Post oft wrote: Water is symbolic of the admission into the church the Covenant and ingrafting into Christ. At the inception of the Covenant blah blah.
Say it as often as you like. It does not make it true! And you have no scriptural leg to stand on as far as your covenant idea is concerned. Its a load of Jewish Baloney!
They thought themselves concerned in the covenant with Abraham and therefore special "covenant children". Now listen to what the Lord said to them: "I say unto you, that God is able of these stones to raise up children unto Abraham "! Ha! Covenant Children indeed!
And then we have the constant affirmation in Galatians that the children of Abraham are those who like Abraham believe. And don't forget Romans 9:6,7 "For they are not all Israel, which are of Israel:Neither, because they are the seed of Abraham, are they all children"!!!!
You don't understand any of these things DO YOU?
And that is because you start with OT and superimpose your presuppositions on the NT (bit like the Judaisers), whereas we Baptists start with the NT and bring that clearer light to the OT to understand it! A faulty Hermeneutic will invariably result in false teaching!!
Z White wrote: Biblicist: (1) see above (2) You didn't understand my question: If man determines his own volition, what inclines him to determine his volition a certain way and not another; and what determined THAT inclination...ad infinitum? (3) Things don't "work out" God's way; they infallibly happen in precisely the way He has decreed. A limited god depends on his superior power and knowledge to "outwit" man "in the end," as if in some cosmic chess match. The sovereign God does ALL His pleasure. (4) You confuse His sovereign will (decree) with His moral will (command).
1. You said before that all you did was "evil". That's not the same as saying that in terms of justification there is nothing good that you can do to earn God's favour. Think man! 2. OK, smart guy how do you answer your own question in relation to Adam? 3. No it does not. Your god sounds like a petty tyrant. The true God gives mankind a free volition and then judges them because they fall in with sin. You WOULD HAVE to discount logic because you have cornered yourself and logically cannot get out. As for "vessels", why don't you read 2 Tim 2. 20, 21. This is not a fixed state silly! 4. a) Still no help. b) A creature man in the image of God! Who are you?
John UK wrote: Yes, sure I will, and I would appreciate a refutation. ..if there is a good argument against what was said about these two baptistic events, I am more than willing to hear it.
In that article the Presby. pastor pedals a great deal of sophistry in dealing with William. The whole article is a set up! William is presented as a well educated man and a practising lawyer at that! So, when the arguments are presented and we see him faltering in his stance, immediately it begins to dent your own confidence, especially if you have not come across that approach before!
But this is just another typical Presby. attempt to set aside the Bible by comparing apples with pears. The so called analagous examples are anything but.
I will deal with the cases you are interested in sometime this week. But, for the moment, since you like material written by Dr Masters, I will refer you to the following by him, which I think you will find useful if assessing the so called analagous examples:
[URL=http://www.reformedbaptist.co.uk/Normative.htm]]] The normative principle [/URL]
John UK wrote: Mike New York, Biblicist Thankfully I'm not in a position to baptise anyone, nor do I want to. However, the reason I mentioned that immersion would have been impossible on Pentecost was as a result of taking Arthur's advice to read some literature he linked to. This was about six years ago, and you'll remember, Mike, as Arthur used to post oft. I've had a cast about, and found this site which seems to have the whole text about William the Baptist who married Dora the Presby. I thought it excellent at the time, and as I could not refute the good and scriptural arguments (without any need for the greek brought into it), I was quite convinced, not that immersion was wrong, but that certain events in the Bible like Pentecost were not as cut and dried as I previously thought, and as I have an open mind when the argument is biblically based, I was convinced. But if any can read this document and argue with the argument, I am prepared to listen to it also. Have a long read at [URL=http://boston.server101.com/william_the_baptist2.htm]]]WILLIAM THE BAPTIST[/URL]
You want to tell us John what in particular you found convincing? I can see the craftiness of the devil in the way that the piece is written, but the arguments are refutable!
John UK wrote: This is turning out to be a fascinating church history research project, and I'm grateful for all the quotes. Notwithstanding....... It would seem to me that the baptisms performed on Pentecost, subsequent to Peter's preaching the gospel, could not have been by full immersion. Courtesy of Arthur (Scotland) and William the Baptist.
Pres. B. wrote: "James W. Dale gives many examples..where baptizo does not mean to dip or immerse...(B. Schwertley)
Luther: "Baptism is a Greek word, and may be translated immersion... And, although it is almost wholly abolished (for they do not dip the children, but only pour a little water on them), they ought nevertheless to be wholly immersed ..; for that the etymology of the word seems to demand".
