That is, the Mormon church teaches similarly and as another poster showed in citing the Councils of Nicea, Constantinople and Trent the other day; the Roman Catholic Church teaches this as well. Personally, I enjoy a discussion that is unafraid to look at such similarities in doctrines.
Do you think that Peter was negating the bolded statement above when he said, "not the putting away of the filth of the flesh, but the answer of a good conscience toward God?" That is, the physical act of being immersed in water accomplishes nothing more than "the removal of dirt from the body."
What I hear from a lot of the "anti-baptismal regenrationalist" folks is that they are trying to demystify the act of baptism, and even to remove the "sacrementalist" aspect that the RCC has ascribed to it.
In other words, I see a lot of room for common ground here.
Peter was saying this is NOT a ceremonial cleansing but to an ANSWER of a good conscience toward God. Baptism SAVES us in that clears the conscience sets the record straight. Our sins are remitted in baptism thus they are TAKEN AWAY no longer on our record. ONLY in baptism in Jesus Name are sins remitted in the church age. In baptism sins are sent beforehand into judgment those who are NOT baptized in Jesus Name their sins will follow them into judgment.1Tim 5:24. Baptism again is NOT a ceremonial cleansing in removing dirt from the flesh but in baptism sins are washed away by the power of the blood through faith of the penitent.
That is, the Mormon church teaches similarly and as another poster showed in citing the Councils of Nicea, Constantinople and Trent the other day; the Roman Catholic Church teaches this as well. Personally, I enjoy a discussion that is unafraid to look at such similarities in doctrines.
Do you think that Peter was negating the bolded statement above when he said, "not the putting away of the filth of the flesh, but the answer of a good conscience toward God?" That is, the physical act of being immersed in water accomplishes nothing more than "the removal of dirt from the body."
What I hear from a lot of the "anti-baptismal regenrationalist" folks is that they are trying to demystify the act of baptism, and even to remove the "sacrementalist" aspect that the RCC has ascribed to it.
In other words, I see a lot of room for common ground here.
Are you sure you want to stick with this answer Pelathais???
This one may cause you more headaches then it's worth
Are you sure you want to stick with this answer Pelathais???
This one may cause you more headaches then it's worth
He knows both Papists and Mormons require NO faith on those being baptized INFANTS for Papists and those of the reformed stream and the dead for Mormons. But his answer is exact to that of the Baptist. If you don't want to be labeled with the Baptist quit preached their faith only doctrine. Your answer is the same. Ours is NOT the same with Papists and Mormons and YOU know that. Maybe you guys should read some more of Bernie's stuff to help you?
Are you sure you want to stick with this answer Pelathais???
This one may cause you more headaches then it's worth
What? That there's room for common ground here? I'm still trying to be "under cover" here, but I presented this very idea to the highest authorities in the UPC many years ago and was met with a favorable review. Here's a pic, that's Jesse Williams listening to me make this very point, out of the picture to the right is Rodney Shaw, David Bernard and J.L. Hall. I do not recall who the gentleman is to the left of Brother Williams.
I only bring this up to point out that people you know and respect see that there's room for some common ground on this issue. The points I made in this thread concening baptism were made by me when this pic was taken several years ago.
What? That there's room for common ground here? I'm still trying to be "under cover" here, but I presented this very idea to the highest authorities in the UPC many years ago and was met with a favorable review. Here's a pic, that's Jesse Williams listening to me make this very point, out of the picture to the right is Rodney Shaw, David Bernard and J.L. Hall. I do not recall who the gentleman is to the left of Brother Williams.
I only bring this up to point out that people you know and respect see that there's room for some common ground on this issue. The points I made in this thread concening baptism were made by me in when this pic was taken several years ago.
What? That there's room for common ground here? I'm still trying to be "under cover" here, but I presented this very idea to the highest authorities in the UPC many years ago and was met with a favorable review. Here's a pic, that's Jesse Williams listening to me make this very point, out of the picture to the right is Rodney Shaw, David Bernard and J.L. Hall. I do not recall who the gentleman is to the left of Brother Williams.
