|
Users viewing this topic:
none
|
|
Login  | |
|
RE: Are you saved but not baptized? - 4/24/2008 4:40:52 AM
|
|
|
kelman
Posts: 3686
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: greatdivide46
quote:
ORGINAL: kelman
There remains nothing which modifies the clear statement of Peter's. To try to impose any other meaning appears to be a rather desparate attempt to uphold a preconceived doctrine. You're not letting the Bible explain what baptism is; instead, you are imposing your own doctrine on the Bible. Much better to let Scripture speak. Actually, I am letting the Scripture speak. It was when I believed in "faith only" that I had to dismiss certain passages of Scripture and not let them speak, that I was imposing a preconceived notion on Scripture. It was when I gave up the preconceived notion that salvation comes through faith alone that Scripture really began to speak to me. And I found that there is a strong connection between baptism and salvation.
There is a strong connection between salvation and baptism; but, that baptism is the Baptism of the Holy Spirit. Water has no bearing on that baptism. Water baptism is the sign or shadow of what is real - the substance which is the Baptism of the Holy Spirit.
An analogy...a tree is substantive and actual. A tree may cast a shadow that is altogether identified with the tree but has no substance at all in itself. So, too, the baptism(washing away of our sins) performed by God is substantive and actual. But, water baptism is only a shadow of the action performed by God. Water baptism is the shadow so it has no substance in itself. Though, two baptism are spoken of in Scripture, this is why God says there is only "one" baptism - the substance and its shadow.
_____________________________
“beware lest you lose the substance by grasping at the shadow”
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Are you saved but not baptized? - 4/24/2008 4:49:43 AM
|
|
|
kelman
Posts: 3686
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: greatdivide46
quote:
ORIGINAL: kelman
God is quite clear in John 3:8 that the Holy Spirit "arrives" when and where He please. Just as the Apostles did miracles to authenticate that their authority was from God, so "speaking in tongues" was an authentication of salvation.....both were temporary gifts.
I agree that the Holy Spirit arrives when and where He pleases. I just happen to believe that He pleases to arrive during our baptism, whereas there are other who say they believe that He arrives when and where He pleases who say He could not possibly desire to arrive at our baptism. And I do believe that the speaking in tongues was an authentication of the message of salvation. I also agree that the kind of miracles the Apostles did and speaking tongues were both temporary gifts.
So, see, I agree with you 99% on this post. 
It's that 1% that always gets us :) Again, I don't see support for tongues as an "authentication of the message of salvation". Instead, in each case we see actual salvation occurring.
And, to say that the Holy Spirit "pleases" to arrive in water baptism is also without support. The verse says He goes where and when He pleases and we do not know He has come, we are aware only of the "effect" of His coming.
_____________________________
“beware lest you lose the substance by grasping at the shadow”
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Are you saved but not baptized? - 4/24/2008 4:55:00 AM
|
|
|
kelman
Posts: 3686
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: greatdivide46
quote:
ORIGINAL: kelman
quote:
Nowhere in the book of Acts can we read that conversion is asking Jesus into your heart through offering a "sinner's prayer."
Tell that to the publican who was justified before God as a result of a prayer. You won't find that said of water baptism. I'll be glad to tell that to the publican. The fact that nowhere in the book of Acts can we read that conversion is asking Jesus into your heart through offering a "sinner's prayer" has no bearing on the publican's prayer since his prayer did not occur in the book of Acts.
You see, I was making a comment about conversion in the book of Acts, not about conversion prior to the death, ressurrection, and ascension of Jesus.
Are you saying there are "two" ways in which God saves? One way before Christ ascended and another way afterwards?
_____________________________
“beware lest you lose the substance by grasping at the shadow”
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Are you saved but not baptized? - 4/24/2008 2:36:51 PM
|
|
|
greatdivide46
Posts: 1070
Joined: 4/12/2005
From: Opp, Alabama
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: kelman
Are you saying there are "two" ways in which God saves? One way before Christ ascended and another way afterwards? Actually I wasn't saying that, but I do believe that, yes.
