Southern Baptist question

[Madman]

Do not misunderstand, it was a thoughtful and spot on observation you made.

My prayer is that the chasm is not so deep that the prayer of our Lord cannot repair it. I pray I live to see what it looks like.

I apologize, I missed the question of “correct intention”.
The correct intention is to do what the Church does and what the Sacrament is meant to do.

As Holy Scripture says “baptism saves you”, and in so doing incorporates one into the body of Christ and therefore into Christ. The receiver of baptism is marked by the Holy Spirit.

 

[Israel]

I apologize, I missed the question of “correct intention”.
The correct intention is to do what the Church does and what the Sacrament is meant to do.

As Holy Scripture says “baptism saves you”, and in so doing incorporates one into the body of Christ and therefore into Christ. The receiver of baptism is marked by the Holy Spirit.

Is it therefore that the minister of baptism recognizes the mark

The receiver of baptism is marked by the Holy Spirit.

and ministers then according to this recognition and the receiver's submission?

 

[Madman]

Is it therefore that the minister of baptism recognizes the mark
and ministers then according to this recognition and the receiver's submission?

the minister preforms the sacrament with the intention of it providing what it is meant to to provide.
The recipient needs not submit nor agree to anything.

 

[Madman]

Read a statistic years ago from the Billy Graham Crusade, it stated that some 80+ % of respondents to the alter calls had been baptized previously.

 

[Israel]

the minister preforms the sacrament with the intention of it providing what it is meant to to provide.
The recipient needs not submit nor agree to anything.

Then it is not in recognition of the being "marked by the Holy Spirit"?

As in Peter's encounter with Cornelius' household?

Or Philip's questions/statement to the Ethiopian eunuch?

 

[Israel]

Read a statistic years ago from the Billy Graham Crusade, it stated that some 80+ % of respondents to the alter calls had been baptized previously.

It would be interesting to know how that statistic was arrived at...

 

[gordon 2]

Y'all are debating on the interpretation of the word "marked".


God can act on anyone be they believers or not.
God can act on those who don't have eternal life or a shared life with God.
God can act on those who do have eternal life or a shared life with Him.

Perhaps "marked" is used here to indicate that with baptism one is known as having a shared life with God, and not by their own efforts, or any single minister's efforts, but through the ministry of the Church which recognizes definite attributes of the baptized. The baptized might be in a relationship that is of neglect, but the relationship is inherent nevertheless.

To say that someone "marked" is "saved" is a whole other can of worms of the OSAS debates. Which is not my idea of fun, fun, fun. I'm getting side tracked now... so I'l stop.

I will add this:

Once upon a time when I was physically able to teach and therefore teaching within the Church... I was preparing kids for Confirmation. ( We were doing it with much bible study I might add.)

It so happened that one boy indicated to someone that he was getting a lot of teasing or getting harassed by his older brother who was telling him that, " All this God-Church stuff is fake and just stories and that there was no God. It and Jesus was just an other fictitious- magic story written by people.

The priest mentioned it to me and ask me if I knew for certain if the older brother had been baptized. It seemed important for the pastor to know this before he proceeded or intervened either directly or with parents.

I can only assume that the intervention would not be the same for one baptized and one not baptized.

My instinct tells me that the phycology of each would be very different or the dynamics of their deny of God might be motivated from very different causes. Rebellion vs mistrust is not the same. Add church rebellion to the rebellious yrs of your youth and you got yourself a rebel. This rebel has somethings to rebel about. On the other hand, to the worldly minds and hearts it would be easy to paint a blanket over God belief that it was possibly worse than the corruptions of the ordinary world due to the hypocrisy and double mindedness as demonstrable fact within the established groupings of God believers.

 

[Israel]

I didn't know we were debating.

 

[Israel]

Peter recognized that the Holy Spirit had come upon the hearers in the Cornelius account...whether there was further entreaty "for water" by them we do not know...only that Peter had arrived already knowing God was at work there.

Yet, he did not assay as first matter...to baptize.

And dare we assume there was no resistance by them to being baptized in water as Peter then so ordered?

Without falling into a rigorous formula, with the exception of mention of those "being baptized for the dead" (which bears no endorsement nor rebuke...only mention) do any find a reference where the one being baptized is without either knowledge of it, assent to it, or desire for it?

Or in terms already expressed...unless I misunderstand...the estate of the one being baptized is at best secondary if not totally immaterial to the intent of the one baptizing.

 

[gordon 2]

I didn't know we were debating.

 

[NE GA Pappy]

the minister preforms the sacrament with the intention of it providing what it is meant to to provide.
The recipient needs not submit nor agree to anything.

are you saying that an infant can be baptized and be, at that point and forever more, a redeemed soul? or that if you held down a 3 time murderer against his will, and baptized him, he would be saved?

 

[gordon 2]

Peter recognized that the Holy Spirit had come upon the hearers in the Cornelius account...whether there was further entreaty "for water" by them we do not know...only that Peter had arrived already knowing God was at work there.

Yet, he did not assay as first matter...to baptize.

And dare we assume there was no resistance by them to being baptized in water as Peter then so ordered?

Without falling into a rigorous formula, with the exception of mention of those "being baptized for the dead" (which bears no endorsement nor rebuke...only mention) do any find a reference where the one being baptized is without either knowledge of it, assent to it, or desire for it?

Or in terms already expressed...unless I misunderstand...the estate of the one being baptized is at best secondary if not totally immaterial to the intent of the one baptizing.

