Featured Church of Christ and Baptism

As you can see secular uninspired "history" is the final authority for Walter and those of his ilk.

However, we do have a "historical" basis for our position. Indeed, it is a "inspired" historical basis - the New Testament Scriptures. The New Testament scriptures clearly and explicitly predict a departure from "the faith" that actually had its beginning roots when the New Testament was being written would increase greater and greater after the Apostolic period. Not only so, but we have "inspired historical" characteristics given us so that we can identify it.

1. It will consist of the "MANY" or majority of kingdom professors (Mt. 7:13-20; 13:1-56) in contrast to the "few."

2. It will be characterized by such false doctrines of justification by works, sacramentalism, not allowing marriage, dietary laws, etc. - 1 Tim. 4:1-5

3. It will be professing people of God persecuting and actually killing other professing people of God - Jn. 16:1-5

4. It will be professing people of God perverting and falsely charging true Chrisitans and churches - Mt. 5:10-12

5. It will be a fornicated union betweent state and church kind of Christianity - Rev. 17:1-5

6. It will be characterized by "Babylonian" false religious characteristics (Pope, College of cardinals, clothing, practices, etc.) - Rev. 17:4

7. It will be the dominant form of Christianity in the last days.

 

Greetings The Biblicist and Jkdbuck76,

Sorry you have lost me in the above. I am not sure of what you are saying. My understanding is that belief of the gospel and baptism is the one process, belief of the gospel results in a believer being motivated to be baptised, to be identified with Jesus in his death and resurrection and then having patience and hope as the believer waits for the establishment of the kingdom of God on earth when Jesus the Son of God returns to sit upon the throne of David in Jerusalem.

I believe that the sequence with the baptism of Cornelius and those with him is the exception not the rule. The Holy Spirit was poured upon them first before baptism to overcome the reticence of those Jews who accompanied Peter.

Kind regards
Trevor

 

That's a very graceful approach.

I would hope so. All I've ever met are the staunch, hardcore type. That's a nice story. God uses His children in all sorts of situations for His glory

 

There is no such thing as a sacrament. The oil in James 5 is purely symbolic. It is not a "means of grace" which a sacrament is. I James 5 it simply a symbol, a picture. The prayer would have the same effect with or without the oil. It is prayer that heals not oil. You believe in superstitions, apparently.

 

You got to be a Landmarker. Looks like this comes right out of their playbook! Am I right?

BTW, Catholic priest's CAN marry. They are not forbidden to marry. They just cannot be married in the Latin Rite. There are MANY married Catholic priests. Challenge me like DHK did way back and I'll prove it to you like I did him, although he would never admit it.

The Apostasy is going on now, not back when you claim. If it had happened when you claim then the promise of our Lord that the 'gates of hell would not prevail against' His Church'. You see you have NO historical evidence that your so called 'faithful remnant of true believers' (non Catholics) existed
when you say the 'Great Apostasy' happened.

One needs to look no further than YOUR Protestant (yes, Baptist ARE Protestants) churches. Ordaining gay ministers, denying the deity of Christ, denying His physical resurrection, and on, and on, and on! American Baptists churches participated in a festival which worshipped the goddess Gaia! Apostasy is happening NOW.

Again, if the things you claim are the Great Apostasy in the Early Church were indeed apostasy they would have been debated. Baptismal regeneration was NOT debated and was accepted from the very beginning because it WAS biblically based and is still the position by the vast majority of 'true believers' in the world.

 

Washed by the blood of Jesus.

Also the two births in John 3 are the flesh birth (Water) [Ever heard the phrase, water breaking?] and the spiritual birth. the context even shows this because the verse after that says that which is flesh is flesh and that which is spirit is spirit.

 

Yeah, that idea of amniotic fluid being what is mentioned in John 3 was taught to me in my Baptist church but it really doesn't hold up. The absurd
implication of this view is that Jesus would have been saying, 'You must be born of amniotic fluid and the Spirit.' Check out a Greek lexicon. Kittel’s Theological Dictionary of the New Testament fails to turn up any instances in ancient, Septuagint or New Testament Greek where "water" (Greek: hudor) referred to "amniotic fluid".

