ECT The Gospel Proper

[john w]

Yeah? Tell 1st Corinthians chapter 11.

Translation: My Levitical priest, and my "nun," another obviously "biblical" doctrine," told me that 1 Cor. chapter 11 means "eating Jesus," so I will be just fine.

 

[Rosenritter]

It is evident you and turbbo have not only missed Paul's actual point in Gal 3:16, but Steko's point in his post, as well.

But it has equally been evident throughout that you both hold to a "one size fits all" going in - so you can't really be expected to properly understand neither Paul's nor Steko's actually intended point.

Try Romans 4, for starters - in light of Romans 11:25.

Nevertheless, Rom. 5:6-8, in each our stead.

If it is obvious that I missed Steko's point then I did a good job of communicating, because that's exactly what I was trying to say. I don't see Steko's point at all. That's why I asked him to demonstrate.

 

[Rosenritter]

I think that's putting it a bit pessimistically, or skeptically. Consider an example of Catholic parents with bona fide Christian faith, who go on to rear their baptized child into the faith, so that somewhere before their confirmation, which depends upon them reaching the age of reason, and confessing the Christian creed, they do come to believe the authentic Christian faith, and believe the Gospel. Perhaps the baptism 'does nothing' in one sense, a pessimistic, skeptical sense, but what do you think denies this hypothetical family from having their infant child baptized?

I see the value in encouraging the child's parents, in part because it is public, and in part because of the tradition of godparents. It puts a burden upon them, that I don't think is a bad burden to lay upon Christian parents.

In your hypothetical case, I would say that the baptism does nothing for the child and nothing as for the stated purpose of baptism itself... as signifying the death of the old man and the birth of the new in Christ.

That said, any implemented tradition that does serve as a tool to help impress the meaning of our faith for ourselves and our families does have some good, but couldn't the same be accomplished with a "commitment" ceremony (you could even sprinkle water if you like) where the parents vow to raise their child in the faith until they would willingly come forth and be baptized with full knowledge of what it signifies?

 

[Rosenritter]

Yeah? Tell 1st Corinthians chapter 11.

1 Corinthians 11:20-22 KJV
(20) When ye come together therefore into one place, this is not to eat the Lord's supper.
(21) For in eating every one taketh before other his own supper: and one is hungry, and another is drunken.
(22) What? have ye not houses to eat and to drink in? or despise ye the church of God, and shame them that have not? What shall I say to you? shall I praise you in this? I praise you not.

This "Lord's supper" doesn't sound like it consists of a wafer. Given the context and criticism in verse 21 it sounds as if this involves at least enough food that some ate like a full meal, and others were left hungry. If it were a single wafer, wouldn't everyone be hungry?

 

[Idolater]

In your hypothetical case, I would say that the baptism does nothing for the child and nothing as for the stated purpose of baptism itself... as signifying the death of the old man and the birth of the new in Christ.

Does it only signify, or does it coincide with an eternal/spiritual reality? With the Ethiopian eunuch, at what precise point did he die (cf. Ro6:3KJV)? Was it precisely while he was baptized?

That said, any implemented tradition that does serve as a tool to help impress the meaning of our faith for ourselves and our families does have some good, but couldn't the same be accomplished with a "commitment" ceremony (you could even sprinkle water if you like) where the parents vow to raise their child in the faith until they would willingly come forth and be baptized with full knowledge of what it signifies?

I'm afraid that this is another matter in which I cannot match your energy. Though I will confess something that other posters here like to use as a hammer to hit me with, and say that since the Church's bishops teach that infant baptism is valid, authorized, permitted, and recommended, and that history indicates that very early on the Church was practicing infant baptism, and, that there is no scripture explicitly hindering infant baptism, that I feel fine with it. There are Protestants like Presbyterians and Lutherans I believe who baptize infants also, the Orthodox, maybe not Lutherans, and maybe some other large Protestant tradition, or two or three of them. Not that an argument from popularity is proof of anything.

But again; I bow out.

 

[Idolater]

1 Corinthians 11:20-22 KJV
(20) When ye come together therefore into one place, this is not to eat the Lord's supper.
(21) For in eating every one taketh before other his own supper: and one is hungry, and another is drunken.
(22) What? have ye not houses to eat and to drink in? or despise ye the church of God, and shame them that have not? What shall I say to you? shall I praise you in this? I praise you not.

This "Lord's supper" doesn't sound like it consists of a wafer. Given the context and criticism in verse 21 it sounds as if this involves at least enough food that some ate like a full meal, and others were left hungry. If it were a single wafer, wouldn't everyone be hungry?

