Martin Luther on Christian Baptism: IT SAVES!!!!!!

[LUKE2447]

Originally Posted by mizpeh

I found it on CARM quoted by one of the best Oneness and New Birth apologists I have read online. He's also a member here but doesn't post much. DaveC519.


http://www.christiandiscussionforums...23#post3272123

I thought I knew you from CARM. Though I never post in the Oneness forum. Very interesting reading on that site if you want to cross study many different beliefs.

Reason I don't go to the Oneness forum. Very little depth to the discussion and Trinitarians can't face the fact they believe in three God's. They get ticked when you break down all the mumbo jumbo and get to brass tacks they believe in three God no matter how hard they try to force 3 into one.

"we just simply can't understand it"

They use illogical reasoning based on a rational world and use unscriptural means to prove God can be three in one and still can't do it and throw up there hands and say it takes faith. Buti f you don't believe in that convoluted mess you are a heretic though they can't explain it.

As I have said before the only reason tehy are in the situation they are in is because they tried to force a tritheistic pagan concept into a monotheistic religion for it to be acceptable and you have the mess they call Trinitarianism. Hey but don't point out the facts they get mad.

[LUKE2447]

Originally Posted by 1399

Yes they did speak in tongues as the Spirit gave utterance. Then they were baptized in the name of Jesus.

But this fact does not take away from the other fact that Peter preached that their sins were done away with at believing.

uh when? Nowhere in basic sacrificial law does your view makes sense.

The sacrificial law was a type of that which was to come. We only see in ONE place in scripture where we are united with Christ in his blood/death/sacrifice. Romans 6

We see that only be uniting ourselves with the sacrifice/blood of Christ can it be a proper atoning sacrifice. We truly repent (to turn) to God in good conscience. We are the gift as we offer ourselves as a gift/sacrifice unto God in baptism. This goes also with the true understanding of repentance and atonement.

Mat 5:23 So if you are offering your gift at the altar and there remember that your brother has something against you,
Mat 5:24 leave your gift there before the altar and go. First be reconciled to your brother, and then come and offer your gift.

Jesus in Matthew 5:23-24 was thus telling His audience that receipt of atonement had to be post-poned when there was still an unresolved sin problem between you and someone else. What does this mean?
Jesus means you must leave your atoning sacrifice at the sacrifice-place if someone has something against you because you sinned against them. There is nothing defective in the sacrifice offered. It is perfect to atone for you. Yet, you are not able to receive its effect because of a defect in your past behavior. THUS true repentance makes yourself available for offering.

Jesus says you must first go home and be reconciled to those you offended. You must come to terms with your adversary while you are still in the way with him or otherwise, the debt you owe him will come back to haunt you later. You will end up in prison. Matt 5:25-26 INSTEAD, only after you appeased your adversary, can you come to the sacrifice place and offer up the gift God has provided (Jesus) for you as the atoning sacrifice. Matt. 5:24

In our case before God, for example in 1 Peter 3:21 we seethis clearly in Peter and his reference of a clear conscience as that one now comes to God with open hands or clear conscience. He holds nothing back or grasps nothing of his former life and he responds in full forsaking his past. Thus now he can be baptized which would be coming to God with sacrifice/gift(himself) to be united in Christ's death/sacrifice. Thus Pauls reference to being united with him in baptism. I think it is clear Peter's point is, it's not about the water per se in baptism "cleaning of the flesh' as many of the ritualistic rights or washings in the law though types but one of "appeal"(ESV) to God in good conscience through true forsaking(repentance)as he now has turned(repented) to Christ to be united with him. I see baptism as(symbolic) physically but the realization (spiritually) of uniting with him through faith. An appointed time!

[Jermyn Davidson]

This seems to have take a long time to write. I will have to read and re read this post.

My first initial thought is. "Why is this brother bringing stuff up from the Old Testament?" But there is definite value in the Old Testament for the New Testament Christian.


FERD:
Thanks for your gentle approach as I'm not trying to be contentious.

[LUKE2447]

Originally Posted by 1399

I beg to differ.

There are people who go down dry devils and come up wet devils.

They may have felt convicted, but they did not believe. If they had believed then that day would have not been the last time we seen them at church.

People do religious things all the time because it is the right thing to do, not because they believe.

Mat 5:23 So if you are offering your gift at the altar and there remember that your brother has something against you,
Mat 5:24 leave your gift there before the altar and go. First be reconciled to your brother, and then come and offer your gift.

Then they did not truly repent and they could not have offered a proper sacrifice in baptism.

[LUKE2447]

Originally Posted by 1399

This seems to have take a long time to write. I will have to read and re read this post.

My first initial thought is. "Why is this brother bringing stuff up from the Old Testament?" But there is definite value in the Old Testament for the New Testament Christian.


FERD:
Thanks for your gentle approach as I'm not trying to be contentious.

Everthing in the NT is based on the OT. The OT was not just there to take up space. It gave reasoning and princples by which God governs. It was divine structure. Without the OT we could not have had the law save us. Yep you heard me. LAW saved us. The problem is without guideline or rules(law) one could not have had legal precedent for salvation. Our failure to the Law created the debt but it also created the way of redemption.
Holiness(law/will/nature of God expressed) is always true and it is based or expressed through LAW.

As are all things.

[Jermyn Davidson]

The things you speak of are very deep and I am not that deep. What I will do is comb through the New Testament again to further establish what I now believe or to re establish what I used to believe and not question.

I have found scriptures that elucidates the identity of our God and Savior in the Old Testament. But the stuff you are talking about is Hebrew to me.

Shalom, my brother.

[RevDWW]

Originally Posted by 1399

I beg to differ.

There are people who go down dry devils and come up wet devils.

They may have felt convicted, but they did not believe. If they had believed then that day would have not been the last time we seen them at church.

People do religious things all the time because it is the right thing to do, not because they believe.

There has to be some sort of belief otherwise they would not consent to be dunked. It might be a misplaced, misguided, or mis held belief but it's belief just the same. It may not save them but they thought something about it and decided they needed it done.

[DaveC519]

Originally Posted by mizpeh

I found it on CARM quoted by one of the best Oneness and New Birth apologists I have read online. He's also a member here but doesn't post much. DaveC519.


http://www.christiandiscussionforums...23#post3272123

Hello Mizpeh,

Thank you for your kind remarks. That's a LOT of pressure! lol

[DaveC519]

Originally Posted by mizpeh

Written by DaveC: Here's what Martin Luther (you know, the guy whose battle cry was "the just shall live by faith!!!") had to say about baptism (taken from his Large Catechism):

Greetings All,

My original purpose for quoting from Luther (in another forum) was strictly from a historical perspective. There are those who argue from the standpoint that water baptism is "works", and therefore, non-efficacious. Many of these also make appeal to post-apostolic sources (including the Reformers) to confirm their doctrines in general. My purpose, then, was to demonstrate that Bro. Luther himself disagreed with their "works" stance.

Whether Luther believed these things or not, or was contradictory to these things in other instances, is incidental to the formation and defense of Apostolic doctrine, since we do not base our beliefs on post-apostolic sources. However, I don't believe it does us harm to recognize those areas where he did affirm biblical truth (scant as they may be), as long as we do not give the impression we endorse all of his beliefs. After all, "the just shall live by faith", whether Luther affirmed it or not. And, Scripture does not treat baptism as our works- but God's in us- whether Luther said these things or not.

[CC1]

Originally Posted by mizpeh

as did many of the Early Church Fathers.


“When we come to refute them [the Gnostics], we will show in its proper place that this class of men have been instigated by Satan to a denial of that baptism which is regeneration to God. Thus, they have renounced the whole faith… For the baptism instituted by the visible Jesus was for the remission of sins… As we are lepers in sin, we are made clean from our old transgressions by means of the sacred water and the invocation of the Lord. We are spiritually regenerated as new-born babes, just as the Lord has declared: “Unless a man is born again through water and the Spirit, he will not enter into the kingdom of heaven.” – Irenaeus, Against Heresies, Ch. XXI, 1,2 (1, 346); Fragments, Ch. XXXIV

“ ‘Unless a man has been born again of water and Spirit, he will not enter into the kingdom of the heavens.’ These words have tied faith to the necessity of baptism. Accordingly, all thereafter who became believers were baptized. So it was, too, that Paul, when he believed, was baptized.” –Tertullian, On Baptism, Ch. XIII (3, 676)

Rather than poisoning the well wouldn't you have to say he is simply pointing out you have to synthasize Luther's entire body of work to understand his doctrine? You cannot take one isolated writing and try to make it stand by itself.

In other words you can take a section by iteself and perceive it to mean one thing when if it is taken in context of the person's entire presentation of beliefs means another.

Either you or somebody was going "yeah, see this is what Luthor said, the guy all you one steppers love" as if Luthor is the be all and end al lof one stepper doctrine.

Like all men he was imperfect. Just ask the Jews he railed against. I don't think anybody on here agrees with all of Luthors doctrine but elements of it were foundation of the reformation from which the modern fundamentalits / evangelical churches are born, including Pentecostals whether they want to admit it or not.

I am posting this after having read only the first few pages of this thread so no doubt this has probably already been addressed by minds sharper than my own.