In 1 Peter 3, water is mentioned twice, paralleling baptism with the flood, where eight were "saved through water," and noting that 'baptism now saves you by the power of Christ rather than by the physical action of water "removing . . . dirt from the body." Baptists claim that baptismal regeneration is essentially a 'salvation by works' doctrine. It is a work, in fact, but it is a work of God.

 

Who strayed from the topic. Was it you objecting to Biblicist's post?

Post #18 took this thread off course:
http://www.baptistboard.com/showpost.php?p=2081065&postcount=18

You have no one to blame but yourself.[/QUOTE]

Uh, no. Go back and re-read BobRyans posts. He is the one that started attacking the Catholic Church. What a surprise!

 

The topic is "The COC and Baptism. The doctrinal heresy that the COC and the RCC have in common is baptismal regeneration. They both hold to the same heresy. If he attacks the RCC it is because of the heresy that they teach, which is the subject of this thread, right?

 

Does it say the oil is symbolic? No. It is you, not me, who attempts to twist and distort scripture by suggesting is it symbolic. How about this one? “Do not neglect the spiritual gift within you, which was bestowed on you through prophetic utterance with the laying on of hands by the presbytery.” 1 Timothy 4:14. I guess the laying on of hands is also symbolic, even though Paul plainly says that Timothy acquired his spiritual gift through prophetic utterance with the laying on of hands.

You have a low level of faith, apparently.

 

If you desire to lump yourself in with likes of Benny Hinn and especially William Branham (of the Branhamites), who claimed to have electricity flowing from his hands when he healed people, then you will admit that the "laying on of hands" is symbolic.

Some of the things those people do are demonic. If you are so superstitious to think that power actually flows through your hands then you are naive, superstitious, or possessed with demons. I am not sure what your position is any more.

The combination of two atoms of hydrogen and one atom oxygen making a molecule of water cannot transfer grace to anyone. H2O is simply water. It is the most common substance on the world.
Likewise the putting your fleshly hands on someone. There is no magic in that. You are not going to change a person by putting your hands on anyone. Do you wash them in "holy water" first? :laugh:

 

Again, if you had a shred of evidence that anyone believed the way you do about baptism in the Early Church you would present it. NOBODY debated baptismal regeneration. It was ALWAYS believed from the very start as is proved by the historical record. As far as I can find it the first people to say that baptism doesn't actually save you (from sin) were people like Walter Brute and his Lollard counterparts. This was the early 1400s. That is REALLY late to be developing a new Christian doctrine!

It's an uncomfortable truth you just have to accept.

Hermas



"‘I have heard, sir,’ said I [to the Shepherd], ‘from some teacher, that there is no other repentance except that which took place when we went down into the water and obtained the remission of our former sins.’ He said to me, ‘You have heard rightly, for so it is’" (The Shepherd 4:3:1–2 [A.D. 80]).



Justin Martyr



"As many as are persuaded and believe that what we [Christians] teach and say is true, and undertake to be able to live accordingly . . . are brought by us where there is water, and are regenerated in the same manner in which we were ourselves regenerated. For, in the name of God, the Father and Lord of the universe, and of our Savior Jesus Christ, and of the Holy Spirit, they then receive the washing with water. For Christ also said, ‘Except you be born again, you shall not enter into the kingdom of heaven’ [John 3:3]" (First Apology 61 [A.D. 151]).



Tertullian



"Happy is our sacrament of water, in that, by washing away the sins of our early blindness, we are set free and admitted into eternal life. . . . [But] a viper of the [Gnostic] Cainite heresy, lately conversant in this quarter, has carried away a great number with her most venomous doctrine, making it her first aim to destroy baptism—which is quite in accordance with nature, for vipers and.asps . . . themselves generally do live in arid and waterless places. But we, little fishes after the example of our [Great] Fish, Jesus Christ, are born in water, nor have we safety in any other way than by permanently abiding in water. So that most monstrous creature, who had no right to teach even sound doctrine, knew full well how to kill the little fishes—by taking them away from the water!" (Baptism 1 [A.D. 203]).

"Without baptism, salvation is attainable by none" (ibid., 12).