Does 1st Corinthians 11:24 KJV sound like 'eating Jesus,' because that's really the more operative thing in that post that I was responding to with my '1st Corinthians chapter 11' comment.

 

[Rosenritter]

Does it only signify, or does it coincide with an eternal/spiritual reality? With the Ethiopian eunuch, at what precise point did he die (cf. Ro6:3KJV)? Was it precisely while he was baptized?

The Ethiopian literally died at a precise point in time., but of which I cannot say because I do not have access to his obituary. In the context of baptism, being plunged beneath the water was a symbolic death, and being pulled from the water was a symbolic rebirth. Besides the symbolism of death to sin and walking in newness of life, this is also a picture of our future death and resurrection in Christ.

Romans 6:4-5 KJV
(4) Therefore we are buried with him by baptism into death: that like as Christ was raised up from the dead by the glory of the Father, even so we also should walk in newness of life.
(5) For if we have been planted together in the likeness of his death, we shall be also in the likeness of his resurrection:

I'm afraid that this is another matter in which I cannot match your energy. Though I will confess something that other posters here like to use as a hammer to hit me with,

Spoiler

and say that since the Church's bishops teach that infant baptism is valid, authorized, permitted, and recommended, and that history indicates that very early on the Church was practicing infant baptism, and, that there is no scripture explicitly hindering infant baptism, that I feel fine with it. There are Protestants like Presbyterians and Lutherans I believe who baptize infants also, the Orthodox, maybe not Lutherans, and maybe some other large Protestant tradition, or two or three of them.

Not that an argument from popularity is proof of anything.

But again; I bow out.

I have energy because the symbolism (not the symbol but what it pictures) is the central theme to the Christian faith. But I respect your willingness to bow out on cordial and gracious terms.

 

[Rosenritter]

Does 1st Corinthians 11:24 KJV sound like 'eating Jesus,' because that's really the more operative thing in that post that I was responding to with my '1st Corinthians chapter 11' comment.

That would be the style of characterization that the enemies of the church used, such as which Justin Martyr defended the Christian faith against. The Christians understood it to be a symbol, their enemies accused them of cannibalism.

 

[Right Divider]

In the context of baptism, being plunged beneath the water was a symbolic death, and being pulled from the water was a symbolic rebirth.

Nowhere does the Bible say that. It's a myth that was created outside the Scripture. And though it may sound "reasonable" to many, it is still just a myth.

To apply WATER to Romans 6 is a perversion of Scripture.

Never are ANY of the water baptisms in the Bible described as "dunking".

 

[Idolater]

The Ethiopian literally died at a precise point in time., but of which I cannot say because I do not have access to his obituary. In the context of baptism, being plunged beneath the water was a symbolic death, and being pulled from the water was a symbolic rebirth. Besides the symbolism of death to sin and walking in newness of life, this is also a picture of our future death and resurrection in Christ.

Romans 6:4-5 KJV
(4) Therefore we are buried with him by baptism into death: that like as Christ was raised up from the dead by the glory of the Father, even so we also should walk in newness of life.
(5) For if we have been planted together in the likeness of his death, we shall be also in the likeness of his resurrection:

I was talking about his spiritual death; the death of his 'old man.' I don't know if it occurred precisely when he was baptized, or perhaps before. And I referenced Romans 6:3 KJV to try to indicate that that is what I was talking about. The point was that perhaps the eternal reality of our conversion doesn't always or need to coincide with our physical baptism. Though in the context of infant baptism, this being celebrated before the person is even capable of believing the Gospel, the order is not what we would expect for 'believer's baptism,' which we might expect would follow our eternal conversion, rather than precede it.

I have energy because the symbolism (not the symbol but what it pictures) is the central theme to the Christian faith. But I respect your willingness to bow out on cordial and gracious terms.

Cool.

 

[Idolater]

That would be the style of characterization that the enemies of the church used, such as which Justin Martyr defended the Christian faith against. The Christians understood it to be a symbol, their enemies accused them of cannibalism.

Eh, I read Ignatius writing about the Gnostic Docetists in AD 107, saying that it is because they don't believe Christ Jesus came literally in the flesh, that they also reject the belief that it is literally the body and blood of Christ that is offered upon the Church's altars, and that Christians consume when they partake of the Lord's table. So that means to me, that at least Ignatius, a bishop of Antioch (the 3rd bishop of Antioch), believed (and presumably taught) that the Lord was being literal when He said, "This is My body," and, "This is My blood;" not a symbol, and not figurative. I find full agreement with that tenet in the 6th chapter of John's Gospel also.

