed their wounds; and he was baptized at once, he and all his family.
Paul baptized a Gentile believer. Just as Jesus instructed and just as Peter did.

 

[drbrumley]

You see, this is too long. Jesus' gospel is simple and not complicated, as most churches making it out to be.

Here, let me shorten it for you:

This is the GOSPEL

1 Corinthians 15:1-4

1 Now, brothers and sisters, I want to remind you of the gospel I preached to you, which you received and on which you have taken your stand.

2 By this gospel you are saved, if you hold firmly to the word I preached to you. Otherwise, you have believed in vain.

3 For what I received I passed on to you as of first importance: that Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures,

4 that he was buried, that he was raised on the third day according to the Scriptures,

Hope that helps

 

[JudgeRightly]

Here, let me shorten it for you:

This is the GOSPEL

1 Corinthians 15:1-4

1 Now, brothers and sisters, I want to remind you of the gospel I preached to you, which you received and on which you have taken your stand.

2 By this gospel you are saved, if you hold firmly to the word I preached to you. Otherwise, you have believed in vain.

3 For what I received I passed on to you as of first importance: that Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures,

4 that he was buried, that he was raised on the third day according to the Scriptures,

Hope that helps

Also this:

that if you confess with your mouth the Lord Jesus and believe in your heart that God has raised Him from the dead, you will be saved. - Romans 10:9 http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Romans10:9&version=NKJV

 

[drbrumley]

Also this:

that if you confess with your mouth the Lord Jesus and believe in your heart that God has raised Him from the dead, you will be saved. - Romans 10:9 http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Romans10:9&version=NKJV

That's the reaction to the gospel that God wants....