Baptism

[Justified Saint]

How can some maintain that baptism is nothing more than a public showing of one's faith to his or her church/congregation when a baptism happens in complete privacy in the Bible like with the eunuch in Acts?

Why do some continue to downplay the significance of baptism and give it unbiblical purposes?

[the lumberjack]

where did John baptize?

where was Jesus baptized?

[Laudate_Dominum]

[quote name='the lumberjack' date='Apr 6 2004, 01:03 AM'] where did John baptize?

where was Jesus baptized? [/quote]
the Jordan River!! Woohoo! Do I win anything.

sup lumberjack!

[the lumberjack]

WHAT UP MY INSOMNIATIC BROTHER!

you DO WIN SOMETHING!

3000 lbs of HOT STEAMY CABBAGE!!!!

WOO FRIKKIDDY WHOOOOO!!!!

hahaha

wait...ok, the judges will give it to you this time...but the correct answer was:

[b]The "not-so-private" Jordan River.[/b]

just give your cabbage 2-3 weeks for delivery.

[Laudate_Dominum]

[quote name='the lumberjack' date='Apr 6 2004, 02:13 AM'] WHAT UP MY INSOMNIATIC BROTHER!

you DO WIN SOMETHING!

3000 lbs of HOT STEAMY CABBAGE!!!!

WOO FRIKKIDDY WHOOOOO!!!!

hahaha   

wait...ok, the judges will give it to you this time...but the correct answer was:

[b]The "not-so-private" Jordan River.[/b] 

just give your cabbage 2-3 weeks for delivery.  [/quote]
:rotfl:

its good to see you bro.. sleepy time 4 me.

its bed time at the apollo..

[Justified Saint]

That seems to be the pattern of Protestant thought lumberjack, deharmonize scripture and simply ignore what doesn't fit with their theology. But we must continue to ask, how can baptism be [b]only[/b] a public showing of one's faith if there are examples of private baptism in the Bible? I strongly suspect we won't be seeing an answer to that.

Edited April 6, 2004 by Justified Saint

[the lumberjack]

and all of the sudden, the question changes before your very eyes.
...

like a Chia Pet.

I'll be back later with an update.

[Justified Saint]

No, question hasn't changed at all, you just naturally assumed there was some sort of conflict between the Catholic position and Jesus being baptized in the Jordan River. Notice my original phraseology, "how can some maintain that baptism is [b]nothing more than[/b]..."

[Justified Saint]

I shall be looking forward to your update.

[Justified Saint]

Bump

[Brother Adam]

Hehe. good for you.

[mulls]

[quote name='Justified Saint' date='Apr 5 2004, 10:32 PM'] How can some maintain that baptism is nothing more than a public showing of one's faith to his or her church/congregation when a baptism happens in complete privacy in the Bible like with the eunuch in Acts?

Why do some continue to downplay the significance of baptism and give it unbiblical purposes? [/quote]
how do you know there weren't witnesses?




the eunuch didn't get baptized "into" anything, like a church or congregation like your question states. that's not the way it works.



"As they traveled along the road, they came to some water and the eunuch said, "Look, here is water. Why shouldn't I be baptized?"

Acts 9:36


Phillip explained to the eunuch about Jesus. If baptism was necessary as the Catholic church believes it to be necessary, why wouldn't [b]Phillip[/b] tell the eunuch that he needed to be baptized, that he couldnt be "saved" without it, instead of the eunuch himself requesting that he be baptized?

[Justified Saint]

[quote]how do you know there weren't witnesses?[/quote]

Well, we can certainly speculate - there may have been witnesses. It must have been relatively private though, it doesn't mention anything of being in front of a congregation of believers so that he may show his faith, afterall they are traveling on a road in between cities. Also, it does say that they [b]both[/b] went down to the water suggesting that it was probably just the two of them. Nothing in the context implies that there were others around, at least no groups or crowds of believers - again they are traveling and in a chariot at that.


