Benjamin Franklin on Rebaptism

Benjamin Franklin on Rebaptism

Posted in the Collinsville Forum

First Prev
of 9
Next Last

Since: Jul 11

Location hidden

#1 Feb 18, 2013
Bobby

Fort Worth, TX

#2 Feb 18, 2013
I have posted before, somewhere on these threads about this re-baptism issue. I am familiar with Campbells water baptism being preformed by a baptist preacher (Mathias Luce). As i have said all along they viewed baptism as an ordinance just like the baptist/evangelicals teach. It was later that Lipscomb and others changed it baptismal regeneration.

This means that todays coc baptismal regenerationist must clearly see that their founder went to hell because of this re-baptism issue.

Since: May 10

Location hidden

#3 Feb 18, 2013
Bobby wrote:
I have posted before, somewhere on these threads about this re-baptism issue. I am familiar with Campbells water baptism being preformed by a baptist preacher (Mathias Luce). As i have said all along they viewed baptism as an ordinance just like the baptist/evangelicals teach. It was later that Lipscomb and others changed it baptismal regeneration.
This means that todays coc baptismal regenerationist must clearly see that their founder went to hell because of this re-baptism issue.
Sorry who are you claiming went to Hell?
New Guy

Lexington, KY

#4 Feb 18, 2013
Good thing I don't consider Campbell or any other of those old dudes to be "my founder". Anybody who can read could have told you all that Campbell was baptized by a baptist. Breaking news-LOL! Jesus didn't go to hell, regardless of what the apostles creed says.

Still, here's the real problem. Everyone wants a pass based on the fact that we all have probably been fully immersed sometime. Then we say, well we were baptized. We obeyed. What does it matter what for or why-we obeyed! What were the converts in Acts told? What did they believe? Can we get away with sincerity without understanding, when they had understanding and sincerity? How much do we need to know-look at what they were told in Acts and you have your answer.
New Guy

Lexington, KY

#5 Feb 18, 2013
Bobby wrote:
I have posted before, somewhere on these threads about this re-baptism issue. I am familiar with Campbells water baptism being preformed by a baptist preacher (Mathias Luce). As i have said all along they viewed baptism as an ordinance just like the baptist/evangelicals teach. It was later that Lipscomb and others changed it baptismal regeneration.
This means that todays coc baptismal regenerationist must clearly see that their founder went to hell because of this re-baptism issue.
Passing judgment are we there God?
Bobby

Fort Worth, TX

#6 Feb 18, 2013
New Guy wrote:
Good thing I don't consider Campbell or any other of those old dudes to be "my founder". Anybody who can read could have told you all that Campbell was baptized by a baptist. Breaking news-LOL! Jesus didn't go to hell, regardless of what the apostles creed says.
Still, here's the real problem. Everyone wants a pass based on the fact that we all have probably been fully immersed sometime. Then we say, well we were baptized. We obeyed. What does it matter what for or why-we obeyed! What were the converts in Acts told? What did they believe? Can we get away with sincerity without understanding, when they had understanding and sincerity? How much do we need to know-look at what they were told in Acts and you have your answer.
Struck a nerve, didn't it? You will not accept me as a brother, do you accept Campbell as a brother? Your list of acceptable brothers seems to be getting shorter. This is sorta how Johnny got started, look how short his list of brothers has become. All because of the one true church idiocracy. They actually look for things to divide over. You are not on Johnny's short list of brothers, you don't measure up any better than I do:-)

Deny it all you want but the church of Christ, disciples of Christ and Christian church would not exist today except for Campbell.

Since: Jul 11

Location hidden

#7 Feb 18, 2013
New Guy:“Still, here's the real problem. Everyone wants a pass based on the fact that we all have probably been fully immersed sometime. Then we say, well we were baptized. We obeyed. What does it matter what for or why-we obeyed! What were the converts in Acts told? What did they believe? Can we get away with sincerity without understanding, when they had understanding and sincerity? How much do we need to know-look at what they were told in Acts and you have your answer.”

This point is hard if not impossible to get around – a point that has long troubled me.“IF” baptism MUST be done specifically, intentionally, purposely, in order to receive remission of sins this means easy-believism [sinners prayer; accept Jesus in your heart, etc.] and MANY professing believers are self-deceived. This means the majority of professing Christians, are, in fact, LOST-[a scary thought]. This is a hard pill to swallow because it comes down to human understanding as a primary basis of receiving remission of sins. Nevertheless, who can argue with Scripture? The Bible seems to support the necessity of understanding the purpose of baptism just as it does the with understanding that we must repent.
New Guy

Lexington, KY

#8 Feb 18, 2013
Bobby wrote:
<quoted text>
Struck a nerve, didn't it? You will not accept me as a brother, do you accept Campbell as a brother? Your list of acceptable brothers seems to be getting shorter. This is sorta how Johnny got started, look how short his list of brothers has become. All because of the one true church idiocracy. They actually look for things to divide over. You are not on Johnny's short list of brothers, you don't measure up any better than I do:-)
Deny it all you want but the church of Christ, disciples of Christ and Christian church would not exist today except for Campbell.
Deny it? I have said all along that I acknowledge where the coc, doc, and cc came from. Maybe one of the few who did. What strikes a nerve with me is those who say that without Campbell, Stone and the boys we wouldn't be where we are today.

I do not worry about who accepts me as a brother or doesnt accept me. That is not my problem to deal with or worry about. I do not answer for someone else's opinion. Again, we seem to have skipped the point of the thread and baptism, and rebaptism. The "founders" seem to have believed that one baptism was as good as another, regardless of their reasons or purposes. I believe that the scriptures are clear about why we should be baptized, and the purposes of it. If someone is baptized for unscriptural reasons, does they still receive the spiritual benefits promised? I do not believe so. Should they be "rebaptized"? No, I believe they should be properly baptized for the first time. Simply "being baptized" isn't scriptural and doesn't cut the mustard.

The point of the post thread here is not "Restoration History" or the source of the coc. It is about rebaptism, and the purposes of it. Don't dodge the issue and talk about unimportant things.
New Guy

Lexington, KY

#9 Feb 18, 2013
JesusCreed wrote:
New Guy:“Still, here's the real problem. Everyone wants a pass based on the fact that we all have probably been fully immersed sometime. Then we say, well we were baptized. We obeyed. What does it matter what for or why-we obeyed! What were the converts in Acts told? What did they believe? Can we get away with sincerity without understanding, when they had understanding and sincerity? How much do we need to know-look at what they were told in Acts and you have your answer.”
This point is hard if not impossible to get around – a point that has long troubled me.“IF” baptism MUST be done specifically, intentionally, purposely, in order to receive remission of sins this means easy-believism [sinners prayer; accept Jesus in your heart, etc.] and MANY professing believers are self-deceived. This means the majority of professing Christians, are, in fact, LOST-[a scary thought]. This is a hard pill to swallow because it comes down to human understanding as a primary basis of receiving remission of sins. Nevertheless, who can argue with Scripture? The Bible seems to support the necessity of understanding the purpose of baptism just as it does the with understanding that we must repent.
I agree with you, it is a hard pill to swallow. Who wants to believe that a majority of people we see are lost? Family, friends, co-workers= many if not most of who in the physical sense are good, decent, and honest people. But again, what does the Bible say? Many are called, but few are chosen. Strait is the gate, and narrow the way that leads to life-and there be few that find it. If the righteous one is scarcely saved, where will the ungodly and the sinner appear?

Can we discount the Scriptures because we don't WANT to believe that most are lost? If we do, then what becomes of us?
Walkinginlove

Danville, VA

#10 Feb 18, 2013
New Guy wrote:
<quoted text>
Should they be "rebaptized"? No, I believe they should be properly baptized for the first time. Simply "being baptized" isn't scriptural and doesn't cut the mustard.
Define properly baptized examples of what is and is not a proper baptism.
Bobby

Fort Worth, TX

#11 Feb 18, 2013
I will continue to follow along with the game for a bit. If we are to believe new Guy, then maybe it takes a perfect understanding as a requirement to get water baptism correct and thus be saved. Everyone must be a biblical scholar in order to get it right while those who are either uneducated or intellectually deficient cannot be saved. But that is ok because children under the age of 12 do not need salvation and those morons over that age will fall into the same category. We got our bases covered there.

So, all that is left is those who refuse to believe that water baptism saves. So here we are back to ground zero, what they really teach is that our faith in water plus our obedience saves us:-) Uh, lets just gloss over that Jesus died for our sins thing, that is not actually relevant.
Bobby

Fort Worth, TX

#12 Feb 18, 2013
New Guy wrote:
<quoted text>
Deny it? I have said all along that I acknowledge where the coc, doc, and cc came from. Maybe one of the few who did. What strikes a nerve with me is those who say that without Campbell, Stone and the boys we wouldn't be where we are today.
I do not worry about who accepts me as a brother or doesnt accept me. That is not my problem to deal with or worry about. I do not answer for someone else's opinion. Again, we seem to have skipped the point of the thread and baptism, and rebaptism. The "founders" seem to have believed that one baptism was as good as another, regardless of their reasons or purposes. I believe that the scriptures are clear about why we should be baptized, and the purposes of it. If someone is baptized for unscriptural reasons, does they still receive the spiritual benefits promised? I do not believe so. Should they be "rebaptized"? No, I believe they should be properly baptized for the first time. Simply "being baptized" isn't scriptural and doesn't cut the mustard.
The point of the post thread here is not "Restoration History" or the source of the coc. It is about rebaptism, and the purposes of it. Don't dodge the issue and talk about unimportant things.
You might just as well be a catholic without the pope and all the glitter, there is not much difference. The main issue with water baptism and Campbell was his war against the catholic church on infant baptism and sprinkling. The catholics are definitely teaching the same thing you do, which is, water baptism is a sacrament. Different ceremonial rules and different wording but essentially the same thing.

