Brother Lurker, I agree and disagree with your premise, if that makes sense. I believe you are correct, there is a spiritual baptism at regeneration. But the baptisms mentioned by other poster took place after the day of Pentecost. Cornelius and the Ethiopian Eunuch were both Gentiles. Even Paul was told to arise and be baptized 3 days after his salvation, if it is only a spiritual work, then he had no need to arise for it to happen.
If baptism is only the spiritual work then Paul's words to the Corinthians make no sense, the preaching and acceptance of the gospel would be the baptism of which you speak, why make a point that Christ sent him not to baptize if it is only the spiritual work that takes place at salvation? Why say that they were not baptized in his or Apollos' name, or name distinct individuals that he baptized, seeing that he told them they have one father who had begotten them through the gospel, in essence all their baptisms would be due to his preaching?
Also, the practice of the early church and quotes from church fathers argues for water baptism of the converted.
May have to agree to disagree here, but I don't agree that water baptism is not a step of obedience for those who are Spirit baptized.
You know, EC, if you are going to make statements, please try and be accurate. I proved from Scripture in my 1/14 10:10 a.m. post and my 1/13 11:54 p.m. post that the phrase "when ye are gathered" must have included women. The anthropos comment was to let you know it didn't always mean the male of our human race, it is therefore accurate.
I said in my 1/11 8:27 post
"I used the absurd to make my point and take down a common argument from your viewpoint, if you have issue with that my apologies."
If you are going to "bolster" your argument by stating falsehoods, you are not helping your cause.
Not trying to get back in the discussion just wanted to set the record straight.
Erik Casey. wrote: Guys, i don't think you understand your situation. I have PROVED that the Baptist method of interpreting scripture with regard to PB are indefensible.
If you mean that believers baptism doesn't stop people from sprinkling babies and calling it baptism, then you are correct. The fact that only believers received baptism, however, does negate baptism for an unbeliever being legitimate according to the Scriptures. Just like the indwelling of the Holy Spirit is said to be for believers only it negates the fact that an unbeliever can be possessed by the Spirit of God.
I have proved that ladies were present at the Lord's Supper so your point about it from earlier is moot.
bowing out because you obviously have no interest in the truth on these matters. Your logic is flawed whether you see it or not. God bless.
1. The passage in I Corinthians 11 includes women, the letter was written unto the church of God which is at Corinth and woman are named and discussed,"when ye are are gathered" must needs include the women it does not have to be inferred.
2. Babies not being baptized has nothing to do with no command to baptize them, it has to with all people who were baptized were said to be believers first.
Erik Casey wrote: 1. Women taking the Lord's Supper.
For EC, in case you missed it from my earlier post.
Your comment on woman and the Lord's supper shows your lack of knowledge of the New Testament where woman are a vital part of the church and its ministry. The ordinance was only handed to 12 men. (by your logic the practice would have ended with the death of the apostle John) However, the apostles are, according to Ephesians 2:20, the foundation of the church. It is a church ordinance and therefore includes all members of Christ's body.
The church of Corinth obviously included women. In chapter 11 when the apostle takes up the subject of the Lord's supper he states, when "ye come together" that of necessity would include the women.(Compare 1:11 with 11:18)
Before you jump on the let a "man" examine himself, this is the same word used in the gospel when our Lord commanded us to let our light shine before "men" and the apostles were called to be fishers of "men." Now unless you think that Jesus only wanted the gospel and our testimony to apply just to the male of our species, you would do well to not go there. If you weren't headed that direction, my apologies, not trying to put words in your mouth.
EC wrote: I think it's common knowledge that everyone believes the Lord's Supper is the continuation of the Passover
Where is the world do you get the idea that Christians believe the Lord's Supper is a continuation of Passover??? Read Hebrews 10. They may have similarities but are definitely two distinct events.
For even Christ our passover is sacrificed for us: (I Cor. 5:7)
Christ is said to be our Passover not our Lord's supper. His sacrifice paid for our sins and we take time to remember it at the Lord's supper, not the Passover which the Jews still commemorate. There isn't even a comparison between what needed to be done at Passover and what is done as we partake in the Lord's supper. Your thinking is way faulty here.
Thus your jump to circumcision and baptism is nothing more than that, a leap in the dark. Then you quote from a confession (10:28pm today)but don't give it credit?
s c wrote: ...kinda like the legalization and glamorization of alcohol... No one saw this coming down the pike? ...probably won't be too long before churches will have "pot"luck dinners. They don't call pot "dope" for nothing.
you have such a low opinion of churches. You apparently don't seem to believe that any stand as pillars and ground of the truth. You also have a low opinion of your fellow posters, they can't see things with the same "depth" you do. Very sad, hope things get better for you.
s c wrote: U S, I hear people talk to one another about their viewing habits...anyone can hear them...really
I will spare the forum any further back and forth on this as you are myopic on this issue except to say, when you start with an inaccurate premise (which you are) you reach inaccurate conclusions (which you have) God bless.
Erik Casey wrote: US, God hates a liar. You lied in your first post about what was in the Bible, and I believe you have confused MS who probable thinks what you said is true.
Your comment on 1/10/17 at 9:39 p.m. shows you defending infant baptism. You have said you are Presbyterian and they practice infant sprinkling (not baptism by the way) as a way for believer's babies to be added to the covenant. Both brothers Lurker and Kev and dear sister MS (btw she knew what I was doing, she is not that ignorant) saw the same thing.
