ECT The Gospel Proper

[john w]

Submission to public baptism is a visible sign of becoming a Christian, and joining the one Church, the Body of Christ.

You made that up.


"witness to the world ....testimony...symbol...sign " and all that jazz..

To those who agree that water baptism does not save, but it should be practiced as a " testimony", a "witness to the world" of our salvation, I ask:

Where was the lost "world"(or anyone, for that matter) in the 3 most notable baptisms in the book of Acts? Who was present in Acts 8 when the Ethiopian eunuch was baptized, except Philip? Just the chariot driver? Who was present when Saul(Paul) was baptized in Acts 9? Only Anias? Who was present when the Philippian jailor was baptized in Acts 16? Only his family? Nowhere in scripture will you find any verse that tells of water baptism as a testimony to "the world", lost or saved.

From a sensical point of view, would not the water ritual be a rather poor method to witness to the lost of your salvation? Just how is a sopping wet person a testimony to 1 Cor. 15:1-4 KJV, Eph. 2:8-9 KJV............? A witness has a testimony, i.e., he/she speaks or writes of what has taken place. And just how does wet clothes, wet hair.....do that?

And how is a ceremony, that is, in most cases, performed within the walls of a church building, with mostly believers present, not the lost, effective as a testimony to the lost, i.e., most of the audience is saved! If those that contend that it should be done as a testimony to the lost, then, if they were intellectually honest, then they would go down to the nearest stream/lake/pond and start "dunking away" until the tadpoles knew their social security number.


The basic idea behind the concept of baptism is identification=placing or putting something into another substance, performing an action, with the resulting purpose of a change in the state of the item from its previous condition=change in identity, change in condition, change in status.

Symbol? No one was buried in water. The Lord Jesus Christ was not buried in a liquid grave, but in rocks, and buried when dead. In contrast, the "dry baptismal" candidate is buried as soon as he has received life!

 

[Clete]

Ok, fair enough.


So what is the problem with "For God so love the world that He gave His only begotten Son that whoever believes in Him shall not perish but have eternal life"?

What do you mean, "problem"?

Who said there was a problem with it?

 

[Clete]

It does apply. If they weren't saved under the law of Moses, what law were they saved under?

I'm not at all interested in play word games.

James' followers, he said, were all "zealous for the law". There is one law. Jesus fulfilled a great deal of it and rendered portions of it obsolete but He did not come to abolish the law, nor did He do so until He cut off the people of the law, the circumcision and turned instead to the gentiles and because the covenant of uncircumcision.

Argued yes, proven no.

On the contrary. John W pretty much blew the doors off the topic.

Receiving the Holy Spirit and being baptized WITH the Holy Spirit are two different things. For example. Acts 19. These men were believers and had already been water baptized and they received the Holy Spirit by Paul laying his hands and not any type of baptism. Paul would only lay hands on them after they had been baptized "in the name of" Jesus.

Verse 5 says "On hearing this, they were baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus." What do understand this to be? Can you provide scriptural support?

Verse 6 says And when Paul had laid his hands on them, the Holy Spirit came on them, and they began speaking in tongues and prophesying.
What do you understand this to be? Can you provide scriptural support?

I can show with scriptural support that neither of these are baptism WITH the Holy Spirit. I can also show with scripture what each are as well as baptism WITH the Holy Spirit.

I'm getting bored with repeating myself.

In fact, I'm not going to do so.

 

[Clete]

Fair enough.
Abraham said, "God will provide himself a lamb for a burnt offering" Ge22:8KJV, which many Christians---idk about Dispensationalists---regard as a prophecy of Christ, the Lamb of God, Who takes away the sins of the world. Additionally, the Scripture tells us Hebrews 11:19 KJV, that Abraham believed God raises the dead, and that Abraham was promised Christ as his "seed" Ga3:16KJV. So it's not as specific as we know now, but there is certainly the 'seed' of the whole Gospel in Abraham's faith, which comports with Galatians 3:9 KJV and John 8:56 KJV.
Fair enough.

I don't dispute any of that. I'm just simply stating that what Abraham believed unto salvation is not the same, nor does it hardly bare any resemblance to what is presented in the opening post, except in hidden symbolic ways that are familiar only to the well initiated and that Abraham wouldn't have any idea about. Abraham very simply did not understand nor trust in the death, burial and resurrection of God the Son for the remission of his sins and the salvation of his eternal soul. He did not believe that, he didn't preach it or even think of it. He had no concept of it whatsoever. There is no sense, except in the broadest of abstract terms, in which it could be said that "the gospel" in Abraham's time is the same as it is today. And there's no need to focus on Abraham, either. It wasn't the same for Adam, Methuselah, Noah, Moses, Abraham, nor any other Old Testament person.

