Conference yukon::christian_v7

Welcome, Peter.  Glad you decided to jump in and participate.  You can
introduce yourself officially in note 4.

Also please note that though, as you noticed, we've had long discussions
about particular doctrines, Catholics as a group are not considered
'non-believers' here.  So a comparison of 'Catholics vs. Believers' is not
really accurate.

Thanks,

Paul

I asked him about this off-line; he apparently meant to say

	"Infant baptism vs Believers baptism"

and I hope he didn't mean to imply that Presbyterians, Methodists,
Lutherans, etc., who all practice infant baptism aren't believers.

/john

	PREFIGUREMENT OF HOLY BAPTISM IN THE SACRED SCRIPTURES
	       By Eric James Ewanco, eje@world.std.com

There are many prefigurations of Baptism in both the Old and the New Testaments
which confirm that baptism effects remission of sins and is ordinarily
necessary for salvation.

The greatest figure is the Red Sea; before the Israelites could enter the
Promised Land, which prefigures the New Jerusalem, indeed even before they
could enter the desert, which prefigures this present life, the Israelites,
when fleeing Pharoh and his host, who represent the demons of whom we are born
under the dominion and the passions to which we are enslaved, had to pass first
through the Red Sea.  After the whole of Israel passed through the Red Sea,
adults as well as children, all of the host of Pharoh, that is, all of the
demons which followed them and all of the passions which plagued them, were
drowned in the sea.  In the middle of the sea went with them the Pillar of Fire
and Cloud; both of which represent the Holy Spirit, the latter as illustrated
by the fire of Pentecost, the former by the Shekinah glory which later
descended upon the Tabernacle in the form of a cloud.  The pillar also
represents the Word, the "light of the world", who is present in the midst of
the waters -- this is referenced by Paul when he talks about "the washing of
water with the Word" (Eph 5:26).  St. Paul demonstrates that the Red Sea
prefigures baptism explicitly in 1 Cor 10:1-2: "For I do not want you to be
ignorant of the fact, brothers, that our forefathers were all under the cloud
and that they all passed through the sea.  They were all baptized into Moses in
the cloud and in the sea."  Note the duality: the cloud, that is the Spirit,
and the sea, that is, the water.  So, then, even Sacred Scripture affirms that
the Red Sea prefigured baptism, and clearly shows the two aspects of baptism:
water and Spirit, sea and cloud.

There are two other water partings which the early Fathers saw also as figures
of baptism.  One is the parting of the Jordan by Joshua before the people
finally enter the promised land (Jos 3).  Note that Jordan is where Jesus was
baptized, and Joshua is the Hebrew rendition of Jesus.  So in the figure of
Joshua and the Jordan, Jesus baptized his people before they enter the promised
land.  Note what God promises (Jos 1:11): "Three days from now you will cross
the Jordan here to go in and take possession of the land the Lord your God is
giving you for your own."  And again, "Consecrate yourselves, for tomorrow the
Lord will do amazing things among you" (3:5).  (Interesting.  Note the chapter
and verse, and compare to the Gospel of John.)  The three days, of course,
prefigure the Resurrection of our Lord, which we participate in through baptism
(Romans 6).  Note that the Ark of the Covenant goes with them (3:3,6); as soon
as the priests carrying it set foot in the water (v.15), the waters stopped.
Again, the Ark represents the Word present amid the waters of baptism.  The
second parting is again the parting of the Jordan, this time just before the
Assumption of Elijah (2 Ki 2:8).  Elijah parts the Jordan immediately before he
is taken up into heaven, that is, it prefigures how we must pass through the
waters of baptism before we may be taken up into heaven.

Next, as David has already mentioned, is the Flood, which Peter says
corresponds to baptism "exactly" (1 Pet 3:20).  Again, we see in the flood,
that eight people were saved through water -- eight is the Scriptural symbolism
of the Resurrection, for Christ rose on the eighth day of the week (so the
early Fathers described the day in symbolism), and also circumcision, for
infants were circumcised on the eighth day.  In the water, evil was destroyed;
so when we are baptized, we are freed from evil, just as Noah's family was.
Note also the figure of the dove: the dove who hovers over the waters.  This
symbolizes the Spirit, who, like the Red Sea, is present in this figure along
with the water.  Indeed it calls to mind Genesis 1, where "the Spirit hovered
over the waters," another mystical reference to baptism; because in baptism, we
are made a new creation.  This confirms that when Paul speaks of being made a
new creation, he is referring to baptism, because clearly in Genesis baptism
was prefigured.

The next figure of baptism is the cleansing of Naaman. (2 Ki 5:1ff) Naaman
comes to Elisha because he has leprosy -- a figure of sin.  Elisha tells him to
go wash in the Jordan seven times -- seven, being of course a mystical number,
representing the seven sacraments (the first of which is baptism) or the Holy
Spirit (cf. Revelation 4:5).  Note also where he tells him to wash -- in the
Jordan, where Jesus was baptized.  Finally, note Naaman's response: very much
like today's Christians who say, "Why do I need to be baptized? (that is, why
do I need to go wash in the Jordan?)  It is a `gospel of works' to suggest that
I need to be baptized to wash away my sins, my sins are washed away by merely
confessing his name and no more (that is, I thought that he would surely come
out to me and stand and call on the name of the Lord his God, wave his hand
over the spot and cure my of my leprosy)".  Naaman's servants convince him
otherwise, and he washes in the Jordan, and is cleansed of his leprosy; so are
we cleansed of our leprosy of sin when we are washed in the Jordan
sacramentally through baptism.

There are New Testament figures of baptism as well.  The cleansing of Naaman
has a parallel in the New Testament, again where Jesus asks the lepers to go
and wash in the water, and when they do so they are cleansed.  The pool of
Siloam is a figure of baptism; the one who was crippled who entered the water
first would be healed (although in the role it plays in the Gospel, no one
enters the water; perhaps this symbolizes baptism of desire?).  And even more
interesting figure is the Raising of Lazarus (John 11).  Note that St. John
makes a point of saying that Jesus was west of the Jordan, "there where John
baptized" (John 10:40).  John does this for a reason: he is linking the Raising
of Lazarus with baptism.  The west symbolizes the dominion of Satan, and the
East symbolizes the kingdom of God and the Promised Land, because it is from
the East that the Lord will return.  Anyway, when Jesus is at this spot,
Lazarus dies.  Note that Jesus waited two days.  Why did Jesus wait two days?
For what purpose?  Lazy, maybe?  Why does John even bother mentioning these
"boring" details?  Because it fulfills what was said back in Joshua 1:11, "In
three days you will pass over the Jordan."  And this is _exactly_ what Jesus
did on his way to raising Lazarus, where the Lord went to work wonders
(cf. Joshua 3:5).  Jesus crossed from the west to the East over the Jordan, and
then promptly raised Lazarus from the dead.  Thus the Sacred Scriptures
indicate to us that we are raised from the dead through baptism -- but this
much is explicitly taught in Romans 6.  St. Thomas comments as they go (John
11:6), "Let us also go and die with Him."  This indicates that as we die with
Christ in baptism, we are called, during our Christian life, to die to
ourselves, in imitation of Christ's death.  That the crossing of Joshua over
the Jordan prefigured the Raising of Lazarus is also indicated by the twelve
stones that God commanded to be laid in the Jordan (Jos 4:3), which symbolize
the twelve Apostles who were with Jesus when Lazarus was raised, and whom he
commissioned to go out and baptize all nations.

Finally, our baptism is prefigured in Jesus's own baptism (Mk 1:10-11, Mt
3:17-18).  Note that when Jesus is baptized, and goes down into the water, that
darn dove appears again, or rather, the Spirit appears, just as He did at
Creation, just as He did at the Flood, just as He did in the fire at the Red
Sea, just as he did in the Ark at the Jordan.  And when Jesus is baptized, and
the Spirit appears, the Father says, "Behold, this is my beloved son, with whom
I am well pleased," by which we understand that this is what the Father says to
us when we are born again by baptism into the family of God as adopted
children: "This is my beloved son [or daughter], with whom I am well pleased";
beloved son through adoption, well pleased with us because by His grace in
baptism he has washed us and cleansed us of our leprosy, making our flesh
"clean like that of a young boy" (2 Kings 5:14).

Now that you understand all the prefigurements, it is no mystery whatsoever
what Jesus meant in John 3:5ff, when he said, "I tell you the truth, no one can
see the kingdom of God unless he is born again ... I tell you the truth, no one
can enter the kingdom of God unless he is born of water and the Spirit."  Being
born again means becoming a son or daughter of God; the water and the Spirit
points not only to Jesus's baptism, at which the Spirit descended over the
waters, but also to the Creation account of Genesis, the destruction of evil in
the Flood, the deliverance of the Israelites in the Red Sea, the enter of the
People of God into the Promised Land, and the cleansing of Naaman from his
leprosy.  As if to prove this, Jesus proceeds, immediately after this
discourse, to go and baptize (John 3:22).  Those who insist that being "born
again" means having a religious experience, or means giving one's life to the
Lord, have no Scriptural warrant whatsoever for this conclusion.  Nowhere does
Paul make this link in any of his letters; nowhere does Jesus give any clue
that he is talking about an experience.  The suggestion that this is what
Jesus means by "born again" is utterly specious and unbiblical, whereas the
view that Jesus is referring to baptism is crystal clear when you understand
the prefigurements.

It is also clear that the early Christians understood John 3:5 to refer to
baptism.  For example, St. Justin the Martyr explains in his defense of
Christianity to the pagans (circa 155 A.D.) what baptism means to Christians:

   I will  explain  by  what  manner  we, who have been renewed by Christ, have
   dedicated ourselves to God, so that we may not seem to be acting wickedly in
   our  explanation  by  leaving  this  out.   All  those who are convinced and
   believe  that  the  things  we teach and say are true, and who profess to be
   able  to  live  in this manner, are taught to pray and to ask God in fasting
   the  forgiveness  of  their  sins while we pray and fast together with them.
   Then  they  are led by us to where there is water and are reborn in the same
   rebirth in which we ourselves were also reborn.  They undergo the washing in
   water  in  the name of God the Father and Master of the universe, and of our
   Savior,  Jesus  Christ,  and  of  the  Holy Spirit.  

   For indeed  Christ  said, "Unless you be reborn, you will not enter into the
   Kingdom  of  Heaven." Now it is clear to all that it is impossible for those
   who have already been born to return again into their mother's wombs.  As we
   wrote  previously, it has been said through Isaiah the prophet how those who
   have  sinned  and  repented  will avoid the consequences of their sins.  For
   thus  was  it said, "Wash, make yourselves clean, remove the evils from your
   souls,  defend  the  orphan  and  do  justice for the widow; and come let us
   converse  together, says the Lord.  And if your sins are like purple, I will
   make  them  white  like wool; and if they are like scarlet, I will make them
   white as snow.  But if you do not listen to me, a sword will devour you, for
   the mouth of the Lord has spoken these things." (Is 1:16-20) 

   We learned this doctrine from the Apostles.  In our first birth we were born
   unconscious,  according  to  necessity,  out  of  the  humid  seed  from the
   intercourse  of  our parents, and we grew up in evil customs and bad habits.
   But in order that we may not remain children of necessity and ignorance, but
   of  election  and  understanding and may obtain remission of sins previously
   committed,  the name of God the Father and Master of the universe is invoked
   in  the  water over the one who has chosen to be reborn and who has repented
   of his sins.  This name alone is the one which he invokes who is leading the
   candidate  to  the  washing.  Indeed no one is able to pronounce the name of
   the  ineffable  God.   If  someone would dare to say what it is, he would be
   seized with incurable madness.   

   This washing  is  called "enlightenment", since those who have learned these
   things  are enlightened in their minds.  The one being illuminated is washed
   in  the name of Jesus Christ, who was crucified under Pontius Pilate, and in
   the  name  of  the  Holy  Spirit, who through he prophets foretold all these
   things regarding Jesus.  (Apology I.61)

Tertullian writes, in his treatise On Baptism (circa 200 A.D.) [1,1], 

"A treatise on our sacrament of water, by which the sins of our earlier
blindness are washed away and we are released for eternal life will not be
superfluous . . . . [W]e, little fishes, are born in water after the manner of
our ICHTHUS, Jesus Christ; nor can we be otherwise saved, except by abiding
permanently in the water."

(N.B. ICHTHUS in Greek means fish, but is also an acronym for "Jesus Christ,
Son of God, Savior".)

The Shepherd of Hermas, circa 155 A.D., an early document accepted in some
regions for a time as Scripture, says about baptism [16,93,1-4]:

       "Show me still further, Sir," say I. "What desirest thou to know
     besides?" saith he. "Wherefore, Sir," say I, "did the stones come
     up from the deep, and wherefore were they placed into the building,
     though they bore these spirits?"
       "It was necessary for them," saith he, "to rise up through water,
     that they might be made alive; for otherwise they could not enter
     into the kingdom of God, except they had put aside the deadness of
     their [former] life.
       So these likewise that had fallen asleep received the seal of the Son
     of God and entered into the kingdom of God. For before a man," saith
     he, "has borne the name of [the Son of] God, he is dead; but when he
     has received the seal, he layeth aside his deadness, and resumeth
     life.
       The seal then is the water: so they go down into the water dead, and
     they come up alive. "thus to them also this seal was preached, and
     they availed themselves of it that they might enter into the kingdom
     of God."

So then we see that the early Christians saw baptism as that which effected
Christian rebirth and regeneration, and washed away all of one's sins by the
application of the sacrifice of Christ to be believer sacramentally.

It was of baptism that Ezekiel prophesied, "I will sprinkle clean water upon
you and you shall be clean."  St. Paul indicates this in Hebrews 10:22, "our
hearts [were] sprinkled clean . . . and our bodies washed with pure water." And
through Zechariah was promised the "fountain opened to cleanse from sin and
uncleanness" (Zec 13:1).  For "You were washed, you were sanctified, you were
justified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and by the Spirit of our God" (1
Cor 6:11).  It was also baptism to which Paul referred when he said, "[Christ]
cleansed [the Church] by the washing of water with the Word" (Eph 5:26), here
again we see the notion of the Word present in the midst of the waters.  And
again when in his letter Titus he referred to the "washing of regeneration and
renewal in the Holy Spirit which he poured out ... so we might be justified."
That our sins are washed away in baptism is clearly stated in Acts 22:16: "Be
baptized and wash your sins away", and again in 2:38, "be baptized for the
forgiveness of your sins." Hence we are justified in this washing of baptism, a
concept which is incontrovertible in light of all the prefigurations of it in
both the Old and the New Testament.

- --- 
(Edition 1.0, copyright (c) 1995, Eric James Ewanco, eje@world.std.com, except
for patristic and scripture citations.  Permission to redistribute
electronically is granted, provided it is not sold and this notice remains
intact.  This article may not be published in print without permission from the
author.)

This article has been signed with PGP.  PGP public key available from public 
key servers.  Fingerprint: 73 5C CA 07 0B E7 23 61  D7 25 37 7A 60 21 06 A6

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: 2.6.2

iQCVAwUBLzpHh3hvR/X+lkghAQFCNwP8Da4xs/rOyiiYaewfQvXWxiKYQ3TmDYVv
+C58a0LL29tfvSPXsfc+OA1sQVEPqRrNnLR/V/rLMBgrDI9q91EwXuc4rifKyB4q
udO0kEn0urn9TkJJyL80v/fbugApUpoJ6mtYrEqkw+Fbo8cm5UU7cxz/0lgUoZ5V
wyZcOxHP90Q=
=lVvh
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

    I have to apologize for creating some confusion. I did not mean to
    imply anything with my terminology other that to distinguish between the
    different positions that various Christians have on Baptism.
    
    I realize that Catholics are considered believers in this conference
    and I did not in any way want to imply that Presbyterians, Methodists,
    Lutherans, etc., are not believers.
    
    Again I apologize for the confusion created, I thought that the term
    Believers baptism was one that many Evangelicals or other Christian
    denominations used to describe there view of baptism or as a way to
    distinguish (SP?). If this is not true please let me know.
    
    I guess the confusion comes from not using terminology that encompasses
    all of the various views of baptism. Anyway what I was trying to say is
    that I am not looking for a discussion on the various ways that
    Christians view baptism but on the differences between baptisms
    performed by John the Baptist and those performed in Acts.
    
    
    Thank You
    
    Peter

    Did "baptism" exist before John the Baptist?  I mean was it a 
    custom before or was it totally new?
    
    Jill2

    In addition to what Andrew said, the Jews baptized by immersion only.
    Sprinkling didn't come about until after Catholicism took root.
    
    Re: .4
    
>    I realize that Catholics are considered believers in this conference
>    and I did not in any way want to imply that Presbyterians, Methodists,
>    Lutherans, etc., are not believers.
    
    Unless I mistakenly opened the wrong conference, it's probably not best
    to make blanket statements like this.  I'm sure we can all find
    examples in our own churches, Catholic or Protestant, where Christ is
    professed but not possessed.
    
    Mike

>    Did "baptism" exist before John the Baptist?  I mean was it a 
>    custom before or was it totally new?
    
    Yes, the Jews practiced it by immersion only under the name of
    "Mikvah."  See 722.9.  One of the ways Mikvah was performed was when a
    Gentile converted to Judaism.
    
    Mike

    Re: .3
    
    Thanks John that's quite the reply. It's not exaclty what I was looking
    for, or did I miss something. However I'm going to look it over
    thoroughly and I'm sure I'll have questions and comments. Much of what
    was in it I already know but it has been presented in a way I have not
    seen.
    
    Re: .5
    
    Thanks Andrew, that's what I was looking for. I think one of the
    differences that you see is that Christians receive the Holy Spirit
    in the Acts baptism but not in John the B's. Is that correct?
    
    Re: .7
    
    Agreed. I will try in the future to refrain from using blanket
    statements, although I'm sure I'll still need some help. So
    please continue to point them out.
    
    Re: .8
    
    This I did not know. I'll have to look up note 722.9.
    
    Thank You
    
    Peter

Catholics don't sprinkle, they either pour (the water must flow) or they
immerse.

/john

    This may be a tangent, but I'm curious. Do most (All?) Christian
    denominations believe that the Holy Spirit is received in baptism.
    
    Probably this is in another note or is a new note in itself.
    
    Peter

    I think the Biblical view is being sealed with the Holy Spirit upon
    salvation.  
    
    Mike

Ok John, here's one question after re-reading your .3 reply. How does what
John the Baptist was doing fit into the scheme of prefigurations? I'm not
saying that it doesn't, just that I'm not seeing how it does. If you or
Eric can give me some insight that would be great.

Here's some more that might help you see where I'm coming from. This is
all just my opinion though.

I see the prefigurations as culminating, if I'm using that word right, in
the baptism that is now practiced by some Christians. Is that correct?
If so then what purpose does the baptism that John was performing serve
in the prefiguring baptism, and I'm not just talking about Jesus' baptism
but all the other people John was baptizing.

Peter

      Don't people receive the Holy Spirit at the point of faith?
    
    						Tony

    Re: .3
    
>There are many prefigurations of Baptism in both the Old and the New Testaments
>which confirm that baptism effects remission of sins and is ordinarily
>necessary for salvation.
    
    Basing doctrine on typology usually gets one in trouble.  Typology is
    useful in support/illustration of clearly defined Biblical doctrine,
    but should be used on its own merit.  Garth has effectively shown in 
    another topic, with several Biblical proofs, that baptism/water doesn't 
    save you.  
    
    The Red Sea did not save the Israelites, God did.  God is the only one
    who saves.  Not any of our deeds nor water.
    
>water with the Word" (Eph 5:26).  St. Paul demonstrates that the Red Sea
>prefigures baptism explicitly in 1 Cor 10:1-2: "For I do not want you to be
>ignorant of the fact, brothers, that our forefathers were all under the cloud
>and that they all passed through the sea.  They were all baptized into Moses in
>the cloud and in the sea."  Note the duality: the cloud, that is the Spirit,
    
    Paul is merely expressing the spiritual thought that the Israelites
    spiritual identity was through Moses.  Ours is with Christ.  He's
    warning the Corinthians to not fall into the habits that the Israelites
    did.
    
    You are correct that the 3 days in Joshua are a type of the
    resurrection - a spiritual rebirth (i.e., salvation).  This proves the 
    Biblical view of salvation being a required for entrance to heaven as
    well as for water baptism by immersion.  Elijah was already saved prior
    to his rapture.
    
>Next, as David has already mentioned, is the Flood, which Peter says
>corresponds to baptism "exactly" (1 Pet 3:20).  Again, we see in the flood,
>that eight people were saved through water -- eight is the Scriptural symbolism
>of the Resurrection, for Christ rose on the eighth day of the week (so the
>early Fathers described the day in symbolism), and also circumcision, for
>infants were circumcised on the eighth day.  In the water, evil was destroyed;
    
    Biblical scholars teach that 8 is only the # of circumcision and 3 is
    the Resurrection.
    
    Noah was not saved by water.  Read Genesis 6-7 to see how Noah was
    saved (hint: Genesis 6:8,14; check the Hebrew definitions for "favor"
    and "pitch").  Water didn't save those outside the ark just as it didn't 
    save Pharoah and his troops.  You have to believe first to be saved. 
    Baptism is symbolic of Christ's resurrection and our spiritual rebirth.
    
>are made a new creation.  This confirms that when Paul speaks of being made a
>new creation, he is referring to baptism, because clearly in Genesis baptism
>was prefigured.
    
    Wrong again.  We are new creatures *IN* Christ, meaning He has to be in
    our lives to be saved.  Asking Christ into your life happens when you
    perform Romans 10:9-13, not at water baptism.
    
>comes to Elisha because he has leprosy -- a figure of sin.  Elisha tells him to
>go wash in the Jordan seven times -- seven, being of course a mystical number,
>representing the seven sacraments (the first of which is baptism) or the Holy
    
    Biblical scholars teach that 7 is the number of completion.  It's the
    number associated with God.
    
>do I need to go wash in the Jordan?)  It is a `gospel of works' to suggest that
>I need to be baptized to wash away my sins, my sins are washed away by merely
>confessing his name and no more (that is, I thought that he would surely come
>out to me and stand and call on the name of the Lord his God, wave his hand
>over the spot and cure my of my leprosy)".  Naaman's servants convince him
    
    It is a `gospel of works' to think anything you can do can save you. 
    As God wrote through Isaiah, "Our righteousness is as filthy rags."
    
    Interesting speculation on Lazarus, but it mostly applies to spiritual
    rebirth - which water baptism symbolizes.
    
    As for Christ Himself, He was baptized out of obedience to God's Word,
    not because He needed it to be saved.  God didn't need to be baptized
    to be saved, and neither do Christians saved according to Romans
    10:9-13, Ephesians 2:8-9, Titus 3:3-7, and a host of cross-references
    that go with them.
    
>what Jesus meant in John 3:5ff, when he said, "I tell you the truth, no one can
>see the kingdom of God unless he is born again ... I tell you the truth, no one
>can enter the kingdom of God unless he is born of water and the Spirit."  Being
>born again means becoming a son or daughter of God; the water and the Spirit
    
    One assumes too much when they think they know what "water" refers to
    here.  John 15:3 says the water is God's Word.  John 7:37-39 says the
    water is the Spirit of God.  Water could also refer to a physical birth
    and the breaking of water during a mother's labor.  It also could be the 
    water baptism.  Finally, it could be all of the above.  To state
    clearly that it is only one of them is a pretext and you aren't using
    the Bible to interpret the Bible.
    
>discourse, to go and baptize (John 3:22).  Those who insist that being "born
>again" means having a religious experience, or means giving one's life to the
>Lord, have no Scriptural warrant whatsoever for this conclusion.  Nowhere does
>Paul make this link in any of his letters; nowhere does Jesus give any clue
>that he is talking about an experience.  The suggestion that this is what
>Jesus means by "born again" is utterly specious and unbiblical, whereas the
>view that Jesus is referring to baptism is crystal clear when you understand
>the prefigurements.
    
    You haven't read your Bible or researched the topic very carefully to
    make such an ignorant statement.
    
>It is also clear that the early Christians understood John 3:5 to refer to
>baptism.  For example, St. Justin the Martyr explains in his defense of
>Christianity to the pagans (circa 155 A.D.) what baptism means to Christians:
>
>   I will  explain  by  what  manner  we, who have been renewed by Christ, have
>   dedicated ourselves to God, so that we may not seem to be acting wickedly in
>   our  explanation  by  leaving  this  out.   All  those who are convinced and
>   believe  that  the  things  we teach and say are true, and who profess to be
>   able  to  live  in this manner, are taught to pray and to ask God in fasting
>   the  forgiveness  of  their  sins while we pray and fast together with them.
>   Then  they  are led by us to where there is water and are reborn in the same
>   rebirth in which we ourselves were also reborn.  They undergo the washing in
>   water  in  the name of God the Father and Master of the universe, and of our
>   Savior,  Jesus  Christ,  and  of  the  Holy Spirit.  
    
    Looks like Justin is teach the same `gospel of works' that Evangelicals
    do.  Belief and salvation first, then baptism.  This is just as God's
    Word teaches.  
    
>So then we see that the early Christians saw baptism as that which effected
>Christian rebirth and regeneration, and washed away all of one's sins by the
>application of the sacrifice of Christ to be believer sacramentally.
    
    The early Christians were also Jewish.  The Jews performed "Mikvah"
    (water baptism by immerision only) long before John the Baptist was
    born.  One of the reasons Mikvah was necessary was when a Gentile
    converted to Judaism.  Ecclesiastes says there is nothing new under the
    sun.  God spoke through the prophets and said He is the same yesterday,
    today, and forever.  Water baptism has always been preceded by belief,
    repentance, and salvation - just as God's Word declares.
    
>you and you shall be clean."  St. Paul indicates this in Hebrews 10:22, "our
>hearts [were] sprinkled clean . . . and our bodies washed with pure water." And
    
    There is no proof that Paul wrote Hebrews.  The author is unknown.
    
>uncleanness" (Zec 13:1).  For "You were washed, you were sanctified, you were
>justified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and by the Spirit of our God" (1
>Cor 6:11).  It was also baptism to which Paul referred when he said, "[Christ]
    
    1 Cor 6:11 is another excellent proof text for the justification by
    faith that you claim isn't in the Bible.  The washing, in context of
    both English and Greek, is a spiritual washing of the heart - born again.
    
    For further proof, examine the Biblical model of belief, repentance,
    and salvation preceding baptism.  Sin is a spiritual problem not cured
    by water.  If it wasn't practiced by the early church in Acts, and taught 
    by the apostles in their letters, it is clearly not of God.  A simple
    study of Acts shows this:
    
    Acts 2:37-41 - those who believed were saved and then baptized.  Greek
                   says "because of forgiveness of sins."
    Acts 8:36-38 - enuch had to believe first to be saved in order to be
                   baptized, which supports Romans 10:9-10.
    Acts 9:17-18 - Paul believed first, was saved, and then baptized.
    Acts 10:44-48 - believed, saved, and then baptized.
    Acts 16:14-15 - believed, saved, and then baptized.
    Acts 16:30-34 - this one is especially clear: believed, saved, baptized.
    Acts 18:8     - Crispus and his family believed, saved, and then baptized.
    
    You should notice a pattern at this point.
    
    Mike

More learned scholars than I have failed to reach consensus on baptism, either
on all implications or on proper administration.

I submit my view, not as the definitive answer/position, rather as an under-
standing with which I am comfortable.

Lest there be any doubt, I believe baptism to be a very significant act of
obedience and confession.  Both I and my wife have been baptized by immersion.
We publicly dedicated our three children, but not by baptism.  Our two
daughters have since been baptized by immersion, by their choice, not ours, and
we continue to raise our 10-year-old son in the grace and knowledge of our Lord
Jesus Christ.  All three of our (believing) children partake of communion, now
that their desire to do so has been complemented by their articulation of a
Scriptural understanding of the significance.

I do not see (the outward act of) baptism as necessary for salvation.  The
prison keeper asked Paul and Silas "Sirs, what must I do to be saved? And they
said, Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ, and thou shalt be saved, and thy house."
(Acts 16:30&31, KJV)  Baptism was not presented as a requirement for being
saved, but was recorded as an immediate outward act of the prison keeper with
all his house flowing out of the belief which saved.

Baptism to me is an outward expression of an inner reality.  Expression follows
understanding.  We are baptized into Christ's body, His church, by the Holy
Spirit.  I see this spiritual baptism as the effective act of God confessed with
the outward act of physical baptism.  To me, immersion both seems to be the most
clear expression of being buried with Christ in baptism and being raised again
to newness of life, and stands as the most clear Scriptural example.  But, the
primary consideration in ANY physical act must be the heart's attitude in
confessing what God has done and is doing.  In other words, significance is seen
in a believer's submitting to baptism as an expression of God's work in his/her
life rather than in how man chooses to administer physical baptism.

I have described what might be called "Believer's Baptism."  For purposes of
discussion, let me call this particular outward expression "New Testament (N.T.)
Baptism."  Let me refer to "John's Baptism" as "Old Testament (O.T.) Baptism."
The significance in O.T. baptism is the expression of heart-felt repentance and
the symbolic act of cleansing (with water), or turning away from sin in order to
face righteousness, if you will.  The significance in N.T. baptism is the
expression of God's work to actually deliver us from sin and make us righteous.
O.T. baptism is a "good" act of man to express intent according to the law.
N.T. baptism is obedience out of faith to express what God has done in FACT.

Christ was baptized by John to fulfil the law.  We are baptized to show that God
has placed us in Christ.  At the moment we confess Jesus Christ as our Lord and
Saviour, we are saved, baptized into Christ's body and sealed unto His likeness
by the Holy Spirit.  So, I would not say we receive the Holy Spirit when we are
baptized, rather that our being baptized expresses God's work in us by His Holy
Spirit.

I certainly see how some have come to see baptism properly administered as a
means of God's grace to effect sanctification.  God accounts the faith with
which we reckon ourselves (being made) holy by the Word and the Spirit as
righteousness.  Man sees the outward appearance, but God sees the heart.  I do
not believe the physical act of baptism sanctifies us unto perfection, rather
that baptism is an important means by which we can express our faith in God who
is able to accomplish His work in us.  To the degree our being baptized
expresses the faith of an obedient heart, to that degree are we made holy.

So what about infant baptism?  I recognize Scriptural validation of infant
baptism as an expression of the parents' faith in God to accomplish His work in
the life of their child.  I affirm infant baptism as valid for dedicating a
child to God.  I do not see baptism effecting an infant's salvation any more
than N.T. baptism effects a believer's salvation.  However, I do see great
significance in the expression/exercise of faith to place a child in God's
hands, but that need not necessarily be done by baptism.  I believe God is very
pleased to take personal responsibility for those who for whatever reason are
unable to take responsibility for themselves.

I challenge those who refuse to be baptized because they "need not" to examine
the real reason for their refusal.  With/to whom are you making a point?  I
submit that baptism can be offered as a sacrifice of the will to God in publicly
confessing His work in you.

I would say that those who were baptized as children by their parents' will and
who can confess by faith that past act of baptism as indeed expressing God's
work in themselves now need not be baptized again.

I encourage those thinking about baptism to be baptized with gratitude for the
salvation being effected by God in your life.  Examine baptism as a means of
personal expression rather than others' expectation.

May God's Word dwell in us richly!

/Wayne

    Re: .18
    
    Wayne your last two paragraphs are interesting and give me some food
    for thought.
    
    As for John's baptism you are saying that it was the same as "O.T.
    baptism". Correct? Ok what do you see then as the relationship
    between "O.T. baptism" and "N.T. baptism" if any?
    
    Peter

    Hi, Peter.
    
    I tried to show the relationship between O.T. and N.T. baptisms in my
    6th and 7th paragraphs.  I'm sorry if my understanding is not clear.
    
    Basically, I see O.T. baptism as a picture of man being prepared for
    the work of God expressed in N.T. baptism.  In other words, O.T.
    baptism had more to do with man's response to God (in turning from sin
    and being cleansed) under the law, whereas N.T. baptism has more to do
    with God's actual work of delivering from sin (by grace) unto
    righteousness (by faith).
    
    The relationship, or link, if you will, of course was Jesus Christ, God
    in the flesh.  Christ was the end or fulfillment of the law in that He
    was perfect (without sin), the Son in whom God was very pleased.  N.T.
    baptism expresses our identification with Christ.
    
    Does that expansion help?
    
    /Wayne

From:	eje@world.std.com "Eric Ewanco"

In response to Mike's reply (Reply 17) to me (Reply 3):

> >There are many prefigurations of Baptism in both the Old and the New
> Testaments
> >which confirm that baptism effects remission of sins and is ordinarily
> >necessary for salvation.
>     
>     Basing doctrine on typology usually gets one in trouble.  Typology
> is useful in support/illustration of clearly defined Biblical doctrine,
> but should be used on its own merit. 

Typology, when carefully used by the exegete, is very important in
establishing theology, though you are correct in that it must not be
misused, for example, interpreting what was intended by the sacred
author as typological, in a literal manner instead.


> Garth has effectively shown in  another topic, with several Biblical
> proofs, that baptism/water doesn't save you.  

With all due respect to my friend Garth, this flatly contradicts 1 Peter
3:20 ("this water symbolizes baptism that now saves you also", NIV) and
Mark 16:16 ("whoever believes and is baptized will be saved").


>     The Red Sea did not save the Israelites, God did.  God is the only
> one who saves.  Not any of our deeds nor water.

Of course God is the only one who saves.

But God chooses to save using instruments of his creation.  It's called
the incarnational principle.  God did not have to become man to save us,
but he did.  God did not have to ask Naaman to wash in the Jordan to
cleanse him, but he did.  God did not have to put mud and spittle on the
blind man's eyes to heal him, but he did.  The mud did not heal the
blind man.  The Jordon did not heal Naaman.  Water does not save, but
the word of Christ working THROUGH THE WASHING OF WATER AND THE WORD
saves us.  You see, instrumentality: through the water, God saves.  It
is not the act which is important, but God's work through it.  You will
not heal a blind man simply by putting mud on his eyes.  You will not
cleanse a leper by telling him to wash seven times in the Jordan.  It
was the grace of God that performed those miracles.  Yet those who
believe in Christ and for that reason are baptized are saved by Christ's
work of grace through the instrument of the water.


>     Noah was not saved by water.  Read Genesis 6-7 to see how Noah was
> saved (hint: Genesis 6:8,14; check the Hebrew definitions for "favor" 
> and "pitch").  Water didn't save those outside the ark just as it didn't
>  save Pharoah and his troops.  You have to believe first to be saved. 
> Baptism is symbolic of Christ's resurrection and our spiritual rebirth.

Noah was saved by God through the instrumentality of the water.  The
water purged the evil from the world, and purged the host of the enemy
of the Lord God of Hosts.  And so it did save them, literally, from the
enemy, though again, through the grace of God.

Of course you have to believe first to be saved, insofar as you have the
mental faculties to believe.  There is no question of that.

But no where in Scripture does it say that baptism is "symbolic" of
Christ's Resurrection.  Paul could not have made it any clearer: All who
have been baptized into Christ, have put on Christ, and in baptism we
die with Christ.  Not, all who have put on Christ have been baptized
into Christ, nor in baptism we symbolize dying with Christ.


> >are made a new creation.  This confirms that when Paul speaks of being made a
> >new creation, he is referring to baptism, because clearly in Genesis baptism
> >was prefigured.
>     
>     Wrong again.  We are new creatures *IN* Christ, meaning He has to be
> in our lives to be saved.  Asking Christ into your life happens when you
> perform Romans 10:9-13, not at water baptism.
>  
Of course Christ has to be in our lives for us to be saved, and of
course we must have faith and believe.  And asking Christ into our lives
should be done as a matter of course.  But Christ instituted baptism as
an instrument of spiritual rebirth and recreation, to seal and confirm
that act of faith and repentance and to infuse us with the Holy Spirit.


> > It is a `gospel of works' to suggest that
> >I need to be baptized to wash away my sins, my sins are washed away by merely
> >confessing his name and no more (that is, I thought that he would surely come
> >out to me and stand and call on the name of the Lord his God, wave his hand
> >over the spot and cure my of my leprosy)".  Naaman's servants convince him
>     
> It is a `gospel of works' to think anything you can do can save you.  As
> God wrote through Isaiah, "Our righteousness is as filthy rags."    

This issue is a quagmire I won't attempt to descend into.  I will just
comment that few Protestants embrace this kind of hyper-Calvinism.

God requires us to respond to his grace, to repent, and to believe in
order to be saved.  Whether we are saved or not is an act of our will --
we choose whether or not we will be saved, even though the work of
salvation was wrought ultimately by the merits of Christ alone on the
Cross.

The "works of law" (ergo nomou) which is the central theme of Paul's
letter to the Romans is a technical term for the Mosaic ceremonial law,
in particular circumcision.  A careful reading of Romans will show that
his primary purpose was to refute those who boasted of their
circumcision as if it made them righteous apart from faith.  But nowhere
does Paul say that "nothing we can do can save us."  Nor does he say
that we can be saved apart from obeying the commandment of love.


>  Interesting speculation on Lazarus, but it mostly applies to spiritual
> rebirth - which water baptism symbolizes.
>     
Again, no where in Scripture does it say that baptism symbolizes anything.


>     As for Christ Himself, He was baptized out of obedience to God's
> Word, not because He needed it to be saved.  God didn't need to be
> baptized to be saved, and neither do Christians saved according to
> Romans 10:9-13, Ephesians 2:8-9, Titus 3:3-7, and a host of
> cross-references that go with them.

No, God didn't need to be baptized to be saved, but it was not until he
was baptized that he received the Holy Spirit.

Titus 3:3-7 refers specifically to baptism, contrary to your assertion
to the contrary.  Mark 16:16 says that those who believe and are
baptized will be saved.  John 3:5 says we must be born of water and the
Spirit, as Jesus was at his baptism, in order to be saved.  To argue
that Romans 10:9-13 exhaustively express the only requirements for
salvation is to ignore Matthew 5:22, Hebrews 10:38, 1 John 2:3, 1 John
3:14, John 3:36, Matthew 19:23, 2 Peter 2:20, 2 Thes 1:18, 1 Tim 3:6, 1
Cor 10:12.


>     One assumes too much when they think they know what "water" refers
to here.  John 15:3 says the water is God's Word. 

Huh?  There is no mention of water in John 15:3, unless you are assuming
that our sins are pruned away by the waters of baptism, which I would
agree with.


> John 7:37-39 says the water is the Spirit of God. 

Clearly you are mixing types, because if the water of John 3:5 was the
Spirit, there would be no need to mention the Spirit again.  You argue
that Scripture means we must be born "of the Spirit and the Spirit"?


> Water could also refer to a physical birth and the breaking of water
> during a mother's labor. 

But there is no basis for this anywhere in Scripture.


> It also could be the water baptism.  Finally, it could be all of the
> above.  To state clearly that it is only one of them is a pretext and
> you aren't using the Bible to interpret the Bible.

I certainly did.  I illustrated how at Jesus's baptism, the Spirit came
down upon him in the water (water and Spirit) and his sonship was
declared by the Father.  I showed how the Spirit hovered over the waters
of Creation.  I showed how at the Flood ("which symbolizes baptism")
when the sin of the world was purged away, the dove hovered over the
water.  I showed how Naaman was cleansed of his sins when he immersed
himself in the Jordan. I showed how the host of the enemy was destroyed
and the People of God delivered from bondage when they were "baptized
into Moses."  At least two of these are expressly linked with baptism by
the sacred authors in the infallible and inerrant Word of God.  And you
argue I am not using the bible to interpret the bible?


> > The suggestion that this is what
> >Jesus means by "born again" is utterly specious and unbiblical, whereas the
> >view that Jesus is referring to baptism is crystal clear when you understand
> >the prefigurements.
>     
> You haven't read your Bible or researched the topic very carefully to
> make such an ignorant statement.

Ah, Mike, you never fail to amuse me with your astounding reasoning.


> Looks like Justin is teach the same `gospel of works' that Evangelicals
> do.  Belief and salvation first, then baptism.  This is just as God's 
> Word teaches.  
>     
Of course, as the Catholic Church teaches as well.  No one who is
capable of making a faith commitment should be baptized apart from that
faith commitment.


> Water baptism has always been preceded by belief,  repentance, and
> salvation - just as God's Word declares.
    
Yes, believe and repentance are necessary prequisites for salvation, but
clearly God would be unjust if he excluded those without the use of
reason from the promise of salvation.


>     There is no proof that Paul wrote Hebrews.  The author is unknown.
>     
I will concede that, although I would argue that the style just screams
Pauline.  But ultimately it doesn't matter to me if Paul wrote it or not.


> 1 Cor 6:11 is another excellent proof text for the justification by
> faith that you claim isn't in the Bible.  The washing, in context of 
> both English and Greek, is a spiritual washing of the heart - born again.

I see nothing in the context which demands that the washing be
interpreted as non-physical.  I see this verse as another figure of
baptism.


> For further proof, examine the Biblical model of belief, repentance, and
> salvation preceding baptism.  Sin is a spiritual problem not cured  by
> water.  If it wasn't practiced by the early church in Acts, and taught 
> by the apostles in their letters, it is clearly not of God.

Well, it clearly *was* taught in Acts.


>     Acts 2:37-41 - those who believed were saved and then baptized. 
> Greek  says "because of forgiveness of sins."

Peter says "Repent and be baptized, every one of you, in the name of
Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins.  And you will receive the
Holy Spirit.  This promise is for you and your CHILDREN ..."  Here the
reception of the holy Spirit is conditional on repentance (what? Do I
hear WORKS?) AND baptism.  And no age restriction is placed on it,
either, FYI, since "all have sinned", not merely those beyond the age of
reason.

Greek says "to" -- eis, into, against, in order to (Hewett), also "for"
(Strong).  "Because" (hoti) is conspicuously missing.

In other words, be baptized in order to have forgiveness of sins --
exactly my argument.


> Acts 8:36-38 - enuch had to believe first to be saved in order to be
> baptized, which supports Romans 10:9-10.

The narrative doesn't say anything about when the eunuch was saved.  But
curiously enough, if baptism was merely an outward, public confession of
faith, one would wonder why he did it immediately, as soon as possible,
and privately, instead of saying, "Look, here is a church, why don't I
receive baptism next Sunday in front of the congregation?"

Believer's baptism is pretty useless when done privately.


>     Acts 9:17-18 - Paul believed first, was saved, and then baptized.

Again, nothing in the text says he was "saved".  He believed, and was
baptized, but it never says when he was "saved".


>     Acts 10:44-48 - believed, saved, and then baptized.
>     Acts 16:14-15 - believed, saved, and then baptized.
>     Acts 18:8     - Crispus and his family believed, saved, and then baptized.

Again, again, and again, no indication of at exactly what point they
were "saved."


>     Acts 16:30-34 - this one is especially clear: believed, saved, baptized.

This is the only verse which even contains the word "saved", which is
expressed as a future promise: believe and you WILL BE SAVED.  But the
message in Acts 2:37 was, repent, believe, and be baptized, and then you
will be saved; since you clearly would not conclude (I hope?) on the
basis of the omission of the repentance step from all these accounts,
that repentance was not required, surely we may assume that both
repentance and baptism were implicit in the former accounts, as they
were explicit in the latter account (Acts 2).  In other words, when Paul
says, believe and you will be saved, he does not mean to exclude the
necessity of baptism, which is illustrated because those he spoke to
were promptly baptized afterwards, indicating that what was implied in
the text (baptism) was understood by those he spoke to.  

>     You should notice a pattern at this point.


Yes, I do: one is that without exception in every single case they were
immediately baptized after believing, illustrating the urgency and
strengthening the tight bond between belief, salvation, and baptism.
Clearly baptism was not a spontaneous, natural response on the part of
the hearers; clearly they were responding to an instruction from Paul
not recorded in the sacred text, that is, the instruction to be
baptized.  What is recorded in the sacred text is merely a summary of
the message; what was actually preached was more complete.  The omission
of an explicit, written exhortation to be baptized in the sacred text
proves nothing, since clearly, based on the hearer's responses, the
teaching on baptism was communicated to the believers in unrecorded
preaching.

The other pattern is that you are reading into the text your own
soteriological biases, viz., that one is "saved" once for all at the
point of first belief, an assumption I do not share.

      John,
    
        Maybe I'm alone on this, but I skip over 300 line replies.
    
        If you sparsed them into perhaps 6 50 line replies, I'd
        give it a shot!
    
    						Tony

    Hello,
    
    Just a couple points concerning the difference between the baptism of
    John and Jesus' baptism:
    
    1. John was sent to baptize and make Jesus manifest.
      "And I knew him not; but that he should be manifest to Israel,
    therefore am I come baptizing with water. And John bare record, saying,
    I saw the Spirit descending from heaven like a dove, and it abode upon
    him. And I knew him not; but he that sent me to baptize with water, the
    same said unto me, Upon whom thou shalt see the Spirit descending, and
    remaining on him, the same is he which baptizeth with the Holy Ghost"
    John 1:31-33
    
    John was not fulfilling any jewish rules, he had been directly sent to
    baptize. God sent him to prepare the way for Jesus, "John did baptize
    in the wilderness, and preach the baptism of repentance for the
    remission of sins." Mark 1:4
    
    God was about to bring the new covenant into light, which would make
    the covenant which was made through Moses the old covenant. And in
    every one of the 4 gospels, it is not chance, but rather meaningful,
    that they all start out in the first few chapters to tell of John, who
    prepared the way for Jesus.
    
