Featured Is Baptism the New Circumcision?

The first thing you talk about is sacraments--a man made concept not found in the Bible. Assert it as you will. But you won't find it in the Bible, and if you could, you would have shown it to me by now.

No, but I can find the trinity for you in the Scriptures, and the man-made concepts that you are making up you can't find in the Scriptures. That is the difference. That renders your argument moot and invalid.

What altar calls? There are no altar calls in our church. What traditions? You haven't been to our church. You have no idea what we do and don't do. We vary our services from one Sunday to another.

I wasn't accusing you of changing the definition of the word "church" but using the word "church" as an example. If you use the word "church" in todays general population what do they think of? You have changed the meanings of several words, words like: blessing, grace, communion, etc. There have been many word changes by the RCC.

But they are. When you disregard Scripture and go by Catechism's and secular dictionaries you are going to come up with a different theology than what the Bible teaches. I demonstrated that with the word "blessing."

 

Listen to Paul on the matter:

"Is this blessing then only for the circumcised, or also for the uncircumcised? For we say that faith was counted to Abraham as righteousness. How then was it counted to him? Was it before or after he had been circumcised? It was not after, but before he was circumcised. He received the sign of circumcision as a seal of the righteousness that he had by faith while he was still uncircumcised. The purpose was to make him the father of all who believe without being circumcised, so that righteousness would be counted to them as well, and to make him the father of the circumcised who are not merely circumcised but who also walk in the footsteps of the faith that our father Abraham had before he was circumcised." (Rom. 4 ESV)

Circumcision function as a seal of the faith Abraham already had.

 

I can't show you the word Sacrament in Scriptures just like you can't show me the word Trinity in the bible, however, in both cases their doctrines are found in scripture. Peter says "This baptism which now saves you." Jesus speaks of the sacramental nature of the Eucharist both in John 6 and in the isntitution of that Sacrament, Laying on of Hands and being filled with the spirit for Clergy is shown in scriptures. Sacraments are all over the scriptures just like the Trinity is.

Show me one verse that uses the Word Trinity! Just one verse that says uses the word Trinity. If you can find the word Trinity in the scripture text I will return to being baptist.

Oh. What then do you tell people to close their eyes with heads bowed then ask them if any want to accept Jesus into their lives to raise their hands? That is a Tradition as well and no where do I see Paul or Peter say close your eyes and bow your heads and raise your hand if you prayed for Jesus to come into your lives.

I just mentioned two. Want me to mention more?

irrelevant. I've been to both IFB and SBC churches. I know what happens there.

You may have your own traditions as well that are different from baptist churches but you have them. Are you inviting me to your church pastor?

Another Tradition! Where in Scripture does it say to Vary your Sunday Services time schedule? However if you invite me I may come. Then I'll know your specific Traditions that are specific to your church.

You were accusing me of having a belief that church mean building. I don't have that belief and niether does the RCC.

All you have demonstrated with that word "blessing" is that you can make the same mistake someone who doesn't know their own language's definition. Let me further explain it to you. English is in some ways more limited than Greek. The word Love is singular in English but has a veriety of meanings. Greek has four words for Love and each has a different meaning but the one world Love can mean each of these words depending on what Greek word is being used. So it is with blessing and the specific definition I was refering to is to make something Holy or set apart for a specific use.

As far as the Catachism all it does is shown how scripture has always been viewed by Christians since the begining. Have you ever read the Catachism have you seen all the scripture referrences? Thats because how a passasge has always been viewed as well as the passage itself is scripture.

 

Yes you are right! Abraham had the faith that lead to obedience. Also note what james says

and again

 

Yes, but your last use of James 2 is erroneous. Abraham's circumcision was a seal of that faith that already declared Abraham righteous, not the means of it.

 

I agree with your statement here as well. However, would Abraham had been righteous if God asked him to be circumcised and Abraham refused? No. Therefore faith is necissarily expressed by the actions of that faith. And my use of James 2 is not erroneous because James clearly points out that actions must be come from faith for it to be true faith. Faith without the resulting actions is not faith at all but an intellecutal assent.

 

Ah, now this provides a needed clarification.

 

There are many places where the concept of trinity is found and taught in Bible; not one place is the concept of sacrament in the Bible.

He certainly does not. He speaks of bread as a metaphor, in the same way in which he says "I am the door, if any man enter in..." Was Jesus an actual door, perhaps made of wood with a doorknob on it? If he wasn't in that passage why would you expect to take him so literally in John 6. The passages aren't that far apart. I am the vine? A vine? I am that manna. Really? Like coriander seed?

I haven't seen any evidence for a sacrament yet, not one.

The most obvious text for the trinity is in 1John 5:7

1 John 5:7 For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one.
--Can't get much clearer than that, can you?
It is also demonstrated at the baptism of Christ where all three of the persons of the Godhead are present at one time.

We don't. You assume facts not in evidence. We are an Independent Fundamental Baptist Church. The emphasis is on all three actually, but on independent for your sake. We are not all the same. We can't have tradition if we are independent and not all the same. How is that possible? Please tell. Our church was incorporated ca. 1971, and is one of the oldest IFB churches in the area. We vary our services and therefore don't have much tradition to go by. By the RCC definition it is impossible for us to have any tradition at all. Tradition happens over long periods of time, as in centuries.

And you don't see it in our church either. So what is your big hang up? You have been deceived because you had a bad experience in a Baptist church that you went to and now you project that bad experience on every other Baptist church in the world thinking that they are all the same. There are some logical fallacies there that you need to face up to, and take care of.

Apparently not. I would call you ignorant, but that is rude.

