Comments
81 - 100 of 234 Comments Last updated May 23, 2013
Lords Church

Martinsville, VA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#81
May 14, 2013
 
Mike Peterson wrote:
<quoted text>
Amen. When we baptize, the baptized are given white garments to represent being clothed in him. They also become part of the Kingdom of God.
That is one of many reasons we baptize babies because Jesus says children belong to the Kingdom, let the children come to me, and Baptism belongs to your children and those for away, their children, their children's children.
Through Baptism, we are regenerated, made alive in Christ, a new creation.

Except a man be born of water and of the Spirit (John 3: 5)

1 Peter 3: 20, 21 baptism is connected with the resurrection, and so brings out the truth of regeneration.

Baptism is also called "the washing of regeneration and renewal by the Holy Spirit," for it signifies and actually brings about the birth of water and the Spirit without which no one "can enter the kingdom of God."(Titus 3:5)

Baptism is of faith (Mark 16:16). It is only within the faith of the Church that each of the faithful can believe. The faith required for Baptism is not a perfect and mature faith, but a beginning that is called to develop and grow to maturity.

When Peter came to Cornelius, he baptized his whole family, including the children.

“For the promise is for you and for -your children- and for all who are far off, everyone whom the Lord our God calls to himself”(Acts 2:39).

In Acts 16:14, we read about a woman, named Lydia who responds to Paul’s teaching and, subsequently she, and -her entire household- is baptized.

For Abraham, the sign follows faith, but for his son, Isaac, the sign precedes all understanding (21:4). We infer from this, that an individual’s willingness to agree to the covenant terms is not a prerequisite for membership in the covenant community. We can safely infer, from Genesis 17, that an individual may enter the covenant through the faith of another.
Dave P

Lexington, KY

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#82
May 14, 2013
 
Bobby wrote:
All of you are arguing over the correct baptismal formula but not over whether it is salvific- you agree there. I can see it now, catholics and cocers finally agree on how to be saved and still cannot walk together.
No, still some great fundamental differences here that have not come out yet.
Lords Church

Martinsville, VA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#83
May 14, 2013
 
When God established His covenant with Abraham, He mandated that His covenant be accompanied by a sign (Gen. 17:9-14). In parallel fashion, in Col. 2:11, it is by “stripping away [Christ’s] body of flesh” in His circumcision (i.e., crucifixion) that we are “circumcised” to Him through baptism. Not only is circumcision a sign of the covenant, but it is a sign of faith. Romans 4:11 states that Abraham “received the sign of circumcision, a seal of the righteousness of the faith which he had while uncircumcised, that he might be the father of all who believe without being circumcised.” Paul describes circumcision as a sign of faith.

One thing that must be understood when discussion baptism in the New Testament s that the New Covenant extends to children of believers. This is prophesied in Jer. 32:38-40 and indicated by Acts 2:39—“The promise is for your and for your children, and for all who are far off, as many as the Lord our God shall call to Himself.” This concept is entirely consistent with the covenants of the Old Testament. In all the covenants described in the Bible, there is an explicit statement that the covenant extends to the children of believers. This is also inferred in 1 Cor. 7:14, where the children of one believing parent are called “holy”—that is, we must infer, set apart from the world by the child’s relationship to the church by virtue of the believing parent.

For instance, in Acts 16:15, Lydia and all those in her household were baptized. In Acts 16:33, Paul baptized the Philippian jailor along with everyone in his household. In neither of these instances is there any record that anyone in the households of these believers were converted before being baptized. Nor is there any statement that anyone preached the gospel to those in the household before they were baptized. In fact, in Acts 16:33, Luke records that in the very hour the Philippian jailer was converted, he washed their wounds and then immediately he was baptized along with his household.
Mike Peterson

Birmingham, AL

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#84
May 14, 2013
 
Bobby wrote:
All of you are arguing over the correct baptismal formula but not over whether it is salvific- you agree there. I can see it now, catholics and cocers finally agree on how to be saved and still cannot walk together.
You can lose that salvation. That is where sacrament of Penance comes in.

