| Poster | Thread | KeithLaMothe
Member
Joined: 2004/3/28
Posts: 354
| | Re: | | Bro. Dohzman: Quote:
Now , as a reault of the womans committment are you saying that the children are under the New Covenant without any of its benefits or provisions?
I think the "objectivity of the Covenant" position would be that the children, if baptized, would be obligated to keep the New Covenant and not necessarily regenerate. As I mentioned above, however, I don't think that equates to them having none of the benefits. Even if it did, however, what exactly is the problem with that?
Jake:Quote:
it would be wrong to tell people they are in any way saved because of their (infant) water baptism; or that water baptism is required for salvation.
I agree with that, unless I'm missing something in the statement. I don't think anyone here was advocating baptismal regeneration. |
|  2005/1/26 10:09 | Profile | philologos
Member
Joined: 2003/7/18
Posts: 6566
Reading, UK
| | Re: | | Quote:
"Membership in the Christian faith is objectiveit can be photographed and fingerprinted. In baptism, God names us and imposes gracious obligations upon us. Multitudes of faithless, corrupt Christians show that they do not believe what God said at their baptism. They live like adulterous husbands. But the tragedy is that many conscientious conservative Christians also do not believe what God said at their baptism."
Which 'baptism' are we talking about here? Is he saying that at every trinitarian baptism God 'says' something? If so, he is getting very close to the Catholic 'ex opere operata'; where the action generates the grace.
I would dispute too the notion of 'membership in the Christian faith'. What can that mean? I understand 'membership of Christ' (I think) and membership of the body which is His church, but what kind of creature is 'the Christian faith' that someone can be a member of it?
Quote:
Perhaps this will help clarify: If an unregenerate man is baptized, but persists in his rebellion against God, has he incurred any more guilt than before his baptism? If so, what is the nature of that guilt?
It depends on what he thought his baptism was. Baptism is a two step process; repent and be baptised. If he has not repented and knows he has not repented it is a plain defiance of God's command. The nature of his guilt would be hypocrisy, in that he has acted out a lie. He has said, by his baptism, I surrender to Jesus Christ. If he has not he has lied.
I know that it is the usual view to say that the 'unregenerate' should not be baptised, but baptism is a response, rather than a confirmation. It is the response of a good conscience as Peter calls it, but not a human confirmation of regeneration. I know it depends on our understanding of regeneration but Peter's word at Pentecost was repent and be baptised for (with a view to, en route to) remission of sins and you shall receive the gift of the Spirit.
Baptism, rather than 'going to the front' or 'praying the sinners' prayer' was the normal New Testament to the gospel.
_________________
Ron Bailey
|
| | 2005/1/26 13:49 | Profile |
| | Re: | | "19Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost:
20Teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you: and, lo, I am with you always, even unto the end of the world. Amen."
Nasher,
"teach" is the operative word here. teach all nations . . . . . Teaching them to observe"
the word "baptise" here is used as a metaphor. i.e. submerge them in the teachings of the Lord.
what did Jesus command us to observe beyond "Love the Lord with all . . " and "love one another"?
essentially He is saying that by teaching these commands we baptize people in Christ.
bubbaguy |
| | 2005/1/26 14:43 | | philologos
Member
Joined: 2003/7/18
Posts: 6566
Reading, UK
| | Re: | | Quote:
"teach" is the operative word here. teach all nations . . . . . Teaching them to observe"
the word "baptise" here is used as a metaphor. i.e. submerge them in the teachings of the Lord.
what did Jesus command us to observe beyond "Love the Lord with all . . " and "love one another"?
essentially He is saying that by teaching these commands we baptize people in Christ.
Jake, my friend, this is nonsense! What makes you think that your interpretation is right when the universal testimony of the Acts of the Apostles was that baptism meant baptism? Peter insisted that people who had received the Spirit baptism were baptised in water. Paul baptised believers in Corinth.
