JFJ Forums

Finally - the discussion turns back to "The Early Church"!

Sugarman, the Church Fathers were not in agreement on everything but they were on baptism.  Of all of the ECF writings on baptism, all describe it as regenerative.  NONE describe it as symbolic.  This is completely consistent with scripture.  It was, and still is, viewed as an instrument of God's Grace - NEVER as a work.  Nowhere in scripture or in the ECF writings, or writings prior to the reformation do we see infants denied baptism.  For those called by God as adults, baptism follows evidence of faith BUT IS STILL seen as an instrument of God's grace.  "Symbolic" baptism WAS NEVER handed down by the Apostles, else we would have evidence of it's existence prior to the Reformation.  Still waiting for someone to produce such evidence.

So your actually saying "NO... you dont have to repent to be saved"???

DUDE!!!!
I have heard of WRONG but ....WOW!

I am sorry, Ripley, but here we MUST draw the LINE!!!!
If your saying that repentance is a "work" and thus not nessisary for salvation, then you are of the Spirit of Anti-christ... plain and simple.

Sugar, are you too on this boat?
What say you?





[/quote]


Stead fast where did ripley ever say we do not have to repent?

what do you think it means to trust in to have faith IN?

Can someone have faith or trust in jesus without repenting NO!

To trust in jesus means you trust in Him for your salvation, your forgiveness of sins.

is repenting a work I would not call it a work of man because it God who draws us and open One heart to be able to believe and confess.

A sinner can not  I repeat draw himself to God or make his spirit alive on his own merit.

Steadfast~

1) Can you READ? Seriously. Can you?

Faith comes FIRST. How? We are re-birthed/born again of the Spirit. BOOM - SAVED! It is a gift from God. THEN comes repentance (turning around from our old ways), confession, baptism, communion, obedience in all things Godly.

You cannot have/do/desire ANY OF THESE without the scales being removed from your spiritual eyes, your heart being circumcized, you being made a new creation IN CHRIST JESUS. Before being reborn, we don't even KNOW that we need to repent, much less want to.

You are NOT your Redeemer. You are NOT your co-Redeemer. He, YHWH Salvation, Yeshua HaMashiach, the Eternal Son, alone is.

You don't re-birth yourself...you don't even know when, or where, the Wind/Pneuma/Spirit/Breath blows...you only know AFTER THE FACT, when you EXPERIENCE THE EFFECTS. BOOM - SAVED! Eyes open/heart circumcised: "OH, GOD! I AM A SINNER! I REPENT! LORD, FORGIVE ME!"

2) I'm mot a "dude", I am a "dudette".

did you read post 111? I think you should.

Then ask your self  if some of these people knew The apostles, why they did add extra commands for baptism not given by the  apostles but solely on the Fathers?

Yes Sugarman I did read the post.  I also read scripture.

The Apostolic Fathers did not “add extra commands”.  They proclaimed what was authoritatively passed down to them ENTIRELY consistent with scripture.

We can start off from what Jesus commissioned the Apostles to do:  “Go and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit.  Teach them to observe what I have commanded you” (Mt 28:19).  The Great Commission doesn’t get any simpler than this.  Make disciples through preaching, baptism, and obedience. How are we “made disciples”?  By receiving God’s call through hearing the Good News, AND by being baptized AND by obedience.

What happens immediately after Pentecost?  Peter begins to preach the Good News.  How do the people respond? “What are we to DO?” The authoritative, Apostolic response from Peter:

“Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins, and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost. For the promise is unto you, AND to your CHILDREN, and to all that are afar off, [even] as many as the Lord our God shall call.”

Scripture gives us the account of the very first post-Pentecostal conversions. Peter and the Apostles are carrying out the Great Commission: preach and baptize.  Hear the Good News (the Lord Calls by his grace), repent (our response to God’s grace), be baptized (more grace), be forgiven (more grace), and receive the Holy Spirit (more grace).  Grace upon grace upon grace upon grace.  What part of this is “symbolic”?

Now you can go ahead and start re-interpreting scripture to fit your subset of Protestant tradition.  This is where the ECFs come in.  When you are done twisting scripture, please provide ANY, I repeat ANY, pre-reformation evidence that ANYONE in the pre-reformation Body of Christ held that baptism was “symbolic”, that it was not regenerative, that it did not cleanse one from sin, or that it should be denied an infant.

Wk are you in Denial?


Did The apostles say wait and pray and fast?

did The apostles delay baptism?

Did The apostles taught only someone who was in religious rank  can baptism someone?


Did The apostles teach One can have the holy spirit by laying of hands before baptism  but yet not be born again until baptism?

Is paul condemn to spiritual death he murder  and put christians in jail?

look what  Tertullian AD 200


"...there are sins too ruinous, and too serious to receive pardon. Such are murder, idolatry, fraud, denial of Christ, blasphemy, and of course adultery and fornication...Christ will no more intercede for those: he who has been born of God will never commit them: if he has committed them he will not be a son of God."


is any Sin to big for God?  


it just makes me wonder what else they are wrong about baptism.


Also to add about acts 2:38 I reply to you in debate about baptism.

