Some thoughts on the Statement of Faith [Archive] - Guitarists Praise and Worship Forum!!!

kewlpack

06-05-2005, 01:03 AM

I sent this to Stephen in a PM, but felt it only fair to let "the cat out of the bag", as it were...

Here's what I wrote him on the Statement of Faith:

============
I wondered how long it would take till a particular item came up around here. :roll:

Unfortunately, I have to take issue with #6 (Baptism and Communion). The way it is written isn't what I personally believe or teach. I am one who holds that baptism in the name of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit is the point at which salvation begins (following faith, repentance, and confession of Christ, of course). It is sort of the final step of "introduction into the faith" (for lack of a better analogy).

I believe baptism is not an issue of earning anything nor doing something meritorious in any way. It is just obeying Christ in faith.

I believe God continues the salvation process as we mature in Christ and die (unless He returns before that time). Ultimately salvation is finished on Judgment Day when Jesus judges the good and the bad.

I won't argue or debate the point except to say that the Scriptures that talk about it seem extremely clear, and not mutually exclusive of the other "salvation" elements (which I mention above). That and the first two centuries of Christians universally understood Baptism as an integral part of one's salvation. As a matter of fact, it wasn't disputed within the church until after the Reformation was in full swing. The heretics (the Gnostics) around 100-200AD suggested baptism as unnecessary because they didn't believe Jesus really came in the flesh and died... so they reasoned: why would anyone be baptized into the death of someone who didn't die?

Anyway...

Communion is part of celebrating and partaking (with great thanksgiving) of the body and blood of the Lord. I believe without it, as Jesus says, "we have no life within us." It is essential to the spiritual health of a Christian.

FWIW: PMs and even threads on this subject never seem to amount to anything more than circular proof-texting and arguing between people who usually end up destructively debating (which never glorifies the Lord). Other than this particular point, the Statement looks pretty good.

But I cannot agree with it in full for the reasons above. I hope you understand.
====================

I do not post this to stimulate an endless debate. I didn't go through a laundry list of "supporting verses", nor the quotes from ancient Christianity because I'm convinced (through many experiences) that such a topic cannot truly be constructively handled on forums or via emails. It is an intensely personal and deep study that takes face-to-face discussions where tone of voice, personality, and turns of speech aren't misinterpreted.

I only felt compunction to say something because an important point within the Statement isn't something I can wholeheartedly agree with.

Please understand. God bless.

Teleguy

06-05-2005, 03:51 AM

The thief on the cross wasn't baptized, but he was definitely saved.

Romans 10:9,10 seems to indicate we are saved at our confession.

Not to quibble. I'm ok with the mission statement though.

Kitty

06-05-2005, 04:19 AM

I don't see why this point would need to become some sort of sticky issue between us. From what I've seen so far, we all believe salvation is through faith in Jesus Christ alone, and not of our own works. So I view this particular disagreement as a very minor thing.

I am one who holds that baptism in the name of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit is the point at which salvation begins (following faith, repentance, and confession of Christ, of course).

Man, the more I look back over my life, the more I'm convinced there's not really a way to pin down the point at which salvation begins. :-)

I don't believe baptism is necessary for salvation, but it certainly should follow salvation (as should a number of other things). However, we disagree on this point... hey, I have no problem with that.

Kitty

MrMike

06-05-2005, 04:37 AM

I think the best explanation I've heard came from Tony Evans. He says that baptism is to your salvation like your wedding ring is to your marriage; it is an outward symbol of a deeper inward reality.

Crunchyriff

06-05-2005, 05:33 AM

You can disagree all you want bro! we still love ya!

Baptism is first and foremost an act of obedience; secondly, it is a symbol of passing from death into life as a new believer as a testimony to the world, and, IMHO, to the devil that he lost another one.

Lookie here, I was RAISED Baptist (First Freewill, mind you...) and they take the act so seriously that it's almost deified. Yet some of those very same, deny the power of the Holy Spirit, which makes me scratch my head. But I digress...

Put it this way, the new believer SHOULD be baptized according to the Scriptures, but if someone who believes in Jesus the Christ that He IS the Son of God, and happens to get killed in a car accident before they can get baptized; does anybody think a holy and loving God will put them out at the gate?

IF salvation starts only upon a baptism, then Christ's death was in vain, IMHO, & John was already baptizing those into eternal life. IN other words, Jesus would only have to had existed and then vanished; and then people could say yeah I believed that he was the Messiah, lookie here, I just got baptized... yeah, I'm in.

It's only the shed blood of Jesus that takes away the sins of the world, (and the belief in HIM); not the water baptism; and nowhere does the bible say otherwise.

This is where some are mislead by the Catholic Church ( in some circles/parishes). These think that little Johnny got his sprinkling and has "The Chruch's" seal of approval, and so everything is just hunk-dory.

Teleguy brings up the stark reality of the thief on the cross who believed. One could argue that well, Jesus made an exception because of this man's dire situation- but this premise falls flat on the reality that God is a Holy and Just God, who never bends HIS rules or standards.

Therefore, if everybody's salvation depends on water baptism ONLY, (even after the prerequisite faith in Christ) and not PRIMARILY in the belief in God the Son, Him crucified and resurrected; then Jesus would have said to that thief on the cross: "sorry pal- you'll be kicking rocks outside the gates 'cause you aren't getting down from this cross alive for your baptism. Fahgetabout it."

ie: God is ALWAYS consistent.

Who am I to argue with Jesus because of man's doctrine?

kewlpack

06-05-2005, 09:00 PM

Like I said - it could become a gigantic diatribe where both sides of the issue run around in circles. I've gone through it many many times. Sometimes something constructive will come of it. Most of the time, not.

There is plenty of both biblical and ancient Christian evidence (by ancient I refer to the early Christian writings from 80-250AD - "pre nicene" or pre-roman catholic - if anyone cares) for baptism being a necessary part (but not the exclusive element) of salvation.

To comment briefly on some points -
The thief on the cross wasn't baptized into Christ for at least three practical reasons...

1) Jesus had not died so baptism into Christ could not be performed upon him; the covenant/will had not yet been executed (Rom 6:1-3; Heb 9:13-17). No one was baptized into Christ until Acts 2:36-44... after he'd died, resurrected and ascended (all of the elements of the covenant had come together... the new covenant had been enacted).

Before he ascended he commissioned the Apostles to teach and baptize disciples (Mark 16:16; Mat 28:18-20). At that point, the new system was pretty much in place. In the accounts of salvation in Acts, each time baptism is part of the picture.

2) He was currently being crucified on a cross. Physically he couldn't get down (I know that is a silly point - but it is true). Jesus' mercy was his only hope (our hope as well).

3) Finally, Jesus is God. He can give salvation to whomever he chooses at any point. He can work "outside the box" whenever it is his will to do so. The thief on the cross was a prime example of this. It was an exception of a sort.

On Rom 10:9,10: there are many passages in the New Testament that speak of specific things which "save us". I believe you should embrace them all as mutually inclusive. Not taking one or the other... if Jesus said it saves me, then I'm clinging to that. Not that it is a work (as I said above). It is mere humble obedience borne of faith and gratitude.

