Baptism?

[stevehut]

Lord I know that I am a sinner and that Jesus Christ died for my sins, I accept you as my personal savior ( even though I am your creation and you are Lord of all I have to accpet you, you need my acceptance instead of the other way around. Even though no where in your word does it say that i only have to accept you)

Tiggr,

I take it you're no big fan of the Sinner's Prayer?

[Guest Calamity]

Lord I know that I am a sinner and that Jesus Christ died for my sins, I accept you as my personal savior ( even though I am your creation and you are Lord of all I have to accpet you, you need my acceptance instead of the other way around. Even though no where in your word does it say that i only have to accept you) Even though I will continue to live the same way that I have always lived, drinking ( only on holidays) smoking, chewing tobbaco cursing (when I get angry) watching movies full of violence and some nudity and basicaly being the same old me. I can pick and choose what I want to obey in the Bible and to top it all off I can never loose my salvation because I said the sinners prayer(which also is not in your word) and now I am saved for all eternity

seems to be the belief of the majority of todays Christians

That 's laughable

Well, all I will say now, is if you prefer to believe that water saves you, then go for it.

[stevehut]

Calamity,

what is your understanding of the plan of salvation?

[Guest Calamity]

Calamity,

what is your understanding of the plan of salvation?

stevehut, I'm done with this thread now. But, my understanding of salvation definitely does not include water baptism. You, and the others here who believe that, would most likely not consider me saved, even though I've been baptized, because I was baptized for the "wrong" reason. You may not even think anyone who is not in your particular belief group is saved, I don't know. Anyway, the 'tone' of that last post by tiggr was pretty sarcastic, so I'm done. Discuss away....

[Leonard]

Jesus Christ Son of God, have mercy on me, a sinner.

Greetings, Shiloh.

Perhaps our problem is semantic in nature. 'Entry Ritual' or 'Initiation Ritual' is how it would be described in the academic study of Anthropology.

Yes, it is the sign of the covenant between the Jews and God, but from an Anthropological, or Sociological standpoint, my description is quite valid. Neither does the use of the term negate my point. You seem to have majored on minors here. Trying to obfuscate, are we???

With a blessing,

Leonard, a sinner

[Guest tiggr]

Never said that water saves only God does and faith in God but i have already posted on that. Water baptism in the name of Jesus Christ remmits sin as stated in Acts 2:38 and 22:16 water does not save nor remit sins but done in the name of Jesus Christ according to scripture,and as far as being saved none of us here have made it there yet.

No I dont care for the "sinners prayer " its something than man came up with to get people to think all I have to do is say a prayer and that's it. That is not Biblical

I am sorry if my post was sarcastic to you calamity.

[stevehut]

Calamity,

what is your understanding of the plan of salvation?

stevehut, I'm done with this thread now.

Calamity,

Now that you've told me that I am wrong, it's only fair to tell me what you believe is right. What is your understanding of the plan of salvation?

[Guest shiloh357]

Perhaps our problem is semantic in nature. 'Entry Ritual' or 'Initiation Ritual' is how it would be described in the academic study of Anthropology.

Well excuse me for choosing to call it what the BIBLE calls it and not what man calls it.

Yes, it is the sign of the covenant between the Jews and God, but from an Anthropological, or Sociological standpoint, my description is quite valid.

It is both invalid and irrelevant when discussing from a biblical standpoint.

Neither does the use of the term negate my point. You seem to have majored on minors here. Trying to obfuscate, are we???

No, the confusion is all yours.

You wanted to compare water immersion to circumcision. The Bible makes it clear that Abraham was saved without circumcision. If you are going to say that one mirrors the other, then you're going to have to be consistent in how you apply each. If circumcision did not play a part in saving Abraham, then neither does water immersion play a part in saving us. Abraham was saved by faith 25 years before cirucumcision according to Romans 4. Therefore we are saved apart from water immersion.

[Guest shiloh357]

Lord I know that I am a sinner and that Jesus Christ died for my sins, I accept you as my personal savior ( even though I am your creation and you are Lord of all I have to accpet you, you need my acceptance instead of the other way around. Even though no where in your word does it say that i only have to accept you) Even though I will continue to live the same way that I have always lived, drinking ( only on holidays) smoking, chewing tobbaco cursing (when I get angry) watching movies full of violence and some nudity and basicaly being the same old me. I can pick and choose what I want to obey in the Bible and to top it all off I can never loose my salvation because I said the sinners prayer(which also is not in your word) and now I am saved for all eternity

seems to be the belief of the majority of todays Christians

That 's laughable

No, your post is laughable. Just a pile of simple-minded drivel

[Leonard]

Jesus Christ Son of God, have mercy on me, a sinner.

AW! JUST WHEN I THOUGHT IT WAS CUDDLY HERE! Well! Shiloh is such a big meanie I've decided Stevehut won!

It seems to me that baptizm is not the causal agent in salvation. That is what the death, resurrection and ascension of Jesus does. However, we must still address Acts 2:38 in some intelligent manner, not just toss out the interpretation ALL the early Church Fathers believed, and not offer something meaningful in its place.

Neither ought we be too quick to reject the Fathers interpretation out of hand. That is a great fault I see in the Church today. We are so overweaning in our arrogance we believe we can simply ignore all the collective wisdom of the past. This solipsist pride is the cause of much confusion in the Church.

Until just the last 400 hundred years at the most, the whole Church believed that the Holy Spirit was imparted at baptism. They regarded baptism as so important that in some places, new converts had to take THREE YEARS of instruction, and prove their Christian lives before they could be baptized. (Of course, if someone were at death's door during this period, exceptions were made, but the three year rule was ordinary.)

It seems to me overly solipsist to simply ignore all this great input and learning of the Church (including the writings of those men who were direct disciples and friends of the Apostles, and tell us they are passing on Apostolic teaching!).

WHAT ARE OUR AUTHORITIES FOR BELIEF?

Some might put them in a different order, but I suggest these:

1. The Scripture itself.

2. The Fathers

3. What I believe the Spirit is speaking to me.

4. The standard Commentaries.

5. Reason

The great Protestant doctrine of sola scriptura has been so misunderstood and so misapplied by people of the last two centuries; who really have a mindset deeply infected by the 'Enlightenment'; that it has come to really mean a complete, solipsist dedication to what "I The Enlightened Modern Man think (let all former-- and therefore lesser--humans bow)." Most people who think they are relying on sola scriptura are really imposing Western reasoning on the Scripture, so that their AUTHORITES look like this:

1. Reason

2. The Scripture itself.

Not only is this upside down, it ignores many other channels which ought to be given weight. In case you haven't noticed, I simply DETEST the (bankrupt) intellectual arrogance of the 'Enlightenment'.

This 'pride goeth before destruction' so have a care!

With a blessing,

Leonard, a sinner