PDA

View Full Version : Do you think there is a difference between being born again and recieving the HS?



Pages : [1] 2

moonglow
Feb 22nd 2010, 07:10 PM
Sorry I ran out of title room..between being born again and receiving the Holy Spirit or you do think its event that happens at the same time? Post scriptures please..thanks.
I ask because its one of those things tickling me in the back of my mind..which means I am missing something..:hmm:

God bless

-SEEKING-
Feb 22nd 2010, 07:11 PM
I will look for scriptures for you but in the meantime here's the short and simple answer. Yes it happens at the same time.

Freek
Feb 22nd 2010, 07:31 PM
Sorry I ran out of title room..between being born again and receiving the Holy Spirit or you do think its event that happens at the same time? Post scriptures please..thanks.
I ask because its one of those things tickling me in the back of my mind..which means I am missing something..:hmm:

God bless

Posting scripture out of context can prove anything you want. Yes there is a difference. Check out Leviticus 23. Can you see the answer there?

-SEEKING-
Feb 22nd 2010, 07:37 PM
Posting scripture out of context can prove anything you want. Yes there is a difference. Check out Leviticus 23. Can you see the answer there?

Not sure if Leviticus is relevant to the topic.

Freek
Feb 22nd 2010, 07:38 PM
Not sure if Leviticus is relevant to the topic.

The answer is there and it's amazing!!

-SEEKING-
Feb 22nd 2010, 07:41 PM
The answer is there.

Give the exact scripture please.

Freek
Feb 22nd 2010, 07:44 PM
Give the exact scripture please.

One has to read the whole chapter to get the context right. I will attempt to explain it in detail a bit later. One scripture alone never cuts it, because you can make it say anything you want. :D

-SEEKING-
Feb 22nd 2010, 07:47 PM
Here are some scriptures Moonglow.

Ephesians 1:11-14 "11 In him we have obtained an inheritance, having been predestined according to the purpose of him who works all things according to the counsel of his will, 12 so that we who were the first to hope in Christ might be to the praise of his glory. 13 In him you also, when you heard the word of truth, the gospel of your salvation, and believed in him, were sealed with the promised Holy Spirit, 14 who is the guarantee of our inheritance until we acquire possession of it, to the praise of his glory." - ESV

-SEEKING-
Feb 22nd 2010, 07:49 PM
One has to read the whole chapter to get the context right. I will attempt to explain it in detail a bit later. One scripture alone never cuts it, because you can make it say anything you want. :D

Well I agree with reading the whole chapter part, but making it say anything you want, not so much. Anywho, enough with the derail. Sorry Moonglow.

moonglow
Feb 22nd 2010, 07:51 PM
Posting scripture out of context can prove anything you want. Yes there is a difference. Check out Leviticus 23. Can you see the answer there?

Err..what? I didn't post any scriptures at all and you are saying I am posting them out of content? That makes no sense to me when I hadn't posted scriptures..:confused

I just asked a question is all...

moonglow
Feb 22nd 2010, 07:54 PM
Here are some scriptures Moonglow.

Ephesians 1:11-14 "11 In him we have obtained an inheritance, having been predestined according to the purpose of him who works all things according to the counsel of his will, 12 so that we who were the first to hope in Christ might be to the praise of his glory. 13 In him you also, when you heard the word of truth, the gospel of your salvation, and believed in him, were sealed with the promised Holy Spirit, 14 who is the guarantee of our inheritance until we acquire possession of it, to the praise of his glory." - ESV

Ok ..I am not seeing the part about being born again here also..(granted I don't feel my best today so maybe I am missing it)


Well I agree with reading the whole chapter part, but making it say anything you want, not so much. Anywho, enough with the derail. Sorry Moonglow.

I agree too but up to that point neither you or I had even posted any scriptures at all..so his post makes no sense to me. Maybe freek you need to start a new thread about posting scriptures in content..which I whole heartily agree with too.

God bless

Freek
Feb 22nd 2010, 08:06 PM
Another question. What exactly happens when someone gets born again?

VerticalReality
Feb 22nd 2010, 08:13 PM
Another question. What exactly happens when someone gets born again?

They are given a new heart and new spirit.

Freek
Feb 22nd 2010, 08:21 PM
They are given a new heart and new spirit.

A scripture that I found was in 1Th 5:23: And the very God of peace sanctify you wholly; and I pray God your whole spirit and soul and body be preserved blameless unto the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ.

Can you explain the difference between the 2. Also, how does this scripture relate to what you wrote?

-SEEKING-
Feb 22nd 2010, 08:22 PM
Ok ..I am not seeing the part about being born again here also..(granted I don't feel my best today so maybe I am missing it)

Specifically verse 13. "In him you also, when you heard the word of truth, the gospel of your salvation, and believed in him, were sealed with the promised Holy Spirit,"

I hope that helps.

Freek
Feb 22nd 2010, 08:27 PM
Specifically verse 13. "In him you also, when you heard the word of truth, the gospel of your salvation, and believed in him, were sealed with the promised Holy Spirit,"

I hope that helps.

What does it mean to be sealed with the Holy Spirit? I am not asking this to be difficult, but it is the kind of question that I would ask when I study this passage. That is why I take so long on a verse. :D

Vhayes
Feb 22nd 2010, 08:29 PM
How can one be born of the Spirit (John chapter 3) and not have the Spirit?

-SEEKING-
Feb 22nd 2010, 08:31 PM
Got this from Crosswalk:

"The NAS New Testament Greek Lexicon

Strong's Number: 4972
Original Word Word Origin
sfragizo from (4973)
Transliterated Word TDNT Entry
Sphragizo 7:939,1127
Phonetic Spelling Parts of Speech
sfrag-id'-zo Verb
Definition

1. to set a seal upon, mark with a seal, to seal
1. for security: from Satan
2. since things sealed up are concealed (as the contents of a letter), to hide, keep in silence, keep secret
3. in order to mark a person or a thing
1. to set a mark upon by the impress of a seal or a stamp
2. angels are said to be sealed by God
4. in order to prove, confirm, or attest a thing
1. to confirm authenticate, place beyond doubt 1d
5. of a written document 1d
6. to prove one's testimony to a person that he is what he professes to be


NAS Word Usage - Total: 15
put...seal on 1, seal 2, sealed 9, set a seal on 1, set...seal to 2

Butch5
Feb 22nd 2010, 08:39 PM
What does it mean to be sealed with the Holy Spirit? I am not asking this to be difficult, but it is the kind of question that I would ask when I study this passage. That is why I take so long on a verse. :D

The seal is the water. After you believed you were sealed with the Holy Spirit. What does one do after they believe, they get baptized.

VerticalReality
Feb 22nd 2010, 08:43 PM
A scripture that I found was in 1Th 5:23: And the very God of peace sanctify you wholly; and I pray God your whole spirit and soul and body be preserved blameless unto the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ.

Can you explain the difference between the 2. Also, how does this scripture relate to what you wrote?

I don't think there is a difference between the heart and spirit, if that is what you are asking. I'm sorry if I wasn't clear.

David Taylor
Feb 22nd 2010, 09:01 PM
Do you think there is a difference between being born again and receiving the HS?


The receiving of the HS is what makes us born again. It is the inner-change of a person.

Romans 8:8 "So then they that are in the flesh cannot please God. But ye are not in the flesh, but in the Spirit, if so be that the Spirit of God dwell in you. Now if any man have not the Spirit of Christ, he is none of his."

Ephesians 2:1 "And you hath he quickened, who were dead in trespasses and sins; But God, who is rich in mercy, for his great love wherewith he loved us, Even when we were dead in sins, hath quickened us together with Christ, (by grace ye are saved)"

II Corinthians 5:16 "Wherefore henceforth know we no man after the flesh: yea, though we have known Christ after the flesh, yet now henceforth know we him no more. Therefore if any man be in Christ, he is a new creature: old things are passed away; behold, all things are become new."

notuptome
Feb 22nd 2010, 09:13 PM
What does it mean to be sealed with the Holy Spirit? I am not asking this to be difficult, but it is the kind of question that I would ask when I study this passage. That is why I take so long on a verse. :D
In biblical times when the king or other authority issued a proclaimation the scroll on which it was written after it had been rolled up it had a glob of wax melted on it to hold it closed untill the person to whom it was sent broke the seal and reviewed the contents. For a person who was not of authority to break the seal would have had severe consequences. God has declared us saved and sealed us with His Holy Spirit until the day of redemption. No person can break that seal. vs 14 speaks of the Holy Spirit as our earnest of our inheritance. An earnest is like a down payment. We have the Holy Spirit witnessing with our spirit that we are the Lords as a down payment of what is our inheritance in Christ.

Titus 3:5 shows the Holy Spirit as that which washes us and renews us in Christ when we become saved.

For the cause of Christ
Roger

notuptome
Feb 22nd 2010, 09:16 PM
The seal is the water. After you believed you were sealed with the Holy Spirit. What does one do after they believe, they get baptized.
Water would seem to be a poor sealant. What happens after the water evaporates?

For the cause of Christ
Roger

Butch5
Feb 22nd 2010, 09:34 PM
In biblical times when the king or other authority issued a proclaimation the scroll on which it was written after it had been rolled up it had a glob of wax melted on it to hold it closed untill the person to whom it was sent broke the seal and reviewed the contents. For a person who was not of authority to break the seal would have had severe consequences. God has declared us saved and sealed us with His Holy Spirit until the day of redemption. No person can break that seal. vs 14 speaks of the Holy Spirit as our earnest of our inheritance. An earnest is like a down payment. We have the Holy Spirit witnessing with our spirit that we are the Lords as a down payment of what is our inheritance in Christ.


Acts 2:38 ( KJV )
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 Ghost.

That's how one gets the seal.


Notuptome---Titus 3:5 shows the Holy Spirit as that which washes us and renews us in Christ when we become saved.

No, Titus 3:5 tells us what God did not what the Spirit did. Paul says, He (God) saved us with the "bath of renegeration" and the renewing of the Holy Spirit.

What do you suppose that bath is?

notuptome
Feb 22nd 2010, 09:49 PM
Acts 2:38 ( KJV )
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 Ghost.

That's how one gets the seal.
Right by believeing in the words Peter spoke about Christ. After which they received water baptism and were added to the church. vs 41.


No, Titus 3:5 tells us what God did not what the Spirit did. Paul says, He (God) saved us with the "bath of renegeration" and the renewing of the Holy Spirit.

What do you suppose that bath is?
Salvation is a supernatural act of God. God does not save with water in a bath. God saves us by grace through faith by action of His Holy Spirit.

For the cause of Christ
Roger

Butch5
Feb 22nd 2010, 10:00 PM
Right by believeing in the words Peter spoke about Christ. After which they received water baptism and were added to the church. vs 41.

Salvation is a supernatural act of God. God does not save with water in a bath. God saves us by grace through faith by action of His Holy Spirit.

For the cause of Christ
Roger

Well, I guess you can tell Paul that. See what he says in return.

Brother Mark
Feb 22nd 2010, 10:08 PM
Sorry I ran out of title room..between being born again and receiving the Holy Spirit or you do think its event that happens at the same time? Post scriptures please..thanks.
I ask because its one of those things tickling me in the back of my mind..which means I am missing something..:hmm:

God bless

Hi Moon. I think to be born again is to be born "of the Spirit".

John 3:5-8
5 Jesus answered, "Truly, truly, I say to you, unless one is born of water and the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God. 6 "That which is born of the flesh is flesh, and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit. 7 "Do not marvel that I said to you, 'You must be born again.' 8 "The wind blows where it wishes and you hear the sound of it, but do not know where it comes from and where it is going; so is everyone who is born of the Spirit."
NASB

There is a fleshly birth and a spiritual birth. When one is born again, one is born spiritually.

I do however think filling of the Spirit or baptism of the Spirit comes after salvation.

Grace to you,

Mark

theBelovedDisciple
Feb 22nd 2010, 10:37 PM
Water would seem to be a poor sealant. What happens after the water evaporates?

For the cause of Christ
Roger

I agree water evaporates...

the One who Seals is the Holy Ghost.. He is Eternal and does not evaporate...

He is the Sealer... this the Operation of God Himself.. as He seals the believer....

The Holy Ghost is there upon Conversion.. He is the One doing the Saving... He is with the convert or believer... He seals the believer upon the point of Conversion.. being Born AGain...

at the Point of Conversion one has to recieve the Holy Ghost.. for He is the One doing the Saving....

if one is interested in the Baptizm of the Holy Ghost.. Jesus is the Baptizer.. an enduement of Power.. from on High..

look to the Book of Acts for clarification.. Paul as he came across certain believers who hadn't even heard of the Holy Ghost..

many will disclaim this and even call it the work of the devil.. but the Baptism in the Holy Ghost by Jesus still happens today...

I'm not sure if the OP is equating the 'recieving of the HOly Ghost' with Baptizm of the Holy Ghost or the recieving of the Holy Ghost as the point of Conversion....

when one is Converted(born again)...... they Recieve the Holy Ghost.. for He is the One doing the Saving..

one cannot say I'm saved.. yet, I don't have the Holy Ghost.. impossible..

and

One can Ask Jesus to Baptize them in the Holy Ghost.. and He will baptize you in the Holy Ghost..........which will endue them with Power... this evident from the Scritpures....

is the Baptizm in the Holy Ghost necessary for Salvation? NO..

its the Work of Jesus upon the Believer , the enduement of Power .. and IT STILL HAPPENS TODAY.. much to the distaste of many.. God has not changed...

notuptome
Feb 22nd 2010, 11:47 PM
Well, I guess you can tell Paul that. See what he says in return.
he said you was all wet. Water does not save.

For the cause of Christ
Roger

notuptome
Feb 22nd 2010, 11:53 PM
I agree water evaporates...

the One who Seals is the Holy Ghost.. He is Eternal and does not evaporate...

He is the Sealer... this the Operation of God Himself.. as He seals the believer....

The Holy Ghost is there upon Conversion.. He is the One doing the Saving... He is with the convert or believer... He seals the believer upon the point of Conversion.. being Born AGain...

at the Point of Conversion one has to recieve the Holy Ghost.. for He is the One doing the Saving....
I agree.


if one is interested in the Baptizm of the Holy Ghost.. Jesus is the Baptizer.. an enduement of Power.. from on High..

look to the Book of Acts for clarification.. Paul as he came across certain believers who hadn't even heard of the Holy Ghost..

many will disclaim this and even call it the work of the devil.. but the Baptism in the Holy Ghost by Jesus still happens today...

I'm not sure if the OP is equating the 'recieving of the HOly Ghost' with Baptizm of the Holy Ghost or the recieving of the Holy Ghost as the point of Conversion....

when one is Converted(born again)...... they Recieve the Holy Ghost.. for He is the One doing the Saving..

one cannot say I'm saved.. yet, I don't have the Holy Ghost.. impossible..

and

One can Ask Jesus to Baptize them in the Holy Ghost.. and He will baptize you in the Holy Ghost..........which will endue them with Power... this evident from the Scritpures....

is the Baptizm in the Holy Ghost necessary for Salvation? NO..

its the Work of Jesus upon the Believer , the enduement of Power .. and IT STILL HAPPENS TODAY.. much to the distaste of many.. God has not changed...
One is baptised by Jesus with the Holy Spirit one time and that at salvation. One can be filled with the Holy Spirit many times for service to the Lord. This may be a filling to speak the word with boldness to an unsaved person or to give advice to another believer who is overtaken in a fault.

For the cause of Christ
Roger

Beckrl
Feb 23rd 2010, 12:38 AM
Hi Moon. I think to be born again is to be born "of the Spirit".

John 3:5-8
5 Jesus answered, "Truly, truly, I say to you, unless one is born of water and the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God. 6 "That which is born of the flesh is flesh, and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit. 7 "Do not marvel that I said to you, 'You must be born again.' 8 "The wind blows where it wishes and you hear the sound of it, but do not know where it comes from and where it is going; so is everyone who is born of the Spirit."
NASB

There is a fleshly birth and a spiritual birth. When one is born again, one is born spiritually.

I do however think filling of the Spirit or baptism of the Spirit comes after salvation.

Grace to you,

Mark

Brother Mark,
I was going to provide that verse, It speaks of the Spirit of adoption.[Romans 8:15] And this Spirit is given to everyone at his/her new birth.
Although at the point of Nicodemus question of the new birth the Holy Spirit [Comforter] had not come.

I think what is OP question relates to is the new birth the same as being filled with the Holy Ghost. I would say no. The key to that is being filled with the Holy Spirit.

It's like what Jesus said unto the disciples after he appears to them, He breathed on them, and said "Receive the Holy Ghost" They already received the Spirit of adoption, but here Jesus gives them the Spirit of boldness.

Beckrl
Feb 23rd 2010, 12:48 AM
I agree.

One is baptised by Jesus with the Holy Spirit one time and that at salvation. One can be filled with the Holy Spirit many times for service to the Lord. This may be a filling to speak the word with boldness to an unsaved person or to give advice to another believer who is overtaken in a fault.

For the cause of Christ
Roger

notuptome, just read your post after I posted, you are spot on.

losthorizon
Feb 23rd 2010, 01:10 AM
he said you was all wet. Water does not save.


The blood of Jesus Christ completely saves and baptism in water is the answer of a good conscience toward God that points us to the resurrection of Jesus Christ – as such the ordinance of baptism is an essential part of the gospel of grace.
eight souls were saved by water…the like figure whereunto even baptism doth also now save us (not the putting away of the filth of the flesh, but the answer of a good conscience toward God,) by the resurrection of Jesus Christ…1Pe 3:20, 21

1 Per 3:21. The sense is, that baptism, including all that is properly meant by baptism as a religious rite - that is, baptism administered in connection with true repentance, and true faith in the Lord Jesus, and when it is properly a symbol of the putting away of sin, and of the renewing influences of the Holy Spirit, and an act of unreserved dedication to God - now saves us. ~ Albert Barnes

PilgrimPastor
Feb 23rd 2010, 01:12 AM
I'm not what you would call classically Charismatic or Pentecostal, however there seems to be an empowering that comes separately from salvation which is spoken of in various ways in the New Testament. I don't think that this implies a "second blessing" so to speak, not necessarily, but there is a practical difference in the lives of those who have been encountered and filled with the Spirit which is present in the lives of many who would describe it as something secondary or after their initial salvation experience.

Thoughts to ponder:

(1) Is this merely the sign of spiritual maturity? The same Spirit present from salvation but now revealed more obviously through spiritual growth? (Sanctification)

(2) Why is it that many have a great spiritual power that would never call it by name anything along the lines of "baptism in the Holy Spirit" but simply regard it as something God has done for them along the journey of faith? If this is the work of God in our lives then it resides with His doing alone.

(3) While sanctification is synergistic, as we are faithful to be faithful and God blesses and changes us, is it reasonable and in accordance with the Scripture to speak in terms (as I have heard first hand account in my early days of faith in Charismatic churches) that we should "seek the baptism in the Holy Spirit?" Does this imply that spiritual empowerment is in my hands to "achieve" and if so, to what extent?

Random thoughts from a Pilgrim Pastor... :hmm:

Steven3
Feb 23rd 2010, 01:43 AM
Sorry I ran out of title room..between being born again and receiving the Holy Spirit or you do think its event that happens at the same time? Post scriptures please..thanks.
I ask because its one of those things tickling me in the back of my mind..which means I am missing something..:hmm:

God blessWe could look back where "Holy Spirit" is first mentioned in Psalm 51 (one of only 3 OT refs) and ask whether for David it was an event at the same time, and how David was born again?

Water baptism (at the hands of John before Jesus started preaching) and receiving the Holy Spirit (when Jesus reenacted his Father breathing life into Adam in Gen 2:7 in John 20:22) happened 4 years apart for the 11 disciples. But then that's an exception, John 7:39 says the Holy Spirit "was not" before resurrection Sunday. (this checks out -- the 12 were given "power" over demons when they were sent out , but not the Holy Spirit).

Would also think that Titus 3:5 (which is probably a commentary by Paul on John 3:5) suggests that both washing and rebirth are a process, two processes, which may go at different speeds for different people.

Also Galatians where Paul talks about himself being in labour as a pregnant woman till Christ is formed within the Galatians indicats that rebirth, new life, being born again, isn't an instant event, one moment you're the Old Man, the next you're the New Man, poooof! Not least since the Old Man is still in there.

Butch5
Feb 23rd 2010, 02:23 AM
he said you was all wet. Water does not save.

For the cause of Christ
Roger

Let's see, Roger says water baptism isn't necessary, Paul said it is. I'm going with Paul.

However, you are correct that water dosen't save, but that has never been the issue.

Steven3
Feb 23rd 2010, 02:42 AM
Let's see, Roger says water baptism isn't necessary, Paul said it is. I'm going with Paul.

However, you are correct that water dosen't save, but that has never been the issue.I'd tend to agree with you Butch5

1Pe 3:21 Baptism, which corresponds to this, now saves you, not as a removal of dirt from the body but as an appeal to God for a good conscience, through the resurrection of Jesus Christ,

Given the way the Lord Jesus, Peter, Paul, John come very close to almost saying water itself saves, but don't actually say it, it's probably more that someone who holds out against the water baptism (I don't know if anyone does on this thread, I have only scanned it) from some kind of misguided pride or anti-legalism (speaking of experience off this forum) doesn't really have in them the spiritual washing of the word of Titus 3:5 or the good conscience of 2 Pe3:21 above. I've never met anyone who really 100% believes that the actual water itself saves, but likewise I've never met anyone who could convince me that their refusal to suffer the same water ceremony as Jesus was really out of the pure motives Peter describes. Of course I haven't met everyone on the planet so I can only talk from experience so far.

Butch5
Feb 23rd 2010, 03:48 AM
I'd tend to agree with you Butch5

1Pe 3:21 Baptism, which corresponds to this, now saves you, not as a removal of dirt from the body but as an appeal to God for a good conscience, through the resurrection of Jesus Christ,

Given the way the Lord Jesus, Peter, Paul, John come very close to almost saying water itself saves, but don't actually say it, it's probably more that someone who holds out against the water baptism (I don't know if anyone does on this thread, I have only scanned it) from some kind of misguided pride or anti-legalism (speaking of experience off this forum) doesn't really have in them the spiritual washing of the word of Titus 3:5 or the good conscience of 2 Pe3:21 above. I've never met anyone who really 100% believes that the actual water itself saves, but likewise I've never met anyone who could convince me that their refusal to suffer the same water ceremony as Jesus was really out of the pure motives Peter describes. Of course I haven't met everyone on the planet so I can only talk from experience so far.

Hi Steven,

I agree, as Peter says it is not the water that saves but the appeal to God. The KJV translates it answer but the Greek word means a question or request. So, it's not the water that saves it is the request made to God by going into the water. And as you stated the Paul and Jesus both make reference to it also.

moonglow
Feb 23rd 2010, 03:57 AM
Hi Moon. I think to be born again is to be born "of the Spirit".

John 3:5-8
5 Jesus answered, "Truly, truly, I say to you, unless one is born of water and the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God. 6 "That which is born of the flesh is flesh, and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit. 7 "Do not marvel that I said to you, 'You must be born again.' 8 "The wind blows where it wishes and you hear the sound of it, but do not know where it comes from and where it is going; so is everyone who is born of the Spirit."
NASB

There is a fleshly birth and a spiritual birth. When one is born again, one is born spiritually.

I do however think filling of the Spirit or baptism of the Spirit comes after salvation.

Grace to you,

Mark

Ok I think you explained what I couldn't..lol. I guess that was why it was bugging me. The baptism of the Spirit. But how is that different from receiving the spirit at our rebirth?

By the way..thank you to everyone who posted..its very helpful.

God bless

Brother Mark
Feb 23rd 2010, 01:55 PM
Ok I think you explained what I couldn't..lol. I guess that was why it was bugging me. The baptism of the Spirit. But how is that different from receiving the spirit at our rebirth?

By the way..thank you to everyone who posted..its very helpful.

God bless

IMO, baptism or filling is when the Spirit comes "upon" you. When you are saved, the Spirit is "in" you.

Acts 2 talks about filling and so does Ephesians. We also see it in the OT (IMO). For instance, the Spirit would come upon Samson and he would have power. Same for believers. When He comes upon us, we experience power.

Acts 1:8
8 but you shall receive power when the Holy Spirit has come upon you; and you shall be My witnesses both in Jerusalem, and in all Judea and Samaria, and even to the remotest part of the earth. "
NASB

Freek
Feb 23rd 2010, 02:28 PM
There is something eye opening in the Old Testament types and shadows. In second Chronicles 5 we read about the dedication of the temple that Solomon built. The priests brought the ark of the covenant into the temple - a type and shadow of being born again. (The change of heart that Ezekiel prophesied about.)

Later the priests could not stand due to the glory of the Lord that filled the temple. Is it a coincidence that the figure of 120 is mentioned? :hmm:

losthorizon
Feb 23rd 2010, 02:45 PM
The baptism of the Spirit. But how is that different from receiving the spirit at our rebirth?


There is one "new birth", but it consists of two elements, *water and the Spirit"... "Jesus answered, "Truly, truly, I say to you, unless one is born of water and the Spirit, he cannot enter the kingdom of God." (Joh 3:5 ESV). Peter told those believers on the day of Pentecost to “repent” and to be “baptized for the remission of their sins” and then they would they receive “the gift of the Holy Spirit”. This is the new birth - the washing of regeneration (immersion in water) and renewing of the Holy Spirit…
Peter answered them, "Repent and be baptized, every one of you, in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins. Then you will receive the Holy Spirit as a gift. (Act 2:38 ISV)

"...not by works done in righteousness, which we did ourselves, but according to his mercy he saved us, through the washing of regeneration and renewing of the Holy Spirit, (Tit 3:5 ASV)

"Are ye ignorant that we were baptized into his death? To those who are not ignorant the sign of baptism speaks of death. To be baptised means to be immersed, to be sunk in a foreign element, to be covered by a tide of purification. The man who emerges from the water is not the same man who entered it. One man dies and another is born..." ~ Karl Barth, "Commentary on Romans"

kay-gee
Feb 23rd 2010, 03:19 PM
AMEN!

all the best...

