Sickened wrote:
The Cure - We can question each other's conversions if we see serious error, but NOT if we disagree with them over the doctrine of Calvinism, a person's views on election have NO bearing whatsoever on whether or not they are saved.

Sickened wrote:
The sheer arrogance and unChristian attitudes on display on this comment board are disgusting. How dare we question each other's conversions? Shame upon you all.

Matt 7:21 Not every one that saith unto me, Lord, Lord, shall enter into the kingdom of heaven; but he that doeth the will of my Father which is in heaven.
22 Many will say to me in that day, Lord, Lord, have we not prophesied in thy name? and in thy name have cast out devils? and in thy name done many wonderful works?
23 And then will I profess unto them, I never knew you: depart from me, ye that work iniquity.

Then theres......

2John v10 If there come any unto you, and bring not this doctrine, receive him not into your house, neither bid him God speed:
11 For he that biddeth him God speed is partaker of his evil deeds.

Mr. J wrote:
No one has addressed any of the issues I raised below. ... maw, maw, maw

YOu want a word study? (Even though you don't have one yourself) Read all the references to “baptism” and replace it with “sprinkling” and see how much it makes sense. I think you would have the time of your life laughing. (Now you know what I do when I read your side of the argument)

1. You are outright wrong. You contradict yourself. It is quite ludicrous to say that noone in the history of the O.T was ever immersed.

2. Washings as have been pointed out by your fellow paedobaptists also means baptism because they both require immersion.

3. You use a logical fallacy.

Mr. J wrote:
The Red Sea crossing and the Ark of Noah typology are not the central issues. And yet, immersion, according to your terminology, must have cleansing by water. It cannot be dry. The only ones who were immersed in those instances were the damned ones.
You addressed none of the other issues I brought forward regarding OT purification etc. Where was immersion in the OT? Where are the prophecies concering immersion by the coming Messiah? Where is your word study on Bapto and Baptiso? There was no mention of baptism in the OT because it is a Greek word. So to do your word study on its meaning you must use the LXX, the Greek Old Testament. It is all very well to stand in the shadows and fire meaningless potshots, but you do not gain debating points that way. So far, I have laid out a legitimate case and you have not even adequately addressed it - yet you act as if you have defeated it.

Now that's chaos!

1. You have prophecies that are really no prophecies at all.

2. You have King David, a mere man, as the predecessor of the Spiritual Kingdom.

3. The promises given to national Israel is nothing more than the biggest sham in the history of the universe.

When we are baptized into Jesus, we are not sprikled by him. We are placed in him.

Icon O'Clast wrote:
You must be proud of your ignorance Cure, you show it off so much. Ritual purification has nothing to do with washing your hands before a meal. You can be fresh out of a bath and not ceremonially clean. Read the OT purification laws. Then read other posts properly and take the time to check what people say, including the Bible texts, before you blurt out the first thing that comes out of your scone.

Ha!

Let me guess, you are going to give me a Bible text that clearly states that washing is nothing more than a sprinkle.

Some how I seriously doubt that that is going to happen.

Listen, son, if it stated that he took hyssop and baptized his tent with it, then you may have an argument. But it does not. Can you get that through your head? You can't simply state that sprinkling means baptism for no other reason other than because you want to. You have to have some linguistical proof.

Concerning washings, I agree. That's because they are virtually the same thing. When one washes his hands, he must immerse them in water. When one washes the dishes, he must immerse it in water. When one washes his body, one must immerse it in water. You get the picture?

If that does not work, then try this...

Go to your mother's house, and spray your hands with a little water before dinner (with her watching), and tell her that you have just finished washing your hands. Maybe when she smacks you across the face for your ignorance, you will start to understand where I am coming from.

DJC49 wrote:
Mr. Cure:
You err ... again.
There's not a Bible version out there that EXPLICITLY states the Trinity. Rather, we arrive at the word [Trinity] by way of inference.

DJC49 wrote:
But as the Bible clearly teaches - WE baptise children of the parents which God has entered into covenant with, as indeed God has so declared us to do.

That is why Calvinism is nothing more than a humanistic theology. It is based on solely on inference not on clear statement from the Bible.

Mr. J wrote:
The law in Leviticus clearly states that priests were sprinkled.

Yes. Nowhere in the Bible does it state that Baptism is the same as sprinkling. Now if the Bible uses the word baptism and clearly from the context it was indicated that a sprinkling was occuring, you may have an argument. But to make an irresponsible connection between sprinking and and Baptism were no connection exists is called wishful thinking.

Of course it would never occur to the Calvinist that God uses "sprinkling" because he actually means "sprinkling" and he uses the word for immersion because he actually means immersion.

Mr. J wrote:
Nor does the Bible mention the Trinity..

Minnow wrote:
Yamil
Immersion, as many have stated before on the site, is only ONE of the definitions of "baptizw."
If you want to get folks all wet then do so, but learn a little Greek and realise the truth. Both in Scripture and in classical writings of the time, "baptizw" has been shown to mean a variety of water applications and the use of a variety of water depths.
That is the true facts of Greek translation, not just because I'm a presbyterian, but simply the facts.
As for "Calvinism"
- One of the greatest "Baptist" preachers Charles Spurgeon was a Calvinist and an immersionist.

Speaking of facts, you provide none. When you start providing facts, then I may let you lecture me about my facts.

This is way different than being a political king of Israel.

DJC49 wrote:
Mr. Cure:
You err. Christ is NOT the type, but the antitype. He is the fulfillment of the typology.

You must be a Calvinist.

Christ eternality has nothing to do with prophecy. Though God is indeed eternal, he chooses to act within the realm of time. Just because he decides to do so does not rob him of his eternality.

What you are proposing is called a red-herring. What you do not realize is that if prophecy cannot be taken literally simply because God is eternal you fall into the following error:

1. There is NO prophecy that can be taken literally, both the ones that have been fullfilled and the ones that are to be fulfilled. We have no reason to believe that Jesus literally came the first time. According to your hermeneutic, that would be impossible since God is eternal. You can't even (erroneously) presume that some prophecy has been fulfilled in AD 70. In fact, forget about the millenium, Jesus is not coming back in any form!

Mr. J wrote:
Immersion is ONE of the meanings of baptism. Read John Murray on the mode of Baptism and he proves that Conant was lying through his teeth when he said that baptism always means immersion. Baptism's original meaning had many variations, including dying, dipping, pouring, sprinkling. You see this when you read the LXX and find out how they translated the different Hebrew words into Greek.
Dispensationalism is a fairly recent invention - relatively unknown before Darby and only survived because it was popularised by Scofield. Both these guys had no theological training - but then that can be said for most great Arminians. I can't believe I just wrote all that to Can't Understand Reasoned Edification. Must be having a relapse.

The Bible is very clear that a profession of faith is required for baptism. When the Ethiopian eunuch asked for the requirments for salvation, Phillip told him very clearly that he had to believe with his whole heart.

Acts 8:36-38 wrote:
36And as they went on their way, they came unto a certain water: and the eunuch said, See, here is water; what doth hinder me to be baptized? 37And Philip said, If thou believest with all thine heart, thou mayest. And he answered and said, I believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God. 38And he commanded the chariot to stand still: and they went down both into the water, both Philip and the eunuch; and he baptized him.

You see, Jesus as the type was a literal prophet. He was not merely a spiritual prophet in heaven.

The same goes with his throne. It is a literal throne. Not some spirtual throne in heaven which he always had anyway.

It is quite interesting how you are able to take one phrophecy literally (Moses' type) but when it does not suit your theology, you spiritualize it so that you can change it to your best theological fancy.