The last thing I want to mention here is the same thing I said in the first post. It is important for each person to step back and think about this...

There isn't a single account in any of the existing writings from the earliest churches (80-250AD) that would suggest the doctrine or practice of salvation without baptism. Exactly the opposite is true - in every case they show how the various elements all work together in our salvation - and that it isn't a single component (whether that be faith, baptism or any of the others)... which would agree with James 2:24.

Allow me to elaborate just a bit...

Now, if all you have to do is "believe and receive" (saved by faith alone, regardless of what James said) - how likely is it that the entire early church completely bungled such a foundational teaching as salvation? Even during the last 10-20 years of the Apostle John's life (died around 95AD)?

Does anyone find it curious that the teaching of salvation by faith alone has only been around for about the last 500 years (since Martin Luther and the Reformation)?

Because people can grab a handful of verses supporting both sides of the issue... and vehemently argue their position... I'm inclined to ask: Who is more likely right in their interpretation of salvation passages in the New Testament? Was it the men who lived during the earliest phase of the Church (when it was united and the apostlic influence was still around)? Or us, 2000 years this side of all kinds of corruption, preconception and church splintering??

You cannot answer that question without giving a fair read to the early Christian writings. I recommend www.scrollpublishing.com as a great place to get inexpensive, modern language versions of the writings. Most are in easy to read format (and they have CDs as well). I recommend "The Dictionary of Early Christian Beliefs" - it's a great help to anyone researching the old texts.

Some will argue about "Bible Only" and things like that. However, the Bible isn't the issue really. Everyone goes to the Scripture to prove what they believe is "right". They only use the Bible - so they say. The problem is their interpretation of the truth - what we inject into the truth.

Our ideas about the truth become our gospel rather than the simple Scripture itself. As those ideas are handed down from generation to generation - we find the diciple understanding the Scripture through tainted eyeglasses - tainted with tradition, misconception and opinion. This is normal when we interpret in a vaccum - without any historical, evidential anchor. We will skew from the baseline.

No one bothers (or perhaps even knows) to double check their interpretations and doctrines against the original witness of the church to see if there is any credence or clear evidence to support their position. If what we teach is in fact true and accurate - doesn't it stand to reason that we will find testimony supporting those beliefs in the earliest available historical writings? But, if we can't even find a hint of it - could it be that we are wrong and should reevaluate our belief on the said subject? Especially one that has to do with salvation...?

Beloved musician-brethren... I hope you understand what I've written to be from a humble heart and a deep love for our souls collectively. I don't want this thread to become debate. There's so much to learn about the Christian faith from the early church writings. They aren't Scripture - just a window of insight for us to see how they understood the Apostles and why. Those resources solve so many Scriptural puzzles and IMHO takes the need to debate completely out of it.

It no longer matters what my modern ideas and interpretations on a subject are because I can read the Bible (all relevant passages) - and then check myself against the early Christians just to make sure I'm "getting it".

Enough out of me. I've gone rambling and did not intend to. Hope it makes sense. God bless.

Kitty

06-06-2005, 06:13 PM

Kewlpack,

I've been simmering all this on the back burner through the weekend, and would like to say two things (none of which are meant to prove my point of view, so please keep reading.) :-)

First, there are plenty of issues over which the Church disagrees. I have come to see that when this happens, both sides hold some of the truth; neither side holds all. Therefore, I must consider what you've said to see if the Holy Spirit thinks I'm ready for Him to reveal something to me through this. "To consider" means both to research and to meditate upon itâ€”to look stuff up and to ponder it, in prayer and in general.

... baptism being a necessary part (but not the exclusive element) of salvation

Second, what you've said above actually expresses much of the intent of point #6 in the statement of faith rather than completely disagreeing with it. I can say that with all confidence because I wrote it. Stephen came across the statement of faith on one of my web sites and found it to concisely express what he wanted to say.

I've never been happy with how point #6 is worded. Baptism and Communion are more than "ordinances." Even though I've come into much understanding of them over the years, there are still mystical things about them which I have yet to grasp.

But I really wanted to keep the statement of faith short and sweet. I've seen others that have like 27 points. :roll: I think for a web site community (as opposed to a church or denomination), you should be able to say what you believe are the core elements of Christianity in less than 10 points if you want to include people of various denominational backgrounds and traditions.

So... my intent was to state that while Communion and Baptism are important parts of the life of the believer, they alone are not what saves you. Some people mistakenly think that the baptismal water rather than the blood of Christ is what atones for their sins.

Kewl, may we collaborate a bit on the wording of point #6? (speaking for myself here, not for Stephen) I can't guarantee that we'll come up with something mutually satisfying, but since we both hold some of the truth, and since I don't understand everything about baptism, it would be worth a try.

By the way, anyone who lists themselves as a worship leader on my web site must agree with the statement of faith, however, I also provide each member a place to add their own clarification on any of the points if they wanted to. The only reason I felt a statement of faith was necessary in the first place is so that event-planners who are searching for a worship leader can be somewhat confident of the doctrinal beliefs of the person they might be inviting to lead worship at their event.

I appreciate you, brother. I appreciate your gentle attitude in this, and for your desire to uphold your own convictions even if it means you may encounter disagreement among a group of friends.

Kitty

Crunchyriff

06-06-2005, 06:23 PM

Disagreements and differing opinions can be the most friendly things- they sure don't have to be combative! I don't think any less of Kewl for his take on this issue.

Case in point: Some people love Fords, and will buy nothing but FORD.

I won't own one, if I can help it. :mrgreen:

In spite of my rather humble, previous, two decade experience in the fleet svc industry with a public utility Co., I've pretty much seen it all, so part of my opinon is just more than bias.

That being said, people I love dearly... drive FORDS, and it still doesn't change my love and respect for them.

Kinda a rough analogy, but hey, I think you get the picture.

We are differing over secondary issues, IMHO, not in the Supremacy of Christ, and the work He accomplished on the cross for all.

I mean, as our bro Kewl fairly stated- the are plenty of instances suggest the issue is not exclusive; yet again he correctly points out that we could go round and round on this issue for hours. Peter's 1st sermon netted at least 3500 converts that the Bible said were added to the kingdom that day, yet it says nothing about their baptism that same day.

Paul was not biblically recorded as baptizing a single person, nor IIRC, does he speak of water baptism in most, if not all of his writings (but then again, it does NOT diminish the importance of the act itself); yet in other NT texts we see examples of the apostles performing baptisms, one most noteworthy was Philip and the Ethiopian eunuch, in Acts 8:20-39; and we see that Paul was baptized immediately after Annanias had laid hands on Saul and the scales over his Saul's eyes fell off, in Acts 9:17-19.

Baptisim IS an act of obedience, and therefore, to intentionally shun water baptism as a convert, is in rebellion to God. And this is not a good thing.

Put it this way: no matter what denomination, when HE appears to take us home, all the badges will come flying off, and the only marks that will remain are His name on our hearts. \:D/

kewlpack

06-06-2005, 07:31 PM

Thanks guys. Appreciate the level-headed-ness. That isn't found very often in musician circles (well, not too many of the kind I used to run with)... for that matter, it is difficult to find a group in any scenario that can "keep it together" over discussions like this.