Witsius: ".. the native signification of the words baptein and baptizein is to plunge, to dip."
Zanchy: Baptism is a Greek word.. first and properly it signifies immersion in water: for the proper signification of baptizo is to immerse, to plunge, to overwhelm in water."
Beza: "Baptizo signifies to dip, since it comes from bapto, and since things to be dyed are immersed."
Turretine: "The word baptism is of Greek origin, and is derived from the verb bapto; which signifies to dip, and to dye; Baptizein to baptize, to dip into, to immerse."
Calvin: "The word baptize signifies to immerse"
P Martyr: "As Christ, by baptism, hath drawn us with him into his death and burial, so He hath drawn us out into life. This doth the dipping into the water, and the issuing forth again signify, when we are baptized."
Pres. B. wrote: ..church which invented its baptism hypothesis in 1521.
Vossius: "That John the Baptist and the apostles immersed persons whom they baptized, there is no doubt. And that the ancient church followed these examples is very clearly evinced by innumerable testimonies of the Fathers."
Witsius: "It is certain that both John the Baptist, and the disciples of Christ, ordinarily practiced immersion, whose example was followed by the ancient church."
Turretin: "Immersion was used in former times.. but now, especially in cold countries, when the church began to extend itself toward the north, plunging was changed into sprinkling, and aspersion only is used."
Vitringa: "The act of baptizing is the immersion of believers in water. This expresses the force of the word. Thus also it was performed by Christ and the apostles."
Calvin: "It is certain that immersion was the practice of the ancient church"
Curcellaeus: "Baptism was performed by plunging the whole body into water, and not by sprinkling a few drops, as is now th practice.. Nor did the disciples, that were sent by Christ administer baptism afterwards in any other way: and this is more agreeable to the signification of the ordinance."
What did you do kill, steal etc. every moment of every day? In which case you should have been put away!
Z White wrote: (2) What then determines man's volition? And his volition to HAVE a certain volition? What then determines THAT inclination toward this certain volition? etc.ad infinitum.
You are so silly. Volition is man's ability to determine!
Z White wrote: God's decree is the ultimate cause behind all reality; else how does it come to be?
Only if you have a limited god, who must control all things for things to work out his way!
Z White wrote: (3) Yes, it makes sense when one lays aside the myth of "free will" and sees all reality as predetermined by God for the purpose of showing forth His unfathomable, infinite, multi-faceted glory.
Do you even read the stuff you write? How preposterous. If he determines and thereby makes all things be as he would have them, how are we "responsible"?
Z White wrote: 4) a) Spiritually dead, not bodily. b) Who are you, O man?
Makes the issue none clearer, except to a calvinist like you.
Presbyfacts wrote: a] No we don't. Baptism means something quite different to them as I'm sure you know.
What's the difference? Not the mode or the subjects! Is it that you have presumptive regeneration and they have actual regeneration? In the case of infants who don't live, what's the difference?
Presbyfacts wrote: b] Roman church is epicopalian not presbyterian. Romanism developed over centuries until *GOD* brought His Church out from under and they protested about the non-Biblical practices setting up the Protestant Church in the process
That was my point about Baptism too viz. that immersion was not wholly lost. Like the gospel it had to be recovered. But the Reformers failed to Reform in this area!
Presbyfacts wrote: As for Baptism? It does not contribute to salvation and the essential doctrines of Scripture, by grace and the Holy Spirit, are in a sense not up for debate.
No it does not contribute to salvation and no Baptist believes that it does. BUT the ordinances are to be kept just as they were delivered. Do you believe that the liberties that you take are OK to take with the Lord's Supper. Is it OK to use Chips and a can of Coke to represent the elements?
Sprinkle wrote: Did you notice in the history of the Reformation, that the only guys who "should" have used immersion is the Anabaptists, but even They did not use this mode till later!
Even the gospel was lost to the majority of churches by the corruptions of Rome etc. and had to be recovered by Luther. That does not mean it was lost altogethr! So what is your point?
You can pride yourselves in keeping to your Roman Catholic beliefs and practices in relation to infants!!
And if you want to quibble, when did Preby. church government come about? Now let me think? Oh yes, it was an innovation at the time of the Reformation!! Just enough of Romanism was left in the system to suit Presby taste buds.