We cant walk together as one because they are a man made Church started in 1800 and they dont believe in the real presence and they are not an Apostolic Church. They dont believe in the sacraments.

Only the Orthodox and RCC are Apostolic.
Mike Peterson

Birmingham, AL

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#85
May 14, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

Lords Church wrote:
When God established His covenant with Abraham, He mandated that His covenant be accompanied by a sign (Gen. 17:9-14). In parallel fashion, in Col. 2:11, it is by “stripping away [Christ’s] body of flesh&#148; in His circumcision (i.e., crucifixion) that we are “circumcised” to Him through baptism. Not only is circumcision a sign of the covenant, but it is a sign of faith. Romans 4:11 states that Abraham “received the sign of circumcision, a seal of the righteousness of the faith which he had while uncircumcised, that he might be the father of all who believe without being circumcised.” Paul describes circumcision as a sign of faith.
One thing that must be understood when discussion baptism in the New Testament s that the New Covenant extends to children of believers. This is prophesied in Jer. 32:38-40 and indicated by Acts 2:39—“The promise is for your and for your children, and for all who are far off, as many as the Lord our God shall call to Himself.” This concept is entirely consistent with the covenants of the Old Testament. In all the covenants described in the Bible, there is an explicit statement that the covenant extends to the children of believers. This is also inferred in 1 Cor. 7:14, where the children of one believing parent are called “holy”—that is, we must infer, set apart from the world by the child’s relationship to the church by virtue of the believing parent.
For instance, in Acts 16:15, Lydia and all those in her household were baptized. In Acts 16:33, Paul baptized the Philippian jailor along with everyone in his household. In neither of these instances is there any record that anyone in the households of these believers were converted before being baptized. Nor is there any statement that anyone preached the gospel to those in the household before they were baptized. In fact, in Acts 16:33, Luke records that in the very hour the Philippian jailer was converted, he washed their wounds and then immediately he was baptized along with his household.
Amen;

I will add a practical point. For thousands of years, including Jesus, children, through circumcision, was always considered among the Jews as part of Kingdom. The bible says baptism was the new circumcision.

It is very doubtful if they would have gotten many Jews to convert at all if they couldn't bring their children too.

It is only the fundamental Protestants who don't believe their children belong to God as infants.

The parents of Martin Richard, the 8 year old killed by the bomb in Boston , must be grief stricken beyond belief. But they can take solace that he is in heaven, as he was saved by Baptism, has confessed his sins, and has eaten the body and blood of Jesus.

What a comfort that must be.
Bobby

Fort Worth, TX

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#86
May 14, 2013
 
Dave P wrote:
Lords Church: Forgiveness of sin is the purpose of baptism!
Lords Church:If Peter gave purpose that was to be followed, we best speak the same things. This thread in nothing but an attempt to bring Baptist and other denominations through the door of false teaching. The purpose of repentance, according to Peter, is in order to receive remission of sins. The same is true about Baptism. Can one fail to understand why he repents? No! So, why treat Baptism differently?
The purpose of this thread and others is to handle accurately the word of truth. The whole purpose of Peter's commands to repent and be baptized were in response to convicting those people of murdering Christ, not just simply teaching them some Bible. People must be convinced of where they stand before God without being in Christ; if they're not, are they truly saved?
Both repentance and baptism were commanded for them UNTO remission of sins AND to receive the gift of the Spirit. I notice you mention nothing of the Spirit. Commands-repent and be baptized. Results-forgiveness and the Spirit. Would you say faith is also unto remission of sins?
All that we know the very first converts knew was that they needed to do something for crucifying Christ. Peter told them what he did. Isn't that enough? That's the real point here.
Water baptism is not for forgiveness of, sin the cross was for forgiveness of sin and we do not contact the blood of Christ in the water either.

