Jay,
Thanks for the 'good man' compliment.
However, you still haven't explained how you and Hope know so much more than all the Christians of the first 1500+ years of Christianity.
Nor have you explained how your discernment is so much better than those taught by the apostles, and the disciples of the apostles.
Remember,
it wasn't just poor Francisco that got deceived, it was the whole church for 1500 years that got deceived, according to you and Hope.
Golly, I sure am glad you and Hope came along to straighten all those dumb old apostles and early Christians out. It sure is a shame Jesus didn't do a better job of teaching those apostles.
And the apostles sure seemed to have failed in their mission too. Of course it's hard to blame them. Jesus did send them out to preach and baptize, how were they supposed to know he was only kidding about the baptizing part?
And while you're straightening all of them out, you should probably straighten out the majority of Protestant Christians who also believe baptism is necessary for salvation.
Oh, BTW, I wanted to show you one more little bit of early Christian literature. This was written while the apostles were still alive, and most scholars agree it is an accurate description of the teachings of the early church from an author who knew the apostles, and some think was a personal friend of Paul's. It's called The Shepherd and was written in 80 A.D. Here's what it says about baptism:
"‘I have heard, sir,’ said I [to the Shepherd], ‘from some teacher, that there is no other repentance except that which took place when we went down into the water and obtained the remission of our former sins.’ He said to me, ‘You have heard rightly, for so it is’" (The Shepherd 4:3:1–2 [A.D. 80])
Hmmm. I thought you said baptism was only a symbol to show other men how faithful you are?
Just in case you're wondering how the early church saw this book I've done a little research for you. It seems "The Shepherd" (Poimen, Pastor),
had great authority in ancient times and was ranked with Holy Scripture. Eusebius tells us that it was
publicly read in the churches, and that while some denied it to be canonical, others "considered it most necessary". St. Athanasius speaks of it, together with the Didache, in connection with the deuterocanonical books of the Old Testament, as
uncanonical yet recommended by the ancients for the reading of catechumens. Elsewhere he calls it a
most profitable book. St. Irenaeus and Tertullian
cite the "Shepherd" as Scripture. Clement of Alexandria
constantly quotes it with reverence, and so does Origen, who held that the author was the Hermas
mentioned by St. Paul, Rom., xvi, 14.
Just for giggles I thought I we could take a look at Rom 16:14 -
14Greet Asyncritus, Phlegon, Hermes, Patrobas, Hermas and the brothers with them.(Rom 16:14, NIV)
Here's another interesting quote:
"Baptism is no human plaything but is instituted by God himself. Moreover, it is solemnly and strictly commanded that we must be baptized or we shall not be saved. We are not to regard it as an indifferent matter, then, like putting on a new red coat. It is of the greatest importance that we regard baptism as excellent, glorious, and exalted" (Martin Luther, Large Catechism 4:6)
Even the early Reformers believed in the necessity of baptism Jay. It appears to me your 'no baptism' doctrine has no roots in history, and so must be an invention of modern man, a tradition of men, so to speak.
You're a good man too Jay, but you have been deceived so much you believe
real Christianity just started a couple hundred years ago. Think about it Jay. I'll talk to you tomorrow if time permits.
Good night gentlemen.... you too Hope.
God Bless,
Francisco
PS - One last thought before I turn out the lights:
"Whoever believes in the Son has eternal life, but whoever rejects the Son will not see life, for God's wrath remains on him."
I'm just wandering if not following what Jesus commanded us to do would be considered 'rejecting' the Son???
Maybe if you just keep saying, 'well I believed', they want notice the rejection of the Son.