Since: May 10

Location hidden

#13 Feb 18, 2013
Bobby wrote:
I will continue to follow along with the game for a bit. If we are to believe new Guy, then maybe it takes a perfect understanding as a requirement to get water baptism correct and thus be saved. Everyone must be a biblical scholar in order to get it right while those who are either uneducated or intellectually deficient cannot be saved. But that is ok because children under the age of 12 do not need salvation and those morons over that age will fall into the same category. We got our bases covered there.
So, all that is left is those who refuse to believe that water baptism saves. So here we are back to ground zero, what they really teach is that our faith in water plus our obedience saves us:-) Uh, lets just gloss over that Jesus died for our sins thing, that is not actually relevant.
Lets make this simple for you bobby. Obedience is mans part grace is Gods part. You do mans part and trust and I bet God does his part. Neither is a work of merit. Now there is also a person wrong taught surely in your opinion can not obey properly can they? If so simply tell us how.

Since: May 10

Location hidden

#14 Feb 18, 2013
Bobby wrote:
<quoted text>

Deny it all you want but the church of Christ, disciples of Christ and Christian church would not exist today except for Campbell.
Another prophecy?
Bobby

Fort Worth, TX

#15 Feb 18, 2013
JustChristian wrote:
<quoted text>
Lets make this simple for you bobby. Obedience is mans part grace is Gods part. You do mans part and trust and I bet God does his part. Neither is a work of merit. Now there is also a person wrong taught surely in your opinion can not obey properly can they? If so simply tell us how.
Salvation is all of God. He did not have a peace treaty conference with man and explain to him that he has a plan that he needs their approval on, saying that "I will do my part if only you will do your part" and if you disagree we can negotiate the terms.

He offered man the "gift" of salvation. "God saved you by his grace when you believed. And you can't take credit for this; it is a gift from God".

If salvation was designed to be correct obedience to water baptism, surely that could have been written into the law of Moses and then Paul would have simply said in gal 3:21 "for the only law that can impart life is the law of obedience to water baptism-get this wrong and you will go to hell". All of the law and the prophets points to this one LAW!
New Guy

Morehead, KY

#16 Feb 18, 2013
Bobby wrote:
I will continue to follow along with the game for a bit. If we are to believe new Guy, then maybe it takes a perfect understanding as a requirement to get water baptism correct and thus be saved. Everyone must be a biblical scholar in order to get it right while those who are either uneducated or intellectually deficient cannot be saved. But that is ok because children under the age of 12 do not need salvation and those morons over that age will fall into the same category. We got our bases covered there.
So, all that is left is those who refuse to believe that water baptism saves. So here we are back to ground zero, what they really teach is that our faith in water plus our obedience saves us:-) Uh, lets just gloss over that Jesus died for our sins thing, that is not actually relevant.
No it doesn't take perfect understanding. No one said that. Look at what I wrote. What were the converts in Acts told before they were baptized? And shouldn't we tell people today the same things? On Pentecost they asked what to do for crucifying Christ. We know what Peter said. What did Ananias tell Saul? What did Philip tell the eunuch? What did Paul tell the jailer, or the 12 disciples at Ephesus? Answer those questions and you have a pretty good idea of what people need to understand at baptism. Are we to think that modern man is dumber than those 2000 years ago and can't understand those simple facts? You know, a bunch of dumb fishermen learned the truth. Today, it seems that the "educated" are the ones who can't figure things out.

