Jump to content


Photo

Baptism Discussion


  • This topic is locked This topic is locked
31 replies to this topic

#31 Fortigurn

Fortigurn

    Omega

  • Christadelphian MD
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 34,244 posts

Posted 24 April 2003 - 01:46 AM

You wrote:

I hold that he recognized that they were already spiritually baptized, and he was referring to the watery baptism of repentance.


For what reason, do you believe, were they baptized in water? What this passage proves is that baptism in water was still considered necessary for those who had received 'Spirit baptism', and that baptism in water never preceded definite acceptance of Christ.

You wrote:

Again, show me the law (scripture) forbidding infant baptism.


To which I replied:

I don't have to show you a Scripture forbidding infant baptism any more than I have to show a Catholic a Scripture forbidding the appointment of a priesthood.


You then responded:

I don't have a problem with priesthoods (or any other structured denomination) if their teachings abide by the Bible.


I have a problem with a priesthood. A priesthood by definition is not merely a 'structure', it is an intermediary between God and men, and that is exactly how priests today operate. But we have one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus.
No priesthood is present in any Scriptural definition of the faith, and Scripture is abundantly clear that Christ came to end the priesthood of men, being our one and only mediator, the great High Priest in heaven.

I wrote:

It's not a matter of showing you a Scripture which forbids infant baptism, it's simply a case of showing you that baptism was always conditional on commandments which an infant cannot keep. So is the process of salvation.  You will note there most powerfully that 'If thou believest wtih all thine heart, thou mayest [be baptized]', which Paul echoes in Romans 10.


You replied:

This is for baptism through the overwhelming of the spirit, not the application of water...


Please give proof that this is 'for baptism through the overwhelming of the Spirit, not the application of water'.
Please harmonise this with the fact that the eunuch's request was 'See, here is water, what hinders me to be baptized?'. Please also harmonise this with the record of Acts 10.
Miserere mei Deus,
Secundum magnam misericordiam tuam.
Et secundum multitudinem miserationum tuarum
dele iniquitatem meam.

______________________________________________________________________
target="_blank">I am a Christadelphian. Click here to see my confession of faith.
______________________________________________________________________
‘John Wesley once received a note which said, “The Lord has told me to tell you that He doesn’t need your book-learning, your Greek, and your Hebrew.”

Wesley answered “Thank you, sir. Your letter was superfluous, however, as I already knew the Lord has no need for my ‘book-learning,’ as you put it. However—although the Lord has not directed me to say so—on my own responsibility I would like to say to you that the Lord does not need your ignorance, either.”

Osborne & Woodward, ‘Handbook for Bible study’, pp. 13-14 (1979)

______________________________________________________________________
target="_blank">Apologetics

#32 Fortigurn

Fortigurn

    Omega

  • Christadelphian MD
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 34,244 posts

Posted 24 April 2003 - 01:47 AM

You wrote:

Note: These counter arguments are not intended to prove sprinkling, but rather point out that the verses do not prove immersion. I hold that the Bible does not provide a "rule" (sprinkle vs. immersion) for baptism.


I replied:

The first problem you have is that 'immersion' is what the word means. You might as well try to tell me that when Christ used the Greek words for 'bread and wine', he really meant 'carrot sticks and cheese'. ^_^

None of your examples of alternate means of 'baptizo' are therefore relevant.


You then responded:

You just raised a very interesting and relevant point. Every English translation of the Bible that I've seen uses the words 'bread' and 'wine'. They don't use un-translated Greek words. I'm fairly sure that the bread Jesus used was of a specific Jewish variety. I'm sure the wine could also be described more specifically.  Bread and wine are pretty relevant to Christians, yet they are translated very generically from the Greek.


Here you are delving into speculation. If Christ required a specific wine to be drunk, he would have said so. If Christ required a certain bread to be eaten, he would have said so. He did not specify any particular wine or bread, so we are at liberty to eat whatever form of bread and drink whatever form of wine we please.
Miserere mei Deus,
Secundum magnam misericordiam tuam.
Et secundum multitudinem miserationum tuarum
dele iniquitatem meam.

______________________________________________________________________
target="_blank">I am a Christadelphian. Click here to see my confession of faith.
______________________________________________________________________
‘John Wesley once received a note which said, “The Lord has told me to tell you that He doesn’t need your book-learning, your Greek, and your Hebrew.”

Wesley answered “Thank you, sir. Your letter was superfluous, however, as I already knew the Lord has no need for my ‘book-learning,’ as you put it. However—although the Lord has not directed me to say so—on my own responsibility I would like to say to you that the Lord does not need your ignorance, either.”

Osborne & Woodward, ‘Handbook for Bible study’, pp. 13-14 (1979)

______________________________________________________________________
target="_blank">Apologetics




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users