_____________________________
greatdivide46
SFC, USA (Ret)
The reflections of the heart belong to man, but the answer of the tongue is from the LORD -- Proverbs 16:1
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Are you saved but not baptized? - 4/24/2008 2:42:41 PM
|
|
|
greatdivide46
Posts: 1070
Joined: 4/12/2005
From: Opp, Alabama
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: kelman
It's that 1% that always gets us :) Again, I don't see support for tongues as an "authentication of the message of salvation". Instead, in each case we see actual salvation occurring. But, even if that's true, we don't see salvation occurring that way today. And if it doesn't happen that way today, then I don't see why it had to happen that way then. There are other ways to interpret the passages you are referring to.
_____________________________
greatdivide46
SFC, USA (Ret)
The reflections of the heart belong to man, but the answer of the tongue is from the LORD -- Proverbs 16:1
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Are you saved but not baptized? - 4/24/2008 2:53:20 PM
|
|
|
JimboFletch
Posts: 6346
Joined: 4/11/2005
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: greatdivide46
quote:
ORIGINAL: kelman
Are you saying there are "two" ways in which God saves? One way before Christ ascended and another way afterwards? Actually I wasn't saying that, but I do believe that, yes.
Are you really going to stand by that - that Jesus is A way, A truth, and A life and some people AFTER 33AD come to the Father by Him?
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Are you saved but not baptized? - 4/24/2008 6:42:56 PM
|
|
|
greatdivide46
Posts: 1070
Joined: 4/12/2005
From: Opp, Alabama
Status: offline
|
quote:
Are you really going to stand by that - that Jesus is A way, A truth, and A life and some people AFTER 33AD come to the Father by Him? Nope, that's not what I said at all.
Do you think all saved people prior to the Day of Pentecost were indwelled by the Holy Spirit similar to how we are today?
_____________________________
greatdivide46
SFC, USA (Ret)
The reflections of the heart belong to man, but the answer of the tongue is from the LORD -- Proverbs 16:1
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Are you saved but not baptized? - 4/25/2008 11:40:44 AM
|
|
|
FreeGrace
Posts: 7210
Joined: 12/30/2005
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: PeterD
I have accepted my infant baptism and was confirmed at 15.
Please explain what to be "confirmed" means. Thanks.
quote:
I've come across certain Christian's who said that I'm not truely baptized because I didn't make this decision on my own.
At the time I didn't know why I was being questioned so strongly about my infant baptism. I will say though that their questions and demands moved me to investigate further in why I wasn't given a choice that I'm aware of to be baptized. Still no answer on this one but I do accept the dicision that was made for me by my parent's and the Church congregation. PeterD
If I may ask you a question; why do you think God will let you into Heaven? What I am asking is; on what basis will He do this?
Thanks.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Are you saved but not baptized? - 4/25/2008 3:10:24 PM
|
|
|
FreeGrace
Posts: 7210
Joined: 12/30/2005
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: PeterD
quote:
ORIGINAL: FreeGrace
If I may ask you a question; why do you think God will let you into Heaven? What I am asking is; on what basis will He do this?
Thanks.
Hello FreeGrace!
Confirmation is professing the faith you received in Baptism.
How do you know you received "faith" at your infant baptism? I am not aware that any infants have any coherent thoughts. Believing in Christ involves mental thought processes.
quote:
I believe in Baptismal regeneration, meaning you receive the Holy Spirit at Baptism.
There's another thread for that discussion. But for the record, there is no Scriptural support for that. But I'm sure GD46 will love to have a discussion with you, as he heartily believes in it as well.
quote:
All my life I grew up in the church and went to Sunday school classes, and church services with my mom and dad, from a young age. This all led up to confirmation, these are all the things that built up to my confirmation. Not works based, but honoring thy father and mother. I was under their care. And I obeyed. And I am grateful to have parents who reared me up in the life of the church. And when the day of confirmation came, I was glad.