I agree wholeheartedly that the Lordship, and perfect atoning work of Christ is the more significant point - and is the core of what we should be about.

I also concur that some sort of public statement helps to establish our central ideas and purpose. I'm not opposed to that in any way. Keeping it concise and poignant is important too.

Perhaps item #6 could be reworded to provide some latitude to allow room for both schools of thought...

Current Form:
"Baptism and Communion are ordinances to be observed by the Church as symbols of spiritual truth and are not to be regarded as a means of salvation. "

Possible revision:
"Baptism and Communion are ordinances of Christ which are integral, cooperative components of the Christian life."

Short and sweet... it is in the middle of the road, so to speak.

Or, you could add a second sentence (it may be too overt/strong for some folks):
"While these activities are not mutually exclusive in relation to one's salvation, they are part of the whole salvation experience."

I also realize that we cannot please everyone all the time (myself included). Really, in the end - I've voiced my concern and exception with the particular point in the Statement. That's as much as I could ask for. Later on as people join up, and they wanna know where I'm at on the Statement - they can read this thread.

This is not just "my site", but a community effort by people who genuinely love Jesus and just wanna do and say/write the right thing. I have a high respect and regard for that. The demeanor of the threads and at least the way we write to each other when we disagree shows the world (as well as ourselves) that "we take every thought captive to the obedience of Christ." We are careful to be a blessing rather than the all-too-common curse.

God bless ya real good!

Crunchyriff

06-06-2005, 10:23 PM

Possible revision:
"Baptism and Communion are ordinances of Christ which are integral, cooperative components of the Christian life."

Man, I am hardly the one to carry any weight on this issue (or any others here for that matter- grin!!) but that sounds good to me. IMHO, THAT about slams the ball outta the park.

God Bless you too, Kewl!

Baptism and Communion are more than "ordinances." Even though I've come into much understanding of them over the years, there are still mystical things about them which I have yet to grasp.

Kitty, I love this train of thought, and I agree 100%. This is the area of 'kingdom issues' that as Job said are: "things too wonderful for me"- things that we as humans, just can't quite get a total handle on, quantify, or easily explain.

God reserves the right to the mystical, the unseen yet real, the inunderstandable.

Old Believer

06-07-2005, 02:21 AM

I've got to agree with Kitty. Baptism and communion are ordinances. I've been of the belief that baptism is an outward symbol of our faith in Christ. Like other's have said, what about the thief on the cross.

kewlpack

06-07-2005, 03:50 AM

Like other's have said, what about the thief on the cross.
OB - see my lengthy posts above where I talk about him.

C ya!

stephen

06-07-2005, 05:19 AM

Hi guy's,

I've been busy for the past few days. Anything interesting come up while I was gone?

Hee-hee!

Listen, I think this is a GREAT thread, and I feel so blessed to read everything that all of you have said in it! It is a loving family discussion, with brothers and sisters that truly love one another, and love Jesus even more!

To make sure the record is straight, I did plaigerize from one of Kitty's web-sites: I saw the statement of Faith, and I appreaciated how short, simple and succinct it was, and how it focused on Jesus is The Only Way to the Father!

When I posted it, I didnt anticipate any deep theolgical debate from a bunch of guitar junkies like myself (I prove myself wrong all the time! :lol: ), but look at this deep well of water that we can all draw refreshment from! Thank You Jesus, Thank You Holy Spirit, Thank You Father!

Now, I think that # 6 needs to express how baptism alone will not save us, but all true believers must be baptized as commissioned by Jesus. And likewise, communion by itself will not get us into heaven, but communion by the believer is meant to remind us of His sacrifice for us, and we are commanded to do so until he returns.

I think that something along those lines would be good. The reason why I would like this type of criteria stated, is because there are some out there, that have made baptism and communion a legalistic burden, much like the pharisee's in Jesus day, turned the law into a legal mess, to where by their definition, even Jesus couldnt make the grade!

Wally

06-07-2005, 06:15 AM

I have refrained from posting on this issue up to this point for several reasons... one being that we hadn't heard from the webmaster, and another being a general lack of time (and knowing that my response would end up being lengthy). Before I go any further, I will join in commending everyone for the thoughtful posts up to this point.

My initial reaction upon reading the mission statement and statement of faith was one of surprise immediately followed by a couple of questions...

1. Why? I belong to a denomination that places strong emphasis on doctrine, so I certainly understand the importance of doctrine, confessions, statements of faith and such. I guess I was just surprised that we needed one (at least one that specific) on a musicians forum. I can see the desire for a mission statement.

2. My second question was "who constitutes the we" (spoken of in the "what we believe" statement)? Does it imply all who post here, depsite our not having come to any agreement on what we believe, or does "we" simply refer to the webmaster? Are we now required to subscribe to the statement to be a welcome member of the forum? I also knew from the moment that I read the statement on communion and baptism that it would be a point of contention because (depending on how you interpret it) it excludes certain groups of bible believing Christians (if my understanding of their doctrine is correct).

For the record, I don't really disagree with anything in the statement of beliefs and I believe that it is in agreement with my church's doctrine. As an adherent to reformed/calvinist doctrine I would of course like to see it take on a more reformed viewpoint - which is part of the problem with this kind of thing; creating a statement general enough to suit a large group generally means that it doesn't really suit anyone :mrgreen: For anyone interested, a couple of the doctrinal statements that define my beliefs are the "What We Believe" statement of the Presbyterian Church in America http://www.pcanet.org/general/beliefs.htm and the Westminister Confession of Faith http://www.pcanet.org/general/cof_contents.htm.

I posted the links to my churches documents knowing that it would probably alienate me from some who post here, because as much as we may dislike it, the honest truth is that despite our commonly held beliefs, our doctrines do divide us when they become a part of whatever effort we are involved in - this is why we have so many church denominations. I do not say this to be negative, just truthful. I have often heard and used statements such as "Our core beliefs about Christ and salvation are the same, so we shouldn't let side issues cause us to break fellowship". The problem is that what are side issues to some aren't to everyone - as this thread has already illustrated concerning baptism. And these "side issues" do prevent us from full fellowship with each other, especially on Sunday morning... for example, despite being in agreement with my Baptist brothers and sisters that baptism is not neccesary for salvation (I am speaking here of the Baptists that I am familiar with), we can't truly fellowship on Sunday morning beacuse our understanding of baptism is still so vastly different that they would not even recognize my wife and children's baptism as valid. Likewise, I hold many beliefs in common with Lutherans, but I can not join them at the communion table (even if I was allowed) because our understanding of communion is so different. Now I realize that this is not church, but I offer these examples as illustrations of the kind of issues awaiting us if we become doctrinally oriented on this board.

I entertained the thought of suggesting the Apostle's Creed as a statement of beliefs for the board, but the "descended into hell" and "holy catholic church" portions would probably prove more controversial than the statement on baptism in the current one! :lol:

seagullplayer

06-07-2005, 11:58 AM

I will refrain from this topic, other than to say that I understand why some sort of belief statement is a good idea.
There are alot of people out there that call themself "Christian" that don't even know who Jesus is.
But I also don't think we need to detailed. I am pretty sick of the whole "new age" lies that fill the net. But your not going to hear many of them talking about the Blood of Christ.