"We have, indeed, a second [baptismal] font which is one with the former [water baptism]: namely, that of blood, of which the Lord says: ‘I am to be baptized with a baptism’ [Luke 12:50], when he had already been baptized. He had come through water and blood, as John wrote [1 John 5:6], so that he might be baptized with water and glorified with blood. . . . This is the baptism which replaces that of the fountain, when it has not been received, and restores it when it has been lost" (ibid., 16).



Hippolytus



"[P]erhaps someone will ask, ‘What does it conduce unto piety to be baptized?’ In the first place, that you may do what has seemed good to God; in the next place, being born again by water unto God so that you change your first birth, which was from concupiscence, and are able to attain salvation, which would otherwise be impossible. For thus the [prophet] has sworn to us: ‘Amen, I say to you, unless you are born again with living water, into the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, you shall not enter into the kingdom of heaven.’ Therefore, fly to the water, for this alone can extinguish the fire. He who will not come to the water still carries around with him the spirit of insanity for the sake of which he will not come to the living water for his own salvation" (Homilies11:26 [A.D. 217]).



Origen



"It is not possible to receive forgiveness of sins without baptism" (Exhortation to the Martyrs 30 [A.D. 235]).

Cyprian of Carthage

"[T]he baptism of public witness and of blood cannot profit a heretic unto salvation, because there is no salvation outside the Church." (Letters 72[73]:21 [A.D. 253]).

"[Catechumens who suffer martyrdom] are not deprived of the sacrament of baptism. Rather, they are baptized with the most glorious and greatest baptism of blood, concerning which the Lord said that he had another baptism with which he himself was to be baptized [Luke 12:50]" (ibid., 72[73]:22).



Cyril of Jerusalem



"If any man does not receive baptism, he does not have salvation. The only exception is the martyrs, who even without water will receive the kingdom.
. . . For the Savior calls martyrdom a baptism, saying, ‘Can you drink the cup which I drink and be baptized with the baptism with which I am to be baptized [Mark 10:38]?’ Indeed, the martyrs too confess, by being made a spectacle to the world, both to angels and to men [1 Cor. 4:9]" (Catechetical Lectures 3:10 [A.D. 350]).



"It would tend to the ruin of our souls if, from our refusal of the saving font of baptism to those who seek it, any of them should depart this life and lose the kingdom and eternal life" (Letter to Himerius 3 [A.D. 385]).



John Chrysostom



"Do not be surprised that I call martyrdom a baptism, for here too the Spirit comes in great haste and there is the taking away of sins and a wonderful and marvelous cleansing of the soul, and just as those being baptized are washed in water, so too those being martyred are washed in their own blood" (Panegyric on St. Lucian 2 [A.D. 387]).

Again, nobody debated baptismal regeneration or protested against it like they did when actual heresy was being promoted. Why not? Because it was never thought to be heresy by anyone until the 1400's.

 

Apparently (at least according to some) the pre-trib rapture is also "new."
IOW, history doesn't count when it comes to doctrine. False teaching has been around from the beginning of time. There is not one book in the NT where the author does not warn against the prevalence of false teachers. Jesus himself warns against false teachers and false doctrine, the leaven of the Pharisees.
The "church fathers" were those who introduced much of that error as history indicates. One of those errors was baptismal regeneration. Another was infant baptism. Origen, whom you quote, was considered a heretic even by RCC standards. He was not orthodox in his doctrines at all.

As a Baptist, the first and most important distinctive that I believe is sola scriptura--that the Bible is the final authority in all matters of faith and practice. Thus your appeal to history is meaningless.

Biblical truth has never been uncomfortable to me. I accept the Word, not man's opinion and philosophical meanderings of it.

That statement only demonstrates your lack of knowledge concerning church history. The statement is absolutely false. Even a RCC cardinal, Cardinal Hosius, will attest to the presence of the Waldenses right back to the time of the apostles and they stood militantly against baptismal regeneration.

 

If baptism is required for salvation, might as well have kept and required circumcision.

Just a thought. No new outside agency or act had to be invented.

But then, I always thought the grace of Jesus was sufficient. Silly me. :love2: