First Lutheran transgender bishop, Megan Rohrer

[BJ Bear]

Baptism points out us towards Jesus, as he saves us, not the water rite!

It is always a bad idea and comes with negative consequences to go against what Scripture says, especially when it comes to the person and work of Christ.

There is no getting around the statement in 1 Peter 3 that baptism does now save you through the resurrection of Christ... That is very different from your interpretation which when read into the passage would make it say something like baptism does now point you [to Christ] through the resurrection of Christ...

I think everyone can agree that those are two statements with very different meanings. So the question is can the first statement, the God given explicit statement in 1 Peter 3, be rightly understood according to the context in which it was given. Faithful Christians in this regard answer yes.

The explanation of what baptism now does that saves you lies in part in the parenthetical thought regarding what occurs in baptism. Baptism (what is acting upon the passive one being baptized) is the answer of a clear conscience towards God through the resurrection of Christ. In other words, what is offered or presented in baptism by God is a clear conscience towards Him through the ressurrection of Christ. That is what the remiision or forgiveness of sins in His name means.

That free gift of a clear conscience, the forgiveness of sins in His name, can only be received through faith.

 

[BJ Bear]

nt

 

[BJ Bear]

This is the Lutherian board

It is in the Luther Bible.

15 Und er sprach zu ihnen: Gehet hin in alle Welt und prediget das Evangelium aller Kreatur.

16 Wer da glaubet und getauft wird, der wird selig werden; wer aber nicht glaubt, der wird verdammt werden.

17 Die Zeichen aber, die da folgen werden denen, die da glauben, sind die: in meinem Namen werden sie Teufel austreiben, mit neuen Zungen reden.

18 Schlangen vertreiben; und so sie etwas Tödliches trinken, wird's ihnen nicht schaden; auf die Kranken werden sie die Hände legen, so wird es besser mit ihnen werden.

19 Und der HERR, nachdem er mit ihnen geredet hatte, ward er aufgehoben gen Himmel und sitzt zur rechten Hand Gottes.

20 Sie aber gingen aus und predigten an allen Orten; und der HERR wirkte mit ihnen und bekräftigte das Wort durch mitfolgende Zeichen.

Just for the record, the quote is from a modern revision and the verse in question, Mark 16:16, doesn't say anything substantively different than what BMS quoted in English.

 

[BJ Bear]

<AMY have been water Baptized. but all they got from it was wet!

No, that is a misguided attempt to redefine terms. Jesus said they affirm God's will for them and enter the kingdom through the forgiveness of sins right then.

"And when all the people heard Him, even the tax collectors justified God, having been baptized with the baptism of John. 30 But the Pharisees and lawyers rejected the will of God for themselves, not having been baptized by him." Luke 7:29-30 -NKJV

"Which of the two did the will of his father?”

They said to Him, “The first.”

Jesus said to them, “Assuredly, I say to you that tax collectors and harlots enter the kingdom of God before you. 32 For John came to you in the way of righteousness, and you did not believe him; but tax collectors and harlots believed him; and when you saw it, you did not afterward relent and believe him." Matthew 21:31-32 -NKJV

 

[BJ Bear]

Wrong. You're adding your own agenda to God's Word.

New International Version
but whoever does not believe will be condemned.

New Living Translation
But anyone who refuses to believe will be condemned.

English Standard Version
but whoever does not believe will be condemned.

Berean Study Bible
but whoever does not believe will be condemned.

Berean Literal Bible
but the one having disbelieved will be condemned.

King James Bible
ut he that believeth not shall be damned.

New King James Version
but he who does not believe will be condemned.

New American Standard Bible
but the one who has not believed will be condemned.

NASB 1995
but he who has disbelieved shall be condemned.

NASB 1977
but he who has disbelieved shall be condemned.

Amplified Bible
but he who has not believed will be condemned.

Christian Standard Bible
but whoever does not believe will be condemned.

Holman Christian Standard Bible
but whoever does not believe will be condemned.

American Standard Version
but he that disbelieveth shall be condemned.

Aramaic Bible in Plain English
and whoever does not believe is condemned.”

Contemporary English Version
But anyone who refuses to believe me will be condemned.

Douay-Rheims Bible
but he that believeth not shall be condemned.

English Revised Version
but he that disbelieveth shall be condemned.

Good News Translation
whoever does not believe will be condemned.

GOD'S WORD® Translation
but whoever does not believe will be condemned.

International Standard Version
but whoever doesn't believe will be condemned.

Literal Standard Version
and he who has not believed will be condemned.

NET Bible
but the one who does not believe will be condemned.

New Heart English Bible
but he who disbelieves will be condemned.

Weymouth New Testament
but he who disbelieves will be condemned.

World English Bible
but he who disbelieves will be condemned.

Young's Literal Translation
and he who hath not believed, shall be condemned.

