PDA

View Full Version : Baptism Essential



Unorclan
Feb 5th 2008, 04:02 AM
According to numerous skeptics, the Bible is inconsistent regarding whether or not water baptism is necessary (e.g., Drange, 1996; Morgan, 2003; cf. Wells, 2001). In Dennis McKinsey’s book, Biblical Errancy (2000), he lists several verses that teach the need for one to be baptized in order to be saved (Matthew 28:19; Mark 16:16; Acts 2:38; 1 Peter 3:21; etc.), but then he lists four verses (John 4:2; 1 Corinthians 1:14,16,17) which allegedly teach that baptism “is not a necessity” (p. 61). According to these men, Jesus and Paul were confused regarding the purpose of baptism.

There is no doubt that Jesus and His apostles taught the essentiality of being immersed in water for salvation. After Jesus commissioned His apostles to “go into all the world and preach the gospel to every creature,” He stated that “he who believes and is baptized will be saved; but he who does not believe will be condemned” (Mark 16:15-16; cf. Matthew 28:19). The Jews who had murdered Christ, and to whom Peter spoke on the Day of Pentecost when he ushered in the Christian age, were told: “Repent, and let every one of you be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins” (Acts 2:38). Before becoming a Christian, Saul of Tarsus was commanded to “arise and be baptized, and wash away your sins, calling on the name of the Lord” (Acts 22:16). The biblical solution to the problem of soul-damning sin is that the person who has heard the Gospel, who has believed its message, who has repented of past sins, and who has confessed Christ as Lord must then—in order to receive remission (forgiveness) of sins—be baptized. [The English word “baptize” is a transliteration of the Greek word baptizo, meaning to immerse, dip, plunge beneath, or submerge (Thayer, 1958, p. 94).] According to Peter, “baptism,” corresponding to Noah’s salvation through water, “now saves us…(not the removal of the filth of the flesh, but the answer of a good conscience toward God), through the resurrection of Jesus Christ” (1 Peter 3:21). Although baptism is no less, nor more, important than any other of God’s commands regarding what to do to be saved, the New Testament clearly teaches that water immersion is the point at which a person is saved by the resurrection of Jesus Christ.

If it is the case then that baptism is essential for salvation, then why did the apostle John write: “Therefore, when the Lord knew that the Pharisees had heard that Jesus made and baptized more disciples than John (though Jesus Himself did not baptize, but His disciples), He left Judea and departed again to Galilee” (John 4:1-3, emp. added)? And why did the apostle Paul write to the church at Corinth: “I thank God that I baptized none of you except Crispus and Gaius, lest anyone should say that I had baptized in my own name…. For Christ did not send me to baptize, but to preach the gospel” (1 Corinthians 1:14-17, emp. added)? Do these statements indicate that baptism is not necessary for a person to be saved as skeptics allege? No, they do not.

First, John did not indicate that Jesus thought baptism was unnecessary; he merely stated the fact that Jesus did not personally do the baptizing; rather, His disciples did (John 4:2). The phrase in 4:1 regarding Jesus “baptizing” more disciples than John is simply a figure of speech where a person is represented as doing something when, in fact, he merely supplies the means for doing it. For example, Joseph indicated on one occasion that his brothers sold him into Egypt (Genesis 45:4-5; cf. Acts 7:9), when actually they sold him to the Ishmaelites (who then sold him into Egypt). This is a well-known principle in law—a person who acts through another to break the law (e.g., paying someone to commit murder) is deemed by authorities to be guilty of breaking the law himself. Similarly, Jesus did not personally baptize anyone. But, His teaching and influence caused it to be done. Jesus, the subject, is mentioned, but it is the circumstance of His influence that is intended. His teaching was responsible for people being baptized. Thus, this passage actually implies that Jesus commanded that His listeners be baptized. It in no way contradicts teachings found elsewhere in the Bible.



Second, Paul’s statements in his letter to the church at Corinth must be taken in their proper context in order to understand their true meaning. In 1 Corinthians 1:10-17, Paul was dealing with the division that was plaguing the Corinthian Christians. He had heard of the controversy in Corinth, and begged them to stand united, and resolve their differences.
Now I plead with you, brethren, by the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that you all speak the same thing, and that there be no divisions among you, but that you be perfectly joined together in the same mind and in the same judgment. For it has been declared to me concerning you, my brethren, by those of Chloe’s household, that there are contentions among you. Now I say this, that each of you says, “I am of Paul,” or “I am of Apollos,” or “I am of Cephas,” or “I am of Christ.” Is Christ divided? Was Paul crucified for you? Or were you baptized in the name of Paul?
I thank God that I baptized none of you except Crispus and Gaius, lest anyone should say that I had baptized in my own name. Yes, I also baptized the household of Stephanas. Besides, I do not know whether I baptized any other. For Christ did not send me to baptize, but to preach the gospel, not with wisdom of words, lest the cross of Christ should be made of no effect (1 Corinthians 1:10-17).

Later, Paul added:
For where there are envy, strife, and divisions among you, are you not carnal and behaving like mere men? For when one says, “I am of Paul,” and another, “I am of Apollos,” are you not carnal? Who then is Paul, and who is Apollos, but ministers through whom you believed, as the Lord gave to each one? I planted, Apollos watered, but God gave the increase. So then neither he who plants is anything, nor he who waters, but God who gives the increase (1 Corinthians 3:3-7).When a person reads 1 Corinthians 1:14-17 in view of the problem of division in Corinth that Paul was addressing in chapter one and throughout this letter, he or she has a better understanding of Paul’s statements regarding baptism. He was not indicating that baptism was unnecessary, but that people should not glory in the one who baptizes them. Some of the Corinthians were putting more emphasis on who baptized them, than on the one body of Christ to which a person is added when he or she is baptized (cf. Acts 2:41,47; Ephesians 4:4). Paul was thankful that he did not personally baptize any more Corinthians than he did, lest they boast in his name, rather than in the name of Christ (1:15). Likely, this is the same reason why “Jesus Himself did not baptize, but His disciples.” As Albert Barnes surmised: “f he [Jesus—EL] had baptized, it might have made unhappy divisions among his followers: those might have considered themselves most worthy or honoured who had been baptized by him” (1956, p. 213, emp. in orig.). Paul understood that the fewer people he personally baptized, the less likely they were to rejoice in his name. [In 1 Corinthians 1:13, Paul implied that the only way to be saved is to be baptized into the name of Christ, saying, “Was Paul crucified for you? Or were you baptized in the name of Paul?”] Paul’s desire was for converts to tie themselves to the Savior, and not to himself. He knew that “there is salvation in no one else” but Jesus; “for there is no other name under heaven that has been given among men, by which we must be saved” (Acts 4:12). Paul concerned himself with preaching, and, like Jesus, left others to do the baptizing.

When Paul stated: “Christ did not send me to baptize, but to preach the gospel,” he meant that preaching was his main work, and that others could immerse the converts. He did not mean by this statement that baptism is unimportant, but that the baptizer is inconsequential. Consider this: If Paul did not baptize, but preached, and, if others baptized those who heard Paul’s teachings, what can we infer about the content of Paul’s teachings? The truth is, at some point, he must have instructed the unsaved to be baptized (which is exactly what occurred in Corinth—read Acts 18:1-11; 1 Corinthians 6:11). Similar to how we logically infer from the Ethiopian eunuch’s baptism (Acts 8:36-39), that when Philip “preached Jesus to him” (8:35), he informed the eunuch of the essentiality of baptism, we can truthfully affirm that Paul taught that baptism is essential for salvation. The allegation that Paul and Jesus ever considered baptism non-essential, simply is unfounded.

Original publisher at URL: http://www.apologeticspress.org/articles/617
Author: Eric Lyons

REFERENCES
Barnes, Albert (1956), [I]Notes on the Old and New Testaments: Luke and John (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker).
Drange, Theodore M. (1996), “The Argument from the Bible,” [On-line], URL: http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/theodore_drange/bible.html.
McKinsey, C. Dennis (2000), Biblical Errancy (Amherst, NY: Prometheus).
Morgan, Donald (2003), “Biblical Inconsistencies,” [On-line], URL: http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/donald_morgan/inconsistencies.shtml.
Thayer, J.H. (1958 reprint), A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament (Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark).
Wells, Steve (2001), Skeptic’s Annotated Bible, [On-line], URL: http://www.Skepticsannotatedbible.com.

Unorclan
Feb 5th 2008, 04:07 AM
You can read articles written by me at www.unorclanblog.blogspot.com (http://www.unorclanblog.blogspot.com)

godsgirl
Feb 5th 2008, 06:54 PM
If you're saved-why wouldn't you want to be baptised? If you're not saved=it doesn't matter.

Unorclan
Feb 8th 2008, 12:48 AM
If you're saved-why wouldn't you want to be baptised? If you're not saved=it doesn't matter.

The point is - Baptism is the point we're saved

tgallison
Feb 8th 2008, 01:10 AM
The point is - Baptism is the point we're saved

Unorclan Greetings

You are right water baptism is essential to being saved. But it is Jesus, the living water that cleanses us. It is a spiritual baptism, and that is why Paul said he was not sent to baptize. The physical baptism of the Jordan was a picture of the spiritual that was to take place at the offering up of our Lord as our atonement.

In Jesus Christ, terrell

JesusPhreak27
Feb 8th 2008, 01:24 AM
The point is - Baptism is the point we're saved

Now correct me if Im wrong brother..... but isnt baptism an outward demonstration of an inner belief?

Does this also mean that since I was not baptized by immersion (I has water sprinkled on my head) that I am not totally saved?

losthorizon
Feb 8th 2008, 02:30 AM
Now correct me if Im wrong brother..... but isnt baptism an outward demonstration of an inner belief?

I don’t think baptism is ever defined (biblically) as “an outward demonstration of an inner belief” – more correctly, according to The Acts of the Apostles - when baptism is connected with faith and repentance it is an act of obedience “for the remission of sins” (2:38) and to have one’s sins “washed away” ( 22:16).


Does this also mean that since I was not baptized by immersion (I has water sprinkled on my head) that I am not totally saved?
I think it simply means you have not been “baptized into His death” – the ordinance of Christian baptism is a burial (immersion) of the "old man" in water and a rising up out of the water of the "new man" to "walk in newness of life" (Rom 6).

Alaska
Feb 8th 2008, 02:32 AM
It means you have not obeyed the strong command made by Jesus concerning baptism as its example is seen in numerous places in the book of Acts.
Baptism is obedience to a command Jesus said is necessary to be done by his followers. It's like a signature on the contract. No signature, no deal. Unless someone has an acceptable excuse why they did not obey the fundamental command to be baptised for the remission of sins, then their sins are not remitted.
Baptism is like the signature of remittance. He died for you, now you sign on the dotted line to accept both what he has done and the terms of the contract.

markedward
Feb 8th 2008, 02:37 AM
Does the Bible teach how a baptism should be performed? Or could a person simply go and jump in a lake and walk out?

Alaska
Feb 8th 2008, 02:45 AM
It is performed by a Christian brother and it is done by immersion, as seen in Acts. Not done by sprinkling. Also it is done in the name of Jesus Christ.

losthorizon
Feb 8th 2008, 02:51 AM
Does the Bible teach how a baptism should be performed? Or could a person simply go and jump in a lake and walk out?
I think the baptism of the eunuch by Philip would be a good example of how one is to be baptized…
As they went along the road they came to some water; and the eunuch said, "Look! Water! What prevents me from being baptized?" And Philip said, "If you believe with all your heart, you may." And he answered and said, "I believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God." And he ordered the chariot to stop; and they both went down into the water, Philip as well as the eunuch, and he baptized him. When they came up out of the water, the Spirit of the Lord snatched Philip away; and the eunuch no longer saw him, but went on his way rejoicing. Acts 8:36-39

markedward
Feb 8th 2008, 02:56 AM
It is performed by a Christian brother and it is done by immersion, as seen in Acts. Not done by sprinkling.Could 3000 people in Jerusalem have been immersed in just one days time (Acts 2:41)? Or a jailer and his whole family "immediately" within an hour of the earthquake that freed Paul and Silas (Acts 16:31-33*)?


Also it is done in the name of Jesus Christ.What also of baptizing in the name of "the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit" (Matthew 28:19)?

*By the way, here Paul says "Believe in the Lord Jesus and you will be saved," making no mention of baptism as a requirement for salvation.

Alaska
Feb 8th 2008, 02:59 AM
If someone believes in the Lord Jesus they will believe in what He said is necessary for salvation as also reiterated by the Apostles.
Acts says they were baptised, so they were baptised.

threebigrocks
Feb 8th 2008, 03:00 AM
Baptism should be the first act of obedience after being born again.

Mark 16



15And He said to them, "Go into all the world and preach the gospel to all creation. 16"He who has believed and has been baptized shall be saved; but he who has disbelieved shall be condemned.



Acts 8


12But when they believed Philip preaching the good news about the kingdom of God and the name of Jesus Christ, they were being baptized, men and women alike. 13Even Simon himself believed; and after being baptized, he continued on with Philip, and as he observed signs and great miracles taking place, he was constantly amazed.



Believe. Be baptized. Be saved.

losthorizon
Feb 8th 2008, 03:10 AM
Could 3000 people in Jerusalem have been immersed in just one days time (Acts 2:41)?

Sure - why not - John baptized in Aenon near Jerusalem, "because there was much water there". Are you suggesting it was impossible?

markedward
Feb 8th 2008, 03:16 AM
Sure - why not - John baptized in Aenon near Jerusalem, "because there was much water there". Are you suggesting it was impossible?I didn't say that. I'm saying that it would pose a severe hindrance to fully immerse about 3000 people inside of a city in a single day's time. What I am suggesting is that a method other than full-immersion could have been used (especially considering a few early-church writings, circa 100-200 AD, suggest so).

JesusPhreak27
Feb 8th 2008, 03:20 AM
It is performed by a Christian brother and it is done by immersion, as seen in Acts. Not done by sprinkling. Also it is done in the name of Jesus Christ.

So does this mean that since I was not immersed in water that I will not make it into heaven?

Alaska
Feb 8th 2008, 03:33 AM
Since you have not obeyed His commandment to be baptised in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins, you .....
Since he went to the cross and He commands you therefore to go to the water, and you refuse, you.....
Since he became the author of eternal salvation to all that obey him and you refuse to obey him concerning that which is to be done in order to acquire remission of sins, you.....

threebigrocks
Feb 8th 2008, 03:40 AM
I didn't say that. I'm saying that it would pose a severe hindrance to fully immerse about 3000 people inside of a city in a single day's time. What I am suggesting is that a method other than full-immersion could have been used (especially considering a few early-church writings, circa 100-200 AD, suggest so).

Well, there may have been more than 12 apostles doing the work. It says they were, so they must have figured it out. These logistics don't much help understanding baptism, really. Can make for good discussion, but it's not a baptism essential. ;)

Jerry4America
Feb 8th 2008, 03:48 AM
Since you have not obeyed His commandment to be baptised in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins, you .....
Since he went to the cross and He commands you therefore to go to the water, and you refuse, you.....
Since he became the author of eternal salvation to all that obey him and you refuse to obey him concerning that which is to be done in order to acquire remission of sins, you.....This is a very sad commentary. Jesus Freak27, don't worry about that. The idea that people have to be dipped in water today in order to go to heaven is just bible ignorane. Let's take the verses in question:
Acts 2:38- nobody in the chapter is asking how to be saved. The gospel isn't even presented in the chapter- the command to be baptized for remission of sins is an admonition for consecration. I'll take up the other verses in a minute- got to go.

markedward
Feb 8th 2008, 03:53 AM
H'okay. So...

Is there a verdict on baptism necessity? If I were to pull up any and every verse in NT Scripture regarding baptism, would I conclude that it is required? (Hint: show me every verse in NT Scripture regarding baptism.)

losthorizon
Feb 8th 2008, 03:59 AM
H'okay. So...

Is there a verdict on baptism necessity? If I were to pull up any and every verse in NT Scripture regarding baptism, would I conclude that it is required? (Hint: show me every verse in NT Scripture regarding baptism.)
I think it became necessary at that point in time when it was commanded by Christ – “And he said unto them, Go ye into all the world, and preach the gospel to every creature. He who has believed and has been baptized shall be saved”. (MK 16)

JesusPhreak27
Feb 8th 2008, 04:21 AM
Since you have not obeyed His commandment to be baptised in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins, you .....
Since he went to the cross and He commands you therefore to go to the water, and you refuse, you.....
Since he became the author of eternal salvation to all that obey him and you refuse to obey him concerning that which is to be done in order to acquire remission of sins, you.....

So your stance is that Im NOT going to heaven????

Wow....... good to know Christians arent supposed to be judgmental......

threebigrocks
Feb 8th 2008, 04:28 AM
So your stance is that Im NOT going to heaven????

Wow....... good to know Christians arent supposed to be judgmental......

We are commanded to repent and believe and to be baptized. If the best intention was to be immersed but it just wasn't going to work, it doesn't negate your actions.

JesusPhreak27
Feb 8th 2008, 04:33 AM
We are commanded to repent and believe and to be baptized. If the best intention was to be immersed but it just wasn't going to work, it doesn't negate your actions.

Ok...... Ive had discussions about this topic in the past and have even thought about being immersed.

But from my understanding of salvation and baptism.....the actual ritual of baptism in water is just a ritual..... look at what John the Baptist says......

(Paraphrasing mind you....) I am here baptising you in water....... but the one that follows will baptise you in fire......

uric3
Feb 8th 2008, 03:10 PM
Ok...... Ive had discussions about this topic in the past and have even thought about being immersed.

But from my understanding of salvation and baptism.....the actual ritual of baptism in water is just a ritual..... look at what John the Baptist says......

(Paraphrasing mind you....) I am here baptising you in water....... but the one that follows will baptise you in fire......


Just wanted to bring out that those who was baptized by John was baptized again in the name of Christ. Look at Acts 19:1-7 we see there are 12 men under the baptism of John and once Paul talked to them they where re-baptized into Christ then Paul laid his hands on them and they got the Holy Spirit.

Also note 1st Peter 3:20-21 we can see Baptism doth no also save us... not by putting away the filth of the flesh but answering in a good conscience to God. So it is out first step of faith so to speak once we believe.

threebigrocks
Feb 8th 2008, 03:17 PM
Ok...... Ive had discussions about this topic in the past and have even thought about being immersed.

But from my understanding of salvation and baptism.....the actual ritual of baptism in water is just a ritual..... look at what John the Baptist says......

(Paraphrasing mind you....) I am here baptising you in water....... but the one that follows will baptise you in fire......


Only ritual?

Then why does Christ command that it be done?

Sold Out
Feb 8th 2008, 03:20 PM
Check out this thread:

http://bibleforums.org/showthread.php?t=100849&highlight=baptism

uric3
Feb 8th 2008, 03:28 PM
H'okay. So...

Is there a verdict on baptism necessity? If I were to pull up any and every verse in NT Scripture regarding baptism, would I conclude that it is required? (Hint: show me every verse in NT Scripture regarding baptism.)


I think its a necessity, if you'll notice everyone under NT order was baptized I can't think of one account in the NT where someone obeys the gospel and it is not done. As mentioned in my earlier post those under Johns baptism was re-baptized into Christ Acts 19:1-7.

The only two instances people have come up with is the Thief on the cross and the house of Cornelius however I can explain those.

As I noted before no one in NT order was without baptism in the NT every example of someone coming to Christ in the NT are baptized. The Thief wasn't under NT order nor was the command to baptize in the name Christ given at this time. Lets look at Heb 9:15-17

15And for this cause he is the mediator of the new testament, that by means of death, for the redemption of the transgressions that were under the first testament, they which are called might receive the promise of eternal inheritance. 16For where a testament is, there must also of necessity be the death of the testator. 17For a testament is of force after men are dead: otherwise it is of no strength at all while the testator liveth.

So we can see the NT wasn't in affect while Christ was on the cross because he wasn't dead yet, so according to the passage above everyone at that time was still under OT order. Also one of the reason to be baptized is to wash away our sins Acts 22:16 however Christ could forgive sins while he was upon earth so he could forgive the thief Mark 2:9-10. Now that Christ is in heaven as our King and High Priest Baptism is the method given to have our sins washed away.

So thus the thief was not under NT order and as we know Christ didn't command them to baptize in the name of Father Son and Holy Spirit until after his resurrection...

As for the house of Cornelius we can not that in verse 45-ff Peter commands them to be baptized so they didn't get an option well you can be if you want or anything they was commanded to fulfill this command. Also one of the reason's they got the Holy Spirit before they was baptized was to prove to Peter and the Jews present that Gentiles was in fact accepted of Christ and could be saved. Read whole chapter in context and its pretty easy to see...

Anyway that should be some food for thought as far as verses concerning baptism for you here is just a few to note:

1st Peter 3:20-21; Acts 22:16; Acts 2:37-38; Acts 8:28-39; Acts 16:13; Acts 10:47; etc... just look at anyone who obeys the gospel in the NT and everyone of them is baptized, there isn't account stating otherwise.

awestruckchild
Feb 8th 2008, 05:24 PM
I have never been to a "church" and I have never had a water baptism.
I received the Holy Spirit about 17 months ago and He has taught me what the vs. means: "My sheep know my voice..."
He has given me assurance that did not come from any man but from HIMSELF that I am His and I am saved and my sins are forgiven.
Now, any one of you or all of you, can tell me I am not saved, but HE has told me I am no longer a slave in the house but a real, honest to goodness daughter. I am free and I am proof that He forgives sins without any of my attempts to follow men and publicly clean the outside of my cup.
HE cleansed the inside and He CONTINUES to clean the inside of my cup. And when He cleans the inside, the outside is clean as well.

uric3
Feb 8th 2008, 06:11 PM
I have never been to a "church" and I have never had a water baptism.
I received the Holy Spirit about 17 months ago and He has taught me what the vs. means: "My sheep know my voice..."
He has given me assurance that did not come from any man but from HIMSELF that I am His and I am saved and my sins are forgiven.
Now, any one of you or all of you, can tell me I am not saved, but HE has told me I am no longer a slave in the house but a real, honest to goodness daughter. I am free and I am proof that He forgives sins without any of my attempts to follow men and publicly clean the outside of my cup.
HE cleansed the inside and He CONTINUES to clean the inside of my cup. And when He cleans the inside, the outside is clean as well.


The only things I can say to you is read Acts 10:30-ff you'll see those who receive the holy spirit and what peter says to them... note vs 47 also read 1st Peter 3:20-21 and Acts 22:16 Baptism does not cleanse the outward man its not removing the filth of the flesh but an answer of a good conscience toward God. Its to have our sins washed away etc... I'll thrown in Mark 16:16 as well...

Also wanted to note "church" is not a place its the people that make up the church. Also you should take heed to Heb 10:25 you should assemble with other Christians(church)

awestruckchild
Feb 8th 2008, 07:29 PM
Thank you for those vss., but I give the most attention to the actual words that Jesus spoke and to the Holy Spirit in me.
I try to make the letters His disciples wrote obedient to the words HE spoke, not the other way around.

uric3
Feb 8th 2008, 07:46 PM
Thank you for those vss., but I give the most attention to the actual words that Jesus spoke and to the Holy Spirit in me.
I try to make the letters His disciples wrote obedient to the words HE spoke, not the other way around.

But what the apostles wrote was inspired by the Holy Spirit and are as important as the things spoken by Christ. Christ and the Holy Spirit and God the Father make up the Godhead and are equally important.

Note John 16:13 and 2nd Tim 3:16 all scripture is inspired and God breathed so everything written in the Bible is important and applicable. So in a sense the words written by the apostles are the very things GOD spoke... and are equally important.

markedward
Feb 8th 2008, 08:04 PM
Note John 16:13 and 2nd Tim 3:16 all scripture is inspired and God breathed so everything written in the Bible is important and applicable. So in a sense the words written by the apostles are the very things GOD spoke... and are equally important.Not to get too much into it, but were they referring to their own letters as Scripture (which weren't all written yet), or to Scripture, being the Tanakh?

obeytheword
Feb 8th 2008, 08:07 PM
We are commanded to be baptized - that is not in dispute. I think anyone who says different is not being honest. The question is not SHOULD you be baptized - but what IS baptism? What does it do? What is its function?

To answer that it is the point that a person is saved, and it must happen for someone to be saved is to deny a great number of verses in the scripture that say belief in Jesus (and his message by extention) is what the scripture requires.

If I say "believe and you are saved" which many verses do.