    In John 4:1,2 we see that shortly thereafter, Jesus was baptizing and
    making more disciples that John. People came to John and said, 'He that
    was with you at the Jordan, the one who you bore witness to, the same
    is baptizing, and all men come to him.` But John replied "He must
    increase, but I must decrease". 
    
    John's baptism:
       a. brought the forgiveness of sins for all who repented and were
    baptized by him.
       b. Brought to the people a way of reconciliation, getting right with
    God.
       c. Bore witness, that Jesus is the Son of God, the Lamb of God.
       d. Brought into visibility to all of Israel the "circumcision" for
    the new covenant which was about to be revealed in Jesus through his
    death and resurrection, (Col.2:11), which is baptism.
    
    Jesus' baptism:
      a. brought the forgiveness of sins for all who would repent and be
    baptized in the name of Jesus Christ (Acts. 2:37-41)
      b. is the entrance way into the new covenant, just as circumcision is
    the entrance into the covenant with Abraham and Moses.
      c. makes available to us the sacrificial act of Jesus, where he died
    on the cross for our sins. By believing and being baptized we are
    therefore saved. By being baptized we are buried with him, we are
    crucified with him, we partake therefore in his death.
      d. makes available to us the resurrection of Jesus, where we are
    freed from sin, saved from sin, cleansed from sin. But also, we are
    raised into a new life, with a new identity as sons of God, having
    by our baptism put Christ on.
    "for you are all sons of God through the faith in Christ Jesus, for all
    of you who have been baptized INTO Christ have put on Christ. There is
    neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither bond nor free...
    Our new identity through this rebirth is emphasized in John 3:5 by Jesus,
    'Verily, verily, I say to you, Except a man be born of water and of the
    Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God'  
    We are buried as sinners, our old man is crucified, and we rise as sons
    of God, born of the water and the spirit. We are therefore reborn in
    the likeness of Jesus Christ, where God meant for our relationship to
    be very similiar to the relationship he had with Jesus. His plan is
    that as Jesus, so should we also be in this present world. Being raised
    with Christ, having put on Christ, make us able to say with Paul,
    "I am crucified with Christ; nevertheless I live; yet not I, but Christ
    liveth in me" (Gal.2:20)
     
    We become a part of Christ's church through being baptized
    (1.Cor.12:13) "For by one Spirit are we all baptized into one body,
    whether we be Jews or Gentiles, whether we be bond or free..."
    
    I would like to address the problem which now exists. What happens when
    someone is baptized who does not believe (such as infants)? Is the
    water enough to do the greatest transaction of all ages, to transform a
    man which is born in sin into a son of God? Are we really raised with
    Christ, that we are no longer slaves to sin, members of his church, the
    holy and beloved church, where Jesus is the head of every man?
    Certainly not. Hitler, Musselini, Napoleon, etc. all tell us otherwise.
    
    That is why the scriptures say "For by one spirit we are all baptized
    into one body"! I have baptized certainly over a hundred people. I feel
    like a midwife. But the word of God, which can be compared to a seed,
    has first been planted. It begins to grow within the person, yes, even
    in athiests or people totally against Jesus (as I once was). Then when
    I speak of Jesus, eternal life, the new covenant, with God's Spirit
    making these words alive, I can sometimes see the not yet born child of
    God begin moving. Then as I speak of baptism, there is a type of hope
    which begins moving in the person, where their faith is beginning to be
    expressed in the message of their salvation. Then, when this faith is
    strong, where they believe with their whole heart, which the Holy
    Spirit works in their lives, and repentance and being a disciple of
    Jesus are visible to them, they are baptized. Certainly the Holy Spirit
    was involved, working, even leading into the new covenant. By baptism
    they enter into this new covenant, with the necessary profession before
    baptism being "Jesus as Lord", i.e., that they confess Jesus as Lord.
    This is similiar to the Christ-Church shadow of marriage, where the woman 
    in marriage receives the man as her head. We receive Christ as our
    head, as members of his church, his future wife. (Rev.21:9)
    
    John did not pour water, nor did Jesus, nor did the apostles. They did
    not sprinkle, neither did they immerse, sprinkle or pour water on
    infants. By looking at the early christian writings we can trace where
    these practices started, but for certain they did not begin with Jesus.
    Jesus brought the new covenant, and he has the right today just as much
    as then, as head of the church, to determine how the covenant entrance
    way is to be performed. Satan has deceived the whole world (Rev.12:9)
    and we would be safe to assume that he has done his best to deceive in
    every point, step, which is essencial for people to enter the new
    covenant of Jesus Christ. Just before Paul begins teaching the
    colossians about baptism (actually reminding), he says, "Beware lest
    any man rob you through philosophy and vain deceit, after the
    traditions of men, after the rudiments of the world, and not after
    Christ." Col.2:8
    
    Nobody who has been baptized as an infant and really knows the
    scriptures believes that this is what Jesus taught. Nor do people who
    have had water poured on their head or sprinkled really believe that
    this is how John and Jesus' disciples baptized, but all of them are
    convinced that Jesus will also accept their baptism as valid. There are
    no scriptures which give them this assurance. Jesus didn't say that the
    form is not important, nor did he say that the form is important. But
    all of the apostles followed his form and only at about 200 AD are
    their any documents mentioning this practice (the first discouraging
    it). The pouring of water was mentioned only once in the 2nd century,
    in the Didache, as only to be done in extreme situations where there is
    absolutly no water available. In the 3rd century there is also only a
    single document which mentions pouring, while many mention baptizing
    (baptize means to dip, like Naaman was told to dip 7 times in the River
    Jordan and he would be clean). He was told to be baptized 7 times in
    the River Jordan and he would be clean. If Naaman did it 7 times, why
    shouldn't we do it again if our first one was after the traditions of
    men, but had not been delivered to us by Christ, who is the head?
    
    But before the water, be sure you are aware of what baptism is all
    about:
    
    Do you believe the Jesus was sent by God, dying for your sins?
    
    Are you ready to repent, to turn from sin, to confess sin, fornication,
    lying, make relationships right...? (God's Spirit helps us in our
    weekness, but we need this repentance as a starting point)
      By baptism, I rebuke Satan from the life of the one who wishes to
      follow Jesus and encourage in words for Satan to be renounced.
    
    This is a life long commitment. Hovever, even death does not part us.
    If marriage should be seriously considered before entering, how much
    more baptism, the covenant into an eternal relationship with Christ?
    
    May God's grace and Spirit be mighty in your life.
    
    
    
    Rodger Dusatko 
    

re .22

1. That wastes an extra 512 bytes of disk space per reply
   (and the DECwindows Notes problem with long replies is fixed)

2. It also could prevent the PGP signature from working properly.

/john

    RE: .8
    
    Mike could you give me the passages in the Bible that refer to
    "Mikvah" even if the word itself is not used but the concept or
    whatever?
    
    Thanks
    
    Peter

    Re: .18
    
    Wayne, could you give me the scriptural references for "O.T. Baptism"?
    Is "O.T. Baptism" something in the Law and required by the Israelites?
    
    > Christ was baptized by John to fulfil the law
    
    This I did not know. Could you back this up with scripture? This is
    something that I have not thought to much about, but I'm starting to
    now. 
    
    Last night I looked up the passages that describe Jesus' baptism in
    my RC Study bible, I believe it is NAB. Anyway the footnotes on the
    passages in Matthew say in summary, that Jesus was baptised to
    identify with sinners (us) because he would bear our sins on the cross.
    This my summarization of what it said but I believe that is accurate.
    
    Anyone care to comment on that interpretation? Agree? or disagree?
    
    It seems to make some sense to me, but I want to dig into this some
    more.
    
    
    Peter

    Re: .20
    
    Wayne, Yes I understand now what you mean. I'm still a little fuzzy on
    this but that's not because I don't understand what you're saying. I'm
    going to have to think some more about it and do some digging in
    scripture.
    
    Thanks for the clarification though.
    
    Peter

      re: .27
    
      Wonderful thought Peter!
    
      John's baptism was a baptism of *repentance*.  It was an outward
      act symbolizing the inward experience of repentance.
    
      Jesus was baptized because Jesus repented.
    
      He did not sin, but in His humanity He could see every sin that
      every sinner had committed, trace cause and effect, understand
      the weakness of the flesh (genetically caused propensities), and
      say, "There but for the grace of God go I."  And He could have
      a sorrow in His heart over sin and His identification with His
      own frailties outside of complete dependence on His Father.
    
    						Tony

Re: .21 Eric (my last response so this has been adequately covered by Garth
    elsewhere.  Ask John to mail you the replies).
    
>Typology, when carefully used by the exegete, is very important in
>establishing theology, though you are correct in that it must not be
>misused, for example, interpreting what was intended by the sacred
>author as typological, in a literal manner instead.
    
    I can count on one hand the times in the Bible where God spoke through
    the writer and said "...this is a type..."

>With all due respect to my friend Garth, this flatly contradicts 1 Peter
>3:20 ("this water symbolizes baptism that now saves you also", NIV) and
>Mark 16:16 ("whoever believes and is baptized will be saved").
    
    The NIV is an inaccurate translation and shows why here and elsewhere. 
    Mark 16:16 has different implications in the Greek than in the English
    (what a difference a preoposition makes).

>But God chooses to save using instruments of his creation.  It's called
    
    WRONG.  He chooses to save using His Son's vicarious atonement on the
    cross.  Any other suggestions are heresy.  Paul said if anyone else,
    even an angel from heaven, comes to you with a different gospel, let
    him be condemned.
    
>Noah was saved by God through the instrumentality of the water.  The
>water purged the evil from the world, and purged the host of the enemy
>of the Lord God of Hosts.  And so it did save them, literally, from the
>enemy, though again, through the grace of God.
    
    If that logic were true, the water would've saved the Egyptian troops
    in the Red Sea, and the people who drowned in Noah's flood.

>God requires us to respond to his grace, to repent, and to believe in
>order to be saved.  Whether we are saved or not is an act of our will --
>we choose whether or not we will be saved, even though the work of
>salvation was wrought ultimately by the merits of Christ alone on the
>Cross.
    
    WRONG again.  God's Word says He draws us to Himself through the Holy
    Spirit.  He chooses us, we merely exercise our free will in accepting
    Him and His Word.  Both Calvin and Arminius were wrong.

>in particular circumcision.  A careful reading of Romans will show that
>his primary purpose was to refute those who boasted of their
>circumcision as if it made them righteous apart from faith.  But nowhere
>does Paul say that "nothing we can do can save us."  Nor does he say
>that we can be saved apart from obeying the commandment of love.
    
    I disagree.  The theme of justification by faith leaps off every page
    of Romans.  The Bible teaches that all are sinners (Romans 3:23) and 
    unable by human performance to earn, deserve, or merit salvation 
    (Titus 3:5).  The Bible teaches that the wages of sin is death 
    (Romans 6:23), and that apart from God's grace, no one can be saved
    (Ephesians 2:8-9).  The Bible teaches that none are righteous, or capable 
    of doing good (Romans 3:10-12), and that apart from the conviction and 
    regeneration of the Holy Spirit, none can be saved (John 1:12-13; 16:8-11; 
    1 Peter 1:23-25).  Mankind is clearly fallen and lost in sin.

>Again, no where in Scripture does it say that baptism symbolizes anything.
    
    Someone recently said in this thread (not sure if it was you or someone
    else) that circumcision was replaced by water baptism as the sign or
    seal of the new covenant.  Read Romans 4, especially verse 11 and ask
    yourself what a sign or seal is.  Eric, if you are married, does the
    wedding ring that you and your wife wear determine whether you are
    married or not?  If you take it off, are you still married?  A sign or
    seal, which water baptism is, is only a symbol of what has already
    happened.  It is evidence of a pre-existing relationship.  Just as a
    wedding ring is to you, and circumcision was to Abraham in Romans 4:11.
    He wasn't even circumcised at the time and God still reckoned him
    righteous!  The same applies to water baptism - it's a sign of a
    pre-existing relationship between you and Jesus Christ the Savior.

>No, God didn't need to be baptized to be saved, but it was not until he
>was baptized that he received the Holy Spirit.
    
    WRONG again.  God *IS* the Holy Spirit.  Christians receive the sealing
    of the Holy Spirit upon salvation according to Romans 10:9-13 and John
    3:16.

>Titus 3:3-7 refers specifically to baptism, contrary to your assertion
>to the contrary.  Mark 16:16 says that those who believe and are
    
    WRONG again.  Washing and regeneration is a spiritual rebirth (i.e.,
    born again) not a natural one.
    
>baptized will be saved.  John 3:5 says we must be born of water and the
>Spirit, as Jesus was at his baptism, in order to be saved.  To argue
    
    I covered this already.  You're assuming to know what water means here.
    
>that Romans 10:9-13 exhaustively express the only requirements for
>salvation is to ignore Matthew 5:22, Hebrews 10:38, 1 John 2:3, 1 John
>3:14, John 3:36, Matthew 19:23, 2 Peter 2:20, 2 Thes 1:18, 1 Tim 3:6, 1
>Cor 10:12.
    
    To add to the requirements of salvation is to violate Proverbs 30:5-6,
    which also violates Galatians 1:8.  Within the context of 1 John, try
    5:13 - the entire purpose of the letter.  Within the context of the
    synoptic gospels try John 10:27-30, John 15 and the parallel passages.
    To get the full context of who 2 Peter 2:20 is talking about, read
    verse 2:1.  I mistakenly took this out of context for years until I
    studied enough to learn about context.  2 Thess 1:18 doesn't exist
    (only goes to verse 12).  1 Tim 3:6 is merely saying to not let
    spiritual babies have responsibility in the church.  1 Cor 10:12 is
    just a warning to remain faithful to Christ.  If you abide in Him as
    John 15 says, this isn't a concern.
    
    Eric, I sense you have no assurance according to 1 John 5:13.  This is
    sad.  Christ didn't call us into legalism where church leaders are to
    beat the sheep.  I pray God will reveal His plan of salvation to you 
    through His Word.
    
>Huh?  There is no mention of water in John 15:3, unless you are assuming
>that our sins are pruned away by the waters of baptism, which I would
>agree with.
    
    Nope.  Washing of the water of God's Word (Ephesians 5:26).


>> John 7:37-39 says the water is the Spirit of God. 
>Clearly you are mixing types, because if the water of John 3:5 was the
>Spirit, there would be no need to mention the Spirit again.  You argue
>that Scripture means we must be born "of the Spirit and the Spirit"?
    
    I realize that.  I was just offering several examples of what water
    could mean in John 3:5.  To presume you know means you must know more
    Greek than some of the great theological minds in church history.  
    However, we must still allow the Bible to interpret itself.

>> Water could also refer to a physical birth and the breaking of water
>> during a mother's labor. 
>
>But there is no basis for this anywhere in Scripture.
    
    Possibly, I haven't researched it enough to know.  

>I certainly did.  I illustrated how at Jesus's baptism, the Spirit came
>down upon him in the water (water and Spirit) and his sonship was
>declared by the Father.  I showed how the Spirit hovered over the waters
    .
    .
    .
>the sacred authors in the infallible and inerrant Word of God.  And you
>argue I am not using the bible to interpret the bible?

    Pretexts don't count.
    
    There's an interesting comment about this in the "Treasury of Scripture
    Knowledge" on John 3:5:
    
    "Hendiadys; or Two for One.  Two words are used, but one thing is
    meant.  By this figure water and spirit are joined by 'and.'  There is
    no 'of' in the Greek, supplied here by the translators.  There is no
    article to either of the two nouns.  This figure gives meaning, 'born
    of water, even the spirit.'  That only one thing is meant by the two
    words is clear from verses 6 and 8, where only the Spirit (the one
    thing) is mentioned.  The figure may also be understood to mean 'born
    of spiritual water,' where the 'spiritual water' is by the figure
    metonymy, put for the Holy Spirit himself, as is clear from John
    7:38-39.  The reference is to the real baptism by the Holy Spirit which
    is the one indispensable condition of entering into the Kingdom of God
    (Romans 8:9, 1 Corinthians 12:13), not the water of ritual baptism
    (Acts 1:5)."

>Of course, as the Catholic Church teaches as well.  No one who is
>capable of making a faith commitment should be baptized apart from that
>faith commitment.
    
    Then you agree that it is an outward sign of a pre-existing
    relationship, and thus not necessary for salvation.

>The narrative doesn't say anything about when the eunuch was saved.  But
>curiously enough, if baptism was merely an outward, public confession of
>faith, one would wonder why he did it immediately, as soon as possible,
>and privately, instead of saying, "Look, here is a church, why don't I
>receive baptism next Sunday in front of the congregation?"
>
>Believer's baptism is pretty useless when done privately.
    
    Your speculation doesn't fit the Biblical model.

>>     Acts 9:17-18 - Paul believed first, was saved, and then baptized.
>
>Again, nothing in the text says he was "saved".  He believed, and was
>baptized, but it never says when he was "saved".
    
    You can't be filled with the Holy Spirit without being saved first.  I
    thought that was obvious.  God and Satan cannot co-exist in humans.

>>     Acts 10:44-48 - believed, saved, and then baptized.
>>     Acts 16:14-15 - believed, saved, and then baptized.
>>     Acts 18:8     - Crispus and his family believed, saved, and then baptized.
>
>Again, again, and again, no indication of at exactly what point they
>were "saved."

    Again, you can't be filled with the Holy Spirit without being saved first.

>>     Acts 16:30-34 - this one is especially clear: believed, saved, baptized.
>
>This is the only verse which even contains the word "saved", which is
>expressed as a future promise: believe and you WILL BE SAVED.  But the
>message in Acts 2:37 was, repent, believe, and be baptized, and then you
>will be saved; since you clearly would not conclude (I hope?) on the

    Finally, a ray of hope.  Check the Greek for Acts 2:38.  It says
    "because of the forgiveness of sins" not "for the."  Sin is a spiritual
    problem solved by Christ, not water.
    
>The other pattern is that you are reading into the text your own
>soteriological biases, viz., that one is "saved" once for all at the
>point of first belief, an assumption I do not share.
    
    If true, than you are also reading into the text your own
    "soteriological" biases.  May we both continue to study and pray that
    God gives us wisdom (James 1:5) reveals His truth to us.

    Mike

    {reposted from the previous marathon reply to Eric}
    
    There's an interesting comment about this in the "Treasury of Scripture
    Knowledge" on John 3:5:
    
    "Hendiadys; or Two for One.  Two words are used, but one thing is
    meant.  By this figure water and spirit are joined by 'and.'  There is
    no 'of' in the Greek, supplied here by the translators.  There is no
    article to either of the two nouns.  This figure gives meaning, 'born
    of water, even the spirit.'  That only one thing is meant by the two
    words is clear from verses 6 and 8, where only the Spirit (the one
    thing) is mentioned.  The figure may also be understood to mean 'born
    of spiritual water,' where the 'spiritual water' is by the figure
    metonymy, put for the Holy Spirit himself, as is clear from John
    7:38-39.  The reference is to the real baptism by the Holy Spirit which
    is the one indispensable condition of entering into the Kingdom of God
    (Romans 8:9, 1 Corinthians 12:13), not the water of ritual baptism
    (Acts 1:5)."

      Sounds great Mike!
    
      water, word, light, fire, spirit - its all the same thing.
      Revelation of God's love.
    
    						Tony

    Is that like earth, air, fire, and water?

    .33
    Wasn't that a singing group?

    .34>     Wasn't that a singing group?
    
    nah, that was something about curry ;')

 Earth, Wind and Fire were the recording group.





 Jim

    see? I was right! :')
    

    Hi, Peter.

|   Wayne, could you give me the scriptural references for "O.T. Baptism"?
|   Is "O.T. Baptism" something in the Law and required by the Israelites?
    
|   > Christ was baptized by John to fulfil the law
    
|   This I did not know. Could you back this up with scripture? This is
|   something that I have not thought to much about, but I'm starting to
|   now.

 ** Andrew provided the Scripture reference in note 845.28.  In light of your
    next question, though, the context provides more insight.
    
|   Last night I looked up the passages that describe Jesus' baptism in
|   my RC Study bible, I believe it is NAB. Anyway the footnotes on the
|   passages in Matthew say in summary, that Jesus was baptised to
|   identify with sinners (us) because he would bear our sins on the cross.
|   This my summarization of what it said but I believe that is accurate.
    
|   Anyone care to comment on that interpretation? Agree? or disagree?

 ** A valid interpretation, though perhaps not the best.  I do appreciate the
    complementary relationship of Christ identifying with us in John's
    baptism and us identifying with Him in N.T. baptism.  However, let's look
    at Matthew 3:15 in context.  As I indicated previously, the primary thrust
    of John's baptism was in expressing man's preparation to be (made)
    righteous.  John's message was "repent ye: for the kingdom of heaven is at
    hand."  People from all over the region came to John for baptism,
    confessing their sins, i.e., their falling short of the law's righteous
    demands.

    Many Pharisees and Sadducees, teachers and leaders who were generally
    thought to be the most righteous among men, came to (observe) John's
    baptism.  John as a prophet saw them as vipers claiming to know/practice
    the law but not seeing themselves as sinners.  As we know, the law was
    given to reveal sin, i.e., that man falls short of God's righteousness.
    The Pharisees and Sadducees came to see what was going on, not to confess
    their sins.  John said to them "Produce fruit in keeping with repentance."
    (NIV)  In other words, John wanted them to back up their claim to be
    righteous according to the law without just declaring themselves righteous
    because their father was Abraham.

    John went on to point out that "every tree which bringeth not forth good
    fruit is hewn down, and cast into the fire."  John said he indeed
    baptized with water unto repentance (turning from sin), but <Christ> would
    baptize with the Holy Ghost (unto actual righteousness).

    Jesus then came to John for baptism, but John forbade Him confessing rather
    his own need to be made righteous.  Jesus then said "Let it be so now; it
    is proper for us to do this to fulfill all righteousness" (NIV) and John
    consented.

    So, I do not see Jesus identifying with us as sinners per se, rather with
    man in whom the righteousness of God could indeed be produced.  The most
    righteous among men (Pharisees and Sadducees) could not produce "fruit
    meet for repentance" by their self-perceived adherence to the law, but
    Jesus came for baptism as the Christ of God in the flesh to demonstrate
    the righteousness demanded by the law, i.e., TO DO THAT WHICH WE AS
    SINNERS ARE UNABLE TO DO OURSELVES.  Therein is the gospel!

    Again, the baptism of John expressed the preparation of man's heart to be
    (made) righteous like/by/in Jesus Christ who was baptized as man in whom
    the end/purpose of the law was revealed.  Christ shows us what God wants
    to produce in a repentant and obedient heart.
    
|   It seems to make some sense to me, but I want to dig into this some
|   more.