 

[john w]

Eh, I read Ignatius writing about the Gnostic Docetists in AD 107, saying that it is because they don't believe Christ Jesus came literally in the flesh, that they also reject the belief that it is literally the body and blood of Christ that is offered upon the Church's altars, and that Christians consume when they partake of the Lord's table. So that means to me, that at least Ignatius, a bishop of Antioch (the 3rd bishop of Antioch), believed (and presumably taught) that the Lord was being literal when He said, "This is My body," and, "This is My blood;" not a symbol, and not figurative. I find full agreement with that tenet in the 6th chapter of John's Gospel also.

Luke 22 KJV
19 And he took bread, and gave thanks, and brake it, and gave unto them, saying, This is my body which is given for you: this do in remembrance of me. 20 Likewise also the cup after supper, saying, This cup is the new testament in my blood, which is shed for you.

Roman Catholic shills: "This is my body" is literal, not figurative.


Thus, the RCO asserts that a "Eucharist" cup is the new testament=not figurative, but literal.


Watch the forthcoming spin, do the hokey pokey, and turn all about.....Watch....

 

[turbosixx]

Which promise?

It's my understanding that God gave Abraham three promises in Genesis 12, land, great nation and all nations would be blessed through him. God repeats them in later chapters.
Gen. 12:1 Now the Lord said to Abram, “Go from your country and your kindred and your father's house to the land that I will show you. 2 And I will make of you a great nation, and I will bless you and make your name great, so that you will be a blessing. 3 I will bless those who bless you, and him who dishonors you I will curse, and in you all the families of the earth shall be blessed.”

Which one did Abraham believe that God counted him as righteous? Here is where we see those words in relation to what God told Abraham.
Gen. 15:4 And behold, the word of the Lord came to him: “This man shall not be your heir; your very own son shall be your heir.” 5 And he brought him outside and said, “Look toward heaven, and number the stars, if you are able to number them.” Then he said to him, “So shall your offspring be.” 6 And he believed the Lord, and he counted it to him as righteousness.


Did I answer your question? I like that you ask me questions but I feel I'm not following you yet. Maybe a few more questions.

 

[turbosixx]

This argument works as well against your position as it does for it...

"Many who practice evil things and rebel against God do not feel they are sinning."

You act as if the bible never uses the terms "evil" or "rebellion".

If you think that the definition of the term 'sin' is so cut and dried, I suggest you might want to rethink that. There are some who think it impossible for a Christian to "sin". Of course these folks have a very particular definition of the word "sin" but it isn't a frivolous one. They can argue their position from scripture quite well.

But, regardless of how you define sin, if you've done evil deeds, you have rebelled against God and are in need of a savior. And acknowledging that need due to that cause is a necessary step in getting saved.

Clete

I agree nothing is cut and dried when man is involved. When it comes to understanding what something is, I prefer to use scripture to define it. I agree the bible does use evil deeds and rebel against God but I believe those terms are referring to breaking God's law. The problem comes in when man decides what is evil and what is not.

You are absolutely correct. It's sad when we look at Christianity today. We all, well most of us, read the same bible and come away with opposing doctrines based in scripture. I want to come away with the truth.

 

[Rosenritter]

Nowhere does the Bible say that. It's a myth that was created outside the Scripture. And though it may sound "reasonable" to many, it is still just a myth.

To apply WATER to Romans 6 is a perversion of Scripture.

Never are ANY of the water baptisms in the Bible described as "dunking".

To what exactly is your objection? You are opposed to being plunged beneath water? You seem to be arguing in ignorance of the word meaning.

G907
βαπτίζω
baptizō
bap-tid'-zo
From a derivative of G911; to make whelmed (that is, fully wet); used only (in the New Testament) of ceremonial ablution, especially (technically) of the ordinance of Christian baptism: - baptist, baptize, wash.

You might as well be arguing that "fly" do not invoke "fully in the air" or that "dig" doesn't involve "into the earth." What I would like to know (that I do not think you will tell me) is why you are so emotionally opposed to baptism.

 

[Idolater]

...It's sad when we look at Christianity today. We all, well most of us, read the same bible and come away with opposing doctrines based in scripture. I want to come away with the truth.

You've before said and I just want to reiterate, that you believe that Christ's promises about 'the Spirit of truth' and all that He would do, were made only to the Apostles, and not to all individual members of the Body of Christ, and I think that's an important foothold in your honest and faithful pursuit of the truth, and I wish you luck in that pursuit.