So Paul and Peter baptised in water and Jake thinks he knows better. I have said it before, this is idolatry. You are worshipping your own intuitions and are not prepared to submit to the truth of God.
_________________
Ron Bailey
|
| | 2005/1/26 15:33 | Profile |
| | Re: | |
So, the Bible is entirely literal and there are no metaphors in it?
One thing that I have noticed about many posters on this site, including (especially) philologos, is that Paul's writings supercede or reinterpret the words and deeds of Christ over and again. But Paul turns Jesus' simple doctrine of love into a much more complicated theology that requires spliting all kinds of hairs and defining all kinds of religious terminology. Its a load of b.s. used by formalized "Christian" religions to garner power over its adherents. A better, more precise name for this kind of "Christianity" is Paulianism.
But Paulianism and religious ritualism bores the crap out of most people; they sleep in the pews!
The Church has built a superstructure around Jesus and no longer can He be seen in plain sight.
Forget love thy neighbor, the real important question is how much should I tithe? Should communion be given to the nonconfirmed? How many times should we pray each day? Is water baptism required for salvation?
Because this veil is so thinly disguised, this religion is what so many have rejected. Unfortunately they throw the baby out with the bath water.
Stick to the direct teachings of Jesus. Paul and all the intellectual religious constructionists only complicate something that is supposed to be very simple. But I guess they like it that way. Gives their lives meaning, or something.
Bubbaguy
|
| | 2005/1/26 16:29 | | philologos
Member
Joined: 2003/7/18
Posts: 6566
Reading, UK
| | Re: | | Quote:
But Paulianism and religious ritualism bores the crap out of most people; they sleep in the pews!
I don't know why you post in 'scriptures and doctrine' you obviously reject most of the scriptures and your ideas are bizarre. How do you decided which bits of the bible to believe? Don't tell me, I already know .. you agree with the bits that you agree with! Have you ever tried to work out a percentage?
You don't believe in the virgin birth or the resurrection. You persist in calling the Spirit an 'it'. You reject Christ's teaching in Matthew, Mark and Luke on His second coming. You reject the Acts of the Apostles because they don't fit into your scheme of things. You reject Paul, you reject the Revelation. You reject the parts of the Old Testament that you can't twist into your own crazy notions. Added to which you believe in reincarnation which is rejected by Hebrews.
Jake, in spite of all that you say, you are not a Christian, and I don't regard you as one; neither are you a brother, so I don't call you one. You are a freebootting freethinker, and your adolatry will be the death of you.
_________________
Ron Bailey
|
| | 2005/1/26 18:10 | Profile | dohzman
Member
Joined: 2004/10/13
Posts: 2132
| | Re: | | Something you might want to at least consider is that the Hebrew believers already had a "christian ethic" but Paul was sent to the gentles to lead them to the truth and knowledge of the Lord Jesus Christ.The gentles at that time for the most part had no idea what christian ethics were since most of the ethical teaching of Christ are rooted in the OT. So basically what Paul did was teach to gentiles what Jesus taught and he used the OT. I might warn you about only one thing,if you spiritualize everything in the bible you will become a hearer and not a doer of the word of God. Very dangerous.
_________________
D.Miller
|
| | 2005/1/26 22:47 | Profile | Nasher
Member
Joined: 2003/7/28
Posts: 404
Watford, UK
| | Re: | | Quote:
"teach" is the operative word here. teach all nations . . . . . Teaching them to observe"
I come to a different conclusion, please tell me how you came to your conclusion, here is how I came to mine:
There are 3 commands in verse 19:
"Go"
"Teach"
"Baptize"
If you start to analyse the passage, you start to ask yourself questions, firstly when I read "Go ye therefore" I ask my self "go where?", the answer is in the next bit "and teach all nations" and also in Mark 16:15 - "Go ye into all the world"
Next it says "teach all nations", this word for teach is matheteuo which is the verb form of the noun mathetes which means disciple.
Then it says "baptizing them", therefore Christ is saying baptize the ones you have been discipling (i.e. the ones who have now become disciples themselves)
The next question I ask myself is "what kind of baptism is Christ talking about here?"
