Posted on 02/28/2008 6:25:40 AM PST by Manfred the Wonder Dawg
Which churchs?.. To think all the churches(the early ones AND the later ones) agreed on everything even baptism is naieve.. You need ot get out more.. :)
AMEN!
While Peter yet spake these words, the Holy Ghost fell on all them which heard the word. And they of the circumcision which believed were astonished, as many as came with Peter, because that on the Gentiles also was poured out the gift of the Holy Ghost. For they heard them speak with tongues, and magnify God. Then answered Peter, Can any man forbid water, that these should not be baptized, which have received the Holy Ghost as well as we? And he commanded them to be baptized in the name of the Lord." -- Acts 10:43-48"To him give all the prophets witness, that through his name whosoever believeth in him shall receive remission of sins.
He that believeth on me, as the scripture hath said, out of his belly shall flow rivers of living water. (But this spake he of the Spirit, which they that believe on him should receive: for the Holy Ghost was not yet [given]; because that Jesus was not yet glorified.) – John 7:38-39
For by one Spirit are we all baptized into one body, whether [we be] Jews or Gentiles, whether [we be] bond or free; and have been all made to drink into one Spirit. – I Corinthians 12:13
Moreover, brethren, I would not that ye should be ignorant, how that all our fathers were under the cloud, and all passed through the sea; And were all baptized unto Moses in the cloud and in the sea; And did all eat the same spiritual meat; And did all drink the same spiritual drink: for they drank of that spiritual Rock that followed them: and that Rock was Christ. – 1 Corinthians 10:1-4
Yep.
"Abandoned...by the Word of God, they flee for aid to antiquity." -- John Calvin, "The Necessity of Reforming the Church."
But these are written, that ye might believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God; and that believing ye might have life through his name.
The Jews thought in the OT that circumcision saved them, but it was merely the outward sign of an inward repentance which is actually what caused God to save them. Baptism is just our outward sign.
It is faith in Christ, as our Savior, that saves. Baptism is an outward expression of that belief. Which is why we are buried with Him in baptism so that we are alive in Him forevermore. He is the Living Water.
AMEN!
"The first object of (the sacraments) is to assist our faith towards God; the second, to testify our confession before men." -- John Calvin, "Inst. IV:xiv.13
Well if you believe THE GOSPEL and want to make a public profession of Faith you can come join the Baptists and be in the visible Church. :-)
But why is there any reason to believe the "indwelt believers" who presumably made up the Church in the first place (including the Fathers) would have gone so far astray on this?
I can throw out a bunch of theories. Look at what happened to the Lord's Supper.
It appears God can, in certain limited circumstances, give even to men the power to teach with a charism that He alone has.
With God anything is possible.
Mathias is a great case in point. The Apostles replaced Judas with Mathias, but God replaced Judas with Paul. It is all from God, not man. We always seem to find a way to screw it up.
Why "only"? Unless you are born of water in the spirit, you cannot inherit the Kingdom. Seems to me to be a condition.
Our baptism is by the Holy Spirit who employs water as a sign and symbol of our status as His adopted children. The water does not save anyone. God alone by the regeneration of the Holy Spirit saves the fallen sinner. Take your eyes off the material word and raise them to the spiritual world. That's where salvation resides.
Ah, but not merely a sign and symbol! The Holy Spirit employs water as an external sign and symbol of an internal/spiritual regeneration.
Of course water itself does not save anyone. Of course the regeneration of the Holy Spirit is what saves. But what John is saying here is that they go together. Water *and* the Spirit. Sacramental theology 101. :)
Blessed clarity and Godly-discernment.
The church is one in SPIRIT, not in doctrine.. The letter of doctrine KILLS it is only the Spirit that gives life.. to the church.. You would know that if you "Sola (knew) Scriptura"..
Argument from silence, a common tactic by many Protestants but it is only applicable to show ignorance of a subject. And even in that instance, to only show POSSIBLE ignorance of a subject. Affirmative statements can NOT be shown via arguments of silence however.
An easy example to show this correct: If arguments from silence could be used to show affirmative statements, then the statement, "Paul didn't believe in the virgin birth" can be shown simply from the fact that Paul never wrote of the Virgin Birth.
Are you going to say that Paul didn't believe in the Virgin Birth?
Of course you won't. Similarly, the argument, "If you go throughout Scripture you do not find babies being baptized" cannot be used to support the hypothesis, "Early Christians didn't baptize babies.
No, I do not think that at all. The entire content of my post, to which you responded and now, to that response I respond, merely pointed out the excess of what is implicit in your final line: "To God be the glory." I certainly would say that it is obvious you do not agree with, or cannot understand, my take on this, but that alone hardly makes you "anti-Catholic" in the usual understanding of the term.
But I would still like you to credibly bridge the gap between the Reformation doctrines (which did not exist prior to the 16th Century) and the teachings of the Apostolic Age, demonstrating, especially, that they are unarguably the willed teaching of Christ, despite the 1500 year disconnect. And to do so in light of the fact that the Church was unarguably founded by Christ as the "pillar and bulwark of the truth," whose mission was, presumably, to extend throughout the Christian Era, not merely from the time beginning in the 16th Century. How could He, as God, will such a Church, refuse to protect it from error as He promised to do, and then suddenly remember His promise some 1500 years later? How can an omniscient, omnipotent God make such a faux pas?
I believe that Arius advanced pretty much the same argument. If you go back to Miller, you may see that each side claimed to represent the original teachings of the Church. Arius was in fact the one introducing novel doctrines but he could not more be convinced of that than Arius. One reason for Luther to oppose a council was that he didn’t want to be, like Arius, outmanned at a council. Instead he hid behind the German princes who opposed the council because they opposed the emperor who wanted the council.
Since it's obvious that a baby cannot choose to believe in Christ, the parents have a duty to make sure that he or she is brought up to learn about Him.
LOL...see the problem there is, aside from theological considerations, I'm Italian. I have a distinct fondness for certain types of fermented and distilled liquids which shall remain nameless. ;)
We got time...shoot me some theories. What caused the Great Apostasy?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.