Let me be more specific:
If a man living in a country where there are few Christians of any kind, who has never heard anything about Christianity, but finds a bible in Chinese, reads the Book of John where God says, "For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever, believes in him, shall not perish but have everlasting life."
He then reads Romans where God says; "If you confess with thy mouth the Lord Jesus, and believe in thine heart that God has raised him from the dead, thou shalt be saved."
This man, after finishing reading these verses, prays to God, believes in Christ Jesus as his Lord, as his one and only God, and repents of his sins, and determines to follow Christ's ways.
There are no churches in his village. He travels to the largest nearby city and there finds a Catholic Church.
The Catholic Church hears his profession of faith, and accepts him as a believer, as a Christian. They then give him instruction that tells him he needs to be baptized and then do good works to maintain his salvation as the RCC (wrongly) interprets the Book of James.
This man proceeds to be baptized a Catholic and live a life trying his best to follow the will of Christ.
To you, is this man saved? Is he a Christian?
Why do Mormons and Baptists deny the need for historical evidence?
Discussion in 'Other Christian Denominations' started by Wittenberger, Aug 9, 2012.
Page 11 of 12
-
-
Since the Holy Spirit can't be telling all of you totally opposite truths, most of you are listening to someone else's voice: your own or maybe that of Satan himself! -
Squire Robertsson AdministratorAdministrator
Wittenberger, why don't you shake Baptist Board's dust off from your sandals.
Your folks killed my folks for a good 200 years (14x-16x) in Western Europe and well into 18x in Russia. Not to mention, the Swedes were persecuting Baptists well into the 19th century. So, unless you're willing to acknowledge the Baptist blood split through the years, you have little to nothing to say to me. (FYI the Muensterites are\were an aberration. So, don't bother bringing them up.) -
-
My fellowship is called the Celtic ANABAPTIST Communion; we adhere to the four Baptist freedoms and other Baptist principles!
I highly resent you telling me that I am listening to the voice of Satan! My communion ministers to the spiritual descendants you Magisterial Protestants murdered in the name of Jesus! Considering your highly offensive tone, manner, and accusatory and false posts, I submit that it is YOU who are listening to the voice of Satan. You are not my brother; you are the voice of hell. You need to leave this forum. Your intent is clearly to malign the beliefs of the people here with your false and haughty accusations.
As much as I have vehemently disagreed with some members here, I have never thought anyone should be banned -- until you. You should be kicked out of here; you have abused the privilege to post here. -
1. The word baptidzo means immersion.
2. All those baptized were baptized by immersion. For example the Ethiopian Eunuch did not take of his ample supply of water, perhaps in a canteen equipped for a rich man traveling over a desert. A few drops would have been enough in either pouring or sprinkling. But he waited until there was a large body of water, big enough for "both of them to go down into the water and come back up out of the water."
John the Baptist went into the middle of the Jordan River and baptized by immersion there.
Jesus and his disciples baptized near Salim "because there was much water there."
The book of Mormon teaches that Jesus was born in Jerusalem. There are dozens of factual historical mistakes in the Book of Mormon. Gleason Archer in his Introduction to the Old Testament Appendices lists about three pages of them. Here are some of them:
There is no contradiction in the Bible; the book of Mormon is full of contradiction.
You, yourself, turn a blind eye to actual history and have swallowed the RCC revised history hook, line, and sinker. That is unfortunate. It is sad when people don't do their homework and gullibly swallow what others tell them.
You are right. Repentance is needed. -
I believe that you have been backed into a very uncomfortable corner. You are not used to it.
I am not here to insult you. I am here to share the truth with you. I have been where you are. I know how you think. I am trying to shine some fresh light into your thinking.