For someone who was in the coc for 25 plus years, you really have no idea what some of us teach. Or I guess its your hearing and interpretation acting up again. Forget that whole Jesus died for our sins thing? Hardly. But what good does His dying for our sins do if we don't listen to what He has to say? How hard is "He who believes and is baptized shall be saved" to understand? If Jesus didn't mean what He said, someone needs to explain what He really.said there then.
New Guy

Morehead, KY

#17 Feb 18, 2013
Bobby wrote:
<quoted text>
You might just as well be a catholic without the pope and all the glitter, there is not much difference. The main issue with water baptism and Campbell was his war against the catholic church on infant baptism and sprinkling. The catholics are definitely teaching the same thing you do, which is, water baptism is a sacrament. Different ceremonial rules and different wording but essentially the same thing.
This quote proves your lack of knowledge, or lack of wanting to know, the difference in my beliefs on baptism and catholic doctrine on it. You can do better than this.
New Guy

Morehead, KY

#18 Feb 18, 2013
Walkinginlove wrote:
<quoted text>
Define properly baptized examples of what is and is not a proper baptism.
Not according to His purposes; for unscriptural reasons or unscriptural ways. Being baptized simply.for obedience, or following His example is not Bible. Not for His reasons-just get wet.
Bobby

Fort Worth, TX

#19 Feb 19, 2013
I was simply using satire to show how you guys cover all of your bases theologically.

It is all of those bases that you do not cover or rather ignore that bothers me. For instance, the way you use the word eis and the way you interpret 1 pet 3:21. Noak was not saved by water he was saved from the certain death of the flood waters by being in the ark of safety/Jesus. Then when we challenge you on having different ways of justification such as taught in the OT with Abraham being justified by faith without water baptism, then you want to have NT justification become a work (though you deny this) of water baptism by saying that no man is justified by faith alone. The only difference is which works of faith was required- by saying Abraham was not Justified by faith alone but faith plus works. Water baptism is a work required by the coc and no matter how you dress it up or deny it, that work is different from the works of Abraham. This is how I have come to see that what some of you teach is obedience regeneration/justification. The only difference is the works of obedience are different.

Then the idea you espouse is that salvation is not even guaranteed if we sin after we are justified, then the contract between God and man is broken, thus placing the burden on man to do the salvation thing all over again and again, never sure that he is saved. Of course many of you deny this. You use the same system the catholics do, they have a confession box involving another man to hear the confession, you guys do not have an earthly priest but you still have a way of praying yourselves back into the justification that was given freely by grace.

You have no guarantee or hope in a power outside of yourself, in other words you can never be sure you have done enough!

"And you also were included in Christ when you heard the word of truth, the gospel of your salvation. Having believed, you were marked in him with a seal, the promised Holy Spirit",

"For we maintain that a man is justified by faith apart from works of the Law. 29Or is God the God of Jews only? Is He not the God of Gentiles also? Yes, of Gentiles also, 30since indeed God who will justify the circumcised by faith and the uncircumcised through faith is one."

Abraham was justified by faith before any law was given and he is the example for all of us. There has never been but one way of justification-God has never changed his plan.

Yes, I have 25 years of experience in the coc and I see clearly what you guys actually teach, it is another gospel. You act as though believing that Jesus is savior does not count for anything unless we conform to man made doctrines of works. The power of salvation is found solely in the cross.

Since: May 10

Location hidden

#20 Feb 19, 2013
Bobby wrote:
<quoted text>
Salvation is all of God. He did not have a peace treaty conference with man and explain to him that he has a plan that he needs their approval on, saying that "I will do my part if only you will do your part" and if you disagree we can negotiate the terms.
He offered man the "gift" of salvation. "God saved you by his grace when you believed. And you can't take credit for this; it is a gift from God".
If salvation was designed to be correct obedience to water baptism, surely that could have been written into the law of Moses and then Paul would have simply said in gal 3:21 "for the only law that can impart life is the law of obedience to water baptism-get this wrong and you will go to hell". All of the law and the prophets points to this one LAW!
Here is where you are in error. You will not deny that obedience is a part of what God demands. Are you ready to then say that all will be saved if obedience is not Mans part. Simple state it, I promise we will not cry. We are all adults here and can tell when one is dodging an issue and you are.

Salvation is all of Gods choice. Obedience is all of mans choice. By the way Belief is a choice which means according to you man can not even do this, But yet you claim such. See you cant have belief if you say man has no action.

If there was an offer, and there was, there has to be a response which is mans choice. God gave the offer AND EVEN TOLD man how to respond, if not man can respond any way he desires or not respond and God will Have to save according to you. That is really what you need to state with your thinking.

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker
First Prev
of 9
Next Last

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Collinsville Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
Catholics (Feb '14) Aug 22 mpetershat 3,369
Victory Baptist Church: The BIG cross (Apr '12) Aug 20 Mel 21
Christians Murder American Indians (Jan '12) Jun '16 Kevo8263 32
Sarah Smith nude ! (Jul '12) Jun '16 sarasmith 2
The Bible teaches that the Earth will never end (Apr '15) May '16 Anonymous 38
Name that store (Mar '15) Mar '15 Old timer 1
Debate: Marijuana - Collinsville, VA (Aug '10) Dec '14 mr.cheef 4

Collinsville Jobs

More from around the web

Personal Finance

Collinsville Mortgages