 ** Go for it!  There's much truth and joy to be found in more fully
    comprehending all that Jesus did and is doing on our behalf that we might
    be made the righteousness of God in Him.  What a deal!  He became our sin
    that we might become His righteousness.  There is no greater love!

|   Wayne, Yes I understand now what you mean. I'm still a little fuzzy on
|   this but that's not because I don't understand what you're saying. I'm
|   going to have to think some more about it and do some digging in
|   scripture.

 ** "These were more noble than those in Thessalonica, in that they received
    the word with all readiness of mind, and searched the scriptures daily,
    whether those things were so." (Ac 17:11, KJV)

    Thinking and digging into scripture puts you in "noble" company, Peter!
    
|   Thanks for the clarification though.

 ** You're welcome.  Nothing would please me more than if God might use my
    understanding to spur you on to know Him more fully.  I debated whether or
    not to dump a major treatise on you including Scripture references and
    exegesis.  I opted for direction rather than formal discourse because I
    sensed you to be a serious student who would gain more from a personal
    detailed study of Scripture.

    I don't want to tell you what to believe.  But, let me know if you'd like
    a soundingboard for your learning. :-)

    /Wayne

From:	"eje@world.std.com" "Eric Ewanco" 11-JAN-1996 23:15:18.34

Re: .30

> >But God chooses to save using instruments of his creation.  It's called
>     
>     WRONG.  He chooses to save using His Son's vicarious atonement on
> the  cross.  Any other suggestions are heresy.  Paul said if anyone
> else, even an angel from heaven, comes to you with a different gospel,
> let him be condemned.
>     

Then you are denying the incarnation.  You are denying that Jesus took
on created flesh, as a true human being, through which he effected the
redemption of the human race.  God saved the world through a created,
human body.  To deny this is heresy.


> >Noah was saved by God through the instrumentality of the water.  The
> >water purged the evil from the world, and purged the host of the enemy
> >of the Lord God of Hosts.  And so it did save them, literally, from the
> >enemy, though again, through the grace of God.
>     
>     If that logic were true, the water would've saved the Egyptian
> troops in the Red Sea, and the people who drowned in Noah's flood.

These are types of the enemy, not types of the People of God.


> >in particular circumcision.  A careful reading of Romans will show that
> >his primary purpose was to refute those who boasted of their
> >circumcision as if it made them righteous apart from faith.  But nowhere
> >does Paul say that "nothing we can do can save us."  Nor does he say
> >that we can be saved apart from obeying the commandment of love.
>     
>     I disagree.  The theme of justification by faith leaps off every
> page of Romans.  The Bible teaches that all are sinners (Romans 3:23)
> and unable by human performance to earn, deserve, or merit salvation 
> (Titus 3:5).  The Bible teaches that the wages of sin is death (Romans
> 6:23), and that apart from God's grace, no one can be saved  (Ephesians
> 2:8-9).  The Bible teaches that none are righteous, or capable  of doing
> good (Romans 3:10-12), and that apart from the conviction and
> regeneration of the Holy Spirit, none can be saved (John 1:12-13;
> 16:8-11; 1 Peter 1:23-25).  Mankind is clearly fallen and lost in sin.

What you say is true, and I agree with it (finally -- you have worded it
in a manner I can accept).  That does not contradict what I said,
though: we do not merit our salvation, but we can merit our damnation. 
St. John says that whoever does not persevere in love remains in death;
St. Paul says that it is not circumcision or uncircumcision that
matters, but FAITH WORKING THROUGH LOVE, that is, not faith alone.


> >No, God didn't need to be baptized to be saved, but it was not until he
> >was baptized that he received the Holy Spirit.
>     
>     WRONG again.  God *IS* the Holy Spirit.  Christians receive the
> sealing of the Holy Spirit upon salvation according to Romans 10:9-13
> and John  3:16.

OK, let me rephrase that: it was not until he was baptized that the Holy
Spirit descended upon him (without implying that he was wholly without
it before).  Clearly the Trinity cannot be separated; the Son and the
Spirit, with the Father, were always one and united.  My point was that
there was a reason why the Spirit was not manifested until Jesus was
baptized.


> >Titus 3:3-7 refers specifically to baptism, contrary to your assertion
> >to the contrary.  Mark 16:16 says that those who believe and are

>  WRONG again.  Washing and regeneration is a spiritual rebirth (i.e.,
> born again) not a natural one.

1) I believe baptism is a spiritual birth.
2) I believe baptism is what is referred to by being born from above
(the proper translation of John 3:5).
3) Baptism is not a natural birth but a supernatural one.


> >that Romans 10:9-13 exhaustively express the only requirements for
> >salvation is to ignore Matthew 5:22, Hebrews 10:38, 1 John 2:3, 1 John
> >3:14, John 3:36, Matthew 19:23, 2 Peter 2:20, 2 Thes 1:18, 1 Tim 3:6, 1
> >Cor 10:12.
>     
> To add to the requirements of salvation is to violate Proverbs
> 30:5-6,which also violates Galatians 1:8.  Within the context of 1 John,
try 5:13 - the entire purpose of the letter. . . .

Well, both of us can do a very good job at throwing Bible verses at each
other and accusing one another of being unbiblical.  It's fun for a
while, but it's a charade, and ultimately we aren't going to convince
one another.  You are convinced of your own traditions, and I'm
convinced of mine, the only difference is I'll freely admit that not
only am I influenced by traditions, but that I believe that is the only
accurate way to interpret the Bible, instead of laboring under the
illusion that anyone can approach the Bible with complete objectivity
and infallibly interpret it.


>     Eric, I sense you have no assurance according to 1 John 5:13.  This
> is sad.  Christ didn't call us into legalism where church leaders are to
> beat the sheep.  I pray God will reveal His plan of salvation to you
> through His Word.
>     
The truth is sad, Mike.  I refuse to believe a lie simply because it
makes me happy and tickles my itching ears.  I stand on the teaching of
the infallible, inerrant, and divinely inspired Scriptures.  I reject
"assurance" because it is a wholly false and pernicious doctrine
completely contrary to Scripture.  I cannot comprehend why people cannot
see the plain and obvious way it contradicts the divine Scriptures. 
Even if I remained a Protestant I would never have been convinced of
such an absurd doctrine which makes a mockery of the Gospels.

But yes, do pray for me, since God knows the truth, and I will pray for
you as well.


>     Then you agree that it is an outward sign of a pre-existing
> relationship, and thus not necessary for salvation.

I believe it is more than an outward sign.  It causes an infusion of
grace into the individual; it washes away sin; it causes the person to
become an adopted son of God.  The fact that there was a pre-existing
relationship does not mean that there is nothing more to receive.  It is
an outward sign, but an efficacious one, not an empty ritual.  Jesus's
baptism was not an outward sign of a pre-existing relationship.  It
caused something to happen: the Holy Spirit descended.  Nothing less
happens in our own baptism.


> You can't be filled with the Holy Spirit without being saved first.  I
> thought that was obvious.  God and Satan cannot co-exist in humans.

Once again our soteriologies differ.

I do not see the process of salvation -- of "being saved" -- as a
single, unique point in time.  I believe we have been saved, we are
being saved, and we will be saved.  Nor do I believe that our eternal
destiny depends only on our first confession of and belief in Christ. 
It depends on what we do after that as well.  Salvation is not a single
event: it is a continual process that will only end with our
glorification.  To use the term in the manner you are using it only
causes a failure of communication between us since we don't agree on
definitions.

You cannot be filled with the Holy Spirit without believing and having
faith in Christ.  I would be willing to say that we cannot be slaves to
God and Satan at the same time.  But I cannot say whether the Holy
Spirit cannot work within an unregenerate person.


> Sin is a spiritual problem solved by Christ, not water.
>     
Mike, aren't you listening to what I am saying?  Are you totally
incapable of comprehending that an action can be done BY Christ THROUGH
water?  Why do you insist on pitting one against the other, as if they
were fundamentally exclusive?  Of course sin is solved by Christ and not
by water alone.  There isn't any question of that.  It is a matter of
Christ saving through the water, just as he saved the world through the
cross.

    Re: .38

    Hi Wayne. 

    > ... As I indicated previously, the primary thrust
    > of John's baptism was in expressing man's preparation to be (made)
    > righteous.  John's message was "repent ye: for the kingdom of heaven is at
    > hand."  People from all over the region came to John for baptism,
    > confessing their sins, i.e., their falling short of the law's righteous
    > demands.

    Ok let me see if I have this right.

    If I were a contemporary of John's and I came to have John baptize me
    then what would be going on is this;

	o I would know that I am not righteous, I have fallen short of
	  the law or the laws righteous demands.
	o I would apparently confess this unrighteousness?
	o The baptism that I would then receive from John would be an
	  expression of the fact that I am prepared to be made righteous,
	  I assume here by God.

    Is that what you are saying above? It makes sense to me especially if
    you look at it this way. John's mission was to prepare. I don't have
    a bible handy so I don't know the exact verse and I'm not that good at
    that kind of memorization. Anyway somewhere there is a verse saying
    that John is preparing the way to the Lord, Prepare Ye the way make
    straight the path... or something to that effect. Soooo what's going
    on is that people are preparing for the Lord and expressing that
    preparation in John's baptism. Does that make sense to you Wayne?
    Any comments? Anyone else have any thoughts?

    Ok Ok I just went back and looked again at what you said and I realize
    that I came up with a long winded version (I think). :-)

    Peter

    Re: .38 more...

    > So, I do not see Jesus identifying with us as sinners per se, rather with
    > man in whom the righteousness of God could indeed be produced.  The most
    > righteous among men (Pharisees and Sadducees) could not produce "fruit
    > meet for repentance" by their self-perceived adherence to the law, but
    > Jesus came for baptism as the Christ of God in the flesh to demonstrate
    > the righteousness demanded by the law, i.e., TO DO THAT WHICH WE AS
    > SINNERS ARE UNABLE TO DO OURSELVES.  Therein is the gospel!

    Ok Wayne I'm not understanding this, I understand pieces of it but I'm
    not sure that I see how it all hangs together.

    > So, I do not see Jesus identifying with us as sinners per se, rather with
    > man in whom the righteousness of God could indeed be produced.
      ^^^             ^^^^^^^^^^^^^         
    I'm confused on this. Are you talking about the "man" Jesus, (I'm not saying
    Jesus was only a man I know he is divine also, just trying to understand
    what you said), who is completely righteous or are you talking about
    man (us sinners) that will be/are  made righteous by God, through the merits
    of Jesus Christ?

    > the righteousness demanded by the law, i.e., TO DO THAT WHICH WE AS
    > SINNERS ARE UNABLE TO DO OURSELVES.  Therein is the gospel!

    Ok obviously Jesus can completely fulfill the requirements of the law,
    he is completely righteous and without sin. Also obvious to me, we
    can't make ourselves righteous Christ does. I guess I'm just having
    trouble seeing how all this fits together. If you could explain this
    a little more or differently that might help. I'll also mull it over
    some more.

    Oh well I am finding this very interesting and enlightening.

    Peter

    Hi, Peter.

|   > So, I do not see Jesus identifying with us as sinners per se, rather with
|   > man in whom the righteousness of God could indeed be produced.
      ^^^             ^^^^^^^^^^^^^         
|   I'm confused on this. Are you talking about the "man" Jesus, (I'm not saying
|   Jesus was only a man I know he is divine also, just trying to understand
|   what you said), who is completely righteous or are you talking about
|   man (us sinners) that will be/are  made righteous by God, through the merits
|   of Jesus Christ?

 ** Yes, what I meant to say was Jesus as God in the flesh identified with us
    as man in whom God could/would produce righteousness (by grace through
    faith in Jesus as the Christ of God).  See Philippians 2 and Hebrews 2.

|   > the righteousness demanded by the law, i.e., TO DO THAT WHICH WE AS
|   > SINNERS ARE UNABLE TO DO OURSELVES.  Therein is the gospel!

|   Ok obviously Jesus can completely fulfill the requirements of the law,
|   he is completely righteous and without sin. Also obvious to me, we
|   can't make ourselves righteous Christ does. I guess I'm just having
|   trouble seeing how all this fits together. If you could explain this
|   a little more or differently that might help. I'll also mull it over
|   some more.

 ** See Romans 4, 5 and 6.  By faith we reckon ourselves dead unto sin, but
    alive unto God through Jesus Christ our Lord.

|   Oh well I am finding this very interesting and enlightening.

 ** Great!  Carry on.

    /Wayne

    P.S.  I'll be tied up all afternoon with no time for immediate response.
    But, there's already more than enough here to chew on for the weekend. :-)

    >    Mike could you give me the passages in the Bible that refer to
>    "Mikvah" even if the word itself is not used but the concept or
>    whatever?

    Leviticus 14:9, 15:13 (Mikvah for the unclean),  Numbers 31:23 (Mikvah
    for vessels), Exodus 30:17-21 (Priests' Mikvah before entering the 
    Tabernacle/Temple), and cross-references for these (I'm sure there's
    more).  Some of the archaeological photos I've seen of the old
    synagogues had these large pools next to them where the Mikvahs were
    performed.

    Incidentally, the scribes who wrote the Torah scrolls would have a
    Mikvah before they wrote each YHWH.  This is how they revered G-d's
    holy name!

    Mike

    Re: .43
    
    Thanks Mike, I'll look them up this weekend.
    
    Peter

As much as I have been able to tell, the mikveh was used in Jewish tradition
for two purposes: 1) ritual cleansing, to make spiritually clean, and 2) con-
version, when a proselyte to Judaism comes up out of the water they are said 
to be in effect, reborn as a Jew. Usually the ritual cleansing is in prepar-
ation for something - ie temple service, renewing marriage relations after
the woman's period, or coming into the presence of great spiritual leader.

I see both of these purposes in the mikveh or baptism of believers. We are 
reborn into the body of Yeshua, the family of believers and we are ritually
cleansed in preparation for our service to Our Lord. Since the Bible doesn't 
give a point by point treatise on exactly how immersion works or minutely what
its purpose is other than to mark that we believe Yeshua to the promised Messiah
and our kinsman redeemer, I don't see a lot of value in trying to pinpoint it
so precisely myself.  What I have done is simply to enter the waters in the
Name of Elohim: Father, Son, and Spirit, and come back up determined to live my
life as best I can in a manner pleasing to God.

Leslie

    Peter, I just realized I never answered the following:

|   Wayne, could you give me the scriptural references for "O.T. Baptism"?
|   Is "O.T. Baptism" something in the Law and required by the Israelites?

 ** I took some risk for sake of discussion to call John's Baptism "O.T.
    Baptism."  There really was no O.T. precedent for John's Baptism unto
    repentance.  However, there were rites/acts of cleansing, particularly
    the "mikveh" for which Mike has provided you some Scriptural references.
    The requirement of the Law was that anything set apart or presented to
    God must be clean(sed).

    The link between the "mikveh" and John's Baptism unto repentance, of
    course, is the act of washing with/by water, or the putting away of
    contamination, if you will, to be made "clean."  Note that as often as
    (even the same) people or things were found dirty under the law, a rite of
    cleansing was required/repeated.  In other words, dirt was removed, but
    nothing was added to keep dirt off.

    John's Baptism linked the rites of cleansing under the O.T. with the
    actual exchange of our sin for His righteousness under the N.T.  Again,
    John's Baptism expressed preparation of man's heart to receive Christ,
    whereas N.T. Baptism expresses both the putting off of sin (by Christ's
    life and death in the flesh) and the putting on of righteousness (by
    Christ's resurrection).

    The Holy Spirit, of course, was given so that we who receive God's free
    gift of eternal life might be delivered/kept from sinning.

    I'll say more if you need/want me to say more.  Sorry for apparently
    ignoring your question on "O.T. Baptism."  As you're coming to see,
    N.T. Baptism is a VERY RICH AND SIGNIFICANT expression of God's work in
    us and a very effective and powerful means by which we can affirm/confess
    the work of Jesus Christ on our behalf.  Not to mention being baptized
    in the name of the Father, Son and Holy Ghost to clearly associate the
    Godhead with our salvation!

    /Wayne

    Re: .45
    
    Leslie, I'm not sure if you are refering to me or not but I'll answer
    here anyway.
    
    First thanks for the explanations on mikveh they have helped.
    
    As for looking at the issues or scriptures minutely, I am doing that in
    part to satisfy some spiritual and intellectual curiosity. You are
    right in saying that sometimes there is no point in doing it or doing
    it to a minute detail. I often struggle with the question of when to
    stop digging, when to say ok Lord it's up to you I'm just going to
    accept!
    
    However sometimes it does lead to insight. In fact that is the case
    here, my dialog with Wayne and others including your recent reply have
    given me some insight.
    
    Thank you all!
    
    As Wayne said I have a lot to chew on this weekend.
    
    Peter

    Re: .46
    
    Thanks Wayne.
    
    Peter

    Leslie, after re-reading your reply I think maybe you were refering
    to the debate going on between John/Eric and Mike.(????) Oh well my
    reply explains a little of where I'm coming from, just trying to
    learn as much as I can.
    
    Peter

    Hi Wayne.

    I've been doing some digging and came up with a couple of things.

    I've checked several versions of the bible (NIV,NKJV,NRSV,NAB,NAS) the 
    only one that has any footnotes on Jesus' baptism is the NAB version
    that I already spoke of. Here is exactly what it says;

	"...His reluctance to admit Jesus among the sinners whom he
	is baptizing with water is overcome by Jesus' response.
	To fulfill all righteousness: in this gospel to fulfill
	usually refers to fulfillment of prophecy and righteousness
	to moral conduct in conformity with God's will. Here however
	as in 5, 6 and 33 righteousness is to submit to the plan of
	God for the salvation of the human race, This involves Jesus'
	identification with sinners; hence the propriety of his accepting
	John's baptism."

   
    I also checked out a couple of Theology texts, one by Millard J.
    Erickson _Christian_Theology_ the other the RC Catechism. Both 
    were pretty silent on the baptism performed by John and Jesus' baptism.

    Lastly I looked at Warren W. Wiersbe's _The_Bible_Exposition_
    Commentary_. Here's what Warren has to say;

	"Jesus was not baptized because He was a repentant sinner.
	Even John tried to stop Jesus, but the Lord knew it was His
	Father's will. Why was Jesus baptized? First, His baptism
	gave approval to John's ministry, Second, He identified
	Himself with publicans and sinners, the very people He came
	to save. But mainly, His baptism pictured His future baptism
	on the cross (Matt 20:22; Luke 12:50) when all the "waves
	and billows" of God's judgement would go over Him (Ps. 42:7;
	Jonah 2:3).

	Thus, John the Baptist bore witness to Jesus Christ as the
	Son of God, and also as the Lamb of God (John 1:29). Because
	of John's witness, many sinners trusted Jesus Christ
	(John 10:39-42).

    Oh well some of what I've dug up so far, for what it's worth.

    Peter

    Hi, Peter.
    
    Well, I think you'll continue to find a variety of different
    perspectives as you consult commentaries.  You didn't ask for my
    unabridged commentary on the relationship of Jesus' baptism by John to
    O.T. baptism (well, you kind of did, but I opted out for direction rather
    than discourse), but since you've established that you're looking at
    other studied opinions as you examine Scripture for yourself, let me
    tell the rest of the story that makes much sense to me.
    
    The baptism that Jesus received from John had to be unique in
    significance and purpose.  Jesus was the God-man without sin;
    therefore, His baptism could not be that which John administered to
    others because Jesus did not make confession.  Jesus had no occasion to
    repent.  As noted previously, Jesus Himself said "Thus it becometh us
    to fulfil all righteousness."  Jesus' baptism by John can be seen as
    an act of ceremonial righteousness appropriate to His public mission
    as the Christ, including His threefold office of Prophet, Priest and
    King, especially as Priest.  The essence of Christ's redemptive work
    lies in His consecration as a priest, the Great High Priest.  In this
    office, Jesus offered not "the blood of bulls and goats," but Himself
    to put away sin.  This consecration to His redemptive priesthood seems
    clearly viewed in Jesus' baptism by John in Jordan.  By "fulfilling all
    righteousness" I believe our Lord meant the righteousness of obedience to
    the Mosaic Law.  The Levitical law required all priests to be consecrated
    when they "began to be about 30 years of age" (Num 4:3; Lu 3:23).  The
    consecration was twofold--first the washing (O.T. baptism, if you will),
    then the anointing (Ex 29:4-7; Lev 8:6-36).  When Jesus was "washed"
    (baptized) by John in Jordan, the heavens were opened and the Holy Spirit
    came upon Him.  This went beyond the anointing under the Law--this was the
    priestly anointing of Jesus as not only a priest by God's appointment, but
    also an eternal priest (Ps 110:4).  Jesus was thus consecrated by God for
    the work of redemption (Mat 3:16; Ac 4:27; 10:38).
    
    Thus, I favor the view that Jesus was not identifying with us as
    sinners (because He was without sin), rather with us as man in whom His
    righteousness would be effected.  Certainly, there was common
    identification with man when Jesus was baptized like others who came to
    John.  However, He was uniquely identified as the Christ of God sent to
    deliver us from sin so that the righteousness of the Law might be
    fulfilled in us by the Holy Spirit.  I believe this ultimate purpose of
    God in Christ is the significance of N.T. (or "Christian") Baptism.  We
    are buried with Christ in baptism and raised to newness of life.
    
    There, now I've taken my best shot and you're now on your own! :-)
    
    /Wayne      

   Peter, I wasn't really thinking of anyone in particular. I was thinking
   of the types of arguments and debates on certain items in Scripture where
   people try to go to a level of definition and detail that is not in the
   Scriptures themselves. I feel that can sometimes lead to some really wild
   and sometimes pointless, endless discussion, but I wasn't pinpointing any
   body in particular with my remarks & I'm not doing that now either. I agree
   that there is value in studying the Word and digging deep, but I think 
   people in general sometimes go beyond that.

   Leslie

    Re: .52
    
    I would agree with that!
    
    Peter

    Re: .51
    
    Hi Wayne.
    
    That sounds pretty good to me and it makes quite a bit of sense. I
    think I'm all set for now unless someone has some more insight.
    
    Thanks for your help Wayne and thank you to everyone else who replied!
    I'm done for now on this topic and I'm going to move on to another
    related topic.
    
    Peter

    I have started attending the membership classes at a local 
    non-denominational church (Cranston Christian Fellowship) in
    Rhode Island.

    It has been made clear to me that I will have to be baptized at the
    end of the classes in order to become a member. It was stated to me
    and the others in the class this way;

	"...if you have not been baptized with believers baptism then
	you will have to be baptized."

    "Believers" is their word not mine. I understand this to be a way
    to indicate a particular view of baptism.

    My feelings on this are as follows;

	- I was baptized as an infant at my parents request in the
	  Roman Catholic Church.
	- I believe that my parents hoped and desired for me to come
	  to know Christ fully as I grew and matured.
	- That is in fact what has occurred. I declared my faith and
	  committment to Christ in the sacrament of confirmation.
	- I continued to grow and serve Jesus to the best of my human
	  abilities in a Roman Catholic church until a couple of years
	  ago.
	- I feel that at this point to be baptized again would be a
	  denial/negation of all of the above.