 

[Clete]

Submission to public baptism is a visible sign of becoming a Christian, and joining the one Church, the Body of Christ.

I used to attend an "Independant Baptist" church. This sentence sounds like it came right out of the pastor's mouth.

They had a weird beleif that for any particular believer, the local church was, for them, THE body of Christ.

The belief has no basis in scripture whatsoever. The strongest argument they have for it is to point out that every epistle was written to a local church.

Problem with that is, that it just isn't true and even if it were, the logic just doesn't follow.

Any way, I'm not suggesting you beleive that, it just reminded me of it.

Also, what are your thoughts in 1st Corinthians 15:29 KJV, what do you think that Paul was talking about there?

I don't think anyone really knows what Paul is referring to here.

I found the following article on this that seemed to be a reasonable take on the passage. I'd say it's worth the read...

https://www.thegospelcoalition.org/article/what-does-paul-mean-by-baptism-for-the-dead/

 

[turbosixx]

Even today, to say nothing of the ancient world, with their ancient medicine, kids can sadly, tragically die young, before they even reach the age of reason. If for no other reason, why not permit Christian parents to baptize their infant children, based only on this horrible potentiality?

I can concoct all kinds of things that based on OT practices that are not necessary nor authorized. What is potentially horrible?

 

[turbosixx]

I'm getting bored with repeating myself.

In fact, I'm not going to do so.

Thanks for your time.

 

[glorydaz]

The Gospel preached to the Jews was without the cross, and was a salvation from the world's unrighteous rulers. Then Israel would be ruled by Messiah seated upon the Throne of David here on earth. It was said to be "near at hand"...although it was postponed.

The gospel preached to the Jews is the gospel of the cross.

But where did you get the rest of that? "Jesus ... preached a Gospel to the Jews without a cross of salvation from the world's unrighteous rulers?" and "... Israel would be ruled by Messiah seated upon the Throne of David here on earth ... [but] it was postponed?" Is my rewording accurate?

:rotfl:

No, your rewording was not accurate, but no matter.

Rewording what is said is pretty important: it helps ensure that there isn't misunderstanding. I used almost the exact words. What is the difference?


So you are saying that Jesus FAILED, that his being crucified was a FAILURE and a MISTAKE that prevented him from accomplishing his gospel? That he had to put this off until later???

:bang:

This is what your "rewording" gets you. What you did there in red is willfully DECEPTIVE. Don't put your ignorant words in my mouth...nor in my thoughts....nor by "rewording" my posts.

Then can you explain the difference between

"Jesus ... was a salvation from the world's unrighteous rulers?" and
"Jesus preached a gospel of salvation from the world's unrighteous rulers?"

since you apparently support one and deny the other?

Don't put quotes around words you claim are mine. Stop that. Use the quote function and try and act like a grown up when you do so.

Do you deny your own quote?

Jesus did come to free the Jews from their unrighteous rulers....to sit on David's throne here on earth. But, He was rejected and crucified instead.

Because now you're contradicting yourself. Was Jesus prevented from his mission by the crucifixion or not?

The problem is with your question. You shouldn't blame me and be so ornery, because you can't seem to understand what I was saying.

And I really don't care if you put me on block, so stop nagging me about it.

You could try the constructive option of stating whether Jesus was prevented from his mission by the crucifixion or not. I don't care if you got words mixed up before; I would rather have a straight answer now.

Yet you were unable to explain WHY the restatement differed in any significant aspect. The gospels themselves use different words to restart the same events... and you delayed so long that it is very difficult to find the original posts.

Would you answer a related question?

Why on earth would I want to answer another question. Just look what you did with my last statement. You "reworded" it to death, and then continued on and continued on world without end. Disrupting Clete's thread for what?

You need to use the quote function and stop thinking you can reword something you are not capable of understanding. It was not hard to find the original quote. And your "quote" from me in box above had no little blue arrow, which it would have had you used the quote function properly.

 

[Rosenritter]

Even today, to say nothing of the ancient world, with their ancient medicine, kids can sadly, tragically die young, before they even reach the age of reason. If for no other reason, why not permit Christian parents to baptize their infant children, based only on this horrible potentiality?

If performing a ritual saved anyone, we should be kidnapping those people and performing that ritual "just in case."

 

[Rosenritter]

You can't baptize yourself, is what I meant by 'passive.' Conversion to the Christian faith requires believing the Christian faith, I don't think anybody's disputing that.

The perspective of "active" vs. "passive" is at the root of the question of whether infant baptism has any significance. A baptism without that faith and belief would be worthless, or perhaps worse than worthless, as it might become a false security based upon a reliance in salvation by ritual.

 

[Rosenritter]

Submission to public baptism is a visible sign of becoming a Christian, and joining the one Church, the Body of Christ.