We can agree on a lot of things but not this one thing. I see it as lifting up the act of water baptism higher than the cross.
Bobby

Fort Worth, TX

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#87
May 14, 2013
 

Judged:

1

Mike Peterson wrote:
<quoted text>
Amen;
I will add a practical point. For thousands of years, including Jesus, children, through circumcision, was always considered among the Jews as part of Kingdom. The bible says baptism was the new circumcision.
It is very doubtful if they would have gotten many Jews to convert at all if they couldn't bring their children too.
It is only the fundamental Protestants who don't believe their children belong to God as infants.
The parents of Martin Richard, the 8 year old killed by the bomb in Boston , must be grief stricken beyond belief. But they can take solace that he is in heaven, as he was saved by Baptism, has confessed his sins, and has eaten the body and blood of Jesus.
What a comfort that must be.
Mike, if water baptism was the new circumcision, have you considered that circumcision was for men only, what happened to the women? Yea I know they were part of the covenant, but without an identifying mark.

You see there was nothing about the law that had power to save-gal 3:21. The only way anyone on either side of the cross can be saved is by faith in the Messiah/Jesus-the promise of God.

And as Moses lifted up the bronze snake on a pole in the wilderness, so the Son of Man must be lifted up,

And I will put enmity
between you and the woman,
and between your offspring and hers;
he will crush your head,
and you will strike his heel.”

Who is the offspring of woman, he is the Jewish messiah, we know him as Jesus.

There is not a dozen ways to be saved/ be in the kingdom-only one. It is by and through faith in the one man Christ Jesus. Jesus is the fulfillment of the promise.

Since: May 10

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#88
May 14, 2013
 
Mike Peterson wrote:
<quoted text>
Because all need to baptized to become part of the Kingdom (not democracy BTW) and immersion was never taught as necessary.
All Christians practiced sprinkling, pouring, and immersion and continued up until 1500, when the protester Smythe decided he didn't like that. The only one of the original Protesters.
It must be tough to have no history to look at.
I love history and look at it all the time. But sprinkling is not biblical baptism and the words are different for each the Greeks knew that and so did the first century christians, Just RCC didnt understand it.

Since: May 10

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#89
May 14, 2013
 
Bobby wrote:
All of you are arguing over the correct baptismal formula but not over whether it is salvific- you agree there. I can see it now, catholics and cocers finally agree on how to be saved and still cannot walk together.
Now Bobby you agree with RCC on sprinkling.:)
Mike Peterson

Birmingham, AL

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#90
May 14, 2013
 
JustChristian wrote:
<quoted text>
I love history and look at it all the time. But sprinkling is not biblical baptism and the words are different for each the Greeks knew that and so did the first century christians, Just RCC didnt understand it.
Try to read the Didache written in 40 AD. Many in the CC wanted this scripture in the Bible. Almost made it. Not inspired and inerrant but a great history of what were the practices of the 1st century Church.
Lou

Vincennes, IN

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#91
May 14, 2013
 
I posted the other day but have not had a chance to respond back. It would appears that I stirred up some controversy. Just Christian made a feeble but unconvincing attempt to discredit what I have written. Let me illustrate what I mean. He writes,"Eis was never rendered by anyone as on account of. Grace teaching is always taught with a response, for without a response no gift can ever be accepted." I do not know where he learned Greek but his statement does not line up with the facts. Let me give just three references that indicate that eis can mean "on account of".