Well there are a few baptisms in the new testament, firstly we have John the Baptists baptism which was a baptism for repentance (I indeed baptize you with water unto repentance Mat 3:11) which was to prepare the way of the Lord (Mat 3:3) This baptism was performed with water (I indeed baptize you with water Mat 3:11)
Secondly we have Christ's baptism which was the cross (But Jesus said unto them, Ye know not what ye ask: can ye drink of the cup that I drink of? and be baptized with the baptism that I am baptized with? Mark 10:38)
Thirdly a baptism is mentioned that Christ will accomplish himself - he shall baptize you with the Holy Ghost, and with fire, this is where we are baptized into his baptism (And they said unto him, We can. And Jesus said unto them, Ye shall indeed drink of the cup that I drink of; and with the baptism that I am baptized withal shall ye be baptized Mark 10:39)
Forthly we have the baptism performed by the disciples (When therefore the LORD knew how the Pharisees had heard that Jesus made and baptized more disciples than John, (Though Jesus himself baptized not, but his disciples,)) This baptism was therefore similar to John's, therefore it must have been with water. You see the pattern here - they made and then baptized disciples.
This is the continuation of this baptism that Christ is talking about, this time the disciples will venture out further (into all the world) to perform these baptisms. Christ says "baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost", i.e. baptizing them into the authority of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost.
We then have verse 20 - Teaching the word for teaching this time is didasko which means:
1) to teach
1a) to hold discourse with others in order to instruct them, deliver didactic discourses
1b) to be a teacher
1c) to discharge the office of a teacher, conduct ones self as a teacher
2) to teach one
2a) to impart instruction
2b) instill doctrine into one
2c) the thing taught or enjoined
2d) to explain or expound a thing
2f) to teach one something
them i.e. the ones who have already been made disciples, to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you i.e. not teaching them unto salvation but unto santification.
In summation, Christ is saying this:
Therefore [because all power is given unto me in heaven and in earth] go and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them [in water] into the authority of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost [to publically declare that they belong to me].
Quote:
essentially He is saying that by teaching these commands we baptize people in Christ.
You don't really mean this...do you?
_________________
Mark Nash
|
| | 2005/1/27 7:07 | Profile |
| | Re: | | Nasher,
Thanks for your post. here's the operative phrase:
"teach all nations, baptizing them"
"Baptizing them" modifies "teach," in this grammatical construction. Together this means to submerge them in the teachings of Jesus.
Human cultures seem to have need for rituals and this is where water baptism comes into formalized Christianity. We grabbed onto what John was doing and added it to Jesus' teachings. But John's purpose was to lay the path ahead of Christ, not behind.
Ron,
The Bible is God's word AS interpreted by MAN. It is not perfect and is not to be worshiped. Be careful here. There is much truth in it, but it needs intepretation from a human perspective. It is given to us by God and men (women, too) together and it is up to us to sort out the ego from the truth. The easiest way to do this is to read and listen to what your heart says at the same time. If the heart (inliving spirit of God) says somethings wrong here with this passage, you had better pay attention.
As for Paul, he was a great servant of God for bringing the message of Jesus to the gentiles. But he added much to, and reinterpreted, the message of Jesus in the process of creating a Church. We have to sort out the differences in order to get at what Jesus really meant.
Jake |
| | 2005/1/27 10:02 | | philologos
Member
Joined: 2003/7/18
Posts: 6566
Reading, UK
| | Re: | | Quote:
[u]Jake says:[/u] We have to sort out the differences in order to get at what Jesus really meant.
The 'we' is just your arrogance speaking. Man will be judged by the revelation of God in the Scripture, not the other way around.
Your views are self-centred and non-Christian. The choice really is 'Jake says' or 'The Bible says'. I know which one I am prepared to stake my eternity on!
_________________
Ron Bailey
|
| | 2005/1/27 12:27 | Profile |
|