And I say "believe and be baptized and you are saved"

and they BOTH have to be true - then it is obvious that baptism in and of itself is not required TO BE SAVED.

There are in fact exactly zero verses that say "be baptized and you are saved" by itself.

Should someone be baptized? No question - yes. Should you live a fasted life and deny yourself? Also - no question - yes.

If you do not do the second are you not saved? That knocks out quite a few of the people I know.

You HAVE to be able to differentiate what is needed for salvation itself, and what is needed to live an obedient life. Belief (in Christ and his message) is all that is required for salvation itself. The bible is very clear on that point.

awestruckchild
Feb 8th 2008, 08:08 PM
Sorry, I just don't agree that the letters His disciples wrote are as important as the words He spoke.
Andrew Murray, Teresa of Avila and C.S. Lewis were inspired by the Holy Spirit as well and while I've gotten much from some of what they wrote, I would never consider it scripture.
I just think it is safest to go on His own words. Don't know that I believe they did a good thing in the year 300-something to declare as scripture some of the letters Jesus' disciples wrote.
I've just seen far too many instances where people ignore what Jesus said in order to follow what a man has said sometimes in the N.T.
I think somewhere, someone became convinced of this by the Holy Spirit the same way He has convinced me because they began to print His words in red. I just think they deserve more honor.
And He never said a water baptism was necessary or else His hands would be tied and He would be unable to forgive our sins without one.
We just kind of started assuming it was necessary, but I'm telling you, I have met people who had a water baptism who have not even MET the Holy Spirit! Yet I've never had water baptism and He speaks with me everyday!

obeytheword
Feb 8th 2008, 08:23 PM
Sorry, I just don't agree that the letters His disciples wrote are as important as the words He spoke.
Andrew Murray, Teresa of Avila and C.S. Lewis were inspired by the Holy Spirit as well and while I've gotten much from some of what they wrote, I would never consider it scripture.
I just think it is safest to go on His own words. Don't know that I believe they did a good thing in the year 300-something to declare as scripture some of the letters Jesus' disciples wrote.
I've just seen far too many instances where people ignore what Jesus said in order to follow what a man has said sometimes in the N.T.
I think somewhere, someone became convinced of this by the Holy Spirit the same way He has convinced me because they began to print His words in red. I just think they deserve more honor.
And He never said a water baptism was necessary or else His hands would be tied and He would be unable to forgive our sins without one.
We just kind of started assuming it was necessary, but I'm telling you, I have met people who had a water baptism who have not even MET the Holy Spirit! Yet I've never had water baptism and He speaks with me everyday!

I actually DO understand where you are going with this line, but it is a very very dangerous line to take. If you start "cutting" where do you stop? Do you cut out everything but what is "in red"?

What about the entire Old Testament? Jesus is the Word according to the book of John. Do we deny all that stuff in the OT because it is not in "red"?

This particular line of reasoning is often the kind of thought that starts a nifty new cult that denies half (or more) of the bible, and only takes hold of a few parts here and there....

Anyway - not trying to sound too tough there, but it IS a slippery slope with no definite stopping points between cutting the first word and falling into hopeless apostasy and denying the very essence of scripture.

Be Blessed!

uric3
Feb 8th 2008, 08:25 PM
Sorry, I just don't agree that the letters His disciples wrote are as important as the words He spoke.
Andrew Murray, Teresa of Avila and C.S. Lewis were inspired by the Holy Spirit as well and while I've gotten much from some of what they wrote, I would never consider it scripture.
I just think it is safest to go on His own words. Don't know that I believe they did a good thing in the year 300-something to declare as scripture some of the letters Jesus' disciples wrote.
I've just seen far too many instances where people ignore what Jesus said in order to follow what a man has said sometimes in the N.T.
I think somewhere, someone became convinced of this by the Holy Spirit the same way He has convinced me because they began to print His words in red. I just think they deserve more honor.
And He never said a water baptism was necessary or else His hands would be tied and He would be unable to forgive our sins without one.
We just kind of started assuming it was necessary, but I'm telling you, I have met people who had a water baptism who have not even MET the Holy Spirit! Yet I've never had water baptism and He speaks with me everyday!


Christ did state it and its in red Letters Mark 16:16 "He who believeth AND is Baptized shall be saved, he who believeth not shall be damned." Also note the great commission he commanded his disciples to teach all creatures and to baptize them in the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit so it was commanded via Christ and its in red letters...

awestruckchild
Feb 8th 2008, 08:28 PM
I didn't see the word "water" in that verse.;)

awestruckchild
Feb 8th 2008, 08:32 PM
And I don't plan on cutting out any of the bible - even the epistles.
Jesus referred to the O.T. as scripture but He never referred to the N.T. as scripture. I just believe Him, not what other men say.
I am very safe that way from any "cults."
I believe the good news is supposed to lead us to Jesus who gives us the Holy Spirit and then the Holy Spirit teaches us and we have no need for men to teach us after we receive Him and learn to recognize what "His voice" is.

uric3
Feb 8th 2008, 08:38 PM
Belief (in Christ and his message) is all that is required for salvation itself. The bible is very clear on that point.

Not trying to argue just wondering if you have passages to support this? Granted Salvation is the gift of God and its nothing we can do our selves to earn it. However According to Mark 16:16; John 3:1-10; 1st Peter 3:20-21 and James 2:19-ff it is needed faith without works is dead as stated by James the Demons believe and tremble however if thats as far as it goes its a empty faith... According to Christ without water and spirit we shall not inherit the Kingdom of Heaven... also belief and baptism equals saved according to Christ in Mark 16:16... We have to take a Bible as a whole as you mentioned in your post... example if we took John 3:16 and nothing else would belief be all you need... yep... however if I took just 1st Peter 3:20-21 I could say all that was needed is baptism... or Rom 10:10 just believe and confession, etc... When we look at scripture and we can put all the parts together and see whats required

1. Hear the Word - Rom 10:14,17
2. Believe - John 3:16
3. Repent - Acts 17:30
4. Confess - Matt 10:32; Rom 10:10
5. Baptism - Acts 8:28-ff; 1st Peter 3:20-21 Mark 16:16

I think Acts 8:28-ff is one of the best recorded conversions we have because it pretty much notes all 5 of those... only one we don't see is repentance mentioned but its implied... I can't think of one account in the NT where its mentioned all they did was believe... every account has most of those 5 and all mention baptism unless there is a conversion in the NT I am over looking.

uric3
Feb 8th 2008, 08:42 PM
I didn't see the word "water" in that verse.;)

How about John 3:1-10 we have to born of Water and of Spirit if we are to see the kingdom of Heaven. Also even those its not in red note how the disciples baptized people such as Acts 8:28-ff they are following Christ great commission as he commanded them to baptize in the name of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit.

obeytheword
Feb 8th 2008, 08:44 PM
And I don't plan on cutting out any of the bible - even the epistles.
Jesus referred to the O.T. as scripture but He never referred to the N.T. as scripture. I just believe Him, not what other men say.
I am very safe that way from any "cults."
I believe the good news is supposed to lead us to Jesus who gives us the Holy Spirit and then the Holy Spirit teaches us and we have no need for men to teach us after we receive Him and learn to recognize what "His voice" is.
I apologize if my post above sounded to harsh.

It is just that the question of the necessity of baptism is easily understood from the scripture itself - properly interpreted. Men will often try to pass off an agenda, and add to the requirements of the word. In the time of the Apostles, it was the circumcision group that did this.

By adding conditions onto salvation, you are in all truth bastardizing the true gospel of Grace. Scripture is very clear that it is belief that is required for salvation itself. I am honestly dumbfounded that people find it difficult understanding the difference from obedience and salvation itself.

Be Blessed!

obeytheword
Feb 8th 2008, 08:49 PM
How about John 3:1-10 we have to born of Water and of Spirit if we are to see the kingdom of Heaven. Also even those its not in red note how the disciples baptized people such as Acts 8:28-ff they are following Christ great commission as he commanded them to baptize in the name of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit.

If you look at the entire passage it is rather obvious that what is being talked about here is natural birth vs spiritual rebirth. (i.e. borm of water - amniotic fluid as we call it today)

If you pull just the 1 verse out it is not clear, but read the whole passage.

3 Jesus answered and said to him, “Most assuredly, I say to you, unless one is born again, he cannot see the kingdom of God.”
4 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?”
5 Jesus answered, “Most assuredly, I say to you, unless one is born of water and the Spirit, he cannot enter the kingdom of God. 6 That which is born of the flesh is flesh, and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit.

Jesus is contrasting the natural birth of water, with the spiritual re-birth of the spirit.

To use this verse in context to baptism is to take it rather badly out of context.

Be Blessed!

obeytheword
Feb 8th 2008, 09:05 PM
Not trying to argue just wondering if you have passages to support this? Granted Salvation is the gift of God and its nothing we can do our selves to earn it. However According to Mark 16:16; John 3:1-10; 1st Peter 3:20-21 and James 2:19-ff it is needed faith without works is dead as stated by James the Demons believe and tremble however if thats as far as it goes its a empty faith... According to Christ without water and spirit we shall not inherit the Kingdom of Heaven... also belief and baptism equals saved according to Christ in Mark 16:16... We have to take a Bible as a whole as you mentioned in your post... example if we took John 3:16 and nothing else would belief be all you need... yep... however if I took just 1st Peter 3:20-21 I could say all that was needed is baptism... or Rom 10:10 just believe and confession, etc... When we look at scripture and we can put all the parts together and see whats required

1. Hear the Word - Rom 10:14,17
2. Believe - John 3:16
3. Repent - Acts 17:30
4. Confess - Matt 10:32; Rom 10:10
5. Baptism - Acts 8:28-ff; 1st Peter 3:20-21 Mark 16:16

I think Acts 8:28-ff is one of the best recorded conversions we have because it pretty much notes all 5 of those... only one we don't see is repentance mentioned but its implied... I can't think of one account in the NT where its mentioned all they did was believe... every account has most of those 5 and all mention baptism unless there is a conversion in the NT I am over looking.

One of the toughest things in our current "quote chapter and verse" society is that the WHOLE bible must be true. To take a few verses that pair belief and confession or belief and baptism together to come up with what all is required is really doing an injustice to scripture.

Here are a few of them - to be honest, there are more - but do not want it to turn into a "who can give more verses" thing.

2 Thessalonians 2:13 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?book_id=60&chapter=2&verse=13&version=50&context=verse)
But we are bound to give thanks to God always for you, brethren beloved by the Lord, because God from the beginning chose you for salvation through sanctification by the Spirit and belief in the truth,

John 3:15-16 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?book_id=60&chapter=2&verse=13&version=50&context=verse)
5 that whoever believes in Him (son of man) should not perish but have eternal life. 16 For God so loved the world that He gave His only begotten Son, that whoever believes in Him should not perish but have everlasting life.

[B]John 3:36 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?book_id=50&chapter=3&verse=36&version=50&context=verse)
He who believes in the Son has everlasting life; and he who does not believe the Son shall not see life, but the wrath of God abides on him.”

John 5:24 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?book_id=50&chapter=5&verse=24&version=50&context=verse)
“Most assuredly, I say to you, he who hears My word and believes in Him who sent Me has everlasting life, and shall not come into judgment, but has passed from death into life.

John 6:40 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?book_id=50&chapter=6&verse=40&version=50&context=verse)
And this is the will of Him who sent Me, that everyone who sees the Son and believes in Him may have everlasting life; and I will raise him up at the last day.”

John 6:47 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?book_id=50&chapter=6&verse=47&version=50&context=verse)
Most assuredly, I say to you, he who believes in Me has everlasting life.

John 11:25-26 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?book_id=50&chapter=11&verse=25&version=50&context=verse)
Jesus said to her, “I am the resurrection and the life. He who believes in Me, though he may die, he shall live. And whoever lives and believes in Me shall never die. Do you believe this?”

Acts 10:43 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?book_id=51&chapter=10&verse=43&version=50&context=verse)
To Him all the prophets witness that, through His name, whoever believes in Him will receive remission of sins.”

Romans 10:9 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?book_id=52&chapter=10&verse=9&version=50&context=verse)
that if you confess with your mouth the Lord Jesus and believe in your heart that God has raised Him from the dead, you will be saved.

1 Corinthians 1:21 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?book_id=53&chapter=1&verse=21&version=50&context=verse)
For since, in the wisdom of God, the world through wisdom did not know God, it pleased God through the foolishness of the message preached to save those who believe.

Galatians 2:16 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?book_id=55&chapter=2&verse=16&version=50&context=verse)
knowing that a man is not justified by the works of the law but by faith in Jesus Christ, even we have believed in Christ Jesus, that we might be justified by faith in Christ and not by the works of the law; for by the works of the law no flesh shall be justified.

Ephesians 1:13 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?book_id=56&chapter=1&verse=13&version=50&context=verse)
In Him you also trusted, after you heard the word of truth, the gospel of your salvation; in whom also, having believed, you were sealed with the Holy Spirit of promise,

1 Timothy 1:16 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?book_id=61&chapter=1&verse=16&version=50&context=verse)
However, for this reason I obtained mercy, that in me first Jesus Christ might show all longsuffering, as a pattern to those who are going to believe on Him for everlasting life.
1 John 5:13 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?book_id=69&chapter=5&verse=13&version=50&context=verse)
These things I have written to you who believe in the name of the Son of God, that you may know that you have eternal life, and that you may continue to believe in the name of the Son of God.

I believe the critical point to understand is that it is NOT belief in the existence of Jesus that is the issue - it is belief in him AND his message.

If the above verses are true - then the dividing line is belief - otherwise they are rather misleading at the least.


If you look at:

Mark 16:16 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?book_id=48&chapter=16&verse=16&version=50&context=verse)
He who believes and is baptized will be saved; but he who does not believe will be condemned.

Notice something important. He who believes and is baptized will be saved - but who is condemned? NOT those who are not baptized. Those who do not believe.

This is not a totally exhaustive list below here, but it is a general idea. I think it is very harmful to get confused the difference between what it is to obey, and what is required for salvation itself.


IN ORDER TO BE SAVED
Believe in not just Christ - but his primary message.
a - He is the Son of God (the father)
b - He is the Word of God
c - He died to pay the price YOU COULD NOT PAY for your sins
d - You need to turn from your sins and toward him for salvation (repentance)
e - You need to make him Lord (center) of your life

If you do these things and MEAN THEM in your heart you will be saved.
The thing is - God KNOWS if you mean them or not. So mouthing the prayer that the TV evangelist tells you to means nothing if it does not truly come from both the heart and the mind. Just as getting dunked because you "feel" impacted by a good sermon also means nothing in and of itself. It is ALL about the heart state.

ONCE YOU ARE SAVED
You receive the Holy Spirit. Through this spirit you are empowered in a multitude of ways. You have power to resist sin, You have access to the fruits of the spirit, I will not mention spiritual gifts - due to differences in beliefs.

You will WANT to read the scriptures to learn more about this new Lord of your life
You will WANT to obey him
You will WANT to be baptized (kinda goes with obedience to be honest)
You will WANT to become likened to Christ

Most of this is not automatic, but something that is worked out over time.

Be Blessed!

Brother Mark
Feb 8th 2008, 09:21 PM
Nice post. Those that are not baptized are not condemned. It is an often overlooked part of the verse in Mark.

Repentance and living faith are necessary. Baptism is necessary in the sense that we should be obedient but not in that baptism saves us. But it does give us a clear conscience.

losthorizon
Feb 8th 2008, 11:00 PM
...If you look at:

Mark 16:16 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?book_id=48&chapter=16&verse=16&version=50&context=verse)
He who believes and is baptized will be saved; but he who does not believe will be condemned.

Notice something important. He who believes and is baptized will be saved - but who is condemned? NOT those who are not baptized. Those who do not believe.

Of course logic tells us the one who does not believe that Jesus is the Christ will not submit to baptism so it would be an unnecessary redundancy to say - “and he who does not submit to baptism shall be damned.” The important thing to recognize in the verse is the grammar of the first clause – “He who believes and is baptized will be saved” – teaches that both belief and baptism come before “saved”.
"These words are very important. The first clause opposes the notion that faith alone is sufficient for salvation, without those works which are the fruit of faith." ~ Pulpit Commentary, Mark 16:16

Brother Mark
Feb 8th 2008, 11:13 PM
Of course logic tells us the one who does not believe that Jesus is the Christ will not submit to baptism so it would be an unnecessary redundancy to say - “and he who does not submit to baptism shall be damned.” The important thing to recognize in the verse is the grammar of the first clause – “He who believes and is baptized will be saved” – teaches that both belief and baptism come before “saved”.
"These words are very important. The first clause opposes the notion that faith alone is sufficient for salvation, without those works which are the fruit of faith." ~ Pulpit Commentary, Mark 16:16

But by the same token we can use the following verses to show that baptism is not necessary for salvation.

Rom 10:8-11
8 But what does it say? "THE WORD IS NEAR YOU, IN YOUR MOUTH AND IN YOUR HEART" — that is, the word of faith which we are preaching, 9 that if you confess with your mouth Jesus as Lord, and believe in your heart that God raised Him from the dead, you will be saved; 10 for with the heart a person believes, resulting in righteousness, and with the mouth he confesses, resulting in salvation.
NASU

No mention of baptism but yet, a guarantee of salvation for those that receive it.

Baptism comes after salvation, not before it. It is akin to requiring circumcision for salvation and that is dealt with in Galatians.

obeytheword
Feb 8th 2008, 11:24 PM
Baptism comes after salvation, not before it. It is akin to requiring circumcision for salvation and that is dealt with in Galatians.

This is a good correlation to make. It is diluting the gospel of Grace by adding conditions to it :-)

Be Blessed!

losthorizon
Feb 8th 2008, 11:49 PM
But by the same token we can use the following verses to show that baptism is not necessary for salvation.

Rom 10:8-11
8 But what does it say? "THE WORD IS NEAR YOU, IN YOUR MOUTH AND IN YOUR HEART" — that is, the word of faith which we are preaching, 9 that if you confess with your mouth Jesus as Lord, and believe in your heart that God raised Him from the dead, you will be saved; 10 for with the heart a person believes, resulting in righteousness, and with the mouth he confesses, resulting in salvation.
NASU

No mention of baptism but yet, a guarantee of salvation for those that receive it.

Certainly everything taught in Rom 10:8-11 is true but the passage alone does not negate the plain teaching of the necessity of baptism in the many verses where it is taught in the Bible. As someone mentioned earlier – we can’t pick and choose and then isolate those passage(s) to support our doctrines at the exclusion of the many that teach otherwise. We must look at all that is taught concerning our salvation. Jesus does command baptism with faith before salvation is ours – “He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved…”


Baptism comes after salvation, not before it. It is akin to requiring circumcision for salvation and that is dealt with in Galatians.
Is it then your understanding that Mark 16:16 should read – “He that believeth and is saved shall be baptized”? Do any versions of the English Bible support that grammatical rendering? I think not.

Brother Mark
Feb 9th 2008, 12:47 AM
Certainly everything taught in Rom 10:8-11 is true but the passage alone does not negate the plain teaching of the necessity of baptism in the many verses where it is taught in the Bible. As someone mentioned earlier – we can’t pick and choose and then isolate those passage(s) to support our doctrines at the exclusion of the many that teach otherwise. We must look at all that is taught concerning our salvation. Jesus does command baptism with faith before salvation is ours – “He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved…”There are more verses that show baptism occurs after salvation besides Romans.


Is it then your understanding that Mark 16:16 should read – “He that believeth and is saved shall be baptized”? Do any versions of the English Bible support that grammatical rendering? I think not.Nope. I just think the whole of scripture shows that to be true. The work of God is to believe on Christ. Works of baptism do not cleanse us from sin, but rather give us a good conscience towards God for doing what was right. Just as circumcision never saved anyone in the OT, neither does baptism save in the new. Both were outward signs of a internal change from a new covenant.

Jesus wasn't "saved" at his baptism and neither are we. We have many folks in scripture that are mentioned as being saved that weren't baptized i.e. Samson, David, Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, the thief on the cross and many others.

Salvation never has been and never will be based on a work that man can do.

For by grace are you saved, through faith, and that not of yourselves, it is a gift from God.

No mention of baptism in that scripture in Ephesians either. We are baptized into the body of Christ through the Spirit at salvation. Water baptism is as irrelevant to salvation as circumcision or the covenant meal often called the Lord's supper.

Alaska
Feb 9th 2008, 01:45 AM
Not to get too much into it, but were they referring to their own letters as Scripture (which weren't all written yet), or to Scripture, being the Tanakh?

Peter made reference to Paul's writings as scripture.

Can a person be saved and not have their sins remitted? No.
Show the references in the NT that support the "revelation" that remission of sins by the NT requirement is not accomplished by baptism.
Showing some verses that require it and some verses that don't mention it, is not evidence. Since some verses do in fact require it, evidence would need to be presented to prove that those verses are not to be applied to believers.

In that sense that remission is necessary for salvation, baptism does save because remission of sins is aquired by going to the water. How?
In the same way that money buys things: because a system has been created that supports money as a recognised medium to be used for buying.
God has gone to the cross for us to buy our remission of sins and he wants us to simply repent and accept his conditions for salvation and go to the water for remission of sins. It is like the signature on a contract. No signature, no deal.

Jesus is not being given even the respect to acknowledge his conditions for getting on the salvation road: acceptance of his word,repentance and baptism.
Or is this somehow antichrist because requirements or conditions are placed on salvation?
To deny that repentance or acceptance of his word or baptism, are conditions for salvation is a gross act of blasphemy against him who died for us. And will we then spit on Jesus and say to do what he commands is trying to earn salvation and therefore should not be done or some such trash as that?
When he says they that believe and baptised will be saved, he means it. Seriously.
Because dying and rising for us, which baptism represents, was extremely serious.
He went to the cross, and some who say they believe won't go to the water?
Absolutely shameful. And he is ashamed of such.

losthorizon
Feb 9th 2008, 06:08 AM
...There are many more verses that show salvation occurs after salvation.

Then was Jesus in error when He said that faith and baptism precede salvation (Mk 16:16) and was Peter in error when he told those believers on the Day of Pentecost that repentance and baptism were to be accomplished before “the remission of sins” (Acts 2:38). And when Paul was commanded to “Arise and be baptized, and wash away your sins, calling on the name of the Lord” (Acts 22) were his sins really not “washed away” when he obeyed the command given by the Lord’s disciple – was he deceived? Or is it a fact that the Bible teaches his sins were washed away by the blood of Christ at the same time he was immersion in water?


I just think the whole of scripture shows that to be true. The work of God is to believe on Christ. Works of baptism do not cleanse us from sin, but rather give us a good conscience towards God for doing what was right. Just as circumcision never saved anyone in the OT, neither does baptism save in the new. Both were outward signs of a internal change from a new covenant.
No one is teaching baptismal regeneration – the water of baptism is not some magical liquid. Holy Writ is plain that we are finally and completely saved by the blood of Christ alone but the point of contact for that cleansing blood is at the time we are baptized “into His death” (Rom 6: 3-5). It was at His death on the cross that His precious blood was shed. His blood is what washes away our sins and then we come up out of the water "to walk in newness of life" - a "new creature" in Christ Jesus.


Jesus wasn't "saved" at his baptism and neither are we.
Jesus was sinless and therefore He was never lost and in need of being saved. “…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" (1Pet 3:21). Baptism simply points to the salvation we have "by the resurrection of Jesus Christ".


We have many folks in scripture that are mentioned as being saved that weren't baptized i.e. Samson, David, Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, the thief on the cross and many others.
All of the men listed above lived before the ordinance of Christian baptism was instituted by the Lord in the Great Commission (under the New Testament) so your point is moot. We live under the “Law of Christ” and on this side of the cross God's law commands baptism “into Christ Jesus”.


Salvation never has been and never will be based on a work that man can do.
Baptism is a burial and resurrection with Christ (Rom 6) and it is commanded by God and therefore is God's work.
For to be baptized in the name of God is to be baptized not by men, but by God Himself. Therefore although it is performed by human hands, it is nevertheless truly God's own work. From this fact every one may himself readily infer that it is a far higher work than any work performed by a man or a saint. For what work greater than the work of God can we do? ~ Martin Luther

obeytheword
Feb 9th 2008, 01:41 PM
Of course logic tells us the one who does not believe that Jesus is the Christ will not submit to baptism so it would be an unnecessary redundancy to say - “and he who does not submit to baptism shall be damned.” The important thing to recognize in the verse is the grammar of the first clause – “He who believes and is baptized will be saved” – teaches that both belief and baptism come before “saved”.
"These words are very important. The first clause opposes the notion that faith alone is sufficient for salvation, without those works which are the fruit of faith." ~ Pulpit Commentary, Mark 16:16
And is this same logic in place for the many verses I list above where it is belief that comes prior to baptism?