Redeemed by Grace
Feb 23rd 2010, 03:39 PM
Sorry I ran out of title room..between being born again and receiving the Holy Spirit or you do think its event that happens at the same time? Post scriptures please..thanks.
I ask because its one of those things tickling me in the back of my mind..which means I am missing something..:hmm:

God bless


Hi MG,

I haven't read all the replies, so this might be redundant to some other reply, but here's my 2 cents. I believe scripture teaches that one has to have the working of the Holy Spirit within their heart 1st, so that when the gospel is preached, they hear with ears that can hear and respond accordingly. I look at Jesus conversation with Nicodemus stating that Nic has to be born of the Spirit and of Water in order to believe, and at first, ol' Nic was scratching his head ---- and then we can look to John the Baptist, who was filled with the Holy Spirit while yet still within his mother's womb... so he was born again before he was even born!!! That's pretty deep in doctrine, eh?

So to being born again, it comes after one is born of the Spirit, and it may be a millisecond before the Gospel is preached or it may be before one is born, I can't rightfully say, but can say it happens before and not after one understands and responds to the gospel.

So by steps, it be that the Holy Spirit regenerates your heart, you then hear the gospel and rightfully respond in faith and repentance and thus you are born again.

And not as: you hear the gospel and respond, become born again and then the Holy Spirit lives within you. A subtle but importantant distiction, thus what Jesus was saying to Nic.

Again, my 2cents,

Blessings,

RbG

HisLeast
Feb 23rd 2010, 03:41 PM
A case can be made for two separate events I suppose. The texts LostHorizon provided do seem to indicate two separate things, but is rather silent and thus confusing on weather these things are simultaneous or occurring at different times. I've always been of the opinion they were simultaneous, but I'm no longer sure.

If they aren't simultaneous, a few questions come up in my mind.
1) Practically speaking what differentiates a spirit baptized believer from a non-spirit baptized one?
2) Ok, for real this time, how does one get the really really really for real honest genuine legitimate bona fide for really really real get saved Jesus experience? For real this time. (truly)
3) Does getting the holy spirit baptism rely on anything that we do (including inaction)?
4) What happens if one desires the holy spirit baptism but never receives?
5) What happens if one receives but does not know?
6) What happens if one thinks one has received, but has not?

losthorizon
Feb 23rd 2010, 04:00 PM
A case can be made for two separate events I suppose. The texts LostHorizon provided do seem to indicate two separate things, but is rather silent and thus confusing on weather these things are simultaneous or occurring at different times. I've always been of the opinion they were simultaneous, but I'm no longer sure.

If they aren't simultaneous, a few questions come up in my mind.
1) Practically speaking what differentiates a spirit baptized believer from a non-spirit baptized one?
2) Ok, for real this time, how does one get the really really really for real honest genuine legitimate bona fide for really really real get saved Jesus experience? For real this time. (truly)
3) Does getting the holy spirit baptism rely on anything that we do (including inaction)?
4) What happens if one desires the holy spirit baptism but never receives?
5) What happens if one receives but does not know?
6) What happens if one thinks one has received, but has not?
If one by faith obeys from the heart that form of doctrine which was delivered (the gospel of Christ), which clearly states one must believe, repent and be baptized (immersed in water) one can know he/she has received *remission of sins* and at the very same moment received *the gift of the Holy Spirit*. It has always been a heart thing with God… via faith and obedience. By faith…Abraham obeyed…
Know ye not, that to whom ye yield yourselves servants to obey, his servants ye are to whom ye obey; whether of sin unto death, or of obedience unto righteousness? But God be thanked, that ye were the servants of sin, but ye have obeyed from the heart that form of doctrine which was delivered you. Being then made free from sin, ye became the servants of righteousness.
(Rom 6:16-18 KJV)

ClayInHisHands
Feb 23rd 2010, 05:38 PM
Is it a coincidence that the figure of 120 is mentioned? :hmm:

What is it that you mean? Does the 120 symbolize 'many' can come before the LORD and not just the one priest? Or is the number 120 mentioned elsewhere that you are referring from? My question is not meant to challenge your statement, only that I'm just curious if that's what you are referring to.

Frances
Feb 23rd 2010, 06:23 PM
How can one be born of the Spirit (John chapter 3) and not have the Spirit?

I suggest it is not so much a case of Jesus' disciples having the Spirit, but of the Holy Spirit having each disciple.

Jesus breathed on His disciples and said "receive the Holy Spirit"(John 20;22 ) - so His disciples had some of Holy Spirit - were born of the Spirit.

later He told His disciples they must wait in Jerusalem to receive the power to fulfil the task He had given them(Luke 24;49)

Then they were filled with the Holy Spirit (Acts 2:1-4)l

notuptome
Feb 23rd 2010, 06:35 PM
The blood of Jesus Christ completely saves and baptism in water is the answer of a good conscience toward God that points us to the resurrection of Jesus Christ – as such the ordinance of baptism is an essential part of the gospel of grace.
Either the blood of Christ is sufficient or water must be added. Make up your mind. Sufficient means that nothing else is needed. No ordance is essential to the doctrine of grace.



eight souls were saved by water…the like figure whereunto even baptism doth also now save us (not the putting away of the filth of the flesh, but the answer of a good conscience toward God,) by the resurrection of Jesus Christ…1Pe 3:20, 21

1 Per 3:21. The sense is, that baptism, including all that is properly meant by baptism as a religious rite - that is, baptism administered in connection with true repentance, and true faith in the Lord Jesus, and when it is properly a symbol of the putting away of sin, and of the renewing influences of the Holy Spirit, and an act of unreserved dedication to God - now saves us. ~ Albert Barnes

Did the water save Noah or did the ark? The water was a means by which God brought judgment upon the world. Noah was saved by the ark which is a type of Christ. The pitch within and without on the ark is symbolic of the blood of Christ. When Noah looked up he saw the pitch when God looked down He saw the pitch.

For the cause of Christ
Roger

Freek
Feb 23rd 2010, 07:16 PM
What is it that you mean? Does the 120 symbolize 'many' can come before the LORD and not just the one priest? Or is the number 120 mentioned elsewhere that you are referring from? My question is not meant to challenge your statement, only that I'm just curious if that's what you are referring to.

There was 120 at the dedication of the temple and they were so "drunk" that they could not stand. In the upper room when the Holy Spirit was poured out, there were also 120 who were thought to be drunk. :D

ClayInHisHands
Feb 23rd 2010, 07:36 PM
There was 120 at the dedication of the temple and they were so "drunk" that they could not stand. In the upper room when the Holy Spirit was poured out, there were also 120 who were thought to be drunk. :D

Ahh...I see. There was something about 120 that was in my mind that seemed familiar...but I thought maybe I was just supposing.

Butch5
Feb 23rd 2010, 10:27 PM
notuptome---Did the water save Noah or did the ark? The water was a means by which God brought judgment upon the world. Noah was saved by the ark which is a type of Christ. The pitch within and without on the ark is symbolic of the blood of Christ. When Noah looked up he saw the pitch when God looked down He saw the pitch.

For the cause of Christ
Roger

The ark didn't save Noah from the perverse generation, the flood did.

notuptome
Feb 23rd 2010, 11:14 PM
The ark didn't save Noah from the perverse generation, the flood did.
The flood saved Noah???? The fire and brimstone saved Sodom and Gomorrah as well. The lake of fire will save the lost then I suppose.

Apart from the ark Noah would have perished with the perverse generation in the flood. If ya ain't in the boat ya ain't gonna float.

For the cause of Christ
Roger

Vhayes
Feb 23rd 2010, 11:19 PM
There was 120 at the dedication of the temple and they were so "drunk" that they could not stand. In the upper room when the Holy Spirit was poured out, there were also 120 who were thought to be drunk. :D
Where does it say they could not stand up?

Butch5
Feb 23rd 2010, 11:36 PM
Roger,

Yes, the ark saved Noah from the flood, but that is not what Peter was speaking of. If you read the passage you will find that he is speaking of baptism,

1 Peter 3:20-21 ( KJV )
Which sometime were disobedient, when once the longsuffering of God waited in the days of Noah, while the ark was a preparing, wherein few, that is, eight souls were saved by water.
The like figure whereunto even baptism doth also now save us (not the putting away of the filth of the flesh, but the answer of a good conscience toward God,) by the resurrection of Jesus Christ:

Notice Peter's words, saved "BY" water not saved "FROM" water. The ark saved Noah "FROM" water, that is not Peter's point, he says they were saved "BY" water. What did the water do? It destroyed the evil perverse generation that Noah was stuck in. So yes, the flood saved Noah.

Steven3
Feb 24th 2010, 06:57 AM
In John 20:22 is receiving the HS the moment the new man was created/born for the 11?

The parallel with Gen.2:7 is pretty obvious.

chad
Feb 24th 2010, 10:50 AM
Good points. When Jesus was with them, they recieved the Holy Spirit. After Jesus ascended, they were baptized with the Holy Spirit, through Jesus.



I suggest it is not so much a case of Jesus' disciples having the Spirit, but of the Holy Spirit having each disciple.

Jesus breathed on His disciples and said "receive the Holy Spirit"(John 20;22 ) - so His disciples had some of Holy Spirit - were born of the Spirit.

later He told His disciples they must wait in Jerusalem to receive the power to fulfil the task He had given them(Luke 24;49)

Then they were filled with the Holy Spirit (Acts 2:1-4)l

moonglow
Feb 24th 2010, 01:41 PM
There is something eye opening in the Old Testament types and shadows. In second Chronicles 5 we read about the dedication of the temple that Solomon built. The priests brought the ark of the covenant into the temple - a type and shadow of being born again. (The change of heart that Ezekiel prophesied about.)

Later the priests could not stand due to the glory of the Lord that filled the temple. Is it a coincidence that the figure of 120 is mentioned? :hmm:


Originally Posted by Freek
There was 120 at the dedication of the temple and they were so "drunk" that they could not stand. In the upper room when the Holy Spirit was poured out, there were also 120 who were thought to be drunk.

Not sure what translation you are reading but none of the ones I have looked at say their were drunk.

In fact I only found one that said they couldn't stand.

New American Standard Bible
2 Chronicles 5

13 in unison when the trumpeters and the singers were to make themselves heard with one voice to praise and to glorify the LORD, and when they lifted up their voice accompanied by trumpets and cymbals and instruments of music, and when they praised the LORD saying, "He indeed is good for His loving kindness is everlasting," then the house, the house of the LORD, was filled with a cloud,

14 so that the priests could not stand to minister because of the cloud, for the glory of the LORD filled the house of God.

The idea of being 'drunk in the Spirit' is a NEW idea..made up by people..its not in the bible. The bible clearly tells us God gives us self control. And says we are to not be drunks.

Galatians 5: (New King James Version)
16 I say then: Walk in the Spirit, and you shall not fulfill the lust of the flesh. 17 For the flesh lusts against the Spirit, and the Spirit against the flesh; and these are contrary to one another, so that you do not do the things that you wish. 18 But if you are led by the Spirit, you are not under the law.

19 Now the works of the flesh are evident, which are: adultery, fornication, uncleanness, lewdness, 20 idolatry, sorcery, hatred, contentions, jealousies, outbursts of wrath, selfish ambitions, dissensions, heresies, 21 envy, murders, drunkenness, revelries, and the like; of which I tell you beforehand, just as I also told you in time past, that those who practice such things will not inherit the kingdom of God.

22 But the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, long suffering, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, 23 gentleness, self-control. Against such there is no law. 24 And those who are Christ’s have crucified the flesh with its passions and desires.

Freek
Feb 24th 2010, 03:39 PM
Not sure what translation you are reading but none of the ones I have looked at say their were drunk.

In fact I only found one that said they couldn't stand.

New American Standard Bible
2 Chronicles 5

13 in unison when the trumpeters and the singers were to make themselves heard with one voice to praise and to glorify the LORD, and when they lifted up their voice accompanied by trumpets and cymbals and instruments of music, and when they praised the LORD saying, "He indeed is good for His loving kindness is everlasting," then the house, the house of the LORD, was filled with a cloud,

14 so that the priests could not stand to minister because of the cloud, for the glory of the LORD filled the house of God.

The idea of being 'drunk in the Spirit' is a NEW idea..made up by people..its not in the bible. The bible clearly tells us God gives us self control. And says we are to not be drunks.

Galatians 5: (New King James Version)
16 I say then: Walk in the Spirit, and you shall not fulfill the lust of the flesh. 17 For the flesh lusts against the Spirit, and the Spirit against the flesh; and these are contrary to one another, so that you do not do the things that you wish. 18 But if you are led by the Spirit, you are not under the law.

19 Now the works of the flesh are evident, which are: adultery, fornication, uncleanness, lewdness, 20 idolatry, sorcery, hatred, contentions, jealousies, outbursts of wrath, selfish ambitions, dissensions, heresies, 21 envy, murders, drunkenness, revelries, and the like; of which I tell you beforehand, just as I also told you in time past, that those who practice such things will not inherit the kingdom of God.

22 But the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, long suffering, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, 23 gentleness, self-control. Against such there is no law. 24 And those who are Christ’s have crucified the flesh with its passions and desires.

The reason that the word drunk is in quotation marks, is because they were not drunk. I am drawing a parallel between the events in Acts 2 and the priests that could not stand - just like drunk men. :D In Acts 2 the bystanders thought that the 120 were drunk. (Full of new wine.) Paul uses the same parallel in Eph 5:18. I wonder why? Anyone who thinks that he can stand in the glory of the Lord, lives in a fantasy world. I have said it before and I say it again, taking scriptures out of context can prove anything.

Freek
Feb 24th 2010, 03:44 PM
In John 20:22 is receiving the HS the moment the new man was created/born for the 11?

The parallel with Gen.2:7 is pretty obvious.

This is the only interpretation that makes sense in the context of the whole Bible. :D

moonglow
Feb 24th 2010, 04:16 PM
The reason that the word drunk is in quotation marks, is because they were not drunk. I am drawing a parallel between the events in Acts 2 and the priests that could not stand - just like drunk men. :D In Acts 2 the bystanders thought that the 120 were drunk. (Full of new wine.) Paul uses the same parallel in Eph 5:18. I wonder why? Anyone who thinks that he can stand in the glory of the Lord, lives in a fantasy world. I have said it before and I say it again, taking scriptures out of context can prove anything.

I didn't take scripture out of content..unless you think I needed to post the whole chapter Which wouldn't change anything actually...it would still say nothing more then they couldn't stand to finish their work. :hmm: And like I said I found only one bible translation that said this. Sometimes people look for different translations to find what fits their beliefs which is as bad as taking it out of content. But seriously freek you are really upsetting me by making continuous false accusations of me taking scripture out of content. You did that at the beginning of this thread when I hadn't even post scripture!

You are breaking the commandment of bearing false witness by doing this. Do you realize that???

Plus once again derailing this thread for the second time by bringing up being drunk in the spirit too. I suggest you start a new thread on that. I think its pretty strange people want to believe what mockers in a crowd said over what the plain text says..which was they were speaking in many different languages. Not a word is said about them staggering around like they were drunk, or falling down, or not being able to stand. People mocked Jesus when He was on the cross saying “He saved others; Himself He cannot save" Mark 15:31..should we believe them too? :B

Freek
Feb 24th 2010, 04:23 PM
I didn't take scripture out of content..unless you think I needed to post the whole chapter Which wouldn't change anything actually...it would still say nothing more then they couldn't stand to finish their work. :hmm: And like I said I found only one bible translation that said this. Sometimes people look for different translations to find what fits their beliefs which is as bad as taking it out of content. But seriously freek you are really upsetting me by making continuous false accusations of me taking scripture out of content. You did that at the beginning of this thread when I hadn't even post scripture!

You are breaking the commandment of bearing false witness by doing this. Do you realize that???

Plus once again derailing this thread for the second time by bringing up being drunk in the spirit too. I suggest you start a new thread on that. I think its pretty strange people want to believe what mockers in a crowd said over what the plain text says..which was they were speaking in many different languages. Not a word is said about them staggering around like they were drunk, or falling down, or not being able to stand. People mocked Jesus when He was on the cross saying “He saved others; Himself He cannot save" Mark 15:31..should we believe them too? :B

No one is as blind as he or she who refuses to see. I rest my case. :D

moonglow
Feb 24th 2010, 04:51 PM
No one is as blind as he or she who refuses to see. I rest my case. :D

I'll just let the moderators deal with you.

John146
Feb 24th 2010, 05:02 PM
Acts 2:38 ( KJV )
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 Ghost.

That's how one gets the seal.You are obviously implying that water baptism is required in order to receive the Holy Spirit. But if that was the case there would be no exceptions. However, in the following passage we see people receiving the Spirit BEFORE being water baptized.

Acts 10
43To him give all the prophets witness, that through his name whosoever believeth in him shall receive remission of sins.
44While Peter yet spake these words, the Holy Ghost fell on all them which heard the word.
45And 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.
46For they heard them speak with tongues, and magnify God. Then answered Peter,
47Can any man forbid water, that these should not be baptized, which have received the Holy Ghost as well as we?
48And he commanded them to be baptized in the name of the Lord. Then prayed they him to tarry certain days.


No, Titus 3:5 tells us what God did not what the Spirit did. Paul says, He (God) saved us with the "bath of renegeration" and the renewing of the Holy Spirit.

What do you suppose that bath is?It certainly isn't water baptism. Both the regeneration and renewing are spiritual acts, not physical. It's speaking of the regeneration and renewing of our spirits that is done by the Holy Spirit within us.

BroRog
Feb 24th 2010, 05:15 PM
I'm really interested in this subject and I'm hoping that this thread won't get derailed into another Baptism thread. So if I may, I would like to focus on Acts 8, which discusses Philip's preaching, and Peter's follow up.



Philip went down to a city in Samaria and proclaimed the Christ there. When the crowds heard Philip and saw the miraculous signs he did, they all paid close attention to what he said. With shrieks, evil spirits came out of many, and many paralytics and cripples were healed. So there was great joy in that city.

and again,


When the apostles in Jerusalem heard that Samaria had accepted the word of God, they sent Peter and John to them. When they arrived, they prayed for them that they might receive the Holy Spirit, because the Holy Spirit had not yet come upon any of them; they had simply been baptized into the name of the Lord Jesus. Then Peter and John placed their hands on them, and they received the Holy Spirit.

So then, give this text as the background, I would like to ask the OP question again. Were the Samarian believers born again, having accepted the word of God? And if they were born of God at that moment, what does Luke mean by "the Holy Spirit had not yet come upon any of them"? What did it mean, in this context, to "receive the Holy Spirit?

Butch5
Feb 24th 2010, 05:22 PM
John146---You are obviously implying that water baptism is required in order to receive the Holy Spirit. But if that was the case there would be no exceptions. However, in the following passage we see people receiving the Spirit BEFORE being water baptized.


Acts 10
43To him give all the prophets witness, that through his name whosoever believeth in him shall receive remission of sins.
44While Peter yet spake these words, the Holy Ghost fell on all them which heard the word.
45And 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.
46For they heard them speak with tongues, and magnify God. Then answered Peter,
47Can any man forbid water, that these should not be baptized, which have received the Holy Ghost as well as we?
48And he commanded them to be baptized in the name of the Lord. Then prayed they him to tarry certain days.

Eric, that is fallacious reasoning. Why would there be no exceptions?



John146---It certainly isn't water baptism. Both the regeneration and renewing are spiritual acts, not physical. It's speaking of the regeneration and renewing of our spirits that is done by the Holy Spirit within us.

Care to back that up with Scripture, I have numerous times.

Butch5
Feb 24th 2010, 05:25 PM
In John 20:22 is receiving the HS the moment the new man was created/born for the 11?

The parallel with Gen.2:7 is pretty obvious.

Excellent comparison my friend, excellent!

John146
Feb 24th 2010, 05:27 PM
The ark didn't save Noah from the perverse generation, the flood did.When it speaks of Noah and his family being saved in 1 Peter 3:20 it's speaking of them being saved from being killed by the flood. It's not speaking of them being saved from their perverse generation. The like figure to that is the baptism of the Holy Spirit, which saves us from eventually experiencing the second death as a result of being cast into the lake of fire. It is the baptism of the Holy Spirit that places us in the body of Christ, not water baptism (1 Cor 12:13).

So, just as Noah was saved from the physical death caused by the flood waters as a result of being in the ark, we are saved from eternal death (the second death) as a result of being in Christ.

John146
Feb 24th 2010, 05:28 PM
Eric, that is fallacious reasoning. Why would there be no exceptions?How can you call it fallacious reasoning when you have no explanation for how there can be any exceptions? Where does scripture ever say there is more than one way to be saved? It doesn't.


Care to back that up with Scripture, I have numerous times.You've tried numerous times and failed numerous times, IMO. Just because you have presented scripture that you think backs up your view doesn't mean that it does.

Longsufferer
Feb 24th 2010, 05:33 PM
Christ makes it clear in its context that being born again is to be born of the Spirit (John 3:1-8), with verse eight making it abundantly plain.

Butch5
Feb 24th 2010, 05:34 PM
Christ makes it clear in its context that being born again is to be born of the Spirit (John 3:1-8), with verse eight making it abundantly plain.


You forgot the water part.

John146
Feb 24th 2010, 05:39 PM
You forgot the water part.Did Jesus forget the water part in John 3:6 and John 3:8?

John 3
6That which is born of the flesh is flesh; and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit.
7Marvel not that I said unto thee, Ye must be born again.
8The wind bloweth where it listeth, and thou hearest the sound thereof, but canst not tell whence it cometh, and whither it goeth: so is every one that is born of the Spirit.

Do you have any explanation for why Jesus said "that which is born of the Spirit is spirit instead of saying "that which is born of water and of the Spriit is spirit?

Do you have any explanation for why Jesus said in verse 8 "...so is everyone that is born of the Spirit" instead of saying "so is everyone that is born of water and of the Spirit"?

It seems to me that being born of the Spirit is what really matters. Being born of water is the same as being born of the mother's womb and born of the flesh. That's why Jesus doesn't mention water in verses 6 and 8. Because it's not being born naturally that is the key to being born again, it is being born spiritually of the Spirit.

Butch5
Feb 24th 2010, 06:14 PM
Did Jesus forget the water part in John 3:6 and John 3:8?

John 3
6That which is born of the flesh is flesh; and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit.
7Marvel not that I said unto thee, Ye must be born again.
8The wind bloweth where it listeth, and thou hearest the sound thereof, but canst not tell whence it cometh, and whither it goeth: so is every one that is born of the Spirit.

Do you have any explanation for why Jesus said "that which is born of the Spirit is spirit instead of saying "that which is born of water and of the Spirit is spirit?

Do you have any explanation for why Jesus said in verse 8 "...so is everyone that is born of the Spirit" instead of saying "so is everyone that is born of water and of the Spirit"?

It seems to me that being born of the Spirit is what really matters. Being born of water is the same as being born of the mother's womb and born of the flesh. That's why Jesus doesn't mention water in verses 6 and 8. Because it's not being born naturally that is the key to being born again, it is being born spiritually of the Spirit.



John146---Do you have any explanation for why Jesus said "that which is born of the Spirit is spirit instead of saying "that which is born of water and of the Spirit is spirit?

Yes, because it is not necessary to give every single aspect of the process every time He mentions it. Your logic does not follow. Suppose I asked you, how did you get here and you answered I drove. Is it necessary for you to tell me that you got in the car, you put the key in the ignition, you put the car into gear, then when you arrived, you put the car in park, turned off the ignition, removed the Key and came inside? No, it isn't? Why? Because I already know what is involved with driving a car. Jesus had just gotten done telling Nicodemus how to be born of the Spirit, there is absolutely no reason for Him to continue to repeat every single aspect of the process each time He mentions it. People don't talk like that.


It seems to me that being born of the Spirit is what really matters. Being born of water is the same as being born of the mother's womb and born of the flesh.

There is not evidence for the support of this claim. If you can supply some you would be the first I have seen to do so.


That's why Jesus doesn't mention water in verses 6 and 8. Because it's not being born naturally that is the key to being born again, it is being born spiritually of the Spirit.

How do justify negating Christ words? Jesus had just told Nicodemus that one must be born of water and the Spirit and now you say that water isn't necessary.

Why in the world would Jesus tell Nicodemus that he must be born of the flesh????? Are there those want to be born again who have not been born of the flesh?

The reason Jesus says to Nicodemus that which is born of the flesh is flesh, is not to say he had to be physically born, everyone is. The reason was that Nicodemus misunderstood Jesus. When Jesus said you must be born again, He meant a Spiritual birth, Nicodemus thought He meant a physical birth. Jesus is contrasting the Spiritual birth with the physical birth. No, Nicodemus the flesh is flesh what you need is a Spiritual birth. You see Nicodemus was a Jew and He was already one of God's people, however, His fleshly birth through Abraham was not enough for him to see the Kingdom of Heaven. He need to be born a second time, this time through Christ and not Abraham. His physical birth as a Jew was not enough for him to see the Kingdom of heaven, he need to be born again.

Butch5
Feb 24th 2010, 06:23 PM
John146---How can you call it fallacious reasoning when you have no explanation for how there can be any exceptions? Where does scripture ever say there is more than one way to be saved? It doesn't.

You have claimed that there can be know exceptions. On what grounds???

No one said there was more than one way to be saved. We are talking about receiving the Holy Spirit.


John146---You've tried numerous times and failed numerous times, IMO. Just because you have presented scripture that you think backs up your view doesn't mean that it does.

Eric, it is not that I have failed. It is because Christians reject the evidence. I did not make up or choose the words that Paul used. I did not make up the definitions for those words. I have presented Scripture without "ANY" interpretation and many Christians still just reject the evidence, in favor of their doctrines. Just like you said here, in your opinion, having looked at the evidence you still reject it, again without any interpretation on my part, just the evidence. Now, how can you tell me that I have failed when I didn't give an interpretation? If you reject it you reject the Scriptures not me or my interpretation.

Butch5
Feb 24th 2010, 06:34 PM
When it speaks of Noah and his family being saved in 1 Peter 3:20 it's speaking of them being saved from being killed by the flood. It's not speaking of them being saved from their perverse generation. The like figure to that is the baptism of the Holy Spirit, which saves us from eventually experiencing the second death as a result of being cast into the lake of fire. It is the baptism of the Holy Spirit that places us in the body of Christ, not water baptism (1 Cor 12:13).

So, just as Noah was saved from the physical death caused by the flood waters as a result of being in the ark, we are saved from eternal death (the second death) as a result of being in Christ.

Eric, this exactly what I was talking about in my above post, simply ignoring the evidence in favor of doctrine. As I pointed out to notuptome, Peter did not say Noah was saved "From" the water, he said Noah was saved "BY" the water. Now, can you explain to me how Noah was saved from the water by the water??? doesn't even makes sense. Peter clearly connect the water of the flood with the baptism that he is speaking of, obviously it is water baptism.

