John ac you stated "when I see "faith" I take it to be a verb, when I see "the faith", as in this case, I take it to mean the Christian faith." Do you check the Greek? I'll take you back to Gal 2:16-20. The Greek says "the faith Christ" The KJV translates this as "the faith of Christ" The newer translations change "the" to "our" so that they can translate it as "our faith in Christ". Check your Greek. By your definition above v16 would read "....justified by the Christian faith Christ...." interesting.
Which version of the Greek did you check before answering my post? Or did you reply from memory? The writers of WCF used Gal 2:16 as a proof text for faith being a gift of God. If God is going to give us something, it must be His to give and we do know that Christ had faith. It was tested in the wilderness.
Calvinismisfalse, Have a look at Gal2:16-20 in a KJV and in the Greek.
16 Knowing that a man is not justified by the works of the law, but by the faith of Jesus Christ, even we have believed in Jesus Christ, that we might be justified by the faith of Christ, and not by the works of the law: for by the works of the law shall no flesh be justified. 17 But if, while we seek to be justified by Christ, we ourselves also are found sinners, is therefore Christ the minister of sin? God forbid. 18 For if I build again the things which I destroyed, I make myself a transgressor. 19 For I through the law am dead to the law, that I might live unto God. 20 I am crucified with Christ: nevertheless I live; yet not I, but Christ liveth in me: and the life which I now live in the flesh I live by the faith of the Son of God, who loved me, and gave himself for me.
That "of " is a little word and I believe the Greek backs me up here. Our faith at the new birth is Christ's faith given to us, not our faith. A faith we must grow and develop with the Holy Spirit working in us.
Most of the newer translations have to change the Greek to read our faith in Christ, in v16 and v20.
I found this very interesting. Dictionary meaning for baptise in NT:- 07. baptiÃ·zw baptizoÅ“; from a derivative of 911; to immerse, submerge; to make whelmed (i.e. fully wet); used only (in the New Testament) of ceremonial ablution, especially (technically) of the ordinance of Christian baptism: â€” Baptist, baptize, wash.
Then I checked its derivative 911. baÂ¿ptw baptoÅ“; a primary verb; to whelm, i.e. cover wholly with a fluid; in the New Testament only in a qualified or special sense, i.e. (literally) to moisten (a part of oneâ€™s person), or (by implication) to stain (as with dye): â€” dip.
"literally to moisten a part of one's body" Why is full immersion considered its only possible meaning?
Interesting the dictionary is Strongs, an arminian methodist.
Observer, May I ask what qualifications you have in Greek translation work. You disagree with the WCF folk who spoke and were immersed in Greek and Hebrew. You disagree with learned men of our day who speak and are qualified in the study of Greek and other ancient languages and theology. You refer to obscure writing of people as truth when no one else can test their understanding of the subject. You like to portray yourself as an academic, but are you?
Observer, Why do you protest so hard. Of the names you quoted I could only find a couple with google and they were not Presbyterian. They were of a reformed tradition. I was unable to find anything they had written on baptism though.
Just a thought from a well known modern theologian "The baptizer John himself therefore declared to his converts: "I indeed baptize you with water" -- not under it! Matthew 3:11a and Mark 1:8a and John 1:26a & 1:31b & 1:33a. Throughout, the Greek has en, meaning "with" -- and not hupo(katoo), meaning "under(neath).""
JohnUK, What do you do if "the water is too cold,and thereby the life be endangered"? Do you really believe that God would institute an ordinance that many in the world cannot obey. e.g. too cold, too dry, people too ill or disabled, or one of several other scenarios.? God clearly in OT said purification was by sprinkling, usually with hyssop dipped in the blood of the sacrifice but sometimes with water. (If something is put in still water the water becomes unclean not the thing or person clean, so running or moving water was always used) Read your OT. Christ himself explained all things from it to several different groups.
So John if I am to understand you correctly, you say that:- 1.only in Presbyterian churches are people accepted into membership who are not Christians. 2. baptism can only be "effective" if done by full immersion. 3. you can judge if a person is a christian or not 4.there is, in presbyterian circles, no need for a Christian to repent and be born again. 5. you disagree with God predestinating some to have faith and others to remain in their sin. and 6. you cannot understand the reformed view of covenant children being accepted as members of the visible church. (Of course your church would not let them in.) This is very sad.
JohnUK wrote "What did Frenchy teach? Oh, that baptism ought really to be by immersion. That all the offspring of believers were assuredly saved because elect, even if they didn't manage to get themselves baptised before dying"
Where did Calvin say baptism should be by immersion? He was very strong in his belief on believers children receiving the sign and seal of God's promise of salvation (not of salvation itself as that is an act of God's grace). You seem to have misread Calvin's writings.
Just how can you prevent unbelievers from receiving church membership? God is the only one who knows where each person stands in relation to himself. Baptism does not ensure it, neither does profession of faith. Throughout scripture there have been unbelievers counted in the fellowship of believers. What is a Particular Baptist?
Observer, You seem convinced that baptizo could only mean full immersion. How do you explain Mark 7v4? It's a bit hard to immerse a table. Also when Phillip baptised the eunuch they both went down into the water and by your reading while they were under water Phillip performed the baptism. A little difficult I think. By the way Tertullian was a montanist and was considered an heretic by the christians of his day.
Another issue - who led you to believe that Presbyterians believe in baptismal regeneration? in any literature I've read it is a sign and seal of the covenant as was the rainbow and circumcision and the communion table.
Please get your facts straight if you are going to be so dogmatic.
Who are the "voice of harpers harping with their harps" Rev 14:2? see also 15:2. If we are told to sing psalms and then do not obey the words we sing will be in trouble with the Lord God Almighty? see psalm 150.(Is there any type of instrument not included in this list?) Rap often does not even use instruments.
John Jesus said that the promise is to the people who believe and to their children. This is a quote from the OT when circumcision was introduced. Nothing has changed except that water replaces blood in signifying the membership of God's church on earth.
I see this as a great opportunity to discuss what we believe and why. Surely it's better to have people asking questions and examining their belief system than hiding their heads in the sand. Get your thinking caps on and ask the Holy Spirit to make you ready to tell the reason for your hope.
As these Christians are persecuted they show Christ's love to others and even more hear the gospel. The church is growing very quickly in China. We must pray for them and all who come in contact with them - friend or foe.