Sugarman – you need to use some bit of discernment when you read things on the internet.  Who is the author and why should I trust him?

All I can see is that this is yet another “sola-scriptura” opinion.  The author has taken his interpretation of scripture and assumed that since it differs from the Early Church, that the ECFs must have been wrong.  Read the ECFs for yourself (www.earlychristianwritings.com) .  You will see that the author is “cherry picking” and taking out of context quotes from the ECFs.  I can’t even find the quotation you’ve provided in all of Tertullian’s writings.  Where did you get this stuff from????

The delay in baptism was to ensure that adults coming into the faith properly understood and accepted the Good News.  The Great commission was to make disciples by “teaching to observe” AND “baptizing”.  The Apostles were concerned with true on-going and lasting conversion, not “altar calls” and “sinner’s prayers”.  They were commanded by Jesus to “Teach them to observe what I have commanded you” (Mt 28:19).  So yes, I’m sure the Apostles also urged the soon-to-be baptized to both fast and pray.

So you wonder “what else they [the Early Church Fathers] are wrong about baptism”?  Read their writings for yourself and find out.

So no Sugarman, I’m not in “Denial”.  The only real denial here is denying God’s grace in baptism and denying these graces to infants because of a subset of Protestant tradition.  Denying truth by suggesting the Bride of Christ was wrong about baptism for 1500 years until a small subset of Protestants “discovered truth”.

Wk I'm not the one twisting scripture.


Because all church fathers agree on something does not make it true.

I can  names things all Protestant  believe and are agreement but does it make it true because they agree OR because what they believe  is show in scripture in clear view.


To to this about infant  baptism your argument is sense a  household is baptism It means babies are to.

The Thing is if you care to look in scripture in acts about The jailer peter spoke The word to all others in The house.


I doubt peter would preach to a baby because remember it says he spoke to ALL. Even if  there was a baby it clear The apostles always spoke the word to ANYONE before baptism.


Just to add infant baptism did not arrive until The apostles died out. It came more practice during second century

Sugarman it would appear that you are the one who is in denial:

- “Because all church fathers agree on something does not make it true”.  No it does not, but it provides VERY STRONG evidence that this is what was passed down by the Apostles.  Further VERY STRONG evidence is that NO ONE writes anything to oppose these teachings.  If infant baptism is so wrong and if baptism is “symbolic” rather than regenerative, can you offer an explanation as to why there are NO pre-Reformation writings supporting your Protestant tradition or why there are NO writings opposing what the ECFs taught?

You have absolutely NO evidence that infant baptism started after the Apostles died out.  Scripture certainly doesn’t make this claim so where are you getting your story?  You were taught this to comply with Protestant tradition. Your analogy about Peter speaking to households is grasping to the point of absurdity.

My argument on infant baptism is not based solely on “entire households” being baptized.  It is based on several other truths:
1) Circumcision was an ante-type to baptism.  Infants were circumcised on the 8th day.  Jews would naturally see baptism as appropriate for members of their covenant family, for their “entire households”.
2) Nowhere in scripture is anyone EVER denied the graces of baptism because of age
3) Baptism is a gift of God’s abundant Grace.  We do not have to earn it.  Infants born into a Christian family should not be denied this grace until the parent or some pastor deems them worthy.
4) Salvation through water was never denied Israel’s children.  Read scripture and tell me where God saved only those of his chosen people who were old enough to profess faith in him.
5) Salvation is also for infants, not just for those old enough to profess their faith (Lk 18:15)
6) Even many of the early Protestants accepted infant baptism. Luther saw it as analogous to circumcision.
7) The Westminster Confession of Faith (which I believe Presbyterians hold to (or at least used to)), says that “infants of one or both believing parents are to be baptized.” (Ch 28 article 4), and that “it be a great sin to contemn or neglect this ordinance” (Ch 28, article 5)

I could go on but I’m sure it will fall on deaf ears.  Perhaps others reading this thread will be more open to the truth and won’t feel the need to be put in the difficult position of judging whether their children are worthy of God’s grace.

Wk lets say all the fathers agree baptism is also require for salvation but  again it does not make it true.


Like I said I  can name things all protestants believe that are in agreements with but why is it true? because there no disagreement with it or Because scripture says it?


he delay in baptism was to ensure that adults coming into the faith properly understood and accepted the Good News.  The Great commission was to make disciples by “teaching to observe” AND “baptizing”.  The Apostles were concerned with true on-going and lasting conversion, not “altar calls” and “sinner’s prayers”.  They were commanded by Jesus to “Teach them to observe what I have commanded you” (Mt 28:19).  So yes, I’m sure the Apostles also urged the soon-to-be baptized to both fast and pray.


The Thing Is WK The apostles baptism a person right after confession they did not make them wait and make them learn then baptism.

You have The apostolic tradition backwards.

The apostles always baptism a person right after confession.  They never once said you need to pray and fast before we baptism you.

They did Not hold to baptism preparation as the fathers  teach.

The apostles baptism a person right away. So it not pray and fast and learn The word then baptism But confession follow baptism and bring that person up into the word.