So, where do you see anything about baptism there?

Actually, John 1:33 says Christ baptizes with the Holy Spirit, not with water for salvation.

I agree. That's why you need to repent now.

That is a self refuting post that is also a tacit admission that you found no relative pronoun in that verse which turns believe away from baptized.

Christ is God incarnate, the Holy Spirit proceeds from Him. (He isn't bound to the water as John and other mere men who are only the body of Christ.) The feeble attempt to redefine categories on your part is an error.

 

[Mike McK]

That is a self refuting post that is also a tacit admission that you found no relative pronoun in that verse which turns believe away from baptized.

I quoted more than a dozen different Bible translations and not one of them say what you dishonestly inserted into the text.

 

[Bonnie]

It is always a bad idea and comes with negative consequences to go against what Scripture says, especially when it comes to the person and work of Christ.

There is no getting around the statement in 1 Peter 3 that baptism does now save you through the resurrection of Christ... That is very different from your interpretation which when read into the passage would make it say something like baptism does now point you [to Christ] through the resurrection of Christ...

I think everyone can agree that those are two statements with very different meanings. So the question is can the first statement, the God given explicit statement in 1 Peter 3, be rightly understood according to the context in which it was given. Faithful Christians in this regard answer yes.

The explanation of what baptism now does that saves you lies in part in the parenthetical thought regarding what occurs in baptism. Baptism (what is acting upon the passive one being baptized) is the answer of a clear conscience towards God through the resurrection of Christ. In other words, what is offered or presented in baptism by God is a clear conscience towards Him through the ressurrection of Christ. That is what the remiision or forgiveness of sins in His name means.

That free gift of a clear conscience, the forgiveness of sins in His name, can only be received through faith.

..and "baptism does now save us...through the resurrection of Jesus Christ."

 

[Mike McK]

..and "baptism does now save us...through the resurrection of Jesus Christ."

You purposely omitted the part of the verse that says, " not as a removal of dirt from the body but as an appeal to God for a good conscience".

That's dishonest.

Between you censoring God's Word and "BJ" adding to it, are you Christians at all?

 

[YeshuaFan]

How anoput

I asked Bonnie about this several times, as the Bible says that both Paul and Cornelius received the Holy Spirit, thus, indicating salvation, before they were baptized.

So far, she's ignored it.

the Eunoch who asked if there was anything to prohibit him from getting water batized, and was told no, as he confessed jesus as now His Lord!

It is always a bad idea and comes with negative consequences to go against what Scripture says, especially when it comes to the person and work of Christ.

There is no getting around the statement in 1 Peter 3 that baptism does now save you through the resurrection of Christ... That is very different from your interpretation which when read into the passage would make it say something like baptism does now point you [to Christ] through the resurrection of Christ...

I think everyone can agree that those are two statements with very different meanings. So the question is can the first statement, the God given explicit statement in 1 Peter 3, be rightly understood according to the context in which it was given. Faithful Christians in this regard answer yes.

The explanation of what baptism now does that saves you lies in part in the parenthetical thought regarding what occurs in baptism. Baptism (what is acting upon the passive one being baptized) is the answer of a clear conscience towards God through the resurrection of Christ. In other words, what is offered or presented in baptism by God is a clear conscience towards Him through the ressurrection of Christ. That is what the remiision or forgiveness of sins in His name means.

That free gift of a clear conscience, the forgiveness of sins in His name, can only be received through faith.

The Interpretation of peter is NOT that water Baptism saves us, but that it points towards what does, the Lord Jesus Himself!

 

[YeshuaFan]

No, that is a misguided attempt to redefine terms. Jesus said they affirm God's will for them and enter the kingdom through the forgiveness of sins right then.

"And when all the people heard Him, even the tax collectors justified God, having been baptized with the baptism of John. 30 But the Pharisees and lawyers rejected the will of God for themselves, not having been baptized by him." Luke 7:29-30 -NKJV

"Which of the two did the will of his father?”

They said to Him, “The first.”

Jesus said to them, “Assuredly, I say to you that tax collectors and harlots enter the kingdom of God before you. 32 For John came to you in the way of righteousness, and you did not believe him; but tax collectors and harlots believed him; and when you saw it, you did not afterward relent and believe him." Matthew 21:31-32 -NKJV

the forgiveness of sins and eternal life comes thru faith in Lord jesus, n ot thru water Baptism, as one can be saved and had never been baptized, such as death bed, or out on the battle field!

 

[YeshuaFan]

..and "baptism does now save us...through the resurrection of Jesus Christ."

The baptism is Baptism of the Holy Spirit at moment of faith, then we get water baptized!

 

[YeshuaFan]

..and "baptism does now save us...through the resurrection of Jesus Christ."