May God lead us in this matter.

kewlpack

06-07-2005, 02:47 PM

Wally - you're right on the money. I'm glad someone else brought it up - I wasn't thinking about that dynamic.

It is very easy to skirt things on a forum (or the web, for that matter) by making more generalized statements so that everyone gets along. None of us wants to suddenly become alienated from the online community we have here.

Yet, having a Statement of Faith (versus a more generic Mission Statement - excellent suggestion) will drive many would-be newcomers away because they get the impression that everyone on here fully accepts the Statement - and that they would have to accept it if they joined. It occurs to me that this may also drive away non-Christians completely for the same reason. The golden opportunity to influence someone through our forum for the Lord is greatly reduced.

The less specific Mission Statement is a good idea. It isn't apprehensive or intimidating. It doesn't force anyone into doctrinal paradigms that they aren't ready for. It keeps the peace.

The body of Christians in the world should be united as Christ prayed for (John 17:20-23). However, as Wally insightfully points out, there is a reason why there are so many denominations... it's because folks put the emphasis on different doctrines and interpretations of truth - without any accountability nor responsibility to the earliest witness of the Church. Different philosophies about Scriptural truths (not the Truth itself) led to entire systems of doctrine and created denominational walls where none are supposed to exist. This is not obeying Christ nor seeking to live within the ideals He prayed for regarding us.

I believe there is enormous value in reviewing the patterns, system of faith, and consistency within the Early Christian writings. Again, it takes a lot of guesswork out of this stuff and shows us how the Apostles taught and did things very early on (especially helpful with "gray area" Scriptures). If Christians can agree to set aside their ideas for awhile and investigate the writings (if only as an insightful commentary to Scripture), I am certain that many things will be cleared up and a lot of healing can happen within the Body of Christ...but it takes effort.

It takes a lot of humility and a willingness to acknowledge you may be wrong about some things.

In retrospect perhaps it is best if the Statement of Faith become a simpler Mission Statement that allows a wide latitude of convictions. If anyone wants to dig into a particular doctrine or truth, that's what the Doctrine Forum is here for...

For me and my convictions, they agree with many aspects of the Statement of Faith, but there are some points that I would have to strongly disagree with (but you guys already know that). Obviously, I'm not alone in this.

Most of us on the GPAWF have three things in common:

1) We love Jesus and have (in some form) given our lives to Him.
2) We love music which He has placed in our hearts to honor Him.
3) We earnestly long for the Church to be whole and for the rifts to vanish. That is why no one has blown a gasket in here...

But are we willing to step back and examine the Apostolic era? It opened my eyes in many ways.

Stephen please give it a lot of consideration and prayer... It seems kinda crazy that even in a simple "creed" like the one you posted there is still marked diversity among us. But that is the way it is.

Kitty

06-07-2005, 03:07 PM

there is a reason why there are so many denominations... it's because folks put the emphasis on different doctrines and interpretations of truth - without any accountability nor responsibility to the earliest witness of the Church.

Hmmm. I can agree with the first part of your reason here, but not the second. Can you really say that the people who were involved in the formation of different denominations (by placing emphasis on different doctrines/interpretations) really did so with no accountability nor responsibility to the earliest witness of the Church?

I could not make such a blanket statement. I would say there is probably no Christian denomination that did NOT strive to be true to the earliest witness of the Church when forming their creeds.

Maybe I'm atypical in this, but I kind of like having a lot of different denominational groups, exactly because we are all different (repeat after me... we are all individuals :-) ), and different people are always going to find value in different things. So what? We're still one Church. Every one of us has something not quite right in our theology. So if a person is uncomfortable with something in MY church, maybe they will feel comfortable in yours.

Oh well... getting off-topic here.

Kitty

stephen

06-07-2005, 03:30 PM

Yet, having a Statement of Faith (versus a more generic Mission Statement - excellent suggestion) will drive many would-be newcomers away because they get the impression that everyone on here fully accepts the Statement - and that they would have to accept it if they joined. It occurs to me that this may also drive away non-Christians completely for the same reason. The golden opportunity to influence someone through our forum for the Lord is greatly reduced.

The less specific Mission Statement is a good idea. It isn't apprehensive or intimidating. It doesn't force anyone into doctrinal paradigms that they aren't ready for. It keeps the peace.

I like this train of thought. So what do you all think, better a mission statement, than a statement of faith?

Crunchyriff

06-08-2005, 12:03 AM

I understand the heart of Kewlpack's quote that you posted Stephen, but to be quite honest I can't think of anything more "intimidating" in this world than the Gospel of Christ itself. So it is, and so it should be. Let's not water down the power of the Gospel, being too mindful of being "less specific".

The Gospel is full of specifics, and sometimes the key is in the delivery (to a degree), which sometimes can be (and should be) earthshaking and soul-stirring. There are times to apply a bit of, finesse or better yet, sensitivity, and times for stark, hard honesty. Once again, the Holy Spirit knows what is needed WHEN.

I think a statement of faith surely is in order, if this BBS's existence is not only for us to fellowship, but more importantly- to minister, both inwardly and outwardly. Yet at the same time, you can ALSO incorporate a mission statement...in fact, a proper statement of faith WILL have a mission statement interwoven, because the heart of Christ deems that we reach out to the lost. Period.

If we do NOT do this, than we are nothing more than "country-club Christians" of which I will knowingly be no part of.

my quarter (due to inflation).... :mrgreen:

kewlpack

06-08-2005, 12:30 AM

Just to make sure no one misunderstands me...

It isn't the Gospel that I would have us be less specific on... it is the doctrinal points (particularly baptism, and a few others) where there is significant diversity of faith that will bring rifts (and have for 500 years or so). We gotta strike a godly balance.

Be cautious and wise. Be bold with gentleness. Be faithful without becoming pharisaic (me as much as anyone else). :angel

Crunchyriff

06-08-2005, 12:36 AM

Be cautious and wise. Be bold with gentleness. Be faithful without becoming pharisaic (me as much as anyone else).

EXACTLY!!!

=D> \:D/ =D>

stephen

06-08-2005, 01:02 AM

We gotta strike a godly balance.

Yes! Amen!

I also want to be clear too, at no time have I aluded that anyone here is being pharisitical, or pharisaic. Exactly the opposite is true: we are all coming together under the covering and guidance of the Holy Spirit, and He is leading this discussion.

Now, how best to proceed? Do we want to:

1) Change from a "Statement of Faith", to "A Mission Statement"?

2) Change the verbiage that best describes the command to be baptized, yet acknowledging that baptism alone cannot save anyone?

3) Leave it alone, cause we might be straining at a gnat here?

Crunchyriff

06-08-2005, 02:53 AM

I'd do #2, and How about titling it "what we believe"? I dunno...

kewlpack

06-08-2005, 03:37 AM

I think #2 is agreeable - it is not baptism alone (nor any other single thing) - so that works pretty good!