But none of that saves. We are saved only when we personally believe in Jesus Christ as our Savior who died on the cross for our sins. Not a minute before.
quote:
In the Confirmation service, I was asked, with 12 other Church members my age, these questions:
(I deleted the long list of things said)
Not one of the things you professed to equates to salvific faith in Christ.
quote:
P: Upom this your profession and promise I invite and welcome you, as members of this Evangelical Lutheran Church and of this congregation, to share with us in all the gifts our Lord has for his Church and to live them out continually in his worship and service.
P: Let us ray for the newly confirmed.
Congregation: Amen.
Pastor dismisses the newly confirmed saying;
P: The Almighty and most merciful God, Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, bless and keep you.
C: Amen[/color]
And none of this equates to salvific faith.
quote:
This is the service of Confirmation. (Lutheran Service Book)
Thank you. Very interesting.
quote:
Confirmation has Biblical value. Remember the apostles after people received Baptism, laid their hands on them and received the Holy Spirit. The service of confirmation is both a profession of faith, and the laying on of hands, and not in haste.
But nothing you provided in your confirmation amounted to a profession of faith.
quote:
About your second question, here's my answer. Jesus Christ died for my sins, and rose again. Now that I am baptized into His death, I will also be united with Him in the newness of life, and in the resurrection of the dead.
Now, this is a profession of faith. btw, if you don't mind my asking. How old were you when you understood that Christ died for your sins personally, and you believed it? Thanks.
quote:
It was nice talking with you about being saved and about baptism in Jesus' name. PeterD
Same here. Take care.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Are you saved but not baptized? - 4/26/2008 1:59:01 AM
|
|
|
kelman
Posts: 3686
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: greatdivide46
quote:
ORIGINAL: kelman
Are you saying there are "two" ways in which God saves? One way before Christ ascended and another way afterwards? Actually I wasn't saying that, but I do believe that, yes.
Okay, gd, I'll bite - what are the "two" ways?
_____________________________
“beware lest you lose the substance by grasping at the shadow”
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Are you saved but not baptized? - 4/26/2008 2:17:53 AM
|
|
|
kelman
Posts: 3686
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: greatdivide46
quote:
ORIGINAL: kelman
It's that 1% that always gets us :) Again, I don't see support for tongues as an "authentication of the message of salvation". Instead, in each case we see actual salvation occurring. But, even if that's true, we don't see salvation occurring that way today. And if it doesn't happen that way today, then I don't see why it had to happen that way then. There are other ways to interpret the passages you are referring to.
I agree, today salvation is not accompanied with the phenomenon of "tongues" just as the miracles performed by the Apostles are not seen today. Still, that doesn't mean both didn't happen exactly as the NT declares. The Apostles performed miracles as divine authentication and authority proving their mandate by God.
The same with salvation accompanied by "tongues". It was the evidence and the fulfillment of Christ's declaration to the Apostles: "and ye shall be witnesses unto me both in Jerusalem, and in all Judaea, and in Samaria, and unto the uttermost part of the earth." It was in those places that "tongues" accompanied salvation.
_____________________________
“beware lest you lose the substance by grasping at the shadow”
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Are you saved but not baptized? - 4/26/2008 2:19:11 AM
|
|
|
kelman
Posts: 3686
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: greatdivide46
quote:
Are you really going to stand by that - that Jesus is A way, A truth, and A life and some people AFTER 33AD come to the Father by Him? Nope, that's not what I said at all.
Do you think all saved people prior to the Day of Pentecost were indwelled by the Holy Spirit similar to how we are today?
Absolutely!!! There is only one way people are saved - by the indwelling of the Holy Spirit - and, that would include all the OT saints. They too were baptized with the Holy Spirit which means the cleansing provided by the atonement was applied and made an integral part of their lives by the Holy Spirit at the moment they were regenerated, at the time they became born again or born from above.