[quote]the eunuch didn't get baptized "into" anything, like a church or congregation like your question states. that's not the way it works.[/quote]

And when did I say it did work like that? It is the Protestant contention that baptism is to show one's faith to their community of believers and nothing more. Notice that once they come upon some water the eunuch asks to be baptized. Why the rush? What is the hurry especially when people are supposed to get baptized infront of their churches (as the Protestant would say at least) ? What good is the "sign" and "symbolisim" of baptism if it isn't being "showed" to anyone?

[quote]Acts 9:36[/quote]

It is actually Acts chapter 8

[quote]Phillip explained to the eunuch about Jesus. If baptism was necessary as the Catholic church believes it to be necessary, why wouldn't Phillip tell the eunuch that he needed to be baptized, that he couldnt be "saved" without it, instead of the eunuch himself requesting that he be baptized? [/quote]

Just eariler the eunuch was reading something from Isaiah that he didn't understand and then he heard and learned about who Jesus was - how could he even know what baptism was if Phillip didn't tell him???

Also again, once they come upon some water the eunuch immediately asked to be baptized.

[Crusader_4]

this was the exact issue i left my protestant routes it was the concept that got the ball moving towards CAtholicsm. I think there is a verse in i believe 1 Peter where it compares the saving ability of Baptism to that of Noahs Ark.

[mulls]

[quote]Well, we can certainly speculate - there may have been witnesses. It must have been relatively private though, it doesn't mention anything of being in front of a congregation of believers so that he may show his faith, afterall they are traveling on a road in between cities. Also, it does say that they both went down to the water suggesting that it was probably just the two of them. Nothing in the context implies that there were others around, at least no groups or crowds of believers - again they are traveling and in a chariot at that. [/quote]


fair enough.



[quote]And when did I say it did work like that? It is the Protestant contention that baptism is to show one's faith to their community of believers and nothing more. Notice that once they come upon some water the eunuch asks to be baptized. Why the rush? What is the hurry especially when people are supposed to get baptized infront of their churches (as the Protestant would say at least) ? What good is the "sign" and "symbolisim" of baptism if it isn't being "showed" to anyone? [/quote]


i never heard that i was supposed to be baptized in front of my church. you are implying that. maybe from experience with other protestants, that's the way they do things....but thats not biblical and thats not the standard for everyone.


the "sign" was seen by phillip. the eunuch is a new believer.....he doesn't have a church yet! why should he wait just to meet other believers, when there's one right in his presence, to be obedient to what Jesus says?


[quote]It is actually Acts chapter 8[/quote]


yup, ma bad.


[quote]Just eariler the eunuch was reading something from Isaiah that he didn't understand and then he heard and learned about who Jesus was - how could he even know what baptism was if Phillip didn't tell him???[/quote]


exactly. this is why it would make more sense if phillip urged the eunuch to be baptized, rather than the other way around. do you think when he told him the good news about Jesus, he said that believing is not enough, but you have to be baptized to literally have you sins washed away? if so, it might have followed that phillip would be the one to emphasize the baptism.


[quote]Also again, once they come upon some water the eunuch immediately asked to be baptized. [/quote]

precisely.

[Dave]

In the New Testament we learn that under the Old Covenant people were circumcised, but under the New Covenant, circumcision was replaced by baptism, which, it says, NOW SAVES US.

[RandomProddy]

[quote name='Brother Adam' date='Apr 8 2004, 05:34 PM'] Hehe. good for you. [/quote]
Noooooooo....!

Brother Adam, I just realized I don't know many Baptists (I'm Anglican).

What is the Baptists take on it?

[the lumberjack]

[quote name='Dave' date='Apr 8 2004, 11:50 PM'] In the New Testament we learn that under the Old Covenant people were circumcised, but under the New Covenant, circumcision was replaced by baptism, which, it says, NOW SAVES US. [/quote]
if its a physical work that saves you, and thereby justifies you, and in doing so, also sanctifies you...

then why did Christ come to fulfill the law so we would not be bound by its rituals, traditions, and scrutiny?

and didn't Paul rebuke PETER, THE ROCK (yes, emphasis added), James and John about telling new converts that they shouldn't be circumcised? that only faith could save them?

like...ALL of Galatians 2:
[quote]1 Then fourteen years after I went up again to Jerusalem with Barnabas, and took Titus with me also.