If I have personally offended anyone, I apologize. But if I have offended you for preaching the true Gospel of Jesus Christ, I cannot apologize. Ban me if you must, but I think you should seriously question why you have this forum in the first place. If you want only Baptists and evangelicals, disband this forum. -
You have made several very rude and insulting comments to me previously. I hit back and now I'm from "hell". Some of you "Baptists" need to get a little thicker skin! -
You accuse me of listening to the voice of Satan. You must be familiar with that voice yourself.
How dare you tell anyone on here to repent! -
You assumed I was putting you in the last category. You know what they say about assuming.
I thought you said that you were appointed a bishop and then you appointed yourself as Archbishop. If I read that incorrectly, I apologize.
You have the right to be appointed or appoint yourself Pope of your new denomination for all I care. I was just pointing out that you Reformed have split more than any other branch of Christianity.
I have no ill will against you, Michael. I became defensive after your repeated insults and attacked back. Not the Christian thing to do. I apologize to you. -
I am not afraid of being presented with differing beliefs. What I object to is the manner in which you present those beliefs. You have absolutely no right to equate anyone's beliefs here with Mormons and Jehovah's Witnesses, for example. You have no right to tell any of us to repent. You need to repent for your haughty and self-righteous manner. -
For all the harsh language used by both Baptists and non-baptists on this site, I am shocked to find out that "repent of your false doctrine" is such a grevious insult.
But if it is against the "rules", I apologize.
I guess I should just say: "your doctrine is from the Pit!"??? That seems to be acceptable. -
Secondly, I am NOT Reformed; I am almost as opposed to Reformed theology as I am to Romanism.
It would probably be best if I stopped responding to you. I'll tell you this, though: You are unwise to come in here telling everybody they are wrong, that they should repent, and return to the infant baptizing state-church ideology that was responsible for centuries of murder of our spiritual ancestors. -
Tell me my doctrine is false all you want, but don't try to recruit me into a state-church theological system. Just because you can't forcefully impose that on people anymore doesn't mean the ideology has changed. -
It needs to stop, Whittenberger. You have been attacking Baptists since the first day you posted on this board. You are not preaching the Gospel of Jesus Christ, you are preaching your own religion that has nothing to do with the true gospel. -
The Biblicist Well-Known MemberSite Supporter
-
The Biblicist Well-Known MemberSite SupporterWittenberger said: ↑Summary of the Data Regarding Christian Baptism:
A. Paul clearly argues that baptism is the fulfillment of circumcision (Col 2.11 ff); it brings the reality of being brought into the covenant of grace, the redemptive family of God.Click to expand...
Rom. 4:11 And he received the sign of circumcision, a seal of the righteousness of the faith which he had yet being uncircumcised: that he might be the father of all them that believe, though they be not circumcised; that righteousness might be imputed unto them also:
12 And the father of circumcision to them who are not of the circumcision only, but who also walk in the steps of that faith of our father Abraham, which he had being yet uncircumcised.
Gal. 6:15 For in Christ Jesus neither circumcision availeth any thing, nor uncircumcision, but a new creature.
16 And as many as walk according to this rule, peace be on them, and mercy, and upon the Israel of God.
So Paul does not teach that remission of sins or regeneration occurs in either baptism or circumcision but they are both equally "signs" of an already regenerated, justified, sin remitted believer!
When you depend upon your uninspired writings (Fathers) to interpret the scriptures you end up exactly with the same kind of interpretation of those Judaistic legalist who also interpreted scriptures according to their uninspired rabbi's (Elders). -
The Biblicist said: ↑So Paul is pitted against Paul, how amusing! Paul explictly denies that circumcision has anything to do with justification by faith for not only Abraham but for "ALL WHO ARE OF FAITH" whether they are circumcised or uncircumcised:
Rom. 4:11 And he received the sign of circumcision, a seal of the righteousness of the faith which he had yet being uncircumcised: that he might be the father of all them that believe, though they be not circumcised; that righteousness might be imputed unto them also:
12 And the father of circumcision to them who are not of the circumcision only, but who also walk in the steps of that faith of our father Abraham, which he had being yet uncircumcised.