Also, what are your thoughts in 1st Corinthians 15:29 KJV, what do you think that Paul was talking about there?

1 Corinthians 15:29 KJV
(29) Else what shall they do which are baptized for the dead, if the dead rise not at all? why are they then baptized for the dead?

"The dead" would be Christ in this context. If Christ is not raised (if the dead do not rise) then what is the point? This was the previous subject of the preceding verses. Those that are baptized are being baptized for Christ. If Christ died and did not rise... why be baptized at all?

1 Corinthians 15:16-19 KJV
(16) For if the dead rise not, then is not Christ raised:
(17) And if Christ be not raised, your faith is vain; ye are yet in your sins.
(18) Then they also which are fallen asleep in Christ are perished.
(19) If in this life only we have hope in Christ, we are of all men most miserable.

 

[Rosenritter]

:rotfl:

Where you COULD offer a constructive answer, you seem to think that an emoticon makes a hilarious substitute for substance.

This is what your "rewording" gets you. What you did there in red is willfully DECEPTIVE. Don't put your ignorant words in my mouth...nor in my thoughts....nor by "rewording" my posts.

Do not accuse of "willfully deceptive."

Don't put quotes around words you claim are mine. Stop that. Use the quote function and try and act like a grown up when you do so.

Are you really ignorant of the meaning of the quotation mark? The quotation mark is the correct way to separate conceptual statements, and they would not be properly displayed without them. If I put something in "quotation marks" and then put your name directly after, that would be as if it was a direct statement.

https://english.stackexchange.com/questions/226821/usage-of-imagined-content-in-direct-speech

You may see the example of how quotation marks are used in a very similar situation, to set apart a phrase and asking if that restatement correct in overall meaning.

You need to use the quote function and stop thinking you can reword something you are not capable of understanding. It was not hard to find the original quote. And your "quote" from me in box above had no little blue arrow, which it would have had you used the quote function properly.

Learn what the quotation mark means.
Answer questions straight and stop complaining,.
Stop accusing others of willful deception.

 

[glorydaz]

Where you COULD offer a constructive answer, you seem to think that an emoticon makes a hilarious substitute for substance.




Do not accuse of "willfully deceptive."



Are you really ignorant of the meaning of the quotation mark? The quotation mark is the correct way to separate conceptual statements, and they would not be properly displayed without them. If I put something in "quotation marks" and then put your name directly after, that would be as if it was a direct statement.

https://english.stackexchange.com/questions/226821/usage-of-imagined-content-in-direct-speech

You may see the example of how quotation marks are used in a very similar situation, to set apart a phrase and asking if that restatement correct in overall meaning.



Learn what the quotation mark means.
Answer questions straight and stop complaining,.
Stop accusing others of willful deception.

You don't know when to shut your pie hole, do you? :loser:

If you put quotation marks and attribute them to me, I will be on you like a tick on a dog. :chuckle:

But, by all mean, keep misquoting people and see how well it works.


So far, you are making yourself out to be an incredible fool, and even a fool knows how to use the quote function on this site. :rotfl:

 

[glorydaz]

The perspective of "active" vs. "passive" is at the root of the question of whether infant baptism has any significance. A baptism without that faith and belief would be worthless, or perhaps worse than worthless, as it might become a false security based upon a reliance in salvation by ritual.

Worse than worthless for you "adults" who rely on baptism for salvation. :chuckle:

 

[meshak]

What do you mean, "problem"?

Who said there was a problem with it?

then why do you question about the gospel?

 

[john w]

then why do you question about the gospel?

What is your function?

Good day to you, sir, blessings, and may the LORD God heap bags of peat moss on your head, from the third heaven.

 

[meshak]

What is your function?

Good day to you, sir, blessings, and may the LORD God heap bags of peat moss on your head, from the third heaven.

hello John.

 

[john w]

hello John.

My Squeaky impression: I said, good day to you sir.

 

[Clete]

then why do you question about the gospel?

TheologyOnline.com is a discussion forum. It's an online forum where people come to discuss theology. What part of this is confusing to you?

I'm not questioning anything, except whether someone agrees or disagrees with the opeing post and why. The idea is to discuss it - here - on the theology discussion forum.

Sometimes there's agreement, sometimes not. That's what make it interesting and fun for those of us who like to think things through and to understand not only what we believe but why we believe it.

Can you see how that might work? If not, what in the world are you doing here?



Have you even bothered to read the opening post?

 

[Clete]

Thanks for your time.

I just want to say that I respect your position and understand why you believe what you do and I respect your ability to defend what you believe and thank you for being substantive and respectful.

Besides the issue of water baptism, is there any other aspect of what I've presented in the OP that you'd disagree with or alter in some way?