Indeed, there was a substantial change, but it was not in regard to the nature of salvation. It had to do with the extent of God's salvation program. Before Pentecost, only a few people believed and only a few people were qualified to be prophets - to declare God's Word. But, beginning at Pentecost, it was God's plan that there was to be an explosion of believers and each believer was to be mandated and qualified to bring the Gospel.
_____________________________
“beware lest you lose the substance by grasping at the shadow”
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Are you saved but not baptized? - 4/26/2008 8:12:28 AM
|
|
|
greatdivide46
Posts: 1070
Joined: 4/12/2005
From: Opp, Alabama
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: kelman
quote:
ORIGINAL: greatdivide46
quote:
ORIGINAL: kelman
Are you saying there are "two" ways in which God saves? One way before Christ ascended and another way afterwards? Actually I wasn't saying that, but I do believe that, yes.
Okay, gd, I'll bite - what are the "two" ways?
Faith in the promises of God (Old Testament) and Faith in the risen Christ (NT).
The first thing that requires a change in the nature of saving faith is that the actual works of redemption are now accomplished facts, and saving faith must be directed toward them specifically and not just toward the general promises of a mericiful God.
The second thing that requires a change in the nature of saving faith is the fact that these works of redemption have been accomplished by a God who is Triune in nature. Though the concept of the Trinity was forshadowed in the Old Testament revelation, its reality was never made explicit.
_____________________________
greatdivide46
SFC, USA (Ret)
The reflections of the heart belong to man, but the answer of the tongue is from the LORD -- Proverbs 16:1
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Are you saved but not baptized? - 4/26/2008 8:25:46 AM
|
|
|
greatdivide46
Posts: 1070
Joined: 4/12/2005
From: Opp, Alabama
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: kelman
Absolutely!!! There is only one way people are saved - by the indwelling of the Holy Spirit - and, that would include all the OT saints. They too were baptized with the Holy Spirit which means the cleansing provided by the atonement was applied and made an integral part of their lives by the Holy Spirit at the moment they were regenerated, at the time they became born again or born from above.
I don't believe that the OT saints were indwelt by the Holy Spirit. Here's why:
Cornelius is described as "a devout man who feared God with all his household, gave alms generously to the people, and prayed continually to God" (Acts 10:2). Sounds like a saved man to me. So, if what you say is true and he was already indwelt by the Holy Spirit, then Peter's trip to Caesarea was completely unnecessary and there was no need for him to tell Cornelius about Jesus since his salvation prior to his knowledge of Jesus was precisely the same as any salvation he might experience as a result of Peter's sermon.
"Now there were dwelling in Jerusalem Jews, devout men from every nation under heaven" (Acts2:5). Again Peter's sermon would have been completely unnecessary since these men were already saved under the Old Testament. No need to tell them about Jesus, or repentence or baptism or the Holy Spirit, since they were already indwelled by the Holy Spirit. How else could they be considered devout if that were not the case?
And if you could give me an example of someone in the Old Testament who was permanently indwelled by the Holy Spirit, I'd appreciate it.
_____________________________
greatdivide46
SFC, USA (Ret)
The reflections of the heart belong to man, but the answer of the tongue is from the LORD -- Proverbs 16:1
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Are you saved but not baptized? - 4/26/2008 8:29:56 AM
|
|
|
greatdivide46
Posts: 1070
Joined: 4/12/2005
From: Opp, Alabama
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: kelman
Indeed, there was a substantial change, but it was not in regard to the nature of salvation. It had to do with the extent of God's salvation program. Before Pentecost, only a few people believed and only a few people were qualified to be prophets - to declare God's Word. But, beginning at Pentecost, it was God's plan that there was to be an explosion of believers and each believer was to be mandated and qualified to bring the Gospel. I really think that God sent His only Son as a sacrifice into the world for more than merely to set off an explosion of believers. If that's all He wanted to accomplish seems like there might have been a less drastic way to accomplish it.