Do you believe those verses are absolutely true? (for the sake of the argument, I will say yes is your answer - please let me know if I am wrong :))


Use the very basic precepts of logic with me for a moment.

If it is true that belief is what is required for salvation (which those verses clearly state)

And it is true that Jesus says belief + baptism = salvation.

How can we logically interpret it such that BOTH of the statements are true?

If the truth is that it takes BOTH belief + baptism to save - then all the verses I listed above are at the very best misleading - or maybe even in error.

HOWEVER - if the truth is that ONLY belief is required, then it is absolutely consistent to say belief + baptism will save you.

This is what I mean by ALL of scripture having to be true. You do not look at it separately and make a list of things, then bring the list together, you look at all pieces concurrently or you will simply not have a complete understanding.

Be Blessed!

losthorizon
Feb 9th 2008, 03:17 PM
And is this same logic in place for the many verses I list above where it is belief that comes prior to baptism?

Do you believe those verses are absolutely true? (for the sake of the argument, I will say yes is your answer - please let me know if I am wrong :))

Again – the verses you list showing “belief that comes prior to baptism” are most certainly true – they are part of God’s word and that word clearly states that “without faith it is impossible to please God”. As I have already stated the one who refuses to believe that Jesus is the Christ is not a candidate for baptism, i.e., without faith one who submits to baptism only gets wet. Baptism is the “answer of a good conscience toward God” – “by the resurrection of Jesus Christ” (1 Pet 3:21) and it simply points to the salvation we have through the blood of Christ – the blood that was shed at His death on the cross. It is for this reason that we are baptized (immersed in water) “into His death” so that we can rise up out of the water to “walk in newness of life”.
Know ye not, that so many of us as were baptized into Jesus Christ were baptized into his death? Therefore we are buried with him by baptism into death: that like as Christ was raised up from the dead by the glory of the Father, even so we also should walk in newness of life. For if we have been planted together in the likeness of his death, we shall be also in the likeness of his resurrection (Rom 6:3-5).

Use the very basic precepts of logic with me for a moment.

If it is true that belief is what is required for salvation (which those verses clearly state)

And it is true that Jesus says belief + baptism = salvation.

How can we logically interpret it such that BOTH of the statements are true?
Doesn’t *logic* dictate that we must read the entire revelation given to us by the Eternal (and not just selected passages) and doesn’t that revelation clearly require faith, repentance and baptism before salvation (Mk 16:16, Acts 2:38). What do you *logically* do with the command from Jesus to believe and be baptized and then salvation is ours? Do you reject baptism simply because you don’t want to obey the command from God and you are able to isolate other passages that do not mention baptism (or repentance)? Where exactly is the logic in this concept? :)
Then Peter said unto them, Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins, and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Spirit. (Acts 2:38)

He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved; but he that believeth not shall be damned. (Mk 16:16)

CFJ
Feb 9th 2008, 04:54 PM
It is performed by a Christian brother and it is done by immersion, as seen in Acts. Not done by sprinkling. Also it is done in the name of Jesus Christ.

How should one look at this passage?


Then will I sprinkle clean water upon you, and ye shall be clean: from all your filthiness, and from all your idols, will I cleanse you. A new heart also will I give you, and a new spirit will I put within you: and I will take away the stony heart out of your flesh, and I will give you an heart of flesh.
(Eze 36:25-26)

obeytheword
Feb 9th 2008, 08:35 PM
Doesn’t *logic* dictate that we must read the entire revelation given to us by the Eternal (and not just selected passages) and doesn’t that revelation clearly require faith, repentance and baptism before salvation (Mk 16:16, Acts 2:38). What do you *logically* do with the command from Jesus to believe and be baptized and then salvation is ours? Do you reject baptism simply because you don’t want to obey the command from God and you are able to isolate other passages that do not mention baptism (or repentance)? Where exactly is the logic in this concept? :)
Then Peter said unto them, Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins, and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Spirit. (Acts 2:38)

He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved; but he that believeth not shall be damned. (Mk 16:16)

Yes - Logic does in fact dictate we need to read the entire revelatinon.

Again, you as well as many in your camp miss the point entirely. I do not reject baptism at all. If you will actually read my posts you will begin to understand this. All I reject is that baptism itself is required in order for you to receive salvation.

As we have debated this before to the same result - Again, I do not see the need to continue. In my opinion, you are twisting the scripture just enough to require something FOR SALVATION that is not part of salvation itself.

It IS a commandment we should very much adhere to and be baptized - I just believe you are placing a bit too much emphasis on the act of baptism, when the primary focus should be on the belief. Belief not in the existence of Jesus - even the demons believe in him. But belief in the truth of his message, and the truth of his sacrifice, etc - just like I said in a prior post.

Pray in the spirit, and be filled - you will then have a much better understanding of scripture - as that is one of the primary roles of the Holy Spirit.

Be Blessed!

lildave7777
Feb 9th 2008, 08:45 PM
Paintdiva - you might remember that even the words in read were not written by Christ, only reported as have been said by Christ. I don't mean this to cast doubt, but if you doubt the direction and inspiration of the men who wrote all the scriptures then you must also doubt the men who wrote the words in read. I have found throught out the years that while i don't understand how everything in the bible works together i know that it all does. As i have studied and prayed i learn more of God and how his whole word is true and works toghether to make an amazing tapestry. i would also urge you too fellow ship with other Christians. were a motely bunch at best but we are all one in him :D

For the rest of the thread on Babtism...I personally believe that Water Babtism is not nescesary for salvation. I believe that spiritual babtism is. I would quote the verses but they are all above. I think paintdiva (i think) hit it squarly on the head when she said that the question is not "is babtism nescesary" but "how do you define babtism".

i believe that putting any ability of salvation in my hands outside of the choice Christ gave me to accept him is to deny salvation by grace. I believe that if you say you must believe AND follow such and such a command that you have just denied grace and have entered the law for salvation. and i personally have no chance of becoming righteous through the law.

Gal 5:1 Stand [fn1] (http://www.blueletterbible.org/cgi-bin/tools/printer-friendly.pl?book=Gal&chapter=5&translation=nkjvp&x=7&y=12#_fnt_1) fast therefore in the liberty by which Christ has made us free, and do not be entangled again with a yoke of bondage. 2 (http://www.blueletterbible.org/cgi-bin/tools/printer-friendly.pl?book=Gal&chapter=5&translation=nkjvp&x=7&y=12#) Indeed I, Paul, say to you that if you become circumcised, Christ will profit you nothing. 3 (http://www.blueletterbible.org/cgi-bin/tools/printer-friendly.pl?book=Gal&chapter=5&translation=nkjvp&x=7&y=12#) And I testify again to every man who becomes circumcised that he is a debtor to keep the whole law.

in the end though we should all make up our own minds and follow Christ to the best of our abiblity. Rom 14:5 One man esteemeth one day above another: another esteemeth every day [alike]. Let every man be fully persuaded in his own mind. (this is not just talking about sunday worship)

PS God has told us what is right and wrong here on earth. If i see you smack some old lady and take her purse i will tell you that you have just done wrong. Thats not me juding you but God. But no man has the ability to judge the salvation of anothers soul outside ot that mans denial of Jesus Christ as his/her savior. Use extreme caution when you find youself in Gods reserved territory.

as always theres my two sense. may we all deal gracefully with each other :hug:

dave.:)

losthorizon
Feb 9th 2008, 09:12 PM
Yes - Logic does in fact dictate we need to read the entire revelatinon.

Again, you as well as many in your camp miss the point entirely. I do not reject baptism at all. If you will actually read my posts you will begin to understand this. All I reject is that baptism itself is required in order for you to receive salvation.

As we have debated this before to the same result - Again, I do not see the need to continue. In my opinion, you are twisting the scripture just enough to require something FOR SALVATION that is not part of salvation itself.

It IS a commandment we should very much adhere to and be baptized - I just believe you are placing a bit too much emphasis on the act of baptism, when the primary focus should be on the belief. Belief not in the existence of Jesus - even the demons believe in him. But belief in the truth of his message, and the truth of his sacrifice, etc - just like I said in a prior post.

Pray in the spirit, and be filled - you will then have a much better understanding of scripture - as that is one of the primary roles of the Holy Spirit.

Be Blessed!
Yes we are to pray for knowledge from above, and it is the Holy Spirit who has revealed that knowledge in the form of God’s written word. It has been revealed to man in its entirety and I must respectfully disagree – I have missed no point - either partially or entirely. I have stated already – it is the blood of Christ that completely saves us and it is baptism that is an act of obedience commanded by the Lord Himself. It became necessary and essential to the gospel of Christ at the point in time when it was commanded by Christ - “And he said unto them, Go ye into all the world, and preach the gospel to every creature. He who has believed and has been baptized shall be saved” (MK 16).

The grammar of this passage comes from the mind of God and it plainly teaches that both belief and baptism come before “saved”. You down play its importance and many within Christendom refuse to obey the command at all but it remains exactly what it has been for over 2000 years - a command from God to be obeyed “from the heart” and when one believes the gospel message, repents of his/her sins and is baptized “into Christ” one receives both “remission of sins” and the “gift of the Holy Spirit” (Acts 2:38). Salvation does not come “without those works which are the fruit of faith”.:)

AliveinChristDave
Feb 9th 2008, 09:24 PM
Anyone here share this Belief on Baptism? - Page 13 - BibleForums Christian Message Board and Forums (http://bibleforums.org/showthread.php?t=97361&highlight=aliveinchristdave&page=13)

Here is a post I made a while back in another thread about baptism.
I don't want to re-write everything so if you're interested in another perspective that differs a bit from what's been said here you can click on the link and read it.
I begin in post number 176 and go through about 190. Number 190 is the most complete post I made on baptism so if you want to cut the chase you can just read it.

Alaska
Feb 9th 2008, 09:48 PM
How should one look at this passage?


Then will I sprinkle clean water upon you, and ye shall be clean: from all your filthiness, and from all your idols, will I cleanse you. A new heart also will I give you, and a new spirit will I put within you: and I will take away the stony heart out of your flesh, and I will give you an heart of flesh.
(Eze 36:25-26)

Peter and Paul make reference to the sprinkling of the blood of Jesus as a fulfillment of the type/shadow shown in the OT sacrificial system.
Applying the above verse to baptism is not rightly divided scripture.
His blood is sprinkled on us, spiritually speaking according to Peter. We are washed by the washing of the water of the Word. Baptism, going down into water is a commandment made by Jesus and exemplified in Acts.

CFJ
Feb 10th 2008, 01:35 PM
Peter and Paul make reference to the sprinkling of the blood of Jesus as a fulfillment of the type/shadow shown in the OT sacrificial system.
Applying the above verse to baptism is not rightly divided scripture.
His blood is sprinkled on us, spiritually speaking according to Peter. We are washed by the washing of the water of the Word. Baptism, going down into water is a commandment made by Jesus and exemplified in Acts.

I would say that this gives a very good clue, not to be ignored. The prophecy clearly states water and that it will be sprinkled.
Whether it is immersion or sprinkling, they're both scriptural and the washings (Heb 9:10 = baptismos) of the Old Testament already shows all people should be cleaned from sin.

When John the Baptist start baptizing the Jews, they were familiar with the ritual of baptism. It was not something completely new to them.

Brother Mark
Feb 10th 2008, 04:00 PM
Then was Jesus in error when He said that faith and baptism precede salvation (Mk 16:16) and was Peter in error when he told those believers on the Day of Pentecost that repentance and baptism were to be accomplished before “the remission of sins” (Acts 2:38). And when Paul was commanded to “Arise and be baptized, and wash away your sins, calling on the name of the Lord” (Acts 22) were his sins really not “washed away” when he obeyed the command given by the Lord’s disciple – was he deceived? Or is it a fact that the Bible teaches his sins were washed away by the blood of Christ at the same time he was immersion in water?

Salvation has always occurred the same way. Paul makes this clear in Galatians. That's why it is important to take the whole counsel of scriptures together. Then we understand what Jesus was saying. Baptism is VERY, VERY, VERY important. It's just not part of salvation. That's why Jesus went on to clarify that "he that believes not is condemned". The remission of sins comes because of the shedding of blood. This has been true from the garden of Eden to the day of the destruction of the old earth.



No one is teaching baptismal regeneration – the water of baptism is not some magical liquid. Holy Writ is plain that we are finally and completely saved by the blood of Christ alone but the point of contact for that cleansing blood is at the time we are baptized “into His death” (Rom 6: 3-5). It was at His death on the cross that His precious blood was shed. His blood is what washes away our sins and then we come up out of the water "to walk in newness of life" - a "new creature" in Christ Jesus.

The baptism is just a picture of salvation. It is not a part of it. We are a new creature before we are baptized.


Jesus was sinless and therefore He was never lost and in need of being saved. “…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" (1Pet 3:21). Baptism simply points to the salvation we have "by the resurrection of Jesus Christ".

Correct. And after we are saved, we have no need for regeneration any more. Just as Christ wasn't regenerated at his baptism, neither are we.


All of the men listed above lived before the ordinance of Christian baptism was instituted by the Lord in the Great Commission (under the New Testament) so your point is moot. We live under the “Law of Christ” and on this side of the cross God's law commands baptism “into Christ Jesus”.

Baptism is a burial and resurrection with Christ (Rom 6) and it is commanded by God and therefore is God's work.
For to be baptized in the name of God is to be baptized not by men, but by God Himself. Therefore although it is performed by human hands, it is nevertheless truly God's own work. From this fact every one may himself readily infer that it is a far higher work than any work performed by a man or a saint. For what work greater than the work of God can we do? ~ Martin Luther


I agree, it is commanded by God. It is something that all believers should have done. But it is not necessary for salvation as other verses have shown.

As I said before, just as circumcision didn't save in the old, baptism doesn't save in the new. God takes both very seriously. Galatians shows over and over how even though circumcision was commanded of God as a sign of the covenant, it had nothing to do with salvation. The same can be said of Baptism.

losthorizon
Feb 10th 2008, 05:41 PM
I would say that this gives a very good clue, not to be ignored. The prophecy clearly states water and that it will be sprinkled.
Whether it is immersion or sprinkling, they're both scriptural and the washings (Heb 9:10 = baptismos) of the Old Testament already shows all people should be cleaned from sin.

When John the Baptist start baptizing the Jews, they were familiar with the ritual of baptism. It was not something completely new to them.
But wasn’t (isn’t) Jewish ritual baptism (the mikveh) a baptism that requires a "full immersion in water” and not merely a sprinkling?
Mikvah (or mikveh) is a specific type of bath designed for the purpose of ritual immersion in Judaism. The word "mikvah", as used in the Hebrew Bible, literally means a "collection" - generally, a collection of water… Several biblical regulations specify that full immersion in water is required to regain ritual purity after ritually impure incidents have occurred. Most forms of impurity can be nullified through immersion in any natural collection of water…A mikvah must, according to the classical regulations, contain enough water to cover the entire body of an average-sized man; based on a mikvah with the dimensions of 3 cubits long, 1 cubit wide, and 1 cubit deep. (From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia)Even Martin Luther who was a paedobaptist understood the meaning of the Greek word “bapto” – in its NT usage it means to dip or immerse something (e.g., the human body) into something (e.g., water). To sprinkle with water misses entirely the “burial in water” illustrated in Romans 6.
“The term baptism is a Greek word. It may be rendered a dipping, as when we dip something in water, that it may be entirely covered…so Paul explains it (Rom. 6)...On this account, I could wish that such as are baptized should be completely immersed into water according to the meaning of the word and signification of the ordinance, as also without doubt it was instituted by Christ.” ~ Martin Luther

losthorizon
Feb 10th 2008, 06:17 PM
...The baptism is just a picture of salvation. It is not a part of it. We are a new creature before we are baptized.

I must respectfully disagree - Holy Writ does not teach one is a “new creature” before baptism. Paul in Romans 6 illustrates baptism as a picture of the believer’s participation in the death, burial and resurrection of the Lord. Contrary to your statement, we do not bury in baptism those who are a “new creature" – we only *bury* those who are “dead in sin”. When the “old man” (still in his sins) goes under the “watery grave of baptism” he comes into contact with the blood of Christ and through the working of the Holy Spirit the sinner is redeemed by His precious blood and he "rises up" out of the water a “new creature in Christ Jesus” and the “new man” goes on his way to “walk in newness of life” in the Lord.

Our baptism in water is "in the likeness of His resurrection" and in our baptism we are "united with Him" through His blood, i.e., we are not united with Jesus Christ until we are immersed in water – "into His death"...
Or do you not know that all of us who have been baptized into Christ Jesus have been baptized into His death? Therefore we have been buried with Him through baptism into death, in order that as Christ was raised from the dead through the glory of the Father, so we too might walk in newness of life. For if we have become united with Him in the likeness of His death, certainly we shall be also in the likeness of His resurrection,"(Rom 6:3-5).

Correct. And after we are saved, we have no need for regeneration any more. Just as Christ wasn't regenerated at his baptism, neither are we.
Paul was commanded to - “Arise, be baptized, and wash away your sins, calling on the name of the Lord” (Acts 22:16). If his sins were not “washed away” by the blood of Jesus Christ at the point of being baptized “into the death of Christ” (Rom 6: 3-5) then when and where were his sins washed away?


I agree, it is commanded by God. It is something that all believers should have done. But it is not necessary for salvation as other verses have shown.
But what do you do with the verses that do require baptism before salvation – do you sweep them under the rug? Jesus said, “he that believes and is baptized shall be saved” – clearly, just as belief precedes salvation so too does baptism. And why exactly is it not necessary? Are you not being inconsistent when you say baptism is commanded by God and it is something that should be obeyed and then turn around and say it is not necessary in God’s plan of salvation?

The question goes begging – is baptism (immersion in water) part of the “gospel of Christ” and did it become a “necessary” part of the gospel message the day it was commanded by God? I answer in the affirmative – it is part and parcel to the gospel message – it is “God's own work” and it is the initiatory ordinance that places one into the church of God. As part of that gospel message, Paul was commanded to – “Arise, be baptized, and wash away your sins, calling on the name of the Lord”. Would Paul have been saved if he refused to “obey from the heart” the command from his Lord to be immersed in water?

Martin Luther, who is credited with coining the phrase Sola Fide (by faith alone) understood the place and necessity of baptism in God’s plan to save our race through the blood of Christ…
Baptism is a burial and resurrection with Christ (Rom 6) and it is commanded by God and therefore is God's work. For to be baptized in the name of God is to be baptized not by men, but by God Himself. Therefore although it is performed by human hands, it is nevertheless truly God's own work. From this fact every one may himself readily infer that it is a far higher work than any work performed by a man or a saint. For what work greater than the work of God can we do? ~ Martin Luther

CFJ
Feb 10th 2008, 08:35 PM
But wasn’t (isn’t) Jewish ritual baptism (the mikveh) a baptism that requires a "full immersion in water” and not merely a sprinkling?
Mikvah (or mikveh) is a specific type of bath designed for the purpose of ritual immersion in Judaism. The word "mikvah", as used in the Hebrew Bible, literally means a "collection" - generally, a collection of water… Several biblical regulations specify that full immersion in water is required to regain ritual purity after ritually impure incidents have occurred. Most forms of impurity can be nullified through immersion in any natural collection of water…A mikvah must, according to the classical regulations, contain enough water to cover the entire body of an average-sized man; based on a mikvah with the dimensions of 3 cubits long, 1 cubit wide, and 1 cubit deep. (From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia)

You are right, but there were diffirent washings and that includes sprinkling. This is biblical facts...


Take the Levites from among the children of Israel, and cleanse them. And thus shalt thou do unto them, to cleanse them: Sprinkle water of purifying upon them, and let them shave all their flesh, and let them wash their clothes, and so make themselves clean.
(Num 8:6-7)
Another fact is that by sprinkling, as clearly stated in Eze 36, they will be cleansed of all filthiness, refering to the new covenant. This is what the Bible clearly tells us, as simple as that, but immersion is not something I'm against, please keep that in mind.


Then will I sprinkle clean water upon you, and ye shall be clean: from all your filthiness, and from all your idols, will I cleanse you. A new heart also will I give you, and a new spirit will I put within you: and I will take away the stony heart out of your flesh, and I will give you an heart of flesh. And I will put my spirit within you, and cause you to walk in my statutes, and ye shall keep my judgments, and do them.
(Eze 36:25-27)


Even Martin Luther who was a paedobaptist understood the meaning of the Greek word “bapto” – in its NT usage it means to dip or immerse something (e.g., the human body) into something (e.g., water). To sprinkle with water misses entirely the “burial in water” illustrated in Romans 6.
“The term baptism is a Greek word. It may be rendered a dipping, as when we dip something in water, that it may be entirely covered…so Paul explains it (Rom. 6)...On this account, I could wish that such as are baptized should be completely immersed into water according to the meaning of the word and signification of the ordinance, as also without doubt it was instituted by Christ.” ~ Martin Luther

Romans 6 are seen by some as water baptism, but many don't read that into the passage. Some see it as the baptism into the body of Jesus Christ. What baptism (baptizo) is this passage refering to?


But Jesus answered and said, Ye know not what ye ask. Are ye able to drink of the cup that I shall drink of, and to be baptized with the baptism that I am baptized with? They say unto him, We are able. And he saith unto them, Ye shall drink indeed of my cup, and be baptized with the baptism that I am baptized with: but to sit on my right hand, and on my left, is not mine to give, but it shall be given to them for whom it is prepared of my Father.
(Mat 20:22-23)
With careful consideration, apply this baptism in Mat 20 to Rom 6, and you may see the point that Rom 6 is not water baptism, as seen by some.

Brother Mark
Feb 11th 2008, 12:41 AM
Romans 6 are seen by some as water baptism, but many don't read that into the passage. Some see it as the baptism into the body of Jesus Christ. What baptism (baptizo) is this passage refering to?


But Jesus answered and said, Ye know not what ye ask. Are ye able to drink of the cup that I shall drink of, and to be baptized with the baptism that I am baptized with? They say unto him, We are able. And he saith unto them, Ye shall drink indeed of my cup, and be baptized with the baptism that I am baptized with: but to sit on my right hand, and on my left, is not mine to give, but it shall be given to them for whom it is prepared of my Father.
(Mat 20:22-23)
With careful consideration, apply this baptism in Mat 20 to Rom 6, and you may see the point that Rom 6 is not water baptism, as seen by some.

Jesus baptizes with fire and the Holy Spirit. You are exactly right.

losthorizon
Feb 11th 2008, 12:46 AM
You are right, but there were diffirent washings and that includes sprinkling. This is biblical facts...

And you too are correct but to distinguish the differences between immersion (“baptizo") and sprinkle (“rhantizo”) as presented in NT Greek I would refer you to the Septuagint (Koine Greek Old Testament). In Leviticus 4:17 the distinction is made between “to baptize” and “to sprinkle”
“Then the priest shall dip (Greek, baptizo) his finger in the blood and sprinkle (Greek, rhantizo) it several times before the Lord, in front of the veil.”Please note the Levite was to “dip or submerge” (baptizo) his finer into the container holding the sacrificial blood and then he was to “sprinkle” (rhantizo) the blood “before the Lord”. In the NT - Christian baptism is referred to as “baptizo” (immersion in water) and never referred to as rhantizo (sprinkle). If the inspired writers authorized both sprinkling and immersion they would have used both words – baptizo and rhantizo but rhantizo is conspicuously missing in reference to the ordinance of baptism in the NT. Historically immersion was practiced in the primitive church and the NT bears out the reality that baptism is a burial in water for those mature enough to acknowledge Jesus Christ as Lord and Savior.


Romans 6 are seen by some as water baptism, but many don't read that into the passage. Some see it as the baptism into the body of Jesus Christ. What baptism (baptizo) is this passage refering to?