Gal. 6:15 For in Christ Jesus neither circumcision availeth any thing, nor uncircumcision, but a new creature.
16 And as many as walk according to this rule, peace be on them, and mercy, and upon the Israel of God.
So Paul does not teach that remission of sins or regeneration occurs in either baptism or circumcision but they are both equally "signs" of an already regenerated, justified, sin remitted believer!
When you depend upon your uninspired writings (Fathers) to interpret the scriptures you end up exactly with the same kind of interpretation of those Judaistic legalist who also interpreted scriptures according to their uninspired rabbi's (Elders).Click to expand... -
The Biblicist Well-Known MemberSite SupporterWittenberger said: ↑Summary of the Data Regarding Christian Baptism:
B. As circumcision was an oath-curse sign, so also baptism is best understood primarily as a water-ordeal sign of blessing and curse (1 Cor 10.1 ff; 1 Pet 3.20-22; Rom 6.3 ff), and not as many Baptists see it, as essentially total immersion in water,Click to expand...
That is why God did not choose the term rantizo (sprinkle) or the term "epicheo" (pour) as neither could convey that "sign" which is the same "sign" as Jonah in the belly of the great fish - BURIAL in water. That is why one must be "baptized IN Jordan" rather than "by Jordan" and why one needs "MUCH water" instead of a little handful of water.
This is the nonsense one is led to believe when cults depart from the scriptures as their final authority and are led to interpret scripture by uninspired writings (Fathers). -
The Biblicist Well-Known MemberSite SupporterWittenberger said: ↑Summary of the Data Regarding Christian Baptism:
C. As circumcision was the ratification of God’s covenant promise (“I will be your God”) by passing through the curse-ordeal (the cutting of the foreskin), so too, baptism is a ratification of God’s oath by our passage through the ordeal element itself (water). And just as circumcision also included the element of consecration (“You will be my people”), so too does baptism (q.d., “this is my beloved son (daughter) with whom I am well pleased” Matt 3.17; and especially Rom 6.4-5). In both cases, the sacrament is the believer’s ratification of God’s sworn oath to keep His promise to be God to His people and to deliver them from the penalties of the curse due all those who break the covenant of works and the stipulations of the Sinaitic covenant made with Moses, and actually deliver what He has promised. This is seen by the fact that the covenant mediator Himself, Jesus Christ, became a curse for us (Gal 3.10-13: “Christ hath redeemed us from the curse of the law, being made a curse for us”).Click to expand...
Gal. 6:15 For in Christ Jesus neither circumcision availeth any thing, nor uncircumcision, but a new creature.
16 And as many as walk according to this rule, peace be on them, and mercy, and upon the Israel of God.
The Abrahamic Covenant demonstrates the same truth:
Rom. 4:11 And he received the sign of circumcision, a seal of the righteousness of the faith which he had yet being uncircumcised: that he might be the father of all them that believe, though they be not circumcised; that righteousness might be imputed unto them also:
12 And the father of circumcision to them who are not of the circumcision only, but who also walk in the steps of that faith of our father Abraham, which he had being yet uncircumcised.
Can't get it plainer IF you have eyes to see (and apparently you do not). However, here is a little tidbit to help - Nicodemus was a circumcised Jew and yet needed to be "BORN AGAIN" demonstrating that his circumcision did not bring him into the Abrahamic covenant but only a New birth would. Thus neither does baptism bring anyone into the New Covenant but only NEW BIRTH does and the PHYSICAL birth preceded PHYSICAL circumcision under Abrahamic/Mosaic Covenants because circumcision is the "sign" that SPIRITUAL birth must always precede DIVINE RITES under the New Covenant.
However, when one follows UNINSPIRED interpreters (Fathers) instead of going directly to the scriptuers as did the more noble Bereans than one ends up with such nonsense and false doctrine that are found consistently throughout the Fathers.
Page 11 of 12