Mike wrote:
If one is able to pick apples off an apple tree, does that imply that one cannot help but pick apples? I can see that ability allows. I fail to see how it necessitates.

It doesn't say "might come to me" or "maybe will come to me", it says "SHALL come to me".

Michael Hranek wrote:
derek
Did you mean to say salvation precedes baptism?
Acts 10:44-48
44 While Peter yet spake these words, the Holy Ghost fell on all them which heard the word.
45 And they of the circumcision which believed were astonished, as many as came with Peter, because that on the Gentiles also was poured out the gift of the Holy Ghost.
46 For they heard them speak with tongues, and magnify God. Then answered Peter,
47 Can any man forbid water, that these should not be baptized, which have received the Holy Ghost as well as we?
48 And he commanded them to be baptized in the name of the Lord. Then prayed they him to tarry certain days.
btw Somehow I just do not believe that the Holy Ghost fell upon any infants present to where they spoke in tongues and I do not believe Peter commanded any infants there to be baptized, just believers.

wrote:
and Scripture is clear that Baptism procedes salvation.

Weapon of Mass Instruction wrote:
So what do you subscribe? A hard-to-get believism?

He didn't preach a God loves you and has a wonderful plan for your life to the scribes and pharisees, he preached repentance. He preached the love of the Father to his disciples, those that were his.

jago wrote:
Does anyone know the history or reason why most protestant and baptist churches do not use wine and unleavened bread for communion. Surely this was what Jesus was using when He instigated the sacrament.

We use the fruit of the vine, pure grape juice because it pictures the sinless blood of Christ which was shed for the sins of His people.

Fermentation is a type of sin in the bible and by using fermented wine during the ordinance of the Lord's Supper it is a blasphemy against the sinless nature of God the Son.

jago wrote:
A second query: Why do many Baptist churches allow children (often quite young and with no profession of faith or baptism) to partake at the communion service. I have been told it is because they are members of the visible church.

Care to deal with the passage from Calvin I posted?

R. K. Borill wrote:
Bring it on.
2 Cor. 10:4-5

John Calvin wrote:
"But whether the person being baptized should be wholly immersed, and whether thrice or once, whether he should only be sprinkled with poured water — these details are of no importance, but ought to be optional to churches according to the diversity of countries. *** Yet the word “baptize” means to immerse, and it is clear that the rite of immersion was observed in the ancient church.***"

Paedo Baptist wrote:
Your doctrine on baptism has developed since 1521, and coincidentally along with this, has travelled your covenant doctrines.

John Calvin wrote:
"But whether the person being baptized should be wholly immersed, and whether thrice or once, whether he should only be sprinkled with poured water — these details are of no importance, but ought to be optional to churches according to the diversity of countries. *** Yet the word “baptize” means to immerse, and it is clear that the rite of immersion was observed in the ancient church.***"

derek wrote:
jago
The amount of water is important because of the symbolism attached.
In the Old Testament, in the simplest form, all of the sacrifices were symbolic of the coming sacrifice; but they were to be strictly followed.
Baptism is symbolic of the death, BURIAL, and ressurection of that new believer. When we are buried, they don't sprinkle dirt on a dead body to bury it; they drop it in a hole and push all of the dirt back in. They are immersed (meaning there is dirt above them, under them, and all around them) in the grave. Really, the same symbolism is in the Baptism of the Holy Spirit. He is above us, under us, all around us - immersed.

JD wrote:
There is NO covenant of grace in the Holy Scriptures.

What do you call an unconditional covenant?

God made an unconditional covenant with Adam and Eve in Gen. 3:15. The covenant God made Abraham was an unconditional covenant pertaining to the seed by which the coming Messiah would proceed.

JD wrote:
No one hads said Abraham was a Jew. Where did you get that out of the blue?

JD wrote:
Satan is a master of misinformation and I believe your words are his!
Very Confused:
You are rejecting my argument feom the passages I am dealing with. At least deal with those passages and tell me how I am misrepresnting them. Then we will deal with your argument.
Are you too confused to know how to debate?
I am out for the day!

I also find it interesting that Noah found grace and he was not a Jew.

Thanks for the link. I saved it to read the entire discourse.

I did take particular note of the text, Acts 10:47. In context, it gives us a clear picture of who the subjects for baptism were.