    I will be discussing these feelings with the people at CCF. I raise
    the issue here to get peoples perspectives on this. I feel that this
    is a good place to do this because of the fact that many Christian
    denominations and views come together here.

    Thank You

    Peter

    I have moved your question to this note in order to maintain
    consistency in dialogue.  Basically this note can be used to discuss
    baptism.
    
    Thanks,
    Nancy

    Re: .56
    
    Ok by me whatever works.
    
    Thanks
    
    Peter

    A dunkin' snarf!

      Hi Peter,
    
        If some people honestly believe that 'the only baptism that counts'
        is one wherein the person who is baptized did so after committing
        his life to Jesus Christ and because he believes baptism is a God-
        ordained outward response to conversion, those people could not
        believe that your Catholic baptism was really baptism.  (At the time, 
        you didn't have faith and you did not make a choice to be baptized 
        as a result of conversion.)
    
        That is probably the source of conflict.
    
        You apparently believe that it is a fully valid baptism if a person
        has water sprinkled upon him, or poured upon him, or is immersed,
        and yet this person's choice (as well as whether or not the person
        was converted) was not a part of things.
    
        I'm just offering to you the strong possibility that the entire
        source of difference appears to be doctrinal.
    
    							Tony
                       

    RE: .55
    
    Peter, I encourage you to view this situation in the context of your
    liberty in Christ.  Based on your clear confession of Jesus Christ as
    your Saviour and Lord and your clear understanding that your baptism as
    an infant did in fact express what is now real, I would say you need not
    be baptized again.
    
    However, in order to not put a stumblingblock in the lives of those
    with whom you've chosen to fellowship, I believe you can be
    (re)baptized without negating your patents' intent.
    
    If you are given opportunity to present your testimony, then you could
    explicitly honor your parents (and their faith) by stating that their
    intent in having you baptized as an infant has come to pass, and that
    you now stand as an adult before God and man for baptism as a personal
    expression of God's work in your life.  Man looks on outward
    appearance, but God looks on the heart.  In this case, you need to
    reconcile what your parents saw with what believers in your new
    fellowship need to see.  Based on your testimony, I'm confident that
    God sees in your heart the faith which pleases Him!
    
    The touchy point is not putting a stumblingblock in your parents' path.
    So, you need to clearly tell them what you're doing and why.  If they
    would be comfortable attending your baptism, then I see great
    opportunity for you to be an ambassador of reconiliation in publicly
    declaring how God honored their faith.
    
    Just a thought.
    
    /Wayne

Whew!  - I 'replied' to this when it was 850.0, and found it gone, so mailed 
it to Peter - only to find it resurfaced here!!!! - so ... here we go! ;-)

Hi Peter,

This is a tricky one, because it depends on what you perceive Biblical
baptism as meaning.  I understand the Bible to support the 'baptist'
persuasion (strange, since that's the denomination I attend;-) where the
Biblical command to be baptised implies that the candidate chooses to be
immersed in water to demonstrate their obedience to the LORD Jesus. 

No-one can be baptised on their behalf, nor make the decision for them that
they 'should' be baptised; it has to be totally of the candidates volition.
It has to be after conversion, because it indicates that conversion has
occurred.  People could hardly validly choose to show that they are
Christians before conversion! 

So - a decision to affirm something done on one's behalf before conversion 
(eg an infant ceremony) doesn't turn that ceremony into a sign of conversion.  
All it ever could be was the expression of a parental desire that the child 
should be a Christian.  In that sense, it says more about the parents than 
it ever can do about the child.

Some would equate infant baptism with the Jewish circumcision, which is an
invalid parallel, because the infant Jew *is* a Jew, whether he wants to be
or not.  He inherits it from his earthly parents.  No-one inherits
Christianity from their parents!  They are born *again* into the family of
God.  It is following this birth that baptism is relevant and commanded.


	- I was baptized as an infant at my parents request in the
	  Roman Catholic Church.

Were you doing this in obedience to the Biblical command?  Does 
confirmation turn it into something it couldn't be at the time?

I have known many people in this very situation.  Some have taken a long 
time to consider it.  But the decision has to be yours, and no-one elses.  
You must not be presurised into a spurious obedience, but prayerfully come 
to your decision before the LORD.  It is even more important that any
decision to be immersed should be totally your own conviction at this 
stage.  You need to be able to answer for you reasons not only to 'the 
unsaved', but to those relatives, for instance, who find this 
incomprehensible.

	- I feel that at this point to be baptized again would be a
	  denial/negation of all of the above.
I cannot see that it would in any way deny your interim salvation and
growth in the LORD.  It would proclaim that the original ceremony was not a
profession of faith (which everyone knows anyway!), and that the confirmation 
was not a New Testament baptism, and did not turn the original ceremony 
into a New Testament baptism.  However, while you feel that it would 
threaten what you understand as your foundation in the LORD, you should not 
go be immersed without your heart! ;-)

I guess this is liable to be a bit contraversial, because of the various 
convictions dearly held by noters.  I hope that no-one will take this 
personally, except to heart ;-)

						God bless
 								Andrew

A word about terms.

It wasn't clear from what you said that you understood what the term
'Believer's Baptism.' means.  The qualifier 'Believer's' refers to the person
being baptized, not to the people who endorse this type of baptism.

In other words, all 'Believer's Baptism' means, is that the person being
baptized is a Believer - as Andrew said, they are Baptized as a result of
their own affirmation of belief.

It does NOT mean (as one could parse it), that "Believer's Baptism" refers to
the type of baptism accepted by believers, implying that if you don't believe
in baptizing that way then you're not a believer.

Paul

    Controversial decision at best... :-(
    
    When my children were born, my ex-husband insisted on their baptism. 
    The catholic church in the U.S. would not baptize our children because
    I wasn't catholic and wouldn't convert.
    
    However, the catholic church in Mexico saw the desire of a parent who's
    spouse didn't object to the baptism and performed the ceremony.  Not
    only did he perform the ceremony, but he used Matthew's name as the
    devotion for the baptism.   He spoke on the importance of a name and
    the honor of its heritage.  
    
    Secondly, it was my opinion that the baptism simply was what I would
    call a parent's dedication to raise the child in the knowledge of Jesus
    Christ.  And my husband had to objection to the children's baptism when
    their faith developed in Christ.  So my children were baptized twice.
    
    You know what?  To this day, their two baptisms have not caused any
    damage to their psyche. :-)
    
    Nancy

A note about the word "Baptize"

This is from Strong's Expanded Lexicon, found in the Logos computer package. 
I thought this was fascinating.

There are two greek words from the same root meaning to dip or immerse:
'Bapto' and 'Baptize.'  For the longest time, scholars could not determine
exactly what sense was different between these two words.  Only one was used
in any given context, so they couldn't really tell what the implications were
of the two words.

Then they came upon, of all things, a pickle recipie from 100BC or so which
used both words.  The recipie said that you should dip (bapto) the cucumbers
in boiling water for a few seconds, and then immerse (baptize) the cucumbers
in the brine solution.

So the distinction of the words is that Bapto means to dip or immerse
briefly, in the case of the pickles only the surface of the cucumber is
changed.  Baptize, the word used in the NT for this sacrament, means to
immerse completely and for a longer time - in the case of the pickles it
means to stay under the brine solution until they are entirely changed all
the way through.

I thought it was a pretty cool distinction.

Paul

    Re: .59
    
    > I'm just offering to you the strong possibility that the entire
    >  source of difference appears to be doctrinal.
    
    Tony, this may be true I don't know? You seem to be implying more,
    yes/no? If so what is the implication. Just trying to understand.
    
    Thanks
    
    Peter

    Re: .60
    
    And a pretty good thought Wayne. This was a thought that I had
    which come up from one of your previous notes. Maybe this will come
    to pass. In any case I'm going to have to do more praying about this.
    
    Thanks
    
    Peter

    Re: .62
    
    Paul, I thought that you, John and I had cleared that up in 845.1,.2,.4.
    If not I guess I'm in need of apologizing again. I would agree with
    what you said in .62. Also please note the people at CCF used the term,
    I'm sure in the context that you have pointed out and I understand
    it in that context.
    
    If you feel that having an exact definition of that term will add
    some light to this discussion, then I would welcome it. I'm sure
    that I may have some misunderstandings I frequently do.
    
    Thanks
    
    Peter
    

      re: .65
    
      Hi Peter,
    
        Nope, thats about it.  My recommendation is that you continue
        to grow in the Lord and prayerfully seek conviction from above
        as regards what biblical baptism is.
    
        And then do the Lord's will in accordance with the conviction
        of your heart.
    
        Now, I was raised Catholic and I came to believe that biblical
        baptism (the outward rite) is immersion in water based upon
        the person being baptized having become a converted Christian
        and consciously choosing baptism as an outward proclamation of
        his desire to be crucified according to the flesh and alive to 
        a new life in Christ Jesus.
    
        Thus my conviction ran deep that the Catholic concept of baptism
        is not biblical and thus I was never really baptized.
    
        And so I chose to be baptized!
    
    							Take Care,
    
    							Tony

re .55

You were baptized as an infant, and cannot be baptized again.

"I believe in one baptism, for the remission of sins."

While there are people reading this conference who refuse to see it, the
biblical record of infant baptism is clear:  "baptized with their whole
household."

Just as Jews circumcise infants by God's commandment (and do so to all
the males in their household, regardless of age when converted to Judaism),
Christians have, since biblical times, baptized their infants.  All the
denials of the members of this conference do not take away the plain fact
that "whole households" were baptized and that Jesus called the little
children to come to him.

Your baptism as an infant incorporated you into the Church, the Body
of Christ, washed away your original sin, and conferred God's grace
upon you which has flowered in you and brought you to a mature faith.

The proper action for an adult is a verbal profession of faith, using
the profession of faith in the baptismal covenant known as the Apostles'
Creed:

	I believe in God the Father Almighty, Maker of heaven and
	earth:

	And in Jesus Christ his only Son our Lord: Who was conceived
	by the Holy Ghost, Born of the Virgin Mary: Suffered under
	Pontius Pilate, Was crucified, dead, and buried: He descended
	into hell; The third day he rose again from the dead: he
	ascended into heaven, and sitteth on the right hand of God
	the Father Almighty: From thence he shall come to judge the
	quick and the dead.

	I believe in the Holy Ghost: The holy Catholic Church; the
	Communion of Saints: The Forgiveness of sins: The Resurrection
	of the body: and the Life everlasting.  Amen.

    Re: .63
    
    There is that thought also Nancy. I'll have to think and pray on this
    also.
    
    It's not so much my pysche, although that to, that I'm concerned. It's
    primarily my parents as well as the people that I fellowship with.
    Something Wayne pointed out already.
    
    My other concern and probably the most important is God's will. What
    church does he want me to fellowship in?
    
    Thanks
    
    Peter

    .71
    
    The best way to answer what church is by knowing the Bible.  Don't take
    tradition of men to surpass scriptural authority.
    
    The biggest problem I have in dealing with most catholics is their lack
    of knowledge of the Bible.  John Covert appears to be an exception to
    that experience, but even then he enters so much that others have
    written, its a question in my mind.
    
    Having been immersed in a stringent catholic family, and finding so
    little knowledge of God's word there [knows what Pope says, but not
    what the Bible says], I find it a fearsome place to worship.  I asked
    my Ex this past holiday, how do you know what you are being taught is
    correct?  
    
    His response was that he knows all that he needs to know and doesn't
    care to know anymore.  The catholic church in this family's case failed
    to instill in their catechism the verses that tell us we should hunger
    and thirst after the knowledge of Christ.
    
    I'd could see based on an individual level how this could happen, but
    an entire family of over 100 [includes siblings and their children],
    Rafael is the 13th child.
    
    And yes, I've met them all.
    
    
    

    Re: .70
    
    Well John I tend to agree with what you have said.
    
    > The proper action for an adult is a verbal profession of faith, using
    > the profession of faith in the baptismal covenant known as the
    > Apostles'
    > Creed: ...
    
    I guess what you are saying here is that I don't need to be baptized,
    that has occurred? All I need do to indicate my faith in Christ is
    a profession of faith such as the Apostles Creed?
    
    Ok in light of that what are your thoughts on what Wayne said in .60.
    Not to create division or pit you against Wayne, but could what he
    said be taken as a profession of faith?
    
    Also the Apostles Creed has been recited at CCF and maybe this could
    be a part of any testimony I would give? If this is the route I take.
    
    Thanks
    
    Peter

    RE: .66
    
    Peter, keep me apprised of your decision.  You'll not go wrong in
    choosing to be baptized as a personal outward expression of what God
    has done and is doing in your heart.
    
    I pray that God will give you opportunity to confess faith in Jesus
    Christ so as to encourage both your earthly and heavenly families!
    
    /Wayne

>The catholic church in this family's case failed to instill in their
>catechism the verses that tell us we should hunger and thirst after
>the knowledge of Christ.

That's there.  The family failed to read the catechism.  The Roman Catholic
Church is the most biblically based of all churches, far surpassing even my
own church, with all the protestations of the English parliament.

>I'd could see based on an individual level how this could happen, but
>an entire family of over 100 [includes siblings and their children],
>Rafael is the 13th child.
    
>And yes, I've met them all.
    
The responsibility for Christian education is first and foremost the
responsibility of the family.  Thus it's not surprising that an entire
family has missed out.

Maybe the parents and grandparents simply didn't do their job.

/john

>The Roman Catholic
>Church is the most biblically based of all churches, far surpassing even my
>own church,

That's a pretty broad, sweeping statement, John.  One with which I disagree,
and one which is likely to cause some amount of division.  I hope it doesn't
totally rathole this note.

But I am made curious by your statement.  If you believe that the Roman
Catholic Church is more biblically based than the church you currently
attend, why do you not switch?

Paul

    Re: .70
    
    John in regards to my note .73 I want to add a couple of thoughts.
    
    I'm also considering the fact that in the RC Church you are given the
    chance to re-affirm your baptismal vows. For example at a baptism
    that you are participating in, I am the Godfather to several of my
    nices and nephews. Also at various Masses during the year, I'm not
    sure when exactly, I think lent or easter.
    
    At a baptism I believe everyone present is given that chance. A
    question to anyone. Is the same chance given at a baptism in other
    churches?
    
    Could what Wayne is talking about be something of this sort. That is
    my being baptized at CCF being a re-affirmation of my baptismal vows?
    Oh well this could be a little far fetched.
    
    Thanks
    
    Peter

>If you believe that the Roman Catholic Church is more biblically based
>than the church you currently attend, why do you not switch?

Because my church is supposed to be part of the Roman Catholic Church, but
through an accident of European history was separated from it.  My church
is also supposed to teach the same things, including the same biblical
basis:  Holy Scripture is the infallible Word of God.

The current lack of a biblical basis in the Anglican Communion is a recent
development, a result of paying more attention to rights than to virtue.

I may have to switch some day, but until that day comes, I was born in this
church, my parents, grandparents, aunts and uncles are all a part of this
church, and I'll do my best to practice the Catholic Faith.

/john

    John,
    
    I would disagree with you on the failure of the parents.  I see it as a
    failure of the church to communicate that which liberates and sets free
    their members, versus that which keeps them under control by the
    church.  With a membership totally relying on its leadership, you have
    control over the people's finances, morality and family life.
    
    Rafaels siblings and his mother attended every mass, went to confession
    and partakes of the Lord's supper.  They are very well versed in the
    tradition of men regarding the ritualistic worships defined by the
    church.  They are familiar with all of the patron saints and
    manifestations of Christ over the years that have been recorded, i.e.,
    on table cloth, a shadow on the wall, etc.
    
    However, I find their understanding of the Bible to be based on the
    catechism teachings of old and new testament stories.  The idea or
    concept of independent study is naught.  They have Bibles, but never
    open them except when asked to church.  They place more value on their
    works [ritualistic worship/confession] than they do on the faith that
    is supposed to motivate their works. As a matter of fact, I find faith
    lacking for the most part.  They say you cannot *know* that you will be
    saved, but that God leaves it to man to chance it.  If God decides
    you've said enough hail Mary's and other recorded penances in life,
    then if he picks you, you might go to heaven.  There is no assurances.
    
    I find this to be so contradictory to the Word of God when studied on a
    whole versus in part, that it has brought me to tears over my
    ex-husband and his family.  It seems that everytime I think I've heard
    something from you that makes me believe my concern is unfounded, my
    next interaction with them brings back the concern again.
    
    I am convinced beyond a doubt that while you may have an understanding
    of Scripture, most catholics do not.  They have an understanding of
    what someone else has told them about scripture.
    
    Nancy

>They have Bibles, but never open them except when asked to church.

Then they are not obeying the teaching of the Church:

	"The Church forcefully and specifically exhorts all the
	Christian faithful to learn the surpassing knowledge of
	Jesus Christ by frequent reading of the divine Scriptures.
	Ignorance of the Scriptures is ignorance of Christ."

				-- Catechism, paragraph 133

The rest of your note is also refuted in the Catechism.

/john

    Re: .79
    
    > I am convinced beyond a doubt that while you may have an understanding
    > of Scripture, most catholics do not...
    
    Nancy, there are somewhere on the order of 980 million catholics in the
    world. I have not done nor have I seen a study on those that know
    scripture. I find it hard to believe a statement like the one you
    made, maybe you have done a statistical study, I don't know. You have
    made a generalization which can be easily refuted.
    
    At the RC church I attended the priest would frequently implore the
    congregation to read the chapter or book, that was read in mass, at
    home. My mother spends at least 1 - 2 hours a day studying God's Word and in
    prayer. I know many many catholics that do.
    
    However I have also met catholics that do not read the bible and have
    no desire to. You will find a great deal of variation on this from
    catholic to catholic and from parish to parish. Does this mean that
    most don't know scripture. I think that without doing some statistical
    study we can not say! You can not say they don't and I can not say they
    do because neither of us will be grounded in fact, only our
    observations of the few, in comparison to 980 million, catholics we 
    know. I would say I know several hundred myself. Keep in mind I am
    talking about a statement like "...most catholic...", I'm not talking
    about your ex-husbands family, it is clear they don't.
    
    As John has already pointed out, the RC church in any offical teaching
    always teaches the extreme importance of reading the bible.
    
    You will always find people who don't want to change, who find it
    easier to just go through the motions. You will also find people out
    there that take things to the extremes wether they are catholic or
    another christian denomination.
    
    I feel sad about your ex-husbands family, they need much prayer. I feel
    situations like that call for prayer above and beyond ANYTHING else. I
    have seen the Lord work many wonderfull things through prayer. I'm sure
    you pray for them all the time, maybe it's time others joined you! This
    last statement is a challenge to noters in this conference. Maybe we
    should spend the time praying for families like this rather then
    defending our positions. Maybe that's the best example we can be to
    our christian brothers and sisters! Me included, I'm going to start
    praying.
    
    Peter

re.67, and confusion over definitions of 'believer's' baptism.

Sorry for the confusion, Peter.  I think in this case the confusion lay with
me, and not with anyone else.

Paul

    I've been baptized twice.  Once indoors in the baptistry of Clinton's
    First Baptist church when I was 10.  As a teenager, I wanted to be
    baptized outdoors as all the people of the Bible were.  When I was 15,
    I was baptized at the pond on Freedom Farm in Massachusetts.  My wife
    was baptized at Lake Winnekeag in Ashburnham (where my grandmother's
    summer home is).
    
    I was given a bath (i.e., sprinkled) when I was an infant in a Lutheran
    church, but it was involuntary and I had no thought of its significance
    or importance.  Important spiritual decisions should be made by
    yourself with understanding.
    
    Mike

    I grew up in a catholic neighborhood.  I was the only Baptist there. 
    Each catholic home had a minimum of 4 children and went up to 13.  I
    have since associated with the same families [ folks in KY just don't
    move ]  :-), and here at work all 6 catholic women that I have met have
    indicated they wished that the catholic church had emphasized Bible
    study more.  And these women are dedicated to their faith.   One
    exclaimed just a few years ago that her church had its first Bible
    study group.
    
    Sorry, but while I can't say I've met 980 million, I can honestly say
    that out of the multitudes of catholics I've met, John C., and Eric
    Ewanco whom I've never met in person, appear to study the Bible.
    
    But even though they study the Bible, they will often take the
    teachings of catholic leaders over the authority of the Bible.  In
    other words the traditions of have equal value.  I know I've seen
    Covert argue that somewhere in this file.
    
    Do I believe there are sincere believing people in the catholic church? 
    Absolutely.  Do I believe that the level of trust in this church's
    leadership goes beyond their actual knowledge of God's word?  Yes, I
    believe that too.
    
    Do I believe that the catholic church teaches all doctrine of the Bible
    by its leadership.  No, I do not.  That is why I find so much conflict
    with catholicism.
    
    

    Re: .82
    
    Okey Dokey no harm done!
    
    Thanks
    
    Peter

    Re: .84
    
    Nancy, it's very unfortunate that the catholics that you have
    encountered either did not study the bible or where not guided
    to study the bible. I have also at times encountered the same thing.
    I'm wondering if this is a local parish problem or more of a
    problem with catholicism in the US. Oh well just some thoughts.
    
    > But even though they study the Bible, they will often take the
    > teachings of catholic leaders over the authority of the Bible.  In
    > other words the traditions of have equal value.  I know I've seen
    > Covert argue that somewhere in this file.
    
    I would like to comment on this. I'm sure John or Eric could do a
    better job and prabably have somewhere in this conference.
    
    Ok here goes, I read a book the name was _Born_Again_Catholics_, what
    this book talked about was 2 kinds of tradition. Tradition with a
    capitol T and tradition with a lowercase t. Capitol T tradition is
    the teaching of the church that catholics take on equal value with the
    bible. The reason for this is that catholics believe, and the church
    teaches, that this Tradition is based on scripture. I know that John,
    Eric and others have repeatedly given scriptural references in their
    defenses. Now you and many others may disagree with the interpretations
    and specific uses of scripture, however "Tradition" in this context
    is based on the bible. 
    
    Lowercase t traditions are what many think of when using this word. As
    an example, during a mass the priest wears vestments or robes, I'm not
    sure what the actual term is. These robes were worn in the early days
    of the church, during the time of the Roman empire, I believe. The
    church continues this tradition, not because the priest have to wear
    them or that the bible tells them to. Simply because its always been
    done that way and there is no harm in it. Traditions of this nature
    are just those customs that have always or for a long time been done.
    Many christian denominations have customs or traditions.
    
    I guess what I'm trying to say is that in the Catholic church the term
    tradition many times means official teaching of the church, as related
    to salvation and other such matters, and based soundly on scripture.
    
    Just my thoughts on this. I believe that others in this conference have
    defended that point very well.
    
    Peter

      I at first hesitated, but I feel I must give a quick testimony
      regarding Catholicism.
    