_____________________________
greatdivide46
SFC, USA (Ret)
The reflections of the heart belong to man, but the answer of the tongue is from the LORD -- Proverbs 16:1
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Are you saved but not baptized? - 4/26/2008 5:04:46 PM
|
|
|
Heavendweller
Posts: 553
Joined: 12/22/2007
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORGINAL: kelman
"There remains nothing which modifies the clear statement of Peter's. To try to impose any other meaning appears to be a rather desparate attempt to uphold a preconceived doctrine. You're not letting the Bible explain what baptism is; instead, you are imposing your own doctrine on the Bible. Much better to let Scripture speak."
greatdivide responds: "Actually, I am letting the Scripture speak. It was when I believed in "faith only" that I had to dismiss certain passages of Scripture and not let them speak, that I was imposing a preconceived notion on Scripture. It was when I gave up the preconceived notion that salvation comes through faith alone that Scripture really began to speak to me. And I found that there is a strong connection between baptism and salvation."
Hmmmm....Do you mean to say Kelman and greatdivide, that you both have "let the Scripture speak" and yet your conclusions result in disagreement? I do trust that both of you would believe the Word of God to be the sole rule of faith for the Christian. And I do trust that both of you believe you have received the Holy Spirit.
Now since both of you use the same premise (foundation) upon which to build your beliefs, and arrive at your arguments to defend your convictions, how can I know for certain which one of you is actually right? Or for that matter, how can I know for sure that it isn't one of the other interpretations, which disagree with both of yours, that is the correct one? I ask this sincerely.
I've studied this subject of baptism almost to the point of exhaustion. I've read so many diverse opinions from Christian sources who claim the Scriptures speak on this issue plainly. Yet, what is presented before me is a plethora of interpretations from which to choose.
How does a Christian know that they know without doubt that it is their understanding, their interpretation of the Scriptures which is the correct one? Claiming that the Holy Spirit is one's sole guide can be a bit difficult to believe if those claiming this arrive at various and diverse interpretations. Can one Christian then say, the Holy Spirit leads me, but not you? And if so, upon what authority can they claim this?
I've read throughout this thread as well as many others on the subject of baptism. What it seems to boil down to is, read the Scriptures for yourself and you will see that my understanding (interpretation) of Baptism is the Scriptural one. But the argument becomes circular because all directing me to "read the Scriptures for myself" all conclude that I will arrive at their particular interpretation.
What's a Christian to do?
Heavendweller
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Are you saved but not baptized? - 4/26/2008 5:36:40 PM
|
|
|
Heavendweller
Posts: 553
Joined: 12/22/2007
Status: offline
|
quote:
quote:
greatdivide:
"I agree that the Holy Spirit arrives when and where He pleases. I just happen to believe that He pleases to arrive during our baptism, whereas there are other who say they believe that He arrives when and where He pleases who say He could not possibly desire to arrive at our baptism."
Kelman: "And, to say that the Holy Spirit "pleases" to arrive in water baptism is also without support. The verse says He goes where and when He pleases and we do not know He has come, we are aware only of the "effect" of His coming."
So, if both of you understandof John 3:8 to mean that the Holy Spirit arrives "when and where He pleases" how can you both then disagree?
How is it that one of you can say the Holy Spirit arrives at baptism, while another says this isn't possible. Yet both of you agree that the Holy Spirit arrives "when and where He pleases?" Is this not a contradiction or am I missing something?
If according to this understanding "the Holy Spirit arrives when and where He pleases," then doesn't that leave many options open? Couldn't that mean the Holy Spirit arrives prior to baptism, during baptism, after baptism, or irregardless of baptism? And according to this premise, could not the Holy Spirit indwell an infant, a child, a young teenager, an adult? Wouldn't that mean that the age of baptism is insignificant if "the Spirit arrives when and where He pleases?"
And according to this premise, how can one know exactly when they were indwelt with the Holy Spirit? Or is it not all that important to know when one is indwelt with the Holy Spirit? But if this is the case, then how can one know they have the Spirit abiding within them? Now, I do not ask this last question for myself, but rather, for those Christians (many of whom I have known), who have weaker consciences and are prone to doubt.