(Act 10:44-48) "While Peter yet spake these words, the Holy Ghost fell ***on all them which heard the word. ***45. And they of the circumcision which believed were astonished, as many as came with Peter, because that on the Gentiles also was poured out the gift of the Holy Ghost. 46. For they heard them speak with tongues, and magnify God. Then answered Peter, 47. Can any man forbid water, that these should not be baptized, *** which have received the Holy Ghost as well as we? *** 48. And he commanded them to be baptized in the name of the Lord. Then prayed they him to tarry certain days."

R. K. Borill wrote:
Terry,
I will use you as a means to respond to others opposed to sprinkling as the proper mode of baptism. "Immersion" is found no where in scripture although they will argue that the word "baptizo" means to immerse from the Greek. If that were the case why do the translators use a transliterated word rather than "immerse". On the other hand the word "sprinkle" or "pour" are used through out the OT and NT. For example:

jago wrote:
DB using Rom 6: 1-6 raises the question of why we don't use dirt to symbolize being buried. Jesus was however not put into a grave as we know it. He was placed in a cave wrapped in cloth. How does this show full immersion under water?

Because whenever Jesus was baptized water was used. Whenever we see John the Baptist baptizing, water was in a river. When we saw the Ethiopian eunuch baptized, water was used. Perhaps because the bible says so.

As far as a grave vs. cave is concerned, I thought I made that distinction clear, I used the terms tomb and selpulchur as referenced in bible times. I made the point of saying that the sepulchur was covered with a large rock or stone.

"Immersion is never proved in Scripture. Because the quantity of water is never stipulated anywhere."

(Rom 6:1-6) "1. What shall we say then? Shall we continue in sin, that grace may abound? 2. God forbid. How shall we, that are dead to sin, live any longer therein? 3. Know ye not, that so many of us as were baptized into Jesus Christ were baptized into his death? 4. Therefore we are buried with him by baptism into death: that like as Christ was raised up from the dead by the glory of the Father, even so we also should walk in newness of life. 5. For if we have been planted together in the likeness of his death, we shall be also in the likeness of his resurrection: 6. Knowing this, that our old man is crucified with him, that the body of sin might be destroyed, that henceforth we should not serve sin."

Considering that we who have been baptized into Christ are dead TO sin, buried with him and raised to walk a new life. When one is buried, they are laid to rest, not standing up. They were completely wrapped up and the tomb was covered, in ancient times with a stone in the side or opening of the selpuchur. How can pouring or sprinkling picture this?

Kendall wrote:
Discerning Believer

My apologies for not coming back to you yesterday DB, I had computer problems.
However here is my attempt.
“IT” can refer to an unspecified or implied antecedent or to a previous or understood CLAUSE, phrase etc.
“Antecedent” in grammar can be a word or phrase to which the pronoun refers.
The writers of the KJV in using “it” clearly applied this rule because they identified the CLAUSE as the description of “gift” not just the grace as some may argue.
What do you think?

It [grace] is the gift of God.
It [faith] is the gift of God.
It [salvation] is the gift of God.

The gift is salvation (implied) by grace (in contrast to works) through faith (the channel by which it is received). Salvation is the gift of God (Rom. 6:23) not of works.

The main focus of the passage deals with salvation, not faith. Faith is clearly a fruit of the Spirit and generated through the operation of the Holy Spirit not by the natural man.

R. K. Borill wrote:
It can if the concept is understood from the context. Otherwise, it makes no sense.

R. K. Borill wrote:
Now, I can say with confidence that here you are wrong. Eph. 2:8-9 declares that faith is a gift as follows:
"For by grace are you saved THROUGH FAITH, and that not of yourselves, it {faith} is the gift of God, not of works lest any man should boast."

2Co 5:21 For he hath made him to be sin for us, who knew no sin; that we might be made ***the righteousness of God *** in him.

It doesn't say because of God's righteousness, it says that we are made "the righteousness of God" in him. That is the imputation. God requires perfect righteousness and it was fulfilled in Christ.

Bible verse wrote:
Tell, me am I the only one who can see the exchange in 2 Cor 5.21? Christ made (accounted) sin for us, and we made (accounted) the righteousness of God in him .. it was our sin that was imputed to him, and therefore it must be his righteousness that is imputed to us!! He is our righteousness, not any exercise of faith on our part. Faith merely rests on that righteousness which belongs to another.