      John, you frequently and quite aptly refer to the Catechism.
      My summary take on this is that the Church is responsible
      for putting 'catechisms' into real life.  It doesn't do a hill
      of beans to qualify a church on the basis of the 'quality' of
      its catechism if the message of the catechism somehow is largely
      not making inroads into the hearts of the adherents of the church
      that officially espouses said catechism.  (And by the way, I am
      not ready to defend the RC Catechism; I am making a best-case
      assumption that it is a good thing, not really believing it is, 
      but for the purpose of still trying to demonstrate that it just
      isn't nearly enough.)
    
      When I was becoming interested in Jesus, I did the logical thing.
      I went to church and as I was born RC, I went to the RC church.
      There was a hunger in my soul for Christ and basically I couldn't
      help but 'perceive' the spiritual status of the people going to
      church.
    
      It seemed so bad that I felt totally awful.  It seemed as though
      no one was there to drink in the Lord.  People stood at the 
      Communion line and so many had no look of subdued solemness.  I
      can't totally explain it, but I basically saw spiritual emptiness.
      Lights were out and no one was home.
    
      Thats what I saw and it hurt real bad.
    
      This catechism stuff, even if full of wonderful content, is not
      the sole qualifier of a church.  A church is a body that is
      responsible for cultivating an atmosphere where, as Paul said,
      we are epistles with the word of God grafted in our hearts.
    
      If catechisms or whatever, wonderful as they may be, are not 
      making it into the hearts, they are worthless.
    
      The above is a testimony.  It is a real life experience that was
      extremely painful for me.
    
      Let me finish by acknowledging that there are wonderful Catholic
      Christians.  *BUT*, I sincerely believe that if a statistician
      could know the 'sanctified status' of all the individual members of
      the Catholic Church, that these wonderful Christians would be found
      to be a good 3 or 4 standard deviation units from the norm where 
      the norm (mean) is spiritual emptiness.
    
    						Tony
      

    Re: .87
    
    Andrew, truly an unfortunate thing! When I read your note I found the
    Spirit leading me to prayer.
    
    Thanks
    
    Peter

Right on , Peter.

>      This catechism stuff, even if full of wonderful content, is not
>      the sole qualifier of a church.  A church is a body that is
>      responsible for cultivating an atmosphere where, as Paul said,
>      we are epistles with the word of God grafted in our hearts.
    
    Amen, Tony!!!  Sometimes I wonder if the RCC's problem with apathy is
    because it is a priestly religion instead of a religion of the people. 
    The layman doesn't grow spiritually without application.
    
    Mike

    Re: .88

    Tony, I'm not John but I would like to reply to some of what you said.
    
    > Thats what I saw and it hurt real bad.

    First, I feel very badly about your hurt This should not happen when
    someone goes into any Christian church. I pray that Jesus will heal
    your hurt, if he has not already!


    > I can't totally explain it, but I basically saw spiritual emptiness.
    > Lights were out and no one was home.

    Can you accept that this has not been my experience with the Catholic
    church I attended and may not be the experience of other Christian 
    Catholic noters in this conference.

    Just some general thoughts on the rest of your reply.

	- Have you encountered the same spiritual emptiness in any
	  Protestant church you have been in?
	- I have experienced some spiritual emptiness in the church
	  that I have been attending recently. Not the church as a
	  whole but certainly in individuals. Should I make general
	  statements about a particular Protestant denomination or
          this local church based on my observation of spiritual
 	  emptiness of individuals?
	- Tony you may have not done that specifically, that is
	  make generalizations, but I believe others have in other
	  replies.
	- Ok here's my point or what I'm wondering about. Is this
	  "perceived" spiritual emptiness specific to a denomination
	  or is it more general? Is the lack of Christian spirituality,
	  something that is in all denominations and is there because
	  we live in a world that would love to do away with God, 
	  Jesus, Christianity and all that we hold dear?
	- Are we fighting each other while the enemy laughs? We
	  should be fighting our common enemy. I believe C.S.
	  Lewis talks about this in his book _The_Screwtape_Letters.
	  I'll have to look it up, if I'm wrong someone could let
	  me know.

    Peter

    P.S. This is getting pretty far off from the basenote, but I'll go
         along with it.    

"The church is not a museum for saints, it is a hospital for sinners."

I understand, Peter.  I'm with you.  Certainly there are plenty of protestant
churches which are spiritually dead, of any denomination or flavor.  And
there are certainly Catholics who are alive in the Lord.

I've thought of it before in terms of batting averages.  There's no such
thing as a church or denomination which succeeds in bringing every single
member to a deep and personal relationship with the Lord.  And there's also
some Christians with a deep personal relationship in nearly every body and
denomination.

The question I ask is, what is a church [denomination|doctrine|form]'s
'batting average' in bringing people to a positive relationship with Christ? 
By asking the question that way, I get away from condemning any church/
denomination as 'wrong,' while still being able to recognize that it might
not be doing the best job it could/should of bringing people into
relationship with Christ.  Even the slugger hitting .350 (in baseball)
strikes out some times, even the pitcher hitting .150 may hit a home run. 
But without saying the pitcher is wrong or useless, it's safe to say that the
person batting .350 is overall doing a better job of batting than the one
batting .150.

And without making any attempt at guessing at real numbers, I think it is
safe to say that the Catholic church has a low batting average. Yes, there
are certainly catholic Christians who are alive in their faith. But much of
the form of catholicism, which CAN be and often is (not saying it HAS TO be
or is intended to be) focused more on complying with certain forms, and which
has a large mental distinction between the priests/monks/nuns who are deeply
committed and the rest of the body who doesn't have to be so committed, can
leave people thinking they are pushing all the right buttons without having
any kind of real relationship with Christ.

There are certainly other denominations which do poorly, for different
reasons.  Just as an example, a more pentecostal denomination can get people
whipped up into emotions and having an emotional 'experience' with the Lord,
which never translates into any actual actions or into a changed life.  In
the same way that people in a form-based church (Catholics being one) can
think they're close to the Lord because they are following the form, people
in an experience-based church can think they're close to the Lord because
they are having emotional experiences.  People in a Bible-based church can
think they are close to the Lord because they've memorized a lot of
scripture.  But if it doesn't translate to a real relationship with Jesus,
and then as a result to real actions and a changed life, then in baseball
terms, it's an out.

Anyway, looking at things that way helps me avoid blanket "wrong" sorts of
statements about other churches, while still being able to seek the 'better'
(more reliable?  more effective?) ways to present the Lord to people.

Paul

Well, a low batting average might have a lot to do with what our Lord
himself said about the road being narrow.

/john

    Or it might have to do with the pitches.
    

      Hi Peter,
    
        I agree with you perhaps 99%.
    
        I also agree much with Paul.  I kind of think the batting
        average can be on the low side.
    
        But, I also believe my denomination has a low batting
        average too and will one day commit the abomination of
        desolation.
    
        I am an equal oppurtunity critiquer I suppose.
    
        And by the way, I'm pretty pathetic myself!  The extent to
        which I do not appropriate the grace of God, if I saw clearly,
        would probably cause me to lose my mind.
    
    						Tony

And, By the way.....

Baptismal snarf

    At my church, which is Catholic, we average about 90% attendance.
    
    How many of those that attend are truly close to Jesus? Honestly,
    probably a small percentage. But I've always looked at it this way;
    those that are coming are there hoping and knowing that Jesus is
    the right way. They may be lukewarm but at least their not ice cold!
    
    Terri

 Revelation 3:



 15  I know thy works, that thou art neither cold nor hot: I would thou wert 
cold or hot. 

 16  So then because thou art lukewarm, and neither cold nor hot, I will spue 
thee out of my mouth. 

    re: .102....Your absolutely right. But my point was there may be 
    hope that the lukewarm may become on fire before its too late.
    
    

I think the difficulty with 'lukewarm,' is that it's much LESS likely to
become 'on fire' than cold is.  If you don't know God and you know it, you're
more likely to try to find out than if you don't know God but think you know
enough about Him to get by.

It's like getting a vaccination.  You get a mild dose of the 'disease,' which
does you no real 'harm,' but which prevents you from getting the real thing.
A vaccination with a mild dose of Christianity, which doesn't really change a
person's life but makes them think they already have all there is to receive
so they are 'immune' to the life-changing call of Christ, is probably worse
than no Christianity at all.

Paul

>Well, a low batting average might have a lot to do with what our Lord
>himself said about the road being narrow.
    
    then again, it might not.  Jesus Christ addressed many things that
    could cure the ills of most of today's churches and they don't seem to
    heed His Word.
    
    Mike

      Hi Mike,
    
        Thanks!
    
      Hi Paul,
    
        I understood where you were coming from right away!  Thanks!
    
    						Tony

Mike,

RE: .17
>Water baptism has always been preceded by belief,
>    repentance, and salvation - just as God's Word declares.

> For further proof, examine the Biblical model of belief, repentance,
>    and salvation preceding baptism.

> Acts 2:37-41 - those who believed were saved and then baptized.  Greek
                   says "because of forgiveness of sins."

RE: .30
>Finally, a ray of hope.  Check the Greek for Acts 2:38.  It says
>    "because of the forgiveness of sins" not "for the."  Sin is a spiritual
>    problem solved by Christ, not water.

I'm a little confused, and maybe I missed something in the long string, however
in .17 you said there is a biblical model of Belief, REPENTANCE and salvation, 
followed by baptism. 

Yet in the end of .17 and again in .30 you say the bible teaches salvation
comes before repentance, ie "Repent and be baptized BECAUSE OF THE FORGIVNESS
OF SINS."  

What am I missing here?  

SOrry this is a little late, but I've been studying repentance as there are 
some things in my life I need to repent of (so what's new ;-) and after a brief
study of Hebrews became convicted that repentance is an "elementary truth of 
God" (end of Hebrews 5 and beginning of Hebrews 6) and I needed to study it 
diligently to figure it out so I could go on to "solid food," and I came across
this verse and started thinking about this and got confused.  Any help would be 
greatly appreciated.
 
In his Love,

Peter

      In a sense, repentance IS salvation.  When one first has faith,
      one has allowed some of the principle of agape in the heart.
      This implies at least the beginnings of a change of mind; of
      living a new life and of dying to the old.
    
      Jesus' work of making right hearts is the work of producing
      repentance.
    
    						Tony

    Peter, what Tony said...  It's mostly a simultaneous process, but you
    can't repent without believing, and you can't be saved without
    repenting.  Baptism is an outward sign to seal the covenant of a
    pre-existing relationship.  The notion that baptism saves you is not in
    God's Word.
    
    Mike

Peter 1,

RE: .55

>    My feelings on this are as follows;
>        - I was baptized as an infant at my parents request in the
>          Roman Catholic Church.
>        - I believe that my parents hoped and desired for me to come
>          to know Christ fully as I grew and matured.
>        - That is in fact what has occurred. I declared my faith and
>          committment to Christ in the sacrament of confirmation.
>        - I continued to grow and serve Jesus to the best of my human
>          abilities in a Roman Catholic church until a couple of years
>          ago.
>        - I feel that at this point to be baptized again would be a
>          denial/negation of all of the above.

I've prayed and thought about this response for a while now, and one of my
weaknesses is that I can come across with little emotion or tone of love in
my communication, so I ask you up front to forgive me if this is the case and
let me know so I can continue to work on it.  I guess being an engineer has
it's drawbacks, being technical and matter of fact, during communication, but
"...my power is made perfect in weakness."

Let me also say that I feel for you because I had to go through the same thing
you are going through (I was born, baptised, and raised a catholic) as I 
started studying the Bible.

Fortunately for me, looking back on my decisions, I was raised in the catholic
church when the "Fear of the Lord" was a GOOD thing.  I went to 12 years of
catholic school and that was emphasied during my youth so it made a HUGE
impression on me. What also made an impression on me was that the Bible was to
be, for lack of a better term, revered, although I was never encouraged to
study it on my own.  But it was instilled in me that I needed to live my life
by the Bible.  And to the best of my biblical knowledge, I was living by the 
Bible.

As I began to study the Bible I came to the exact point you are at now.  Some
of the Scriptures that helped me were (and a paraphrase):

2 Timothy 3:16,17 - The whole Bible came from God's mouth.
Luke 14:25-33 - Need to love Jesus much more than anyone else and count the cost
	        of that commitment.
Psalm 119 - The entire Psalm on how much we need to love and live the BIBLE.

But the question I needed to answer, and ultimately the question you're
struggling with now, is "What's the difference between my infant baptism and 
the New Covenant baptism into Jesus Christ, if any?"

TO help me answer this question, I looked to answer the the following questions:

1) Who did Jesus' disciples baptise, under Jesus' supervision, in John 4:1-2?

2) Who did Jesus command the apostles to baptise in Matt 28:18,19?

3) Through what did Paul say the Colossians were raised in their baptism in
Colossians 2:12? 

4) What did Peter command the people to do before being baptised into the name
of Jesus in Acts 2:37,38?

5) What did Jesus say came before baptism in Mark 16:16?

I would reccomend before studying these Scriptures that you read/pray through
Psalm 119 and ask God for discernment in your study and the continued heart to
humble yourself before God and tremble before his word (Isaiah 40 somewhere?). 

After I had studied this out and had a conviction of what the Bible teaches
about baptism, I went to my parish priest and asked him why the catholic church
teaches and practices infant baptism.  I would recomend you do the same and
after you do this I will be no less than thrilled to share with you my
experience.  I wouldn't be inclined to beforehand so as not to put my priest's
slant on your visit.  If you would like me to share with you my visit
beforehand and my thoughts on it, I certainly wouldn't deny you my input.
  
But the important thing is Study, Study, and Study. As Wayne has pointed out 
previously, the Bereans of Acts 17 were commended as noble because they 
accepted the word eagerly and studied the Scriptures DAILY to see if what they
were taught was true.

I would also add that I spent a number of nights on my knees and in tears
praying to God about a decision.  

	"During the days of Jesus' life on earth, he offered up prayers and
	 petitions with loud cries and tears to the one who could save him
	 from death and he was heard because of his reverent submission."

				Hebrews 5:7
                                                          

I'll be praying for you.

In his Love,

Peter2 (who is in on Saturday and won't be back until Wednesday)

    Re: .104

    Paul, I would kind-of disagree with this.

    > It's like getting a vaccination.  You get a mild dose of the 'disease,'
    > which does you no real 'harm,' but which prevents you from getting the
    > real thing. A vaccination with a mild dose of Christianity, which 
    > doesn't really change a person's life but makes them think they already
    > have all there is to receive so they are 'immune' to the life-changing
    > call of Christ, is probably worse than no Christianity at all.

    Here's my thoughts. I'm going to divide Catholics into several groups,
    I probably should'nt, but I'm going to try and illustrate something.
    Keep in mind this is just and illustration and also just MHO.

    First we have the fully alive (in Christ) Catholic Christians, these
    we may all agree are probably ok.

    Second we have people who are 'cradle' Catholics that maybe lukewarm
    or questioning. Many in this group leave the Catholic church. Many in
    this group come to know Christ fully in a Protestant church. I know
    people in this group and I'm sure they would tell you that they in fact
    learned something in the Catholic church. 

    Third we have those people in the Catholic church that 'just go through
    the motions'. These are people who may not want to know Christ in a
    personal way. I submit that you will find these types in just about
    any church you walk into. I'll also submit that no matter what you
    teach them or HOW, they don't want to change. Are they unreachable?
    I don't think anyone is! Are they saved? Not mine to answer. Should
    we try and help them ABSOLUTELY.

    Ok let's look at the second group in light of having no Christianity
    at all. I think that they in fact learned something about Christ, 
    if nothing more than that he exists. Many maybe sitting around thinking,
    "there has to be a better way". If they are saying that then they have
    learned something about Christ and within the Catholic Church! Where would
    they be if they did not at least have that! Just to note, I'm not saying
    that they have to find a better way somewhere else. I believe they can
    find Christ right where they are, in the Catholic church!

    Now for the third group. If they are in fact in this group then wether
    they have Christianity at all or not may not matter, or, maybe it does.
    I now of people, in my own family, that were cold to Christ. They are
    now 'lukewarm Catholics'. I pray that some day they will be fully alive
    in Christ. I believe that they will because I, and others, pray for it.

    Where would these people be if they had had no Christianity in there
    lives. I don't think they would be in a relationship with Christ, I
    don't think they would be moving to a be 'lukewarm Catholic' and
    hopefully to a full relationship with Christ.

    IMHO

    Peter1

        Re: groups within Catholicism

>    First we have the fully alive (in Christ) Catholic Christians, these
>    we may all agree are probably ok.

    I know they exist.  Spiritually speaking, it is a strange mixture.  
    It baffles me how someone can think they can reconcile God's Word with 
    the teachings of the hierarchy.  I have some friends who fall under this 
    category, but not as many as I use to.  I've found that sooner or later 
    God leads them to a place where they can no longer support the hierarchy 
    and leave.

>    Second we have people who are 'cradle' Catholics that maybe lukewarm
>    or questioning. Many in this group leave the Catholic church. Many in
>    this group come to know Christ fully in a Protestant church. I know
>    people in this group and I'm sure they would tell you that they in fact
>    learned something in the Catholic church. 

    One of my best friends is a Calvary Chapel pastor in a nearby town. 
    He's an ex-Catholic from Ohio.  From his experiences and sharing with
    others, the one thing they learn is that they desire to know God on a
    more intimate level that isn't being satisfied in Catholicism.

>    Third we have those people in the Catholic church that 'just go through
>    the motions'. These are people who may not want to know Christ in a
>    personal way. I submit that you will find these types in just about
>    any church you walk into. I'll also submit that no matter what you
>    teach them or HOW, they don't want to change. Are they unreachable?
>    I don't think anyone is! Are they saved? Not mine to answer. Should
>    we try and help them ABSOLUTELY.

    no matter what the denomination, God's Word clearly outlines the
    knowledge, assurance, and joy of salvation.  We can know where we stand
    as well as where others stand on the foundation of God's Word.

    When it comes to relations/discussions between Catholics and Evangelicals, 
    the saying "so close but yet so far" is incredibly accurate.  The
    reasons are many.  The most basic differences appear to be based on the
    foundation of God's Word, Catholics referring to themselves as Catholics 
    and not Christians, Protestants refusing to forget or downplay thru
    revisionist history the Reformation and the Christian martyrs, and
    highly respected people like Dave Hunt, James G. McCarthy, and all the 
    ex-priests and ex-nuns at Mission to Catholics International publishing 
    scholarly, irrefutable evidence against Catholicism.

    Mike

    Re: .112
    
    Mike, Mission to Catholics International. Is that the organization that
    Bart Brewer started. He wrote _Pilgrimage_From_Rome.
    
    Peter

    .113
    
    Have you read Pilgrimage from Rome?

    Re: .112
    
    Mike,
    
    > When it comes to relations/discussions between Catholics and
    > Evangelicals, the saying "so close but yet so far" is incredibly accurate. 
    > The reasons are many.  The most basic differences appear to be based on
    > the foundation of God's Word, Catholics referring to themselves as
    > Catholics and not Christians, Protestants refusing to forget or downplay
    > thru revisionist history the Reformation and the Christian martyrs, and
    > highly respected people like Dave Hunt, James G. McCarthy, and all the 
    > ex-priests and ex-nuns at Mission to Catholics International publishing 
    > scholarly, irrefutable evidence against Catholicism.
    
    Huh? What are you trying to say here?
    
    Peter

    Re: .112
    
    Mike, you seem to be saying to me that no one can find or know Christ
    in the Catholic church. I that correct?
    
    Peter

    Re: .114
    
    Nancy, I have read parts of it. I have not read all of it. I'm not
    sure I want to, but I suppose I should. What I have read turns my
    stomack (SP?).
    
    Peter

>    Mike, Mission to Catholics International. Is that the organization that
>    Bart Brewer started. He wrote _Pilgrimage_From_Rome.
    
    Peter, I don't know if he started it, but I have lots of material from
    them and he's written some of it.
    
    Mike

|    > When it comes to relations/discussions between Catholics and
|    > Evangelicals, the saying "so close but yet so far" is incredibly accurate. 
    
    |    Huh? What are you trying to say here?
    
    same as I said above.  Our differences are diametrically opposed.
    
    Mike

>    Mike, you seem to be saying to me that no one can find or know Christ
>    in the Catholic church. I that correct?
    
    Peter, I didn't mean to imply that, but you can find Christ in any
    church.  The problem is "Jesus Who?"  Is he the long-awaited Messiah of 
    God's Word, God incarnate, the King of Kings, the Atoning Lamb of God? 
    
    Or Satan's brother, a result of God having sex with Mary?  just another 
    good teacher?  a baby in a mother's arms?  a spirit consciousness?  Michael
    the Archangel?  just another god?  someone who requires you to pray to
    his mother?  someone who indwells inanimate objects?  someone to is
    still hanging on a cross?  someone who promised us to wealth and
    health?  an expert in psycho-spiritual babble stressing self-esteem,
    self-worth, and the inner child?
    
    Mike

    I've read portions of it and must admit it turned my stomach too, but
    probably for different reasons. :-(  It is very Biblically based and if
    the catholic doctrine isn't misrepresented would cause anyone of that
    faith to question their church's leadership.
    
    Mike,  I believe that the Catholic church teaches the Jesus of the son
    of God, as you and I believe him to be.  Your note could be interpreted
    that you don't or question it.  This is one area in which I believe
    that we are in complete agreement with our Catholic believers.
    
    

                            LETTER TO NEW PARENTS
              
              Your child is born. What joy you must feel! The
              moment you held the infant in your arms you may
              have wondered: "What will our child become?

              In some way, the answer depends on you, for the
              child is yours.

                         Who ls This ChiId of Yours?
              
              By baptizing your child, you decide that your baby
              will be a Christian, a member of Christ's body, the
              Church. You could not choose anything more precious.
              
              By baptizing your child you recognize your child is
              a child of God, with a lifelong mission prepared
              for her or him. You put your dear one in God's
              hands in this sacrament and commit your child to
              the loving care of Jesus Christ, God's Son.
              
              Your child is our child too. As you gather family,
              friends and neighbors to celebrate this new life,
              you invite others to help your child on life's
              journey. "The village raises the child," says an
              old African maxim. At baptism you introduce your
              child to the wider human family.
              
              Your child is also a child of earth. Sun and moon,
              sky and sea welcome this child of yours. At baptism
              you hold your little one and say: "Child of God,
              human child, live peacefully on this planet of
              ours."

                        Teaching Your Child God's Ways

              Learn the wonderful mystery that takes place when
              your child is baptized from the signs and words of
              the sacrament itself. It has a simple, quiet
              language all its own.

              During the baptismal ceremony, for example, you
              carry your child, you speak its name, you listen,
              answer, and pray for your little one. In your role
              as parents you will do these things again and
              again, initiating your child into the ways of human
              life.