They will wonder, how do I know for sure that I was saved? Some give me one reason, some another, and still others, another reason entirely different. Some will say, "Don't trouble yourself. When you have doubts as to whether you are God's child, remember your baptism." This was the advice Martin Luther gave to his flock. But then there are others who say, "Don't trouble yourself. You received the Holy Spirit when you repented of your sins and cast yourself upon the mercy of God." And then some will say, "Don't trouble yourself. You received the Holy Spirit when you acknowledged that Jesus is the Son of God and your mental assent granted you eternal life."
There are, I'm sure, many other reasons that have been given as well.
Hd
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Are you saved but not baptized? - 4/26/2008 7:29:45 PM
|
|
|
JesKlu
Posts: 542
Joined: 4/16/2007
Status: offline
|
John 10:1-18
I Am the Good Shepherd
9I am the door. If anyone enters by me, he will be saved and will go in and out and find pasture.
This parable Jesus has given explains what it is to be saved, and for those other sheep, who are of another fold, who need to be saved and baptized.
Matthew 28:16-20
The Great Commission
16Now the eleven disciples went to Galilee, to the mountain to which Jesus had directed them. 17And when they saw him they worshiped him, but some doubted. 18And Jesus came and said to them, "All authority in heaven and on earth has been given to me. 19 Go therefore and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, 20teaching them to observe all that I have commanded you. And behold, I am with you always, to the end of the age."
Psalm 8:2
How Majestic Is Your Name
2 Out of the mouth of babies and infants,
you have established strength because of your foes,
to still the enemy and the avenger.
Jesus quotes this verse in Matthew 21
Matthew 21:14-16
Jesus Cleanses the Temple
14 And the blind and the lame came to him in the temple, and he healed them. 15 But when the chief priests and the scribes saw the wonderful things that he did, and the children crying out in the temple, "Hosanna to the Son of David!" they were indignant, 16and they said to him, "Do you hear what these are saying?" And Jesus said to them, "Yes; have you never read,
"'Out of the mouth of infants and nursing babies
you have prepared praise'?"
Out of the mouths of these infants and nursing babies the temple was cleansed. And the chief priests and scribes who were indignant tried to tell the Lord to stop these nursing babies and infants from giving praise to God. If infants can give praise to God, why can't they be baptized? Why then, are people preventing infants from coming to the Lord, even aided by parents and the Church, to be baptized? Jesus Himself did not stop the children from praising "Hosanna to the Son of David!" Just as John the Baptist, in the womb of Elizabeth, was praising God.
Your sister in Christ Jesus,
Jessica
< Message edited by JesKlu -- 4/26/2008 8:25:12 PM >
_____________________________
And calling to him a child, he put him in the midst of them and said, "Truly, I say to you, unless you turn and become like children, you will never enter the kingdom of heaven.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Are you saved but not baptized? - 4/26/2008 8:08:32 PM
|
|
|
greatdivide46
Posts: 1070
Joined: 4/12/2005
From: Opp, Alabama
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: Heavendweller
I've studied this subject of baptism almost to the point of exhaustion. I've read so many diverse opinions from Christian sources who claim the Scriptures speak on this issue plainly. Yet, what is presented before me is a plethora of interpretations from which to choose. What I've found interesting in my studies of baptism is that the plethora of interpretations didn't begin until Zwingli published his innovative interpretation of baptism. "In this matter of baptism," he decided, "all the doctors have been in error from the time of the apostles." (Zwingli, Huldreich. "Of Baptism." Zwingli and Bullinger. Library of Christian Classics, vol. 24. Ed. and tr. by G.W. Bromiley. Philadelphia: Westminster Press, 1953, pg. 130). And so in the years 1523 to 1525 he completely repudiated any connection between salvation and the time of baptism, and replaced this view with an explanation of baptism unknown up to that time.