I only bring this up to point out that people you know and respect see that there's room for some common ground on this issue. The points I made in this thread concening baptism were made by me when this pic was taken several years ago.
Pelathais, your position is one that I can see common ground with. It isnt the same as some others around here either.
__________________ If I do something stupid blame the Lortab!
That is, the Mormon church teaches similarly and as another poster showed in citing the Councils of Nicea, Constantinople and Trent the other day; the Roman Catholic Church teaches this as well. Personally, I enjoy a discussion that is unafraid to look at such similarities in doctrines.
Do you think that Peter was negating the bolded statement above when he said, "not the putting away of the filth of the flesh, but the answer of a good conscience toward God?" That is, the physical act of being immersed in water accomplishes nothing more than "the removal of dirt from the body."
What I hear from a lot of the "anti-baptismal regenrationalist" folks is that they are trying to demystify the act of baptism, and even to remove the "sacrementalist" aspect that the RCC has ascribed to it.
In other words, I see a lot of room for common ground here.
Pelathias, would it be correct to characterize your view of Jesus being God as Papist? BTW Papist is a derogatory term
paˇpist (pā'pĭst) Pronunciation Key
n. Offensive Used as a disparaging term for a Roman Catholic.
Just because two groups hold a similar views does not make one group comparative to the other. I have heard such arguments from Baptists...yes and Atheists and pagans. I have been called a worshiper of Mithra because someone chose to note some similarities. I find papal and mormon comparisons VERY insulting and I consider that to be the intent when someone draws that comparison.
However I have to say to the SEs and others here that if you don't like being called Papal or Mormon then you should not do the same.
__________________ Let it be understood that Apostolic Friends Forum is an Apostolic Forum.
Apostolic is defined on AFF as:
There is One God. This one God reveals Himself distinctly as Father, Son and Holy Ghost.
The Son is God himself in a human form or "God manifested in the flesh" (1Tim 3:16)
Every sinner must repent of their sins.
That Jesus name baptism is the only biblical mode of water baptism.
That the Holy Ghost is for today and is received by faith with the initial evidence of speaking in tongues.
The saint will go on to strive to live a holy life, pleasing to God.
Yes sir I know, I just used you to make a point, lol. sorry
But I want you to realize what I am saying because I see alot of post by you that willfully assumes one (especially 3 stepper or UPC) leaves out the grace or cross from Acts 2-38 when that is not always true. I am sad that you do that when your post are so beautiful and Godsend.
Pelathias, would it be correct to characterize your view of Jesus being God as Papist? BTW Papist is a derogatory term
paˇpist (pā'pĭst) Pronunciation Key
n. Offensive Used as a disparaging term for a Roman Catholic.
Just because two groups hold a similar views does not make one group comparative to the other. I have heard such arguments from Baptists...yes and Atheists and pagans. I have been called a worshiper of Mithra because someone chose to note some similarities. I find papal and mormon comparisons VERY insulting and I consider that to be the intent when someone draws that comparison.
However I have to say to the SEs and others here that if you don't like being called Papal or Mormon then you should not do the same.
That was really my point. As I said before, I enjoy it when the conversation is unafraid to look at the comparisons and contrasts with other views.
Right now I am devotee of Mr. Dave Lennox because there's a really cold wind outside.
That was really my point. As I said before, I enjoy it when the conversation is unafraid to look at the comparisons and contrasts with other views.
Right now I am devotee of Mr. Dave Lennox because there's a really cold wind outside.
Comparative religion is one thing. We can do that all day long in all honesty. But that is not what is happening. These terms like sacramentalist, papal and mormon are being tossed out as insults and pejorative terms.
__________________ Let it be understood that Apostolic Friends Forum is an Apostolic Forum.
Apostolic is defined on AFF as:
There is One God. This one God reveals Himself distinctly as Father, Son and Holy Ghost.
The Son is God himself in a human form or "God manifested in the flesh" (1Tim 3:16)
Every sinner must repent of their sins.
That Jesus name baptism is the only biblical mode of water baptism.
That the Holy Ghost is for today and is received by faith with the initial evidence of speaking in tongues.
The saint will go on to strive to live a holy life, pleasing to God.
Linear Mode
