Conversion-Immersion

To regard water as part of salvation, that is baptismal regeneration, is rank heresy--the belief of the RCC. No Baptist that I know, believes in that heresy. If disciplinedlearner believes that then he believes in the heresy of baptismal regeneration that little atoms of hydrogen and oxygen can wash away his sins--a myth and superstition that the Hindus believe.
Even Jeremiah mocked this idea:

Jeremiah 2:22 For though thou wash thee with nitre, and take thee much soap, yet thine iniquity is marked before me, saith the Lord GOD.

 

Unfortunately he does some hocus pocus mental gynastics out of both sides of his mouth. He will tell you there is nothing magical about the water but yet out of the other side of his mouth deny that sins are remitted apart from baptism.

 

You always, always only attribute this teaching to the RCC. That is because you are so rabidly anti-Catholic. When in fact Bible Presbyterians teach that baptism is a sacrament. A sacrament is a sacrament is a sacrament. You always try to excuse the Bible Presbyterians for teaching that baptism is a sacrament because your WIFE was one and no way do you want there to be a connection between their teaching and what the RCC teaches in regards to water baptism. But the fact is, it is there in black and white. Read their position on water baptism.

Many, many other bible believing Christians reject your baptist position because they conclude, as the church always has concluded, that it has always been taught from the apostolic times. This is why you hate early church history. It just doesn't support your position.

Actually, I have read other Baptist on this board who hold to what you call heresy. Either you have not read all the threads in regards to baptism over the years or you choose to ignore them. I suspect you would just rather us believe that no one of the Baptist faith would ever consider water baptism to be what the so many believe and teach it to be. A SACRAMENT!

Actually, I have shown proof that their baptist sacramentalist who have taught in seminaries here in the the U.S. and that it is a much more common belief in England. Although, Ann just dismissed it as 'false teaching', you chose to completely ignore it.

 

You don't need to post out of ignorance. I married someone from the Bible Presbyterian Church. They don't teach baptismal regeneration.

 

Your right, and I recently posted some resources proving that some Baptist professors and authors are coming to the same realization you discuss here.
Lots more church history to support your and their positon than the myth they are promoting.

 

They teach baptism is a SACRAMENT. What is a SACRAMENT, DHK.
They also believe that faith is KEY just like the RCC.

You are so stuck on trying to say that if a person is bapitised they are automatically regenerated no matter of faith. That is a LIE you continually accuse the RCC.

 

They teach baptism is a SACRAMENT. What is a SACRAMENT, DHK.
They also believe that faith is KEY just like the RCC.

You are so stuck on trying to say that if a person is bapitised they are automatically regenerated no matter of faith. That is a LIE you continually accuse the RCC.

DEFINE SACRAMENT! Bible Presbyterians believe baptism is a SACRAMENT. PERIOD!!

 

Who is posting out of ignorance now, DHK,????

THE SACRAMENT OF BAPTISM IN THE PRESBYTERIAN CHURCH

Baptism is the sign and seal of incorporation into Jesus Christ. In baptism we recognize and accept the grace of God that already exists in a person’s life. Baptism allows us to see that person as God’s child, to know the gift of God’s grace, and to celebrate God’s presence in human life, cleansed of sin, and given a new life in Jesus Christ.

Presbyterians also believe that when a person receives the Sacrament of Baptism that person is welcomed into the family of believers - the church. The person now belongs to a community of sisters and brothers around the world, a family composed of all people who profess faith in Jesus Christ as Lord, and who, therefore, may call themselves by the family name “Christian.”
Presbyterians believe that the Sacrament of Baptism may be received only once. Furthermore, Presbyterians recognize as fully valid the baptism of all Christian denominations.

Oh, and since they baptise infants, you can't tell me that they have first 'put faith in Christ'. They believe JUST LIKE THE RCC, THAT THEY ARE INITIATED INTO THE COVENANT AND DRAW A PARALLEL TO CIRCUMSCISION.

 

No, he is not right and I will tell you why. His view opposes four thousand years of consistent use and application by God for every divine external ordinance God has ever established between Genesis and Malichi.