Acts 2:38,“Unto the remission of your sins eis afesin toon hamartioon humoon. This phrase is the subject of endless controversy as people look at it from the standpoint of sacramental or of evangelical theology. In themselves the words can express aim or purpose for that use of eis does exist as in 1 Co 2:7 eis doxan heemoon, "for our glory." But then another usage exists which is just as good Greek as the use of eis for aim or purpose. It is seen in Mt 10:41 in three examples eis onoma profeetou, dikaiou, matheetou where it cannot be purpose or aim, but rather the basis or ground, upon the basis of the name of prophet, righteous man, disciple, because one is, etc. It is seen again in Mt 12:41 about the preaching of Jonah eis to keerugma Ioona. They repented because of (or at) the preaching of Jonah. The illustrations of both usages are numerous in the New Testament and the Koine generally (Robertson, Grammar, p. 592). One will decide the use here according as he believes that baptism is essential to the forgiveness of sins or not. My view is decidedly against the idea that Peter, Paul, or anyone in the New Testament taught baptism as essential to the forgivenss of sins or the means of securing such forgiveness. So I understand Peter to be urging baptism upon each of them who had already turned (repented) and for it to be done in the name of Jesus Christ on the basis of the forgiveness of sins which they had already received.(from Robertson's Word Pictures in the New Testament, Electronic Database. Copyright © 1997, 2003, 2005, 2006 by Biblesoft, Inc. Robertson's Word Pictures in the New Testament. Copyright © 1985 by Broadman Press.)

Acts 2:38,“So that your sins will be forgiven (literally "into a forgiveness of your sins") in the Greek may express either purpose or result; but the large majority of translators understand it as indicating purpose. The phrase modifies both main verbs: turn away from your sins and be baptized.”
(from the UBS New Testament Handbook Series. Copyright © 1961-1997, by United Bible Societies.)

NT:1519,“the end by which a thing is completed, i.e. the result or effect: Ac 10:4; Ro 6:19 (eis
teen anomian (but WH brackets), so that iniquity was the result); Rv 10:10; 13:14; 1 Co 11:17; 2 Co 2:16; Eph 5:2, etc.; eis to with an infinitive so that (compare bb. above): Ro 1:20; 2 Co 8:6.(from Thayer's Greek Lexicon, Electronic Database. Copyright © 2000, 2003, 2006 by Biblesoft, Inc. All rights reserved.)

Just Christian seems to be misinformed about eis. I would say that this is not the only thing he is misinformed about.

For example, the word "water" in John 3:5-6 does not have to mean baptism. The word water in light of the context maybe a reference to the water breaking before a physical birth. This seems to line up with Jesus statement, born of the flesh (physical birth) and born of the Spirit (spiritual rebirth). This makes sense in light of Nicodemus' understanding of Jesus words as he questions the Lord in verse 4.

Finally, the verse that I believe puts an end to the idea that there must be baptism or other condition that must accompany salvation is Heb. 12:2. Jesus is the "Author and Finisher" of our faith. He is the sole procurer of salvation from beginning to end.

Do we approach the Scriptures to see what they say or do we go to them to try to support our preconceived beliefs? 2 Tim. 2:15.
Jerry

Charlottesville, VA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#92
May 14, 2013
 