Renaming it to "What We Believe", or "What GPAWF Is About" might be better too. You could rework some of the content to fit into one of those perspectives.

A thought: Perhaps others should chime in so we don't come across as railroading anything. It would be best to get a majority before "putting a stake in the ground". Just so folks know what is going on. That's your call Steph-o.

Stephen, sorry I managed to kick up so much dust with this man. I really didn't mean to.

I appreciate the opportunity to have a voice. I don't want to abuse the privilege.

stephen

06-08-2005, 04:43 AM

To all my brothers and sisters here:

Number one: I aint the boss, I'm just a worker in the feild, right alongside all my family, of which you all are part of! I love my Family!

Number two: I dont see any dust at all around here! ALL of you have shaken the dust of the world off the soles of your feet, and you have all been "like minded" in building this cyber-fellowship here!

Number three: Yeah, we can put it too a vote, but my hope is that we are lead by the Holy Spirit's Wisdom and Grace, and as another one of my brothers here pointed out, no matter what, some are going to get offended, because there are many still at enmity with what Jesus accomplished in His death and ressurection. So lets all pray for His guidance on this, and it will all be right! I truly believe that.

Number four:
That's your call Steph-o.

Steph-o? :-s

Stev-a-rooni, Stephanovich, Stephanopolus, Stevie, and Steph-o: Idontthinkso!

Kitty

06-08-2005, 12:25 PM

Really guys, I'm fine either way: Mission Statement rather than Faith Statement, or changing the verbiage. (Even dropping the whole thing and going back to NO statement is fine with me, although I don't think Stephen can really do that after having his heart moved to place a statement of some sort on the forum in the first place.)

But how to change it to something all can heartily endorse? That would be a rather impressive accomplishment.

Here are my thoughts: being baptized is not a requirement for getting into Heaven. But the Christian life is not about getting into Heaven; it's about continuing to be sanctified while we're here on earthâ€”learning to trust the Lord in all things and [i]to allow Him to live out His life through us.

Baptism is one of the integral parts of that because if you don't determine to enter into Christ's death with Him, how can you determine to live out His resurrected life with Him?

(Communion is also an integral part of sanctification, but has a different purpose.)

So yeah, you can confess faith in Christ and get into Heaven like the thief on the cross did. But this life is about so much more than that.

I would be unable to agree with something which says Baptism is required to complete our salvation, but I don't think it would stop me from posting and fellowshipping here just as openly and enthusiastically as before. You now know my beliefs, and this particular one isn't going to come between us as far as I'm concerned.

with love,
Kitty

Teleguy

06-08-2005, 01:14 PM

...dropping the whole thing and going back to NO statement is fine with me...

Ditto!

seagullplayer

06-08-2005, 02:38 PM

...dropping the whole thing and going back to NO statement is fine with me...

Ditto!

I'm good with this too, just dropping it.

If we need a statement of belief use John 14:6.

kewlpack

06-08-2005, 02:49 PM

...dropping the whole thing and going back to NO statement is fine with me...

Ditto!

I'm good with this too, just dropping it.

Ditto Ditto.

stephen

06-08-2005, 03:34 PM

OK, this thought came to me after all the great discussion we've had on the subject. How about we drop the doctrinal statement/what we believe, and change it to:

What "Guitarists Praise and Worship Forum!!" is all about:

To provide a forum for Guitarists, musician's, and singers, to proclaim Jesus Christ is Lord in our lives, and in the music we lift up to Him for His adoration alone!

To provide an online forum, that takes us away from the established guitar/guitarist magazines that lust after worldly things, and promoting lifestyles that are in direct opposition to living for Jesus!

Guitarists Praise and Worship Forum!! strives to be an on-line fellowship to all Bible-believing Christians coming from various theological backgrounds. We know that spiritual and learned people may sometimes differ on certain interpretations of Scripture that are â€œnon-essentialâ€ to salvation or the deity of Christ, however, we present the following statement as core truth's which we hold as essential for the faith.

1. The Bibleâ€”both Old and New Testamentsâ€”is the Word of God which He inspired to be written for us.

2. There is only one God, Creator of all things, existing in three persons: Father, Son and Holy Spirit.

3. Only through the shed blood of Jesus, can there be remission of sin. Only the shed blood of Jesus Christ as a sacrifice for our sin provides the means of reconciliation with God and salvation for all who depend on Him as Savior

4. Jesus Christ will one day return to the earth in His resurrected body, for His people, and He will judge both the living and the dead upon His return.

It is a statement of core truths, and it expresses who its really all about: Jesus.

What do you think?

Steph-o ........ out!

kewlpack

06-08-2005, 03:40 PM

Well Done! I like the balance and "tone of voice" a lot better.

Thanks for taking time with this.

Kitty

06-08-2005, 05:51 PM

Nicely done, Stephen.

Being a proofreader, though, I'm interested in helping with punctuation. :angel

Kitty

Wally

06-08-2005, 06:01 PM

I like it!

Old Believer

06-08-2005, 08:44 PM

I like the revised version.

stephen

06-08-2005, 10:49 PM

Nicely done, Stephen.

Being a proofreader, though, I'm interested in helping with punctuation. :angel

Kitty

OK Kitty, you got the job! Proof-read away, and make all the puntuation corrections you feel are necessarry.

I think this is the right direction to go.

Crunchyriff

06-09-2005, 01:35 AM

Oh..."it's all wrrrrooooonggg!" :hissyfit :banghead :wife :screen: :soapbox

Har!

made you look.... :innocent

UncleMarker

06-09-2005, 02:44 AM

It is a statement of core truths, and it expresses who its really all about: Jesus.

Amen

Teleguy

06-09-2005, 05:27 AM

Correct punctuation and spelling is against my practice of applied dysfunctionality. ;)

Crunchyriff

06-09-2005, 01:22 PM

Yeah, and it gives other people jobs, so you are actually providing a service, Teleguy!

stephen

06-09-2005, 03:22 PM

OK, Kitty submitted the proof-read version, and it looks good!

I really feel in my heart like this is the one to go with, so I am going to post it today.