You claim this is Spiritual baptism, well, that doesn't makes sense either, because Peter says it is not the washing of the filth of the flesh. Does Spiritual baptism was dirt off of your flesh??? Are you saying that the person who is covered in mud and receives Christ will have their flesh miraculously cleansed and freshly bathed before everyone's eyes???

This is the evidence my friend, you can reject it if you choose to, however, I have not interpreted it they are simply Peter's word's

notuptome
Feb 24th 2010, 08:21 PM
Roger,

Yes, the ark saved Noah from the flood, but that is not what Peter was speaking of. If you read the passage you will find that he is speaking of baptism,

1 Peter 3:20-21 ( KJV )
Which sometime were disobedient, when once the longsuffering of God waited in the days of Noah, while the ark was a preparing, wherein few, that is, eight souls were saved by water.
The like figure whereunto even baptism doth also now save us (not the putting away of the filth of the flesh, but the answer of a good conscience toward God,) by the resurrection of Jesus Christ:

Notice Peter's words, saved "BY" water not saved "FROM" water. The ark saved Noah "FROM" water, that is not Peter's point, he says they were saved "BY" water. What did the water do? It destroyed the evil perverse generation that Noah was stuck in. So yes, the flood saved Noah.
Noah showed a good conscience toward God when he built the ark. It had never rained on the earth until that great event of the flood sent by God. Peter is very specific that water baptism is a figure of the same good conscience toward God. Peter clearly states that water baptism does not put away the filth of the flesh. There is no redemptive effect of water baptism. God has not asked us to build an ark but to identify with Christ by submitting to water baptism after we have received Christ as our personal Saviour claiming His blood as full atonement for our sins.

If we endeavor to make a literal application of the obvious figurative language Peter is recording in this passage we cannot escape an erroneous conclusion.

For the cause of Christ
Roger

John146
Feb 24th 2010, 08:44 PM
Yes, because it is not necessary to give every single aspect of the process every time He mentions it. Your logic does not follow. Suppose I asked you, how did you get here and you answered I drove. Is it necessary for you to tell me that you got in the car, you put the key in the ignition, you put the car into gear, then when you arrived, you put the car in park, turned off the ignition, removed the Key and came inside? No, it isn't? Why? Because I already know what is involved with driving a car. Jesus had just gotten done telling Nicodemus how to be born of the Spirit, there is absolutely no reason for Him to continue to repeat every single aspect of the process each time He mentions it. People don't talk like that.Yes, because water is such a long word to have to repeat. Sorry, I'm not buying this explanation at all.


There is not evidence for the support of this claim. If you can supply some you would be the first I have seen to do so.The evidence is right within the text of John 3 itself.

John 3
3Jesus answered and said unto him, Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except a man be born again, he cannot see the kingdom of God.
4Nicodemus saith unto him, How can a man be born when he is old? can he enter the second time into his mother's womb, and be born?
5Jesus answered, Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except a man be born of water and of the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God.
6That which is born of the flesh is flesh; and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit.
7Marvel not that I said unto thee, Ye must be born again.
8The wind bloweth where it listeth, and thou hearest the sound thereof, but canst not tell whence it cometh, and whither it goeth: so is every one that is born of the Spirit.

Natural birth is contrasted with spiritual birth throughout this passage. In verse 3 it's referred to as being born from the mother's womb. In verse 5 it's referred to as being born of water. In verse 6 it's referred to as being born of the flesh. So, in verse 5 Jesus is saying to Nicodemus that one can't be born again as a result of being born a second time from his mother's womb. So, He explained that in order to enter the kingdom of God one must not only have been born from his mother's womb (obvious) but also born of the Spirit (not obvious, at least to Nicodemus at the time).

Being born from the womb/of water/of the flesh alone did not result in someone being born again. One must be born of the Spirit in order to be born again. That's why He said in verse 6 "That which is born of the flesh is flesh; and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit". His point is that being born of the Spirit is necessary to enter the kingdom of God.


How do justify negating Christ words? Jesus had just told Nicodemus that one must be born of water and the Spirit and now you say that water isn't necessary.That's not what I'm saying. Obviously, one can't be born of the Spirit if they are not first born physically from the mother's womb. I see being born of water as referring to natural birth so I'm not saying it isn't necessary. Anyone who is born naturally must be born of the Spirit in order to be born again. Being born naturally alone isn't enough to qualify someone to enter the kingdom of God.


Why in the world would Jesus tell Nicodemus that he must be born of the flesh????? Are there those want to be born again who have not been born of the flesh?His emphasis is not on the necessity of being born of the flesh, though that is a necessity, wouldn't you agree? But that's obvious. It would have been hard for Jesus to tell Nicodemus how to be born again had Nicodemus not been born naturally, right? But His focus is on informing Nicodemus that it was necessary to be born of the Spirit in order to see and enter the kingdom of God.


The reason Jesus says to Nicodemus that which is born of the flesh is flesh, is not to say he had to be physically born, everyone is. The reason was that Nicodemus misunderstood Jesus. When Jesus said you must be born again, He meant a Spiritual birthWhat does a spiritual birth have to do with anything physical? It doesn't. It's all spiritual.


Nicodemus thought He meant a physical birth. Jesus is contrasting the Spiritual birth with the physical birth.Yes, exactly. So, why are you trying to involve something physical in spiritual birth? Also, can you show me any other verse where water baptism is spoken of in terms of being born of water? If not, why would that concept only be mentioned in one verse in all of scripture?

John146
Feb 24th 2010, 08:54 PM
You have claimed that there can be know exceptions. On what grounds???Because scripture doesn't give any exceptions. Where do you find that scripture teaches more than one way to be saved?



No one said there was more than one way to be saved. We are talking about receiving the Holy Spirit.A person is saved when they receive the Holy Spirit. But I guess you disagree with that.


Eric, it is not that I have failed. It is because Christians reject the evidence. I did not make up or choose the words that Paul used. I did not make up the definitions for those words. I have presented Scripture without "ANY" interpretation and many Christians still just reject the evidence, in favor of their doctrines. Just like you said here, in your opinion, having looked at the evidence you still reject it, again without any interpretation on my part, just the evidence. Now, how can you tell me that I have failed when I didn't give an interpretation?I already knew how you interpret it because you've stated how you interpret it several times before.


If you reject it you reject the Scriptures not me or my interpretation.Wrong. I reject your interpretation. Do you think I don't know how you interpret it? Are you trying to claim you've never shared your interpretation of it before?

John146
Feb 24th 2010, 09:02 PM
Eric, this exactly what I was talking about in my above post, simply ignoring the evidence in favor of doctrine.I wouldn't say disagreeing with you means I'm ignoring the evidence in favor of doctrine. Get over yourself.


As I pointed out to notuptome, Peter did not say Noah was saved "From" the water, he said Noah was saved "BY" the water. Now, can you explain to me how Noah was saved from the water by the water??? doesn't even makes sense. Peter clearly connect the water of the flood with the baptism that he is speaking of, obviously it is water baptism.You bring doctrinal bias into the verse to begin with so if you see one translation that says they were saved by the water you automatically assume that it is the water that saved them. But you have to dig deeper than that, Butch. You are just skimming the surface of the passage. The Greek word translated as the English "by" in some translations is translated as "through" in others. Here's the verse from the NASB translation:

1 Peter 3:20 who once were disobedient, when the (AO)patience of God (AP)kept waiting in the days of Noah, during the construction of (AQ)the ark, in which a few, that is, (AR)eight (AS)persons, were brought safely through the water.

They were brought safely through the water by the ark, Butch. That's the proper interpretation of the verse. The water didn't save anyone. Instead, it killed a very large number of people. All except 8 that lived on the earth at that time.


You claim this is Spiritual baptism, well, that doesn't makes sense either, because Peter says it is not the washing of the filth of the flesh. Does Spiritual baptism was dirt off of your flesh???No, and neither does the baptism that Peter was talking about because, like you pointed out, he said it was NOT the washing of the filth of the flesh. So, it is a spiritual washing rather than physical that the baptism he's talking about accomplishes.


Are you saying that the person who is covered in mud and receives Christ will have their flesh miraculously cleansed and freshly bathed before everyone's eyes???Not even close. Where are you coming up with that? I am saying they will have their sins washed away. We're talking about something spiritual here, not physical.


This is the evidence my friend, you can reject it if you choose to, however, I have not interpreted it they are simply Peter's word'sWho are you trying to kid here? I accept his words every bit as much as you do, but it just so happens that we interpret them differently.

Butch5
Feb 24th 2010, 10:54 PM
Noah showed a good conscience toward God when he built the ark. It had never rained on the earth until that great event of the flood sent by God. Peter is very specific that water baptism is a figure of the same good conscience toward God. Peter clearly states that water baptism does not put away the filth of the flesh. There is no redemptive effect of water baptism. God has not asked us to build an ark but to identify with Christ by submitting to water baptism after we have received Christ as our personal Saviour claiming His blood as full atonement for our sins.

If we endeavor to make a literal application of the obvious figurative language Peter is recording in this passage we cannot escape an erroneous conclusion.

For the cause of Christ
Roger

Roger,

It is clear,

1 Peter 3:20-21 ( YLT )
who sometime disbelieved, when once the long-suffering of God did wait, in days of Noah—an ark being preparing—in which few, that is, eight souls, were saved through water;
also to which an antitype doth now save us—baptism, (not a putting away of the filth of flesh, but the question of a good conscience in regard to God,) through the rising again of Jesus Christ,

G499
ἀντίτυπον
antitupon
Thayer Definition: 1) a thing formed after some pattern 2) a thing resembling another, its counterpart 2a) something in the Messianic times which answers to the type, as baptism corresponds to the deluge (1 Pet 3:21)

Strong’s Hebrew and Greek Dictionaries
G499 ἀντίτυπον antitupon an-teet'-oo-pon Neuter of a compound of G473 and G5179; corresponding (“antitype”), that is, a representative, counterpart:—(like) figure (whereunto).

Peter says the water saved Noah, then he says that it is a counterpart to water baptism. Notice his words,


1 Peter 3:21 ( KJV )
The like figure whereunto even baptism doth also now save us (not the putting away of the filth of the flesh, but the answer of a good conscience toward God,) by the resurrection of Jesus Christ:

I don't think he can be any clearer, you can reject his words if you choose to, but he has made himself quite clear.

John146
Feb 24th 2010, 10:59 PM
Roger,

It is clear,

1 Peter 3:20-21 ( YLT )
who sometime disbelieved, when once the long-suffering of God did wait, in days of Noah—an ark being preparing—in which few, that is, eight souls, were saved through water;
also to which an antitype doth now save us—baptism, (not a putting away of the filth of flesh, but the question of a good conscience in regard to God,) through the rising again of Jesus Christ,

G499
ἀντίτυπον
antitupon
Thayer Definition: 1) a thing formed after some pattern 2) a thing resembling another, its counterpart 2a) something in the Messianic times which answers to the type, as baptism corresponds to the deluge (1 Pet 3:21)

Strong’s Hebrew and Greek Dictionaries
G499 ἀντίτυπον antitupon an-teet'-oo-pon Neuter of a compound of G473 and G5179; corresponding (“antitype”), that is, a representative, counterpart:—(like) figure (whereunto).

Peter says the water saved Noah, then he says that it is a counterpart to water baptism. Notice his words,


1 Peter 3:21 ( KJV )
The like figure whereunto even baptism doth also now save us (not the putting away of the filth of the flesh, but the answer of a good conscience toward God,) by the resurrection of Jesus Christ:

I don't think he can be any clearer, you can reject his words if you choose to, but he has made himself quite clear.No, he can reject your interpretation of Peter's words if he wants to and that's what he did. And so do I.

Which baptism saves us and places us in the body of Christ? Not water baptism.

1 Cor 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.

moonglow
Feb 24th 2010, 11:20 PM
Well how about this..I was baptized twice..once at age 10 and later as an adult because I had drifted far away from God..I never really had that connection with Him that I heard all the Christians talking about. Plus I had a very difficult time understanding the bible too. While I was involved in church at this time and was making an effort I still didn't really 'get it'..I didn't understand that I truly needed to surrender all my life to Him. I was doing some pretty sinful things at this time too but I didn't see it that way. So I was baptized. I did not relieve the Holy Spirit at that time but I do think God was working on me in other areas. I am sure some will object to that but if you knew what I was doing I don't think you could say I was even remotely born again or had received the Holy Spirit at that time.

I was watching alot of Christian movies..trying to read the bible...but like I said I really didn't understand fully what I needed to do other then publically accept Jesus into my life and be baptized. I was attending church too by the way.

Kind of a long story here..if anyone wants the long version let me know..other wise you get the short version..lol. Due to some events going on that were not godly I might add, I ended up renting a movie simply titled, Jesus, to watch...not to watch Jesus but for another reason (long version includes the explanation of that). All the Jesus movies I had ever seen had a character I couldn't relate too...this way above everyone else guru kind of guy. This 'Jesus' was much more down to earth and I ended up actually watching the whole thing though that hadn't been my original intent. When he was whipped (which was nothing compared to the Passion of Christ that came out years later) and nailed to the cross, I broke down. It finally dawned on me what Christ had done. Before that...I just repeated what I heard all my life in church..with no real meaning behind it. Not that I was trying to be insincere..I thought I was..just never really got it though.

Anyway time went on and as I said, God was working on me. One day in the kitchen at my mom's house having left my abusive husband and realizing what a mess I had made of my own life..then I surrended everything to God. That was the defining moment for me. That is when shortly afterwards I believe I received the Holy Spirit. I could actually read and understand the bible...I started seeing my sins ..in fact instantly the desire to continue the lifestyle sins I was a slave too as the bible says, left me. I was no longer a slave to them. Those desire to sin just left. :)

Then many years later I was baptized in the Holy Spirit..not by laying on hands in a church. Never attended a church that did that. It happened in a vision God gave me..totally and completely unexpected. I know alot of people won't believe that..that is ok..I know it happened and I am content with that. God does what needs to be done when we don't have access to it for whatever reason.

We can quote scriptures all day about how they did things in the early first churches, but the fact is there are no churches that do it like they did then. Some strive too but make a production out of it. Some neglect it for whatever reason. Some say only the disciples were capable of doing these things. I don't know. I only know this was my personal experience. I think when I surrended to God completely is when I became born again. Long after I was baptized..long after I said the sinners prayer a million times. But when I first posted I had the wrong thing in mind..the wrong question actually. So I apologize for the confusion on that. I promise to never start a question post again when I am sick! :rolleyes:

Anyway I thank you all for your input.

God bless

Butch5
Feb 24th 2010, 11:33 PM
John146---Yes, because water is such a long word to have to repeat. Sorry, I'm not buying this explanation at all.

Eric, I fear you won’t buy any explanation that is contrary to your theology.


John146---The evidence is right within the text of John 3 itself.

John 3
3Jesus answered and said unto him, Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except a man be born again, he cannot see the kingdom of God.
4Nicodemus saith unto him, How can a man be born when he is old? can he enter the second time into his mother's womb, and be born?
5Jesus answered, Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except a man be born of water and of the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God.
6That which is born of the flesh is flesh; and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit.
7Marvel not that I said unto thee, Ye must be born again.
8The wind bloweth where it listeth, and thou hearest the sound thereof, but canst not tell whence it cometh, and whither it goeth: so is every one that is born of the Spirit.

Natural birth is contrasted with spiritual birth throughout this passage. In verse 3 it's referred to as being born from the mother's womb. In verse 5 it's referred to as being born of water. In verse 6 it's referred to as being born of the flesh. So, in verse 5 Jesus is saying to Nicodemus that one can't be born again as a result of being born a second time from his mother's womb. So, He explained that in order to enter the kingdom of God one must not only have been born from his mother's womb (obvious) but also born of the Spirit (not obvious, at least to Nicodemus at the time).

Being born from the womb/of water/of the flesh alone did not result in someone being born again. One must be born of the Spirit in order to be born again. That's why He said in verse 6 "That which is born of the flesh is flesh; and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit". His point is that being born of the Spirit is necessary to enter the kingdom of God.

Eric, In John 3 Jesus said,

John 3:5 ( KJV )
Jesus answered, Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except a man be born of water and of the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God.

The word born is in the “Subjunctive” mood in Greek. The subjunctive mood indicates possibility. The Greek word “me” is not translated in most in the KJV, however, it means not. Young’s literal translation has it.

John 3:5 ( YLT )
Jesus answered, ‘Verily, verily, I say to thee, If any one may not be born of water, and the Spirit, he is not able to enter into the reign of God;

It says if anyone may not be born of water and the Spirit. Now, Why would Jesus say if you weren’t physically born you can’t see the kingdom of heaven???


John146---That's not what I'm saying. Obviously, one can't be born of the Spirit if they are not first born physically from the mother's womb. I see being born of water as referring to natural birth so I'm not saying it isn't necessary. Anyone who is born naturally must be born of the Spirit in order to be born again. Being born naturally alone isn't enough to qualify someone to enter the kingdom of God.

With all due respect, just because you see being born of water as a reference to physical birth does not make it so. Can you find me one instance in Scripture or Jewish history where being born of water ever was used as a reference for natural birth???
Also see above.


John146---His emphasis is not on the necessity of being born of the flesh, though that is a necessity, wouldn't you agree? But that's obvious. It would have been hard for Jesus to tell Nicodemus how to be born again had Nicodemus not been born naturally, right? But His focus is on informing Nicodemus that it was necessary to be born of the Spirit in order to see and enter the kingdom of God.
See above

What does a spiritual birth have to do with anything physical? It doesn't. It's all spiritual.

Is repentance Spiritual?


John146---Yes, exactly. So, why are you trying to involve something physical in spiritual birth? Also, can you show me any other verse where water baptism is spoken of in terms of being born of water? If not, why would that concept only be mentioned in one verse in all of scripture?

It is the only time recorded that Jesus spoke of the new birth. The apostles said the same thing with different words.

The early church used the phrase.

Beckrl
Feb 24th 2010, 11:50 PM
Simply, I see the meaning of "water" as given reference to what John brought before the people and that would be "Repentance"
No one shall enter the kingdom of God without "Repentance and of the Spirit" John said, I baptize with water unto repentance, but their is coming one that will baptize you with the Holy Spirit (Matt. 3:11)

Butch5
Feb 25th 2010, 01:01 AM
John146--- I wouldn't say disagreeing with you means I'm ignoring the evidence in favor of doctrine. Get over yourself.

Get over myself? Eric, you're not disagreeing with me, I didn't give you an interpretation, I simply presented the evidence.


John146--- You bring doctrinal bias into the verse to begin with so if you see one translation that says they were saved by the water you automatically assume that it is the water that saved them. But you have to dig deeper than that, Butch. You are just skimming the surface of the passage.


John146--- if you see one translation that says they were saved by the water you automatically assume that it is the water that saved them.

How could I be so stupid. I thought words actually meant what they said.

I have not brought any doctrinal bias, because I have not interpreted it.




John146--- The Greek word translated as the English "by" in some translations is translated as "through" in others. Here's the verse from the NASB translation:

1 Peter 3:20 who once were disobedient, when the (AO)patience of God (AP)kept waiting in the days of Noah, during the construction of (AQ)the ark, in which a few, that is, (AR)eight (AS)persons, were brought safely through the water.

That is correct, I believe I have posted that. However, you have just chosen the definition of through that you like. The word through can mean to go through something, implying motion as you have used it, or it can be used instrumentally as Peter used it. the Greek word translate "by" of "through" is the word "dia". When "dia" is used with a genitive it used instrumentally. Since the word "dia" is use with the word "hudatos" (water) which is in the genitive case, "dia " means by or through with the idea of agency. For example I was able to speak to the teacher "through" Bob. Bob was the agent through which the speaking was done. Likewise as Peter says. Noah was saved through, or by, by the agency of, water. In other words, it was the water that saved Noah.



John146--- They were brought safely through the water by the ark, Butch. That's the proper interpretation of the verse. The water didn't save anyone. Instead, it killed a very large number of people. All except 8 that lived on the earth at that time.

Sorry my friend but that is not the interpretation. I have shown you what the Greek words mean. I did not interpret the word, that is not my opinion of the words, or not my definition of the words. I have simply given you the information. As you can see Peter said they were saved "by' water.


John146--- No, and neither does the baptism that Peter was talking about because, like you pointed out, he said it was NOT the washing of the filth of the flesh. So, it is a spiritual washing rather than physical that the baptism he's talking about accomplishes.

Eric, you have the evidence. Peter told his readers it is not the washing of the filth of the flesh. Why would Peter tell them this unless there was the chance that they may have thought this? Why might they have thought this unless they were being baptized in water?

1 Peter 3:21 ( KJV )
The like figure whereunto even baptism doth also now save us (not the putting away of the filth of the flesh, but the answer of a good conscience toward God,) by the resurrection of Jesus Christ:

It is quite obvious that they had "putting away the filth of the flesh", the way one puts away the filth of the flesh requires water.





Not even close. Where are you coming up with that? I am saying they will have their sins washed away. We're talking about something spiritual here, not physical.

Who are you trying to kid here? I accept his words every bit as much as you do, but it just so happens that we interpret them differently.[/QUOTE]

Butch5
Feb 25th 2010, 01:16 AM
No, he can reject your interpretation of Peter's words if he wants to and that's what he did. And so do I.

Which baptism saves us and places us in the body of Christ? Not water baptism.

1 Cor 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.


Eric, it's clear, I understand. I have given no interpretation, however, you must convince yourself that I have so that you can justify rejecting what I have posted. As I have stated several times, I have not given an interpretation. Peter said what he said, He used the words that he chose to use. I didn't make up the words or the definitions of the words. What I find sad is that you both just reject what has been said, have you made an attempt to see if there is even the slightest chance that what I have stated is correct?
I see both of you saying, no it means this. Yet I have given the definitions of the words, I have shown you the word cases when necessary, you guys have given me nothing except, no, it means this. Neither of you have shown me where a single piece of evidence that I have given is wrong, not a single piece, yet you reject outright, but you tell you are not clinging to doctrine.

kay-gee
Feb 25th 2010, 02:54 PM
When the apostles preached, people got baptized (water). That's all I know. Good enough for me.

all the best...

notuptome
Feb 25th 2010, 05:51 PM
When the apostles preached, people got baptized (water). That's all I know. Good enough for me.

all the best...
I think people should receive water baptism as well but I think heaven will be full of people who did not receive water baptism for any number of reasons. We had better make room for them as well.

We are saved by grace through faith.

For the cause of Christ
Roger

kay-gee
Feb 26th 2010, 12:22 AM
I think people should receive water baptism as well but I think heaven will be full of people who did not receive water baptism for any number of reasons. We had better make room for them as well.



We are saved by grace through faith.

For the cause of Christ
Roger

I suppose this has become your mantra, has it?

Let's go through them all shall we.

we are saved by belief....John 3:16

we are saved by repenting....2 Cor 7:10

we are saved by grace...Eph.2:8

we are saved by confession....Romans 10:9-10

we are saved calling upon the name of the Lord...Romans 10:13

we are saved by water baptism...1Peter 3:21, Mark 16:16

we are saved by enduring to the end...Matt 10:22, 24:13

Should I take just one of these and null and void all the others? Whole counsel of God, my friend, the whole counsel of God! Necessary for proper Bible interpretation.

all the best...

kay-gee
Feb 26th 2010, 12:30 AM
Since it is my responsibilty to work out my salvation with fear and trembling (Phill 2:12) I am not going to risk leaving any of these undone.

all the best...

notuptome
Feb 26th 2010, 06:32 PM
I suppose this has become your mantra, has it?

Let's go through them all shall we.

we are saved by belief....John 3:16

we are saved by repenting....2 Cor 7:10

we are saved by grace...Eph.2:8

we are saved by confession....Romans 10:9-10

we are saved calling upon the name of the Lord...Romans 10:13
Up to here apart from some nuances you are biblically accurate. There are many more verses that answer the question of Acts 16:30


we are saved by water baptism...1Peter 3:21, Mark 16:16

we are saved by enduring to the end...Matt 10:22, 24:13
Here the train jumps the track. You misapply 1 Pet 3:21 and Mark 16:16 contradicts the rest of the gospels so it is of uncertain authority in that respect. At least from the application you force upon it.

As for enduring to the end Matt 10:22 is speaking of deliverance from persecution not eternal salvation.

Matt 24:13 Speaks of tribulation believers who are again delivered from persecution by the Lords return. So it would seem you have made an incorrect application of these verses.


Should I take just one of these and null and void all the others? Whole counsel of God, my friend, the whole counsel of God! Necessary for proper Bible interpretation.

all the best...
We cannot force the word of God to contradict itself. Proper interpretation or application of Gods word necessitates that there be no contradictions. We are admonished to study to not be ashamed and we ought to be ashamed when we make the word of God to contradict itself. The Lord said a house divided cannnot stand.

For the cause of Christ
Roger

notuptome
Feb 26th 2010, 06:37 PM
Since it is my responsibilty to work out my salvation with fear and trembling (Phill 2:12) I am not going to risk leaving any of these undone.

all the best...
Do it the way Paul is teaching. vs 16 "Holding forth the word of life that I may rejoice in the day of Christ that I have not run in vain neither labored in vain".

Study to show thyself approved a workman that needeth not be ashamed rightly dividing the word of truth. 2 Tim 2:15

Spiritual objectives are not accomplished by earthly ordinances or labors.

For the cause of Christ
Roger

losthorizon
Feb 26th 2010, 07:48 PM
Either the blood of Christ is sufficient or water must be added. Make up your mind. Sufficient means that nothing else is needed. No ordance is essential to the doctrine of grace.