I don't know about you but I think I'll go with the Apostles on this one instead of a man who came along 1500 years later.
_____________________________
greatdivide46
SFC, USA (Ret)
The reflections of the heart belong to man, but the answer of the tongue is from the LORD -- Proverbs 16:1
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Are you saved but not baptized? - 4/26/2008 8:37:10 PM
|
|
|
Heavendweller
Posts: 553
Joined: 12/22/2007
Status: offline
|
quote:
quote:
ORIGINAL: Heavendweller:
"I've studied this subject of baptism almost to the point of exhaustion. I've read so many diverse opinions from Christian sources who claim the Scriptures speak on this issue plainly. Yet, what is presented before me is a plethora of interpretations from which to choose."
greatdivide: "What I've found interesting in my studies of baptism is that the plethora of interpretations didn't begin until Zwingli published his innovative interpretation of baptism. "In this matter of baptism," he decided, "all the doctors have been in error from the time of the apostles." (Zwingli, Huldreich. "Of Baptism." Zwingli and Bullinger. Library of Christian Classics, vol. 24. Ed. and tr. by G.W. Bromiley. Philadelphia: Westminster Press, 1953, pg. 130). And so in the years 1523 to 1525 he completely repudiated any connection between salvation and the time of baptism, and replaced this view with an explanation of baptism unknown up to that time.
BINGO!!! So what made Zwingly have the audacity by which to make such declarations?? By what authority did he speak. He claimed the Scriptures were his authority, but what in actuality was his authority? BTW, the last sentence regarding Zwingly is VERY telling: "he completely repudiated any connection between salvation and the time of baptism, and replaced this view with an explanation of baptism unknown up to that time."
quote:
I don't know about you but I think I'll go with the Apostles on this one instead of a man who came along 1500 years later.
Yes, I also will go with the Apostles which encompasses submitting to the Apostolic doctrine that was held to, preserved, and taught in Christ's Church up until this man Zwingly repudiated it.
BTW, it is rather interesting that both Luther and Calvin thought Zwingly to be a heretic. Yet, within a large portion of modern Evangelical Protestantism, Zwingly's interpretation is taught and believed.
Heavendweller
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Are you saved but not baptized? - 4/27/2008 4:19:31 AM
|
|
|
Ephesians4_32
Posts: 1799
Joined: 4/30/2005
From: The Crossroads of America
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: greatdivide46
What I've found interesting in my studies of baptism is that the plethora of interpretations didn't begin until Zwingli published his innovative interpretation of baptism. "In this matter of baptism," he decided, "all the doctors have been in error from the time of the apostles." (Zwingli, Huldreich. "Of Baptism." Zwingli and Bullinger. Library of Christian Classics, vol. 24. Ed. and tr. by G.W. Bromiley. Philadelphia: Westminster Press, 1953, pg. 130). And so in the years 1523 to 1525 he completely repudiated any connection between salvation and the time of baptism, and replaced this view with an explanation of baptism unknown up to that time.
Which scholars say that that Zwingli's explanation was unknown? And should we trust what they say? I'm curious.