Thanks to everyone for participating in this thread, and Thank You Holy Spirit for guiding us all!

greg

06-25-2005, 05:11 AM

I haven't read all the responses, but I feel I need to respond to the ones I have read.
Literal water baptism is incorrect. In Romans 6 it says we have to be united with Christ in his death. Then it goes on to say, "the death he died, he died to sin." THAT's baptism - dying to sin. As it says, "We died to sin." Again, baptism.
In 1 Peter 3 he says the flood with Noah "symbolizes the baptism that saves" us. But it's "not the removal of dirt from the body." Let's stop there and look at that statement. Baptism is NOT "the removal of dirt from the body." It's not external.
In Hebrews 9:10 in speaking about the law, it says it is "food and drink and various ceremonial washings - EXTERNAL regulations." In Galatians 5 it says if we observe one part of the law, then we are obligated to obey ALL of it.
And in Hebrews 9 it's saying that under the law, people were sprinkled with water OUTWARDLY to be washed. And with outward cleansing is being sprinkled with the blood of animals.
Therefore, if we are to be washed outwardly in ANY way, then we are obligated to be sprinkled with the blood of animals too.
Baptism IS necessary for salvation, for Jesus said in Mark 16, "whoever believes and in baptized will be saved."
That statement there says if we want to be saved, we have to be washed . . of the sinful nature.
Colossians 2:13,14 says Jesus circumcised our heart of the sinful nature, "having been buried with (Christ) in baptism." It's death to sin. As Jesus said in Mark 7, it's not what goes into us that's sin; it's what comes OUT of us.
Therefore, Jeremiah 4:14 says, "Wash evil from your heart and be saved. How long will you harbor wicked thoughts?"
Meaning, be baptized and wash sin out of your heart. The new covenant says God writes his law on our heart and mind, then our sins are forgiven (Jer. 31; Heb 10:16-18).
And Jesus cleanses us "by the washing with water through the word" (Eph 5). The word is the water that washes sin out of our heart and mind.
When are we saved? Upon believing the gospel, for we are "saved by grace through faith" (Eph. 2). And "faith comes from hearing the message" (Rom. 10). We are saved by the word in us.
Romans 1 says God's wrath is because people "did not think it worthwhile to retain the knowledge of God." And it's because "they neither glorified him as God or gave thanks to him."
Meaning, God's word was not in them. So they were not washed. Jesus told his disciples, "Unless I wash you you have no part with me."
Since God "does not judge by external appearance" (Gal 2:6), outward baptism is no different than circumcision.
Hebrews 4:12 says God "judges the thoughts and attitudes of the heart." So baptism that saves us is to wash evil thoughts out of our heart.
:-)

kewlpack

06-25-2005, 05:36 AM

I haven't read all the responses, but I feel I need to respond to the ones I have read.
Probably should read the longer versions of my posts as well as the rest of the thread really. I try to take a middle ground approach.

I'm not gonna rehash the same old arguments at this time (for either side). Take time to read the early church (80-250AD) - that will clear up any question on this topic IMHO (i.e. whether it was literal water, spiritual, inner, outer, before salvation, after it, et. al.) - regardless of which position you take (seems like everyone has their set of Scriptures that support their position). I've dug and dug and found enough evidence to be confident of my personal conclusions on what Christ and the Apostles taught and how it was originally understood.

Thanks for your thoughts Greg! :angel

greg

06-25-2005, 02:12 PM

No offense, but the problem with that opinion is, if we think literal water baptism saves us, then we are trusting in works to be saved - and we won't be.
Or as Paul said, then "Christ will be of no value to (us) at all."
The law (or the "basic principles of this world") is "external regulations," such as "Do not handle....taste...touch!" (Col. 2). It's "done in the body by the hands of men" (Eph 2), just like circumcision.

God's law is spiritual (Rom 7:14). Hebrews 9 explains that under the law, people observed external regulations for worship. But now the law is "obsolele" (Heb 8:13).
Therefore, external regulations are also obsolete. If we observe any outward regulation to try and be "washed" (i.e., righteous/forgiven), then we deny the blood and sacrifice of Christ because "if righteousness could be gained through the law, then Christ died for nothing" (Gal 2).
Meaning, if we can be made righteous and holy through what MAN does OUTWARDLY, then Jesus' death was in vain.
:-)

Kitty

06-25-2005, 03:38 PM

Hi Greg, nice to have you here. I'm fairly new on this board myself.

I haven't read all the responses, but I feel I need to respond to the ones I have read.

I have read all the posts and I don't believe I saw anybody say that Baptism saves us. If you really feel you need to speak on this topic, that's cool. But it might be a good idea to read the whole discussion first and kind of digest all the veiwpoints.

Kitty

greg

06-25-2005, 03:48 PM

Hi Kitty!
Actually, what I was saying was, someone had mentioned that baptism DOESN'T save us, and I was arguing against that point of view. :-)
I don't believe baptism refers to the body but our heart. And in order to be saved, we have to wash evil from our heart (i.e., be baptized).

kewlpack

06-25-2005, 03:52 PM

Like I said - forums are never a great place to really deal with these type of weighty topics well. There's always misunderstanding. Just the nature of forums I suppose. :angel :crazy :-s

Kitty

06-25-2005, 03:56 PM

Semantics. :???:

greg

06-25-2005, 04:05 PM

I don't mean to be argumentative at all. But it's a matter of what is right vs. what is wrong.
The apostles wrote most of their letters because people were teaching wrong doctrine.
If we think baptism is outward and is not necessary, while the Bible teaches that it's inward and is necessary, then what's at stake is our salvation.
Just wanted to share. :-)

kewlpack

06-25-2005, 04:12 PM

Agreed greg.

Crunchyriff

06-25-2005, 06:38 PM

greg

06-25-2005, 07:15 PM

and here we go again.... :dunno :angel

Look we are talking semantics here. Luther summed it all up in one sentence "we only need Christ" and he was correct. Jesus supplies all the necessities therein.

Put it this way: Jesus asked his disciple "are you willing to undergo the baptisim that I am" (meaning His crucifiction)..he wasn't talking about anything to do with water baptism here.

Our hearts and souls are baptized into the Kingdom when we first beleive; water baptism is an act of obedience, physically testifying to that which is unseen, that has already taken place.

John the Baptist said " I baptize with water, but He will baptize with fire"...

so how do we all qualify THAT? In John's estimation, his own method was pretty inferior to what the Son of God had in mind. \:D/

Peace be with you all!

Sorry, crunchyriff, but it's not semantics at all. You quoted Luther who said, "we only need Christ," then you say "water baptism is an act of obedience, physically testifying to that which is unseen, that has already taken place."
Well, that means that Christ isn't enough because now I have to be literally dipped in water.
To say all we need is Christ means that the ONLY thing that we need is what is invisible - God's word in us. And that is true.
Anything beyond that is works of the law.

To be dipped in literal water is to deny the work of Christ, which is unseen, because it puts the work on what MAN does.
So it's not a matter of semantics. It's a matter of true vs. false doctrine.
When Jesus said he had a baptism to undergo, it was as Romans 6 stated: the death he died on the cross, he died to sin.
And that's what I have been saying: baptism is to die to sin. And sin is not about washing our body but our heart.
:-)

Crunchyriff

06-25-2005, 08:47 PM

Sorry, crunchyriff, but it's not semantics at all. You quoted Luther who said, "we only need Christ," then you say "water baptism is an act of obedience, physically testifying to that which is unseen, that has already taken place."
Well, that means that Christ isn't enough because now I have to be literally dipped in water.
To say all we need is Christ means that the ONLY thing that we need is what is invisible - God's word in us. And that is true.
Anything beyond that is works of the law.

No, semantics indeed...and Peter had preached "repent, and be ye baptized". Remember the ethiopian eunuch, who believed and was saved and then was baptized in water. I am not AT ALL saying that baptism saves you; you are misrepresenting what I said. Baptism is simply an act of obedience.

Sorry, crunchyriff, but it's not semantics at all. You quoted Luther who said, "we only need Christ," then you say "water baptism is an act of obedience, physically testifying to that which is unseen, that has already taken place."
Well, that means that Christ isn't enough because now I have to be literally dipped in water.