Even though all external ordinances established by God between Genesis and Malich accompany the use of redemptive language ("for sin" "for cleansing" etc.) the New Testament bluntly and explicitly states they redeemed, removed sin FIGURATIVELY only and NEVER removed sins or saved LITERALLY in spite of the accompany of redemptive language.

For example, the sacrificial offerng begun in Genesis 3 by God or at least in Genesis 4 right up to and including the Mosaic legislation and all of its sacrifices come under the ceremonial laws which Hebrews 10:1-4 say were TYPES or SHADOWS that could NEVER literally remit sins:

1 ¶ For the law having a shadow of good things to come, and not the very image of the things, can never with those sacrifices which they offered year by year continually make the comers thereunto perfect….4 For it is not possible that the blood of bulls and of goats should take away sins.

In case you imagine this just applies to the external divine sacrifices, Paul includes the whole ceremonial laws under Moses as only shadows or types:

Col. 2:16 Let no man therefore judge you in meat, or in drink, or in respect of an holyday, or of the new moon, or of the sabbath days:17 Which are a shadow of things to come; but the body is of Christ.


If you think this just applies to the sacrificial laws and Mosaic ceremonial laws alone, Paul says that the first external ceremonial rite established after the sacrificial laws during Abraham was also a “sign” or a “seal” of what he already had while still in uncircumicsion and thus circumcision is only a SYMBOLIC type or “shadow” of the reality of new birth.
Jesus made this clear in Luke 5:13-14 that even ceremonial rites of cleansing are typically only:

13 And he put forth his hand, and touched him, saying, I will: be thou clean. And immediately the leprosy departed from him.
14 And he charged him to tell no man: but go, and shew thyself to the priest, and offer for thy cleansing, according as Moses commanded, for a testimony unto them.

When did the LITERAL cleansing occur? Before or after he went to the priest to “offer FOR thy cleansing”?

Why was he told to enter into this ceremonial rite? – “for a TESTIMONY unto them” and that is what a symbolic rite does it provides an external witness.

These are all shadows but not the reality or the image that cast the shadow. Look at your shadow! Is that you LITERALLY or only in FORM? The purpose of a type is to correctly convey the truth it was designed to convey and that truth is seen in the external form practiced.
Baptism and the Lord’s Supper as with all external rites from Genesis, a with all external rites for four thousand years before baptism and the Lord’s Supper were ordained, are accompanied by the same language of redemption as were all TYPES or SHADOWS and Peter explicitly states that baptism is a like “FIGURE” – I Pet. 3:21.

How did the Old Testament saints actually and literally have their sins remitted? Not by divine external ordinances, which were but a “shadow” or type but by faith in Jesus Christ:

To him give all the prophets witness, that through his name whosoever believeth in him shall receive remission of sins.

And if you think this is a different gospel than what is preached to us then heed the words of the writer of Hebrews:

For unto us was the gospel preached, as well as unto them: but the word preached did not profit them, not being mixed with faith in them that heard it. - Heb. 4:2

God did not change his purpose and design for divine EXTERNAL rites which were never to be intended to LITERALLY remit sins or save anyone but were "a shadow" of what Christ would do by his life and death. Baptism and the Lord's Supper are external divine rites that are accompanied with redemptive language just as the past 4000 years of divine rites had been accompanied with redemptive language but never intended to interpreted that the redemption was in the rite or in partaking of the rite but rather in what the rite was merely a picture, a type, a symbol of - the gospel of Jesus Christ.

 

In Presbyterian circles sacrament = ordinance and has no special meaning as the RCC attaches to it. Let me demonstrate:

http://www.freepres.org/fpcarticles.asp?fpcarticles

The first statement is taken from the articles of faith from the Free Presbyterian's ministry of Broadcasting.
The second statement is from the articles of faith as stated in their church.
Notice how the same church uses these two words interchangeably as to them they mean the same thing.

 

From the statement of Faith of a Bible Presbyterian Church:

http://www.nazbpc.com/info/doctrine.php

Note that the significance of the infant baptism in the Bible Presbyterian Church is not much difference than a child dedication in a Baptist Church except without water. The baptism is not efficacious; has nothing to do with salvation.