In Baptism, Rebaptism, and Infant Baptism, Zwingli outlined his disagreements with both the Catholic and the Anabaptist positions. He accused the Anabaptists that they added to the word of God and noted that there is no law forbidding infant baptism. He challenged Catholics by denying that the water of baptism can be ascribed a power to wash away sin. Zwingli understood baptism to be a covenant sign or a pledge. He disputed the Anabaptist position that it is a pledge to live without sin noting that it brings back the hypocrisy of legalism. He used scriptural support in arguing against the view that only those who can live without sin and only those with the Spirit should be baptised while at the same time he asserted that rebaptism had no support in scripture. The Anabaptists raised the objection that Christ did not baptise children, and so Christians, likewise, should not baptise their children. Zwingli responded by noting that kind of argument would imply women should not participate in communion because there were no women at the last supper. There is no clear word to baptise children, but there is a clear commandment to baptise. In a separate discussion on original sin, Zwingli denies original guilt. He refers to I Corinthians 7:12-14 which states that the children of one Christian parent are holy and thus they are counted among the sons of God. Infants should be baptised because there is only one church and one baptism, not a partial church and partial baptism.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zwinglian
Scholars disagree on the date when infant baptism was first practiced. Some believe that first-century Christians did not practice it.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Are you saved but not baptized? - 4/27/2008 8:34:09 AM
|
|
|
greatdivide46
Posts: 1070
Joined: 4/12/2005
From: Opp, Alabama
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: Ephesians4_32
quote:
ORIGINAL: greatdivide46
What I've found interesting in my studies of baptism is that the plethora of interpretations didn't begin until Zwingli published his innovative interpretation of baptism. "In this matter of baptism," he decided, "all the doctors have been in error from the time of the apostles." (Zwingli, Huldreich. "Of Baptism." Zwingli and Bullinger. Library of Christian Classics, vol. 24. Ed. and tr. by G.W. Bromiley. Philadelphia: Westminster Press, 1953, pg. 130). And so in the years 1523 to 1525 he completely repudiated any connection between salvation and the time of baptism, and replaced this view with an explanation of baptism unknown up to that time.
Which scholars say that that Zwingli's explanation was unknown? And should we trust what they say? I'm curious. Don't you think Zwingli's own statement shows that even he thought that his explanation was unknown up to that time? I mean if "all the doctors have been in error from the time of the apostles," then what he's saying must be something entirely new and hitherto unknown.
_____________________________
greatdivide46
SFC, USA (Ret)
The reflections of the heart belong to man, but the answer of the tongue is from the LORD -- Proverbs 16:1
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Are you saved but not baptized? - 4/27/2008 1:50:02 PM
|
|
|
Heavendweller
Posts: 553
Joined: 12/22/2007
Status: offline
|
Ephesians,
I'd like to amend and clarify some of my points regarding Zwingli. (Sorry about the previous typo in his name) Sometimes I can get my history mixed up, and for that matter, the various and sundry "ism's" which are called heresies. 
Now to amend and clarify. It was Luther who opposed Zwingli's view on Baptism, specifically Zwingli's opposition to "regenerational" Baptism, of which Luther supported. However, Calvin didn't object to Zwingli's view (as I had originally stated, my error) Rather, he built upon Zwingli's model. That is, both Calvin and Zwingli opposed Luther, who believed that the Word of God when declared with the immersion/sprinkling of water, effected grace and introduced the life of God into the one being baptized. Granted, I am not quoting word per word from Luther here, but paraphrasing.
Therefore, Zwingli laid the groundwork upon which Calvin built. It's interesting to note however, that these two reformers (as well as Luther) believed in infant baptism. Upon this particular matter all 3 agreed. The anabaptists were the ones who opposed these 3 reformers, repudiating infant baptism. And it's interesting to note that Luther, Calvin and Zwingli considered the anabaptists to be heretics, and caught up in fanaticism.
It is upon the model of the anabaptists that many of the modern Christian Evangelical churches take their stand and repudiate infant baptism, often re-baptizing those who have undergone baptism as infants. The peculiarity in all of this (for me anyway) is that all 3 reformers strenuously objected to the anabaptists. And thus we have the persecution of many from their sect in the years following the Reformation.
Something else of which I find peculiar, is that current day Calvinists don't hold to all of Calvin's teachings. Sort of a pick and choose mentality if you will. But then, neither do the non-Calvinist Protestants adhere in totality to any of the reformer's teachings. Again, sort of a pick and choose mentality. Or perhaps one could say there is within modern Christianity (of the past few centuries) a "development" of doctrine which is always in progress. A refining of sorts.
But that begs the question (at least for me), in what ways is the current view within Evangelical Protestantism dissimilar to "the faith once delivered."
(Just take this as the ramblings of a perplexed Christian deep in thought.  )
Heavendweller
|
|
| | |
Forum Tools
Printable Version