Your comment on woman and the Lord's supper shows your lack of knowledge of the New Testament where woman are a vital part of the church and its ministry. The ordinance was only handed to 12 men. (by your logic the practice would have ended with the death of the apostle John) However, they are said to be apostles which according to Ephesians 2:20 are the foundation of the church. It is a church ordinance and therefore includes all members of Christ's body.
I used the absurd to make my point and take down a common argument from your viewpoint, if you have issue with that my apologies.
s c wrote: 1. Perhaps then,U S,you would refrain ...
2 I know what goes on because I run across other Christians who talk about what they do and what they watch. .
3. I have been in many churches...
4. Grace is not cheap. The more one loves God,the more they will abhor sin.
5. It's not cute that many Christians will allow their daughters to dress immodestly.
1. May I suggest you read the apostle Paul's testimony in Romans 7. Surely you don't think he didn't speak against sin. It is you who is insinuating one cannot speak out against sin unless we have "no beams."
2. I find it strange that people would talk to you about their tv viewing habits knowing you don't own a tv. I converse with brothers and sisters in Christ daily, what's on tv is not a part of discussions. News articles that discuss performer's dress would have to be on entertainment sites, don't know why you would read news from there.
3. You are still making your limited experience the standard for what all of Christianity is like.
4. Have I said anything to the contrary?
5. Only sexual deviants view little girls in clothing that would be inappropriate for older girls as immodest in appearance.
By the way, I see people everyday I go out who would be in violation of my church dress code. According to your thinking that puts me in violation of it and means I have a double standard.
We are what we are by the grace of God, no self applause We have shown the attitude you say permeates the church is not one found here in the many sermons on this site. Thus we advise against making your broad brush statements.
sc, I belong to a church full of undeserving, unworthy, hell bound sinners that have been saved by the grace of God. We all sadly realize that we sin and fall short of the glory of God on a daily basis. We know that if God would mark iniquity none of us would stand but there is forgiveness with Him that He should be feared. We rejoice in His mercies and strive to pursue holiness and loathe the times we fall. Even Paul said Christ Jesus came to save sinners of whom he was chief (not a past tense statement when he made it). He realized he had not already attained but shared the fight between the flesh and the spirit that we all face. We, through the Spirit, mortify our members here and desire to put on the Lord Jesus and make no provision for the flesh. We walk, by His grace and for His glory, in the light and we confess our sins for cleansing by the precious blood of Christ.
I am not sure how you have such vast knowledge of what people in churches do in their spare time or know what is preached or not preached in multiple pulpits. I am not sure how someone without a tv knows how people are attired in its programs.
Please note you came up with no examples to back your claims but painted, once again, with a broad brush.
Erik Casey wrote: Kev, i'm sure you know all the Scripture passages we use to support infant baptism. These passages will not help yours or my position. The real battle ground for this issues resides in our presuppositions. For a Presbyterian it is convenantal and for a Baptist it is Freedom of Religion (FoR). If you would like to have a conversation on this topic you can e-mail me.
And I baptized also the household of Stephanas: besides, I know not whether I baptized any other
All the children in Stephanas household. two brothers and one sister who were above the age of 16.
And when he had brought them into his house, he set meat before them, and rejoiced, believing in God with all his house.Â
The Philippian jailer and his wife had no children, but their household would have included the hired help of a man and his wife.
s c wrote: This is abominable but expected. How many pastors have been into porn and such,never mind those in the congregation? Churches have paved the way for this and many don't see it...for the beam in their eye. Looking at porn is as adultery. We're so far from Scripture that many of us have followed after the "god" of this world. Is anyone really taken aback by this trend?
You have examples of churches that teach the Bible that have stated that it okay for their pastor or parishioners to view porn? If not then your statement that churches have paved the way for this is inaccurate. If you mean churches that are just called that but are inhabited by the unsaved from the pulpit to the pew, then it is just the unsaved doing what the unsaved do, and again your statement is inaccurate. Might want to rethink painting with such a broad brush.
There are no churches that have no sin in them because the members are humans, you are putting forth the notion that sin can't be preached against unless all "beams" have been removed.
Jim Lincoln wrote: No, Ladybug I have trouble with attacking a sitting President, As I pointed out I didn't attack Babyface Bush until after he left the Presidency, q.v., By the way, do you notice anything bad in the personal behavior of President Obama? I haven't heard nothing that he committed adultery, Trump brags about it, and of course he's a serial polygamist, being married three times Hmm, apparently that doesn't bother Mr. Jeffress,
Jim that answer is disingenuous at best. When G W Bush was president the discussions here were based on theologically surverys or questions not news items, so there wasn't opportunity for you to comment on Bush in this forum. Nobody here believes that when you got together with your liberal buddies during Bush's two terms that you didn't rip him up one side and down the next.
Obama's pro-abortion, pro-LBGT, pro-Muslim, anti-business, anti-Christian policies can be well documented. Now name one pro-adultery policy that Trump has said he will pursue. Name the, using your terms, pro-pologamy policy Trump has said would be part of his administration. Your comparing apples to oranges.
s c wrote: Before I knew Christ,I used to like to listen to Leo Buscaglia. He had a "love" message and was drawn to the idea of compassion for all...of course,I didn't really understand love until I met the Savior...Who is the only way to the Father. Let's pray that this guy can figure out that there cannot be many ways to Heaven and that the difference between Christianity and all of the other religions is the difference between man making his way versus the only sinless One Who could or did make a way for all of mankind. One sin disqualifies the rest of us.
Never heard of this guy. Glad you got saved!! Were you a hugger back then?