I have made up my mind and I choose to believe the full council of God’s word and His word is clear – it is the blood of Christ that finally and completely washes away our sins but man must “work the works of God” and the works of God include belief, repentance and baptism in water.
Then said they unto him, What shall we do, that we might work the works of God? Jesus answered and said unto them, This is the work of God, that ye believe on him whom he hath sent. (John 6:28-29)Jesus is very clear – the one who believes and is baptized will be saved – the one who refuses to believe whether baptized or not baptized will be damned. Both belief and baptism come BEFORE one shall be saved. One will not be saved without those works which are the fruit of faith per Jesus Christ. This is all in the Book and it is an easy concept.
He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved; but he that believeth not shall be damned. (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

"...in the latter clause baptism is omitted, because it is not simply the want of baptism, but the contemptuous neglect of it, which makes men guilty of damnation..." ~ Matthew Henry

[B]Is baptized - Is initiated into the church by the application of water, as significant that he is a sinner, and needs the purifying influences of the Holy Spirit. It is worthy of remark that Jesus has made “baptism” of so much importance. ~ Albert BarnesYou appear to be confused regarding the importance Holy Writ places on the ordinance of Christian baptism - an ordinance instituted and commanded by the Lord - it is not optional in God's plan to save His creation from sin. Have you been baptized in water and had you sins washed away by the blood of Christ - calling on the name of the Lord?
And now why tarriest thou? arise, and be baptized, and wash away thy sins, calling on the name of the Lord. (Acts 22:16)

John146
Feb 26th 2010, 07:53 PM
It is the only time recorded that Jesus spoke of the new birth. The apostles said the same thing with different words.Why would the apostles have used different words? Why wouldn't they have wanted people to know that what Jesus talked about in John 3 was water baptism? No, being born of water has nothing to do with water baptism. If it did then other references to water baptism in scripture would have used similar language. If Jesus was really talking about water baptism then why wouldn't He have just said "Except a man be baptized in water and born of the Spirit he cannot enter into the kingdom of God"?

John146
Feb 26th 2010, 08:03 PM
Get over myself? Eric, you're not disagreeing with me, I didn't give you an interpretation, I simply presented the evidence.The evidence of your interpretation. Yes, get over yourself and stop acting as if we should treat your words as if they are scripture.


How could I be so stupid. I thought words actually meant what they said.

I have not brought any doctrinal bias, because I have not interpreted it. You have decided to assume that one particular translation of the verse is the most accurate rather than another. The fact is that the Greek word can be translated as "by" or "through". To be saved through the water would mean they were saved through the water by being on the ark rather than being killed by the water like everyone else.


That is correct, I believe I have posted that. However, you have just chosen the definition of through that you like.No, I chose the definitioin that I believe is most accurate and so did you. I personally think it does not make any sense to think they were saved by the water when the fact of the matter is that the water killed everyone except them.


The word through can mean to go through something, implying motion as you have used it, or it can be used instrumentally as Peter used it. the Greek word translate "by" of "through" is the word "dia". When "dia" is used with a genitive it used instrumentally. Since the word "dia" is use with the word "hudatos" (water) which is in the genitive case, "dia " means by or through with the idea of agency. For example I was able to speak to the teacher "through" Bob. Bob was the agent through which the speaking was done. Likewise as Peter says. Noah was saved through, or by, by the agency of, water. In other words, it was the water that saved Noah.That is your interpretation and I disagree with it. It's a matter of interpretation so don't act as if you have proven anything.


Sorry my friend but that is not the interpretation. I have shown you what the Greek words mean.You have shown that they can mean different things, so neither of us can prove which meaning it should have and it's a matter of interpretation.


I did not interpret the word, that is not my opinion of the words, or not my definition of the words. I have simply given you the information. As you can see Peter said they were saved "by' water.That is your interpretation, Butch, whether you acknowledge it or not. Your interpretation is that the water saved them and mine is that they were saved through the water by being in the ark. Without being in the ark they would have been killed by the water. So it is the ark that saved them, not the water.


Eric, you have the evidence. Peter told his readers it is not the washing of the filth of the flesh. Why would Peter tell them this unless there was the chance that they may have thought this? Why might they have thought this unless they were being baptized in water?

1 Peter 3:21 ( KJV )
The like figure whereunto even baptism doth also now save us (not the putting away of the filth of the flesh, but the answer of a good conscience toward God,) by the resurrection of Jesus Christ:

It is quite obvious that they had "putting away the filth of the flesh", the way one puts away the filth of the flesh requires water.I believe he said that so that they would know which baptism he was talking about. Why do you act as if water baptism is the only baptism, Butch? Jesus said that John baptized water, but He would baptize with the Holy Spirit. So, clearly, those are two different baptisms. You seem to have forgotten completely about the baptism with the Holy Spirit, which is the one that saves us and places us in the body of Christ (1 Cor 12:13, Acts 11:11-15, Acts 10:43-48).

kay-gee
Feb 26th 2010, 11:50 PM
Here the train jumps the track. You misapply 1 Pet 3:21 and Mark 16:16 contradicts the rest of the gospels so it is of uncertain authority in that respect. At least from the application you force upon it.



As for enduring to the end Matt 10:22 is speaking of deliverance from persecution not eternal salvation.



saved is saved.



Matt 24:13 Speaks of tribulation believers who are again delivered from persecution by the Lords return. So it would seem you have made an incorrect application of these verses.


Let's see. You're saying that believers that endure until Jesus returns are saved but not necessarily saved? Huh? You say I'm contradictory? Why do you complicate simple verses? Endurance = saved!


We cannot force the word of God to contradict itself.

What contradictions? I don't see any contradictions.

all the best...

Butch5
Feb 27th 2010, 12:09 AM
John146---The evidence of your interpretation. Yes, get over yourself and stop acting as if we should treat your words as if they are scripture.

It is Scripture. I have not given you my interpretation. I simply gave you the words of Scripture.
How could I be so stupid. I thought words actually meant what they said.



John146---You have decided to assume that one particular translation of the verse is the most accurate rather than another.

Why because I though the Greek might be a little more accurate than the English translation?


John146---The fact is that the Greek word can be translated as "by" or "through". To be saved through the water would mean they were saved through the water by being on the ark rather than being killed by the water like everyone else.

Eric, this is exactly what I mean when I say people just ignore the evidence. I went to the Greek text and looked up the passage, the Greek word that is translated “by” or “through” is the Word “dia”. When “dia” is used with a noun in the genitive case it is used instrumentally. When “dia’, with a noun in the genitive cases is translated “through”, it does “NOT’ imply motion, e.g. I went “through” the doorway. When it is translated with a noun in the genitive case it means “through” as in agency, e.g. through John we were able to acquire tickets for the show. This is how it is translation in your version, it doesn’t mean they went through the water, it means the water was the agent through which they were saved.

I already gave you this information and yet you came back without any comment whatsoever about it and then continued to argue the same old point. Did you even look into what I said? All you need to do is confirm whether what I said sis correct or not. I am not arguing one version over the other because they both say the same thing only with different words.




John146---No, I chose the definitioin that I believe is most accurate and so did you. I personally think it does not make any sense to think they were saved by the water when the fact of the matter is that the water killed everyone except them.

Because you are looking at the context incorrectly. What is Peter’s point? Christ suffered unjustly at the hands of unjust men. His comparison, Noah also suffered unjustly at the hands of unjust men. What ws it that saved Noah form all of those unrighteous people.

Eric, as I pointed out above you have chosen the wrong definition for the word “Through”. It isn’t used as “I went through the tunnel” by rather as “It was through John that we got our tickets”.



Butch5---The word through can mean to go through something, implying motion as you have used it, or it can be used instrumentally as Peter used it. the Greek word translate "by" of "through" is the word "dia". When "dia" is used with a genitive it used instrumentally. Since the word "dia" is use with the word "hudatos" (water) which is in the genitive case, "dia " means by or through with the idea of agency. For example I was able to speak to the teacher "through" Bob. Bob was the agent through which the speaking was done. Likewise as Peter says. Noah was saved through, or by, by the agency of, water. In other words, it was the water that saved Noah.

John146---That is your interpretation and I disagree with it. It's a matter of interpretation so don't act as if you have proven anything.

Here again, Don’t act as if I have proven somthng????? Eric, I simply gave you the definitions of the words and the case meanings. None of what is written above is my interpretation. If you get a Greek Lexicon and Greek Grammar you can see that for yourself. However, the attitude in you statement speaks volumes. It makes it quite clear to me that no amount of evidence provided is going to break you free from your doctrine. So I think I will just end the conversation at this point since I see no point continuing to provide evidence that is not even considered.

kay-gee
Feb 27th 2010, 04:32 AM
Butch5, my friend. It's absolutely incredible isn't it? I give Bible scriptures without saying anything, and I get accused of "forcing" meanings.

I was hoping the thread wouldn't degenerate into another Baptism fight. I don't think there is a topic in the entire Bible a clear as this one and yet it is so contentious, I just don't get it.

all the best...

David Taylor
Feb 27th 2010, 12:43 PM
1) Stop the heated exchange folks.
2) This Op is not about baptismal Salvation, return to the OP or
3) This thread will see early retirement

Servant89
Feb 27th 2010, 01:43 PM
Forgive me for bringing some things that might have been brought up before... but ...

The word of God is clear when it says that to be born again it must be of the word of God and of the Spirit. The word of God is the seed (God's sperm) as it is written:

1 Pet 1:23 Being born again, not of corruptible seed, but of incorruptible, by the word of God, which liveth and abideth for ever.

But it does not stop there, we are born again by two things, by hearing the word of God with faith and by being filled with the Spirit.

Jn 3:5 Jesus answered, Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except a man be born of water and of the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God.
Jn 3:6 That which is born of the flesh is flesh; and that which is born of the Spirit is Spirit.
Jn 3:8 The wind bloweth where it listeth, and thou hearest the sound thereof, but canst not tell whence it cometh, and whither it goeth: so is every one that is born of the Spirit.

When I got engaged, I gave my bride-to-be a diamond ring. That was a sign of confirmation of our love, a confirmation of my promise to her. The bridegroom Jesus Christ has given a ring to his bride too, confirming his oath to marry her, and that sign is the seal of the Holy Spirit. That is how God confirms his promise to us.

1 Cor 1:6 Even as the testimony of Christ was confirmed in you:
7 So that ye come behind in no gift, waiting for the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ
8 Who shall also confirm you unto the end, that ye may be blameless in the day of our Lord Jesus Christ.

Mk 16:20 And they went forth, and preached every where, the Lord working with them, and confirming the word with signs following. Amen.

Acts 15:32 And Judas and Silas, being prophets also themselves, exhorted the brethren with many words, and confirmed them.

Acts 15:41 And he went through Syria and Cilicia, confirming the churches.

Gal 3:15 Brethren, I speak after the manner of men; Though it be but a man's covenant, yet if it be confirmed, no man disannulleth, or addeth thereto.

Got a diamond ring? Get one.

In the passage below, when did the disciples of Samaria get born again? In verse 12 or was it in verse 17 ?

ACT 8:12 But when they believed Philip preaching the things concerning the kingdom of God, and the name of Jesus Christ, they were baptized, both men and women.
13 Then Simon himself believed also: and when he was baptized, he continued with Philip, and wondered, beholding the miracles and signs which were done.
14 Now when the apostles which were at Jerusalem heard that Samaria had received the word of God, they sent unto them Peter and John:
15 Who, when they were come down, prayed for them, that they might receive the Holy Ghost:
16 (For as yet he was fallen upon none of them: only they were baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus.)
17 Then laid they their hands on them, and they received the Holy Ghost.

Why argue about being born of water alone, when God promised us to be born again of water and spirit?


Shalom

Butch5
Feb 27th 2010, 03:46 PM
1) Stop the heated exchange folks.
2) This Op is not about baptismal Salvation, return to the OP or
3) This thread will see early retirement

Hi David,

My reply was not heated, if it sounded that way I apologize. I was simply stating that what I posted was not interpretation. If we cannot accept what words mean we have no basis for a discussion.

notuptome
Feb 27th 2010, 04:27 PM
saved is saved.
Let's see. You're saying that believers that endure until Jesus returns are saved but not necessarily saved? Huh? You say I'm contradictory? Why do you complicate simple verses? Endurance = saved!
I thought that grace was the means of salvation. Endurance is works and not grace so God is not speaking of eternal salvation here but of deliverance from persecution that Jesus said we would encounter. 1 Pet 4:4


What contradictions? I don't see any contradictions.

all the best...
OK then.

For the cause of Christ
Roger

losthorizon
Feb 27th 2010, 06:16 PM
1) Stop the heated exchange folks.
2) This Op is not about baptismal Salvation, return to the OP or
3) This thread will see early retirement
Hi David – I don’t think anyone on this thread is advocating the error of “baptismal regeneration” – the notion taught by some elements of Christendom that baptism without faith (infant baptism, etc) saves. The OP asks about the relationship between the “new birth” and receiving the Holy Spirit and there is a direct link between the new birth, immersion in water and receiving the “gift of the Holy Spirit”.
And Peter said to them, "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. (Acts 2:38 ESV)We are “begotten by God” via our faith in God and Christ Jesus as our Lord. This faith comes by hearing the word of God – “So faith comes from hearing, and hearing by the word of Christ” (Rom 10:17). The new birth takes place (1) when the believer is “born of water” – ie - baptized in water in the name of the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit and (2) when one is “born of the Spirit” as God pours out His Spirit upon believers at the point of baptism - we are *baptized into the death of Christ*. Baptism in water therefore is both a physical and spiritual event – “born of water and of Spirit”. (John 3:5, Titus 3:5, and Romans 6:3-8).

Rom 6:4
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! He was, therefore, supposed to throw off his old Gentile state as he threw off his clothes, and to assume a new character, as the baptized generally put on new or fresh garments. ~ Adam Clarke

John 3:5
of water and of the Spirit — A twofold explanation of the “new birth,” so startling to Nicodemus. To a Jewish ecclesiastic, so familiar with the symbolical application of water, in every variety of way and form of expression, this language was fitted to show that the thing intended was no other than a thorough spiritual purification by the operation of the Holy Ghost. Indeed, element of water and operation of the Spirit are brought together in a glorious evangelical prediction of Ezekiel (Eze_36:25-27), which Nicodemus might have been reminded of had such spiritualities not been almost lost in the reigning formalism. Already had the symbol of water been embodied in an initiatory ordinance, in the baptism of the Jewish expectants of Messiah by the Baptist, not to speak of the baptism of Gentile proselytes before that; and in the Christian Church it was soon to become the great visible door of entrance into “the kingdom of God,” the reality being the sole work of the Holy Ghost (Tit_3:5). ~ A Commentary on the Old and New Testaments by Robert Jamieson, A. R. Fausset and David Brown

Titus 3:5. By the washing of regeneration - Δια λουτρου παλιγγενεσιας· Undoubtedly the apostle here means baptism, the rite by which persons were admitted into the Church, and the visible sign of the cleansing, purifying influences of the Holy Spirit, which the apostle immediately subjoins. Baptism is only a sign, and therefore should never be separated from the thing signified; but it is a rite commanded by God himself, and therefore the thing signified should never be expected without it. ~ Adam Clarke

losthorizon
Feb 27th 2010, 06:27 PM
I thought that grace was the means of salvation.


Are you suggesting God’s grace negates the command of Jesus Christ to be baptized in water?

losthorizon
Feb 27th 2010, 06:31 PM
Forgive me for bringing some things that might have been brought up before... but ...

The word of God is clear when it says that to be born again it must be of the word of God and of the Spirit.
And yet Jesus is clear - unless one is *born of water* and *born of the Spirit* he cannot enter the kingdom of God. (John 3:5)

kay-gee
Feb 27th 2010, 10:38 PM
The word of God is clear when it says that to be born again it must be of the word of God and of the Spirit.

To be born of the word of God, one can't miss water baptism because it's in the word of God.

all the best...

notuptome
Feb 27th 2010, 10:47 PM
Are you suggesting God’s grace negates the command of Jesus Christ to be baptized in water?
If grace is seen to demand water baptism then it is no longer grace but works that save.

For the cause of Christ
Roger

kay-gee
Feb 27th 2010, 10:55 PM
I thought that grace was the means of salvation. Endurance is works and not grace so God is not speaking of eternal salvation here but of deliverance from persecution that Jesus said we would encounter. 1 Pet 4:4

OK then.

For the cause of Christ
Roger

Hi notuptome. Actually I do not believe that grace is the means of salvation. I believe that grace is the "reason" for salvation. A subtle yet big difference. The reason we have the privelage of even being baptzed into Christ and all the subsequent blessing that entails, Is "because" of God's grace. After all, God would have had every right to burn us all to a cinder and cast us into outer darkness, or simply speak us out of existence as He spoke spoke us into it. Because of Love, mercy, and grace, He gave us a plan of redemption, whereby we can have our sins remitted and the hope of eternal life with Him.

You could say that the ark saved Noah from the flood. That is very true. But in the bigger picture it was by Gods grace that Noah was given the plan for the ark.

Do you see where I am coming from on this? That is what grace means to me. When I look at grace this way, everyting else make sense to me and falls into place.

I hope I am correct on this. Would Butch5 and Lost Horizon please comment on this. Thanks

all the best...

notuptome
Feb 27th 2010, 11:04 PM
To be born of the word of God, one can't miss water baptism because it's in the word of God.

all the best...
You are certain that the water spoken of here is literal water? John 4:14 Jesus again speaks of water the water He gives one never thirsts again and the water springs up unto everlasting life. Is this literal water? Eph 5:26 Paul speaks of washing of water by the word of God. Literal water? John 15:3 Jesus says that they are clean through the word which He has spoken. John 17:17 We are sanctified by truth; Thy word is truth. Titus 3:5-6 We are saved by the washing of regeneration and renewing of the Holy Spirit.

Apart from grace we might conclude that literal water is necessary for salvation but then if the water spoken of is figurative and points back to the word of God then grace is truely the means of salvation by faith received by hearing the word of God.

Believers ought to receive water baptism as an act of obedience. To make water baptism necessary to the remission of sin is to frustrate Gods righteous and holy grace and to demean the total efficacy of Christs blood on Calvary.

The Holy Spirit regenerates the believer at the moment he/she comes to Christ. Water baptism is for a clean conscience, obedience, toward God and man.

For the cause of Christ
Roger

Servant89
Feb 27th 2010, 11:41 PM
To be born of the word of God, one can't miss water baptism because it's in the word of God.

all the best...

Nowhere in the Bible does it say that we must be born again of the water of baptism. Born of water means born of the word of God, there is biblical evidence for that, but there is no biblical evidence relating the born again experience with water baptism. Water baptism is obedience to a commandment, obedience that translates to the works of the law. By the works of the law no flesh shall by justified (Gal 2:16,21 and Gal 5:4). Water baptism is a sign to the world outside of what already happened inside.

This thread is turning into water baptism necessary for salvation kind of thing.

Shalom

losthorizon
Feb 28th 2010, 01:03 AM
To make water baptism necessary to the remission of sin is to frustrate Gods righteous and holy grace and to demean the total efficacy of Christs blood on Calvary.


You are quite mistaken – obedience to the command of Jesus to be baptized in water (Mark 16:16) in no way “frustrates God’s righteousness”. God is not the author of confusion as you make Him out to be. The gospel of grace is from the mind of God and that gospel message clearly includes repentance and baptism “for the remission of sins". Those 3000 believers on the day of Pentecost asked Peter a simple yet very important question, “What must we do to be saved?”. Peter didn’t answer with your answer that there is nothing they could do but believe. No – Peter preached the full council of God to them and that word of God included the command to *repent and be baptized for the remission of sins*. Those believers obeyed the words of Peter and were “born of water and the Spirit” as their sins were “remitted” and they received “the gift of the Holy Spirit” when they were “baptized into His death” - as they were immersed in water…
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 Ghost. (Acts 2:38 KJV)Please note: the baptism those 3000 souls submitted to was for both "remission of sins" and for receiving of the gift of the Holy Spirit. There is but “One Lord, one faith, one baptism.”
Jesus answered, Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except a man be born of water and of the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God.
(John 3:5 KJV)

losthorizon
Feb 28th 2010, 01:12 AM
Nowhere in the Bible does it say that we must be born again of the water of baptism.

You're mistaken - the one baptism commanded by Jesus is a “new birth…of water (H2O) and the Spirit”.

kay-gee
Feb 28th 2010, 06:37 AM
You are certain that the water spoken of here is literal water? John 4:14 Jesus again speaks of water the water He gives one never thirsts again and the water springs up unto everlasting life. Is this literal water? Eph 5:26 Paul speaks of washing of water by the word of God. Literal water? John 15:3 Jesus says that they are clean through the word which He has spoken. John 17:17 We are sanctified by truth; Thy word is truth. Titus 3:5-6 We are saved by the washing of regeneration and renewing of the Holy Spirit.

Apart from grace we might conclude that literal water is necessary for salvation but then if the water spoken of is figurative and points back to the word of God then grace is truely the means of salvation by faith received by hearing the word of God.


Believers ought to receive water baptism as an act of obedience. To make water baptism necessary to the remission of sin is to frustrate Gods righteous and holy grace and to demean the total efficacy of Christs blood on Calvary.

The Holy Spirit regenerates the believer at the moment he/she comes to Christ. Water baptism is for a clean conscience, obedience, toward God and man.

For the cause of Christ
Roger

I believe every instance of water in the bible is literal unless otherwise dictated by context. "Springs of living water inside a man" is not literal. Water is not alive. That verse is painfully obvious.

When the Eunech said ..."Look a body of water!...I believe that was H20 water

Having our bodies washed in pure water (Heb 10:22)....Why not literal? wouldn't make any sense other wise.The body is physical. So is water.

To make water obligatory for remission of sins complies with Acts 2:38 and Acts 22:16 and in no way frustrates Gods grace or demeans the blood of Christ. I have no problem with that in the slightest. You seem to have the problem and my friend that is Your problem to resolve. Your obedience will NEVER demean God. Not ever!!! Actually the opposite is true. To dis-obey Gods clear command is to demean Him.

all the best...

roaring tiger
Feb 28th 2010, 07:47 AM
Hi!!!moonglow,.....

How are you?

Every religeon has it's own version and interpretation of how to be born again, in my own way this my view of this topic.

I've been quit sometime now, but I think this is the first time we had met.I'm RT.and not I had not been a member of any denom,even had been born and raise as a catholic,but inactive.

For me,James 1:27 is the true religeon,and to be born again, a person must know who was his Father,mother,brother and sister in order to do the will of the Father.

Yes, that is true,that a man is neccesary be born again by water and Spirit to enter the kingdom of heaven.This is easy to hear and say but very hard to understand.

In truth,I do not mean to hurt or confuse anyone because almost christian believer are naked in the eye of God our creator,just like ofAdam and Eve when they sin at the garden.

Almost,maybe there are some excemption are naked and covering thereself with the scripture of the bible,and hidding in the tree of knowledge and are not seeking the word of God.

Rom.10:13-14 For whosoever shall callupon the name of the Lord shall be saved.

v.14] How then shall they call on him they have not believe? and how shall they believe in him of whom they have not heard? and how shall they hear without a preacher?

Remember,all man is a liar,so,put your trust to the Lord.But who shall teach you then?Jn. 5:39 Search the scripture:for in them ye think ye have eternal life; and they are they which testify of me.

1 Pet.1:23 Beeing born again, not of corruptible seed,but of incorruptible seed, by the word of God, which liveth and abideth forever.!!!!

James 1:21Wherefore lay apart all filthiness and superfluity of naughtiness, and receive with meekness the engrafted word, which is able to save your soul.!!

Lk. 8:11 this is the parable ;the seed is the word of God,like a mustard seed being the least among seeds,it must grow and become a tree.Acts 12:24 the word will grew and mutiplied.

What and how is this?This the Holy Spirit John 14:26 But the Comforter,which is the Holy Ghost, whom thy Father will send in my name,he shall TEACH YOU all things, and bring all things

to your remembrance, whatsoever I have said unto you.

in love of Christ./RT.

moonglow
Feb 28th 2010, 04:31 PM
Hi!!!moonglow,.....

How are you?

Every religeon has it's own version and interpretation of how to be born again, in my own way this my view of this topic.

I've been quit sometime now, but I think this is the first time we had met.I'm RT.and not I had not been a member of any denom,even had been born and raise as a catholic,but inactive.

For me,James 1:27 is the true religeon,and to be born again, a person must know who was his Father,mother,brother and sister in order to do the will of the Father.

Yes, that is true,that a man is neccesary be born again by water and Spirit to enter the kingdom of heaven.This is easy to hear and say but very hard to understand.

In truth,I do not mean to hurt or confuse anyone because almost christian believer are naked in the eye of God our creator,just like ofAdam and Eve when they sin at the garden.

Almost,maybe there are some excemption are naked and covering thereself with the scripture of the bible,and hidding in the tree of knowledge and are not seeking the word of God.

Rom.10:13-14 For whosoever shall callupon the name of the Lord shall be saved.

v.14] How then shall they call on him they have not believe? and how shall they believe in him of whom they have not heard? and how shall they hear without a preacher?

Remember,all man is a liar,so,put your trust to the Lord.But who shall teach you then?Jn. 5:39 Search the scripture:for in them ye think ye have eternal life; and they are they which testify of me.

1 Pet.1:23 Beeing born again, not of corruptible seed,but of incorruptible seed, by the word of God, which liveth and abideth forever.!!!!

James 1:21Wherefore lay apart all filthiness and superfluity of naughtiness, and receive with meekness the engrafted word, which is able to save your soul.!!

Lk. 8:11 this is the parable ;the seed is the word of God,like a mustard seed being the least among seeds,it must grow and become a tree.Acts 12:24 the word will grew and mutiplied.

What and how is this?This the Holy Spirit John 14:26 But the Comforter,which is the Holy Ghost, whom thy Father will send in my name,he shall TEACH YOU all things, and bring all things

to your remembrance, whatsoever I have said unto you.

in love of Christ./RT.

Thanks! And welcome to the board too. :)

God bless

MaryFreeman
Feb 28th 2010, 05:09 PM
Hi moonglow! Muah!

Just wanted to share my meager lil bit....

I believe born again means born of the Holy Spirit....

And this is why:

Joh 3:5 Jesus replied, "I assure you, no one can enter the Kingdom of God without being born of water and the Spirit.
Joh 3:6 Humans can reproduce only human life, but the Holy Spirit gives birth to spiritual life.
Joh 3:7 So don't be surprised when I say, 'You must be born again.'

Receiving the Holy Spirit comes after IMO....
And this is why:


Joh 20:20 As He spoke, He showed them the wounds in His hands and His side. They were filled with joy when they saw the Lord!
Joh 20:21 Again He said, "Peace be with you. As the Father has sent Me, so I am sending you."
Joh 20:22 Then He breathed on them and said, "Receive the Holy Spirit.

Again.... this is just my meager offering.... But when Jesus was speaking to Nicodemus He explained what He meant by "born again".... And then after His resurrection He breathed on the disciples and said "Receive the Holy Spirit".... So IMO one must be born of the Spirit to receive His power....

This is not all the Scripture I have concerning.... But I figured I would show you the Ultimate Authority's words on the subject as they are tops!

