Thank you, Peter. That's helpful. It's easy sometimes to lose track of who belongs to which pronoun.PeterG wrote:Yes, RZehr is correct.
In the context of Josh's post that I was responding to, the "they" in my post refers to Followers of the Way in Boston, not to Mennonites.
Anyone ethnic or non-ethnic, who FotW learns to know, who believes that:Josh wrote:I suspect you are treated this way due to being an ethnic Anabaptist in good standing.
There can be leadership in a group even if it is not defined or appointed. And there are churches without leadership that have defined appointed leaders.Josh wrote:I was also not aware FOTW has any defined leadership. According to Milioni they have not appointed anyone.
Since the process of baptism can take years for non ethnic Mennonites, this means we are effectively shut out.Ernie wrote:Anyone ethnic or non-ethnic, who FotW learns to know, who believes that:Josh wrote:I suspect you are treated this way due to being an ethnic Anabaptist in good standing.
-a person should be baptized as a believer and is part of a church that practices non-conformity, non-resistance, non-accumulation, head-covering, ministry to the poor, holiness of life, etc., is invited to commune with them.
This seems very reasonable. Having a chance to know the person is important too, IMO. "Communion" comes from roots meaning "with unity" and those who are part of the communion are professing that unity. (Hope that wasn't too convoluted. I'm waiting for that chili to heat up and it's making me hungry.)Ernie wrote: Anyone ethnic or non-ethnic, who FotW learns to know, who believes that:
-a person should be baptized as a believer and is part of a church that practices non-conformity, non-resistance, non-accumulation, head-covering, ministry to the poor, holiness of life, etc., is invited to commune with them.
The common response to the situation with Cornelius, is that he was a Gentile and the Apostles (specifically Peter here) had a hard time believing that God had accepted them. By giving the Spirit first, there was no reason for any further questions. This is pretty much explained as you continue to read in the book of Acts.Shoesnsocks wrote:What about when Cornelius' house received the spirit before Baptism? I don't see how an unregenerate can receive the Spirit. Personally I have a hard time basing my beliefs on what the early church did because we don't really know if we even have writings from all the different groups, I find their writings interesting and worth pondering over, but they also had their own false teachings. It has become very obvious though recently to me how important water baptism is, I used to pretty much see it as optional.
I recommend reading the whole chapter to get a full understanding of his point. The testimony of those whom I have counseled prior to immersion (the word baptism means to dip, immerse) is that they understood the principle in their experience as they reckoned going down and coming up. It is a mystery that God wants to share with us, so it is MORE than JUST a symbol, when participated in, in faith. Water doesn't save anyone, but the answer of a good conscience when you are immersed does.Rom 6:11 Likewise reckon ye also yourselves to be dead indeed unto sin, but alive unto God through Jesus Christ our Lord.
I hope this will be helpful.1Pe_3:21 The like figure whereunto even baptism doth also now save us (not the putting away of the filth of the flesh, but the answer of a good conscience toward God,) by the resurrection of Jesus Christ:
You know I've actually been thinking the same thing since I wrote that about Cornelius and his house. And my apologies to Valerie if I came off as argumentative, I'm a confused sinner who is being greatly challenged in spiritual matters right now.gcdonner wrote:The common response to the situation with Cornelius, is that he was a Gentile and the Apostles (specifically Peter here) had a hard time believing that God had accepted them. By giving the Spirit first, there was no reason for any further questions. This is pretty much explained as you continue to read in the book of Acts.Shoesnsocks wrote:What about when Cornelius' house received the spirit before Baptism? I don't see how an unregenerate can receive the Spirit. Personally I have a hard time basing my beliefs on what the early church did because we don't really know if we even have writings from all the different groups, I find their writings interesting and worth pondering over, but they also had their own false teachings. It has become very obvious though recently to me how important water baptism is, I used to pretty much see it as optional.
Stick with scripture and you will do better.
I do believe and teach that something genuinely takes place in immersion, whether we define it as the point of salvation, or a confirmation of it is beyond the pale of scripture overall. What we do know is that Paul admonishes us, when we are immersed, as a symbol of the death-burial-resurrection of Christ, to reckon ourselves dead unto sin, and upon rising, to being alive unto God.
I recommend reading the whole chapter to get a full understanding of his point. The testimony of those whom I have counseled prior to immersion (the word baptism means to dip, immerse) is that they understood the principle in their experience as they reckoned going down and coming up. It is a mystery that God wants to share with us, so it is MORE than JUST a symbol, when participated in, in faith. Water doesn't save anyone, but the answer of a good conscience when you are immersed does.Rom 6:11 Likewise reckon ye also yourselves to be dead indeed unto sin, but alive unto God through Jesus Christ our Lord.I hope this will be helpful.1Pe_3:21 The like figure whereunto even baptism doth also now save us (not the putting away of the filth of the flesh, but the answer of a good conscience toward God,) by the resurrection of Jesus Christ:
Blessings as you seek HIM!
The early church believed that the "baptism of blood" (ie. martyrdom) adequately replaced baptism with water.Shoesnsocks wrote:One other bit that makes me believe that one is saved when faith has found its way to Jesus, is the verses that make it very clear that "neither is there salvation in any other". To me that seems that there is only one way to be saved, and I have a hard time believing God would not save a sinner who converted at a time and in a place where they could not be baptized due to immediate persecution unto death.
That's interesting. Is there any scripture to support that?lesterb wrote:The early church believed that the "baptism of blood" (ie. martyrdom) adequately replaced baptism with water.Shoesnsocks wrote:One other bit that makes me believe that one is saved when faith has found its way to Jesus, is the verses that make it very clear that "neither is there salvation in any other". To me that seems that there is only one way to be saved, and I have a hard time believing God would not save a sinner who converted at a time and in a place where they could not be baptized due to immediate persecution unto death.