              As parents you are your child's first teachers of
              faith. You will bring your child to church; from
              you your son or daughter will learn day by day to
              hear the word of God, to pray, and to love God and
              neighbor. Can anyone better than you teach your
              child how to love the world God created? To trust
              in the goodness of life? To feel loved and wanted?

              Commit yourselves, with God's grace, to this holy
              task as your child is baptized.

              Godparents stand beside you during baptism as a
              sign that this great work is not yours alone. Other
              faithful Christians will also teach, pray for, and
              be models for your child. In choosing godparents,
              therefore, the Church asks you to choose people of
              faith.

              The whole Christian community, represented during
              the ceremony by the celebrant, promises to offer
              your son or daughter its powerful support.

                     The Sign of the Cross, the Readings
                               and the Prayers

              Following the initial greeting, you sign your
              child's forehead with the Sign of the Cross, an
              ancient Christian gesture that designates your
              child a follower of Jesus Christ.

              God's word in Scripture is then read, in which you
              will hear Jesus encouraging you in your responsi-
              bilities. The readings are followed by prayers for
              your child, for families, and for the Church. The
              saints, especially your child's patron saint, are
              asked to intercede for you.

              Then the celebrant of baptism, relying on the power
              of Jesus, prays that your child may be free from
              the power of evil and made a holy temple of God.

                            At the Baptismal Font

              Carrying your child, you then go to where the
              baptism will take place.

              The sacraments bring those who believe to Jesus
              Christ. By simple signs of water and words, Jesus
              who said, "Let the children come to me," invites
              your child to share the great mysteries of his
              life.

              Jesus once entered the waters of the Jordan and was
              baptized by John. The heavens opened and God
              acknowledged him as his Son. The Spirit rested on
              him and led him on his life's mission.

              Now the water before you is your child's Jordan.
              God the Father calls your little one his own, and
              the Holy Spirit enters your child's life as guide
              and friend.

              Following his baptism, Jesus overcame the Evil One.
              He conquered death on the cross and rose in triumph
              to everlasting life. Your child will experience
              these mysteries too, and Christ will offer your
              child, as a member of his body, the Church, his
              way, his truth, and his life.

                           The Profession of Faith
              
              Faith alone sees into these great mysteries. So as
              you come to the baptismal font you make a profession
              of faith and vow to fight against the Evil One. The
              credal statements you respond to are a form of the
              Apostles' Creed, the ancient Christian summary of
              faith. All the great Christian mysteries are
              contained in it:
              
               - the creation of the world by God;
               - the mission of Jesus his Son;
               - the mysteries of redemption and life that he works
                 through the Spirit.
              
              This is the substance of the faith you are to
              communicate to your child and the faith that
              enables you to understand the mystery of baptism
              you celebrate.

                             Baptizing with Water
              
              Standing by the water, with faith as your guide,
              you are called to the moment of creation when the
              Spirit of God hovered over the dark waters of chaos
              and brought forth creation, beautiful, ordered, and
              full of divine energy, as the Book of Genesis
              poetically recalls.
              
              Your child, immersed in the baptismal waters,
              shares the blessing given by the Spirit to all
              creation.

              However dark or chaotic this world becomes, the
              Spirit will bring peace and light to your son or
              daughter.

              Immersed in the baptismal waters, your child shares
              in the victory won by the Israelites when they were
              freed from the slavery of Egypt and brought to
              freedom through the waters of the Red Sea. Like
              them God will bring your child to share a promised
              reward.

              The baptismal waters, too, are a sign of the water
              that flowed from Christ's side as he hung on the
              Cross. They are a sign of the life Jesus came to
              give us all.

              With the use of water symbolizing these blessings,
              your child is baptized:
              
                "I baptize you in the name of the Father, and of
                 the Son, and of the Holy Spirit."

              Can you see what these great biblical symbols
              instruct you to do for the infant you carry in your
              arms? Help your child be at home in this world.
              Enable your dear one to find God in this created
              world, to trust life no matter how difficult it
              becomes, to believe in the creative power of God
              whose love rules the sun, the moon, and the other
              stars.
              
              Help your child be free from any fear that would
              enslave, any false value or illusion that would
              enchain. Encourage your son or daughter to aim
              high.
              
              Teach your child to know Jesus Christ. Knowing him
              is greater than anything else.

                       The Anointing, the White Garment
                            and the Lighted Candle

              The baptismal ceremony adds other signs that speak
              of the mysterious gift God makes to your child
              through Jesus Christ. Your son or daughter is
              anointed with oil. Like Christ who was anointed
              Priest, Prophet, and King, your child is called to
              worship and proclaim God's truth and is charged
              with caring for life and creation.
              
              A white garment is given for your child to wear, a
              symbol of the dignity and purity that one who
              belongs to Christ possesses.
              
              A candle, lighted from the Easter candle, is
              presented to the child, a sign of enlightenment by
              Christ. Held by the parent or godparent, its light
              is a reminder that Christ will continue to
              enlighten this child who is his own.
              
              How precious in the sight of God is the little
              child you hold in your arms!

                   Concluding Ceremony : The Lord's Prayer
                              and Final Blessing
              
              After the baptism, you will bring your child to the
              altar where all pray the Our Father, the great
              prayer Jesus taught us to say as children of God.
              It is a model for teaching your child how to pray.
              
              Finally the celebrant blesses the mother, the
              father, and then all those participating in the
              baptism. It is a blessing God always extends to
              those who bring new life into the world and care
              for children. Blessed by God you go forth to raise
              a child of God.

    Approved by the National Conference of Catholic Bishops for use in the
    dioceses of the United States of America.

Mike and Tony,
    
    Thanks for the answers, however I'm now more confused than I was when we 
    started, but I want to push through, and I'm confident with your help I
    will.

>.108
>YIELD::BARBIERI                                       9 lines  19-JAN-1996 13:30
>                          -< Salvation = Repentance >-
>
>      In a sense, repentance IS salvation.  


ACTS 17:30-NASB
    30 "Therefore having *overlooked *the times of ignorance, God is *now
        declaring to men that all people everywhere should repent" 

ACTS 2:38-39-NASB 
    38 Peter said to them, "*Repent, and each of you be *baptized in the name of
       Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins; and you will receive the 
       gift of the Holy Spirit. 
    39 "For *the promise is for you and your children and for all who are *far 
        off, as many as the Lord our God will call to Himself." 

    
QUESTION 1) How can the obedience to a command of God, REPENT, be the same as 
      	    the promise of God, HAVING YOUR SINS FORGIVEN?

>.109
>OUTSRC::HEISER "watchman on the wall"                 7 lines  19-JAN-1996 14:20
>
>    Peter, what Tony said...  It's mostly a simultaneous process, but you
>    can't repent without believing, and you can't be saved without
>    repenting.  

>    Mike

    
QUESTION 2) If you can't be saved without repenting, then how can repentance
      	    be the same as salvation?  Maybe it's something simple, but I'm
    	    having a hard time grasping it.
    

Mike you said earlier that "Sin is the Problem" of which Isaiah testifies:

ISAIAH 59:1,2-NASB
    1  "BEHOLD, *the LORD'S hand is not so short That it cannot save; *Nor is 
        His ear so dull That it cannot hear. 
    2  "But your *iniquities have made a separation between you and your God, 
        And your sins have hidden His face from you so that He does *not hear. 

So as sin is the problem, then sin would need to be forgiven before you could 
be saved or they would be simultaneous, ie; you are saved when your sins are
forgiven.  And certainly repenting is a pre-condition of salvation as follows:

ACTS 3:19-NASB
    19 Therefore *repent and return, so that your sins may be wiped away, in 
       order that *times of refreshing may come from the presence of the Lord.

ie, your sins being wiped out follows repenting.

But how does this fit into Acts 2:38;

Acts 2:38
    38 Peter said to them, "*Repent, and each of you be *baptized in the name of
       Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins; and you will receive the 
       gift of the Holy Spirit. 


1) Repent... because your sins HAVE BEEN FORGIVEN?
2) Repent... because your sins WILL BE FORGIVEN?
3) Something else entirely?

    I hope my note isn't to disjointed, but I wanted to get something
    posted before I left for the weekend.
    
    And if we could start by invoking the Wayne PArker Rule, Wayne you're going
    to make C-Note history, and answer with Scriptures first and then go into 
    commentary mode, that would be greatly appreciated.
    
    In His Love,
    
    Peter2, who won't be back until Wednesday.

>    Mike,  I believe that the Catholic church teaches the Jesus of the son
>    of God, as you and I believe him to be.  Your note could be interpreted
>    that you don't or question it.  This is one area in which I believe
>    that we are in complete agreement with our Catholic believers.
    
    Nancy, a lot of cults believe that Jesus is God's son as well.  When it
    comes to the major doctrines in God's Word, evangelicals mostly agree
    on the first 3 below, but are far apart on the last two.
    
    1. Attributes of God
    2. Person of Christ
    3. Nature of Man
    4. Requirements of Atonement
    5. Source of Revelation 

    Re: .120
    
    Mike in regards to the following;
    
    > Or Satan's brother, a result of God having sex with Mary?  just another 
    > good teacher?  a baby in a mother's arms?  a spirit consciousness? 
    > Michaelthe Archangel?  just another god?  someone who requires you to pray
    > to his mother?  someone who indwells inanimate objects?  someone to is
    > still hanging on a cross?  someone who promised us to wealth and
    > health?  an expert in psycho-spiritual babble stressing
    > self-esteem, self-worth, and the inner child?
    
    I'm not sure if you are saying that the Catholic church teaches that
    or not. I don't believe any of it nor does the Catholic church teach
    it. If you would like me to refute any of it I will but it will take
    some time.
    
    Peter
        

    Re: .122
    
    John, I guess this was in part ment for me. Thanks. I believe that
    what that says, was in fact the intent of my parents. I have also
    experienced much of what that says, as I am the Godfather to several
    nieces and nephews, as I have said before.
    
    I am now in the process of doing some serious studing on the issue
    of being baptized again, from both sides. Although it's going to 
    take some time. I have always felt that what the Catholic church
    taught made sense.
    
    For example,
    
    	- If what Garth defends elsewhere in this conference or one of the
    	  old conferences is true, i.e. that babies and children who don't
    	  know Jesus will not go to heaven. Then in my mind the Catholic
    	  position on baptism makes sense.
    	- One of the arguments for them going to heaven is where Jesus says
    	  to allow the children to come to him. I'm not sure of the
    	  reference I'll have to look it up. If it's ok to use this to say
    	  that children go to heaven then I think it's ok to say they can
    	  be baptized.
    
    I'm sure my logic is flawed somewhere. But there are a not of questions
    like this that I feel the Catholic church answers better than others.
    
    Oh well just some thoughts.
    
    Peter

    Re: .121
    
    Nancy, The Catholic church is definitely misrepresented in this book,
    IMHO. I can site specific examples, which I will glady do, but it will
    take time. However I believe that John Covert, Eric Ewanco and several
    other Catholics that are active in this conference have already done
    this. If not directly to quotes from this book, then definitly to
    specific issues raised in it. Much of it is not even original work,
    it's taken from Lorraine Boettner's book _Roman_Catholicism_.
    
    Peter

Hi, Peter.

|    	- If what Garth defends elsewhere in this conference or one of the
|    	  old conferences is true, i.e. that babies and children who don't
|    	  know Jesus will not go to heaven. Then in my mind the Catholic
|    	  position on baptism makes sense.

** Would you (or Garth if he reads this) be so kind as to point to me the
   referenced discussion about the destiny of babies and children?  Thanks.

How are things going regarding your decision?  I must say that I've been
dismayed by the "Catholic-bashing" you've encountered.  I pray that you'll not
lose focus on Christ's work in you that baptism represents, and that if you
decide to not be (re)baptized, the reason won't be because you fear
identification with those who would question the validity of any faith found
in the Catholic church.

I'm also praying that in studying to defend your faith and experience you'll
be encouraged and strengthened.

/Wayne

    Re: .128
    
    Wayne, I'll have to hunt around a little bit for that note. I would
    like to read it again anyway, so I'll let you know.
    
    As for wether the Catholic-bashing that is going no will effect my
    decision, I don't think so. In anycase it will be something I'll
    pray about.
    
    Thanks for the input.
    
    Peter

    Peter, I'm not familiar with the book, but how can an ex-priest 
    misrepresent the RC church?

    Re: .125 
    
    Peter,
    
>    I'm not sure if you are saying that the Catholic church teaches that
>    or not. I don't believe any of it nor does the Catholic church teach
>    it. If you would like me to refute any of it I will but it will take
>    some time.
    
    There was something in that paragraph for most major religions that
    depart from the truths of God's Word.  The RC church may not teach any
    of that, but there is definitely 2 rhetorical questions in there that
    is "practiced" by the RC church.
    
    Mike

      Mike,
    
        I think Wayne might have something there with his comment
    	on Catholic-bashing.  What good is it doing?
    
        Peter, I just hope you are submitted to the Lord, His word,
        and nothing else as you seek to find His will regarding 
    	what baptism is and the conditions upon which a person is
    	baptized.
    
    	You sound every bit to me like a faithful brother in the Lord.
    
    						Take Care,
    
    						Tony

    Tony, what's the difference between bashing and telling the truth?  I
    don't see it as bashing.

    RE: .133                                                            
    
    Hi, Mike.
    
    You addressed your comment to Tony, but I'm the one who expressed
    dismay with "Catholic-bashing."
    
    The difference:  Bashing implies destructive intent, while speaking the
    truth (in love) implies constructive intent.
    
    Peter opened this topic on baptism to gain insight regarding his
    personal situation and decision.  I, for one, thought Peter's testimony
    strongly indicated faith in Jesus Christ.
    
    Attributing the problems you and others have seen in Catholicism to
    Peter's own situation seemed ill-advised.  It certainly wasn't clear to
    me what was intended, especially when Peter clearly showed his faith and
    conduct to significantly differ from what you and others had seen in the
    Roman Catholic church.
    
    Are there major problems to be addressed in the Roman Catholic church?
    Certainly.  But are those problems evident in Peter's personal
    situation?  To me they aren't.  I sensed Peter's deep concern about
    "Believer's Baptism" seeming to negate the process by which he came to
    faith in Jesus Christ, and I attempted to show that expressing God's
    work in his life by being baptized as an adult whose understanding is
    more complete need not invalidate (early) faith unto (mature) faith.
    
    So, I would encourage you to focus on Peter's specific questions and
    understanding.  If you find error there, then speak to Peter in love
    that "the eyes of his understanding might be enlightened; that he might
    know what is the hope of His calling, and what <are> the riches of the
    glory of His inheritance in the saints, and what is the exceeding
    greatness of His power to usward who believe..."
    
    /Wayne
    
    P.S. Since I did not see John Covert respond to Peter's question in
    note 845.73, I wasn't impelled to offer further unsolicited thoughts on
    infant baptism, etc.

      Mike, if I were to see all my sinfulness at once, I believe I
      would be consumed.  Were I to see all my sin, all I would be
      exposed to is truth, correct?
    
      Why did Jesus say to His disciples that there was much He wanted
      to tell them, but they couldn't *bear* it?  Do you think He wanted
      to tell them lies?  It was truth!
    
      We are called to give truth IN SEASON.  We are called to give that
      which a person is spiritually ready to partake of and to withold
      that which a person is not ready to partake of - and which very 
      well could injure a person.  (Just like what Jesus witheld.)
    
      I take bashing as connotating words that cannot uplift a person
      whether the words are true or not.
    
    							Tony

    Re: .130
    
    Mike, is this a rhetorical question? If someone has their own agenda
    why can they not print half truths or out and out lies? Do you think
    that priests can not lie about doctrine of the Catholic church, even
    if they are ex-priests.
    
    Maybe I'm not sure what you are asking.
    
    Peter

Revelation 3:1
    And unto the angel of the church in Sardis write; These things saith he
 that hath the seven Spirits of God, and the seven stars; I know thy works,
 that thou hast a name that thou livest, and art dead.

3:2  Be watchful, and strengthen the things which remain, that are ready to
 die: for I have not found thy works perfect before God.

3:3  Remember therefore how thou hast received and heard, and hold fast, and
 repent. If therefore thou shalt not watch, I will come on thee as a thief, and
 thou shalt not know what hour I will come upon thee.

3:4  Thou hast a few names even in Sardis which have not defiled their
 garments; and they shall walk with me in white: for they are worthy.

3:5  He that overcometh, the same shall be clothed in white raiment; and I will
 not blot out his name out of the book of life, but I will confess his name
 before my Father, and before his angels.

3:6  He that hath an ear, let him hear what the Spirit saith unto the churches.

    RE: .137 & .138
    
    Cryptic depends on your point of view. :-)
    
    Mike is certainly capable of saying what he means and meaning what he
    says.  He now chooses to let the Spirit commend the truth of God's Word
    to the reader.  He is neither impelled to convince anyone about his
    point of view nor to offer more of his opinion.
    
    The ball is in our court.  If we choose to read into Scripture what we
    think Mike means, then we've missed the point.  I think Mike wants us
    to hear what the Holy Spirit says, even if that differs from what he
    might have said.
    
    /Wayne

    Hi Wayne,
    
    Ok after much digging I finaly found the notes by Garth on babies.
    
    They are in CHRISTIAN_V3 notes 19.6 through 19.10. All of note 19
    is dedicated to the issue of wether babies that die go to heaven.
    
    I'm going to spend some time myself wading through that note.
    
    Peter

    Re: .137, .139
    
    Ok Wayne and or Mike I'll run with it. I'll read those passages myself
    and see what the Holy Spirit has to say to me.
    
    I don't see what they have to do with the current discussion but I'm
    game to run with it.
    
    Peter

    I'm confused... how in the world did you come up with this in V3?  I've
    NEVER even opened that file. :-)
    
    /me ever astounded.
    
    

    Re: .142
    
    Nancy, I was systematically looking through all of the CHRISTIAN
    conferences looking at the Who's Who's section. I was trying to
    come up to speed on the various noters in the whole CHRISTIAN
    conference, old versions and all.
    
    A quick way to find all the replies of someone is to use the
    DIRECTORY command.
    
    	DIR/ALL/AUTHOR=<username> <note-range> 
    
    Using this I was able to get a directory of all of Garth's replies
    in the various versions.
    
    Oh well
    
    Peter

    Re: .142
    
    Nancy, probably stuff you already knew or maybe did'nt want to
    know. :-)
    
    Peter

    /me still astounded!  Bravo to you Peter!  Now what kind of dirt did
    you dig up on me?

    Re: .145
    
    Nancy, no dirt whatsoever! :-)
    
    Peter

    RE: .140
    
    Hi, Peter.
    
    Would you be so kind as to specify the pointer to CHRISTIAN_V3?
    
    Thanks.
    
    /Wayne

 ATLANA::CHRISTIAN_V3

 ;-)

Well more or less, except that this is a command you issue inside Notes, not
at DCL level. For example if you wanted to see all the notes Peter wrote
in the topic 845, you could do this: (pretend the dashed line is the line 
between the command area and the output display when you're in Notes) - Leslie
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Notes> dir/all/author=pmccutcheon 845.*
_______________________________________________________________________________
                             The CHRISTIAN Notesfile
Created: 16-FEB-1993 10:04         854 topics         Updated: 25-JAN-1996 15:19
                    -< Joy to the world, the Lord is come! >-
 Topic  Author               Date         Repl  Title
   845   USDEV::PMCCUTCHEON  10-JAN-1996   152  Baptism: John the Baptist's vs 
         USDEV::PMCCUTCHEON  10-JAN-1996  845.4  To clear up some confusion
         USDEV::PMCCUTCHEON  10-JAN-1996  845.9
         USDEV::PMCCUTCHEON  10-JAN-1996  845.12  An observation
         USDEV::PMCCUTCHEON  10-JAN-1996  845.15  More on .3
         USDEV::PMCCUTCHEON  10-JAN-1996  845.19
         USDEV::PMCCUTCHEON  11-JAN-1996  845.25  Scriptural Reference?
         USDEV::PMCCUTCHEON  11-JAN-1996  845.26
         USDEV::PMCCUTCHEON  11-JAN-1996  845.27
More ...

More on specifiying note ids or note ranges:

SPECIFYING_NOTES

  In command formats, the parameter "note-ID" refers to a single topic
  or reply, and "note-range" refers to a range of notes.  Any command
  that accepts a note-ID or note-range can only be used when a conference
  is open.

  To specify notes in a command line, you can use the following notations:

     Notations for Specifying Note-IDs
     ---------------------------------------------------------------------
     Notation        Specification                          Example
     --------------  ----------------------------------     --------------
     . (period)      The current note                       .
     n or n.0        A single topic                         12 or 12.0
     n.r             A single reply to topic n              4.9
     TOPIC           The topic of the current reply         TOPIC
     nnnn or LAST    The last topic in the file             999 or LAST
     .rrrr or .LAST  The last reply to the current topic    .99 or .LAST

     Notations for Specifying Note-Ranges
     ---------------------------------------------------------------------
     Notation        Specification                           Example
     --------------  ----------------------------------      -------------
     n-m             Topics only from n.0 to m.0, inclusive  12-18
     * or ALL        All the topics in the conference        * or ALL
     .* or .ALL      All replies to the current topic        .* or .ALL
     n.* or n.ALL    All replies to topic n                  12.* or 12.ALL
     n1.r1-n2.r2     A range of notes, including all replies 5.2-17.4
     *.* or ALL.ALL  All notes in the conference             *.* or ALL.ALL

                                      NOTE

           A command format that shows a range of notes as a parameter
           also allows a single note-ID as a parameter, but the reverse
           is not true.  A command format that shows a single note as a
           parameter does NOT accept a range of notes.

Hi, Peter.

I have waded through CHRISTIAN_V3 topics 10 and 19 with sadness.

Firstly, I affirm the Scriptural position that we are not sinners because we
sin, but we rather sin because we are sinners.  We are bent to sinning by our
nature.

Secondly, I GREATLY RESPECT AND APPRECIATE Garth Wiebe's heart for the Lord and
his handling of Scripture as "a workman that needeth not to be ashamed, rightly
dividing the word of truth."  I see neither arrogance nor lack of caring, rather
an unflagging devotion to God's Word.

Thirdly, I affirm the following principles submitted by Garth--my comments are
preceded by double asterisks:

================================================================================

1)  The Scriptures are the final authority for telling us of the eternal
destiny of all those who have not been spiritually regenerated and do not have
a living faith in Jesus Christ.  If a person does not speak according to the
Scriptures, it is because they have no light in them (see Isa 8:20, 2 Tim
3:16). 

2)  We must be careful to avoid some non-Christian approaches that are based
only on man's wisdom, rather than God's:

	- A rationalist thinks that his reason or logic can tell him where
	  those who have not heard the gospel go at death.  "I think that...",
	  "It is only logical that...", and "The only intelligent answer is..."
	  are based on man's wisdom.