But Jesus answered and said, Ye know not what ye ask. Are ye able to drink of the cup that I shall drink of, and to be baptized with the baptism that I am baptized with? They say unto him, We are able. And he saith unto them, Ye shall drink indeed of my cup, and be baptized with the baptism that I am baptized with: but to sit on my right hand, and on my left, is not mine to give, but it shall be given to them for whom it is prepared of my Father.
(Mat 20:22-23)

With careful consideration, apply this baptism in Mat 20 to Rom 6, and you may see the point that Rom 6 is not water baptism, as seen by some.
After consideration I see nothing in the referenced passage in Matthew that would negate Paul’s picture of Christian baptism meaning anything other than a burial in water. This concept has been taught by the church of God from the beginning. I would agree with Spurgeon's evaluation - the burial pictured in baptism is exactly what it is – immersion in water.
Know ye not, that so many of us as were baptized into Jesus Christ were baptized into his death? Therefore we are buried with him by baptism into death: that like as Christ was raised up from the dead by the glory of the Father, even so we also should walk in newness of life."—Romans 6:3-4.

I shall not enter into controversy over this text, although over it some have raised the question of infant baptism or believers' baptism, immersion or sprinkling. If any person can give a consistent and instructive interpretation of the text, otherwise than by assuming believers' immersion to be Christian baptism, I should like to see them do it. I myself am quite incapable of performing such a feat, or even of imagining how it can be done. I am content to take the view that baptism signifies the burial of believers in water in the name of the Lord, and I shall so interpret the text. ~ C. H. SPURGEON, Baptism – A Burial

losthorizon
Feb 11th 2008, 12:59 AM
Jesus baptizes with fire and the Holy Spirit. You are exactly right.
And the disciples of Jesus Christ are commanded to baptize those who believe and repent - in water (a burial) - in the name of God - into union with Christ - and “for the remission of sins”.
Go therefore and make disciples of all the nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, teaching them to observe all things that I have commanded you (Matthew 28:19,20).

Brother Mark
Feb 11th 2008, 01:25 AM
And the disciples of Jesus Christ are commanded to baptize those who believe and repent - in water (a burial) - in the name of God - into union with Christ - and “for the remission of sins”.
Go therefore and make disciples of all the nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, teaching them to observe all things that I have commanded you (Matthew 28:19,20).

I have no issue with that verse. Once someone is saved, they should be baptized in the name of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit. ;)

losthorizon
Feb 11th 2008, 02:21 AM
I have no issue with that verse. Once someone is saved, they should be baptized in the name of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit. ;)
But you appear to have issues with the parallel passage in Mark 16:16 - "He who has believed and has been baptized shall be saved…” You seem to think it should read - “He who believes and has been saved shall be baptized”. But that's not how it reads in my Bible. :)

Brother Mark
Feb 11th 2008, 02:40 AM
But you appear to have issues with the parallel passage in Mark 16:16 - "He who has believed and has been baptized shall be saved…” You seem to think it should read - “He who believes and has been saved shall be baptized”. But that's not how it reads in my Bible. :)

Nah. I just recognize that combined with the rest of scripture, Jesus isn't saying baptism is a must for salvation. That's why he qualified it with belief in the rest of the verse. He didn't say "He who is not baptized is not saved" because that is simply not true.

losthorizon
Feb 11th 2008, 03:43 AM
Nah. I just recognize that combined with the rest of scripture, Jesus isn't saying baptism is a must for salvation. That's why he qualified it with belief in the rest of the verse. He didn't say "He who is not baptized is not saved" because that is simply not true.
Again - logic tells us the man who does not believe that Jesus is the Christ will not submit to baptism so it was unnecessary in the second clause of the passage to say - “and he who does not submit to baptism shall be damned”. What you have failed to address is the fist clause which grammatically teaches the truth of the matter – “He who believes and is baptized will be saved”, i.e., both belief and baptism come before “saved”. There can be no doubt as to what Jesus is saying – salvation comes after "the works which are the fruit of faith". And what are the fruits of faith – belief, repentance and baptism. ;)
"These words are very important. The first clause opposes the notion that faith alone is sufficient for salvation, without those works which are the fruit of faith." ~ Pulpit Commentary, Mark 16:16

Brother Mark
Feb 11th 2008, 03:48 AM
Again - logic tells us the man who does not believe that Jesus is the Christ will not submit to baptism so it was unnecessary in the second clause of the passage to say - “and he who does not submit to baptism shall be damned”. What you have failed to address is the fist clause which grammatically teaches the truth of the matter – “He who believes and is baptized will be saved”, i.e., both belief and baptism come before “saved”. There can be no doubt as to what Jesus is saying – salvation comes after the fruit of faith. And what is the fruit of faith – belief, repentance and baptism. ;)

Well, we certainly won't agree. The whole of scripture shows that man has always been saved the same way. Many people will be in heaven that weren't baptized. Paul made quite a point of making sure that the Galatians understood they were saved the same way Abraham was. He also made the same point to the Romans. Neither passage spoke of salvation through baptism.

Obviously we won't agree.

losthorizon
Feb 11th 2008, 04:20 AM
Well, we certainly won't agree. The whole of scripture shows that man has always been saved the same way. Many people will be in heaven that weren't baptized. Paul made quite a point of making sure that the Galatians understood they were saved the same way Abraham was. He also made the same point to the Romans. Neither passage spoke of salvation through baptism.

Obviously we won't agree.
I suspect you are correct – we will not agree on the question of baptism but that is why we have a discussion board so we can discuss our differences. For the record - Abraham did not live under the New Testament but we do today and the NT includes the command from the Lord Himself to believe and be baptized as we both agree. This command was never giver to Abraham or any of the Patriarchs. Regarding the Galatians, Paul reminded them (and us today) that it was through their obedience to the gospel message that they were “baptized into Christ” and it was through that same baptism that they “put on Christ”.

Questions for you – Were Paul’s sins washed away before, during or after he was immersed in water? “…arise, and be baptized, and wash away thy sins, calling on the name of the Lord.” Can one be in a saved condition if they are not “in Christ”? In you understanding of God’s word how does one come to be “in Christ”?
For as many of you as have been baptized into Christ have put on Christ. There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither bond nor free, there is neither male nor female: for ye are all one in Christ Jesus. And if ye be Christ's, then are ye Abraham's seed, and heirs according to the promise. (Gal 3:27-29)

HisLeast
Feb 11th 2008, 04:20 AM
Well well... if it isn't another thread informing me of yet another reason I'm irrevocably damned. I hoped I'd be used to it by now, but it still makes me sad.

Or maybe I should be glad. I said the words, thought I meant them, and got the water dunk when I was a teen (back before I knew what repentance meant ... viscerally). A decade and a half later and I can safely say I knew NOTHING of the cost of faith at that age. A decade and a half from now, I'll probably say the same thing about how I am today. Was my baptism meaningless? I'd put my money on "yes".

But thats ok, because I'm damned 100 different other ways. I've been going to church on Sundays since day one, in flagrant violation of Commandment 4 to remember the sabbath and keep it holy. No amount of rest or righteousness on Sunday can cleanse me of that wickedness. I've also never spoken in tongues, another activity clearly demonstrated in Acts, so I have no fruit to show. I'm guilty of 100's of Torah violations, some of which occurred after I was baptized, and since Jesus didn't come to change the law... well I'm pretty much damned there too. Oh yeah... and since I'm fully equipped, it looks like the circumcision thing is just going to seal the deal.

So believe me brothers when I say I COMPLETELY understand there's nothing we can do by our own works to achieve salvation. What I WISH I understood was what it takes to be saved. Really saved. But really really REALLY saved this time. For keepsies. (stamped on the line, no erasies). I guess I'll have an eternity of hellfire to think it over though. Thats comforting at least.

CFJ
Feb 11th 2008, 05:40 AM
Well well... if it isn't another thread informing me of yet another reason I'm irrevocably damned. I hoped I'd be used to it by now, but it still makes me sad.

Or maybe I should be glad. I said the words, thought I meant them, and got the water dunk when I was a teen (back before I knew what repentance meant ... viscerally). A decade and a half later and I can safely say I knew NOTHING of the cost of faith at that age. A decade and a half from now, I'll probably say the same thing about how I am today. Was my baptism meaningless? I'd put my money on "yes".

But thats ok, because I'm damned 100 different other ways. I've been going to church on Sundays since day one, in flagrant violation of Commandment 4 to remember the sabbath and keep it holy. No amount of rest or righteousness on Sunday can cleanse me of that wickedness. I've also never spoken in tongues, another activity clearly demonstrated in Acts, so I have no fruit to show. I'm guilty of 100's of Torah violations, some of which occurred after I was baptized, and since Jesus didn't come to change the law... well I'm pretty much damned there too. Oh yeah... and since I'm fully equipped, it looks like the circumcision thing is just going to seal the deal.

So believe me brothers when I say I COMPLETELY understand there's nothing we can do by our own works to achieve salvation. What I WISH I understood was what it takes to be saved. Really saved. But really really REALLY saved this time. For keepsies. (stamped on the line, no erasies). I guess I'll have an eternity of hellfire to think it over though. Thats comforting at least.

HisLeast,

Great post friend! The following passage comes to mind when reading your reply. Replace the word circumcision/circumcised with all the diffirent works or physical "things" you can think of..., and then focus on verse 14, after doing that...


Gal 6:12-16 These people who want to make a big deal out of a physical thing are trying to force you to be circumcised. Their only aim is to avoid persecution because of the cross of Christ. (13) It's clear that not even those who had themselves circumcised did this to follow Jewish laws. Yet, they want you to be circumcised so that they can brag about what was done to your body. (14) But it's unthinkable that I could ever brag about anything except the cross of our Lord Jesus Christ. By his cross my relationship to the world and its relationship to me have been crucified. (15) Certainly, it doesn't matter whether a person is circumcised or not. Rather, what matters is being a new creation. (16) Peace and mercy will come to rest on all those who conform to this principle. They are the Israel of God.

CFJ
Feb 11th 2008, 11:52 AM
And you too are correct but to distinguish the differences between immersion (“baptizo") and sprinkle (“rhantizo”) as presented in NT Greek I would refer you to the Septuagint (Koine Greek Old Testament). In Leviticus 4:17 the distinction is made between “to baptize” and “to sprinkle”
“Then the priest shall dip (Greek, baptizo) his finger in the blood and sprinkle (Greek, rhantizo) it several times before the Lord, in front of the veil.”Please note the Levite was to “dip or submerge” (baptizo) his finer into the container holding the sacrificial blood and then he was to “sprinkle” (rhantizo) the blood “before the Lord”. In the NT - Christian baptism is referred to as “baptizo” (immersion in water) and never referred to as rhantizo (sprinkle). If the inspired writers authorized both sprinkling and immersion they would have used both words – baptizo and rhantizo but rhantizo is conspicuously missing in reference to the ordinance of baptism in the NT. Historically immersion was practiced in the primitive church and the NT bears out the reality that baptism is a burial in water for those mature enough to acknowledge Jesus Christ as Lord and Savior.

Interesting view you've got here losthorizon. However, how do one get past the prophecy in Eze 36, which clearly says that cleansing will come through sprinkling, not immersion? The Hebrew word used in verse 25 is zaw-rak...


H2236
זרק
zâraq
zaw-rak'
A primitive root; to sprinkle (fluid or solid particles): - be here and there, scatter, sprinkle, strew.


After consideration I see nothing in the referenced passage in Matthew that would negate Paul’s picture of Christian baptism meaning anything other than a burial in water.

To begin with, Paul was not send by Christ to baptize with water (1Cor 1:17). What type of baptism would you say, do one find in Matthew 20:22-23 ?

Can one be honest and read water baptism into that passage?

losthorizon
Feb 11th 2008, 11:53 PM
Interesting view you've got here losthorizon. However, how do one get past the prophecy in Eze 36, which clearly says that cleansing will come through sprinkling, not immersion?

Well CFJ – you haven’t convinced me that the phrase “sprinkle clean water” as it is presented in Ezekiel is a reference to the ordinance of Christian baptism. I would be more inclined to think the reference goes back to the words of the LORD to Moses in the book of Exodus and other places. But I’ll tell you what – I will listen to your explanation why “sprinkle clean water” must be a reference to believer’s baptism under the NT…
Then the LORD spoke to Moses, saying: “You shall also make a laver of bronze, with its base also of bronze, for washing. You shall put it between the tabernacle of meeting and the altar. And you shall put water in it, for Aaron and his sons shall wash their hands and their feet in water from it. When they go into the tabernacle of meeting, or when they come near the altar to minister, to burn an offering made by fire to the LORD, they shall wash with water, lest they die. So they shall wash their hands and their feet, lest they die. And it shall be a statute forever to them—to him and his descendants throughout their generations.” (Ex. 30:17-21)And I would ask you to also explain why the Greek word “rhantizo” (sprinkle) is missing in action in the NT as a reference to the ordinance of baptism. Why do the inspired writers use “baptizo” which means to “dip or submerge” when they write of baptism? Do you think baptizo means “to sprinkle”?

Why does Paul refer to baptism as a “burial” of the “old man” in water and a raising up out of the water of the "new man" - “to walk in newness of life”? Why did the eunuch and Philip both go down “into the water” and then come up “out of the water” as the eunuch was buried in baptism? Why didn’t Phillip just sprinkle water on him from his canteen? Why did the Baptizer baptize “in Aenon near Salim, because there was much water there?” It sure appears that much water was needed for baptism.
"Now as they went down the road, they came to some water. And the eunuch said, See here is water, what hinders me from being baptized? And Philip said, If you believe with all your heart, you may. And he answered and said, I believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God. So he commanded the chariot to stand still. And both Philip and the eunuch went down into the water, and he baptized him. And when they came up out of the water, the Spirit of the Lord caught Philip away, so that the eunuch saw him no more: and he went on his way rejoicing." (Acts 8:36-39)


To begin with, Paul was not send by Christ to baptize with water (1Cor 1:17).
Isn’t this just a non-argument? The verse does not teach that baptism isn't necessary to the gospel of Christ. Certainly you do not deny that “many of the Corinthians, hearing, believed and were baptized.” Where do you think they heard the message to “believe and be baptized” – didn't they hear the words from the “"the apostle of the Gentiles"”?
Then Crispus, the ruler of the synagogue, believed on the Lord with all his household. And many of the Corinthians, hearing, believed and were baptized. Acts 18:8

Question for you, CFJ – why did Paul submit to baptism and were his sins “washed away” by the blood of Christ before, during or after he obeyed the command of Jesus Christ to “believe and be baptized”?
And now why tarriest thou? arise, and be baptized, and wash away thy sins, calling on his name. (Acts 22:18)

losthorizon
Feb 12th 2008, 01:48 AM
...The following passage comes to mind when reading your reply. Replace the word circumcision/circumcised with all the diffirent works or physical "things" you can think of..., and then focus on verse 14, after doing that...

But this passage is Paul’s repudiation of the Judaizers who wanted to go back under the old Mosaic system - the same system that was nailed to the cross. The ordinance of Christian baptism was never required of the Hebrew nation under the Law of Moses but circumcision was required.

Paul had just explained to these same Galatians (Ch 3) that the old law was a “tutor” to bring them to the Lord that they might be “justified by faith”. He then tells them that they are “sons of God through faith in Christ Jesus”. And what did he say was included as part of “the faith” – he told them that “as many of you as were baptized into Christ have put on Christ”. Paul does not tell them that baptism is of no importance because it is a “physical thing” as you appear to be suggesting. Surely one cannot be “in Christ” without being “baptized into Christ” (Rom 6).

Therefore the law was our tutor to bring us to Christ, that we might be justified by faith. But after faith has come, we are no longer under a tutor. For you are all sons of God through faith in Christ Jesus. For as many of you as were baptized into Christ have put on Christ. There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free, there is neither male nor female; for you are all one in Christ Jesus. And if you are Christ’s, then you are Abraham’s seed, and heirs according to the promise. (Gal 3: 24-29)Do you believe that baptism in water that is commanded by God and is to be obeyed by those who believe that Jesus is the Christ is a “work of man” or is it a “work of God” just as "belief" is a work of God? Do you think Paul thought of his own baptism as a work of self-righteousness or as an act of obedience?
And Samuel said, Hath the LORD as great delight in burnt offerings and sacrifices, as in obeying the voice of the LORD? Behold, to obey is better than sacrifice, and to hearken than the fat of rams. (1 Samuel 15:22)

CFJ
Feb 12th 2008, 07:31 AM
Well CFJ – you haven’t convinced me that the phrase “sprinkle clean water” as it is presented in Ezekiel is a reference to the ordinance of Christian baptism. I would be more inclined to think the reference goes back to the words of the LORD to Moses in the book of Exodus and other places. But I’ll tell you what – I will listen to your explanation why “sprinkle clean water” must be a reference to believer’s baptism under the NT…
Then the LORD spoke to Moses, saying: “You shall also make a laver of bronze, with its base also of bronze, for washing. You shall put it between the tabernacle of meeting and the altar. And you shall put water in it, for Aaron and his sons shall wash their hands and their feet in water from it. When they go into the tabernacle of meeting, or when they come near the altar to minister, to burn an offering made by fire to the LORD, they shall wash with water, lest they die. So they shall wash their hands and their feet, lest they die. And it shall be a statute forever to them—to him and his descendants throughout their generations.” (Ex. 30:17-21)

losthorizon,

The context of the passage in Eze 36 talks about the future, verse 26 - "A new heart also will I give you, and a new spirit will I put within you: and I will take away the stony heart out of your flesh, and I will give you an heart of flesh." It surely is the New Testament he is refering to and in verse 25 again, "Then will I sprinkle clean water upon you, and ye shall be clean: from all your filthiness, and from all your idols, will I cleanse you." Then (with the new covenant), will I sprinkle clean water upon you.


Why does Paul refer to baptism as a “burial” of the “old man” in water and a raising up out of the water of the "new man" - “to walk in newness of life”?

It depends what baptism Paul is refering to. He is talking about the baptism into the body of Christ. Regeneration is when the old man dies and when the new man is raised. This is a work of God, a baptism done by the Holy Spirit, the moment you are saved, the moment you are born again. Water cannot do this.


Why did the eunuch and Philip both go down “into the water” and then come up “out of the water” as the eunuch was buried in baptism? Why didn’t Phillip just sprinkle water on him from his canteen? Why did the Baptizer baptize “in Aenon near Salim, because there was much water there?” It sure appears that much water was needed for baptism.
"Now as they went down the road, they came to some water. And the eunuch said, See here is water, what hinders me from being baptized? And Philip said, If you believe with all your heart, you may. And he answered and said, I believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God. So he commanded the chariot to stand still. And both Philip and the eunuch went down into the water, and he baptized him. And when they came up out of the water, the Spirit of the Lord caught Philip away, so that the eunuch saw him no more: and he went on his way rejoicing." (Acts 8:36-39)

I will never argue that immersion could have been possible, but it is not what one reads in the text, one have to read immersion into the text to come to such a conclusion. One do not read that any of them were immersed.


Isn’t this just a non-argument? The verse does not teach that baptism isn't necessary to the gospel of Christ. Certainly you do not deny that “many of the Corinthians, hearing, believed and were baptized.” Where do you think they heard the message to “believe and be baptized” – didn't they hear the words from the “"the apostle of the Gentiles"”?
Then Crispus, the ruler of the synagogue, believed on the Lord with all his household. And many of the Corinthians, hearing, believed and were baptized. Acts 18:8

Question for you, CFJ – why did Paul submit to baptism and were his sins “washed away” by the blood of Christ before, during or after he obeyed the command of Jesus Christ to “believe and be baptized”?
And now why tarriest thou? arise, and be baptized, and wash away thy sins, calling on his name. (Acts 22:18)

Paul is not against baptism, but he is against things done in the flesh and the problems arising from physical works done by man. He worked his way through in 1Corinthians up to chapter 12, where he shows what true baptism really means, something that cannot be done in the flesh...


1Co 12:13 For by one Spirit are we all baptized into one body, whether we be Jews or Gentiles, whether we be bond or free; and have been all made to drink into one Spirit.
It would be interesting to hear what baptism Matthew 20:22-23 is talking about? You still need to answer that question... :)

Vivi
Feb 12th 2008, 01:49 PM
In the book of Matthew we can see that baptism is a direct command from Jesus.

Mathew3:15-Jesus replied, "Let it be so now: it is proper for us to do this to fulfill all righteousness.

and in verse 16 it say that he came up OUT of the water meaning that he was completely submerged. I have read the entire bible and not once does it talk about sprinkling. If a man is dirty and needs to get clean will a few drops fully clean him? Certainly not. Therefore, you must be completely submerged to be properly baptized.

Matthew28:18-Then Jesus came to them and said, "All authority in heaven and on earth have been given to me. Therefore go and make deciples of all nations baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit.

Therefore we can see from these two scriptures that baptism is a direct command from Jesus and it is also mention all through out the book of Acts and Paul's letters. So therefore go and get baptized if you haven't already been, in complete submerion, so the you may be cleasened of your sins and start anew life in Christ.

HisLeast
Feb 12th 2008, 02:57 PM
So who took the thief down off the cross and baptized him in full immersion? If no one did then I see a few scenarios

1) Jesus lied to him about paradise. Sucks to have your last moments filled with hope only to be thrown into hellfire for not having a quick dunk, but a ripping good practical joke on JHWH's part wouldn't you say?
2) Someone sprinkled him with water and nobody told us.
3) Someone took him off the cross and baptized him after his death. Therefore posthumous baptism is a-ok.
4) We have an insolvent contradiction in dogma and our faith implodes in a puff of anti-logic.
5) Full submersion baptism is a symbolic act, but not essential for salvation on its own.

swtjudy
Feb 12th 2008, 09:03 PM
Thank you so much for the excellent study on baptism. I have struggled for years with churches who do not find baptism to be vital to salvation. I was supposedly led to the Lord many years ago by an independent Baptist preacher who taught me to just pray Jesus into my heart and then at some later time be baptized. I went to church after church but continued to feel the need to be saved and be baptized everytime I would hear the invitation song. I could not find any peace or victory in my salvation. Then when I was 38 I met some people from the Church of Christ ( not to be confused with the United Church of Christ). I was at one of their home Bible studies and they taught on Acts 2:38 and immediately I knew what the problem was. I had not been taught correctly, or acted in accordance with God's complete law. I was baptized at 11pm at night and have never doubted my salvation since then. I have found that most churches never teach Acts 2:38. Thanks again.

losthorizon
Feb 13th 2008, 12:14 AM
So who took the thief down off the cross and baptized him in full immersion? If no one did then I see a few scenarios

1) Jesus lied to him about paradise. Sucks to have your last moments filled with hope only to be thrown into hellfire for not having a quick dunk, but a ripping good practical joke on JHWH's part wouldn't you say?
2) Someone sprinkled him with water and nobody told us.
3) Someone took him off the cross and baptized him after his death. Therefore posthumous baptism is a-ok.
4) We have an insolvent contradiction in dogma and our faith implodes in a puff of anti-logic.
5) Full submersion baptism is a symbolic act, but not essential for salvation on its own.
It amazes me the links some folks go to in an attempt to circumvent the simple command of Jesus Christ to “believe and be baptized” (Mark 16:16). The “logic” advanced by this poster is probably one of the sillier arguments found among those who object to God’s plan of redemption. First - it is *assumed* the thief was not baptized before his fate on the cross but the fact is we are not told if he was or wasn’t baptized. The thief obviously knew about Jesus and the NT records the reality that “many” were baptized by John the Baptist – “John also was baptizing at Aenon near Salim, because there was much water there…” It would certainly be possible that he was baptized.

But regardless of whether the thief was baptized or not the argument presented here is nothing more than a non-argument. When Jesus walked this earth in the flesh he had the authority to forgive sins. In Luke 5 Jesus told the paralytic, “Man, your sins are forgiven you.” Certainly Jesus could and did forgive the sins of any He willed to save including the thief on the cross. Another important fact is the thief lived under the OT law. i.e., he lived before Jesus died on the cross thus the thief was never commanded to be *baptized into God’s name* as we are today, therefore to use the illustration of the thief as the reason to circumvent the command by the Lord to be immersed in water is simply faulty logic and poor judgment. It is to fail to “rightly divide the word of God” – the thief lived under the Old Testament and the command to be baptized is the ordinance that brings one into “union with Christ” under the New Testament. ;)
For you are all sons of God through faith in Christ Jesus. For as many of you as were baptized into Christ have put on Christ. There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free, there is neither male nor female; for you are all one in Christ Jesus. And if you are Christ’s, then you are Abraham’s seed, and heirs according to the promise. (Gal 3: 26-29)

losthorizon
Feb 13th 2008, 12:22 AM
Thank you so much for the excellent study on baptism. I have struggled for years with churches who do not find baptism to be vital to salvation. I was supposedly led to the Lord many years ago by an independent Baptist preacher who taught me to just pray Jesus into my heart and then at some later time be baptized. I went to church after church but continued to feel the need to be saved and be baptized everytime I would hear the invitation song. I could not find any peace or victory in my salvation. Then when I was 38 I met some people from the Church of Christ ( not to be confused with the United Church of Christ). I was at one of their home Bible studies and they taught on Acts 2:38 and immediately I knew what the problem was. I had not been taught correctly, or acted in accordance with God's complete law. I was baptized at 11pm at night and have never doubted my salvation since then. I have found that most churches never teach Acts 2:38. Thanks again.
Judy – I am glad you were taught the truth preached by Peter to those believers on the Day of Pentecost to “repent and be baptized… for the remission of sins…” God bless. :)

HisLeast
Feb 13th 2008, 12:27 AM
But regardless of whether the thief was baptized or not the argument presented here is nothing more than a non-argument. When Jesus walked this earth in the flesh he had the authority to forgive sins. In Luke 5 Jesus told the paralytic, “Man, your sins are forgiven you.” Certainly Jesus could and did forgive the sins of any He willed to save including the thief on the cross.