I am so sorry, just noticed now that this is the Lutheryn Board, and though disagree with your take on it, being a baptist, did not want to just barge in and look like arguing, please forgive me!

 

[Bonnie]

You purposely omitted the part of the verse that says, " not as a removal of dirt from the body but as an appeal to God for a good conscience".

That's dishonest.

Between you censoring God's Word and "BJ" adding to it, are you Christians at all?

No, I didn't. I have several times posted the full verse and explained this part. Did you not read that post/posts?

Shared altar / pulpit

I am posting as if I was a non believer, and attempting to draw out both you and Bonnie into expressing the process of LCMS baptism in a less liturgical manner. As she first wrote it, it seemed to me that the actions in the ritual were paramount, therefore, baptism, especially on an infant, was...

forums.carm.org

I am not censoring God's word. You need to prove that on here. Nor am I adding to it. Disagreeing with you is not censoring or adding to the word of God. So, why are you making unfounded accusations against us? Is that Christian?

 

[Mike McK]

The Interpretation of peter is NOT that water Baptism saves us, but that it points towards what does, the Lord Jesus Himself!

Yes, I've explained this to them several times now and, each time, they just ignore those parts of the passage because, like the Catholics, they want to cling to their traditions and not the Word of God.

 

[Bonnie]

The baptism is Baptism of the Holy Spirit at moment of faith, then we get water baptized!

But Peter didn't write that. I agree that the HS can give the gift of the HS before water baptism--but also after water baptism. I don't limit Him as to when and how He acts. There are examples of both in the NT.

1 Peter 3, NASB--in the days of Noah, during the construction of the ark, in which a few, that is, eight persons, were brought safely through the [p]water. 21 Corresponding to that, baptism now saves you—not the removal of dirt from the flesh, but an appeal to God [q]for a good conscience—through the resurrection of Jesus Christ...

Corresponding to what? Being brought safely THROUGH the water. Just as the flood drowned the sinners, it also kept the ark afloat, keeping them safe. So, we too are brought "safely" through the water, to give us an appeal to God for a good conscience--what is that? A conscience that has no guilt towards God, because of the forgiveness of sins through Baptism--through the resurrection of Jesus Christ.

 

[Sherman]

They/their

First ELCA transgender bishop, Megan Rohrer, hopes to ‘translate good news’ for the curious

[Religion News Service] This isn’t the first time the Rev. Megan Rohrer has been made bishop. Rohrer, who uses the pronouns they/them, was erroneously labe

www.episcopalnewsservice.org

She went lesbian first.

I had a friend bail on denomination because of this. He just could not live with this happening in his church.

 

[Bonnie]

Yes, I've explained this to them several times now and, each time, they just ignore those parts of the passage because, like the Catholics, they want to cling to their traditions and not the Word of God.

You can explain all you want to, but we will believe the actual word of God over your "explanations."

However, believing or not believing as you and I do about Baptism isn't going to keep us out of heaven, if either of us is wrong. There is only one unforgiveable sin--do you know what that sin is?

 

[Bonnie]

I had a friend bail on denomination because of this. He just could not live with this happening in his church.

I don't blame him. Back in 2009, two couples that had belonged to a local ELCA church for 30 years left that church and joined ours, after it declared that openly gay people of either gender could be pastors. When they had first joined this church decades ago, it was still reasonably conservative, plus, there was no LCMS church in their area, until 2006. But they are glad to have found us.

 

[Mike McK]

But Peter didn't write that.

Wrong. See: Paul and Cornelius.

I agree that the HS can give the gift of the HS before water baptism--but also after water baptism.

Since baptism is for those who are already saved, what happens if a person gets baptized and never gets saved?

How do you explain all the little babies you sprinkle who don't get saved when they grow up?

I don't limit Him as to when and how He acts.

But scripture does.

There examples of both in the NT.

OK. Please show us an example of a person who received the indwelling of the Holy Spirit after they were baptized.

Corresponding to what? Being brought safely THROUGH the water.

...in the ark. Christ is the ark.

Just as the flood drowned the sinners, it also kept the ark afloat, keeping them safe

This is the dumbest thing I've read here since Vibise's last post.

The ark kept them safe FROM the flood. It was the flood, the thing you're analogizing to God's means of salvation, that was the outpouring of God's wrath. The ark, which is analogous to Christ, is what saved them from the water.

Not as the removal of dirt from the body, but to give us an appeal to God for a good conscience

So, if you admit that the verse says "not as the removal of dirt from the body", then how can it be removal of sin from the flesh?

--what is that? A conscience that has no guilt towards God, because of the forgiveness of sins through Baptism--through the resurrection of Jesus Christ.

....and that's why fire engines are red.

 

[BMS]

I had a friend bail on denomination because of this. He just could not live with this happening in his church.

Well the question is, why are people like your friend leaving the denomination? Megan Rohrer should be repenting.