 

[Right Divider]

To what exactly is your objection? You are opposed to being plunged beneath water? You seem to be arguing in ignorance of the word meaning.

G907
βαπτίζω
baptizō
bap-tid'-zo
From a derivative of G911; to make whelmed (that is, fully wet); used only (in the New Testament) of ceremonial ablution, especially (technically) of the ordinance of Christian baptism: - baptist, baptize, wash.

You might as well be arguing that "fly" do not invoke "fully in the air" or that "dig" doesn't involve "into the earth." What I would like to know (that I do not think you will tell me) is why you are so emotionally opposed to baptism.

ALL water baptisms that ISRAEL was required to do in their LAW were sprinklings.

Yes, we can all go to a "definition" that agrees with our arguments.

Do these verses describe "to make whelmed (that is, fully wet)"?

Mat 20:22-23 KJV But Jesus answered and said, Ye know not what ye ask. Are ye able to drink of the cup that I shall drink of, and to be baptized with the baptism that I am baptized with? They say unto him, We are able. (23) And he saith unto them, Ye shall drink indeed of my cup, and be baptized with the baptism that I am baptized with: but to sit on my right hand, and on my left, is not mine to give, but it shall be given to them for whom it is prepared of my Father.​

(Hint: no, they don't).

 

[Rosenritter]

Do these verses describe "to make whelmed (that is, fully wet)"?

Mat 20:22-23 KJV But Jesus answered and said, Ye know not what ye ask. Are ye able to drink of the cup that I shall drink of, and to be baptized with the baptism that I am baptized with? They say unto him, We are able. (23) And he saith unto them, Ye shall drink indeed of my cup, and be baptized with the baptism that I am baptized with: but to sit on my right hand, and on my left, is not mine to give, but it shall be given to them for whom it is prepared of my Father.​

(Hint: no, they don't).

Finding an instance where the symbolic meaning of the symbol is applied does not eliminate the original and actual application elsewhere. Surely you understand logical reasoning well enough to acknowledge that (or maybe not?)

Acts 10:47 KJV
(47) Can any man forbid water, that these should not be baptized, which have received the Holy Ghost as well as we?

Acts 8:36 KJV
(36) And as they went on their way, they came unto a certain water: and the eunuch said, See, here is water; what doth hinder me to be baptized?

Is your objection to the water, or the full immersion in water? Because the baptism obviously was:

1) literal
2) with water
3) requiring volume that exceeded drinking water

 

[Right Divider]

Finding an instance where the term the symbolic meaning of the symbol is applied does not eliminate the original and actual application elsewhere. Surely you understand logical reasoning well enough to acknowledge that (or maybe not?)

Acts 10:47 KJV
(47) Can any man forbid water, that these should not be baptized, which have received the Holy Ghost as well as we?

Acts 8:36 KJV
(36) And as they went on their way, they came unto a certain water: and the eunuch said, See, here is water; what doth hinder me to be baptized?

Is your objection to the water, or the full immersion in water? Because the baptism obviously was:

1) literal
2) with water
3) requiring volume that exceeded drinking water

Please prove your assumption that water baptism requires dunking.

 

[Rosenritter]

Please prove your assumption that water baptism requires dunking.

The known meaning of the word proves that "water baptism" requires "dunking." There's no need to "prove" anything past this. The burden of proof lies upon the person seeking to disprove the known definition. "To be fully wet" does not happen unless one is submerged, to be "whelmed" does not happen with underwhelming force or coverage.

G907
βαπτίζω
baptizō
bap-tid'-zo
From a derivative of G911; to make whelmed (that is, fully wet); used only (in the New Testament) of ceremonial ablution, especially (technically) of the ordinance of Christian baptism: - baptist, baptize, wash.

Adding to this, when baptism is mentioned throughout scripture it uses terms like "going into the water" and "coming out of the water" and the source of the water even involves rivers. See the instance of Christ's baptism by John, the baptism of the Ethiopian eunuch. Baptism obviously requires much water.

John 3:23 KJV
(23) And John also was baptizing in Aenon near to Salim, because there was much water there: and they came, and were baptized.

Our baptism is symbolic of burial, and burial does not mean covering only part of the body.

Colossians 2:12 KJV
(12) Buried with him in baptism, wherein also ye are risen with him through the faith of the operation of God, who hath raised him from the dead.

The meaning of the word means immersed, and the supporting context of the New Testament is in agreement with this meaning. If you are going to argue against scripture, you are the one that needs to present evidence. Why do you have this seemingly irrational aversion to baptism? I cannot say.