So now that he is dead and risen again he has no such ability?

watchinginawe
Feb 13th 2008, 12:52 AM
It amazes me the links some folks go to in an attempt to circumvent the simple command of Jesus Christ to “believe and be baptized” (Mark 16:16). The “logic” advanced by this poster is probably one of the sillier arguments found among those who object to God’s plan of redemption.losthorizon, I think you should be careful with how you are directing your words at this point. Besides, I like the arguement just fine. :)

Let's examine what you believe is God's plan of redemption then and the logic thereof. Do you believe that someone who believes and is baptized (full immersion) has received God's plan of redemption? (let's not wander into anything like repentance, etc. because the topic is water batpsim)

So that this doesn't take several posts back and forth, are there requirements of baptism that enable someone to receive God's plan of redemption? Or said another way, do you believe that there are believers who have been baptized by full immersion in the name of Jesus Christ who still have not received God's plan of redemption?

God Bless!

alethos
Feb 13th 2008, 12:59 AM
I was doing some reading today before I came across this thread, and found the following interesting quote which is directed at the subject of this thread.

"And as the circumcised in the flesh, and not in the heart, have no part in God's good promises; even so they that be baptized in the flesh, and not in heart, have no part in Christ's blood." - William Tyndale

watchinginawe
Feb 13th 2008, 01:35 AM
When we look at scripture and we can put all the parts together and see whats required

1. Hear the Word - Rom 10:14,17
2. Believe - John 3:16
3. Repent - Acts 17:30
4. Confess - Matt 10:32; Rom 10:10
5. Baptism - Acts 8:28-ff; 1st Peter 3:20-21 Mark 16:16I want to discuss uric3's condensation of "requirements" for salvation. Personally, I have participated in all of the above in my Christian experience (not sure I agree with the order of 2 and 3 though). So, have I fulfilled the requirements of salvation? I particularly want to probe about those who have the testimony of all five "requirements" but do not believe that baptism was a "requirement".
I can't think of one account in the NT where its mentioned all they did was believe... every account has most of those 5 and all mention baptism unless there is a conversion in the NT I am over looking.I would say read the whole of Acts Chapter 17.

God Bless!

uric3
Feb 13th 2008, 01:41 AM
So who took the thief down off the cross and baptized him in full immersion? If no one did then I see a few scenarios

1) Jesus lied to him about paradise. Sucks to have your last moments filled with hope only to be thrown into hellfire for not having a quick dunk, but a ripping good practical joke on JHWH's part wouldn't you say?
2) Someone sprinkled him with water and nobody told us.
3) Someone took him off the cross and baptized him after his death. Therefore posthumous baptism is a-ok.
4) We have an insolvent contradiction in dogma and our faith implodes in a puff of anti-logic.
5) Full submersion baptism is a symbolic act, but not essential for salvation on its own.

As I stated earlier in this thread and I don't mind writing it again, note that everyone under NT order was baptized for remission of sins and to be added to the body of Christ.

The reason the Thief didn't have to be baptized is two reasons one he was not under NT order and Christ had not taught his disciples to baptize in his name yet.

Lets read Heb 9:15-17

"15And for this cause he is the mediator of the new testament, that by means of death, for the redemption of the transgressions that were under the first testament, they which are called might receive the promise of eternal inheritance. 16For where a testament is, there must also of necessity be the death of the testator. 17For a testament is of force after men are dead: otherwise it is of no strength at all while the testator liveth."

Notice here that without the death of the testator a testament is of no force at all... Christ wasn't dead yet so the NT wasn't in affect yet.

As noted baptism washes away sins Acts 22:16 however while Christ was on earth he had the ability to forgive sins... Mark 2:9-10 now that hes in heaven as our King and High Priest and the NT is in affect baptism now washes away our sins.

Note the great commission to baptize in the name of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit wasn't given until after his resurrection. Also as shown earlier those who had the baptism of John had to be re-baptized into Christ note Acts 19:1-7

So the thief on the cross as shown was not under NT order and the great commission had yet been delivered or given so there you have it.

uric3
Feb 13th 2008, 01:55 AM
I want to discuss uric3's condensation of "requirements" for salvation. Personally, I have participated in all of the above in my Christian experience (not sure I agree with the order of 2 and 3 though). So, have I fulfilled the requirements of salvation? I particularly want to probe about those who have the testimony of all five "requirements" but do not believe that baptism was a "requirement".I would say read the whole of Acts Chapter 17.

God Bless!

Hey watchinginawe how are you? I read Acts Chapter 17 and don't really see any where that would go against my statement that everyone converted in the NT was converted as stated, just Acts 17 didn't go into detail just stated that some people believed it just didn't go into detail about how they obeyed the gospel.

Read Acts 8:1-ff you'll notice as Phillip taught note vs 12 all those that believe what he as teaching was baptized both men and women it doesn't go into detail that they confessed Christ or repented... did they do that? I am sure they did repent and confess Christ it just didn't state it just like Acts 17 didn't go into detail like other passages...


Note later in Acts 8 we have one of the most detailed conversions in the Bible then we can look at Acts 18:8 all we get is

"And Crispus, the chief ruler of the synagogue, believed on the Lord with all his house; and many of the Corinthians hearing believed, and were baptized."

So there you get hearing, believed and baptized... yet nothing is mentioned of repentance or confession... which we are sure they did to... so if I am missing something in Acts 17 please point that out for me.

watchinginawe
Feb 13th 2008, 02:14 AM
So there you get hearing, believed and baptized... yet nothing is mentioned of repentance or confession... which we are sure they did to... so if I am missing something in Acts 17 please point that out for me.No problem, but I hope you will also give me your opinion of "valid baptisms" as well.

You asked:
I can't think of one account in the NT where its mentioned all they did was believe... When we read Acts 17, we see all accounts given in the chapter where all that was mentioned was belief (given that they heard the word, and repented in order to believe). We have...

The Thessalonians:
Acts 17:3 Opening and alleging, that Christ must needs have suffered, and risen again from the dead; and that this Jesus, whom I preach unto you, is Christ.

4 And some of them believed, and consorted with Paul and Silas; and of the devout Greeks a great multitude, and of the chief women not a few.


The Bereans:
10 And the brethren immediately sent away Paul and Silas by night unto Berea: who coming thither went into the synagogue of the Jews.

11 These were more noble than those in Thessalonica, in that they received the word with all readiness of mind, and searched the scriptures daily, whether those things were so.

12 Therefore many of them believed; also of honourable women which were Greeks, and of men, not a few.


And finally the Athenians:
32 And when they heard of the resurrection of the dead, some mocked: and others said, We will hear thee again of this matter.

33 So Paul departed from among them.

34 Howbeit certain men clave unto him, and believed: among the which was Dionysius the Areopagite, and a woman named Damaris, and others with them.

We have Paul preaching in all three locations and not one mention of baptism preached or performed. Now I, like you, might certainly presume that Paul (or those with him) performed baptisms as well, but I was just answering your question above. Baptism simply isn't mentioned in the preaching or as part of the recorded activities.

God Bless!

losthorizon
Feb 13th 2008, 02:41 AM
losthorizon,

The context of the passage in Eze 36 talks about the future, verse 26 - "A new heart also will I give you, and a new spirit will I put within you: and I will take away the stony heart out of your flesh, and I will give you an heart of flesh." It surely is the New Testament he is refering to and in verse 25 again, "Then will I sprinkle clean water upon you, and ye shall be clean: from all your filthiness, and from all your idols, will I cleanse you." Then (with the new covenant), will I sprinkle clean water upon you.

CFJ – the passage does have a future fulfillment but again, I see no direct reference to the ordinance of Christian baptism. I would refer you to Numbers 19… “Then a man who is clean shall gather up the ashes of the heifer… and they shall be kept for the congregation of the children of Israel for the water of purification…it is for purifying from sin”. Then compare those words to Hebrews 9…
11But Christ came as High Priest of the good things to come, with the greater and more perfect tabernacle not made with hands, that is, not of this creation. 12 Not with the blood of goats and calves, but with His own blood He entered the Most Holy Place once for all, having obtained eternal redemption. 13 For if the blood of bulls and goats and the ashes of a heifer, sprinkling the unclean, sanctifies for the purifying of the flesh, 14 how much more shall the blood of Christ, who through the eternal Spirit offered Himself without spot to God, cleanse your conscience from dead works to serve the living God? 15 And for this reason He is the Mediator of the new covenant, by means of death, for the redemption of the transgressions under the first covenant, that those who are called may receive the promise of the eternal inheritance.The passage, “sprinkle clean water upon you, and ye shall be clean” is a reference to the “shadow” (type) found in the OT of water and ashes being “sprinkled” by the Levite on the “unclean” – the “anti-type” is Christ by “His own blood” entering into “the Most Holy Place once for all, having obtained eternal redemption..” It was only by the blood of Christ that we may obtain “eternal redemption”. It was not possible that the “blood of bulls and goats and the ashes of a heifer” could take away sins – they merely pointed to the reality found in His redeeming blood and His blood also went back to cover those under the OT. Hebrews 10:22 reads - “let us draw near with a true heart in full assurance of faith, having our hearts sprinkled from an evil conscience and our bodies washed with pure water.”


It depends what baptism Paul is refering to. He is talking about the baptism into the body of Christ. Regeneration is when the old man dies and when the new man is raised. This is a work of God, a baptism done by the Holy Spirit, the moment you are saved, the moment you are born again. Water cannot do this.
Again – no one is saying water has the power to regenerate – it does not. But it is at the point of baptism in water that the penitent believer is “baptized into His death” and it is at that same point in time that the Holy Spirit applies the blood Christ shed at His death to the beleiver - thus "washing away" his/her sins. Water baptism is simply a symbol of “the death, burial, and resurrection of Jesus Christ”.
"Arise and be baptized, and wash away your sins, calling on the name of the Lord."

I will never argue that immersion could have been possible, but it is not what one reads in the text, one have to read immersion into the text to come to such a conclusion. One do not read that any of them were immersed.
Why did Philip and the eunuch both “go down into the water”? Why did the Baptizer require “much water? Why did Paul described immersion in water as a burial? Why does the Greek “baptizo” mean to “submerge”, “dip under” and never means to “sprinkle”?


Paul is not against baptism, but he is against things done in the flesh and the problems arising from physical works done by man.
Again, do you think Paul considered his own baptism – a baptism instituted and commanded by God - to be a “work of man” or is it really a “work of God” just as “belief” is a work of God? At his conversion Paul was commanded to be baptized and “wash away” his sins – calling on the name of the Lord. Were his sins “washed away” before, during or after his baptism?


He worked his way through in 1Corinthians up to chapter 12, where he shows what true baptism really means, something that cannot be done in the flesh...
1Co 12:13 For by one Spirit are we all baptized into one body, whether we be Jews or Gentiles, whether we be bond or free; and have been all made to drink into one Spirit.
But the baptism in the passage above is the “one baptism” – immersion in water - where the Holy Spirit works to apply the blood of Christ to those who confess Him as Lord. It is in our baptism that our sins are washed away by the blood of Christ. When we come up out of the water " a new creature in Christ Jesus" we are added to the Lord’s church - “into one body”. This is the true baptism – the "one baptism" commanded by Christ – “he that believes and is baptized shall be saved.” :)

losthorizon
Feb 13th 2008, 02:54 AM
So now that he is dead and risen again he has no such ability?
I didn't say or imply such a thing, did I? He doesn’t walk the earth in the flesh today but He has given us His revealed word as recorded in Holy Writ and that word commands baptism as part of the gospel of Christ. He saves today exactly the way He saved in the apostolic church. It matters not if you or I reject the command – it is still commanded.

losthorizon
Feb 13th 2008, 03:07 AM
...Let's examine what you believe is God's plan of redemption then and the logic thereof. Do you believe that someone who believes and is baptized (full immersion) has received God's plan of redemption? (let's not wander into anything like repentance, etc. because the topic is water batpsim)

I am sorry but I cannot discuss “God's plan of redemption” as it is related to immersion in water without wandering into belief and repentance. Without belief and repentance the one immersed in water only gets wet.


So that this doesn't take several posts back and forth, are there requirements of baptism that enable someone to receive God's plan of redemption? Or said another way, do you believe that there are believers who have been baptized by full immersion in the name of Jesus Christ who still have not received God's plan of redemption?
I believe it is possible that one can be baptized (full immersion) in the name of God and still be lost in his/her sins – see comments above. Question for you – is obedience to God's command to be baptized in water a work of man or a work of God? :)

HisLeast
Feb 13th 2008, 03:10 AM
I didn't say or imply such a thing, did I? He doesn’t walk the earth in the flesh today but He has given us His revealed word as recorded in Holy Writ and that word commands baptism as part of the gospel of Christ. He saves today exactly the way He saved in the apostolic church. It matters not if you or I reject the command – it is still commanded.

Yet in post #45 of this thread are posted several quotes from our only holy writ (scripture) that make no mention of baptism when speaking of salvation.

losthorizon
Feb 13th 2008, 03:19 AM
Yet in post #45 of this thread are posted several quotes from our only holy writ (scripture) that make no mention of baptism when speaking of salvation.
So what do you do with those verses that do address baptism in water before we “shall be saved”? Btw - did we get the "thief on the cross" question answered to your satisfaction? ;)

Darren
Feb 13th 2008, 03:21 AM
Hey watchinginawe how are you? I read Acts Chapter 17 and don't really see any where that would go against my statement that everyone converted in the NT was converted as stated, just Acts 17 didn't go into detail just stated that some people believed it just didn't go into detail about how they obeyed the gospel.

Read Acts 8:1-ff you'll notice as Phillip taught note vs 12 all those that believe what he as teaching was baptized both men and women it doesn't go into detail that they confessed Christ or repented... did they do that? I am sure they did repent and confess Christ it just didn't state it just like Acts 17 didn't go into detail like other passages...


Note later in Acts 8 we have one of the most detailed conversions in the Bible then we can look at Acts 18:8 all we get is

"And Crispus, the chief ruler of the synagogue, believed on the Lord with all his house; and many of the Corinthians hearing believed, and were baptized."

So there you get hearing, believed and baptized... yet nothing is mentioned of repentance or confession... which we are sure they did to... so if I am missing something in Acts 17 please point that out for me.




the greater context of the book of acts reveals that only repentant faith is the basis of securing divine forgiveness.

Repent ye therefore, and be converted, that your sins may be blotted out" (Acts 3:19).

"The God of our fathers raised up Jesus, whom ye slew and hanged on a tree. Him hath God exalted with his right hand to be a Prince and a Savior, for to give repentance to Israel, and forgiveness of sins" (5:30,31)

"To him [Christ] give all the prophets witness, that through his name whosoever believeth in him shall receive remission of sins" (10:43)

baptism is not a part of the vast majority of the appeals to repentance or salvation.

HisLeast
Feb 13th 2008, 03:28 AM
So what do you do with those verses that do address baptism in water before we “shall be saved”? Btw - did we get the "thief on the cross" question answered to your satisfaction? ;)

Why are you so worried about that? You proclaimed it a non-argument (how convenient for you). And despite your smug winkie, the thief on the cross scenario isn't addressed in the slightest because I think assuming he was baptized before hanging on the cross is a cheap bail out.

It doesn't matter what I believe about the verses that include baptism. I also believe the verses that don't include it. Holistically, I believe baptism is commanded for our own benefit. The act itself draws a line in the sand between "the time before" and "new life", but I do not believe that those who overcame (despite not being baptized) are stricken from the book of life.

losthorizon
Feb 13th 2008, 03:53 AM
Why are you so worried about that? You proclaimed it a non-argument (how convenient for you). And despite your smug winkie, the thief on the cross scenario isn't addressed in the slightest because I think assuming he was baptized before hanging on the cross is a cheap bail out.

It is a non-argument but I will be more than happy to discuss it further if you still have doubts. Do you *know* the thief wasn’t baptized by the Baptizer or is it possible (in your mind) that he could have been immersed? Does the fact that the thief lived and died before the command by Christ to be immersed in water "for the remission of sins" make any difference to your argument?


It doesn't matter what I believe about the verses that include baptism. I also believe the verses that don't include it. Holistically, I believe baptism is commanded for our own benefit. The act itself draws a line in the sand between "the time before" and "new life", but I do not believe that those who overcame (despite not being baptized) are stricken from the book of life.
Well, we can’t have it both ways – either baptism is necessary in God’s plan of redemption or it is not necessary. I maintain that the day it was instituted and commanded by God it became a necessary part of the gospel of Christ. I don’t think Jesus ever suggested you might want to be baptized – I think He said you must be baptized just as you must believe and repent – I see nowhere in the Bible where these three essentials are offered as optional. :)

Darren
Feb 13th 2008, 04:17 AM
It is a non-argument but I will be more than happy to discuss it further if you still have doubts. Do you *know* the thief wasn’t baptized by the Baptizer or is it possible (in your mind) that he could have been immersed? Does the fact that the thief lived and died before the command by Christ to be immersed in water "for the remission of sins" make any difference to your argument?


Well, we can’t have it both ways – either baptism is necessary in God’s plan of redemption or it is not necessary. I maintain that the day it was instituted and commanded by God it became a necessary part of the gospel of Christ. I don’t think Jesus ever suggested you might want to be baptized – I think He said you must be baptized just as you must believe and repent – I see nowhere in the Bible where these three essentials are offered as optional. :)


repentance is a mark of salvation because it is granted by god (2 Tim. 2:25) and is given to believers only.

in this context, only the regenerated, repentant person is to be baptized.

baptism is the manifestation of the repentance, that gift from god, that is the sign of the circumcised heart.

that is why it says, repent and get baptized.

watchinginawe
Feb 13th 2008, 04:42 AM
I am sorry but I cannot discuss “God's plan of redemption” as it is related to immersion in water without wandering into belief and repentance. Without belief and repentance the one immersed in water only gets wet.Sure you can. My comment was meant to say throw anything on the pile short of baptism and begin there. Take a look at the title of this thread. "Baptism Essential". So you have offered many posts about how baptism is essential without having this problem before. So let's explore it.
I believe it is possible that one can be baptized (full immersion) in the name of God and still be lost in his/her sins – see comments above. Question for you – is obedience to God's command to be baptized in water a work of man or a work of God? :)I believe we should be obedient to the command of baptism. However, baptism is administered by man unto man. As Peter offered:

Acts 10:47 Can any man forbid water, that these should not be baptized, which have received the Holy Ghost as well as we?

48 And he commanded them to be baptized in the name of the Lord.

Baptism is a work of man, a work of obedience. I suppose the thought had crossed Peter's mind (or at the least those with him) that they might forbid baptizing these gentiles. But God, being no respector of persons, had already done the work and then the work of man followed.

That is one of the reasons that I believe baptism follows salvation.

So, knowing that about me, that I believe that I was not saved by my full immersion baptism but rather was baptized in obedience to the Gospel, what does that say about whether I received God's plan of redemption or not? Is water baptism a physical washing and phenomena that is effective regardless if one believes that the baptism is the last step in salvation or not? Or does one have to mix baptism with faith believing that the obedience in being baptized will secure the last requirement of God's redemptive plan?

God Bless!

watchinginawe
Feb 13th 2008, 05:00 AM
Further to my last post concerning the events at Cornelius' house. In Peter's account from Acts 11 to those in Jerusalem, we see that God had told Cornelius:

Acts 11:13 And he shewed us how he had seen an angel in his house, which stood and said unto him, Send men to Joppa, and call for Simon, whose surname is Peter;

14 Who shall tell thee words, whereby thou and all thy house shall be saved.

So it will be words that will save Cornelius and his household.

Now, going to the scene at the house, we have Peter's great sermon, the climax of which ended like this:

Acts 10:38 How God anointed Jesus of Nazareth with the Holy Ghost and with power: who went about doing good, and healing all that were oppressed of the devil; for God was with him.

39 And we are witnesses of all things which he did both in the land of the Jews, and in Jerusalem; whom they slew and hanged on a tree:

40 Him God raised up the third day, and shewed him openly;

41 Not to all the people, but unto witnesses chosen before God, even to us, who did eat and drink with him after he rose from the dead.

42 And he commanded us to preach unto the people, and to testify that it is he which was ordained of God to be the Judge of quick and dead.

43 To him give all the prophets witness, that through his name whosoever believeth in him shall receive remission of sins.

44 While Peter yet spake these words, the Holy Ghost fell on all them which heard the word.

45 And they of the circumcision which believed were astonished, as many as came with Peter, because that on the Gentiles also was poured out the gift of the Holy Ghost.

So we see that in verse 43, remission of sins is given to those who believe on Jesus Christ, those which verse 44 says "heard the word", while Peter yet spake the words that would save Cornelius and all his household. It was to be words that would save Cornelius, not water baptism. And it was by the words of Peter that Cornelius and all that heard the words believed upon the Lord Jesus Christ for the remission of sins.

Now I think the Holy Ghost fell at the precise moment God intended. The Gospel was preached, the Gospel was heard and believed, the sins remitted, and the Holy Ghost was given.

In Acts Chapter 11, Peter says: Acts 11:17 Forasmuch then as God gave them the like gift as he did unto us, who believed on the Lord Jesus Christ; what was I, that I could withstand God? God's gift was given to those who believed on the Lord Jesus Christ. Forbidding water would have made no difference to those gentiles, all that would have occurred would have been Peter's disobedience in not proclaiming what God had already given by the hearing and believing of Peter's words. God could not be withstood.

God Bless!

shamrock
Feb 13th 2008, 05:04 AM
I have never been to a "church" and I have never had a water baptism.
I received the Holy Spirit about 17 months ago and He has taught me what the vs. means: "My sheep know my voice..."
He has given me assurance that did not come from any man but from HIMSELF that I am His and I am saved and my sins are forgiven.
Now, any one of you or all of you, can tell me I am not saved, but HE has told me I am no longer a slave in the house but a real, honest to goodness daughter. I am free and I am proof that He forgives sins without any of my attempts to follow men and publicly clean the outside of my cup.
HE cleansed the inside and He CONTINUES to clean the inside of my cup. And when He cleans the inside, the outside is clean as well.

I can testify to the fact that the Holy Spirit indwells a person, when they are born again... Jesus Christ and His Holy Spirit do not wait for water.

I accepted Christ when I was 13 and I wasn't water batptised until the age of 33. During those 20 yrs the Lord was with me and guided me just as He does today.

When I see these discussions on baptism, I wonder if any who hold to the view that water Baptism saves them, if they ever sensed the Holy Spirit working in their lives after being born again, but not yet immersed in water? If not, why not? Does the Lord wait till you wash your flesh?

Just curious about this.

Blessings to all, Pat

Vivi
Feb 13th 2008, 05:36 AM
OK, this may have already been said but guys baptism is not what saves you. It is simply the public display of your salvation and it represents your death barial and reserrection in Christ. It was a command from Jesus to get baptized once you've repented. Jesus himself commanded and displayed it therefore it must be done. I don't know why this is such a big issue among Christians. What's so hard about finding a preacher and getting baptized? I'm sorry if this offends anyoneone but the bible says to do it so JUST DO IT!

losthorizon
Feb 13th 2008, 06:00 AM
...I believe we should be obedient to the command of baptism. However, baptism is administered by man unto man.

Martin Luther said it very well – “For to be baptized in the name of God is to be baptized not by men, but by God Himself. Therefore although it is performed by human hands, it is nevertheless truly God's own work.” The idea is that while baptism is to be performed by man it is in reality the Holy Spirit who works in our baptism as He applies the blood of Christ to the penitent believer as he/she goes under the baptismal water – thus one is “baptized into His death” - into union with Christ.