No that ISN"T what that means, Greg. Because by your reasoning in this matter then you don't have to live by a moral code, either. Living "the walk" is also an act of obediance, to the best of our ability.

Jesus said if you love me, you will keep (obey) my teachings. Would you then call this too, "law"?

Greg from what it appears in your writings thus far on this thread you seem to be arguing on both sides of the fence here. (in fact your very first post as a new member was regarding this very issue)

If so what for? and IF not, please explain the point you are trying to make. :dunno

greg

06-25-2005, 10:02 PM

I am not AT ALL saying that baptism saves you; you are misrepresenting what I said. Baptism is simply an act of obedience.

But see, that's the problem, Crunchyriff, because Jesus said, "Whoever believes and is baptized WILL be saved" (Mark 16:16). So people are saying baptism DOESN'T save because the natural mind KNOWS that being dunked in literal water doesn't do anything.
So we know that literal water doesn't save us. And yet Jesus said whoever is baptized WILL be saved. Therefore we are not talking literal water here. Being dunked in water is NOT obedience. Being washed of sinful thoughts is obedience.

No that ISN"T what that means, Greg. Because by your reasoning in this matter then you don't have to live by a moral code, either. Living "the walk" is also an act of obediance, to the best of our ability."

I don't understand why you would think that NOT being dunked in literal water now eliminates obedience to God's moral law. Literal water has nothing to do with God's law. God's law is "Love your neighbor as yourself."

"Jesus said if you love me, you will keep (obey) my teachings. Would you then call this too, "law"?"

Jesus' teachings are, "Do not judge, and you will not be judged. Do not condemn, and you will not be condemned. Forgive, and you will be forgiven" (Luke 6). 1 John 3:11 says, "This is the message you heard from the beginning, we should love one another."
So obedience to Christ is to love as Christ loved (Eph. 5:1). It is GOD'S law, for Paul said, "I am not free from God's law but am under CHRIST'S law" (1 Cor 9).
However, we ARE free from the EXTERNAL law (Col 2:13-17; Heb. 9:9,10). The external law is a shadow and copy (Heb 8,10; Col 2:16,17). But Christ is the reality (Col. 2:16,17).
We are not to live in the shadow/copy but the reality, which is spiritual/unseen.

"Greg from what it appears in your writings thus far on this thread you seem to be arguing on both sides of the fence here. (in fact your very first post as a new member was regarding this very issue)

If so what for? and IF not, please explain the point you are trying to make"

Please show me where I argue both sides. :-)
Maybe instead of just saying that I said something, I think it would be a good idea if people would quote what they claim the other person said in order to eliminate any arguments or false accusations. :-)

kewlpack

06-26-2005, 03:56 AM

Let's keep level heads in this discussion - and maintain the spirit of Christ in our words. :angel

My position is quite simple. I think I've put it as simply as I could already.

Here it is one last time. Whether we agree or not, I hope we can at least stimulate each other to dig very deeply on these matters.

Baptism is a passive act performed upon a disciple in literal water, in the name of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit. The dunking is done after the disciple has believed (Mrk 16:16, John 3:16, etc.); confessed Christ as Lord (Rom 10:9,10), repented of known sin (Act 2:38, etc.) and is ready to commit themselves to Jesus (Gal 2:20).

Baptism is something a person surrenders to in obedience to Scripture - it isn't some silly work of our own volition.

Baptism is performed in a two-fold manner:
1) A person takes the disciple into the water, dunks them after a prayer and laying on of hands, and that's about it (Act 2, 8, 10, 22, 1Pet 3:21, etc.).

2) God buries us with Jesus at baptism and performs a spiritual circumcision (Rom 6, Col 2, Gal 3, etc.). Notice that in Col 2:12 it is actually God doing the work in baptism - not us. God does what we cannot do - He makes us perfect and pure, as we don Christ's righteousness through His baptizing us (2 Cor 5:21).

Baptism is simply the first major milestone of our faith as it leads us to absolute surrender and submission to whatever Jesus wants. It is where we are translated from the domain of darkness and transferred into the Kingdom of His Beloved Son. It does save us as Peter explained in 1Pet 3. It isn't a "work of effort" at all - it's simply agreeing to the contract Jesus laid down at the cross - Mark 16:16.

Baptism is both a spiritual and physical event... John 3 talks about being born again. Baptism is that birth. It is also our death to self (Gal 2:20, Rom 6 again)...

Baptism is not exclusive of any other thing in Scripture that says it saves us. It is part of the whole and inclusive. It is significant because baptism is the only event in all of Scripture where we are told we contact the blood and death of Christ (Rom 6 again). No other place in Scripture says this about any other salvation element.

Baptism does not, in and of itself, guarantee you a spot at the "banqueting table" on the Last Day. You and I both know that we must walk in the light as He is in the light. That we must show our faith by how we live. That we must be the lights, set on the hill for all to see, and the salt of the earth! If you get dunked and don't stick with the program - you just got wet.

Now I'm sure many are gonna want to argue all of this till your blue in the face. My ultimate response is - there are sound Scriptures for my position and they agree with the faith, repentance and confession Scriptures just fine... because they are integral to each other.

I would also point out that my position is the same as that of the entire Church for the first 250-300 years. In fact, this position that baptism is a necessary part of salvation is undisputed for almost 1500 years... not until the Reformation came in and caused the pendulum to swing to faith only did this change.

Some would argue that the guys who knew the apostles didn't really understand them or that they fell away immediately. That leaves little hope for any of us if that is the case. If you take time to avail yourself of the Ante Nicene writings - you will see that they were amazingly steadfast and transparently honest with the Gospel. Some of them were friends with the Apostles and there are accounts of those relationships. You will see how deeply they understood Scripture and how things were consistent throughout Christendom for a long time - because the Apostles set it up right and taught the people exhaustively.

I have studied and studied them, and there is simply no other conclusion I can come to. I'm glad to hold a similar position as that of the earliest churches on this matter of water baptism. I am positive that if you take time to read their witness for yourself on this subject - you will come to the very same understanding - you might not accept it, but you will at least know what the Apostles taught about their writings on baptism in the New Testament.

At the end of the day - our salvation truly is between us and the Lord. Work out your salvation with trembling and fear in the love of Christ.

So there it is - I went and spilled the beans... this is what I believe, to the core of my soul - because of the evidence I've read myself. I know the various faith-only types of arguments and all that - but there isn't any historic evidence nor precedent for those positions... not until after 1500AD. What I have found is that Faith Only salvation teaching is an innovation brought on through a severe overreaction to the corruption within the Roman Catholic church of the day. I believe that it is a device of Satan intended to polarize the beloved Body of Christ. To wreak confusion and break us down...

Ah - but we are more than conquerors through Jesus Christ who gives us the victory in all things - to HIM be glory and honor and praise throughout all generations, world without end! Amen!