If you would like to see what else I have found just ask....

theBelovedDisciple
Feb 28th 2010, 07:03 PM
Actually I do not believe that grace is the means of salvation...
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

what would be your 'mean's of Salvation then? if I dare ask?

is it related to your works?

BroRog
Feb 28th 2010, 07:40 PM
Believers ought to receive water baptism as an act of obedience. To make water baptism necessary to the remission of sin is to frustrate Gods righteous and holy grace and to demean the total efficacy of Christs blood on Calvary.I hear what you are saying Roger, and I agree with it in principle, but I would like to offer a small distinction.

It is my understanding that baptism was often an initiation ceremony in the process of becoming a disciple. Those whom John baptized became John's disciples and those whom Jesus baptised (though he didn't personally baptize anyone) were Jesus' disciples. Along these lines, Jesus teaches his apostles to baptize in his name. Look at the following passage to notice which are verbs.



Go therefore and make disciples of all the nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit, teaching them to observe all that I commanded you; and lo, I am with you always, even to the end of the age.The commandment is to "go and make disciples"; the act of baptizing is done as a part, perhaps the first or second step of making a disciple. And Jesus is saying, "Rather than making disciples for yourselves as John did, make disciples for me instead."

For this reason, I believe that Peter's command to be baptized was the use of a single step in the process of becoming a disciple to indicate the entire process. When Peter says,



Repent, and each of you be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins; and you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit. We weaken his command if we limit it to water baptism. His essential command is to Repent and become a disciple of Jesus Christ, which will include baptism as the first or second step in the process.

It seems to me that those who tend to emphasize the H2O in baptism tend to miss the essential point, which is to learn the teachings of Jesus, believe them, and live as if you believe them.

Now, I'm not suggesting that you are doing this. You aren't. I just wanted to piggy back on your point, which was valid, to highlight the essential point of baptism.

moonglow
Feb 28th 2010, 08:55 PM
Hi moonglow! Muah!

Just wanted to share my meager lil bit....

I believe born again means born of the Holy Spirit....

And this is why:

Joh 3:5 Jesus replied, "I assure you, no one can enter the Kingdom of God without being born of water and the Spirit.
Joh 3:6 Humans can reproduce only human life, but the Holy Spirit gives birth to spiritual life.
Joh 3:7 So don't be surprised when I say, 'You must be born again.'

Receiving the Holy Spirit comes after IMO....
And this is why:


Joh 20:20 As He spoke, He showed them the wounds in His hands and His side. They were filled with joy when they saw the Lord!
Joh 20:21 Again He said, "Peace be with you. As the Father has sent Me, so I am sending you."
Joh 20:22 Then He breathed on them and said, "Receive the Holy Spirit.

Again.... this is just my meager offering.... But when Jesus was speaking to Nicodemus He explained what He meant by "born again".... And then after His resurrection He breathed on the disciples and said "Receive the Holy Spirit".... So IMO one must be born of the Spirit to receive His power....

This is not all the Scripture I have concerning.... But I figured I would show you the Ultimate Authority's words on the subject as they are tops!

If you would like to see what else I have found just ask....

Ok thanks..and sure post whatever information you have.

God bless

losthorizon
Mar 1st 2010, 02:34 AM
It seems to me that those who tend to emphasize the H2O in baptism tend to miss the essential point, which is to learn the teachings of Jesus, believe them, and live as if you believe them.


Good points Rog and I would add that those who “emphasize” water baptism tend to do so because these discussions usually digress to the point that the ordinance of baptism becomes much maligned by those who do not understand its importance in God’s plan of redemption. Those who defend baptism do not miss the essential points at all. As I have mentioned already – faith comes by hearing the word of God and it is this initial act of faith that leads one to believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God. One who is baptized in water without faith in Christ only gets wet. There is nothing magical about H2O baptism – it is simply the answer of a good conscience toward God as it points us to the resurrection of Christ (1 Pet 3:21). It is the blood of Christ that completely and finally saves our souls. The path to becoming a disciple of Jesus Christ includes faith, repentance and baptism in water – all three are necessary as taught in the gospel of Christ.
…eight souls, were saved through water…

whereunto even baptism doth also now save us (not the putting away of the filth of the flesh, but the answer of a good conscience toward God,) by the resurrection of Jesus Christ. (1 Peter 3:21 KJV)

Noah and his family were saved by water; i.e. it was the instrument of their being saved through the good providence of God. So the water of baptism, typifying the regenerating influence of the Holy Spirit, is the means of salvation to all those who receive this Holy Spirit in its quickening, cleansing efficacy. ~ Adam Clarke

notuptome
Mar 1st 2010, 01:49 PM
You are quite mistaken – obedience to the command of Jesus to be baptized in water (Mark 16:16) in no way “frustrates God’s righteousness”. God is not the author of confusion as you make Him out to be. The gospel of grace is from the mind of God and that gospel message clearly includes repentance and baptism “for the remission of sins". Those 3000 believers on the day of Pentecost asked Peter a simple yet very important question, “What must we do to be saved?”. Peter didn’t answer with your answer that there is nothing they could do but believe. No – Peter preached the full council of God to them and that word of God included the command to *repent and be baptized for the remission of sins*. Those believers obeyed the words of Peter and were “born of water and the Spirit” as their sins were “remitted” and they received “the gift of the Holy Spirit” when they were “baptized into His death” - as they were immersed in water…
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 Ghost. (Acts 2:38 KJV)Please note: the baptism those 3000 souls submitted to was for both "remission of sins" and for receiving of the gift of the Holy Spirit. There is but “One Lord, one faith, one baptism.”
Jesus answered, Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except a man be born of water and of the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God.
(John 3:5 KJV)
Water baptism does not save. Holy Spirit baptism saves. The blood of Christ is the only thing that can atone for our sins. To add water baptism to the finished work of Christ is unthinkable.

Holy Spirit baptism is when a sinner dead in his/her sins calls upon Christ to save them. The Holy Spirit then takes that which is dead in trespass and sin and quickens it in Christ. The dead soul is made alive in Christ a new creation by the grace of God.

If water saves then the catholics are right in baptising babies. No. Baptism as in water baptism is for believers only. Believers are already saved by grace through their faith in Christ. The Holy Spirit enters we believers the moment we receive Christ.

When we are immersed in the Holy Spirit we are converted from the old man into the new man in Christ. 2 Cor 5:17

The flesh loves tangible things the spirit seeks higher and nobler things.

For the cause of Christ
Roger

Butch5
Mar 1st 2010, 02:04 PM
Good points Rog and I would add that those who “emphasize” water baptism tend to do so because these discussions usually digress to the point that the ordinance of baptism becomes much maligned by those who do not understand its importance in God’s plan of redemption. Those who defend baptism do not miss the essential points at all. As I have mentioned already – faith comes by hearing the word of God and it is this initial act of faith that leads one to believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God. One who is baptized in water without faith in Christ only gets wet. There is nothing magical about H2O baptism – it is simply the answer of a good conscience toward God as it points us to the resurrection of Christ (1 Pet 3:21). It is the blood of Christ that completely and finally saves our souls. The path to becoming a disciple of Jesus Christ includes faith, repentance and baptism in water – all three are necessary as taught in the gospel of Christ.
…eight souls, were saved through water…

whereunto even baptism doth also now save us (not the putting away of the filth of the flesh, but the answer of a good conscience toward God,) by the resurrection of Jesus Christ. (1 Peter 3:21 KJV)

Noah and his family were saved by water; i.e. it was the instrument of their being saved through the good providence of God. So the water of baptism, typifying the regenerating influence of the Holy Spirit, is the means of salvation to all those who receive this Holy Spirit in its quickening, cleansing efficacy. ~ Adam Clarke

Well said my frined!

notuptome
Mar 1st 2010, 02:11 PM
I believe every instance of water in the bible is literal unless otherwise dictated by context. "Springs of living water inside a man" is not literal. Water is not alive. That verse is painfully obvious.

When the Eunech said ..."Look a body of water!...I believe that was H20 water
I agree the water here is literal. Philip made the condition for water baptism clear. If thou believest thou mayest. Do you think Philip was enquiring as to whether the Eunuch believed in the water or in Christ?


Having our bodies washed in pure water (Heb 10:22)....Why not literal? wouldn't make any sense other wise.The body is physical. So is water.
What then makes the water pure? Is water pure or the word of God pure?


To make water obligatory for remission of sins complies with Acts 2:38 and Acts 22:16 and in no way frustrates Gods grace or demeans the blood of Christ. I have no problem with that in the slightest. You seem to have the problem and my friend that is Your problem to resolve. Your obedience will NEVER demean God. Not ever!!! Actually the opposite is true. To dis-obey Gods clear command is to demean Him.

all the best...
Remission of sins is accomplished by the Holy Spirit not by water. Believers are able to receive water baptism but it is not the water baptism that saves them. Peter was preaching in Acts 2:38 to repent which is to change ones mind and believe on Jesus then be baptised. Holy Spirit baptism followed by water baptism. Acts 22:16 When Paul received water baptism was he not already a believer having met Christ on the road to Emmaus? Pauls water baptism was for a testimony that he was indeed a believer not for the remission of his sins. Paul taught in 1 Cor 1:17 that he came not to baptise but to preach the gospel. Starting in vs 14 Paul testifies that he baptised none except a few specific persons. Does this mean that Paul was only interested in a few souls being saved or that the preaching was vastly more important than water baptism?

The only command we must obey is the command to believe on Christ and be saved. By grace are you saved through faith.

For the cause of Christ
Roger

BroRog
Mar 1st 2010, 03:27 PM
Good points Rog and I would add that those who “emphasize” water baptism tend to do so because these discussions usually digress to the point that the ordinance of baptism becomes much maligned by those who do not understand its importance in God’s plan of redemption. Those who defend baptism do not miss the essential points at all. As I have mentioned already – faith comes by hearing the word of God and it is this initial act of faith that leads one to believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God. One who is baptized in water without faith in Christ only gets wet. There is nothing magical about H2O baptism – it is simply the answer of a good conscience toward God as it points us to the resurrection of Christ (1 Pet 3:21). It is the blood of Christ that completely and finally saves our souls. The path to becoming a disciple of Jesus Christ includes faith, repentance and baptism in water – all three are necessary as taught in the gospel of Christ.
…eight souls, were saved through water…

whereunto even baptism doth also now save us (not the putting away of the filth of the flesh, but the answer of a good conscience toward God,) by the resurrection of Jesus Christ. (1 Peter 3:21 KJV)

Noah and his family were saved by water; i.e. it was the instrument of their being saved through the good providence of God. So the water of baptism, typifying the regenerating influence of the Holy Spirit, is the means of salvation to all those who receive this Holy Spirit in its quickening, cleansing efficacy. ~ Adam ClarkeI agree that water baptism is not magical. So how is it necessary? You say that a man who lacks faith while being baptized is just getting wet. And I agree. But wouldn't you also agree that a man who has become a disciple of Jesus apart from baptism has the essential part?

kay-gee
Mar 1st 2010, 04:02 PM
I agree the water here is literal. Philip made the condition for water baptism clear. If thou believest thou mayest. Do you think Philip was enquiring as to whether the Eunuch believed in the water or in Christ?

What then makes the water pure? Is water pure or the word of God pure?

Remission of sins is accomplished by the Holy Spirit not by water. Believers are able to receive water baptism but it is not the water baptism that saves them. Peter was preaching in Acts 2:38 to repent which is to change ones mind and believe on Jesus then be baptised. Holy Spirit baptism followed by water baptism. Acts 22:16 When Paul received water baptism was he not already a believer having met Christ on the road to Emmaus? Pauls water baptism was for a testimony that he was indeed a believer not for the remission of his sins. Paul taught in 1 Cor 1:17 that he came not to baptise but to preach the gospel. Starting in vs 14 Paul testifies that he baptised none except a few specific persons. Does this mean that Paul was only interested in a few souls being saved or that the preaching was vastly more important than water baptism?

The only command we must obey is the command to believe on Christ and be saved. By grace are you saved through faith.


For the cause of Christ
Roger

Notuptome my friend. You are flying in the face of Acts 2:38. It says be baptized for the remission of sins. Acts 22:16 Paul was told to be baptized and wash away sins. Same idea. You can read Acts 2:38 forwards, backwards, standing on your head, any way you want to read it. It says what it says, and it says be baptized for the "remission of sins". No other way to read it. One cannot enter heaven with their sins intact. They must be removed. When the people asked "What shall we do?", Peter should have simply led them in a simple sinners prayer the way the modern TV preachers do it. He did not. He told them what they MUST do. That is REPENT and be BAPTIZED. Water baptism as it something that "they" must do. If you cannot see that in the verse, I can only draw one conclusion. Your doctinal pre-conception has blinded you. You are fighting scripture. Bad bad bad! Sorry to have to be so frank, but that is how it is.

all the best...

kay-gee
Mar 1st 2010, 04:08 PM
One more thing....contrary to popuar belief....Paul was a lost sinner until he arose and was baptzed and WASHED HIS SINS AWAY!

all the best...

losthorizon
Mar 1st 2010, 04:17 PM
I agree that water baptism is not magical. So how is it necessary? You say that a man who lacks faith while being baptized is just getting wet. And I agree. But wouldn't you also agree that a man who has become a disciple of Jesus apart from baptism has the essential part?
Interesting question Rog but I think the question that begs would be can one be a disciple of Christ without being immersed in water? Can you show me a disciple of Jesus Christ this side of the “great commission” who was not baptized in water? Jesus clearly commanded His disciples to “…go…teach…baptize.” I think the idea of an unbaptized Christian is an idea not entertained by Holy Writ. A true disciple of Christ will do *all that He has commanded* and He certainly has commanded baptism – ie - it is not an option. Would you agree?
And Jesus came and said to them, "All authority in heaven and on earth has been given to me. Go therefore and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, teaching them to observe all that I have commanded you. And behold, I am with you always, to the end of the age." (Matthew 28:18-20 ESV)

Then Philip opened his mouth, and beginning with this Scripture he told him the good news about Jesus. And as they were going along the road they came to some water, and the eunuch said, "See, here is water! What prevents me from being baptized?" [And Philip said, "If you believe with all your heart, you may." And he replied, "I believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God."] And he commanded the chariot to stop, and they both went down into the water, Philip and the eunuch, and he baptized him. (Acts 8:35-38 ESV)

Firstfruits
Mar 1st 2010, 04:28 PM
Sorry I ran out of title room..between being born again and receiving the Holy Spirit or you do think its event that happens at the same time? Post scriptures please..thanks.
I ask because its one of those things tickling me in the back of my mind..which means I am missing something..:hmm:

God bless

According to the following when we have repented we will then receive the Holy Ghost.

Acts 2:38 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 Ghost.

Firstfruits

losthorizon
Mar 1st 2010, 04:42 PM
According to the following when we have repented we will then receive the Holy Ghost.

Acts 2:38 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 Ghost.

Firstfruits
Actually, when we have repented and been "baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ" then will our sins be remitted and we will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit.:)

losthorizon
Mar 1st 2010, 06:34 PM
Hi notuptome. Actually I do not believe that grace is the means of salvation. I believe that grace is the "reason" for salvation. A subtle yet big difference. The reason we have the privelage of even being baptzed into Christ and all the subsequent blessing that entails, Is "because" of God's grace. After all, God would have had every right to burn us all to a cinder and cast us into outer darkness, or simply speak us out of existence as He spoke spoke us into it. Because of Love, mercy, and grace, He gave us a plan of redemption, whereby we can have our sins remitted and the hope of eternal life with Him.

You could say that the ark saved Noah from the flood. That is very true. But in the bigger picture it was by Gods grace that Noah was given the plan for the ark.

Do you see where I am coming from on this? That is what grace means to me. When I look at grace this way, everyting else make sense to me and falls into place.

I hope I am correct on this. Would Butch5 and Lost Horizon please comment on this. Thanks

all the best...
Hi kay-gee –

It is my understanding that we are “justified by God’s grace” when we are “born again” as Jesus Christ “saves us, through the washing of regeneration (baptism), and the renewing of the Holy Spirit” (Titus 3:5). Salvation includes both obedience and grace - a grace offered to us by faith. God’s grace excludes works of merit, i.e., there is absolutely nothing we can do to “earn salvation” – salvation is God’s gift through the work of Christ on the cross on our behalf. God’s grace is not given apart from instruction – that is the Christian faith is a “learned faith” – “faith comes by hearing the word of God.” Faith requires a comprehension of and obedience to the word of God. We must obey from the heart “that form of doctrine” delivered and that doctrine includes the need to believe, repent and be baptized in water for the remission of sins (Acts 2:38). Holy Writ clearly tells us we are servants to whom we obey – “whether of sin unto death, or of obedience unto righteousness.”
Know ye not, that to whom ye yield yourselves servants to obey, his servants ye are to whom ye obey; whether of sin unto death, or of obedience unto righteousness? But God be thanked, that ye were the servants of sin, but ye have obeyed from the heart that form of doctrine which was delivered you. Being then made free from sin, ye became the servants of righteousness. (Romans 6:16-18 KJV)

notuptome
Mar 1st 2010, 07:09 PM
Hi notuptome. Actually I do not believe that grace is the means of salvation. I believe that grace is the "reason" for salvation. A subtle yet big difference. The reason we have the privelage of even being baptzed into Christ and all the subsequent blessing that entails, Is "because" of God's grace. After all, God would have had every right to burn us all to a cinder and cast us into outer darkness, or simply speak us out of existence as He spoke spoke us into it. Because of Love, mercy, and grace, He gave us a plan of redemption, whereby we can have our sins remitted and the hope of eternal life with Him.
Well I see grace as defined by the vicarious death of Christ on the cross. 2 Cor 5:21 God made Jesus to be sin in my place that I might be made the righteousness of God in Jesus. I do not deserve salvation any more than Christ deserved to die for my sins.


You could say that the ark saved Noah from the flood. That is very true. But in the bigger picture it was by Gods grace that Noah was given the plan for the ark.
God imputed to Noah righteousness and not sin because Noah believed God.


Do you see where I am coming from on this? That is what grace means to me. When I look at grace this way, everyting else make sense to me and falls into place.

I hope I am correct on this. Would Butch5 and Lost Horizon please comment on this. Thanks

all the best...
When I see the word grace I think the blood of Christ shed for me on Calvary.

For the cause of Christ
Roger

notuptome
Mar 1st 2010, 07:20 PM
Interesting question Rog but I think the question that begs would be can one be a disciple of Christ without being immersed in water? Can you show me a disciple of Jesus Christ this side of the “great commission” who was not baptized in water? Jesus clearly commanded His disciples to “…go…teach…baptize.” I think the idea of an unbaptized Christian is an idea not entertained by Holy Writ. A true disciple of Christ will do *all that He has commanded* and He certainly has commanded baptism – ie - it is not an option. Would you agree?
And Jesus came and said to them, "All authority in heaven and on earth has been given to me. Go therefore and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, teaching them to observe all that I have commanded you. And behold, I am with you always, to the end of the age." (Matthew 28:18-20 ESV)

Then Philip opened his mouth, and beginning with this Scripture he told him the good news about Jesus. And as they were going along the road they came to some water, and the eunuch said, "See, here is water! What prevents me from being baptized?" [And Philip said, "If you believe with all your heart, you may." And he replied, "I believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God."] And he commanded the chariot to stop, and they both went down into the water, Philip and the eunuch, and he baptized him. (Acts 8:35-38 ESV)
I believe it is clear from scripture that a person is saved the moment they believe. I do believe that scripture teaches that a believer should receive water baptism. I believe that water baptism is essential for growth in our walk with the Lord but water baptism is not essential for one to become saved. What is next? You must receive communion or you are not saved? Then you must sell all your goods and take a vow of poverty? Where do we draw the line?

I believe that the apostles and we ought to be far more concerned with what has transpired in the heart of those who profess to know Christ than what happens on the outside. Water baptism is outward. Holy Spirit baptism is inward.

For the cause of Christ
Roger

notuptome
Mar 1st 2010, 07:32 PM
Notuptome my friend. You are flying in the face of Acts 2:38. It says be baptized for the remission of sins. Acts 22:16 Paul was told to be baptized and wash away sins. Same idea. You can read Acts 2:38 forwards, backwards, standing on your head, any way you want to read it. It says what it says, and it says be baptized for the "remission of sins". No other way to read it. One cannot enter heaven with their sins intact. They must be removed. When the people asked "What shall we do?", Peter should have simply led them in a simple sinners prayer the way the modern TV preachers do it. He did not. He told them what they MUST do. That is REPENT and be BAPTIZED. Water baptism as it something that "they" must do. If you cannot see that in the verse, I can only draw one conclusion. Your doctinal pre-conception has blinded you. You are fighting scripture. Bad bad bad! Sorry to have to be so frank, but that is how it is.

all the best...
Well if you deign to study Gods word you will discover that the word baptized in Acts 2:38 is baptizo in the greek. This is important because it helps us to determine what baptism Peter is speaking to. Baptizo is to submerge like a sunken vessel. Now if one is baptizo in water one would drown. Peter is speaking of Holy Spirit baptism and not water baptism in this verse. It is best to be bapto or dipped when speaking of water baptism and not baptizo.

For the cause of Christ
Roger

Freek
Mar 1st 2010, 07:47 PM
Well if you deign to study Gods word you will discover that the word baptized in Acts 2:38 is baptizo in the greek. This is important because it helps us to determine what baptism Peter is speaking to. Baptizo is to submerge like a sunken vessel. Now if one is baptizo in water one would drown. Peter is speaking of Holy Spirit baptism and not water baptism in this verse. It is best to be bapto or dipped when speaking of water baptism and not baptizo.

For the cause of Christ
Roger

Romans 6 is quite enlightning as to what baptism is. I wanted to quote a single scripture, verse 3, but the whole chapter must be read to understand the fullness of what Paul is teaching.

notuptome
Mar 1st 2010, 07:52 PM
One more thing....contrary to popuar belief....Paul was a lost sinner until he arose and was baptzed and WASHED HIS SINS AWAY!

all the best...
The only baptism that washes away sin is the baptizo baptism. The baptizo baptism is not administered by man but by the Lord Himself.

Now in Acts 9:17 Ananias said receive thy sight and be filled with the Holy Spirit not be baptized. Pletho is filled and it is the same as Peter in Acts 2:4.

When Paul identifies Jesus as Lord in Acts 9:6 I believe he was in fact saved.

For the cause of Christ
Roger

BroRog
Mar 1st 2010, 09:04 PM
Interesting question Rog but I think the question that begs would be can one be a disciple of Christ without being immersed in water? Can you show me a disciple of Jesus Christ this side of the “great commission” who was not baptized in water?Since the practice of baptism accompanied initiation into discipleship during that period of history, we would expect most if not all NT examples of discipleship to begin with Baptism. For this reason, Biblical examples wouldn't answer the question.


Jesus clearly commanded His disciples to “…go…teach…baptize.” I think the idea of an unbaptized Christian is an idea not entertained by Holy Writ. A true disciple of Christ will do *all that He has commanded* and He certainly has commanded baptism – ie - it is not an option. Would you agree?
I agree that followers of Jesus should obey his commandments. I wouldn't agree that all of his followers have been give the commission and neither would I agree that he commanded baptism for its own sake as if Baptism alone has some kind of intrinsic value. I believe that water baptism was a ritual initiation ceremony in which the initiate declares his or her desire to live according to the teachings of Jesus, i.e. to become his disciple. If that is the meaning of water baptism today, then I see nothing wrong with it. But also, if a person has become a disciple of Jesus already and his already walking according to his teaching, the ritual initiation ceremony is moot and unnecessary.

kay-gee
Mar 1st 2010, 09:07 PM
Peter is speaking of Holy Spirit baptism and not water baptism in this verse.

Then why did Jesus tell the diciples to "baptize" If Baptism is completly spiritual and a mystical act performed by the Holy Spirit?. Then what need is there for humans to be involved in it's administration?

Acts 2:37...it says men, brethern, what shall WE DO? something is required of them to "DO" at this point. Scripture says before that, that they were pricked in the heart. Belief had to have taken place at that point.....no? Yet there were yet required to "DO"

In the account of the eunuch, the only mention of any kind of baptism is water baptism (Acts 8:25-39) I would still like to know why the eunuch responded to the preaching of Philip in the way that he did, if water baptism was not included in the preaching of Philip. (verse 35)

Paul said himself that he baptised certain people whom he names. (1Cor 1:14-16) What does it mean..."he" baptized these people? you teach that the Holy Spirit baptises (and apparently without human help)

all the best...

kay-gee
Mar 1st 2010, 09:12 PM
When Paul identifies Jesus as Lord in Acts 9:6 I believe he was in fact saved.


Then what sins did he have to wash away after three days?

all the best...

notuptome
Mar 1st 2010, 09:15 PM
Then why did Jesus tell the diciples to "baptize" If Baptism is completly spiritual and a mystical act performed by the Holy Spirit?. Then what need is there for humans to be involved in it's administration?

Acts 2:37...it says men, brethern, what shall WE DO? something is required of them to "DO" at this point. Scripture says before that, that they were pricked in the heart. Belief had to have taken place at that point.....no? Yet there were yet required to "DO"
They needed to repent to change their thinking about Jesus. They needed to see Jesus as the promised Messiah and not as the Jews had supposed a false prophet.


In the account of the eunuch, the only mention of any kind of baptism is water baptism (Acts 8:25-39) I would still like to know why the eunuch responded to the preaching of Philip in the way that he did, if water baptism was not included in the preaching of Philip. (verse 35)

Paul said himself that he baptised certain people whom he names. (1Cor 1:14-16) What does it mean..."he" baptized these people? you teach that the Holy Spirit baptises (and apparently without human help)

all the best...
Water baptism is for those who have received Christ as their Saviour. It is rightfully called believers baptism sa it is for those who are already believers in Christ. Water baptism is an outward sign of a good conscience toward Christ. In the early church if a person professed to believe in Christ others would attempt to persuade him to recant untill he receied water baptism. After baptism he was counted as dead to those in his previous religion. Especially true of Jews and Islamics.

For the cause of Christ
Roger

kay-gee
Mar 1st 2010, 09:19 PM
Since the practice of baptism accompanied initiation into discipleship during that period of history, we would expect most if not all NT examples of discipleship to begin with Baptism. For this reason, Biblical examples wouldn't answer the question.