You correctly state - "we should be obedient to the command of baptism". What is the purpose of baptism in God's plan for His creation? Please provide scripture(s) for your answer. What is your objection for including baptism as a “work of God”? Do you think "belief" is a work of God?


As Peter offered:

Acts 10:47 Can any man forbid water, that these should not be baptized, which have received the Holy Ghost as well as we?

48 And he commanded them to be baptized in the name of the Lord.

That is one of the reasons that I believe baptism follows salvation.
Then do you believe the first clause of Mark 16:16 should grammatically read – “he who believes and is saved shall be baptized?” But no English version reads that way. They all read – “he who believes and is baptized shall be saved.” Why?


So, knowing that about me, that I believe that I was not saved by my full immersion baptism but rather was baptized in obedience to the Gospel, what does that say about whether I received God's plan of redemption or not?
If you are asking that I personally judge whether you received God's plan of redemption I cannot. Only God knows the hearts of men. I will say this however – I too was immersed in water and it was not water that saved my soul, it was the blood of Christ. I have answered in the affirmative many times on this thread that water baptism is necessary in God’s plan of salvation just as belief and repentance are necessary – baptism points to the redemption we have in the blood of Christ - this is all in accordance with what is revealed in the Bible.


Is water baptism a physical washing and phenomena that is effective regardless if one believes that the baptism is the last step in salvation or not? Or does one have to mix baptism with faith believing that the obedience in being baptized will secure the last requirement of God's redemptive plan?
Water baptism is a physical washing in water that signifies for the believer the death, burial and resurrection of Christ – “Or do you not know that as many of us as were baptized into Christ Jesus were baptized into His death?” I am not sure what you mean by mixing “baptism with faith” so I will state that baptism without faith only gets one wet. Of course one who does not believe that Jesus is the Christ will not seek out baptism thus the second clause in Mark 16:16 – “but he who does not believe will be condemned."

watchinginawe
Feb 13th 2008, 07:17 AM
Martin Luther said it very well – “For to be baptized in the name of God is to be baptized not by men, but by God Himself. Therefore although it is performed by human hands, it is nevertheless truly God's own work.” I just disagree with him. He means here that something supernatural regarding man's salvation happens in baptism. I believe something supernatural happens before baptism. Baptism is God's command, not God's agent. More to follow...
You correctly state - "we should be obedient to the command of baptism". What is the purpose of baptism in God's plan for His creation? Please provide scripture(s) for your answer. What is your objection for including baptism as a “work of God”? Do you think "belief" is a work of God?What I am discussing in this thread is regarding whether baptism is the agent by which God saves us (soteriology). I do not believe it is. I have a strong faith, I have been baptized. My baptism is important to me but I didn't attach my faith to my baptism for salvation. I don't mind at all the assertion that God's purpose for baptism is none other than for us to be baptized into Jesus Christ according to Romans 6:3-4. Much the same as in taking communion, we show the Lord's death and resurrection. Jesus said:

Matthew 26:26 And as they were eating, Jesus took bread, and blessed it, and brake it, and gave it to the disciples, and said, Take, eat; this is my body.

27 And he took the cup, and gave thanks, and gave it to them, saying, Drink ye all of it;

28 For this is my blood of the new testament, which is shed for many for the remission of sins.

These ordinances we do to show forth God's work in salvation. These are not instituted by man but rather God. However, I do not believe that these ordinances are agents of salvation.
Then do you believe the first clause of Mark 16:16 should grammatically read – “he who believes and is saved shall be baptized?” But no English version reads that way. They all read – “he who believes and is baptized shall be saved.” Why?I think it is worded just fine. I also think the verses I offered in Acts 10 and 11 are also worded just fine. I also think Jesus' words in John 3 are worded just fine. This isn't about one "gotcha" verse.
If you are asking that I personally judge whether you received God's plan of redemption I cannot. Only God knows the hearts of men. I will say this however – I too was immersed in water and it was not water that saved my soul, it was the blood of Christ. I have answered in the affirmative many times on this thread that water baptism is necessary in God’s plan of salvation just as belief and repentance are necessary – baptism points to the redemption we have in the blood of Christ - this is all in accordance with what is revealed in the Bible.
...
Water baptism is a physical washing in water that signifies for the believer the death, burial and resurrection of Christ – “Or do you not know that as many of us as were baptized into Christ Jesus were baptized into His death?” I am not sure what you mean by mixing “baptism with faith” so I will state that baptism without faith only gets one wet. Of course one who does not believe that Jesus is the Christ will not seek out baptism thus the second clause in Mark 16:16 – “but he who does not believe will be condemned."Here is something else Luther said on the subject:
But as our would-be wise, new spirits assert that faith alone saves, and that works and external things avail nothing, we answer: It is true, indeed, that nothing in us is of any avail but faith, as we shall hear still further. But these blind guides are unwilling to see this, namely, that faith must have something which it believes, that is, of which it takes hold, and upon which it stands and rests. Thus faith clings to the water, and believes that it is Baptism, in which there is pure salvation and life; not through the water (as we have sufficiently stated), but through the fact that it is embodied in the Word and institution of God, and the name of God inheres in it. Now, if I believe this, what else is it than believing in God as in Him who has given and planted His Word into this ordinance, and proposes to us this external thing wherein we may apprehend such a treasure?I think it is plain that Luther proposes us to have faith in baptism for "pure salvation and life". My faith does not "cling to the water". I find the notion bizarre really. I don't mean any offence to someone as great as Martin Luther. I just don't place my faith in baptism as he suggests. My faith is attached to the blood of Jesus as even you have stated.

Now in organizations such as the Church of Christ some do insist on exactly as Martin Luther suggests. That baptism, without the knowledge and faith in the purpose of baptism (salvation), leaves one without salvation regardless of their professed faith in the blood of Jesus Christ. Baptism is then not only a requirement or "essential", but indeed even belief in the pupose of Baptism in salvation is necessary.
Water baptism is a physical washing in water that signifies for the believer the death, burial and resurrection of ChristYes, I agree with this.

God Bless!

cchandrus
Feb 13th 2008, 12:51 PM
Yes, immersion baptism essential. Our Lord Jesus took it so we.

HisLeast
Feb 13th 2008, 01:05 PM
OK, this may have already been said but guys baptism is not what saves you. It is simply the public display of your salvation and it represents your death barial and reserrection in Christ. It was a command from Jesus to get baptized once you've repented. Jesus himself commanded and displayed it therefore it must be done. I don't know why this is such a big issue among Christians. What's so hard about finding a preacher and getting baptized? I'm sorry if this offends anyoneone but the bible says to do it so JUST DO IT!

Because it never ends there. God also wanted us to be circumcized, celebrate His sabbath on Saturday, refrain from unclean animals as food, and most importantly NOT SIN. Very shortly we'll have a growing checklist of fleshly things necessary for salvation.

I'm not saying don't be baptized, what I'm saying is its not what saves you.

Vivi
Feb 13th 2008, 01:37 PM
Because it never ends there. God also wanted us to be circumcized, celebrate His sabbath on Saturday, refrain from unclean animals as food, and most importantly NOT SIN. Very shortly we'll have a growing checklist of fleshly things necessary for salvation.

I'm not saying don't be baptized, what I'm saying is its not what saves you.
Of course it's not. It's simply a public display of your death, darial and reserrection in Christ Jesus but I believe it's still a command and that we should all do it.

losthorizon
Feb 13th 2008, 04:28 PM
Because it never ends there. God also wanted us to be circumcized, celebrate His sabbath on Saturday, refrain from unclean animals as food, and most importantly NOT SIN. Very shortly we'll have a growing checklist of fleshly things necessary for salvation.

I'm not saying don't be baptized, what I'm saying is its not what saves you.
Once again you are only erecting a straw man – no one on this thread is saying the water of baptism saves anyone – it doesn’t. The blood of Christ saves. These facts do not negate the place of baptism is God’s plan for His creation.;)

HisLeast
Feb 13th 2008, 05:13 PM
Once again you are only erecting a straw man – no one on this thread is saying the water of baptism saves anyone – it doesn’t. The blood of Christ saves. These facts do not negate the place of baptism is God’s plan for His creation.;)

Fine, you call it a straw man, I call it interpreting the words of the OP the way they seem to be intended. If something is "essential" then how can one be saved without it? Or is it only pretend essential. Lets talk about what happens when you're not baptized.

And since I'm apparently doing this "again", could you point out where I did it the first time?

threebigrocks
Feb 13th 2008, 05:21 PM
Fine, you call it a straw man, I call it interpreting the words of the OP the way they seem to be intended. If something is "essential" then how can one be saved without it? Or is it only pretend essential. Lets talk about what happens when you're not baptized.

And since I'm apparently doing this "again", could you point out where I did it the first time?

Let me ask you this - can we mix and match what Christ commanded us to do under grace with the law?

HisLeast
Feb 13th 2008, 05:32 PM
Let me ask you this - can we mix and match what Christ commanded us to do under grace with the law?

We do it every day. Some of us will go our whole lives not knowing the sabbath is really saturday. Some of us (men) are uncircumsized. None of us have stopped sinning (another clear instruction in red letters).

Just someone clearly answer me this: What happens when we aren't baptized? If your answer isn't "ETERNAL HELLFIRE, HERETIC!!", then suggest what the OP means by "essential".

threebigrocks
Feb 13th 2008, 05:45 PM
We do it every day. Some of us will go our whole lives not knowing the sabbath is really saturday. Some of us (men) are uncircumsized. None of us have stopped sinning (another clear instruction in red letters).

Just someone clearly answer me this: What happens when we aren't baptized? If your answer isn't "ETERNAL HELLFIRE, HERETIC!!", then suggest what the OP means by "essential".

Well, the OP would need to clarify that for you.

Outside of that we can only take what the Word says.

obeytheword
Feb 13th 2008, 07:27 PM
It amazes me the links some folks go to in an attempt to circumvent the simple command of Jesus Christ to “believe and be baptized” (Mark 16:16). The “logic” advanced by this poster is probably one of the sillier arguments found among those who object to God’s plan of redemption. First - it is *assumed* the thief was not baptized before his fate on the cross but the fact is we are not told if he was or wasn’t baptized. The thief obviously knew about Jesus and the NT records the reality that “many” were baptized by John the Baptist – “John also was baptizing at Aenon near Salim, because there was much water there…” It would certainly be possible that he was baptized.

But regardless of whether the thief was baptized or not the argument presented here is nothing more than a non-argument. When Jesus walked this earth in the flesh he had the authority to forgive sins. In Luke 5 Jesus told the paralytic, “Man, your sins are forgiven you.” Certainly Jesus could and did forgive the sins of any He willed to save including the thief on the cross. Another important fact is the thief lived under the OT law. i.e., he lived before Jesus died on the cross thus the thief was never commanded to be *baptized into God’s name* as we are today, therefore to use the illustration of the thief as the reason to circumvent the command by the Lord to be immersed in water is simply faulty logic and poor judgment. It is to fail to “rightly divide the word of God” – the thief lived under the Old Testament and the command to be baptized is the ordinance that brings one into “union with Christ” under the New Testament. ;)
For you are all sons of God through faith in Christ Jesus. For as many of you as were baptized into Christ have put on Christ. There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free, there is neither male nor female; for you are all one in Christ Jesus. And if you are Christ’s, then you are Abraham’s seed, and heirs according to the promise. (Gal 3: 26-29)

Just want to make a minor point that people often seem to forget. The thief died AFTER Jesus died. Remember - they went to break the legs of all of them to finish them off - and when they got to Jesus, he was already dead...

Anyway - not a huge deal - and does not truly impact the message - but just interesting that is is consistently overlooked.

Regardless - I believe the thing one needs to understand is that the whole bible must be true. This does not mean you take each individual verse - compile a list of things to do, and not to do, etc

You use the scripture to interpret itself.

The scripture says in many places (i mentioned many in post 45) that those who believe have eternal life

The scripture ALSO says in Mark 16:16 believe and be baptized to be saved.

My question to you is rather simple. How to you reconcile these scriptures?

If Baptism is required (for salvation itself), then the bible is not consistent.

If however it is belief that is the dividing line, that is perfectly consistent with Mark 16:16

If belief saves, then you can rest assured that belief + baptism also saves.

Also, the end of Verse 16 is pretty simple too. It is those who do not believe who are condemned - not those who are not baptized.

You have said I believe that it is obvious that only a believer would be baptized - that is absolutely untrue in actual practice.

My step-sister and step-brother have both been baptized - know why? To get my dad off their backs about their "lack of faith". If you are in a denomination such as the Church of Christ (which they are) there is SO MUCH emphasis placed on the act of baptism that as soon as they are baptized, then all must be well. They SAID they believed, and they got dunked, so all is well isn't it? This is a problem we have in the US anyway with many denominations - primarily those who place such a strong emphasis on the act of Baptism itself.

The scripture is very clear that we SHOULD be baptized. Just like we should be meek, forgive everyone always, be likened to the image of Christ, etc. Those are ALL GOOD things, we SHOULD be doing - but they are not in and of themselves a part of salvation - they are in response to salvation - once we are empowered by the Holy Spirit, these things become clear unless we are subjected to teaching that is contrary to scripture.


Taking a purely literal track on understanding of scripture, and relying on what Martin Luther believed, etc is no substitute for meditating on what the word says WHILE FILLED WITH THE POWER OF THE HOLY SPIRIT. If baptism was REQUIRED (for salvation itself) then why in the world would God put SO MANY verses in the scripture that talked about the dividing line being belief, and only 2 verses that I am aware of being used to support the idea that belief only confers salvation when paired with baptism?

Baptism is a GOOD thing, and to be obedient you simply need to be baptized, no way around it - but I honestly do not understand why it is so hard to understand ALL of scripture MUST be consistent in every way, or you do not understand it right - period.

Be Blessed!

losthorizon
Feb 14th 2008, 12:28 AM
I just disagree with him. He means here that something supernatural regarding man's salvation happens in baptism. I believe something supernatural happens before baptism.

But the Bible emphatically teaches “something supernatural regarding man's salvation happens in baptism”. Please go back and look at the conversion of “Saul of Tarsus” (Acts 9 and 22). Paul met Jesus on "the road to Damascus" and from that encounter he believed that Jesus was the Christ. He then asked, “Lord what wilt thou have me to do?” Jesus told him, “Arise, and go into the city, and it shall be told thee what thou must do.”

Paul obeyed his Lord and went to Damascus and there he met “a certain disciple…named Ananias” who had been instructed by the Lord to meet with Paul and reveal to him God’s plan for Paul…”The God of our fathers hath chosen thee, that thou shouldest know his will, and see that Just One, and shouldest hear the voice of his mouth.” After these words were spoken Ananias obeyed the instructions to tell Paul what he "must do". He commanded Paul,
“And now why tarriest thou? arise, and be baptized, and wash away thy sins, calling on the name of the Lord.”
Now I don’t know about you but most reasonable people would agree that something supernatural happened in baptism. i.e., Paul’s sins were “washed away” as he was immersed in water “calling on the name of the Lord”. So to say - as you do - that nothing supernatural happens in baptism is to completely misunderstand what is revealed in Holy Writ regarding Christian baptism.
Questions for you - were Paul’s sins “washed away” before, during or after he obeyed his Lord's command to be baptism? I say during baptism when he was “baptized into His death” - Jesus shed His blood for many at "His death" on the cross. (Rom 6). Did Paul consider his baptism to be a "work of man" or a "work of God"? I say baptism is a work of God and it is to be obeyed by all who believe on His name. The NT does not know of an unbaptized Christian - why?


Baptism is God's command, not God's agent.
Agent: That by which something is accomplished or some end achieved. A force or substance that causes a change… Copyright © 2008 Answers CorporationAccording to the Bible baptism is “a force or substance that causes a change” and it is also “that by which something is accomplished or some end achieved”, i.e., our example above – Paul was “changed from sinner to saint” when he “achieved” the washing away of his sins as he came into contact with the blood of Christ when he was “baptized into His death”. Again, I must agree with Martin Luther - baptism is a “work of God” to be obeyed by man…
“For to be baptized in the name of God is to be baptized not by men, but by God Himself. Therefore although it is performed by human hands, it is nevertheless truly God's own work.”

losthorizon
Feb 14th 2008, 01:44 AM
Just want to make a minor point that people often seem to forget. The thief died AFTER Jesus died. Remember - they went to break the legs of all of them to finish them off - and when they got to Jesus, he was already dead...

Anyway - not a huge deal - and does not truly impact the message - but just interesting that is is consistently overlooked.

Just a quick comment – Jesus told the thief he would be with his Lord in Paradise while Jesus was still alive. And again – the thief died under the OT law and before the command to take the gospel message to all the world – the same gospel message that included the command to “believe and be baptized” and then comes salvation. To use the thief on the cross as an argument to reject Christian baptism is a non-argument according to the principles of logic but it will be used again and again.


Regardless - I believe the thing one needs to understand is that the whole bible must be true. This does not mean you take each individual verse - compile a list of things to do, and not to do, etc
Personally, I see nothing contrary to the teaching of the Bible when compiling a list of requirements given by the Eternal – we do it all the time. Read any good Bible commentary but such lists are not necessary.


You use the scripture to interpret itself.

The scripture says in many places (i mentioned many in post 45) that those who believe have eternal life

The scripture ALSO says in Mark 16:16 believe and be baptized to be saved.

My question to you is rather simple. How to you reconcile these scriptures?

If Baptism is required (for salvation itself), then the bible is not consistent.
You are mistaken in your thinking, brother/sister – baptism is necessary in God’s plan to save our race – it became necessary the moment it was instituted and commanded by God. The Bible is certainly the “God-breathed” revelation to mankind and it is not inconsistent in its message regarding salvation of the soul as you may be suggesting. And you have your answer already – “the whole bible must be true”.

The scriptures quoted in post 45 are true. We must “believe” if we are to be saved – “without faith it is impossible to please Him, for he who comes to God must believe that He is and that He is a rewarder of those who seek Him”. Just as there are scriptures that say one cannot be saved without “repentance”. Jesus said, “I tell you…unless you repent you will all likewise perish…” Jesus also plainly commands baptism, “He who believes and is baptized shall be saved…”

These are all the “fruit of faith” that men are commanded to do as presented in the gospel of Christ. We can’t isolate our favorite passage at the exclusion of “the full counsel of God”. If we all follow this simple principle we will not fail to believe, repent and be baptized “for the remission of sins” (Acts 2:38).
“For with the heart man believeth unto righteousness; and with the mouth confession is made unto salvation.”(Romans 10:10 )

losthorizon
Feb 14th 2008, 02:03 AM
Fine, you call it a straw man, I call it interpreting the words of the OP the way they seem to be intended. If something is "essential" then how can one be saved without it?

Again, when you posit that someone is saying “water saves” you are simply presenting a straw man argument. It has been repeatedly presented on this thread that it is the blood of Christ that washes away sins. Baptism is essential in that it points to the reality of the "death, burial and resurrection of Christ" when we are “buried with him by baptism into death”. This is not a hard concept to understand.
"How shall we, that are dead to sin, live any longer therein? Know ye not, that so many of us as were baptized into Jesus Christ were baptized into his death? Therefore we are buried with him by baptism into death: that like as Christ was raised up from the dead by the glory of the Father, even so we also should walk in newness of life. For if we have been planted together in the likeness of his death, we shall be also in the likeness of his resurrection: Knowing this, that our old man is crucified with him, that the body of sin might be destroyed, that henceforth we should not serve sin." (Romans 6)

HisLeast
Feb 14th 2008, 03:01 AM
Again, when you posit that someone is saying “water saves” you are simply presenting a straw man argument. It has been repeatedly presented on this thread that it is the blood of Christ that washes away sins. Baptism is essential in that it points to the reality of the "death, burial and resurrection of Christ" when we are “buried with him by baptism into death”. This is not a hard concept to understand.


What else would "essential" mean? What happens when someone is not baptized? If your answer is "you burn in eternal hellfire" then its not a straw man. If the answer is "you are still saved" then what is baptism "essential" for?

watchinginawe
Feb 14th 2008, 04:05 AM
Questions for you - were Paul’s sins “washed away” before, during or after he obeyed his Lord's command to be baptism? I say during baptism when he was “baptized into His death” - Jesus shed His blood for many at "His death" on the cross. (Rom 6).My viewpoint is that Paul's sins were not "washed away" physically, or supernaturally, by water baptism. So I would say before his water baptism, probably when he received his sight and the Holy Ghost by the laying on of hands of Ananias by the command of God. That is when the supernatural happenings occurred in the account:

Acts 9:11 And the Lord said unto him, Arise, and go into the street which is called Straight, and enquire in the house of Judas for one called Saul, of Tarsus: for, behold, he prayeth,
...
17 And Ananias went his way, and entered into the house; and putting his hands on him said, Brother Saul, the Lord, even Jesus, that appeared unto thee in the way as thou camest, hath sent me, that thou mightest receive thy sight, and be filled with the Holy Ghost.

18 And immediately there fell from his eyes as it had been scales: and he received sight forthwith, and arose, and was baptized.
Did Paul consider his baptism to be a "work of man" or a "work of God"? I say baptism is a work of God and it is to be obeyed by all who believe on His name. The NT does not know of an unbaptized Christian - why? We agree on the part that baptism is commanded and should be obeyed. We don't agree that God uses baptism as the method in which salvation is conveyed or as a tangible vessel of faith as Luther suggests.
Agent: That by which something is accomplished or some end achieved. A force or substance that causes a change… Copyright © 2008 Answers Corporation


According to the Bible baptism is “a force or substance that causes a change” and it is also “that by which something is accomplished or some end achieved”, i.e., our example above – Paul was “changed from sinner to saint” when he “achieved” the washing away of his sins as he came into contact with the blood of Christ when he was “baptized into His death”. Again, I must agree with Martin Luther - baptism is a “work of God” to be obeyed by man…
“For to be baptized in the name of God is to be baptized not by men, but by God Himself. Therefore although it is performed by human hands, it is nevertheless truly God's own work.”As I have offered, I do not believe baptism is the agent of change in God's plan of salvation. Unlike Luther, my faith does not "cling" to the water of baptism. I believe that faith in baptism for salvation is misplaced faith. Baptism doesn't bring us into contact with the blood of Christ, faith does. I don't believe that communion does this either (transubstantiation of the communion elements). I believe these are ordinances that show forth God's plan of salvation given by grace through Jesus Christ. Our faith should be placed in Jesus Christ and not these ordinances.

Romans 3:21 But now the righteousness of God without the law is manifested, being witnessed by the law and the prophets;

22 Even the righteousness of God which is by faith of Jesus Christ unto all and upon all them that believe: for there is no difference:

23 For all have sinned, and come short of the glory of God;

24 Being justified freely by his grace through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus:

25 Whom God hath set forth to be a propitiation through faith in his blood, to declare his righteousness for the remission of sins that are past, through the forbearance of God;

26 To declare, I say, at this time his righteousness: that he might be just, and the justifier of him which believeth in Jesus.

27 Where is boasting then? It is excluded. By what law? of works? Nay: but by the law of faith.

28 Therefore we conclude that a man is justified by faith without the deeds of the law.

Where or on what or who do we place our faith that Paul talks about in the above passage?

A little way up yonder I asked whether you believed one had to have faith in their baptism as the last requirement of God's redemptive plan. I also offered how that Martin Luther, who you quoted, said that baptism bonded the word of God to a real tangible element that someone could have faith in. Thus, he even said that his faith "clinged" to the waters of baptism. This is what I mean by one having to have faith in their baptism as the last requirement of God's redemptive plan.

I like the definition you provided on my use of the word agent. So here is another way of saying it. Since you believe that baptism is the actual agent of salvation to those who qualify, do you believe that one would have to understand that to be saved? Is a qualification for baptism the understanding and faith that the act of being baptized will secure salvation? Or is baptism efficacious for the "washing away of the sins" regardless of whether one believes that the water supernaturally is the only agent that can wash their sins away or not?

God Bless!

Vivi
Feb 14th 2008, 04:44 AM
Ugh, I'm sick of the theif on the cross thing. Obviously the theif was really sorry before he dies and Jesus saw that so he decided to grant the theif eternal salvation because the theif was truly sorry. I whole heartedly believe that you repent and die before you get a chance to be baptized but intend to or repent on your death bed you go to heaven. This was the case of the theif on the cross.

losthorizon
Feb 14th 2008, 05:46 AM
We agree on the part that baptism is commanded and should be obeyed. We don't agree that God uses baptism as the method in which salvation is conveyed or as a tangible vessel of faith as Luther suggests.