Z White wrote: ..man's state as DEAD in trespasses and sins, being ENSLAVED to sin (helplessly inclined to choose evil).
Are you saying before your conversion you were incapable of doing any good, that you HAD to choose evil because of your nature?!!
Z White wrote: Further, if the will were truly neutral, what but God's decree would account for a decision in EITHER direction?
Man's volition silly!
Z White wrote: He has determined what we shall do of our own accord.
And this makes sense to you? Ha! You sin, but are still carrying our God's will. Nevertheless you are still culpable? Great piece of logic!
Z White wrote: They don't become "more dead" but continue in deadness...The purpose is judgment.
You guys are the ones who keep on about being literally "dead". If that is the case what is the purpose of hardening the dead? Is this rigor mortis?! Why judgement? Have they not heaped to themselves enough?
Dinger wrote: Calvin baptised babies by sprinkle! So, What do you think? I see you could not answer the point I made about the Eunuch's pool. Now you and John UK remember that you are not to add anything to Scripture like increasing the depth of water to accomodate the modern Baptist philosophy.
Is your first name "Hum" by any chance?
Calvin did sprinkle, but that just shows how stupid the Presby. position is. Acknowledge that the ancients' practice was immersion, but side it aside because symbolism is not so important after all. You cannot even bring yourself to agree with Calvin on the first point. Shows how prejudiced you are.
Listen to what Paul says in Corinthians
1 Corinthians 11:2 Now I praise you, brethren, that ye remember me in all things, and keep the ordinances, as I delivered them to you.
Did you catch that? The ordinances are to be kept as delivered. If the NT teaches immersion (which it does, as Calvin himself acknowledged) and the early church practised it, then you Presbys. are guilty of changing the ordinance!! But don't worry your pretty little head about this, because you are past masters at adding to and changing the meaning of God's word to suit yourselves!
John UK wrote: Like this: Seek ye the LORD while he may be found, call ye upon him while he is near: Let the wicked forsake his way, and the unrighteous man his thoughts: and let him return unto the LORD, and he will have mercy upon him; and to our God, for he will abundantly pardon. Isaiah 55:6-7 KJV
Yeah Baby. The sinner is asked to do alot of things, including prayer.
Michael Hranek wrote: Biblicist You've given me something good to think upon. A lot to think about. Thanks
The argument for me is not whether the translation can be improved, because of course it can. We can point to many weakenesses in the translation of the "received text", and this is quite apart from the replacing of the few archaic words by modern equivalents.
The main point however is about the underlying greek texts. What is the modern critical textual tradition saying about the texts? They suggest that all texts are equally valid. All the experts have to do is figure out for all of us dumb heads what the autographs actually said. IOW which variants they consider to be part of the original autographs.
Forget the fact that between the Sinaiticus and Alexandrian texts on the one hand and the Byzantine on the other there are literally thousands of differences. Far far more than those which exist between the Byzantine text types taken together. And why overlook the fact that ignoring the first 2 the vast majority are the Byzantine text type. Why did the churches so early discard the earlier text types? What does all this tell us about the method of God in preserving his Word?
John UK wrote: Faithful Remnant You surprise me. Are you saying that when you were baptised with the Holy Spirit, you were not immersed, saturated, completely enveloped? Did he not fill you head to toe? You only had a few drops on the forehead? Surely not!
Just shows. Prejudices can have a terrible blinding effect!
Faithful Remnant wrote: Immersion is fine and acceptable, but not an absolute requirement for a valid baptism. If so, why does God pour out and fill believers with the Holy Spirit by a falling instead of immersing them in the Spirit and this is called by the Apostles a baptism(Acts 11:15,16)? 'Cause there's more to the original word.
You have asked this before and I chose to ignore it because it is just such a dumb challenge! But since you ask it again, permit me to say that even a little time thinking about this would have helped you. You have no doubt brought it up because your standard text books present it to you as an invincible argument.
Let us suppose I said to you I shall pour out water into a deep basin so that you can immerse your hands into the water. Would this suggest to your mind that the pouring is the Baptism?
Read the idea of pouring in Acts 2 alongside verse 4, "And they were all filled with the Holy Ghost..." Not merely received a few drops, but such an abundance that they were submerged and thereby full!
Ephesians 5:18 And be not drunk with wine, wherein is excess; but be filled with the Spirit
What? So your Baptism was merely a few drops, but thereafter you are commanded to be filled? How dumb!