ECT The Gospel Proper

[Rosenritter]

It has been my observation that people believe whatever they want to believe and then feel that they are the humble, gentle folks that have all the best qualities. While those that disagree with them are arrogant and evil.

I've observed that as well, but that doesn't change that I have never seen an arrogant spirit from someone who sought baptism.

 

[Idolater]

Thanks for the clarification. I suggest you have a different view because your source of truth is not scripture.

My source of truth is In Scripture though.

Why quote from anything other than the bible?

Because the Bible doesn't tell me what happens to someone, who comes to authentic faith, and then suddenly drops dead of a blood clot, before being baptized---but the Church's bishops do, and as I said, the bishops are in the Bible. So I am believing the Bible, when I heed the bishops.

1 Pt. 3:21 There is also an antitype which now saves us—baptism (not the removal of the filth of the flesh, but the answer of a good conscience toward God), through the resurrection of Jesus Christ,

Baptism's been the Church's thing from Day One, and she's never stopped baptizing, with water. We all know that sacraments are a coordination between eternal reality, and the present moment, such that there's a coupling. The water baptism, and the baptism of the Spirit, are coordinated together to indicate one reality, that is both physical and spiritual, temporal and eternal. And, John 3:5 KJV says both.

 

[Idolater]

Do you believe Jesus?
Mk. 16:16 Whoever believes and is baptized will be saved, but whoever does not believe will be condemned.

According to your view, Mark 16:16 KJV means that someone who tragically loses their life, after coming to true Christian faith in the Gospel, but before they got water baptized, then too bad; they're going to burn---better luck next time! oh this was their only chance.

That just can't be, and I think you agree that it just can't be, so you've got to really get imaginative and creative in how you're interpreting Mark 16:16 KJV to make it fit with the above hypothetical and rhetorical scenario.

I would contend that the hypothetical individual above is saved, will be saved, even though they weren't baptized before they died.

I think you would agree with that, but what do you say?

 

[turbosixx]

I would contend that the hypothetical individual above is saved, will be saved, even though they weren't baptized before they died.

I believe they are saved but that's my opinion. Judging them is God's end of the stick. We can't use that hypothetical situation to make what Jesus said untrue.
Mk. 16:16 Whoever believes and is baptized will be saved, but whoever does not believe will be condemned.
Jesus's words are the truth.

I would suggest do not hesitate to be baptized after belief. We see in scripture time after time it was done right then.
Acts 16:33 And he took them the same hour of the night and washed their wounds; and he was baptized at once, he and all his family.

Let God judge those who tragically die before baptism.

Of all those who heard Peter, who were the ones added to the church?
Acts 2:41 So those who received his word were baptized, and there were added that day about three thousand souls.

 

[turbosixx]

So I am believing the Bible, when I heed the bishops.

I suggest you're not. Bishops are men and men can be wrong.
29 I know that after my departure fierce wolves will come in among you, not sparing the flock; 30 and from among your own selves will arise men speaking twisted things, to draw away the disciples after them.

The bible is not wrong.

You say we need bishops because the bible is inadequate? It has everything we need so that we do not need to rely on men.
2 Tim. 3:16 All Scripture is breathed out by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness, 17 that the man of God may be complete, equipped for every good work.

Baptism's been the Church's thing from Day One, and she's never stopped baptizing, with water. We all know that sacraments are a coordination between eternal reality, and the present moment, such that there's a coupling. The water baptism, and the baptism of the Spirit, are coordinated together to indicate one reality, that is both physical and spiritual, temporal and eternal. And, John 3:5 KJV says both.

Your church has changed baptism into something different than what we find in God's word.

 

[glorydaz]

According to your view, Mark 16:16 KJV means that someone who tragically loses their life, after coming to true Christian faith in the Gospel, but before they got water baptized, then too bad; they're going to burn---better luck next time! oh this was their only chance.

That just can't be, and I think you agree that it just can't be, so you've got to really get imaginative and creative in how you're interpreting Mark 16:16 KJV to make it fit with the above hypothetical and rhetorical scenario.

I would contend that the hypothetical individual above is saved, will be saved, even though they weren't baptized before they died.

I think you would agree with that, but what do you say?