Explain what Jesus meant when He said both belief and baptism are to take place before salvation in Mark 16:16?
These words are very important. The first clause opposes the notion that faith alone is sufficient for salvation, without those works which are the fruit of faith." ~ Pulpit Commentary, Mark 16:16

As I have offered, I do not believe baptism is the agent of change in God's plan of salvation. Unlike Luther, my faith does not "cling" to the water of baptism. I believe that faith in baptism for salvation is misplaced faith. Baptism doesn't bring us into contact with the blood of Christ, faith does.
I think we have agreed that the baptism of Romans 6: 3-6 is immersion in water and that passage tells that “so many of us as were baptized into Jesus Christ were baptized into his death”. He shed His blood in His death and it is my understanding that when the believer goes under the “watery grave of baptism” the “old man” comes into contact (through the working of the Holy Spirit) with the blood of Christ and the one baptized rises up out of the water a “new man”.

Where is your scriptural support that faith without repentance and baptism brings us into contact with the blood of Christ? Do you think it is essential to salvation that the believer be baptized into the death of Jesus Christ or is it optional? What does it mean to be baptized into Christ’s death?

2 Timothy 2:10 reads, “Therefore I endure all things for the elect's sakes, that they may also obtain the salvation which is in Christ Jesus with eternal glory.” I understand this verse (and many others) to teach salvation is only to be found “in Christ”. Romans 6 (and other passages) tell us we are “baptized into Jesus Christ”. If salvation is found only “in Christ” (and it is) how does one come to be “in Christ” if he or she is not "baptized into Christ"?
You are all sons of God through faith in Christ Jesus, for all of you who were baptized into Christ have clothed yourselves with Christ. There is neither Jew nor Greek, slave nor free, male nor female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus. (Galatians 3:26-28)


I like the definition you provided on my use of the word agent. So here is another way of saying it. Since you believe that baptism is the actual agent of salvation to those who qualify, do you believe that one would have to understand that to be saved? Is a qualification for baptism the understanding and faith that the act of being baptized will secure salvation? Or is baptism efficacious for the "washing away of the sins" regardless of whether one believes that the water supernaturally is the only agent that can wash their sins away or not?
Let me clarify one more time – no one on this thread (that I have read) is stating that “water supernaturally is the only agent that can wash their sins away”. It is the blood of Christ that washes away sins when the believer is “baptized into His death” - just as Paul was commanded to "be baptized and wash away your sins". His sins were washed away by the blood of Christ when he was immersed in water. To be saved one will understand through faith that Jesus is the Christ – the Son of God, he/she must repent of their sins and each one must “get yourself baptized” for the remission of sins.

watchinginawe
Feb 14th 2008, 09:43 AM
I'll give you the last word on it for now. However, I still hope you will comment on the following:
To be saved one will understand through faith that Jesus is the Christ – the Son of God, he/she must repent of their sins and each one must “get yourself baptized”That matches my testimony. No problem. But:
for the remission of sins.I had assurance of salvation before my baptism. I was baptized without believing that the ritual was actually the "agent" that would remit my sins.

You won't offend me. Offer your honest answer. In your opinion of how you understand scripture, were my sins remitted or am I yet in my sins?

God Bless!

menJesus
Feb 14th 2008, 10:36 AM
OK, this may have already been said but guys baptism is not what saves you. It is simply the public display of your salvation and it represents your death barial and reserrection in Christ. It was a command from Jesus to get baptized once you've repented. Jesus himself commanded and displayed it therefore it must be done. I don't know why this is such a big issue among Christians. What's so hard about finding a preacher and getting baptized? I'm sorry if this offends anyoneone but the bible says to do it so JUST DO IT!

Jesus SAID it - no matter that He didn`t say it 20 times - He SAID it, therefore it must be so.

As Vivi said, just do it! :)

After reading all the posts, I still must agree with Vivi: Jesus SAID it - just do it!

losthorizon
Feb 14th 2008, 12:35 PM
I'll give you the last word on it for now. However, I still hope you will comment on the following:That matches my testimony. No problem. But:I had assurance of salvation before my baptism. I was baptized without believing that the ritual was actually the "agent" that would remit my sins.

You won't offend me. Offer your honest answer. In your opinion of how you understand scripture, were my sins remitted or am I yet in my sins?

God Bless!
As I explained earlier God did not appoint me to give opinions on the state of anyone’s personal salvation. I do not know your heart, only God does – only He can make such judgments. I am however allowed to give the “full council of God” and that council disagrees with your position. Your statement that you had “assurance of salvation before my baptism” goes counter to the words of Jesus Christ who commanded both belief and baptism before salvation (Mk 16).

In answer to your question, “were my sins remitted or am I yet in my sins?” – I can only refer you to the words of Peter when he told those who were guilty of crucifying the Lord,

Peter replied, “Repent and be baptized, every one of you, in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins. And you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit. The promise is for you and your children and for all who are far off—for all whom the Lord our God will call.” (Acts 2:38-39)Clearly when baptism is joined with faith and repentance it is “for (in order to receive) forgiveness of sins.” My advice for anyone who has not been “baptized into Christ” calling on the name of the Lord is the same advice given to Paul at his conversion. “And now what are you waiting for? Get up, be baptized and wash your sins away, calling on his name” (Acts 22:16). Please note Paul had already believed and repented but he was still in his sins until was immersed in water and his sins were “washed away” away by the blood of Christ – why – because Paul was baptized into the death of Jesus the Christ (Romans 6). Were you? If you were then your sins were remitted.

CFJ
Feb 14th 2008, 05:27 PM
But the baptism in the passage above is the “one baptism” – immersion in water - where the Holy Spirit works to apply the blood of Christ to those who confess Him as Lord. It is in our baptism that our sins are washed away by the blood of Christ. When we come up out of the water " a new creature in Christ Jesus" we are added to the Lord’s church - “into one body”. This is the true baptism – the "one baptism" commanded by Christ – “he that believes and is baptized shall be saved.” :)

losthorizon,

The above quote seems to be controversial, when reading another statement you've made underneath about the effect of water baptism and whether it is essential or not...?


Let me clarify one more time – no one on this thread (that I have read) is stating that “water supernaturally is the only agent that can wash their sins away”. It is the blood of Christ that washes away sins when the believer is “baptized into His death” - just as Paul was commanded to "be baptized and wash away your sins". His sins were washed away by the blood of Christ when he was immersed in water. To be saved one will understand through faith that Jesus is the Christ – the Son of God, he/she must repent of their sins and each one must “get yourself baptized” for the remission of sins.

When looking at the quotes above, I'm pretty sure your answer will be in the following question you still have to answer... what baptism do we find in Matthew 20:22-23...??


Mat 20:22-23 But Jesus answered and said, Ye know not what ye ask. Are ye able to drink of the cup that I shall drink of, and to be baptized with the baptism that I am baptized with? They say unto him, We are able. (23) And he saith unto them, Ye shall drink indeed of my cup, and be baptized with the baptism that I am baptized with: but to sit on my right hand, and on my left, is not mine to give, but it shall be given to them for whom it is prepared of my Father.
Would you agree that Jesus is not talking about water baptism here, but about His death on the cross?

If you can agree on this, it should/could/would clarify the murderer on the cross's baptism and it should also clarify the true meaning of Rom 6:3-4 and most of all, the true meaning of the one baptism of Scripture... :idea:

watchinginawe
Feb 14th 2008, 05:35 PM
As I explained earlier God did not appoint me to give opinions on the state of anyone’s personal salvation. I do not know your heart, only God does losthorizon, that seems to go the the "heart" of this thread, pun intended. ;) Are you saying salvation is a matter of the heart and not baptism?
I am however allowed to give the “full council of God” and that council disagrees with your position. Your statement that you had “assurance of salvation before my baptism” goes counter to the words of Jesus Christ who commanded both belief and baptism before salvation (Mk 16).I understand, and I am wanting to offer you the "full council of God" on the matter to be sure that you haven't misplaced your faith in a ritual instead of our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ. I am writing to be sure that others reading along may also know that our assurance comes from our risen Lord and the Holy Ghost and not to the fact that we have been baptized.

Romans 8:14 For as many as are led by the Spirit of God, they are the sons of God.

15 For ye have not received the spirit of bondage again to fear; but ye have received the Spirit of adoption, whereby we cry, Abba, Father.

16 The Spirit itself beareth witness with our spirit, that we are the children of God:
In answer to your question, “were my sins remitted or am I yet in my sins?” – I can only refer you to the words of Peter when he told those who were guilty of crucifying the Lord,

Peter replied, “Repent and be baptized, every one of you, in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins. And you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit. The promise is for you and your children and for all who are far off—for all whom the Lord our God will call.” (Acts 2:38-39)Clearly when baptism is joined with faith and repentance it is “for (in order to receive) forgiveness of sins.”Or by Peter's sermon at the house of Cornelius: Acts 10:43 To him give all the prophets witness, that through his name whosoever believeth in him shall receive remission of sins.

Or Jesus' words in John 3:14 And as Moses lifted up the serpent in the wilderness, even so must the Son of man be lifted up:

15 That whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have eternal life.

16 For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life.


My advice for anyone who has not been “baptized into Christ” calling on the name of the Lord is the same advice given to Paul at his conversion. “And now what are you waiting for? Get up, be baptized and wash your sins away, calling on his name” (Acts 22:16). Please note Paul had already believed and repented but he was still in his sins until was immersed in water and his sins were “washed away” away by the blood of Christ – why – because Paul was baptized into the death of Jesus the Christ (Romans 6). Were you? If you were then your sins were remitted.I have offered enough details willingly to answer that question. I submitted to baptism in obedience to what I believe the Bible and the Gospel teaches. I was baptized believing I already had assurance of salvation and remission of sins. However, I had and still have no doubt of my testimony as a Christian. Therefore, my baptism either remitted my sins unawares to me or I am yet in my sins. And that is the crux of my question which you seem to refer to the heart. So, trying to pin you down on the issue, it seems you believe that it just might be that someone like me who is baptized already believing their sins have been remitted by faith receives full benefit of what you believe the purpose of baptism is without even knowing it.

If you aren't comfortable with how I believe you have framed your response to me, then please make it more plain.

God Bless!

CFJ
Feb 14th 2008, 05:41 PM
Ugh, I'm sick of the theif on the cross thing. Obviously the theif was really sorry before he dies and Jesus saw that so he decided to grant the theif eternal salvation because the theif was truly sorry. I whole heartedly believe that you repent and die before you get a chance to be baptized but intend to or repent on your death bed you go to heaven. This was the case of the theif on the cross.

The fact that one was on His right hand and the other one on His left, is not coincidental. If you look at Matthew 20:22-23, you would be able to see that the murderer on the cross received the first baptism in the death of Christ... a baptism that seals him for Christ... Also look at the context of the question asked in Matthew 20...


Mat 20:21 And he said unto her, What wilt thou? She saith unto him, Grant that these my two sons may sit, the one on thy right hand, and the other on the left, in thy kingdom.

losthorizon
Feb 14th 2008, 08:21 PM
losthorizon, that seems to go the the "heart" of this thread, pun intended. Are you saying salvation is a matter of the heart and not baptism?

I think that is what I have said along - without the “heart” baptism is an empty ritual but when combined with faith it is a work of God (fruit of faith) that puts the believer “into Christ” and it is only “in Christ” that we find salvation. Baptism is a symbol of the death, burial and resurrection of Jesus Christ – it points to the salvation we have through His blood as we are “baptized into His death”.


I understand, and I am wanting to offer you the "full council of God" on the matter to be sure that you haven't misplaced your faith in a ritual instead of our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ.

I don’t think my faith is misplaced at all if that is what you are suggesting. The only reason for an emphasis on baptism is the nature of this thread which asks if baptism is essential to the "full council of God”. To this question I have replied – yes, it became essential the moment it was instituted and commanded by the Lord. Does your "full council of God" include the scriptural fact that Jesus commanded belief and baptism before salvation? If not, why not?

Of course, there are those on this thread who would relegate God’s ordinance for entrance into His church to a non-essential “take it or leave it” matter but I don’t think you or I would allow such a non-biblical position to go unchallenged – not if we are to truly offer the "full council of God".


If you aren't comfortable with how I believe you have framed your response to me, then please make it more plain.
I am quite comfortable with your response and as already stated God judges the motivation/heart of those who call upon His name, i.e., He knows who are His and if a person is baptized in water without faith and repentance that person only gets wet.

losthorizon
Feb 15th 2008, 01:59 AM
losthorizon,

The above quote seems to be controversial, when reading another statement you've made underneath about the effect of water baptism and whether it is essential or not...?

When looking at the quotes above, I'm pretty sure your answer will be in the following question you still have to answer... what baptism do we find in Matthew 20:22-23...??


Mat 20:22-23 But Jesus answered and said, Ye know not what ye ask. Are ye able to drink of the cup that I shall drink of, and to be baptized with the baptism that I am baptized with? They say unto him, We are able. (23) And he saith unto them, Ye shall drink indeed of my cup, and be baptized with the baptism that I am baptized with: but to sit on my right hand, and on my left, is not mine to give, but it shall be given to them for whom it is prepared of my Father.
Would you agree that Jesus is not talking about water baptism here, but about His death on the cross?

If you can agree on this, it should/could/would clarify the murderer on the cross's baptism and it should also clarify the true meaning of Rom 6:3-4 and most of all, the true meaning of the one baptism of Scripture... :idea:
CFJ – I have already stated the baptism referred to in Matthew 20 is not a reference to the “one baptism” of Ephesians 4:5. The “one baptism” is the same baptism of the Great Commission (Matthew 28:19), i.e., water baptism. The baptism of Romans 6 that is a burial in water "into His death" is the same “one baptism” commanded by Jesus – “He that believes and is baptized shall be saved” - again a reference to water baptism. If you believe my comments you refer to above somehow are contradictory I will be happy to discuss them with your further.

For the record, the baptism referred to in Matthew 20: 22-23 is the same baptism alluded to in the parallel verse of Luke 12:50, "But I have a baptism to be baptized with, and how distressed I am till it is accomplished!" This is the “baptism of suffering” the Lord was to go through shortly after He spoke these words - the suffering He endured on the cross. The baptism of suffering has no reference to water baptism whatsoever.

I will refer you to the words of your fellow Calvinist, Charles Spurgeon on the meaning of the baptism found in Romans 6 and its reference to immersion in water - a burial…(emphasis mine)
I shall not enter into controversy over this text, although over it some have raised the question of infant baptism or believers' baptism, immersion or sprinkling. If any person can give a consistent and instructive interpretation of the text, otherwise than by assuming believers' immersion to be Christian baptism, I should like to see them do it. I myself am quite incapable of performing such a feat, or even of imagining how it can be done. I am content to take the view that baptism signifies the burial of believers in water in the name of the Lord, and I shall so interpret the text. ~ C H Spurgeon, Baptism—A BurialBtw – you never answered my question asked to you earlier - when Paul was commanded to “arise and be baptized and wash away your sins” were his sins “washed away” by the blood of Christ before, during or after his immersion in water? :)

CFJ
Feb 15th 2008, 10:42 AM
CFJ – I have already stated the baptism referred to in Matthew 20 is not a reference to the “one baptism” of Ephesians 4:5. The “one baptism” is the same baptism of the Great Commission (Matthew 28:19), i.e., water baptism. The baptism of Romans 6 that is a burial in water "into His death" is the same “one baptism” commanded by Jesus – “He that believes and is baptized shall be saved” - again a reference to water baptism. If you believe my comments you refer to above somehow are contradictory I will be happy to discuss them with your further.

For the record, the baptism referred to in Matthew 20: 22-23 is the same baptism alluded to in the parallel verse of Luke 12:50, "But I have a baptism to be baptized with, and how distressed I am till it is accomplished!" This is the “baptism of suffering” the Lord was to go through shortly after He spoke these words - the suffering He endured on the cross. The baptism of suffering has no reference to water baptism whatsoever.

I will refer you to the words of your fellow Calvinist, Charles Spurgeon on the meaning of the baptism found in Romans 6 and its reference to immersion in water - a burial…(emphasis mine)
I shall not enter into controversy over this text, although over it some have raised the question of infant baptism or believers' baptism, immersion or sprinkling. If any person can give a consistent and instructive interpretation of the text, otherwise than by assuming believers' immersion to be Christian baptism, I should like to see them do it. I myself am quite incapable of performing such a feat, or even of imagining how it can be done. I am content to take the view that baptism signifies the burial of believers in water in the name of the Lord, and I shall so interpret the text. ~ C H Spurgeon, Baptism—A Burial

Thanks for your answer losthorizon!

I have to be honest with you and tell you that your position regarding Rom 6 are understandable. It would be foolish to see no connection with immersion in water as a symbolic burial. However, if you can agree that Matthew 20 talks about a baptism concerning Christ's death on the cross and that He said, we will also be baptised this way, that this refer to our own burial of the old man, our own crucifixion linked to Christ's death on the cross, Christ's baptism in death where He was buried and 3 days later became the risen Lord..., then you are honest too. It is from this angle many look at the passage in Rom 6 and if you are honest, you should be able to at least agree, that one can or may look at Rom 6 this way... :hug:


Btw – you never answered my question asked to you earlier - when Paul was commanded to “arise and be baptized and wash away your sins” were his sins “washed away” by the blood of Christ before, during or after his immersion in water? :)

For your sins to be washed away, you need to die in the flesh and rise in die Spirit and water baptism is only a sign demonstrating this event. Being baptized in water, as many believe, cannot be this event as a rule. The most likely answer would be that the sin of most believers (including Paul), would be washed away before being baptized with water, but their sins will be washed away during the process of being baptized into the body of Christ. Being batized into the body of Christ is exactly what is meant in Matthew 20, when Christ says all will be baptized in exactly the same way He was baptized.

HisLeast
Feb 15th 2008, 01:09 PM
Honest question: If baptism is what mechanically washes your sins away, what happens when we sin after being baptized?

uric3
Feb 15th 2008, 01:34 PM
Honest question: If baptism is what mechanically washes your sins away, what happens when we sin after being baptized?

After we are a Christian(occurs after Baptism) then you can go to God with repentance and prayer. Read Acts Chapter 8:13-24 we see Simon obey the gospel baptized etc... and then later falls short thinking he could buy the gift of God with money and is told his heart isn't right with God and is told to repent and pray. So once we enter that fold of safety and fall short we have to repent and pray about the matter for forgiveness.

tgallison
Feb 15th 2008, 01:46 PM
Honest question: If baptism is what mechanically washes your sins away, what happens when we sin after being baptized?

Baptism is necessary for salvation. It is a spiritual baptism, done with the living water. It puts you in the body of Christ. And that body perpetually protects you from sin, because the Father cannot see it.

terrell

cchandrus
Feb 15th 2008, 01:56 PM
Matthew 3:14 But John forbad him, saying, I have need to be baptized of thee,
and comest thou to me?
3:15 And Jesus answering said unto him, Suffer it to be so now: for thus
it becometh us to fulfil all righteousness. Then he suffered him.
3:16 And Jesus, when he was baptized, went up straightway out of the
water: and, lo, the heavens were opened unto him, and he saw the
Spirit of God descending like a dove, and lighting upon him:

tgallison
Feb 15th 2008, 02:24 PM
Matthew 3:14 But John forbad him, saying, I have need to be baptized of thee,
and comest thou to me?
3:15 And Jesus answering said unto him, Suffer it to be so now: for thus
it becometh us to fulfil all righteousness. Then he suffered him.
3:16 And Jesus, when he was baptized, went up straightway out of the
water: and, lo, the heavens were opened unto him, and he saw the
Spirit of God descending like a dove, and lighting upon him:

Jesus was fulfilling the physical picture that was presented to us through Israel. Of that which was to come, the spiritual.

It was looking through a glass darkly.

We no longer offer up a lamb for our sins, do we? The lamb is Christ and he was offered up once, for all. He was the spiritual lamb, that came here on earth physically to fulfill prophesy. The promise to Israel first.

terrell

losthorizon
Feb 16th 2008, 12:13 AM
...I have to be honest with you and tell you that your position regarding Rom 6 are understandable. It would be foolish to see no connection with immersion in water as a symbolic burial.

Then do you agree with me that Spurgeon’s understanding of baptism is Romans 6 is correct - “baptism signifies the burial of believers in water in the name of the Lord?” Is Christian baptism a burial in water?


However, if you can agree that Matthew 20 talks about a baptism concerning Christ's death on the cross and that He said, we will also be baptised this way, that this refer to our own burial of the old man, our own crucifixion linked to Christ's death on the cross, Christ's baptism in death where He was buried and 3 days later became the risen Lord..., then you are honest too. It is from this angle many look at the passage in Rom 6 and if you are honest, you should be able to at least agree, that one can or may look at Rom 6 this way...
CFJ – the baptism of suffering that Jesus had to endure ending with His death on the cross is what makes salvation available today. Only the perfect, sinless, Lamb of God could take away the sins of our race. The ordinance of Christian baptism was instituted and commanded by the risen Christ before His ascension into Heaven. The baptism that was to be taken to "all nations" - the “one baptism” of the NT – is an immersion (burial) in water per Romans 6:3-5.

It is the same “one baptism” the eunuch sought and obeyed after he heard the gospel of Christ preached to him by the evangelist – “See, here is water; what keeps me from being baptized?” Christian baptism is the same "one baptism" Paul experienced when his sins were “washed away” by the blood of Christ as he was immersed in water at his conversion. To confuse the “ordinance of baptism” commanded by Jesus with the “baptism of suffering” is to completely misunderstand Christian baptism – they are not the same.


For your sins to be washed away, you need to die in the flesh and rise in die Spirit and water baptism is only a sign demonstrating this event. Being baptized in water, as many believe, cannot be this event as a rule.
What “rule” are you referring to here? I have already stated that baptism (immersion in water) is a symbol of the death burial and resurrection of Christ. It is when we are submerged into the water that we are baptized “into His death”. Jesus shed His blood at “His death”. We contact His cleansing blood (through the work of the Holy Spirit) when we are immersed into His death. We then rise up out of the water (our grave) to “walk in newness of life". We only bury those who are dead in sin into the watery grave – the one baptized is “quickened” by the blood of our Savior and the one baptized rises up a “new man in Christ Jesus”.


The most likely answer would be that the sin of most believers (including Paul), would be washed away before being baptized with water…
I must respectfully disagree. The correct answer is Paul’s sins were washed away during baptism. Paul was commanded to BE BAPTIZED – and why be baptized – to WASH AWAY HIS SINS. If as you suggest his sins was washed away before baptism why was he commanded to be baptized to have those sins (already washed away) washed away again? It makes no sense – Ananias was instructed on exactly what to do by the Lord – did he misunderstand the instructions from Jesus – I think not. If you are to be true to the scriptures you need to rethink you position (IMO).

The words of Jesus in Mark 16:16 agree with the “washing away” of Paul’s sins in baptism – Jesus plainly commands belief and baptism to take place before one “shall be saved”. Why – because it is in our baptism “into His death” that we come into contact with His blood – the very blood that “washes away” our sins. :)

losthorizon
Feb 16th 2008, 01:02 AM
Honest question: If baptism is what mechanically washes your sins away, what happens when we sin after being baptized?
Correction: it is the blood of Christ that washes away our sins when we are immersed into water – immersed “into His death.” Baptism is not “mechanical” as you suggest. It is the “answer of a good conscience before God, by the resurrection of Jesus Christ…” Baptisms points to the salvation we have through His blood shed on the cross. Why is this such a difficult concept for your to digest?


what happens when we sin after being baptized
“But if we walk in the light, as he is in the light, we have fellowship one with another, and the blood of Jesus Christ his Son cleanseth us from all sin...If we confess our sins, He is faithful and righteous to forgive us our sins and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness.” 1 John 1

Questions for your – were your immersed into Christ? If yes, why? If not, why not? Is Christian baptism instituted and commanded by God a "work of man" or a "work of God"? Is "belief" in Him whom He has sent a work of man or a work of God? :)

CFJ
Feb 16th 2008, 06:52 AM
Then do you agree with me that Spurgeon’s understanding of baptism is Romans 6 is correct - “baptism signifies the burial of believers in water in the name of the Lord?” Is Christian baptism a burial in water?