2 And I went up by revelation, and communicated unto them that gospel which I preach among the Gentiles, but privately to them which were of reputation, lest by any means I should run, or had run, in vain.

3 But neither Titus, who was with me, being a Greek, was compelled to be circumcised:

4 And that because of false brethren unawares brought in, who came in privily to spy out our liberty which we have in Christ Jesus, that they might bring us into bondage:

5 To whom we gave place by subjection, no, not for an hour; that the truth of the gospel might continue with you.

6 But of these who seemed to be somewhat, (whatsoever they were, it maketh no matter to me: God accepteth no man's person:) for they who seemed to be somewhat in conference added nothing to me:

7 But contrariwise, when they saw that the gospel of the uncircumcision was committed unto me, [i]as the gospel of the circumcision was unto Peter;[/i]

8 [b][i][u](For he that wrought effectually in Peter to the apostleship of the circumcision, the same was mighty in me toward the Gentiles:)[/u][/i][/b]******

9 And when James, Cephas, and John, [b][i][u]who seemed to be pillars,[/u][/i][/b]***** perceived the grace that was given unto me, they gave to me and Barnabas the right hands of fellowship; that we should go unto the heathen, and they unto the circumcision.

10 Only they would that we should remember the poor; the same which I also was forward to do.

11 But when Peter was come to Antioch, [b]I withstood him to the face, because he was to be blamed.[/b]

12 For before that certain came from James, he did eat with the Gentiles: but when they were come, he withdrew and separated himself, fearing them which were of the circumcision.

13 And the other Jews dissembled likewise with him; insomuch that Barnabas also was carried away with their dissimulation.

14 [b]But when I saw that they walked not uprightly according to the truth of the gospel, I said unto Peter before them all, If thou, being a Jew, livest after the manner of Gentiles, and not as do the Jews, why compellest thou the Gentiles to live as do the Jews?[/b]

15 We who are Jews by nature, and not sinners of the Gentiles,

16 [b][i]Knowing that a man is not justified by the works of the law, but by the faith of Jesus Christ, even we have believed in Jesus Christ, that we might be justified by the faith of Christ, and not by the works of the law: for by the [I]works[/i] of the law shall no flesh be justified.[/I][/b]

17 But if, while we seek to be justified by Christ, we ourselves also are found sinners, is therefore Christ the minister of sin? God forbid.

18 For if I build again the things which I destroyed, I make myself a transgressor.

19 For I through the law am dead to the law, that I might live unto God.

20 I am crucified with Christ: nevertheless I live; yet not I, but Christ liveth in me: and the life which I now live in the flesh I live by the faith of the Son of God, who loved me, and gave himself for me.

21 I do not frustrate the grace of God: for if righteousness come by the law, then Christ is dead in vain.[/quote]




Galatians 5
[quote]2 Behold, I Paul say unto you, that if ye be circumcised, Christ shall profit you nothing.

3 For I testify again to every man that is circumcised, that he is a debtor to do the whole law.

4 Christ is become of no effect unto you, whosoever of you are justified by the law; ye are fallen from grace.

5 For we through the Spirit wait for the hope of righteousness by faith.

6 For in Jesus Christ neither circumcision availeth any thing, nor uncircumcision; but faith which worketh by love.[/quote]

Romans 2: 25-29

[quote]25 For circumcision verily profiteth, if thou keep the law: but if thou be a breaker of the law, thy circumcision is made uncircumcision.

26 Therefore if the uncircumcision keep the righteousness of the law, shall not his uncircumcision be counted for circumcision?

27 And shall not uncircumcision which is by nature, if it fulfill the law, judge thee, who by the letter and circumcision dost transgress the law?

28 For he is not a Jew, which is one outwardly; neither is that circumcision, which is outward in the flesh:

29 But he is a Jew, which is one inwardly; and circumcision is that of the heart, in the spirit, and not in the letter; whose praise is not of men, but of God.[/quote]

and pretty much ALL of chapter 3, but I'll post some good ones that deal with SOLA FIDE too.