Lou wrote:
I posted the other day but have not had a chance to respond back. It would appears that I stirred up some controversy. Just Christian made a feeble but unconvincing attempt to discredit what I have written. Let me illustrate what I mean. He writes,"Eis was never rendered by anyone as on account of. Grace teaching is always taught with a response, for without a response no gift can ever be accepted." I do not know where he learned Greek but his statement does not line up with the facts. Let me give just three references that indicate that eis can mean "on account of".
Acts 2:38,“Unto the remission of your sins eis afesin toon hamartioon humoon. This phrase is the subject of endless controversy as people look at it from the standpoint of sacramental or of evangelical theology. In themselves the words can express aim or purpose for that use of eis does exist as in 1 Co 2:7 eis doxan heemoon, "for our glory." But then another usage exists which is just as good Greek as the use of eis for aim or purpose. It is seen in Mt 10:41 in three examples eis onoma profeetou, dikaiou, matheetou where it cannot be purpose or aim, but rather the basis or ground, upon the basis of the name of prophet, righteous man, disciple, because one is, etc. It is seen again in Mt 12:41 about the preaching of Jonah eis to keerugma Ioona. They repented because of (or at) the preaching of Jonah. The illustrations of both usages are numerous in the New Testament and the Koine generally (Robertson, Grammar, p. 592). One will decide the use here according as he believes that baptism is essential to the forgiveness of sins or not. My view is decidedly against the idea that Peter, Paul, or anyone in the New Testament taught baptism as essential to the forgivenss of sins or the means of securing such forgiveness. So I understand Peter to be urging baptism upon each of them who had already turned (repented) and for it to be done in the name of Jesus Christ on the basis of the forgiveness of sins which they had already received.(from Robertson's Word Pictures in the New Testament, Electronic Database. Copyright © 1997, 2003, 2005, 2006 by Biblesoft, Inc. Robertson's Word Pictures in the New Testament. Copyright © 1985 by Broadman Press.)
Acts 2:38,“So that your sins will be forgiven (literally "into a forgiveness of your sins") in the Greek may express either purpose or result; but the large majority of translators understand it as indicating purpose. The phrase modifies both main verbs: turn away from your sins and be baptized.”
(from the UBS New Testament Handbook Series. Copyright © 1961-1997, by United Bible Societies.)
NT:1519,“the end by which a thing is completed, i.e. the result or effect: Ac 10:4; Ro 6:19 (eis
teen anomian (but WH brackets), so that iniquity was the result); Rv 10:10; 13:14; 1 Co 11:17; 2 Co 2:16; Eph 5:2, etc.; eis to with an infinitive so that (compare bb. above): Ro 1:20; 2 Co 8:6.(from Thayer's Greek Lexicon, Electronic Database. Copyright © 2000, 2003, 2006 by Biblesoft, Inc. All rights reserved.)
Just Christian seems to be misinformed about eis. I would say that this is not the only thing he is misinformed about.
For example, the word "water" in John 3:5-6 does not have to mean baptism. The word water in light of the context maybe a reference to the water breaking before a physical birth. This seems to line up with Jesus statement, born of the flesh (physical birth) and born of the Spirit (spiritual rebirth). This makes sense in light of Nicodemus' understanding of Jesus words as he questions the Lord in verse 4:15.
Copy and paste...lol

Can you copy and paste or
Bobby

Fort Worth, TX

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#93
May 14, 2013
 

Judged:

1

JustChristian wrote:
<quoted text>
Now Bobby you agree with RCC on sprinkling.:)
No, immersion is what is taught in scripture. You actually agree more with Mike than I do. Both of you believe water baptism is efficacious/sacrament to the saving of the soul. I believe it is an ordinance of the church.

Mike believes that communion is a sacrament, you and I believe it is an ordinance.

The best way for you guys to know for sure you are saved is to drown in the act of water baptism. No chance of a sin sending you to hell that way.
Mike Peterson

Birmingham, AL

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#94
May 14, 2013
 

Judged:

1

Bobby wrote:
<quoted text>
No, immersion is what is taught in scripture. You actually agree more with Mike than I do. Both of you believe water baptism is efficacious/sacrament to the saving of the soul. I believe it is an ordinance of the church.
Mike believes that communion is a sacrament, you and I believe it is an ordinance.
The best way for you guys to know for sure you are saved is to drown in the act of water baptism. No chance of a sin sending you to hell that way.
Every Protestant will agree with part of what the Catholic Church teaches. They have to . They all came out of the CC bringing the parts they liked and discarding those they didn't.

Even the first Protesters in 1500 disagreed with each other in the 1st few years. Each took part. Now it has been divided so much, some of the parts are so small, it is the Bible and Me. No Church is necessary.

