Common Christian practices that are not taught in scripture

[ken_sylvania]

Refusal to be baptized?

or refusal to be baptized a second or third or fourth time by a different church using a different method of baptism?

Refusal to be baptized, just like I said. Paul says we shouldn't keep going back and starting over.

The question wasn't about refusal to be baptized period. It was about someone who was in fact baptized but not by immersion. Are they living in a state of perpetual sin unless they get rebaptized in a church that does it differently?

Anyone who refuses to follow the command to be baptized, would appear to be living in rebellion and sin.

[Josh]

More accurately I would say they simply haven’t accepted the gospel yet. They have not even had anything to rebel against yet…

[Sudsy]

Show me where in Scripture we are told its sinful to be baptized the wrong way.

Baptism was never commanded to be an exact mode.

Remarriage if acceptable at all was under a specific clause. Clearly Paul calls it sinful and I believe that’s good enough to clarify any situation outside of that exception clause if its real.
The two are not comparable.
Show me any other sin in Scripture that “will not inherit the kingdom of God” that you can remain as you are without changing.

I know I said my previous post was my last on this topic but I believe I may need to try to clarify my point.

Perhaps this explanation will help and one that those who baptize by immersion believe there is a correct mode. If one believes to be baptized according to the meaning of the Greek word and was the earliest church NT method, then it is the practise we should follow, otherwise in can be argued that we are being disobedient and living in a state of disobedience.

https://www.gotquestions.org/baptism-mode.html

Although I agree with this explanation, I do not believe this state of disobedience, in being baptised by a different mode, will keep one out of the kingdom of God. I believe we all are living to some degree as practising sinners (we all fall short of being perfectly sin free) and there is still much we don't understand clearly. So, if one choses to believe that a D&R person is living in a perpetual state of adultery and they also have not been baptised by immersion, then, imo, they too are living in a perpetual state of disobedience. We not only sin by what we do but also sin by what we fail to do that scripture teaches.

Don't know if this helps explain what I was arguing. Myself, I do not believe that a D&R Christian is living in a state of adultery but that God, upon confession, choses to forgive and forget our failings, whatever they are, and gives us a clean slate to go and sin no more in that area. Our living, moving forward, is not a state of adultery. That is the belief of the MB church also that I attended. They baptise by immersion and do not believe D&R Christians are in a threatening state of losing their salvation.

OK, this time I think I said enough and will try to get back on other examples for this thread.

[Soloist]

Sudsy, show me something like this and then we can talk, otherwise you are justifying yourself by deciding something the Scripture never calls sin as sin.

Rom 7:2  For the woman which hath an husband is bound by the law to her husband so long as he liveth; but if the husband be dead, she is loosed from the law of her husband.
Rom 7:3  So then if, while her husband liveth, she be married to another man, she shall be called an adulteress: but if her husband be dead, she is free from that law; so that she is no adulteress, though she be married to another man.

Pretty clear that she is called an adulteress until the husband dies. You would think if it was as simple as asking forgiveness and then remaining as you were Paul would have said it.

[Sudsy]

Baby dedications.

[ken_sylvania]

Show me where in Scripture we are told its sinful to be baptized the wrong way.

Baptism was never commanded to be an exact mode.

Remarriage if acceptable at all was under a specific clause. Clearly Paul calls it sinful and I believe that’s good enough to clarify any situation outside of that exception clause if its real.
The two are not comparable.
Show me any other sin in Scripture that “will not inherit the kingdom of God” that you can remain as you are without changing.

I know I said my previous post was my last on this topic but I believe I may need to try to clarify my point.

Perhaps this explanation will help and one that those who baptize by immersion believe there is a correct mode. If one believes to be baptized according to the meaning of the Greek word and was the earliest church NT method, then it is the practise we should follow, otherwise in can be argued that we are being disobedient and living in a state of disobedience.

https://www.gotquestions.org/baptism-mode.html

Although I agree with this explanation, I do not believe this state of disobedience, in being baptised by a different mode, will keep one out of the kingdom of God. I believe we all are living to some degree as practising sinners (we all fall short of being perfectly sin free) and there is still much we don't understand clearly. So, if one choses to believe that a D&R person is living in a perpetual state of adultery and they also have not been baptised by immersion, then, imo, they too are living in a perpetual state of disobedience. We not only sin by what we do but also sin by what we fail to do that scripture teaches.

Don't know if this helps explain what I was arguing. Myself, I do not believe that a D&R Christian is living in a state of adultery but that God, upon confession, choses to forgive and forget our failings, whatever they are, and gives us a clean slate to go and sin no more in that area. Our living, moving forward, is not a state of adultery. That is the belief of the MB church also that I attended. They baptise by immersion and do not believe D&R Christians are in a threatening state of losing their salvation.

OK, this time I think I said enough and will try to get back on other examples for this thread.

It seems to me that your argument is based on re-defining and restricting the meaning of the Greek words referring to baptism and make them all say "temporarily immerse." And then also re-defining the words used to condemn divorce and remarriage in order to pretend that they don't mean what they say.

[Sudsy]

Sudsy, show me something like this and then we can talk, otherwise you are justifying yourself by deciding something the Scripture never calls sin as sin.

Rom 7:2  For the woman which hath an husband is bound by the law to her husband so long as he liveth; but if the husband be dead, she is loosed from the law of her husband.
Rom 7:3  So then if, while her husband liveth, she be married to another man, she shall be called an adulteress: but if her husband be dead, she is free from that law; so that she is no adulteress, though she be married to another man.

Pretty clear that she is called an adulteress until the husband dies. You would think if it was as simple as asking forgiveness and then remaining as you were Paul would have said it.

Here is a series of links on this subject that can be linked to at the bottom of the link I am providing. I would suggest if you have issues with these understandings that perhaps a separate thread is appropriate.

https://www.neverthirsty.org/bible-qa/q ... -adultery/

[Josh]

It seems to me that your argument is based on re-defining and restricting the meaning of the Greek words referring to baptism and make them all say "temporarily immerse." And then also re-defining the words used to condemn divorce and remarriage in order to pretend that they don't mean what they say.

We are getting wildly offtopic here, but the standard conservative Anabaptist position also redefines the meaning of Greek works referring to sexual immorality to make it actually mean "only what happens during a period of betrothal before an actual marriage".

[Soloist]

We are getting wildly offtopic here, but the standard conservative Anabaptist position also redefines the meaning of Greek works referring to sexual immorality to make it actually mean "only what happens during a period of betrothal before an actual marriage".

So operations as normal around here?

[ken_sylvania]

It seems to me that your argument is based on re-defining and restricting the meaning of the Greek words referring to baptism and make them all say "temporarily immerse." And then also re-defining the words used to condemn divorce and remarriage in order to pretend that they don't mean what they say.

We are getting wildly offtopic here, but the standard conservative Anabaptist position also redefines the meaning of Greek works referring to sexual immorality to make it actually mean "only what happens during a period of betrothal before an actual marriage".

I think you're right (well, not sure how standard that redefinition is), but I'm not exactly sure what you want me to do about it. I think it's more likely that the verse means exactly what it says; that if the wife is already involved in immorality a divorce isn't going to cause her to commit adultery - she has already done so.