I don't know enough bible to add to much of your post questions, except that Paul was knocked off his high horse before he was baptized. I'm thinking that baptism is secondary to my parents being Christian, and I know the material of my baptism is foremost in the scheme, that is my parents being Christian is secondary to my baptism regards the estate.


I go to God's promise of His heart in people. How does He do this or at what point does this happen in general? Is it sudden? Is it a lengthy process with steps to boot? Does it depend on the wishes of the receiver? Is the new heart ready for the road as soon as one acquires it? Does the new person need help to walk before they can run? Do they need help of a authority in the temporal in which they exist? If so how does this occur usually?

 

[Madman]

are you saying that an infant can be baptized and be, at that point and forever more, a redeemed soul? or that if you held down a 3 time murderer against his will, and baptized him, he would be saved?

No I am not. An infant is no more "once saved, always saved" than anyone else. No one can be properly baptized against their adult will.

 

[gordon 2]

are you saying that an infant can be baptized and be, at that point and forever more, a redeemed soul? or that if you held down a 3 time murderer against his will, and baptized him, he would be saved?

On the murderer being baptized against his will. When they are held down with chemical restraints against their wills it might be a good Hail Mary try.

But then Who's gona be there with help when the restraints come off and the're back on the street or prison with a 50-50 chance of reoffending?

King David was basically cold blooded when it came to an other man's wife. It is a good thing he had a lot of faith. What about those who's faith is weak?

I personally think that a infant that is baptized has the gift of a foundation on which a great life can be built. Some will be attracted by God's witness to them personally and/ or God's personal witness to others because of this foundation-- which foundation is the gift of God heart in believers...

It seems to me that Jesus had an assessment of degree for believers. The friend had an added commission compared to the servant only. The friend had a knowledge the servant did not.




4You are My friends if you do what I command you. 15No longer do I call you servants, for a servant does not understand what his master is doing. But I have called you friends, because everything I have learned from My Father I have made known to you. 16You did not choose Me, but I chose you. And I appointed you to go and bear fruit—fruit that will remain—so that whatever you ask the Father in My name, He will give you.…

This tread is getting serious We are now quoting scripture at the end of our posts. Woo! This means we are onto business.

 

[gordon 2]

I realize the seeming paradox of, in one case, holding to the confession that God does as He wishes placing members in the body according to His sole intent (no assent needed nor agreement sought by the member) and the notion that a man, any man, in the church holds the same authority...apart from some recognition, provided only by the Spirit, and that such a one is agreeable to the confession of Jesus Christ as Lord. This even by declaration.

This position (of mine, presently) cannot annul any or all instruction that it is enough for the disciple to be as his Master...which taken to the extreme would seem to indicate "do all as God does"...which would include "then man is granted to choose who is, or will be, 'in the church'" as opposed to an agreement with God granted by the Spirit's recognition.

For me now this seems a bridge too far, but I cannot rule out that such faith may be granted to a disciple made perfect...for he would be in all accord with the will of God...and though it might appear the man's choosing...it would really be in submission to His maker that his will actually flowed in agreement. But my confession remains only One man has attained.

"You have not chosen me, but I have chosen you...and ordained you..."

Who is ordained and who is not?

 

[Israel]

Who is ordained and who is not?

That's the question, ultimately...how does God's choosing appear?

"What went you out into the wilderness to see?"

 

[Madman]

I realize the seeming paradox of, in one case, holding to the confession that God does as He wishes placing members in the body according to His sole intent (no assent needed nor agreement sought by the member) and the notion that a man, any man, in the church holds the same authority...apart from some recognition, provided only by the Spirit, and that such a one is agreeable to the confession of Jesus Christ as Lord. This even by declaration.

This position (of mine, presently) cannot annul any or all instruction that it is enough for the disciple to be as his Master...which taken to the extreme would seem to indicate "do all as God does"...which would include "then man is granted to choose who is, or will be, 'in the church'" as opposed to an agreement with God granted by the Spirit's recognition.

For me now this seems a bridge too far, but I cannot rule out that such faith may be granted to a disciple made perfect...for he would be in all accord with the will of God...and though it might appear the man's choosing...it would really be in submission to His maker that his will actually flowed in agreement. But my confession remains only One man has attained.

"You have not chosen me, but I have chosen you...and ordained you..."

While baptism is necessary for salvation, that is on the part of the one being baptized.

Holy Scripture says that baptism is for the washing away of sins, therefore the baptized is sinless, immediately following the sacrament. He very well walk out of the river and slap his wife, he would then need to go to confession to repair that.

We must understand that God does not need the sacraments, he provided them for us, so that our conscience is constantly turned toward him.

Does God need Holy Eucharist to sustain his children in this realm? No more than the Israelites needed mana and quail in the wilderness, but he provides it that we may know where our strength/sustenance derive.

 

[Madman]

Who is ordained and who is not?

and ordained for what purpose

 

[NE GA Pappy]

No I am not. An infant is no more "once saved, always saved" than anyone else. No one can be properly baptized against their adult will.

I am trying to reconcile this statement, with your previous statement of

the minister preforms the sacrament with the intention of it providing what it is meant to to provide.
The recipient needs not submit nor agree to anything.

aren't these opposing statements, or am I missing something here?

 

[NE GA Pappy]

While baptism is necessary for salvation, that is on the part of the one being baptized.

My belief system doesn't agree with this statement. I see numerous times where scripture says to 'Repent and believe on the Lord Jesus and you shall be saved' with no requirement to be baptized.