21 But now the righteousness of God without the law is manifested, being witnessed by the law and the prophets;

22 Even the righteousness of God which is by faith of Jesus Christ unto all and upon all them that believe: for there is no difference:

23 For all have sinned, and come short of the glory of God;

24 Being justified freely by his grace through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus:

[quote]25 Whom God hath set forth to be a propitiation through [b]faith in his blood[/b], to declare his righteousness for the remission of sins that are past, through the forbearance of God;

26 To declare, I say, at this time his righteousness: that he might be just, and the justifier of him which believeth in Jesus.

27 Where is boasting then? It is excluded. By what law? of works? Nay: but by the law of faith.

28 Therefore we conclude that a man is [u][b]justified by faith without the deeds of the law.[/b][/u]

29 Is he the God of the Jews only? is he not also of the Gentiles? Yes, of the Gentiles also:

30 Seeing it is one God, which shall justify the circumcision by faith, and uncircumcision through faith.[/quote]

*****---SEEMED to be pillars? if the Catholic Church is built upon peter as the rock and the Catholic church gave us the bible, why would they allow such a DIRECT attack on peter?...thats for another topic though.

******---isn't Paul saying that it was PETER's ministry to speak to the JEWS, who are ALWAYS referred to as "those of the circumcision", and it was PAUL'S ministry to speak to the GENTILES...which would be...just about everyone here....unless that catholic jew is here.

oh and I've underlined and/or bolded and/or italicized anything else that might help in pointing out SOLA FIDE and any other "prostestant" points we're trying to make.

God bless.

[Livin_the_MASS]

[quote name='the lumberjack' date='Apr 9 2004, 05:09 AM']if its a physical work that saves you, and thereby justifies you, and in doing so, also sanctifies you...

then why did Christ come to fulfill the law so we would not be bound by its rituals, traditions, and scrutiny?

and didn't Paul rebuke PETER, THE ROCK (yes, emphasis added), James and John about telling new converts that they shouldn't be circumcised?  that only faith could save them?

like...ALL of Galatians 2:





Galatians 5


Romans 2: 25-29



and pretty much ALL of chapter 3, but I'll post some good ones that deal with SOLA FIDE too.

21 But now the righteousness of God without the law is manifested, being witnessed by the law and the prophets;

22 Even the righteousness of God which is by faith of Jesus Christ unto all and upon all them that believe: for there is no difference:

23 For all have sinned, and come short of the glory of God;

24 Being justified freely by his grace through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus:



*****---SEEMED to be pillars?  if the Catholic Church is built upon peter as the rock and the Catholic church gave us the bible, why would they allow such a DIRECT attack on peter?...thats for another topic though.

******---isn't Paul saying that it was PETER's ministry to speak to the JEWS, who are ALWAYS referred to as "those of the circumcision", and it was PAUL'S ministry to speak to the GENTILES...which would be...just about everyone here....unless that catholic jew is here.

oh and I've underlined and/or bolded and/or italicized anything else that might help in pointing out SOLA FIDE and any other "prostestant" points we're trying to make.

God bless.[/quote]
LJ,

Why do you think Jesus said in Jn 14:15 "if you love me, keep my commandments"
Mt 19:16-17 "if wish to enter into life, keep commandments"
Jam 2:24 "a man is justified by works and not by faith alone"

It's not a free ticket. Thats what we need the Holy Eucharist for, because that is were God and man unite and He gives us the strenght to carry out our daily duties and virtues. "It is no longer I that lives, but Christ who lives within me." St Paul wrote. God is working through us.

All in all it is God's Divine Mercy that we will be at the beatific vision. But He also gave us a responsiblity to follow His commandments.

Rom 2:5-8 "God will repay each man according to his works"
Col 3:24-25 "knowing that you will receive from the Lord the due payment of the inheritance; be slaves of the Lord Christ. For the wrongdoer will receive recompense for the wrong he committed, and there is no partiality."

Dave is correct in his statement that Baptism replaces circumcision.

Scripture does not contradict Scripture. Many books but One Book. Many authors but One Divine Author the Holy Spirit. Scripture does not argue with Scripture?

God Bless
Jason

[yiannii]

aren't we supposed to have died and risen again with jesus in baptisim? i'm sure i read something like that in the bible.