Water Baptism is no longer required.
Debate Rounds (3)
The scriptural 'purpose' for becoming baptised, is part of our 'turning over a new leaf', which is our seeking forgiveness for our sins, accepting Christ as our saviour, and becoming water-baptised.
The Christian ministry has 'defiled' water baptism. They have have gone beyond the original 'purpose' of baptism. Many baptise dead people. Many require a previously baptised person to become baptised again, in order to become a member of their church. Many baptise infants (even new born children) who have no idea what baptism means.
When someone says that they are baptised, what does this mean? It should mean the same to ALL people. It should follow the scriptures. Baptism is a personal decision (you must be 'alive') that a person takes, which is a form of 'personal declaration' in front of an audience, that says, "I have put away my previous evil ways, asked God for forgiveness for the sins that I have committed, chosen Christ as my saviour, and now seek to follow The Bible and glorify GOD."
Pro has seems to lack an understanding of baptism. The Sacred Scriptures neither directly nor implicitly teach that baptism is merely a 'personal declaration' in front of an audience.
I deny that it is possible for the requirement of water baptism to have ended, for we have the teaching from the Lord 'He who believes and is baptized will be saved; but he who does not believe will be condemned' and also 'Truly, truly, I say to you, unless one is born of water and the Spirit, he cannot enter the kingdom of God'. Similarly, we have that Apostolic teaching 'Baptism, which corresponds to this, now saves you' from St. Peter.
The quirks of Pro's own theology do not obsolete water baptism.
I have NEVER been baptised by any human being. Every time I went to do so, there was always something that intervened. I too know the scriptures, and this is why had sought baptism in a church. It was God that stopped me from becoming baptised by a minister.
I started attending church at five years of age. I read through the KJV Bible at age 10, and gave my heart to Christ soon after. God has guided me throughout my life. Satan has tried to 'kill me' many times throughout my life, but God has intervened on my behalf. I was not even aware of the posing dangers. I then became 'anointed' by God, in the spring of 2003. What I post, is not my word, but His.
During my teen years, I would go to church in winter, about one hour before the beginning of the service, light the oil furnace, return home and then return for the service. I helped the minister many times in making repairs to the church. I 'lived' my faith...DID YOU?
Pro starts out with the unfalsifiable claim that God told him that water baptism is no longer required, which ought not to be a terribly convincing argument. To match it, I counter that God told me it is still required, and that should Pro wish to contest this he can argue with God.
The only real argument that Pro forwards is that everyone is born of water, but he regrettably misunderstands the verse in question. I'll quote it in context to show why.
Jesus answered him, “Truly, truly, I say to you, unless one is born anew, he cannot see the kingdom of God.” Nicodemus said to him, “How can a man be born when he is old? Can he enter a second time into his mother’s womb and be born?” Jesus answered, “Truly, truly, I say to you, unless one is born of water and the Spirit, he cannot enter the kingdom of God.”
The Lord is clearly not referring to the first birth, but rather the second, as he is clarifying to Nicodemus how someone might be born again when Nicodemus doubts that someone could literally be rebirthed. This shows Pro's only arguments to miss the mark, and as he has provided nothing else but a little story, extend my other arguments.
Why do Roman Catholic ministers call themselves 'FATHER'? This is in direct contradiction to the scriptures. The scriptures tell us, "Call no MAN [spiritual] Father. You have ONE Father, who is in heaven." Roman Catholic ministers respond with, "This is not what they mean [spiritual Father] when they call themselves 'Father'." Then, pray tell, what DO they mean?
I have come to the conclusion, that Christian ministers believe they are above all other people on this earth, in terms of their 'closeness to God'. They are filled with their own vanity (high-headedness). They have become modern day 'scribes and Pharisees'. No matter who God sends to correct this problem, they will not listen....after all, are they not 'ordained' [BY MAN] ministers? Do they not have theology degrees [which mean NOTHING to God]?
I have visited a great many churches over the last 10 years. What I have witnessed, would 'blow your mind'. The majority of the ministers do not even understand God's Word. They have not sought wisdom from God. They have been taught by the 'blind', and are now blind themselves. Many services are ritualistic in nature. Many congregations have become 'cliques'. They leave the church just as blind as they entered it. Very few members of the congregation even are aware of what is written in The Bible. They barely ever read it. The 'Bible discussions' held by a few, are DOMINATED by blind ministers. Good Luck.
Pro has not even vaguely attempted to argue the resolution this round. I extend all my arguments and urge a vote for Con.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by Nur-Ab-Sal 3 years ago
|Agreed with before the debate:||-||-||0 points|
|Agreed with after the debate:||-||-||0 points|
|Who had better conduct:||-||-||1 point|
|Had better spelling and grammar:||-||-||1 point|
|Made more convincing arguments:||-||-||3 points|
|Used the most reliable sources:||-||-||2 points|
|Total points awarded:||0||3|
Reasons for voting decision: This debate deteriorated into an unconvincing, broad polemic against the Catholic Church, which by round 3 secured the debate for Con. Pro's decision to ignore the resolution and attack Catholicism was a pretty shortsighted tactic, and as such Con is triumphant.
You are not eligible to vote on this debate
This debate has been configured to only allow voters who meet the requirements set by the debaters. This debate either has an Elo score requirement or is to be voted on by a select panel of judges.