I never said anything about a time schedule. I said we vary our services. We don't always sing the same number of songs. We don't always have a "special" (someone singing a solo, etc.), but sometimes we do. Sometimes there is a missionary presentation. The services vary. It is not the same old boring mass day after day. I had it all recited in Latin--when to sit, kneel, stand. That was tradition.

I doubt that.

Apparently you still didn't understand my point. I didn't say you. I said the general populace has that definition. If I say "I am going to church on Sunday." Most people would immediately think of "church building," not "church congregation," even if in my mind I am thinking of the latter. That is all I am saying with that illustration.
But I did say the RCC has changed the meaning of other words.

But the NT was written in Greek, and the OT in Hebrew. To get the proper definition we must use the language of the Bible, not the English language. When it says that Jesus blessed the children, we must go back to that Greek word and find out what it means. I did that. It simply means that he prayed.
When we look at the Beatitudes, we go back to the Greek (the word makarios) and find out what it means. It means "happy." We must confine ourselves to the meanings that the Bible gives us in the context that they are used. That is why I tried to use the word "church" as an example. The word "ekklesia" translated church, simply means assembly, or congregation. It never refers to a building as most people think of a church today. We can't use English dictionaries to define Greek and Hebrew words.

I have read the Catechism and looked at it quite extensively.
I know for absolutely sure that it is dead wrong on the issues of other religions, for example. It speaks of Islam and accepting it as a religion that is acceptable by God. What heresy! It speaks of the new birth as baptism, whereas the two are not even connected or related to each other. That is where the heresy of baptismal regeneration is taught. Yes it may refer to Scripture, but it doesn't mean the Scripture is used in the right way!

 

Be careful. Nowhere does the OT or the NT say that circumcision had salvific value. It is by faith that Abraham was justified (Gen. 15:6).

While baptism is linked to circumcision in Col. 2:12, baptism is not the NT equivalent of OT circumcision.

 

Wittenberger,

We have the written Word of God in the Bible.

We are told not to lean to the left or right of God’s word.

We are told not to add or subtract from God’s word.

We are told not to go beyond what is written.

The Apostles are the ones who were given the power to give us the message, with Jesus Christ as chief cornerstone.

The message has been given.

The leaders you regard so highly are not speaking according to the Bible, but are giving their words as much power as the words in the Holy Bible. Jesus warns against that, saying the traditions of men nullify God’s word.

You follow infant baptism and let other men guide you in that way and other ways, even though you see what the Bible says, yet you do these things out of fear of God. We are to fear God, but you do not fear God in the right way, and that is not to believe something if not in the Bible.

The Bible says nowhere to baptize infants. When you find yourself trying to reason it in because the men you admire have said to do it, then you know you are doing wrong. Lean not on your own understanding.

It is all based on fear when people want to baptize infants. It is fear based when in our times, in our countries where Bibles are easily gotten, and we can read for ourselves the truth, but still want to hide behind popes and religious leaders is a sign of willful ignorance based on fear.

 

Abraham received that in his flesh, as a sign that he was to be among the community of faith God was bringing up as the nation isreal, but he was made right with Go BEFORE any physical rite to him was performed!

same way that today water baptism is seen as an act that shows that one is already now been saved, and used by many churches as sign of not being accepted into their membership!

 

Actually, Abraham had the faith in the promises/person of god that allowed the lord to save him, credit him as being a "rightous" person...

BECAUSE/DUE to him already being saved by God, he evidenced that his faith was genuine, in that he obeyed God evemn to the point of giving issaac as a sacrifice if need be!


He was already saved by God, and his obedience was a sign that he was already saved!

NOT a part of him getting saved, or that he only was saved after his obeyed the lord to gave up isaac!

 

Frankly, you are rejecting the clear and explicit Biblical evidence and instead reading uninspired, incomplete and many times inaccurate secular history back into the scriptures.

Circumcision does not help your case.

The complete silence of the New Testament in regard to any command or example of infant baptism does not help your case.

The explicit example and commands of scripture completely repudiate your case.

Bottom line, you violate the Word of God by your TRADITIONS. That is the simple truth of the matter whether you are honest enough to admit it or not.

 

I must say that I have changed my mind about some things lately, from reading this forum. I was never willing before to call the RCC a cult, but now I put them in the same category as the SDA -- Trinitarian, but with many cultic features.

Any "church" that elevates extra-biblical and unbiblical writings and tradition to the level of scripture, that claims it is the only true church, and the church that Jesus founded, is not an apostolic church. Any "church" that dares to claim a mere man is infallible is not only cultic, but blasphemous.

The only way to be a Roman Catholic is to be willfully deceived and to swallow all the obvious bull about the origins of this monolithic institution that dares to call itself the church that Jesus founded when in reality it is about as far as it's possible to get from the faith founded by the carpenter, Jesus. Compare the RCC machine to the earliest churches and see if you can find any commonality.

I still count Roman Catholics among my friends, and I have known some godly Catholics, but as an institution I believe the RCC is very far departed from orthodox Christianity.

 

First of all Its truth Lead me to become Catholic. 2nd of all Roman Catholicism is Orthodox. It is protestants who have departed from Orthodoxy. I don't see how saying that its the church Jesus founded could be heretical especially when Jesus said the he specifically would "build his church" not his "churches". There must be a church which Jesus said he would build that goes down through the ages to the current day as Jesus made the claim "the gates of hell will not prevail against it". There should be a line of evidence down through the ages showing this "Church" which Jesus said he would build that can be traced back to the NT. There is no other evidence save for the Catholic/Orthodox faith that meets this discrimination. Protestant beliefs are all together a recent development in the whole history of Christianity.

 

The people in the Catholic religion should get rid of all the added teachings by men, and then they will live by the Truth.