God be with you guys. :angel

Crunchyriff

06-26-2005, 05:22 AM

But see, that's the problem, Crunchyriff, because Jesus said, "Whoever believes and is baptized WILL be saved" (Mark 16:16). So people are saying baptism DOESN'T save because the natural mind KNOWS that being dunked in literal water doesn't do anything.
So we know that literal water doesn't save us. And yet Jesus said whoever is baptized WILL be saved. Therefore we are not talking literal water here. Being dunked in water is NOT obedience. Being washed of sinful thoughts is obedience.

Then tell me why Peter thought it prudent to baptize the eunuch AFTER his conversion!? :mrgreen:

We are one the same page with what water baptism symbolizes- of course it means something deeper- at the spiritual level. It ALSO, however, is represented as a physical act of obediance- that is, water baptism.

Maybe instead of just saying that I said something, I think it would be a good idea if people would quote what they claim the other person said in order to eliminate any arguments or false accusations. Smile

Oh that's classic...real nice- easy too, innit? Your first three posts in this thread are exactly what I am referring to, Greg. They are there for all to see- I don't need to post them here. I also said to you: "...if not, please make clear the point you are trying to make"...

Look: your first three posts as a new member are a direct challenge to the posted "statement of faith" which was posted with much rapport and prayer by the mods.

Until now, secondary doctrinal differences aside, the rest of us here are all on the same page, so to speak.

Of course 'baptism' comes first to us at the spiritual level! The washing away of sins. Nobody has been quibbling that. But to say that water baptism is totally un-necessary and a part of "the law" (as per your first post); well you need to have a talk with Peter and the rest of the apostles about that... I'm certainly not maintaining that you will go to hell if you don't get baptized before you die- it's the faith in Christ's sacrifice to us that sets us free.

that is all I have to say to you about these things.

Selah.

Ah - but we are more than conquerors through Jesus Christ who gives us the victory in all things - to HIM be glory and honor and praise throughout all generations, world without end! Amen!

+1, Kewlpack!! AMEN!!

greg

06-26-2005, 03:17 PM

Let's keep level heads in this discussion - and maintain the spirit of Christ in our words. :angel

kewlpack, I never said anything that would be misunderstood as being harmful or hateful in any way. I have been speaking kindly and without malice or hatred. :-)

And as far as what you and I believe, we don't agree. :-)

greg

06-26-2005, 03:31 PM

Then tell me why Peter thought it prudent to baptize the eunuch AFTER his conversion!?

We are one the same page with what water baptism symbolizes- of course it means something deeper- at the spiritual level. It ALSO, however, is represented as a physical act of obediance- that is, water baptism.

Crunchyriff, we HAVE to be baptized/washed of sin AFTER we believe because we don't obey to be saved. We obey because while "we were still in the uncircumcision of our sinful nature" Jesus forgave us (Col 2).
Meaning, we hear the gospel and believe while we were still sinners. THEN after we believe, NOW we have to be washed of sin by obeying the truth. That's why baptism is after we believe.
As Peter said, "Now that you have purified yourselves by obeying the truth." (1 Peter 1).

Oh that's classic...real nice- easy too, innit? Your first three posts in this thread are exactly what I am referring to, Greg. They are there for all to see- I don't need to post them here. I also said to you: "...if not, please make clear the point you are trying to make"...

Look: your first three posts as a new member are a direct challenge to the posted "statement of faith" which was posted with much rapport and prayer by the mods.

Until now, secondary doctrinal differences aside, the rest of us here are all on the same page, so to speak.

Of course 'baptism' comes first to us at the spiritual level! The washing away of sins. Nobody has been quibbling that. But to say that water baptism is totally un-necessary and a part of "the law" (as per your first post); well you need to have a talk with Peter and the rest of the apostles about that... I'm certainly not maintaining that you will go to hell if you don't get baptized before you die- it's the faith in Christ's sacrifice to us that sets us free.

that is all I have to say to you about these things.

Selah.

Crunchyriff, you said Greg from what it appears in your writings thus far on this thread you seem to be arguing on both sides of the fence here. (in fact your very first post as a new member was regarding this very issue)

I asked where I argue both sides of the fence in saying baptism is both physical and spiritual, because that's what this discussion is all about.
You have been quoting me in your last few posts, so why not quote what you claim I said? You said it was my "very first post."

Here is my very first post:

I haven't read all the responses, but I feel I need to respond to the ones I have read.
Literal water baptism is incorrect. In Romans 6 it says we have to be united with Christ in his death. Then it goes on to say, "the death he died, he died to sin." THAT's baptism - dying to sin. As it says, "We died to sin." Again, baptism.
In 1 Peter 3 he says the flood with Noah "symbolizes the baptism that saves" us. But it's "not the removal of dirt from the body." Let's stop there and look at that statement. Baptism is NOT "the removal of dirt from the body." It's not external.
In Hebrews 9:10 in speaking about the law, it says it is "food and drink and various ceremonial washings - EXTERNAL regulations." In Galatians 5 it says if we observe one part of the law, then we are obligated to obey ALL of it.
And in Hebrews 9 it's saying that under the law, people were sprinkled with water OUTWARDLY to be washed. And with outward cleansing is being sprinkled with the blood of animals.
Therefore, if we are to be washed outwardly in ANY way, then we are obligated to be sprinkled with the blood of animals too.
Baptism IS necessary for salvation, for Jesus said in Mark 16, "whoever believes and in baptized will be saved."
That statement there says if we want to be saved, we have to be washed . . of the sinful nature.
Colossians 2:13,14 says Jesus circumcised our heart of the sinful nature, "having been buried with (Christ) in baptism." It's death to sin. As Jesus said in Mark 7, it's not what goes into us that's sin; it's what comes OUT of us.
Therefore, Jeremiah 4:14 says, "Wash evil from your heart and be saved. How long will you harbor wicked thoughts?"
Meaning, be baptized and wash sin out of your heart. The new covenant says God writes his law on our heart and mind, then our sins are forgiven (Jer. 31; Heb 10:16-18).
And Jesus cleanses us "by the washing with water through the word" (Eph 5). The word is the water that washes sin out of our heart and mind.
When are we saved? Upon believing the gospel, for we are "saved by grace through faith" (Eph. 2). And "faith comes from hearing the message" (Rom. 10). We are saved by the word in us.
Romans 1 says God's wrath is because people "did not think it worthwhile to retain the knowledge of God." And it's because "they neither glorified him as God or gave thanks to him."
Meaning, God's word was not in them. So they were not washed. Jesus told his disciples, "Unless I wash you you have no part with me."
Since God "does not judge by external appearance" (Gal 2:6), outward baptism is no different than circumcision.
Hebrews 4:12 says God "judges the thoughts and attitudes of the heart." So baptism that saves us is to wash evil thoughts out of our heart.

I don't argue both sides at all.
And you're correct that my beliefs are "a direct challenge to the posted 'statement of faith.'"
You also said, well you need to have a talk with Peter and the rest of the apostles about that...

But in 1 Peter 3 HE said baptism is "NOT the removal of dirt from the body." :-)
I am not arguing maliciously. I just don't agree, just like the apostles and Jesus disagreed with the Jews. But would you say they were being hateful for disagreeing? Of course not. I'm not mad or being rude. I just don't agree.
:-)