That is why we say the CC has the fullness of the Truth.
Truth

New York, NY

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#95
May 14, 2013
 
Jerry wrote:
<quoted text>
Copy and paste...lol
Can you copy and paste or
Is this a total waste of cyber space or what? Perhaps by the study of Lou's post one could successfully overcome ones ignorance, just a thought.
Truth

New York, NY

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#96
May 14, 2013
 
Mike Peterson wrote:
<quoted text>
Every Protestant will agree with part of what the Catholic Church teaches. They have to . They all came out of the CC bringing the parts they liked and discarding those they didn't.
Even the first Protesters in 1500 disagreed with each other in the 1st few years. Each took part. Now it has been divided so much, some of the parts are so small, it is the Bible and Me. No Church is necessary.
That is why we say the CC has the fullness of the Truth.
Part of what Satan taught in the bible was correct, your point?
Truth

New York, NY

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#97
May 14, 2013
 
Truth wrote:
<quoted text>Part of what Satan taught in the bible was correct, your point?
I am not saying the CC is Satan. Satan also told some truth with his deceit and the CC has some problems in the past as I am sure you will probably deny. That does not change the facts. To believe part of what they have said depends as to whether or not it is truth.
Mike Peterson

Birmingham, AL

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#98
May 15, 2013
 
Truth wrote:
<quoted text>I am not saying the CC is Satan. Satan also told some truth with his deceit and the CC has some problems in the past as I am sure you will probably deny. That does not change the facts. To believe part of what they have said depends as to whether or not it is truth.
The Catholic Church consists of sinners. There were problems even when the Apostles were here. The Church will always have problems because of men. But Jesus created a perfect Truth. What is the pillar of that Truth. The Church. No book.

So who has the Authority to take what all Christians believed for 1500 years and determine what part is true or not.

You will say the Bible, but the Bible is a Catholic book, created 350 years after Jesus died, in 382 AD at the Council of Rome.

If you say the Church teaches non Truths, then you disagree with Jesus because he said Satan would not prevail against it and he hasn't

He has protected if from sinners within, invading armies, and the heretical reformation of the 1500s. He promised

Since: May 10

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#99
May 15, 2013
 
Mike Peterson wrote:
<quoted text>
Try to read the Didache written in 40 AD. Many in the CC wanted this scripture in the Bible. Almost made it. Not inspired and inerrant but a great history of what were the practices of the 1st century Church.
Ok here is my question. If God did not include this in the bible even though a pope and a catholic group wanted it in what need do I have to read that or even believe that it is inspired. Because your RCC wanted it to be. How about Mr. Smiths documents that were written on gold plates should I also listen to that group?

Since: May 10

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#100
May 15, 2013
 
Bobby wrote:
<quoted text>
No, immersion is what is taught in scripture. You actually agree more with Mike than I do. Both of you believe water baptism is efficacious/sacrament to the saving of the soul. I believe it is an ordinance of the church.
Mike believes that communion is a sacrament, you and I believe it is an ordinance.
The best way for you guys to know for sure you are saved is to drown in the act of water baptism. No chance of a sin sending you to hell that way.
Your so far off base and reaching it is funny and yet pathetic at the same time.

Tell me when this thread is updated: (Registration is not required)

Add to my Tracker Send me an email

Type in your comments below
Name
(appears on your post)
Comments
Characters left: 4000

Please note by clicking on "Post Comment" 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.

7 Users are viewing the Martinsville Forum right now

Search the Martinsville Forum:
Title Updated Last By Comments
Is Jesus your Lord and Savior 10 min William 111
Is Roman Catholicism a FALSE GOSPEL 15 min William 81
Catholics 37 min Mike_Peterson 780
Early release eyed for some drug felons 4 hr Mike_Peterson 5
where can i create an account for topix 4 hr William 10
Christian Heroes 8 hr Mike_Peterson 94
Partial List of teachings Protestants cannot ag... 11 hr Barnsweb 26
•••
•••
•••
•••

Martinsville Jobs

•••
Enter and win $5000
•••
•••

Martinsville People Search

Addresses and phone numbers for FREE

•••

Martinsville News, Events & Info

Click for news, events and info in Martinsville
•••

Personal Finance

Mortgages [ See current mortgage rates ]
•••