I agree that followers of Jesus should obey his commandments. I wouldn't agree that all of his followers have been give the commission and neither would I agree that he commanded baptism for its own sake as if Baptism alone has some kind of intrinsic value. I believe that water baptism was a ritual initiation ceremony in which the initiate declares his or her desire to live according to the teachings of Jesus, i.e. to become his disciple. If that is the meaning of water baptism today, then I see nothing wrong with it. But also, if a person has become a disciple of Jesus already and his already walking according to his teaching, the ritual initiation ceremony is moot and unnecessary.

So you are saying that Jesus gives unnecessary commandments? His ordained ordinances are of no intrisic value? Mere options to be followed or not at the choosing of the believer?


Let's see...would fornication and adultery fall into that category as well? A little drunkeness be OK as long as I'm a disciple and following most of His teachings?

all the best....

kay-gee
Mar 1st 2010, 09:26 PM
They needed to repent to change their thinking about Jesus. They needed to see Jesus as the promised Messiah and not as the Jews had supposed a false prophet.

Water baptism is for those who have received Christ as their Saviour. It is rightfully called believers baptism sa it is for those who are already believers in Christ. Water baptism is an outward sign of a good conscience toward Christ. In the early church if a person professed to believe in Christ others would attempt to persuade him to recant untill he receied water baptism. After baptism he was counted as dead to those in his previous religion. Especially true of Jews and Islamics.

For the cause of Christ


Roger

But now that equals two baptisms. Would you say then that there are really two baptisms? The water baptism is the only one mentioned in the account of the eunuch.

In Acts 2:38 it says repent..(no problem so far) but it says..." and be baptized for the remission of sins". You missed that again. I'm sorry notutome, but I can't let you off the hook. You have to deal with this verse.

If the baptism in Acts 2:41 is the spirit one as you say, then why did Philip preach something different to the eunuch? Why did Peter command water for Cornelius's house for baptism if that is not the baptism spoken of in Acts 2:38? According to you, even the apostles were a little confused over which baptism is which.


all the best...

notuptome
Mar 1st 2010, 09:27 PM
Then what sins did he have to wash away after three days?

all the best...
None. In Acts 9:17-18 we see Paul being filled with the Holy Spirit, he receives his sight, and then was baptised. So if Paul was filled with the Holy Spirit before he was baptised what purpose would the baptism have served? Water baptism for testimony's sake.

In Acts 22:16 Paul identifies his water baptism with the baptism of John which was a baptism to make one clean in a ceremonial sense.

To be received of the Jews in Jerusalem Paul would need every evidence of his conversion to be unimpeachable.

For the cause of Christ
Roger

notuptome
Mar 1st 2010, 09:34 PM
But now that equals two baptisms. Would you say then that there are really two baptisms? The water baptism is the only one mentioned in the account of the eunuch.
And the only requirement Philip stated was that he first believe in Christ according to the scriptures. Yes there are two baptisms one of the Holy Spirit which John said only Christ could administer and one of water for outward evidence of the inward baptism on the Holy Spirit. John 1:33


In Acts 2:38 is says repent..(no problem so far) but kit said..." and be baptized for the remission of sins. You missed that again. I'm sorry notutome, but I can't let you off the hook. You have to deal with this verse.

all the best...
Both verse 38 and 41 speak of Holy Spirit baptism through believeing the word Peter spoke to them concerning Jesus. how you get water in these verses is beyond me.

For the cause of Christ
Roger

kay-gee
Mar 1st 2010, 09:37 PM
The meaning of baptizo is dip, submerge. Not sure where you are trying to go with people drowning. Never heard of anyone in Bible drowning in the act of water baptism.

all the best...

losthorizon
Mar 1st 2010, 09:41 PM
I believe it is clear from scripture that a person is saved the moment they believe.


And I would say you are completely missing the words of Jesus – He states that not only must one believe but one must also be baptized in water and then one shall be saved. You need to review Holy Writ more closely –
“He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved...” (Mark 16:16)

"These words are very important. The first clause [belief and baptism] opposes the notion that faith alone is sufficient for salvation, without those works which are the fruit of faith" ~ Pulpit Commentary

losthorizon
Mar 1st 2010, 09:46 PM
I agree that followers of Jesus should obey his commandments. I wouldn't agree that all of his followers have been give the commission and neither would I agree that he commanded baptism for its own sake as if Baptism alone has some kind of intrinsic value.


Why do you think Jesus commanded baptism and can you give one example of an unbaptized Christian recorded in the NT? Is baptism optional in your theology? Does Jesus clearly state that both belief and baptism precede "shall be saved"?
He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved...” (Mark 16:16)

notuptome
Mar 1st 2010, 10:37 PM
And I would say you are completely missing the words of Jesus – He states that not only must one believe but one must also be baptized in water and then one shall be saved. You need to review Holy Writ more closely –
“He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved...” (Mark 16:16)

"These words are very important. The first clause [belief and baptism] opposes the notion that faith alone is sufficient for salvation, without those works which are the fruit of faith" ~ Pulpit Commentary
This is not water baptism but Holy Spirit baptism. The only baptism required to be saved is Holy Spirit baptism. You cannot find water baptism anywhere in this verse. Especially when you continue and see the admonition that he who believeth not is condemned. If the cause and effect you aledge were present then it would need to read he who is not water baptized is condemned but it ain't there in fact it ain't nowhere in the scripture.

For the cause of Christ
Roger

Butch5
Mar 1st 2010, 10:44 PM
This is not water baptism but Holy Spirit baptism. The only baptism required to be saved is Holy Spirit baptism. You cannot find water baptism anywhere in this verse. Especially when you continue and see the admonition that he who believeth not is condemned. If the cause and effect you aledge were present then it would need to read he who is not water baptized is condemned but it ain't there in fact it ain't nowhere in the scripture.

For the cause of Christ
Roger

So Jesus is telling the disciples that believers must be baptzed in the Spirit by men?


Mark 16:15-16 ( KJV )
And he said unto them, Go ye into all the world, and preach the gospel to every creature.
He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved; but he that believeth not shall be damned.

notuptome
Mar 1st 2010, 11:20 PM
The meaning of baptizo is dip, submerge. Not sure where you are trying to go with people drowning. Never heard of anyone in Bible drowning in the act of water baptism.

all the best...
You have taken the first step to understanding. Accoding to strongs 907 baptizo is not to be confused with 911 bapto. The clearest example that shows the meaning of baptizo is a text from the Greek poet and physicain Nicander, who lived about 200 BC. It is a recipe for making pickels and is helpful because it uses both words. Nicander says to make a pickel the vegatable is first dipped, bapto, in boiling water and then baptized in the vinegar solution. Both verbs concern the immersing the vegatable in a solution. The first is temporary. The second, the act of baptizing the vegatable produces a permanent change. When the word is used in the NT this word more often refers to our union and identification with Christ than to our water baptism. e.g. Mk 16:16 'he that believes and is baptized shall be saved'. Christ is saying mere intellectual assent is not enough. There must be real union with Him, a real change, like the vegatable into the pickel! (The Bible Study Magazine, James Montgomery Boice, May 1989)

Real union with Christ is effected not by dipping in water but by submersion in the Holy Spirit.

For the cause of Christ
Roger

losthorizon
Mar 1st 2010, 11:25 PM
This is not water baptism but Holy Spirit baptism.


You are quite mistaken my friend – the baptism commanded by Jesus in the ‘great commission’ (Mark 16:16) is an immersion in water. The passage clearly states the one who believes and is baptized in water shall be saved and the one who refuses to believe - whether baptized or not baptized shall be damned.

notuptome
Mar 1st 2010, 11:25 PM
So Jesus is telling the disciples that believers must be baptzed in the Spirit by men?
No reason for you act low brow.


Mark 16:15-16 ( KJV )
And he said unto them, Go ye into all the world, and preach the gospel to every creature.
He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved; but he that believeth not shall be damned.
Men are to preach the word and God will do the work of converting those who hear it. Christ alone can baptise with the Holy Spirit. All who hear and belive will be baptised in the Holy Spirit unto eternal life.

For the cause of Christ
Roger

notuptome
Mar 1st 2010, 11:36 PM
You are quite mistaken my friend – the baptism commanded by Jesus in the ‘great commission’ (Mark 16:16) is an immersion in water. The passage clearly states the one who believes and is baptized in water shall be saved and the one who refuses to believe - whether baptized or not baptized shall be damned.
Holy Spirit baptism is the only baptism that can save a soul. Your desire that it should be otherwise is what it is.

For the cause of Christ
Roger

losthorizon
Mar 1st 2010, 11:37 PM
Real union with Christ is effected not by dipping in water but by submersion in the Holy Spirit.


The biblical truth remains - the new birth consists of both *water and the Spirit* (John 3:5) and baptism in water represents our union with Christ as we are baptized into his death.
"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…

Baptism sets forth the death, burial, and resurrection of Christ, and our participation therein. Its teaching is twofold. First, think of our representative union with Christ, so that when he died and was buried it was on our behalf, and we were thus buried with him. This will give you the teaching of baptism so far as it sets forth a creed. We declare in baptism that we believe in the death of Jesus, and desire to partake in all the merit of it. But there is a second equally important matter and that is our realized union with Christ which is set forth in baptism, not so much as a doctrine of our creed as a matter of our experience. There is a manner of dying, of being buried, of rising, and of living in Christ which must be displayed in each one of us if we are indeed members of the body of Christ.

~ Baptism – A Burial, C. H. SPURGEON

kay-gee
Mar 1st 2010, 11:41 PM
None. In Acts 9:17-18 we see Paul being filled with the Holy Spirit, he receives his sight, and then was baptised. So if Paul was filled with the Holy Spirit before he was baptised what purpose would the baptism have served? Water baptism for testimony's sake.

[QUOTE]In Acts 22:16 Paul identifies his water baptism with the baptism of John which was a baptism to make one clean in a ceremonial sense.

But notuptome my, friend...The verse Acts 22:16 doesn't say that!

Why don't I let you post the verse here in its entirety....don't drop anything out please

all the best...

losthorizon
Mar 1st 2010, 11:41 PM
Holy Spirit baptism is the only baptism that can save a soul. Your desire that it should be otherwise is what it is.

For the cause of Christ
Roger
You remain very confused. It is the blood of Christ alone that completely saves - baptism in water is the answer of a good conscience towards God as it points to the resurrection of Christ and puts us into union with the Lord.

notuptome
Mar 1st 2010, 11:44 PM
The biblical truth remains - the new birth consists of both *water and the Spirit* (John 3:5) and baptism in water represents our union with Christ as we are baptized into his death.
"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…

Baptism sets forth the death, burial, and resurrection of Christ, and our participation therein. Its teaching is twofold. First, think of our representative union with Christ, so that when he died and was buried it was on our behalf, and we were thus buried with him. This will give you the teaching of baptism so far as it sets forth a creed. We declare in baptism that we believe in the death of Jesus, and desire to partake in all the merit of it. But there is a second equally important matter and that is our realized union with Christ which is set forth in baptism, not so much as a doctrine of our creed as a matter of our experience. There is a manner of dying, of being buried, of rising, and of living in Christ which must be displayed in each one of us if we are indeed members of the body of Christ.

~ Baptism – A Burial, C. H. SPURGEON
The symbolic purpose of water baptism is not in question. Water baptism is of no salvitic merit only as a means of demonstrating outwardly what has been experienced by the regeneration of the Holy Spirit.

For the cause of Christ
Roger

losthorizon
Mar 1st 2010, 11:50 PM
The symbolic purpose of water baptism is not in question. Water baptism is of no salvitic merit only as a means of demonstrating outwardly what has been experienced by the regeneration of the Holy Spirit.

For the cause of Christ
Roger
Baptism in water is what it has always been - an ordinance instituted and commanded by Jesus Christ that places the believer into the body of Christ - into union with the Lord. One new birth - two elements..."water and the Spirit."
Jesus answered, Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except a man be born of water and of the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God.
(John 3:5 KJV)

kay-gee
Mar 1st 2010, 11:54 PM
the only requirement Philip stated was that he first believe in Christ according to the scriptures

Highly doubtful according to the eunuchs response. He sounded pretty excited to see water. Bible says absolutely nothing about a "spiritual" baptism taking place at this time. If this is doctrine, why are there no biblical examples anywhere of someone hearing the gospel and being spiritually baptised?





Yes there are two baptisms

Oh Oh! Paul says in Ephesians 4:5 that there is ONE baptism. notuptome my friend, it's going from bad to worse. I am begging of you to examine the evidence. Look at the company this statement in Ephesians is keeping. If there are two baptisms, then maybe there are two spirits, Two Gods, two faiths.

all the best...

notuptome
Mar 1st 2010, 11:56 PM
You remain very confused. It is the blood of Christ alone that completely saves - baptism in water is the answer of a good conscience towards God as it points to the resurrection of Christ and puts us into union with the Lord.
The blood of Christ completely atones for my sin. The Holy Spirit is Gods agent of regeneration Who quickens me from dead in tresspass and sin into a new creation with eternal life in Christ.

Water baptism is a symbolic act of no salvitic merit.

For the cause of Christ
Roger

notuptome
Mar 2nd 2010, 12:06 AM
Highly doubtful according to the eunuchs response. He sounded pretty excited to see water. Bible says absolutely nothing about a "spiritual" baptism taking place at this time. If this is doctrine, why are there no biblical examples anywhere of someone hearing the gospel and being spiritually baptised?
The eunuch was excited to proclaim to all the world that he knew Christ as his Saviour. Everyone who was saved received the Holy Spirit baptism. Did you not receive a baptism of the Holy Spirit when you asked Christ to forgive you all your sins?


Oh Oh! Paul says in Ephesians 4:5 that there is ONE baptism. notuptome my friend, it's going from bad to worse. I am begging of you to examine the evidence. Look at the company this statement in Ephesians is keeping. If there are two baptisms, then maybe there are two spirits, Two Gods, two faiths.

all the best...
Oh No inane little word games. One Holy Spirit baptism for salvation. That men baptise with water and Jesus with the Holy Spirit there is no doubt. John 1:26 & 33 respectively.

For the cause of Christ
Roger

notuptome
Mar 2nd 2010, 12:12 AM
Baptism in water is what it has always been - an ordinance instituted and commanded by Jesus Christ that places the believer into the body of Christ - into union with the Lord. One new birth - two elements..."water and the Spirit."
Jesus answered, Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except a man be born of water and of the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God.
(John 3:5 KJV)
How can you say with all dogmatic certainty that the water in John 3:5 is literal water and is not symbolic of the word of God?

An argument for Jesus affirming the symbolic signifigance of water baptism is made by Jesus submitting to Johns baptism but it is clear that there is no reason to see it as anything more in the case of Jesus. The believer is placed in the body of Christ by grace through faith. Water baptism is simply symbolic of that Spiritual union.

For the cause of Christ
Roger

losthorizon
Mar 2nd 2010, 02:46 AM
Water baptism is a symbolic act of no salvitic merit.


Yes baptism is symbolic and symbols do mean something in God’s plan to save our race. Baptism symbolizes the waters of the Flood (1 Pet 3:21) where Peter presents the truth that our salvation is due to Christ’s work on the cross alone - but the application of this salvific event occurs at the point of baptism in water…
eight souls, were saved through water…whereunto even baptism doth also now save us (not the putting away of the filth of the flesh, but the answer of a good conscience toward God,) by the resurrection of Jesus Christ. (1 Peter 3:21 KJV)

Noah and his family were saved by water; i.e. it was the instrument of their being saved through the good providence of God. So the water of baptism, typifying the regenerating influence of the Holy Spirit, is the means of salvation to all those who receive this Holy Spirit in its quickening, cleansing efficacy. ~ Adam Clarke

kay-gee
Mar 2nd 2010, 03:43 AM
[QUOTE]The eunuch was excited to proclaim to all the world that he knew Christ as his Saviour.

All the world? There was noone present but him and Philip that we know of. I guess the excitement is not the same today. Many people claim to have been baptized in the spirit yet go months, years sometimes never to be water baptized.


Everyone who was saved received the Holy Spirit baptism.

The Bible says be baptized for the remission of sins and then recieve the Holy Spirit.



Did you not receive a baptism of the Spirit when you asked Christ to forgive you all your sins?

Nope. I wanted to do it the Biblical way.



Oh No inane little word games. One Holy Spirit baptism for salvation. That men baptise with water and Jesus with the Holy Spirit there is no doubt. John 1:26 & 33 respectively.

No word games. You just said there were in deed 2 baptisms. Which is it? I can provide you with many examples of water baptism in NT.

Please provide me with one. just one! example of someone praying or being led in prayer for salvation. This is what is taught today. It is not biblical

all the best...

Firstfruits
Mar 2nd 2010, 11:28 AM
Actually, when we have repented and been "baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ" then will our sins be remitted and we will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit.:)

According to what is written I agree.

Acts 2:38 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 Ghost.

Firstfruits

notuptome
Mar 2nd 2010, 01:01 PM
Yes baptism is symbolic and symbols do mean something in God’s plan to save our race. Baptism symbolizes the waters of the Flood (1 Pet 3:21) where Peter presents the truth that our salvation is due to Christ’s work on the cross alone - but the application of this salvific event occurs at the point of baptism in water…
eight souls, were saved through water…whereunto even baptism doth also now save us (not the putting away of the filth of the flesh, but the answer of a good conscience toward God,) by the resurrection of Jesus Christ. (1 Peter 3:21 KJV)

Noah and his family were saved by water; i.e. it was the instrument of their being saved through the good providence of God. So the water of baptism, typifying the regenerating influence of the Holy Spirit, is the means of salvation to all those who receive this Holy Spirit in its quickening, cleansing efficacy. ~ Adam Clarke
Baptism does not symbolize the waters of the flood. Rom 6:4 states that baptism symbolizes the death, burial and resurrection of Christ. Through water baptism we identify with Christs death, burial and resurrection. Noah and the flood are not seen as a type of beleivers baptism.

For the cause of Christ
Roger

notuptome
Mar 2nd 2010, 01:11 PM
All the world? There was noone present but him and Philip that we know of. I guess the excitement is not the same today. Many people claim to have been baptized in the spirit yet go months, years sometimes never to be water baptized.
Whats your point? Are you suggesting that these who have not submitted to water baptism are not saved?


The Bible says be baptized for the remission of sins and then recieve the Holy Spirit.
Yet it cannot be stated that the baptism to which you refer is water. The evidence is significant that it is in fact Holy Spirit baptism administered by Christ that is efficacious in the saving of the soul.


Nope. I wanted to do it the Biblical way.
Oh my!


No word games. You just said there were in deed 2 baptisms. Which is it? I can provide you with many examples of water baptism in NT.
John shows clearly that there are two baptisms. The water baptism that he John administered and the Holy Spirit baptism that only Christ can administer. John 1:26 water baptism John 1:33 Holy Spirit baptism.


Please provide me with one. just one! example of someone praying or being led in prayer for salvation. This is what is taught today. It is not biblical

all the best...
Rom 10:13 Whosoever shall call upon the name of the Lord shall be saved.

For the cause of Christ
Roger

notuptome
Mar 2nd 2010, 01:14 PM
According to what is written I agree.

Acts 2:38 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 Ghost.

Firstfruits
Interesting that a poster in contro has raised the question about this specific verse. If one who claims to be saved then sins and then repents does he/she need to be rebaptised to be restored to the Lord? If water baptism is required for the forgivness of sins then does it not follow that everytime we sin we need to be rebaptised?

For the cause of Christ
Roger

Butch5
Mar 2nd 2010, 01:34 PM
notuptome---No reason for you act low brow.

Not following you here.


notuptome---Men are to preach the word and God will do the work of converting those who hear it. Christ alone can baptise with the Holy Spirit. All who hear and believe will be baptised in the Holy Spirit unto eternal life.


But that is not what Jesus is saying. He is telling the disciples to go and baptize. You said this was Spiritual baptism. The only conclusion one can draw then is that it is the disciples who are to baptize with the Holy Spirit.

kay-gee
Mar 2nd 2010, 03:21 PM
[QUOTE]Whats your point? Are you suggesting that these who have not submitted to water baptism are not saved?

I am only responding to your quotes. You said the eunuch was baptised with the holy spirit which made him so joyful that he immediatly submitted to water baptism. I simply asked what changed?
Yet it cannot be stated that the baptism to which you refer is water. Sure it can. Acts 8:36 Acts 10:47 John 3:5 Heb 10:22 1Peter 3:21


The evidence is
significant that it is in fact Holy Spirit baptism administered by Christ that is efficacious in the saving of the soul. The Bible teaches that the spirit cannot fill someone yet in their sins. They must be washed away (remitted)


Oh my! Yes just imagine....
someone wanting to seek after "biblical" salvation. Does that strike you as a novel concept?
John shows clearly that there are two baptisms. The water baptism that he John administered and the Holy Spirit baptism that only Christ can administer. John 1:26 water baptism John 1:33 Holy Spirit baptism.Rom 10:13 Whosoever shall call upon the name of the Lord shall be saved.
I want an example of a conversion where someone either prayed to salvation or was led in prayer to salvation. a biblically recorded example. Just one.

John taches that the water and the spirit and the blood are all witnesses. They are in agreement. !John 5:6-7

all the best...

BroRog
Mar 2nd 2010, 04:42 PM
So you are saying that Jesus gives unnecessary commandments? His ordained ordinances are of no intrisic value? Mere options to be followed or not at the choosing of the believer?


Let's see...would fornication and adultery fall into that category as well? A little drunkeness be OK as long as I'm a disciple and following most of His teachings?

all the best....Let's be clear about the commandment. Jesus did NOT command that we get baptized. He commanded that the Apostles make disciples in his name. The ritual of Baptism was a cultural practice associated with becoming someone's disciple. If the ritual of baptism was associated with becoming a disciple of Jesus today, then it would be appropriate for a new believer to get baptized. But since baptism has a completely different meaning today, then it no longer serves the purpose that Jesus meant for it.

As compared with sexual purity and marital fidelity, which are intrinsically moral, baptism has extrinsic value gained from the context. For instance, taking a bath on Saturday night is a type of baptism, which doesn't necessarily have any sort of religious significance. But being immersed in a bath of water in a church is necessarily intended to have religious connotations. The meaning and significance of being dunked in water depends on the context in which the dunking takes place. Even in Christian circles, water baptism is used to symbolize different things in different churches. In some Christian churches, water baptism symbolizes our identification with Christ's death, burial, and resurrection. In other churches, water baptism symbolizes entrance into the body of Christ, and in other churches, baptism symbolizes church membership. The fact is, the symbol of baptism can mean anything a society wants it to mean because the act of being dunked into a tank of water has no significance of its own, other than the removal of dirt from the body.

Since whatever meaning we might place on the act of baptism does not belong to the act by its very nature, then churches are giving it a meaning according to what is significant to them. The water bath does nothing by itself but to wash the skin and act as an occasion for a ritual, public, physical declaration of whatever message we care to associate with it.

What matters, after all, is what meaning Jesus gave to it. Therefore, if a person wishes to obey Jesus, he or she will assign the meaning to the ritual of baptism that Jesus gave it, which is to associate the act of baptism with becoming his disciple. Ray Stedman wrote,


Therefore, this is what baptism means. It is your testimony to everyone that you have actually taken, by your inner commitment, the step of renouncing your old life of self-centeredness and, in response to the invitation of the Lord Jesus, having joined yourself to him, you have begun to follow him in the fullness of strength which he provides. Therefore you rise to walk in newness of life.
In a nutshell, this is the intended meaning of the rite of baptism in my opinion. But since this meaning does not belong to the act by its very nature, we distinguish the ritual act, which is not essential, from the meaning behind the act, which is essential. Being placed in water can mean anything, but dedication to a new life as a follower of Jesus means only one thing and this thing is the main thing.

notuptome
Mar 2nd 2010, 09:20 PM
Sure it can. Acts 8:36 Acts 10:47 John 3:5 Heb 10:22 1Peter 3:21
The eunuch received water baptism after he confessed his belief in Jesus. No dramatic evidence of the gifting of the Holy Spirit. Acts 8:36
Acts 10:47 is water baptism for those who had already evidenced the receiveing of the Holy Spirit.
John 3:5 is far less clear that it is literal water and may well be figurative language.
Heb 10:22 bodies washed with pure water. Bodies are not the soul which cannot be cleansed by water so I do not see salvitic merit in water in this verse.
1 Pet 3:21 Does not teach that water baptism saves but describes water baptism as a figure of Christ suffering in our place per vs 18.


Rom 10:13 Whosoever shall call upon the name of the Lord shall be saved.
I want an example of a conversion where someone either prayed to salvation or was led in prayer to salvation. a biblically recorded example. Just one.
The theif on the cross comes to mind first. Acts 16:30-31 where the Philippian jailer enquires and receives the answer of what he must do to be saved. Water baptism follows later and no dramatic manifestation of the Holy Spirit is evidenced.


John taches that the water and the spirit and the blood are all witnesses. They are in agreement. !John 5:6-7

all the best...
Verse seven is generally agreed to have no manuscript authority and has been inserted. verse five describes those who have come by water and blood as those who have believed that Jesus Christ is the Son of God. So is the water here literal water or a symbol of the word of God? I think this is the case because verse eight states that three bear witness in the earth the Holy Spirit, water and the blood. The Holy Spirit ministers to us through the word of God to testify of the atoning merits of Christs blood.

The Holy Spirit is given to believers when they receive Christ as their Saviour. The Holy Spirit is our seal that we are Christs. The Holy Spirit is given as an evidence that we are saved. Eph 1:14

For the cause of Christ
Roger

notuptome
Mar 2nd 2010, 09:24 PM
But that is not what Jesus is saying. He is telling the disciples to go and baptize. You said this was Spiritual baptism. The only conclusion one can draw then is that it is the disciples who are to baptize with the Holy Spirit.
The apostles and disciples were commanded to proclaim the word of God to every person. This would result in Christ baptising those who believe in the Holy Spirit. They were also to disciple the converts in the word of God that they might grow and become witnesses for Christ into the uttermost parts of the world.

For the cause of Christ
Roger

losthorizon
Mar 2nd 2010, 11:28 PM
Baptism does not symbolize the waters of the flood. Rom 6:4 states that baptism symbolizes the death, burial and resurrection of Christ. Through water baptism we identify with Christs death, burial and resurrection.