Those who had to be baptized also had to be circumcised, obedient to the commandments, and all the laws of Moses. So what's one more minor detail?

 

[glorydaz]

I suggest you're not. Bishops are men and men can and often are wrong. The bible is not.



I suggest to you that your church has changed baptism to something different than what we find in the bible.

You prefer the Jewish church...IN THE TEMPLE, right?

Acts 2:44-47 And all that believed were together, and had all things common; 45 And sold their possessions and goods, and parted them to all men, as every man had need. 46 And they, continuing daily with one accord in the temple, and breaking bread from house to house, did eat their meat with gladness and singleness of heart, 47 Praising God, and having favour with all the people. And the Lord added to the church daily such as should be saved.​

 

[turbosixx]

You prefer the Jewish church...IN THE TEMPLE, right?

Acts 2:44-47 And all that believed were together, and had all things common; 45 And sold their possessions and goods, and parted them to all men, as every man had need. 46 And they, continuing daily with one accord in the temple, and breaking bread from house to house, did eat their meat with gladness and singleness of heart, 47 Praising God, and having favour with all the people. And the Lord added to the church daily such as should be saved.​

WOW, anything to deflect from the truth.
Do you believe Jesus?
16 Whoever believes and is baptized will be saved, but whoever does not believe will be condemned.

Paul believed Him.
Acts 18:8 Crispus, the ruler of the synagogue, believed in the Lord, together with his entire household. And many of the Corinthians hearing Paul believed and were baptized.
Do you see the connection?

 

[Right Divider]

Do you believe Jesus?
Mk. 16:16 Whoever believes and is baptized will be saved, but whoever does not believe will be condemned.

Out of the crowd who listened to Peter, which ones were added?
Acts 2:41 So those who received his word were baptized, and there were added that day about three thousand souls.

You are a cherry-picker.

 

[Right Divider]

I've observed that as well, but that doesn't change that I have never seen an arrogant spirit from someone who sought baptism.

Which is completely irrelevant to the issue of a required water ceremony.

 

[john w]

There were washings in the OT but we are in a different dispensation.
In your understanding, what method of water baptism did Paul perform?

I stay on topic, my topic, and thus addressed this "immersion" made up jazz, only, in my brilliant post.

And, oh-I did not know that there were washings in the OT.......

Take your seat,please.Thank you for your cooperation.

Jethro John

 

[Idolater]

I believe they are saved but that's my opinion.

That's what I thought.

Judging them is God's end of the stick.

Agreed.

We can't use that hypothetical situation to make what Jesus said untrue.

I never suggested that what Jesus said isn't true.

Jesus's words are the truth.

Of course.

Let God judge those who tragically die before baptism.

Yes.

Of all those who heard Peter, who were the ones added to the church?
Acts 2:41 So those who received his word were baptized, and there were added that day about three thousand souls.

Right.

 

[john w]

It has been my observation that those that willingly humble themselves unto baptism are generally more agreeable to the fruits of the spirit than those that spitefully argue against the ordinance.

Galatians 5:22 KJV

But the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, longsuffering, gentleness, goodness, faith,


Ephesians 5:9 KJV

(for the fruit of the Spirit is in all goodness and righteousness and truth

"It has been my observation that those that willingly" ignore, do not study the details of the bible, a book of details, are lazy, lackadaisical, nonchalant, careless, exhibiting one of the reasons for their "forced," jumbled interpretation; the other prime reason, being their refusal to rightly divide the word of truth, as commanded by 2 Timothy 2:15 KJV. To wit:

So there.

"fruits"-plural-you

Vs.

"fruit"-singular-the bible



Contrasts.

 

[Idolater]

I suggest you're not. Bishops are men and men can be wrong.
29 I know that after my departure fierce wolves will come in among you, not sparing the flock; 30 and from among your own selves will arise men speaking twisted things, to draw away the disciples after them.

Nothing that the bishops teach in matters of faith and morals contradicts Scripture. And so they can't be these 'fierce wolves.' In the light of history, I believe this warning applied first of all to those who rose up teaching that Christ Jesus did Not come in the flesh, but was essentially an apparition, and His crucifixion and Resurrection did not happen like how we read in the Gospel accounts that we have. We know them now as 'docetists' or 'gnostic docetists.' After them, there were all sorts of others who rose up and taught other things contrary to the truth, such as the Arians, and later on, the Protestants also.