       ** See point 5 below.  "We demolish arguments and every pretension that
          sets itself up against the knowledge of God, and we take captive
          every thought to make it obedient to Christ. And we will be ready to
          punish every act of disobedience, once our obedience is complete."
          (1Co.10:5&6, NIV)

	- One who is experience-centered will use human experience to provide
	  the answer.  Such person may depend on a "revelation", a story by
	  someone or himself who had a near-death experience while very young,
	  etc.

       ** "For we walk by faith, not by sight." (2Co.5:7, KJV)

	- One who is emotion-centered will trust his own feelings to tell him
	  the truth.  This is the most common problem in the "What happens to
	  the babies?" issue.  A person will say, "I can't believe that God
	  would...", or "I feel that children are...".

       ** See point 5 below.  I must "love the Lord my God with all my heart,
          and with all my soul, and with all my strength, and with all my
          mind; and my neighbor as myself." (Lu.10:27, KJV)  We are (being)
          sanctified wholly.  Truth will be ultimately commended to our whole
          person by the Word and the Spirit.

3)  We must defend God's sovereign will at all costs.  Whatever God does is
just and right, and we must stand on this fact even if we do not completely
understand His reasons.  God is sovereign in His wrath as well as His grace,
and is not unjust or unloving because He throws some into hell.  The Bible
says, "Let God be found true and every man be found a liar" (Roman 3:4).  If
something that God does appears to be unjust, it is because of our lack of
wisdom, not God's.

** Who are we to "defend God's sovereign will?"  God is Sovereign, period.
   What we think will not change who God is!  Speaking of God "the thing that
   is right" is vital (see Jb.42:7&8) and we are called to "sanctify the Lord
   God in our hearts: and be ready always to give an answer to every man that
   asketh you a reason of the hope that is in you, with meekness and fear."
   (1Pe.3:15, KJV)

4)  We must never tone down a biblical doctrine because it offends people.
The gospel alone is offensive to many (1 Cor 1:18-23), and the fact that
people were offended by God's word did not stop Jesus or the inspired apostles
from delivering their message (Matt 15:12-14, Acts 4:19-20, Gal 4:16).

** We must be careful to believe and speak Truth.  To the degree our biblical
   doctrine is true, we must not diminish it.  "Wherefore take unto you the
   whole armour of God, that ye may be able to withstand in the evil day, and
   having done all, to stand." (Ep.6:13, KJV)

5)  We must make up our minds to believe God at His word, and approach a
sensitive issue such as this with an open mind and a humble heart in complete
submission to the authority of God's Word.  "If any man is willing to do His
will, he shall know of the teaching, whether it is of God" (John 1:17)

================================================================================

That said, I submit the following for consideration:

Jesus said "Behold the fowls of the air: for they sow not, neither do they reap,
nor gather into barns; yet your heavenly Father feedeth them. Are ye not much
better than they?" (Mt.6:26, KJV)  "Are not five sparrows sold for two
farthings, and not one of them is forgotten before God? But even the very hairs
of your head are all numbered. Fear not therefore: ye are of more value than
many sparrows." (Lu.12:6&7, KJV)

"Hands that shed innocent blood" are an abomination unto the Lord (see
Pr.6:16-19, KJV).  A study of "innocent blood" is enlightening, particularly
to gain God's perspective on innocence.  David declared God to be "a father
to the fatherless...in His holy habitation." (Ps.68:5, NIV) God is Sovereign
and True, faithful to His Word, not capricious.  He cannot deny Himself.

Academically debating the destiny of babies who die is vain, and I will not
engage in such debate.  Suffice to say that I believe a careful, rigorous
exegesis of Scripture does NOT debar babies from heaven, and I have been
privileged to minister that comforting truth to parents in pain.  And I would
be more than happy to share that truth with any reader struggling with this
issue in the crucible of real life, i.e., those who have actually lost a baby
and have yet to find peace with God.  On the other hand, I would not forbid
those who have found reconciliation in the sovereignty of God alone without
requiring Him to be anything but God.  "Will the one who contends with the
Almighty correct Him? Let him who accuses God answer Him!" (Jb.40:2, NIV)
"Humble yourselves, therefore, under God's mighty hand, that He may lift you up
in due time. Cast all your anxiety on Him because He cares for you."
(1Pe.5:6&7, NIV)

Furthermore, related to this topic, the fear that babies who die are not safe in
God's hands unless we do something to ensure their safety is NOT proper motiva-
tion for baptizing infants.  Baptism must not be seen as "life insurance."

/Wayne

    Re: .147 - .154
    
    Sorry, I was out of work yesterday, Jan-25th, and did not have access.
    So I did not get to answer any of the many questions on VAX Notes
    DIRECTORY and CHRISTIAN_V3 pointer command. Thank you to everyone that
    did answer those questions!
    
    Peter1

I have started a new topic in note 855.*, entitled "The Discipler's Baptism",
in which I share what I now believe to be a fundamentally better way of
approaching the subject of baptism.

    Re: .55
    
>	- I was baptized as an infant at my parents request in the
>	  Roman Catholic Church.
>	- I believe that my parents hoped and desired for me to come
>	  to know Christ fully as I grew and matured.
>	- That is in fact what has occurred. I declared my faith and
>	  committment to Christ in the sacrament of confirmation.
>	- I continued to grow and serve Jesus to the best of my human
>	  abilities in a Roman Catholic church until a couple of years
>	  ago.
>	- I feel that at this point to be baptized again would be a
>	  denial/negation of all of the above.
    
    Peter, if you are saved according to the Biblical model, what does it
    matter if you are baptized again or not?
    
    Mike

    Re: .158
    
    Mike, I'm not sure but I think I answered that, but I'll try and
    answer it again from a different perspective.
    
    Most Christian churches view baptism as a rite of initiation. Do
    you agree with that? I have been a Christian for many years. Why
    should I go through a rite of initiation again? If you refer
    to baptism as just a testimony of faith, then why could I not just
    give a testimony to be part of a local church? This I would be
    happy to give. I don't remember seeing anywhere in the Bible
    where people are baptized more than once, if so let me know.
    Now, some would say that I have not been baptized, that my
    baptism as an infant was not valid. I disagree with this very
    strongly and have given replies as such.
    
    If it comes down to this, either I get baptized again or I am not
    allowed to be a member of this local church, does this smack of
    legalism? I don't know, what do you think?
    
    Peter
    

    I have a question..
    
    Why not?  Do you desire to be a part of this membership?  If you do,
    then why not go ahead with the baptism?
    
    I'm confused as to why this should be such a point of contingency. 
    This church is seeking to do what the new testament church did, baptize
    those who come to know Christ as their savior and "add" them into the
    church.  And based on Garth's current writings [which I tend to agree
    with], you would in fact be making a statement of submission to the
    spiritual authority in this church as well as bonding with the other
    members.
    
    If you do not see it this way, then move on.  Don't get baptized and
    that's the end of the subject.  You certainly don't have to be baptized
    to be saved.
    
    I don't mean to sound curt, but honestly, it's pretty straight forward
    to me.  If you choose not to, you are essentially saying that you
    choose to not submit to the authority in this church and therefore, why
    continue going to a church where you are at odds with the leadership's
    teaching?

    P.S.
    
    At what point did you become a Christian?

>    Now, some would say that I have not been baptized, that my
>    baptism as an infant was not valid. I disagree with this very
>    strongly and have given replies as such.
    
    Peter, could you point me to these replies?  I would consider it
    Biblical only if you were saved beforehand.  As Nancy said, when were
    you saved?
    
>    If it comes down to this, either I get baptized again or I am not
>    allowed to be a member of this local church, does this smack of
>    legalism? I don't know, what do you think?
    
    Yes this is legalism.  Personally, I would avoid any church with
    beliefs like this.  The Bible doesn't teach this or any other
    requirement for church membership.
    
    Mike

re .160

> And based on Garth's current writings [which I tend to agree
> with], you would in fact be making a statement of submission to the
> spiritual authority in this church as well as bonding with the other
> members.
    
Eric Ewanco asks:

  So should one get baptized in each new church one joins?

/john

Peter,

I went through something a little similar. When I was in college, several
of my believing friends who had become believers later, but had been
baptized as infants were going to be baptized and there was some urging
for me to be baptized again also. But I had grown up in faith, knowing
God & Jesus in the same way one knows when parents.  There was no 
yesterday-I-was-lost,-today-I-am-saved experience for me. While it doesn't 
give me a dramatic story to tell, its been wonderful to always know my Lord 
and to have learned and grown in faith since infancy. Many people don't 
consider this legitimate, and think there must always be some decision
point, some time you can point to and say on this date I was saved. I chose
not to be re-baptized at that time because I felt very strongly that there 
was no need for any other baptism than what I'd received as an infant. I think
I felt a little bit like you - it would be negation of the baptism I'd 
already received as an infant. So I can understand your feelings about this. 
The difference for me was that I wasn't in a position of desiring, but being 
denied membership in a church because of this issue.

Years later, though, I did undergo immersion. It still was't that I thought
the baptism I'd received as infant wasn't valid or sufficient. I think it 
was. But I wanted the experience of being immersed, I wanted to be able to 
feel the water close over my head, and then come up while thinking, this is 
what Yeshua did for me, He washed me clean, with Him I was buried and then 
received new life. I wanted that experience and came to the conclusion that 
I would not be denying or undoing the relationship I've had with God ever 
since I can remember or what my parents did for me in having me baptized and 
teaching me about God. So I did it, and it was a very powerful experience. 
I was able to state some of the things I find most wonderful in this world 
before being immersed as a witness of my faith, though I think my whole life 
should be a witness, and not just special acts like this.  Again, though, it 
wasn't in order to be able to join a particular congregation or church. The 
place I am going now practices immersion of adults and children who choose to 
be immersed, not infant baptism, and if you've never been baptized, you must
be immersed in order to become a member.  However, they are not adament 
about someone like you or me who was baptized as infant having to be immersed
in order to join.

This is a decision you will have to make for yourself. I pray the Lord will
give you wisdom concerning your choice. My suggestion is to write down on a
piece of paper the issues before you, and then to pray concerning them.
A couple of things to consider might be: what would be the impact if you 
simply continue attending this church but are unable to become a member - what
will you be missing by not being a member, what will you be prevented from 
giving to the congregation by not being a member? how would you feel during
the actual baptism? If you're feeling reluctant right now, perhaps waiting,
postponing your decision might be the thing to do for a little while.

I pray for God's blessing on your decision making and on your decision.

Leslie

    That's nice John, what would you ask?

    Re: .160
    
    > If you do not see it this way, then move on.  Don't get baptized and
    > that's the end of the subject.  You certainly don't have to be baptized
    > to be saved.
    
    Nancy, your right.
    
    Peter
    
    P.S. I can not give you an exact time when I was "saved".

    Re: .162
    
    Mike, between what you and Nancy have written I have had some thoughts
    confirmed. I know what my direction is going to be.
    
    Peter

    Re: .163
    
    Thank you Eric/John I was going to ask the same question.
    
    Peter

    Re: .164
    
    Leslie, thank you for your reply it does actually minister to me and
    I respect the decisions that you made at the various times in your
    life regarding this issue.
    
    Peter

    Should baptism be done away with all together?

Hi, Peter.

I offered the following counsel in note .18:

| I challenge those who refuse to be baptized because they "need not" to examine
| the real reason for their refusal.  With/to whom are you making a point?  I
| submit that baptism can be offered as a sacrifice of the will to God in
| publicly confessing His work in you.

| I would say that those who were baptized as children by their parents' will
| and who can confess by faith that past act of baptism as indeed expressing
| God's work in themselves now need not be baptized again.

| I encourage those thinking about baptism to be baptized with gratitude for the
| salvation being effected by God in your life.  Examine baptism as a means of
| personal expression rather than <meeting> others' expectation.

In note .60 I encouraged you to look into the perfect law of liberty (Ro.14;
1Co.9:19-27; and Ja.1:22-25).  Does a particular church's requirement that you
be (re)baptized in order to become a member of that church smack of legalism?
Most certainly!  But no more so than another church which holds that physical
baptism is required in order to be saved!

I believe you are free to let yourself be baptized again in order to confess
your faith in Jesus Christ and to express your understanding of and cooperation
with God's work in your life so that believers in your new fellowship can "see."
Consider what you feel might be lost or gained.  If you really do not feel free
to be baptized again, then I would encourage you to clearly identify what now
constrains you before moving on.

/Wayne

P.S.  I developed the above reply before seeing Leslie's excellent contribution
in note .164.  I would answer NO! to Eric Ewanco's question posed by John
Covert in note .163.  The real question is when does the church stop bringing
believers to the water.  I would shun any church that would require (re)baptism
to supercede the understanding articulated by Leslie in her 2nd paragraph.

RE: .128 (| Wayne) & .167 (> Peter)

| I pray that you'll not lose focus on Christ's work in you that baptism
| represents, and that if you decide to not be (re)baptized, the reason won't be
| because you fear identification with those who would question the validity of
| any faith found in the Catholic church.

| I'm also praying that in studying to defend your faith and experience you'll
| be encouraged and strengthened.
    
>   Mike, between what you and Nancy have written I have had some thoughts
>   confirmed. I know what my direction is going to be.

** What is your direction, Peter?  Should I have prayed, or should I be praying,
   differently?  Have you actually discussed your understanding versus the
   requirement with the pastor of the church under consideration?

RE: .170  Is baptism not commanded?  Rather than doing away with baptism, "let
          us lay aside every weight, and the sin which doth so easily beset us,
          and let us run with patience the race that is set before us, Looking
          unto Jesus the author and finisher of our faith; who for the joy that
          was set before Him endured the cross, despising the shame, and is set
          down at the right hand of the throne of God. For consider Him that
          endured such contradiction of sinners against Himself, lest ye be
          wearied and faint in your minds. Ye have not yet resisted unto blood,
          striving against sin." (He.12:1b-4, KJV)

    >    P.S. I can not give you an exact time when I was "saved".
    
    Peter, out of curiousity, how do you know you are saved?  I remember
    mine well and have it marked on my calendar as my spiritual birthday.
    
    thanks,
    Mike

>             <<< Note 845.163 by COVERT::COVERT "John R. Covert" >>>
>Eric Ewanco asks:
>
>  So should one get baptized in each new church one joins?
    
    What do you think, John?  
    
    I don't know if this was a sarcastic question or not, but tell Eric that 
    there is no Biblical precedence for this.  Baptism by immersion is only
    necessary once in a Biblical environment.
    
    Mike

re Nancy:

>    Should baptism be done away with all together?

Do you think so?  (I don't.)

But if you want to start with this one, what other specific commandments that
Jesus gave us should be done away with all together as well?

re Mike:

I've already answered that question, in the words of the Apostles' Creed,
a document which I believe is consistent with and has equal authority
with scripture: "I believe in one baptism for the remission of sins."

/john

      Peter,
    
        Are some of us driving you away?  (Or at least haveing that
        tendency?)
    
        I'm sorry!
    
        Be filled with the peace of Christ, my friend.
    
    						Take Care and God Bless,
    
    						Tony

re Peter:
    
>    I can not give you an exact time when I was "saved".

Sure you can.  You were saved when Jesus died on the cross.

/john

>I've already answered that question, in the words of the Apostles' Creed,
>a document which I believe is consistent with and has equal authority
>with scripture: "I believe in one baptism for the remission of sins."
    
    What BCV grants creeds to have the same characteristics of scripture?
    
    thanks,
    Mike

    >Sure you can.  You were saved when Jesus died on the cross.
    
    WRONG.  There is no BCV to support this.  This clearly contradicts the 
    redemption theme throughout the entire New Testament.  Christ paved the 
    way for salvation - it still has to be accepted by every individual.  
    
    Mike

>    
>    What BCV grants creeds to have the same characteristics of scripture?
>    

	2 Thess 2:15.

In any case, both the Apostles' Creed and Nicene Creed have been repeatedly
proven by scripture.

/john

>>Sure you can.  You were saved when Jesus died on the cross.
>    
>    WRONG.  There is no BCV to support this.

	1 Th 5:9-10

>it still has to be accepted by every individual.

Agreed.  But the _when_you_were_saved_ is when Christ died on the cross.

You do not save yourself; Christ saves you, and he did that on the cross,
once and for all.  That salvation is made effective in you by grace, and
that grace is a free gift you receive, not something receive because you
do something.  Yet again, there are things Christ has instituted, such
as Baptism and the Holy Eucharist, which are means of grace.

/john

>	2 Thess 2:15.
    
2:15  Therefore, brethren, stand fast, and hold the traditions which ye have
 been taught, whether by word, or our epistle.
    
    I don't see the word creed anywhere here.  You also continually
    misinterpret the Greek for this verse.
    
>In any case, both the Apostles' Creed and Nicene Creed have been repeatedly
>proven by scripture.
    
    You mean they repeat the truths already established in God's Word.  An
    unnecessary duplication of effort.
    
    Mike

>	1 Th 5:9-10
    
5:9  For God hath not appointed us to wrath, but to obtain salvation by our
 Lord Jesus Christ,
5:10  Who died for us, that, whether we wake or sleep, we should live together
 with him.
    
    Neither does this say we were saved when Christ died.  I have a
    suggestion for you from Proverbs:

30:5  Every word of God is pure: he is a shield unto them that put their trust
 in him.
30:6  Add thou not unto his words, lest he reprove thee, and thou be found a
 liar.

>Agreed.  But the _when_you_were_saved_ is when Christ died on the cross.
    
    You haven't shown that from scripture yet.

    Mike

      There is an individual here who opened this topic and I am
      *concerned*!
    
      Some of this dialogue seems to me to be a classic case of
      pointing out a few trees and missing the forest.
    
      We need to be edifying Peter, a brother in Christ and while
      doctrine is extremely important (and I'm sure you all know 
      how I feel about that!) is a doctrinal discourse the real
      thrust of this topic?
    
      Its really ministering to Peter.
    
      Pete, cats out of the bag for me I'm afraid.  You know I only
      believe baptism by immersion as an outward response to faith
      is the only scriptural mode.
    
      But, given that, Rahab *lied* when she hid the spies and she
      is set forth as an example of faith, albeit imperfect faith.
    
      I think you're going to be OK.  You seem to be one that desires
      to set his eyes on Jesus.  Just keep doing that and you'll be
      *fine*.  Regardless of what your choice is, I think you'll be
      OK as long as your eyes are fixed on Jesus.
    
      None of us see very clearly right now.  We look through a glass
      dimly as it were.  There is plenty of ignorance I am up to that
      God is winking at. (Thank God.)
    
      I really suggest that in the quiet of your prayer closet, you
      kneel before God and petition His will.  Remove everyone else's
      will, most especially your own.  I suspect He will implant in
      your heart a conviction.
    
    						Take Care,
    
    						Tony

>    You mean they repeat the truths already established in God's Word.  An
>    unnecessary duplication of effort.

Oh.  Then shut all the churches, close down this conference, forbid all
commentaries and sermons and discussion.

/john

>5:9  For God hath not appointed us to wrath, but to obtain salvation by our
> Lord Jesus Christ,
>5:10  Who died for us, that, whether we wake or sleep, we should live together
> with him.
>    
>    Neither does this say we were saved when Christ died.

Taken together with the rest of the Gospel it most certainly does.  Christ's
death on the Cross is the Act which effected our Redemption.

Christ's death on the Cross is the Objective Redemption.  He did that once,
and by doing that, then and there, once and for all, saved all those who
later accept God's grace.

Please cut out the snide Scripture quotations; using God's word to admonish
me for offenses you believe I have committed, especially when you are wrong,
is rather blasphemous.

/john

Why do I feel like I've said this before?...

Mike and John, could you take your discussion, which has long since dropped
below the 'edifying' level and now seems to be passing through the
'bickering' level on its way down, to offline mail?

Thank you.

Paul

Very nice, Tony.  Thank you.

Paul

>>    Neither does this say we were saved when Christ died.
>
>Taken together with the rest of the Gospel it most certainly does.  Christ's
>death on the Cross is the Act which effected our Redemption.
>
>Christ's death on the Cross is the Objective Redemption.  He did that once,
>and by doing that, then and there, once and for all, saved all those who
>later accept God's grace.
    
    This I can agree with as explained in the Bible.  Christ's death paved
    the way for redemption.  We still have to accept Him in our hearts to
    be saved.
    
>Please cut out the snide Scripture quotations; using God's word to admonish
>me for offenses you believe I have committed, especially when you are wrong,
>is rather blasphemous.
    
    Not everything is as you perceive it to be.  I'm trying to encourage
    you to base your dogmas on the foundation and authority of the Bible
    per the conference guidelines.
    
    Mike

>I'm trying to encourage you to base your dogmas on the foundation and
>authority of the Bible per the conference guidelines.

They are.  Just because you don't agree with the orthodox interpretation of
the Bible doesn't mean that you should be using the Bible as a weapon to
falsely accuse me.

/john

    Re: .161, .172
    
    "I am redeemed by the blood of Christ, I trust in him alone for my
    salvation, and, as the Bible teaches, I am `working out my salvation
    in fear and trembling' (Phil.2:12), knowing that it is God's gift of
    grace that is working in me."
    
    This is the way it's been for as long as I can remember. If you wish
    to question my salvation then go ahead. I know what is in my heart
    and so does the Lord!
    
    Goodbye
    
    Peter

    For me the experience of being born again was a really wonderful
    event.  But the idea of *always* being with the Lord.  Now that 
    sounds just as nice if not nicer.  
    
    Jill2

 Amen!

re .190, and those leading to it...

I cannot remember the date I accepted the LORD.  Not that it is unimportant
- it was the most important event of my life, bar none. It's just that I'm
not good at numbers, or remembering dates at all.  But I know that I _am_
saved, and that it is not dependent on anyone else validating it, because
the LORD has sealed His promise in my heart, as per Ephesians 1:13-14.

Before then, I was quite young, and while I accepted the truth of the 
gospel, according to my understanding, had not come to the point of 
applying a decision personally.  When the LORD nudged me into realising 
that I *hadn't* made a specific commitment, it was unthinkable that I 
should resist Him, and the step seemed natural, yet momentous.

Now had I been taught differently, or even had I been younger, I might have
seen that personal encounter with the LORD differently, yet I would have
been aware that it was a significant stage in my walk.   I believe that as
we study to know the LORD, His revelation through the Word can teach us to
understand where we are, and how to use where we are in new ways and new
dimensions of wonder. 

Don't get me wrong - there is no way to the LORD but through the cross of 
Jesus, experienced by the individual in a specific response to the LORD's 
call, rejecting man's natural fallen state, and accepting the LORD's 
authority.  As I understand it, Peter maintains that this is where he 
stands, though he cannot put a date on a decision.  Now in personal 
conversation together, you may wish to understand more, but it is dangerous 
to expect this medium to communicate where expression reaches its limits.

I value Peter's input here, and hope that we can continue to be of mutual 
benefit!

						in Jesus' love
								Andrew