Baptism in water symbolizes many things in God’s economy – it symbolizes both the water of the flood that separated Noah from the ungodly and it pictures the believer’s death with Christ as we die to sin and are raised up out of the water to become a new creature “in Christ” (the new birth). Paul also demonstrates the connection between the physical rite of circumcision as a parallel to water baptism…

In Him you were also circumcised with the circumcision made without hands, by putting off the body of the sins of the flesh, by the circumcision of Christ, buried with Him in baptism, in which you also were raised with Him through faith in the working of God, who raised Him from the dead. And you, being dead in your trespasses and the uncircumcision of your flesh, He has made alive together with Him, having forgiven you all trespasses. (Colossians 2:11-14) The point remains – baptism in water is an essential part of the gospel of grace – belief, repentance and baptism all three precede “remission of sins”. Baptism is not optional - the NT does not know of an unbaptized Christian.


Noah and the flood are not seen as a type of beleivers baptism.
Only to those (you) who fail to grasp Peter’s comparison...
and this water symbolizes baptism that now saves you also—not the removal of dirt from the body but the pledge of a good conscience toward God. It saves you by the resurrection of Jesus Christ...1 Peter 3:21 (New International Version)What part of "this water symbolizes baptism that now saves you also" do you not understand? ;)

losthorizon
Mar 2nd 2010, 11:34 PM
Let's be clear about the commandment. Jesus did NOT command that we get baptized.
Actually, Rog - Jesus did include the command to be baptized in water in the "Great Commission"...
Go therefore and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, (Mat 28:19 ESV)This is not a 'suggestion' from the Lord to be baptized - it is a command to be baptized.
And now why tarriest thou? arise, and be baptized, and wash away thy sins, calling on the name of the Lord. (Act 22:16 KJV)

MaryFreeman
Mar 3rd 2010, 12:11 AM
True story....

While Peter was still speaking these words, the Holy Spirit fell upon all those who heard the word. And those of the circumcision who believed were astonished, as many as came with Peter, because the gift of the Holy Spirit had been poured out on the Gentiles also. For they heard them speak with tongues and magnify God. Then Peter answered, "Can anyone forbid water, that these should not be baptized who have received the Holy Spirit just as we have?"
Acts 10:44-47

Apparently we should be baptized with water and the Holy Spirit....

Equally apparently there isn't any spacific order....

Neat huh?

BTW.... I didn't find where anyone in Cornelius' house had prayed a sinners prayer.... Or whatever it is we must do to accept Christ....

Did you?

notuptome
Mar 3rd 2010, 01:02 AM
Actually, Rog - Jesus did include the command to be baptized in water in the "Great Commission"...
Go therefore and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, (Mat 28:19 ESV)This is not a 'suggestion' from the Lord to be baptized - it is a command to be baptized.
And now why tarriest thou? arise, and be baptized, and wash away thy sins, calling on the name of the Lord. (Act 22:16 KJV)
Yet we are saved by grace through faith and not by works of righteousness which we have done. Eph 2:8-9 Water baptism is unquestionably a work and not grace. The Lord Jesus did not command any works except belief with regard to our salvation. John 6:28-29 ...what shall we do that we might work the works of God? Jesus answered and said unto them, This is the work of God, that ye believe on Him whom He hath sent.

For the cause of Christ
Roger

losthorizon
Mar 3rd 2010, 04:16 AM
Yet we are saved by grace through faith and not by works of righteousness which we have done. Eph 2:8-9 Water baptism is unquestionably a work and not grace. The Lord Jesus did not command any works except belief with regard to our salvation. John 6:28-29 ...what shall we do that we might work the works of God? Jesus answered and said unto them, This is the work of God, that ye believe on Him whom He hath sent.


And yet the truth taught in Eph 2: 8-9 in no way negates the command of Jesus to believe and be baptized and then one shall be saved (Mk 16:16). The NT is clear - salvation is God’s gift and man is completely and finally saved by the blood of Jesus Christ. Salvation it is not dependent on “our works of merit”, i.e., we cannot “earn” God’s favor through self-righteousness. But Holy Writ also clearly tells us there are two kinds of works – (1) works of “merit” done to "earn" something and (2) works of "faith" done to "receive" something. Works of faith are required by God – they are referred to as "works of God", i.e., “that we might work the works of God.” Faith, repentance and baptism are all commanded by God and thus when one obeys God’s commands from the heart that person is doing the “work of God.

Martin Luther – the man credited with coining the term “saved by faith alone” as he rejected the RCC practice of “works of merit” understood the concept that the “works of God" are essential to the gospel message. Luther never taught what many today teach – that we are saved by a simple mental assent to the Lordship of Jesus Christ. Holy Writ has always taught that man must work the works of God and the works of God include faith, repentance and baptism for the remission of sins (Acts 2:38).

He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved; but he that believeth not shall be damned..
In these words you must note, in the first place, that here stand God's commandment and institution, lest we doubt that Baptism is divine, not devised nor invented by men…the world is now so full of sects clamoring that Baptism is an external thing, and that external things are of no benefit. But let it be ever so much an external thing here stand God's Word and command which institute, establish, and confirm Baptism… But if they say, as they are accustomed: Still Baptism is itself a work, and you say works are of no avail for salvation; what then, becomes of faith? Answer: Yes, our works, indeed, avail nothing for salvation; Baptism, however, is not our work, but God's… ~ Martin LutherNo my friend - you can wrestle with the word of God all you want but the truth remains the truth - the ordinance of baptism was instituted and commanded by Jesus Christ and it is an essential part of the gospel of grace and this by God's design. If you have not obeyed our Lord in baptism - why have you not...
...arise, and be baptized, and wash away thy sins, calling on the name of the Lord

Butch5
Mar 3rd 2010, 11:37 AM
Yet we are saved by grace through faith and not by works of righteousness which we have done. Eph 2:8-9 Water baptism is unquestionably a work and not grace. The Lord Jesus did not command any works except belief with regard to our salvation. John 6:28-29 ...what shall we do that we might work the works of God? Jesus answered and said unto them, This is the work of God, that ye believe on Him whom He hath sent.

For the cause of Christ
Roger

Roger,

When you read Ephesians 2:8 you must read the entire passage to fully understand what Paul is saying. You have taken Eph. 2:8 and claimed that anything man does is a work that cannot save. That is not what Paul is saying. When we look at the entire passage we see.


Ephesians 2:4-19 ( KJV )
But God, who is rich in mercy, for his great love wherewith he loved us,
Even when we were dead in sins, hath quickened us together with Christ, (by grace ye are saved: ) And hath raised us up together, and made us sit together in heavenly places in Christ Jesus: That in the ages to come he might show the exceeding riches of his grace in his kindness toward us through Christ Jesus.
For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God:
Not of works, lest any man should boast.
For we are his workmanship, created in Christ Jesus unto good works, which God hath before ordained that we should walk in them.
Wherefore remember, that ye being in time past Gentiles in the flesh, who are called Uncircumcision by that which is called the Circumcision in the flesh made by hands;
That at that time ye were without Christ, being aliens from the commonwealth of Israel, and strangers from the covenants of promise, having no hope, and without God in the world:
But now in Christ Jesus ye who sometimes were far off are made nigh by the blood of Christ.
For he is our peace, who hath made both one, and hath broken down the middle wall of partition between us; Having abolished in his flesh the enmity, even the law of commandments contained in ordinances; for to make in himself of twain one new man, so making peace;
And that he might reconcile both unto God in one body by the cross, having slain the enmity thereby:
And came and preached peace to you which were afar off, and to them that were nigh.
For through him we both have access by one Spirit unto the Father.
Now therefore ye are no more strangers and foreigners, but fellowcitizens with the saints, and of the household of God;

Paul tells the Ephesians Gentiles that at one time they were outside of the covenant made with Israel and without God in the world. This is the context of the Gentiles being saved by grace. Paul goes on to tell them how God saved them by grace. When Christ came He abolished "The law of commandments contained in ordinances". He broke down that wall of partition that separated Jew and Gentile, and reconciled the two to God.

Paul's mention of works is clearly connected with the Jewish law. The Gentiles were outside of the covenant that God had made with Israel. The Covenant was the OT Law and it "Did not" require baptism. therefore baptism "cannot" be one of the works that Paul is speaking of in Eph. 2:8. The works that "Cannot" save are the works of the Mosaic Law. A major issue that Paul faced was Jewish Christians telling Gentile Christians that in order to be saved they would need to keep the Mosaic Law in addition to faith. This was the reason Paul went to Jerusalem and met with the apostles the Jerusalem council, we see this in Acts 15.

Acts 15:1-2 ( KJV )
And certain men which came down from Judaea taught the brethren, and said, Except ye be circumcised after the manner of Moses, ye cannot be saved. When therefore Paul and Barnabas had no small dissension and disputation with them, they determined that Paul and Barnabas, and certain other of them, should go up to Jerusalem unto the apostles and elders about this question.

It seems this must have been a few big problem that Paul was dealing with if he made a special trip all the way to Jerusalem. Also remember Paul was an apostle of Jesus Christ, it would seem that if he said something then that was it, that's the way it would be. However, it seems many did not accept Paul's authority or he would not have needed to go to Jerusalem and seek the backing of the other apostles. Look what we find at the council.


Acts 15:6-29 ( KJV )
And the apostles and elders came together for to consider of this matter.
And when there had been much disputing, Peter rose up, and said unto them, Men and brethren, ye know how that a good while ago God made choice among us, that the Gentiles by my mouth should hear the word of the gospel, and believe.
And God, which knoweth the hearts, bare them witness, giving them the Holy Ghost, even as he did unto us;
And put no difference between us and them, purifying their hearts by faith.
Now therefore why tempt ye God, to put a yoke upon the neck of the disciples, which neither our fathers nor we were able to bear? But we believe that through the grace of the Lord Jesus Christ we shall be saved, even as they.
Then all the multitude kept silence, and gave audience to Barnabas and Paul, declaring what miracles and wonders God had wrought among the Gentiles by them.
And after they had held their peace, James answered, saying, Men and brethren, hearken unto me: Simeon hath declared how God at the first did visit the Gentiles, to take out of them a people for his name. And to this agree the words of the prophets; as it is written,
After this I will return, and will build again the tabernacle of David, which is fallen down; and I will build again the ruins thereof, and I will set it up:
That the residue of men might seek after the Lord, and all the Gentiles, upon whom my name is called, saith the Lord, who doeth all these things.
Known unto God are all his works from the beginning of the world.
Wherefore my sentence is, that we trouble not them, which from among the Gentiles are turned to God: But that we write unto them, that they abstain from pollutions of idols, and from fornication, and from things strangled, and from blood. For Moses of old time hath in every city them that preach him, being read in the synagogues every sabbath day.
Then pleased it the apostles and elders, with the whole church, to send chosen men of their own company to Antioch with Paul and Barnabas; namely, Judas surnamed Barsabas, and Silas, chief men among the brethren:
And they wrote letters by them after this manner; The apostles and elders and brethren send greeting unto the brethren which are of the Gentiles in Antioch and Syria and Cilicia:
Forasmuch as we have heard, that certain which went out from us have troubled you with words, subverting your souls, saying, Ye must be circumcised, and keep the law: to whom we gave no such commandment:
It seemed good unto us, being assembled with one accord, to send chosen men unto you with our beloved Barnabas and Paul,
Men that have hazarded their lives for the name of our Lord Jesus Christ.
We have sent therefore Judas and Silas, who shall also tell you the same things by mouth.
For it seemed good to the Holy Ghost, and to us, to lay upon you no greater burden than these necessary things; That ye abstain from meats offered to idols, and from blood, and from things strangled, and from fornication: from which if ye keep yourselves, ye shall do well. Fare ye well.

The first thing we see is that prior to this meeting there had been no official position on this. However, we that the Holy Spirit lead the apostles to declare that it was not necessary to keep the Law or circumcision in order to be saved. The only thing added to what the Gentile Christians had already done to be saved was to abstain from fornication, meats offered to idols and from things strangled. These were added to what the Gentile believers had already done to be saved. Baptism was one of those things they had already done. When we look at the entire picture it becomes quite clear that Paul is "Not" speaking of baptism when he says "not of works." He also made this clear in Titus 3:5 when he said,

Titus 3:4-5 ( KJV )
But after that the kindness and love of God our Saviour toward man appeared,
Not by works of righteousness which we have done, but according to his mercy he saved us, by the washing of regeneration, and renewing of the Holy Ghost;

according to Paul the washing of regeneration is not a work of righteousness that we have done. The question is what does Paul mean by "Works of righteousness"? Does he mean any good thing we do or does he have something more specific in mind. Well, we are not left wanting for an answer. We can understand what the phrase "Works of righteousness" means to Paul.


Romans 10:1-6 ( KJV )
Brethren, my heart’s desire and prayer to God for Israel is, that they might be saved.
For I bear them record that they have a zeal of God, but not according to knowledge.
For they being ignorant of God’s righteousness, and going about to establish their own righteousness, have not submitted themselves unto the righteousness of God.
For Christ is the end of the law for righteousness to every one that believeth.
For Moses describeth the righteousness which is of the law, That the man which doeth those things shall live by them.
But the righteousness which is of faith speaketh on this wise, Say not in thine heart, Who shall ascend into heaven? (that is, to bring Christ down from above: )

Paul says that Israel in seeking to establish "Their own righteousness." a few verses later we see that this righteousness was by the Law and not by faith. we also see it here,


Philippians 3:9 ( KJV )
And be found in him, not having mine own righteousness, which is of the law, but that which is through the faith of Christ, the righteousness which is of God by faith:

So we see that to Paul "Works of righteousness we have done" are works of the Law (which cannot save). Paul says that baptism is not one of these.

notuptome
Mar 3rd 2010, 12:41 PM
And yet the truth taught in Eph 2: 8-9 in no way negates the command of Jesus to believe and be baptized and then one shall be saved (Mk 16:16). The NT is clear - salvation is God’s gift and man is completely and finally saved by the blood of Jesus Christ. Salvation it is not dependent on “our works of merit”, i.e., we cannot “earn” God’s favor through self-righteousness. But Holy Writ also clearly tells us there are two kinds of works – (1) works of “merit” done to "earn" something and (2) works of "faith" done to "receive" something. Works of faith are required by God – they are referred to as "works of God", i.e., “that we might work the works of God.” Faith, repentance and baptism are all commanded by God and thus when one obeys God’s commands from the heart that person is doing the “work of God.

Martin Luther – the man credited with coining the term “saved by faith alone” as he rejected the RCC practice of “works of merit” understood the concept that the “works of God" are essential to the gospel message. Luther never taught what many today teach – that we are saved by a simple mental assent to the Lordship of Jesus Christ. Holy Writ has always taught that man must work the works of God and the works of God include faith, repentance and baptism for the remission of sins (Acts 2:38).

He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved; but he that believeth not shall be damned..
In these words you must note, in the first place, that here stand God's commandment and institution, lest we doubt that Baptism is divine, not devised nor invented by men…the world is now so full of sects clamoring that Baptism is an external thing, and that external things are of no benefit. But let it be ever so much an external thing here stand God's Word and command which institute, establish, and confirm Baptism… But if they say, as they are accustomed: Still Baptism is itself a work, and you say works are of no avail for salvation; what then, becomes of faith? Answer: Yes, our works, indeed, avail nothing for salvation; Baptism, however, is not our work, but God's… ~ Martin LutherNo my friend - you can wrestle with the word of God all you want but the truth remains the truth - the ordinance of baptism was instituted and commanded by Jesus Christ and it is an essential part of the gospel of grace and this by God's design. If you have not obeyed our Lord in baptism - why have you not...
...arise, and be baptized, and wash away thy sins, calling on the name of the Lord
The only baptism that can be designated as divine is Holy Spirit baptism. Martin Luther would certainly know this. You however do not nor have you presented that he is refering to water in the quote you supply.

Paul said that when we add works to grace then grace is no longer grace but works. You cannot merit or earn the gift of eternal life. All that you can do is receive the gift that Christ has provided at great cost to Himself.

For the cause of Christ
Roger

notuptome
Mar 3rd 2010, 12:56 PM
Roger,

When you read Ephesians 2:8 you must read the entire passage to fully understand what Paul is saying. You have taken Eph. 2:8 and claimed that anything man does is a work that cannot save. That is not what Paul is saying. When we look at the entire passage we see.


Ephesians 2:4-19 ( KJV )
But God, who is rich in mercy, for his great love wherewith he loved us,
Even when we were dead in sins, hath quickened us together with Christ, (by grace ye are saved: ) And hath raised us up together, and made us sit together in heavenly places in Christ Jesus: That in the ages to come he might show the exceeding riches of his grace in his kindness toward us through Christ Jesus.
For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God:
Not of works, lest any man should boast.
For we are his workmanship, created in Christ Jesus unto good works, which God hath before ordained that we should walk in them.
Wherefore remember, that ye being in time past Gentiles in the flesh, who are called Uncircumcision by that which is called the Circumcision in the flesh made by hands;
That at that time ye were without Christ, being aliens from the commonwealth of Israel, and strangers from the covenants of promise, having no hope, and without God in the world:
But now in Christ Jesus ye who sometimes were far off are made nigh by the blood of Christ.
For he is our peace, who hath made both one, and hath broken down the middle wall of partition between us; Having abolished in his flesh the enmity, even the law of commandments contained in ordinances; for to make in himself of twain one new man, so making peace;
And that he might reconcile both unto God in one body by the cross, having slain the enmity thereby:
And came and preached peace to you which were afar off, and to them that were nigh.
For through him we both have access by one Spirit unto the Father.
Now therefore ye are no more strangers and foreigners, but fellowcitizens with the saints, and of the household of God;

Paul tells the Ephesians Gentiles that at one time they were outside of the covenant made with Israel and without God in the world. This is the context of the Gentiles being saved by grace. Paul goes on to tell them how God saved them by grace. When Christ came He abolished "The law of commandments contained in ordinances". He broke down that wall of partition that separated Jew and Gentile, and reconciled the two to God.

Paul's mention of works is clearly connected with the Jewish law. The Gentiles were outside of the covenant that God had made with Israel. The Covenant was the OT Law and it "Did not" require baptism. therefore baptism "cannot" be one of the works that Paul is speaking of in Eph. 2:8. The works that "Cannot" save are the works of the Mosaic Law. A major issue that Paul faced was Jewish Christians telling Gentile Christians that in order to be saved they would need to keep the Mosaic Law in addition to faith. This was the reason Paul went to Jerusalem and met with the apostles the Jerusalem council, we see this in Acts 15.

Acts 15:1-2 ( KJV )
And certain men which came down from Judaea taught the brethren, and said, Except ye be circumcised after the manner of Moses, ye cannot be saved. When therefore Paul and Barnabas had no small dissension and disputation with them, they determined that Paul and Barnabas, and certain other of them, should go up to Jerusalem unto the apostles and elders about this question.

It seems this must have been a few big problem that Paul was dealing with if he made a special trip all the way to Jerusalem. Also remember Paul was an apostle of Jesus Christ, it would seem that if he said something then that was it, that's the way it would be. However, it seems many did not accept Paul's authority or he would not have needed to go to Jerusalem and seek the backing of the other apostles. Look what we find at the council.


Acts 15:6-29 ( KJV )
And the apostles and elders came together for to consider of this matter.
And when there had been much disputing, Peter rose up, and said unto them, Men and brethren, ye know how that a good while ago God made choice among us, that the Gentiles by my mouth should hear the word of the gospel, and believe.
And God, which knoweth the hearts, bare them witness, giving them the Holy Ghost, even as he did unto us;
And put no difference between us and them, purifying their hearts by faith.
Now therefore why tempt ye God, to put a yoke upon the neck of the disciples, which neither our fathers nor we were able to bear? But we believe that through the grace of the Lord Jesus Christ we shall be saved, even as they.
Then all the multitude kept silence, and gave audience to Barnabas and Paul, declaring what miracles and wonders God had wrought among the Gentiles by them.
And after they had held their peace, James answered, saying, Men and brethren, hearken unto me: Simeon hath declared how God at the first did visit the Gentiles, to take out of them a people for his name. And to this agree the words of the prophets; as it is written,
After this I will return, and will build again the tabernacle of David, which is fallen down; and I will build again the ruins thereof, and I will set it up:
That the residue of men might seek after the Lord, and all the Gentiles, upon whom my name is called, saith the Lord, who doeth all these things.
Known unto God are all his works from the beginning of the world.
Wherefore my sentence is, that we trouble not them, which from among the Gentiles are turned to God: But that we write unto them, that they abstain from pollutions of idols, and from fornication, and from things strangled, and from blood. For Moses of old time hath in every city them that preach him, being read in the synagogues every sabbath day.
Then pleased it the apostles and elders, with the whole church, to send chosen men of their own company to Antioch with Paul and Barnabas; namely, Judas surnamed Barsabas, and Silas, chief men among the brethren:
And they wrote letters by them after this manner; The apostles and elders and brethren send greeting unto the brethren which are of the Gentiles in Antioch and Syria and Cilicia:
Forasmuch as we have heard, that certain which went out from us have troubled you with words, subverting your souls, saying, Ye must be circumcised, and keep the law: to whom we gave no such commandment:
It seemed good unto us, being assembled with one accord, to send chosen men unto you with our beloved Barnabas and Paul,
Men that have hazarded their lives for the name of our Lord Jesus Christ.
We have sent therefore Judas and Silas, who shall also tell you the same things by mouth.
For it seemed good to the Holy Ghost, and to us, to lay upon you no greater burden than these necessary things; That ye abstain from meats offered to idols, and from blood, and from things strangled, and from fornication: from which if ye keep yourselves, ye shall do well. Fare ye well.

The first thing we see is that prior to this meeting there had been no official position on this. However, we that the Holy Spirit lead the apostles to declare that it was not necessary to keep the Law or circumcision in order to be saved. The only thing added to what the Gentile Christians had already done to be saved was to abstain from fornication, meats offered to idols and from things strangled. These were added to what the Gentile believers had already done to be saved. Baptism was one of those things they had already done. When we look at the entire picture it becomes quite clear that Paul is "Not" speaking of baptism when he says "not of works." He also made this clear in Titus 3:5 when he said,

Titus 3:4-5 ( KJV )
But after that the kindness and love of God our Saviour toward man appeared,
Not by works of righteousness which we have done, but according to his mercy he saved us, by the washing of regeneration, and renewing of the Holy Ghost;

according to Paul the washing of regeneration is not a work of righteousness that we have done. The question is what does Paul mean by "Works of righteousness"? Does he mean any good thing we do or does he have something more specific in mind. Well, we are not left wanting for an answer. We can understand what the phrase "Works of righteousness" means to Paul.


Romans 10:1-6 ( KJV )
Brethren, my heart’s desire and prayer to God for Israel is, that they might be saved.
For I bear them record that they have a zeal of God, but not according to knowledge.
For they being ignorant of God’s righteousness, and going about to establish their own righteousness, have not submitted themselves unto the righteousness of God.
For Christ is the end of the law for righteousness to every one that believeth.
For Moses describeth the righteousness which is of the law, That the man which doeth those things shall live by them.
But the righteousness which is of faith speaketh on this wise, Say not in thine heart, Who shall ascend into heaven? (that is, to bring Christ down from above: )

Paul says that Israel in seeking to establish "Their own righteousness." a few verses later we see that this righteousness was by the Law and not by faith. we also see it here,


Philippians 3:9 ( KJV )
And be found in him, not having mine own righteousness, which is of the law, but that which is through the faith of Christ, the righteousness which is of God by faith:

So we see that to Paul "Works of righteousness we have done" are works of the Law (which cannot save). Paul says that baptism is not one of these.
We are created unto good works after we are saved by grace through faith. Good works do not save only grace. Water baptism is a good work even though it is not listed in the Mosaic law. The Jews had a lot of ritual washings or baptisms for cleansing in their worship. None of these were able to provide eternal life.

You look to the lesser baptism of John and discount the greater baptism of Jesus.

Either you are saved by grace or you are saved by works the two do not mix together. In fact Paul tells us they are mutually exclusive.

For the cause of Christ
Roger

kay-gee
Mar 3rd 2010, 01:11 PM
Great so far notuptome, but what you are having difficulty grasping is....HOW Christ is recieved!

You seem to be saying that Christ just sort of jumps into you, whenever and where ever you happen to be. No biblical support for this notion. What we are saying, is that Christ can only be recieved into a vessel that has been washed of sin. That is water baptism!

Baptism is a transaction. It is a door way. It is where the blood of Christ comes into contact with YOU. (Rom 6)(Gal 3:27) It is the door into the kingdom.(John 3:5) You cannot remain oblivious to this verse. WATER and SPIRIT

Exodus chapter 12. Question... at what point was the command of God fulfilled in saving the lives of the first born. When the animal was killed and its blood shed, or was it when it was sprinked upon the door post? I think of baptism as taking the blood shed for me by Christ and putting on my door post as a sign to the angel of death to pass over me. (eternal life)

I'm speaking metaphorically of course, but I am trying to create a picture for you to see.

all the best...

notuptome
Mar 3rd 2010, 01:49 PM
Great so far notuptome, but what you are having difficulty grasping is....HOW Christ is recieved!

You seem to be saying that Christ just sort of jumps into you, whenever and where ever you happen to be. No biblical support for this notion. What we are saying, is that Christ can only be recieved into a vessel that has been washed of sin. That is water baptism!

Baptism is a transaction. It is a door way. It is where the blood of Christ comes into contact with YOU. (Rom 6)(Gal 3:27) It is the door into the kingdom.(John 3:5) You cannot remain oblivious to this verse. WATER and SPIRIT

Exodus chapter 12. Question... at what point was the command of God fulfilled in saving the lives of the first born. When the animal was killed and its blood shed, or was it when it was sprinked upon the door post? I think of baptism as taking the blood shed for me by Christ and putting on my door post as a sign to the angel of death to pass over me. (eternal life)

I'm speaking metaphorically of course, but I am trying to create a picture for you to see.

all the best...
Christ is received by faith and faith that comes by hearing the word of God. The Holy Spirit draws men to Christ by bringing conviction of sin, righteousness, and judgement. John 16:8-11

Christ has offered His blood into the holy place in heaven for me. Heb 9:11-15 Christ has done all that is necessary to give me eternal life. All I can do is receive it by faith. Faith is not water baptism. Faith is not something that can be touched or tasted only trusted.

For the cause of Christ
Roger

Butch5
Mar 3rd 2010, 02:39 PM
The apostles and disciples were commanded to proclaim the word of God to every person. This would result in Christ baptising those who believe in the Holy Spirit. They were also to disciple the converts in the word of God that they might grow and become witnesses for Christ into the uttermost parts of the world.