Note, that though the word sacrament is used it is used in a broader sense as is the word ordinance. That probably is because the Presbyterians are more liturgical in their order of service.

Note that the statement of faith is very clear on salvation and on eternal security, and that baptism is excluded from both. Baptism is not part of salvation. The church does not believe in baptismal regeneration and has made that clear in its statement of faith.
Notice that the Lord's Supper can only be observed by those who have been saved by faith, and subsequently baptized.



FYI, The Free Presbyterian Churches and the Bible Presbyterians Churches fellowship with each other. Both are fundamental in doctrine.

Lori, do your homework next time.

 

I had no doubt that you would quote the FREE PRESBYTERIAN articles of faith which tries to bend over backward to squirm out of anything that might resemble a Catholic understanding of the word SACRAMENT being they are rabidly anti-Catholic. Try again with any other PRESBYTERIAN STATMENT OF FAITH. Presbyterians do not use the words SACRAMENT and ORDINANCE INTERCHANGABLY. Only the bigoted Free Presbyterians (Ian Paisley bunch) and you, try to wiggel out of what a SACRAMENT is

DHK, try not to pull the wool over our eyes on this nonsense. Prebyterians believe that baptism is a SACRAMENT in the true meaning of the word. Words mean what they mean.

 

]Baptism is the sign and seal of incorporation into Jesus Christ.[/B] In baptism we recognize and accept the grace of God that already exists in a person’s life. Baptism allows us to see that person as God’s child, to know the gift of God’s grace, and to celebrate God’s presence in human life, cleansed of sin, and given a new life in Jesus Christ.

DHK, Presbyterians baptise INFANTS and do not re-baptise later in life (your so-called 'believers baptism). They believe it to be a SACRAMENT in the true sense of the word despite what the anti-Catholic Free Presbyterian bigots try to do to distance themselves from anything looking Catholic. If they wanted to dedicate infants they would do just that and later baptise by 'believers baptism'. But they don't, do they??? They make it clear there is ONLY ONE BAPTISM in their statement of faith.

 

You do believe in water regeneration or you could admit that regeneration is not restricted to the waters of baptism regardless of your mental gynastics of how you explain what happens in water baptism.

 

Therefore, you admit that regeneration can occur apart from the waters of baptism??

 

>8. We believe that salvation is by grace through faith

"Through" means exactly what?


>Baptism is the sign and seal of incorporation into Jesus Christ. In baptism we recognize and accept the grace of God that already exists in a person’s life. Baptism allows us to see that person as God’s child, to know the gift of God’s grace, and to celebrate God’s presence in human life, cleansed of sin, and given a new life in Jesus Christ.

In other words, regeneration precedes baptism and conformation. Baptism conditionally welcomes the child into the local congregation until the person testifies to his regeneration at confirmation - he confirms his regeneration and subsequent conversion.

 

What confession/catechism are you using here?

 

Get a life Lori!
There is no need to slander the Bible Presbyterians or the Free Presbyterians, both of whom I have met, especially the Bible Presbyterians, of whom my wife was when I met her. In fact I visited her church a few times and talked with the pastor on occasion. If slander is your argument, propped up by hatred and name-calling you have no argument.

I showed you plainly how the Free Presbyterian use the words sacrament and ordinance interchangeably, even in their own statement of faiths. What do you want, an affidavit proving that this is true? Shame on you!

Presbyterian bigots eh? You stoop that low? I just told my wife that you called her that. She doesn't have much respect for you. She is a member of this board also though she doesn't post much. You do know there is a penalty against using such harsh language against other members of this board.

Both churches repudiate baptismal regeneration.
The Bible Presbyterians state that there must be a reaffirmation of faith, that is a person must come to a place where they put their faith in Christ, that is where they are save. This is not confirmation; but actual salvation.
The Free Presbyterians leave it up to individual members but make is clear that baptismal regeneration is not taught in their church.

Your slander is not acceptable.
Learn to read.