What the bishops do consistently is bring clarity to the Scripture. E.g. the Trinity. Would that there were a book in the New Testament devoted to explicating this doctrine! But there is not. But the bishops fill out the whole doctrine, which comports with what is recorded in Scripture, explaining every detail, such that the whole Scripture becomes more accessible. The Trinity is only one example.

And while the bishops are men, it is granted, the office of Bishop was instituted by the Apostles, and it was to be a continuing office, as shown by Paul writing to bishops, and instructing them on how to make new bishops, which we've discussed before. Not only do we read that the Apostles through the imposition of their own hands created bishops, but we see that their instruction was for those bishops to create new bishops themselves, and through the same 'procedure.'

The bible is not wrong.

I Never said the Bible was wrong, ever, about anything.

You say we need bishops because the bible is inadequate? It has everything we need so that we do not need to rely on men.
2 Tim. 3:16 All Scripture is breathed out by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness, 17 that the man of God may be complete, equipped for every good work.

No, I Never said that. I don't reject any scripture. The Apostles' job was to instruct the Church in everything that Christ Jesus taught them, and the Bishop has that same job. Bishops are not 'authoritative interpreters of Scripture' however; the Apostles were---bishops are to transmit what the Apostles taught, in word or in epistle, to the Church.

The bishops are a Gift to the Church. They are given to us freely by Christ, through His Apostles, so that we can always know what He wants us to know, and to worship the Father as the Father wants us to worship Him.

Your church has changed baptism into something different than what we find in God's word.

I disagree that the Catholic Church has done any such thing.

 

[Idolater]

Those who had to be baptized also had to be circumcised

I disagree. Was Cornelius circumcised?

 

[Idolater]

You prefer the Jewish church...IN THE TEMPLE, right?

Acts 2:44-47 And all that believed were together, and had all things common; 45 And sold their possessions and goods, and parted them to all men, as every man had need. 46 And they, continuing daily with one accord in the temple, and breaking bread from house to house, did eat their meat with gladness and singleness of heart, 47 Praising God, and having favour with all the people. And the Lord added to the church daily such as should be saved.​

James ('the Just') was the first bishop of the church in Jerusalem, a church which continued for generations until the Romans literally evicted all Jews from the city, many years after Pentecost and the destruction of the city in AD 70. After that, we don't really know what happened to that church. The people weren't killed, they just had to flee, and we don't know where they wound up.

 

[Right Divider]

I disagree. Was Cornelius circumcised?

The Bible does not say one way or the other.

 

[Right Divider]

James ('the Just') was the first bishop of the church in Jerusalem, a church which continued for generations until the Romans literally evicted all Jews from the city, many years after Pentecost and the destruction of the city in AD 70.

What about Peter? Wasn't Peter the first?

Why do we read that Judas was quickly replaced, but not the same with James in Acts 12?

After that, we don't really know what happened to that church.

The RCC claims otherwise. They claim that there has been an unbroken succession from Peter until now.

 

[john w]

WOW, anything to deflect from the truth.
Do you believe Jesus?
16 Whoever believes and is baptized will be saved, but whoever does not believe will be condemned.

Fine. Do you "believe Jesus?"

Then, do be a dear, and sell all you have. Offer the gift that Moses commanded, and show yourself to a Levitical priest. Raise the dead. Pick up vipers. Drink anti-freeze. Tell no one that "Jesus" is the Christ. And.................................

Agreed?

No? Why don't you "believe Jesus?"

 

[Idolater]

What about Peter? Wasn't Peter the first?

No, but Peter and John and James the sons of Zebedee, together agreed upon James. This had already occurred by Acts 15.

Why do we read that Judas was quickly replaced, but not the same with James in Acts 12?

James the Just was not an Apostle.

The RCC claims otherwise. They claim that there has been an unbroken succession from Peter until now.

I was only talking about what would today be called the 'Jerusalem diocese.' That church was lost to history, so far as I can tell, once the Romans evicted all Jews from Jerusalem.