CFJ – the baptism of suffering that Jesus had to endure ending with His death on the cross is what makes salvation available today. Only the perfect, sinless, Lamb of God could take away the sins of our race. The ordinance of Christian baptism was instituted and commanded by the risen Christ before His ascension into Heaven. The baptism that was to be taken to "all nations" - the “one baptism” of the NT – is an immersion (burial) in water per Romans 6:3-5.

It is the same “one baptism” the eunuch sought and obeyed after he heard the gospel of Christ preached to him by the evangelist – “See, here is water; what keeps me from being baptized?” Christian baptism is the same "one baptism" Paul experienced when his sins were “washed away” by the blood of Christ as he was immersed in water at his conversion. To confuse the “ordinance of baptism” commanded by Jesus with the “baptism of suffering” is to completely misunderstand Christian baptism – they are not the same.


What “rule” are you referring to here? I have already stated that baptism (immersion in water) is a symbol of the death burial and resurrection of Christ. It is when we are submerged into the water that we are baptized “into His death”. Jesus shed His blood at “His death”. We contact His cleansing blood (through the work of the Holy Spirit) when we are immersed into His death. We then rise up out of the water (our grave) to “walk in newness of life". We only bury those who are dead in sin into the watery grave – the one baptized is “quickened” by the blood of our Savior and the one baptized rises up a “new man in Christ Jesus”.


I must respectfully disagree. The correct answer is Paul’s sins were washed away during baptism. Paul was commanded to BE BAPTIZED – and why be baptized – to WASH AWAY HIS SINS. If as you suggest his sins was washed away before baptism why was he commanded to be baptized to have those sins (already washed away) washed away again? It makes no sense – Ananias was instructed on exactly what to do by the Lord – did he misunderstand the instructions from Jesus – I think not. If you are to be true to the scriptures you need to rethink you position (IMO).

The words of Jesus in Mark 16:16 agree with the “washing away” of Paul’s sins in baptism – Jesus plainly commands belief and baptism to take place before one “shall be saved”. Why – because it is in our baptism “into His death” that we come into contact with His blood – the very blood that “washes away” our sins. :)

losthorizon,

Matthew 20:22-23 clearly says that the baptism Christ is talking about, is His own death, His own burial and resurrection. In Rom 6:3-4 we read...


Rom 6:3-4 Don't you know that all of us who were baptized into Christ Jesus were baptized into his death? (4) When we were baptized into his death, we were placed into the tomb with him. As Christ was brought back from death to life by the glorious power of the Father, so we, too, should live a new kind of life.
We were baptized into Christ, into His body! The same body He gave for us being baptized on the cross-death, the same body we are entering with our own crucifixion. This is exactly what Rom 6 is talking about, a comparison with our own burial of the old man and the resurrection of the new man, as Christ were buried and resurrected. Though I can understand you position on this, I cannot agree with you here. There is no way that you can read water into that passage, it just do not make sense and it is impossible, that a work of God, can be replaced by an act of man. Lets read the context of Rom 6, by focussing on it verse by verse...


Rom 6:5 If we've become united with him in a death like his, certainly we will also be united with him when we come back to life as he did.
We became united with Him, in a death like this and the next verse shows what this death really means... it clearly brings Matthew 20:22-23 alive!


Rom 6:6 We know that the person we used to be was crucified with him to put an end to sin in our bodies. Because of this we are no longer slaves to sin.
First our death with Christ, by being crucified with Him and then our resurrection, as one read in the following passage...


Rom 6:7-11 The person who has died has been freed from sin. (8) If we have died with Christ, we believe that we will also live with him. (9) We know that Christ, who was brought back to life, will never die again. Death no longer has any power over him. (10) When he died, he died once and for all to sin's power. But now he lives, and he lives for God. (11) So consider yourselves dead to sin's power but living for God in the power Christ Jesus gives you.
The fact that I understand your position, is about a heart trying to see other's point of view, which is important for me, but unfortunately, I cannot agree with water being the agent in our death and resurrection. This is a sovereign work of God, when the Holy Ghost baptize you into the body of Christ...

losthorizon
Feb 16th 2008, 04:27 PM
The fact that I understand your position, is about a heart trying to see other's point of view, which is important for me, but unfortunately, I cannot agree with water being the agent in our death and resurrection. This is a sovereign work of God, when the Holy Ghost baptize you into the body of Christ...

CFJ – I appreciate your response but I must ask, do you not think the ordinance of Christian baptism to be a "sovereign work of God"? If it is not His work then whose work is it?
For to be baptized in the name of God is to be baptized not by men, but by God Himself. Therefore although it is performed by human hands, it is nevertheless truly God's own work. ~ Martin Luther Your *forced* disconnect between “baptism into His death” (Romans 6 3-5) and the water of Christian baptism leaves you with a misunderstanding of the significance and purpose of the divine ordinance of baptism instituted and command by the Lord. I again must agree with Spurgeon regarding the true meaning of the burial into His death, “I am content to take the view that baptism signifies the burial of believers in water in the name of the Lord, and I shall so interpret the text.”

Christian baptism – immersion in water – is the only logical meaning for the text and to miss that interpretation is to miss much. The Westminster Shorter Catechism correctly tells us, "Baptism is not simple water only, but it is the water comprehended in God's command”. This is clarified further by Martin Luther, "Without the Word of God the water is simple water, and no baptism". We cannot separate the word of God from the water of baptism. I leave you with the excerpts below (emphasis mine) showing the correct connection between our text in Romans 6 and its reference to the water of Christian baptism. It is my prayer that you will reexamine your position as I think you continue to miss an important element in God’s redemptive plan for His creation. :)


Therefore we are buried with him by baptism into death: that like as Christ was raised up from the dead by the glory of the Father, even so we also should walk in newness of life. (Rom 6:4)

Baptism as immersion with its corresponding immersion alone fits the pattern our Lord gave us at the Jordan. Immersion alone can serve in figure as a monument of the burial and resurrection of Jesus. Immersion alone can give the answer of a good conscience toward God, showing in figure the resurrection of Christ by which we are saved. Only immersion as baptism sets out in emblem our union with Christ in his redemptive work. Only this baptism tells of our death to sin, of our new risen life, arid of our hope for the final triumph over death. Immersion is full of death, but immersion is full of life and promise and hope and joy. — J. M. Frost , The Moral Dignity of Baptism

We are buried with him by baptism into death - It is probable that the apostle here alludes to the mode of administering baptism by immersion, the whole body being put under the water, which seemed to say, the man is drowned, is dead; and, when he came up out of the water, he seemed to have a resurrection to life; the man is risen again; he is alive! Adam Clarke, on Romans 6:4

Christian baptism, as now practiced, is a sacred ordinance of evangelical grace, solemnly appointed by the risen Christ, prior to His entering into the state of glory by His ascension, and designed to be a means, until His second coming, for admitting men to discipleship with Him. Matthew 28:18-20 and its parallel Mark 16:15,16 are the principal texts of Scripture on which the church in all ages has based every essential point of her teaching regarding this ordinance. ~ The International Standard Bible EncyclopediaIn your mind, what is the purpose of the ordinance of Christian baptism? It is an act of obedience that admits men and women into discipleship with Jesus Christ? Is it a divine ordinance necessary to the gospel of Christ or is it optional as some on this thread suggest?

jtalexanderiv
Feb 16th 2008, 05:03 PM
First off forgive me for not reading all the posts, but I plan on just replying to the original post right now.

I would argue that baptism by immersion in not necessary. In my tradition, Anglicanism, we don't do immersion, but we do a lot of pouring, not just a little but a lot of water. We get pouring from church tradition, which yeah may not be the best source but since the NT does not clearly explain how to do baptism we do it the way that it was passed on to us.

On baptism being necessary for salvation and when we actually become saved. I would agree that baptism is very important and it is really when we are made a part of the christian community but it is not the point that we are saved. We baptize infants because we want to bring them into the Christian community. I would compare this type of baptism to circumcision. Circumcision was a sign that a child was then Jewish and part of the community. But it does not stop there, we then have confirmation, when the person then choses to stay in the community and take on all the responsibilities of a Christian. I think something like this must have also been done in the earlier church since they had whole families becoming Christians and then being baptized.

I would say that baptism is not necessary for salvation but it is very important. Since, I have have a theology that includes purgatory where we are purged of our sinful natures, those who are not baptized will spend a much longer time there. Since, they did not partake in the sacraments of the church, if you are not baptized you cannot take the Eucharist, cannot be confirmed, or take part in holy orders.

Since, John the Baptist says that the one who comes after me will not baptize with water but with the Holy Spirit. This the baptism that matters the person must have the Holy Spirit. Many early Christians did not want to be baptized until they were about to die because they thought that they should not sin after they are baptized.

I believe that it is very important to be baptized and that it is when Christians start to regenerate, become part of the church, receive the promise of forgiveness of sins and it seals our adoption as sons and daughters of God. But it's not like getting dunked in water or having it poured or sprinkled on you makes all this happen. Since, that would be a form of works based salvation. If we could just be baptized and be saved then some people would take advantage of it and just do that and then live however they want to, but not live a Christian life or believe in the Christian doctrines. As Paul, in Ephesians, says "For by grace you have been saved through faith, and this is not of your own doing; it is the gift of God-- not the result of works, so that no one may boast." We are not saved through baptism but are assured through baptism.

losthorizon
Feb 16th 2008, 05:37 PM
First off forgive me for not reading all the posts, but I plan on just replying to the original post right now.

I would argue that baptism by immersion in not necessary. In my tradition, Anglicanism, we don't do immersion, but we do a lot of pouring, not just a little but a lot of water. We get pouring from church tradition, which yeah may not be the best source but since the NT does not clearly explain how to do baptism we do it the way that it was passed on to us.

On baptism being necessary for salvation and when we actually become saved. I would agree that baptism is very important and it is really when we are made a part of the christian community but it is not the point that we are saved. We baptize infants because we want to bring them into the Christian community. I would compare this type of baptism to circumcision. Circumcision was a sign that a child was then Jewish and part of the community. But it does not stop there, we then have confirmation, when the person then choses to stay in the community and take on all the responsibilities of a Christian. I think something like this must have also been done in the earlier church since they had whole families becoming Christians and then being baptized.

I would say that baptism is not necessary for salvation but it is very important. Since, I have have a theology that includes purgatory where we are purged of our sinful natures, those who are not baptized will spend a much longer time there. Since, they did not partake in the sacraments of the church, if you are not baptized you cannot take the Eucharist, cannot be confirmed, or take part in holy orders.

Since, John the Baptist says that the one who comes after me will not baptize with water but with the Holy Spirit. This the baptism that matters the person must have the Holy Spirit. Many early Christians did not want to be baptized until they were about to die because they thought that they should not sin after they are baptized.

I believe that it is very important to be baptized and that it is when Christians start to regenerate, become part of the church, receive the promise of forgiveness of sins and it seals our adoption as sons and daughters of God. But it's not like getting dunked in water or having it poured or sprinkled on you makes all this happen. Since, that would be a form of works based salvation. If we could just be baptized and be saved then some people would take advantage of it and just do that and then live however they want to, but not live a Christian life or believe in the Christian doctrines. As Paul, in Ephesians, says "For by grace you have been saved through faith, and this is not of your own doing; it is the gift of God-- not the result of works, so that no one may boast." We are not saved through baptism but are assured through baptism.
What is your thinking about “Article 25” of “The Reformed Catholic Doctrine of the Church of England and of The Anglican Way”? If the ordinance of Christian baptism is how we are “grafted into the Church” (the body of Christ) (and it is) and if salvation is only found “in Christ” (His body) (and it is) isn’t it necessary that one must be “baptized into Christ Jesus”? “…all of you who were baptized into Christ have clothed yourselves with Christ” (Galatians 3:26-28). Can one be a grafted into the body of Christ who has never been baptized into Christ? Is baptism a “work of man” as you suggest or is it really "God’s own work" to bring us into "union" with Jesus the Christ?
Baptism is a sign of the faith we profess and a mark that differentiates Christian persons from those who are unbaptized; and it is also a sign of regeneration or new birth by which, as by an instrument, those who receive baptism rightly are grafted into the Church, the promises of forgiveness of sin and of our adoption to be the sons of God are visibly signified and sealed, and faith is confirmed and grace increased by virtue of prayer to God...(Article 25)

HisLeast
Feb 17th 2008, 01:02 AM
Correction: it is the blood of Christ that washes away our sins when we are immersed into water – immersed “into His death.” Baptism is not “mechanical” as you suggest. It is the “answer of a good conscience before God, by the resurrection of Jesus Christ…” Baptisms points to the salvation we have through His blood shed on the cross. Why is this such a difficult concept for your to digest?

Some of us aren't prophets nor theologians. Some of us are just simple people reading the word. Forgive the use of the word "mechanics".. I didn't mean to suggest its actually MECHANICAL, but more that there are a series of actions and reactions in the process (like anything mechanical).


Questions for your – were your immersed into Christ? If yes, why? If not, why not? Is Christian baptism instituted and commanded by God a "work of man" or a "work of God"? Is "belief" in Him whom He has sent a work of man or a work of God? :)

I was baptized years ago as a teen. I said and believed the words and was dunked by our pastor. That pastor as since moved way way WAY into the Vinyard movement cult. In the decade and a half since my baptism I've delved into sin too shameful to discuss and only recently have battled back to the narrow path.

So the source of the question is really two fold. (1) Its an interesting question on its own: What happens if we live unrighteously after being baptized? Did that baptism even count? Is one lost forever (thats where I'm putting my betting money). (2) well I forgot too... but its still a good question.

losthorizon
Feb 17th 2008, 02:20 AM
...So the source of the question is really two fold. (1) Its an interesting question on its own: What happens if we live unrighteously after being baptized? Did that baptism even count? Is one lost forever (thats where I'm putting my betting money). (2) well I forgot too... but its still a good question.
Then you will lose your money. Some Christians have "fallen away" and lived unrighteous lives after their conversion. Some folks unfortunately will continue in their sin to the point of death without repenting and "die in their sins" but many others will come back to God just as the prodigal son came back to his father “and their will be rejoicing in heaven”. Those sinners who come back into the fold will repent of their sins and pray to God confessing those sins to Him just as Peter instructed Simon who had gone astray –
“Repent therefore of this thy wickedness, and pray God, if perhaps the thought of thine heart may be forgiven thee” (Acts 8:22). Remember – God is longsuffering not wanting any to perish. Erring Christians always have this great promise from God – “If we confess our sins, he is faithful and just to forgive us our sins, and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness” 1 John 1:9. God will forgive even the most heinous of sins when His child repents and prays for His forgiveness. God will restore back to grace the one who sinned - remember we all have sinned since our conversion...“If we say that we have no sin, we deceives ourselves, and the truth is not in us.”

threebigrocks
Feb 17th 2008, 02:39 AM
A reminder - non-protestant faith views must be discussed in the World Religions forum. Let's not get carried away is all.

jtalexanderiv
Feb 17th 2008, 03:39 AM
What is your thinking about “Article 25” of “The Reformed Catholic Doctrine of the Church of England and of The Anglican Way”? If the ordinance of Christian baptism is how we are “grafted into the Church” (the body of Christ) (and it is) and if salvation is only found “in Christ” (His body) (and it is) isn’t it necessary that one must be “baptized into Christ Jesus”? “…all of you who were baptized into Christ have clothed yourselves with Christ” (Galatians 3:26-28). Can one be a grafted into the body of Christ who has never been baptized into Christ? Is baptism a “work of man” as you suggest or is it really "God’s own work" to bring us into "union" with Jesus the Christ?
Baptism is a sign of the faith we profess and a mark that differentiates Christian persons from those who are unbaptized; and it is also a sign of regeneration or new birth by which, as by an instrument, those who receive baptism rightly are grafted into the Church, the promises of forgiveness of sin and of our adoption to be the sons of God are visibly signified and sealed, and faith is confirmed and grace increased by virtue of prayer to God...(Article 25)

I was think of Article 27 from the 39 Articles of Religion.


XXVII. Of Baptism.
Baptism is not only a sign of profession, and mark of difference, whereby Christian men are discerned from others that be not christened, but it is also a sign of Regeneration or New-Birth, whereby, as by an instrument, they that receive Baptism rightly are grafted into the Church; the promises of the forgiveness of sin, and of our adoption to be the sons of God by the Holy Ghost, are visibly signed and sealed, Faith is confirmed, and Grace increased by virtue of prayer unto God.
The Baptism of young Children is in any wise to be retained in the Church, as most agreeable with the institution of Christ.

Baptism has to be followed up by other things such as true faith and acceptance of Christ, especially in the case of children where they are baptized as infants. Otherwise the baptism would mean nothing and the people would be cut off. They would no longer have the promise of forgiveness of sins, etc. That is why it is so important in the liturgy of Holy Baptism that the parents or Godparents of the infant state that they will, with God's help, be brought up in the Christian faith and life. And for older candidates that they first confess that Jesus is their Savior and then they are asked questions in which the answer is confirmed by stating the Apostles Creed.

I would argue that the process of being grafted into the Kingdom of God and Christ is started in belief and then made complete in baptism. As the rite shows that the older candidates be Christians first. I don't know any priests who would baptize someone without first examining the candidate to make sure that they are a Christian or that the people presenting the candidate are Christians and will see to it that the candidate will be brought up in the Christian faith and life.

servantsheart
Feb 17th 2008, 03:41 AM
[quote=jtalexanderiv;1540104]
Christ was fully immersed. Not sprinkled or poured over. These last two are man made choices.
John 3:5 Jesus answered, I assure you, most solemnly I tell you, unless a man is born of water and [even] the Spirit, he cannot [ever] enter the kingdom of God.
Baptism of its self is an ourward sign of an inner working. In John 3:5 Jesus gives us strong direction to be baptised and born again.
It is in accepting Jesus into your heart in a whole new way (born again) that brings regeneration and receiving the Holy Spirit (all one event); after realizing your a sinner and calling to mind all of your sins and asking God to forgive them. Then you are brought to salvation by the Grace of God.
You are save by the inner working that baptism gives. It is necessary and Jesus does tell us we must do it in order to be born again and see heaven.

On baptism being necessary for salvation and when we actually become saved. I would agree that baptism is very important and it is really when we are made a part of the christian community but it is not the point that we are saved. The community of believers can not save you. We baptize infants because we want to bring them into the Christian community.AN INFANT CAN NOT CALL TO MIND HIS SINS , NOR CAN HE WILLING ASK CHRIST INTO HIS OR HER LIFE...THIS IS SOMETHING A SINGLE SOUL HAS TO DO ON ITs OWN...NO ONE CAN DO IT FOR THEM. THIS IS A MAN MADE LAW OF THE CATHOLIC CHURCH/MISUNDERSTANDING OF GODS WORD. I would compare this type of baptism to circumcision.CIRCUMCISION IS GIVING UP YOUR OLD LIFE TO YOUR NEW LIFE IN CHRIST JESUS...CIRCUMCISION OF YOUR HEART AND EARS--METAPHORICALLY ...PAUL DOES NOT CARE IF WE ARE PHYSICALLY CIRCUMCISED..HE IS SPEAKING OF CIRUMCISING YOURSELF SO THAT YOU BRING YOURSELF(YOUR LIFE) ALONG SIDE OF CHIRST BY GIVING UP A SINFUL LIFE AND TRYING TO BECOME MORE CHRIST LIKE EACH DAY....Circumcision was a sign that a child was then Jewish and part of the community. But it does not stop there, we then have confirmationCONFIRMATION IS ANOTHER MAN MADE LAW OF THE CATHOLIC FAITH...THERE IS NOTHING IN GOD'S WORD ABOUT THIS BECAUSE AS I STATED ABOVE, A PERSON HAS TO BE OF AN AGE TO ASK CHRIST INTO THEIR HEARTS AND RECONIZE THEY ARE SINNERS., when the person then choses to stay in the community and take on all the responsibilities of a Christian. I think something like this must have also been done in the earlier church since they had whole families becoming Christians and then being baptized.

I would say that baptism is not necessary for salvation but it is very important.SEE ABOVE NOTES. Since, I have have a theology that includes purgatoryONCE AGAIN, GOD DOES NOT SPEAK OF PURGATORY. THIS IS ANOTHER MAN MADE LAW OF THE CHURCH. WHEN YOU DIE YOUR SPIRIT IMMEDIATELY FLIES BACK TO GOD Ecc. 12:7. IT IS ONE WAY OR THE OTHER. NO SECOND CHANCHES. where we are purged of our sinful natures, those who are not baptized will spend a much longer time there. Since, they did not partake in the sacraments of the church, if you are not baptized you cannot take the Eucharist, cannot be confirmed, or take part in holy orders.

Since, John the Baptist says that the one who comes after me will not baptize with water but with the Holy Spirit. This the baptism that matters the person must have the Holy Spirit.AS SAID ABOVE, IT IS BOTH...WATER AND SPIRIT...BORN AGAIN! ONCE SAVED ALWAYS SAVED. YOU CAN NOT LOOSE YOUR SALVATION UNLESS YOU TOTALLY TURN FROM GOD AND NEVER COME BACK TO HIM. OTHER WISE HIS GRACE HAS MADE SALVATION A PERMANENT GIFT TO US. Many early Christians did not want to be baptized until they were about to die because they thought that they should not sin after they are baptized.
THE CATHOLIC CHURCH WAS BUILt AND FOUNDED ON FALSE gods TO BEGIN WITH...THEY STILL HAVE MANY OF THE FORMER SIGNS VISIBLE WITHIN THE CHURCH (SUNBURST, MITERS HAT, THEIR TRADITIONS: sacred heart of Jesus, PRAYING THE ROSARY, PRAYING TO MARY, PRAYING BEFORE STATUES (IDOL WORSHIP) CONFESSING TO A HUMAN MAN YOUR SINS AND THINKING HE CAN FORGIVE THEM (only God forgives your sins), ETC.) AND MANY MORE. IN THE COUNCIL OF TRENT THEY STATED THAT GOD'S WORD WAS NOT ENOUGH AND THEY WERE GOING TO ADD THEIR OWN LAWS AND DOGMAS.
GOD SAID NOT TO ADD TO OR TAKE AWAY FROM HIS WORD!
I say this ALL because I was a convert for over 30 yrs. and I am now a born again Christian and I compared the catchism to God's word and was so angry for the misleading the church does that I flung it across the room and cried for hours. But God not only brought me out of the church but brought my daughter and son out and they are now born again believers.
PLEASE STUDY JUST THE HOLY BIBLE AND NOT THE CATHOLIC ONE WITH ALL THE LAWS AND DOGMAS AND YOU WILL FIND OUT THE TRUTH. I pray that you will.

jtalexanderiv
Feb 17th 2008, 03:58 AM
Servantsheart,

That last part is very interesting because I was converted by a non-denominational organization, and then joined the Baptist church as a born again Christian. After much study, prayer, and reading I found that I agreed more with Anglo-Catholic Theology then I did the Baptist Theology.

I have been able to work out all the beliefs that I hold to with the Bible and I find that they work fine together. Working all this out took a lot of Bible reading, prayer, and understanding of what the "laws and dogmas" said. I don't believe all the doctrines of the Roman Catholic Church because I cannot work them all out with what the Bible says.

I thank you for your concern.

losthorizon
Feb 17th 2008, 04:23 AM
...I would agree that baptism is very important and it is really when we are made a part of the christian community but it is not the point that we are saved. The community of believers can not save you.

You are correct – the “community of believers can not save you” only the work of Christ on the cross saves – through His blood. It is also true that those being saved are added to the “community of believers” (the Lord’s church – His kingdom on earth) when they believe, repent and are baptized “for the remission of sins” (Acts 2:38). There is no salvation outside of the body of Christ – salvation is found only in Him and the only biblical way to be transitioned “into Christ” is to be “baptized into His death” - baptized “into Christ” (Rom 6). This happens when the believer is immersed in water and comes into contact with the saving blood of Christ through the working of the Holy Spirit, i.e., this only happens when one is “born of water and the Spirit”.
“Truly, truly, I say to you, unless one is born of water and the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God.” (John 3)

losthorizon
Feb 17th 2008, 04:36 AM
...I would argue that the process of being grafted into the Kingdom of God and Christ is started in belief and then made complete in baptism.

On this point we can agree – belief is the beginning of salvation for “without faith it is impossible to please Him, for he who comes to God must believe that He is and that He is a rewarder of those who seek Him…” and Jesus commands belief and baptism as coming before one has salvation (Mk 16:16).

Regarding your notion of infant baptism – it is not taught anywhere in the NT. Why - because faith must come before baptism and infants do not have the mental maturity to believe that God “is a rewarder of those who seek Him”.