For the cause of Christ
Roger

Roger, that is not what Jesus is telling them. He said Go and baptize, if as you say this is Spiritual baptism then it is done by men not Christ.

notuptome
Mar 3rd 2010, 03:12 PM
Roger, that is not what Jesus is telling them. He said Go and baptize, if as you say this is Spiritual baptism then it is done by men not Christ.
Declare to them the gospel. Disciple them in the word of God. After they have received the Holy Spirit through the new birth in Christ by all means baptise them in water. Get them saved explain the purpose of water baptism then allow them to receive it as unto the Lord.

To give the lesser baptism preference over the greater is not prudent.

For the cause of Christ
Roger

Butch5
Mar 3rd 2010, 03:15 PM
We are created unto good works after we are saved by grace through faith. Good works do not save only grace. Water baptism is a good work even though it is not listed in the Mosaic law. The Jews had a lot of ritual washings or baptisms for cleansing in their worship. None of these were able to provide eternal life.

You look to the lesser baptism of John and discount the greater baptism of Jesus.

Either you are saved by grace or you are saved by works the two do not mix together. In fact Paul tells us they are mutually exclusive.

For the cause of Christ
Roger

Roger, you miss the point. You do not have the authority to define works. That authority is found in the Scriptures. You cannot say what is and is not works. Paul has made it clear that the works he speaks of are works of the Mosaic Law. You have no authority to claim otherwise. Likewise with grace. If Paul has stated that baptism is not a work then it is not a work. If that does not fit your theology then it must be your theology that changes not the meaning of the words of Scripture. Paul clearly states "not having mine own righteousness which is of the Law," These are the works that Paul says cannot save. For you to claim that anything one does is a work goes beyond anything Paul had in mind when he wrote Ephesians 2, which means you are taking his quotes out of context.

It is the same for grace, the Scriptures define what grace is, not man. Please show me "ANYTHING" in the definition of "Charis" that would make it void if conditions were added.

You see your position is illogical. To say that anything we do nullifies grace is to say that believing nullifies grace, yet you say one must believe. If anything added to grace nullifies it, then belief and repentance would nullify it.

Butch5
Mar 3rd 2010, 03:21 PM
Declare to them the gospel. Disciple them in the word of God. After they have received the Holy Spirit through the new birth in Christ by all means baptise them in water. Get them saved explain the purpose of water baptism then allow them to receive it as unto the Lord.

To give the lesser baptism preference over the greater is not prudent.

For the cause of Christ
Roger

You are avoiding the issue. You are claiming that the baptism that Jesus is speaking of is Spiritual. The baptism He is speaking of, He told the apostles to perform. If this is Spiritual baptism then it is done by men not Christ. Are you holding to the position that Spiritual baptism comes from men?

notuptome
Mar 3rd 2010, 03:31 PM
You are avoiding the issue. You are claiming that the baptism that Jesus is speaking of is Spiritual. The baptism He is speaking of, He told the apostles to perform. If this is Spiritual baptism then it is done by men not Christ. Are you holding to the position that Spiritual baptism comes from men?
I see it as I have explained many times that Christ baptises with the Holy Spirit at the moment a sinner receives Christ as his/her personal Saviour. Water baptism is an earthly ordinance. Water baptism does not make a person any more or less saved. Men cannot baptise with the Holy Spirit. Water baptism cannot save.

Are you holding a position that water baptism can cleanse a soul from sin? Is it necessary to be baptised in water everytime we sin?

For the cause of Christ
Roger

MaryFreeman
Mar 3rd 2010, 03:32 PM
Declare to them the gospel. Disciple them in the word of God. After they have received the Holy Spirit through the new birth in Christ by all means baptise them in water. Get them saved explain the purpose of water baptism then allow them to receive it as unto the Lord.

To give the lesser baptism preference over the greater is not prudent.

For the cause of Christ
Roger
Pardon the interjection sir but I posted something that was from Acts.... I don't know if you saw it....

It was when Peter was at Cornelius' house....

Can you share thoughts on that? It seemed no order was necessary?

Now I am not saying that we cannot have order in our services.... What I am saying is that the Holy Spirit does not need order.... We do .... What do you think?

John146
Mar 3rd 2010, 03:33 PM
Oh Oh! Paul says in Ephesians 4:5 that there is ONE baptism. notuptome my friend, it's going from bad to worse. I am begging of you to examine the evidence. Look at the company this statement in Ephesians is keeping. If there are two baptisms, then maybe there are two spirits, Two Gods, two faiths.Clearly, scripture speaks of more than one baptism. Jesus said that John baptized with water (there's one baptism) but He would baptize with the Holy Spirit (there's another). There is one baptism that places us in the one body. That is the context of Ephesians 4.

Eph 4
4There is one body, and one Spirit, even as ye are called in one hope of your calling;
5One Lord, one faith, one baptism,

What is the baptism that places us in the body?

1 Cor 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.

I quoted this from the KJV, but since Jesus said He would baptized with the Holy Spirit I believe a better translation of the Greek word en would be "with one Spirit..." rather than "by one Spirit". Jesus baptizes us with the Holy Spirit, does He not? When does He do that in relation to water baptism? Is water baptism required in order for Jesus to baptize us with the Holy Spirit? That does not appear to be the case:

Acts 10
43To him give all the prophets witness, that through his name whosoever believeth in him shall receive remission of sins.
44While Peter yet spake these words, the Holy Ghost fell on all them which heard the word.
45And 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.
46For they heard them speak with tongues, and magnify God. Then answered Peter,
47Can any man forbid water, that these should not be baptized, which have received the Holy Ghost as well as we?
48And he commanded them to be baptized in the name of the Lord. Then prayed they him to tarry certain days.

In this scenario we see people being baptized with the Holy Spirit before they were baptized in water. We know that they were baptized with the Holy Spirit because receiving the gift of the Holy Spirit is directly related to being baptized with the Holy Spirit.

Prophecy made by Jesus:

Acts 1:5 For John truly baptized with water; but ye shall be baptized with the Holy Ghost not many days hence.

Fulfillment of the prophecy:

Acts 2
1And when the day of Pentecost was fully come, they were all with one accord in one place.
2And suddenly there came a sound from heaven as of a rushing mighty wind, and it filled all the house where they were sitting.
3And there appeared unto them cloven tongues like as of fire, and it sat upon each of them.
4And they were all filled with the Holy Ghost, and began to speak with other tongues, as the Spirit gave them utterance.

Clearly, there is a difference between the baptism with the Holy Spirit and water baptism. Nowhere does it say that the baptism with the Holy Spirit happens at the same time as water baptism.

BroRog
Mar 3rd 2010, 03:33 PM
Actually, Rog - Jesus did include the command to be baptized in water in the "Great Commission"...
Go therefore and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, (Mat 28:19 ESV)This is not a 'suggestion' from the Lord to be baptized - it is a command to be baptized.
And now why tarriest thou? arise, and be baptized, and wash away thy sins, calling on the name of the Lord. (Act 22:16 KJV)

I don't see that being baptized is part of the command. Again, baptism was simply a cultural practice. The actual command is to make disciples in his name.

Butch5
Mar 3rd 2010, 03:34 PM
I don't see that being baptized is part of the command. Again, baptism was simply a cultural practice. The actual command is to make disciples in his name.

How does one make disciples?

Butch5
Mar 3rd 2010, 03:37 PM
I see it as I have explained many times that Christ baptises with the Holy Spirit at the moment a sinner receives Christ as his/her personal Saviour. Water baptism is an earthly ordinance. Water baptism does not make a person any more or less saved. Men cannot baptise with the Holy Spirit. Water baptism cannot save.

Are you holding a position that water baptism can cleanse a soul from sin? Is it necessary to be baptised in water everytime we sin?

For the cause of Christ
Roger

Yes, water baptsim is one component is the cleasiing of souls. No, it is not necesary but once, for sin committed prior to faith in Christ.

Butch5
Mar 3rd 2010, 03:39 PM
I see it as I have explained many times that Christ baptises with the Holy Spirit at the moment a sinner receives Christ as his/her personal Saviour. Water baptism is an earthly ordinance. Water baptism does not make a person any more or less saved. Men cannot baptise with the Holy Spirit. Water baptism cannot save.

Are you holding a position that water baptism can cleanse a soul from sin? Is it necessary to be baptised in water every time we sin?

For the cause of Christ
Roger

You still have not addressed the issue of Christ commanding the apostles to do this baptizing. How can it be Spiritual baptism if it is to be done by men?

notuptome
Mar 3rd 2010, 04:49 PM
You still have not addressed the issue of Christ commanding the apostles to do this baptizing. How can it be Spiritual baptism if it is to be done by men?
You ignore the obvious answer. Men cannot baptize with the Holy Spirit. You cannot imbue water baptism with salvitic merit.

For the cause of Christ
Roger

notuptome
Mar 3rd 2010, 05:24 PM
Yes, water baptsim is one component is the cleasiing of souls. No, it is not necesary but once, for sin committed prior to faith in Christ.
Water baptism is at best a ritual cleansing in a figurative sense. It becomes problematic when it confuses the need to be saved by grace through faith in the finished work of Christ on the cross of Calvary.

For the cause of Christ
Roger

BroRog
Mar 3rd 2010, 07:08 PM
How does one make disciples?Back then, baptism was one of the first steps. Today? Who knows. In our society a person becomes a student when he or she applies to a college or university, pays an application fee, applies for financial aid, and shows up for classes. If we have a ceremony for beginning students I don't know what it is.

notuptome
Mar 3rd 2010, 07:15 PM
Pardon the interjection sir but I posted something that was from Acts.... I don't know if you saw it....

It was when Peter was at Cornelius' house....

Can you share thoughts on that? It seemed no order was necessary?

Now I am not saying that we cannot have order in our services.... What I am saying is that the Holy Spirit does not need order.... We do .... What do you think?
I see Peter preaching to word to those in the house of Cornelius Acts 10:42-43 While Peter spoke the Holy Spirit manifested Himself on those who heard Peters words. The house of Cornelius got saved received the Holy Spirit and then were water baptised. verse 47

The Holy Spirit ministers when the word of God is preached. Men are saved by grace through faith and the faith is by hearing the word of God. God moves from heaven to fill the new believer with the Holy Spirit giving them new life, eternal life, in Christ.

For the cause of Christ
Roger

Butch5
Mar 3rd 2010, 09:01 PM
Back then, baptism was one of the first steps. Today? Who knows. In our society a person becomes a student when he or she applies to a college or university, pays an application fee, applies for financial aid, and shows up for classes. If we have a ceremony for beginning students I don't know what it is.

Has Christ changed?

Butch5
Mar 3rd 2010, 09:04 PM
You ignore the obvious answer. Men cannot baptize with the Holy Spirit. You cannot imbue water baptism with salvitic merit.

For the cause of Christ
Roger

I'm not ignoring anything, I'm simply asking a question. Your logic does not follow, you say that it is Christ who baptizes with the Spirit, yet this baptism is done by men. how is this so?

Butch5
Mar 3rd 2010, 09:07 PM
Water baptism is at best a ritual cleansing in a figurative sense. It becomes problematic when it confuses the need to be saved by grace through faith in the finished work of Christ on the cross of Calvary.

For the cause of Christ
Roger

So you agree then that water baptism is a component of of cleansing a soul from sin?

I know I have asked this before but let me ask again. What is the finished work of Christ on the cross. Also where does Scripture say that this is all that is required for salvation?

notuptome
Mar 3rd 2010, 09:59 PM
So you agree then that water baptism is a component of of cleansing a soul from sin?
I literally said it was figurative. Water baptism is not a component of biblical salvation.


I know I have asked this before but let me ask again. What is the finished work of Christ on the cross. Also where does Scripture say that this is all that is required for salvation?
2 Cor 5:21 God made Christ to be sin for us that we might be made the righteousness of God in Him. This is vicarious atonement. Romans tells us that the gospel is the power of God unto salvation to everyone that believeth. Rom 1:16

Christ Himself said on the cross that His suffering for sin was finished.

For the cause of Christ
Roger

Butch5
Mar 3rd 2010, 10:20 PM
I literally said it was figurative. Water baptism is not a component of biblical salvation.

Well I am curious what you do with Peter's words,

1 Peter 1:22 ( KJV )
Seeing ye have purified your souls in obeying the truth through the Spirit unto unfeigned love of the brethren, see that ye love one another with a pure heart fervently:



2 Cor 5:21 God made Christ to be sin for us that we might be made the righteousness of God in Him. This is vicarious atonement. Romans tells us that the gospel is the power of God unto salvation to everyone that believeth. Rom 1:16

Yes, however the cross is not the entire Gospel but only a part of it.



Christ Himself said on the cross that His suffering for sin was finished.

No, that is not what He said, He said, "It is finished." He did not specify what was finished.

BroRog
Mar 3rd 2010, 11:51 PM
Has Christ changed?No. Baptism has.

Butch5
Mar 4th 2010, 01:32 AM
No. Baptism has.

How has it changed?

losthorizon
Mar 4th 2010, 02:15 AM
The only baptism that can be designated as divine is Holy Spirit baptism.


Wrong again my friend. The ordinance of Christian baptism (a burial in water) is of divine design and origin – it comes straight from the mouth of the Lord – “He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved”. Do you also deny this truth? You appear to be much confused on the subject of baptism.


Martin Luther would certainly know this. You however do not nor have you presented that he is refering to water in the quote you supply.
I can assure you Martin Luther understood the baptism commanded by Christ in the Great Commission to be water baptism. A little advice for you – you may want to educate yourself and save future embarrassment. Anyone who insists that the baptism commanded by Christ in Mark 16:16 is anything other than baptism in water has no business debating the merits of baptism - period. Educate yourself. Baptism in water is what puts one “into Christ”, i.e., baptism is the initiatory rite that places the believer into the Lord’s church.
Mark 16:16 - Is baptized - Is initiated into the church by the application of water, as significant that he is a sinner, and needs the purifying influences of the Holy Spirit. It is worthy of remark that Jesus has made “baptism” of so much importance. ~ Albert Barnes



Paul said that when we add works to grace then grace is no longer grace but works. You cannot merit or earn the gift of eternal life. All that you can do is receive the gift that Christ has provided at great cost to Himself.
When one obeys the Lord in baptism he/she is not ‘earning” anything – the one baptized is doing a "work of faith" done to "receive" something, i.e., one is “working the works of God" that He requires and there is no condemnation in obeying God’s commands – right? You have never answered the question - was Jesus mistaken when He stated that both belief and baptism come BEFORE one shall be saved? Do you really think I am adding to the work of Christ and endangering my soul when I obey Him in baptism?
“He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved...” (Mark 16:16)

"These words are very important. The first clause [belief and baptism] opposes the notion that faith alone is sufficient for salvation, without those works which are the fruit of faith" ~ Pulpit Commentary

losthorizon
Mar 4th 2010, 02:35 AM
I don't see that being baptized is part of the command.


Jesus declared His authority before He gave the commission to...go…teach…baptize – Jesus said, “All authority hath been given me.” His commission to take the gospel into the world was not the ‘great suggestion’ – it was His command that His disciples take the good news to all who would receive it and baptize those who would be His – I am not sure what part of command you misunderstand.
“All authority hath been given unto me in heaven and on earth. Go ye therefore, and make disciples of all the nations, baptizing them into the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit: teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I commanded you: and lo, I am with you always, even unto the end of the world” (Mt. 28:18-20 ASV)
Again, baptism was simply a cultural practice.

To baptize believers “into the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit” was not part of Jewish culture – the ordinance of Christian baptism into the triune name of the Godhead was instituted and commanded by Jesus Christ after His resurrection.

percho
Mar 4th 2010, 05:15 AM
Is there a verse in Luke 20 that speaks of being born of God?

kay-gee
Mar 4th 2010, 06:45 AM
No. Baptism has.

Sorry, this dosen't square with Acts 2:39.

all the best...

kay-gee
Mar 4th 2010, 12:27 PM
Is there a verse in Luke 20 that speaks of being born of God?

Haven't seen it. Can you be more specific?

all the best...

kay-gee
Mar 4th 2010, 12:51 PM
I see Peter preaching to word to those in the house of Cornelius Acts 10:42-43 [QUOTE]While Peter spoke the Holy Spirit manifested Himself on those who heard Peters words. The house of Cornelius got saved received the Holy Spirit and then were water baptised.

The verse does not say that they were saved or that they were baptized in a Spirit. You are reading that into the text. It is a case of inserting pre-concieved assumption into the text because that would appear to make your case.

It says the Spirit FELL on them. You are correct in saying manifested. It manifested it self to them. Not a word is said about anyone being saved yet. The first time the word "baptism" is even used in the entire passage, it refers to WATER (or are you gong to argue that?) in verse 47

all the best...

kay-gee
Mar 4th 2010, 01:50 PM
Another interesting thing I noticed is that in verse 48, Peter "commanded" (ESV) "ordered" (NASB) water baptism for the house of Cornelius. Isn't that pretty immediate and strong language for an act that is basically an option or suggestion as is being taught today.

Noone "commanded" the Spirit to fall on anyone.

It must be that Peter was following the teaching and commandment that he was given by the Lord in Mark 16:16 and Matthew 28:19

It leaves little doubt that "baptism" of Mark 16:16 and Matt 28:19 (the great commission) was water baptism.

all the best...

ClayInHisHands
Mar 4th 2010, 02:21 PM
Rather than trying to go through all 14 pages of the thread I will simply ask this question...


That poor thief on the cross must be in hell for eternity? I believe you should be baptized after hearing and believing on the name of Jesus as an outward confession that you have accepted and believe that Jesus paid the price for your sin and that you will earnestly begin to trust and follow Him. However, I don't think that if someone were on their death bed and they genuinely accepted Christ and then died a minute later that they are in hell because they didn't get baptized the moment after. Would, or does anyone here suggest that?

BroRog
Mar 4th 2010, 03:49 PM
How has it changed?Why are you asking me this? Would you be convinced? You have access to the internet. Why not google the topic of baptism as I did to discover the current thinking among Christians.

Butch5
Mar 4th 2010, 04:06 PM
Why are you asking me this? Would you be convinced? You have access to the internet. Why not google the topic of baptism as I did to discover the current thinking among Christians.

I'm not interested in the current thinking of Christians. I am interested in what it meant to those to whom it was spoken. Chrisitian thinking may have changed but that does not mean baptism has.

BroRog
Mar 4th 2010, 04:17 PM
Jesus declared His authority before He gave the commission to...go…teach…baptize – Jesus said, “All authority hath been given me.” His commission to take the gospel into the world was not the ‘great suggestion’ – it was His command that His disciples take the good news to all who would receive it and baptize those who would be His – I am not sure what part of command you misunderstand.
“All authority hath been given unto me in heaven and on earth. Go ye therefore, and make disciples of all the nations, baptizing them into the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit: teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I commanded you: and lo, I am with you always, even unto the end of the world” (Mt. 28:18-20 ASV)

To baptize believers “into the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit” was not part of Jewish culture – the ordinance of Christian baptism into the triune name of the Godhead was instituted and commanded by Jesus Christ after His resurrection.It is my contention that being placed into a bath of water has no intrinsic meaning or significance of itself. In the context of the initiate's public commitment to a new life and the declaration that he or she wants to be a follower of Christ, being dunked in water symbolizes that. The Baptism is only a symbol, nothing more. If by some accident of history the initiate makes a commitment to a new life and walks as a follower of Christ, he or she has the substance.

With regard to the great commission, to focus on baptism is to place the emphasis in the wrong spot. The two essential points Jesus makes is 1) go out and preach, 2) make disciples for me. The participle phrase, "baptizing them in my name" commands the apostles to make disciples for Jesus, not for themselves as John the Baptist did. The act of baptism is subordinate and supportive to the essential activity of becoming a disciple of Christ. The act of baptism has no value other than ceremony and only has extrinsic value to the extent that it supports and emphasizes the meaning Jesus gave it, namely, becoming a disciple. If someone is already a card-carrying disciple of Jesus, then he or she has fulfilled the command of Jesus, even if that person has not expressed their new life ceremonially in ritual.

BroRog
Mar 4th 2010, 04:32 PM
I'm not interested in the current thinking of Christians. I am interested in what it meant to those to whom it was spoken. Chrisitian thinking may have changed but that does not mean baptism has.Ritual ceremonies are like a language, they derive their meaning by customary convention and a shared understanding among the society in which they are practiced. We know what the ritual of baptism meant to first century Christians. The baptism ritual was a ceremony in which the initiate declared his commitment to a new life and his wish to become a dedicated student of his new teacher. What it means today is quite different. Therefore, anyone who gets baptised today is not saying the same thing as a first century Christian because baptism today doesn't have the same meaning now as it did then.

Being dunked in water is an arbitrary sign that at the time of the first century acquired a particular conventional significance. As practice, being dunked in water symbolized becoming a disciple of someone else. Those whom John baptized became the disciples of John. Those whom Jesus baptized became the disciples of Jesus. Today, by contrast, being dunked in water has any number of other meanings depending on what church one attends. And so it makes all the difference what people think today because by our actions we communicate to the living. If a man celebrates the ritual ceremony of baptism, and by this he isn't becoming a disciple of Jesus, then he isn't obeying the command of Jesus.

notuptome
Mar 4th 2010, 04:56 PM
Wrong again my friend. The ordinance of Christian baptism (a burial in water) is of divine design and origin – it comes straight from the mouth of the Lord – “He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved”. Do you also deny this truth? You appear to be much confused on the subject of baptism.


I can assure you Martin Luther understood the baptism commanded by Christ in the Great Commission to be water baptism. A little advice for you – you may want to educate yourself and save future embarrassment. Anyone who insists that the baptism commanded by Christ in Mark 16:16 is anything other than baptism in water has no business debating the merits of baptism - period. Educate yourself. Baptism in water is what puts one “into Christ”, i.e., baptism is the initiatory rite that places the believer into the Lord’s church.
Mark 16:16 - Is baptized - Is initiated into the church by the application of water, as significant that he is a sinner, and needs the purifying influences of the Holy Spirit. It is worthy of remark that Jesus has made “baptism” of so much importance. ~ Albert Barnes



When one obeys the Lord in baptism he/she is not ‘earning” anything – the one baptized is doing a "work of faith" done to "receive" something, i.e., one is “working the works of God" that He requires and there is no condemnation in obeying God’s commands – right? You have never answered the question - was Jesus mistaken when He stated that both belief and baptism come BEFORE one shall be saved? Do you really think I am adding to the work of Christ and endangering my soul when I obey Him in baptism?
“He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved...” (Mark 16:16)

"These words are very important. The first clause [belief and baptism] opposes the notion that faith alone is sufficient for salvation, without those works which are the fruit of faith" ~ Pulpit Commentary
Well your basis for this belief is resting on a passage of scripture that is not generally accepted as part of the original writing of Mark. Verses 9-20 in Mark 16 are thought to be a textual aboration. The passage is not in the two most ancient manuscripts the Sinaiticus and Vaticanus. Others have them with partial omissions and variations. I think to make a dogmatic argument as you seem intent on doing you should seek more credible scriptural support. Otherwise one might believe you are given to highly biased speculation.

For the cause of Christ
Roger

Butch5
Mar 4th 2010, 05:06 PM
Ritual ceremonies are like a language, they derive their meaning by customary convention and a shared understanding among the society in which they are practiced. We know what the ritual of baptism meant to first century Christians. The baptism ritual was a ceremony in which the initiate declared his commitment to a new life and his wish to become a dedicated student of his new teacher. What it means today is quite different. Therefore, anyone who gets baptised today is not saying the same thing as a first century Christian because baptism today doesn't have the same meaning now as it did then.

Being dunked in water is an arbitrary sign that at the time of the first century acquired a particular conventional significance. As practice, being dunked in water symbolized becoming a disciple of someone else. Those whom John baptized became the disciples of John. Those whom Jesus baptized became the disciples of Jesus. Today, by contrast, being dunked in water has any number of other meanings depending on what church one attends. And so it makes all the difference what people think today because by our actions we communicate to the living. If a man celebrates the ritual ceremony of baptism, and by this he isn't becoming a disciple of Jesus, then he isn't obeying the command of Jesus.

As I said, I'm not worried about what Christians today think. Christ made clear His intentions regarding baptism. They have not changed, therefore to be baptized into Christ means that same thing to Christ today that it meant to Him in the first century. Moder Christian thinking have no bearing on what Christ meant by being baptized no matter how much modern Christians don't like it.

ClayInHisHands
Mar 4th 2010, 05:55 PM
As I said, I'm not worried about what Christians today think. Christ made clear His intentions regarding baptism. They have not changed, therefore to be baptized into Christ means that same thing to Christ today that it meant to Him in the first century. Moder Christian thinking have no bearing on what Christ meant by being baptized no matter how much modern Christians don't like it.

As I stated earlier, I believe that one should be baptized as a public declaration of faith and belief in Jesus Christ.

Could you simply answer this question for me...Where is the thief on the cross that Jesus said would be in paradise...did Jesus lie? What is your take on this. I'm not attempting to mock you, I genuinely want to know your thoughts on what Jesus told the thief on the cross.


In Christ's Love

kay-gee
Mar 4th 2010, 07:38 PM
[QUOTE]As I stated earlier, I believe that one should be baptized as a public declaration of faith and belief in Jesus Christ.

Granted, this may be what YOU believe but Scripture teaches it is for the remission of sins. (Acts 2:38) (Acts 22:16)



Could you simply answer this question for me...Where is the thief on the cross that Jesus said would be in paradise...did Jesus lie? What is your take on this. I'm not attempting to mock you, I genuinely want to know your thoughts on what Jesus told the thief on the cross.

I'll let you answer this question for yourself. Was the thief on the cross event before or after the death burial ressurection and great commission of Christ?

all the best...

ClayInHisHands
Mar 4th 2010, 07:42 PM
[QUOTE=ClayInHisHands;2358463]

(Acts 2:38) (Acts 22:16)




I'll let you answer this question for yourself. Was the thief on the cross event before or after the death burial ressurection and great commission of Christ?




True indeed....apples and oranges


So are you telling me that you believe everyone who has ever accepted Christ on their death bed is in fact not saved and promised eternal life?

John146
Mar 4th 2010, 07:57 PM
I see Peter preaching to word to those in the house of Cornelius Acts 10:42-43

The verse does not say that they were saved or that they were baptized in a Spirit. You are reading that into the text. It is a case of inserting pre-concieved assumption into the text because that would appear to make your case.

It says the Spirit FELL on them. You are correct in saying manifested. It manifested it self to them. Not a word is said about anyone being saved yet. The first time the word "baptism" is even used in the entire passage, it refers to WATER (or are you gong to argue that?) in verse 47

all the best...I disagree with your contention that it does not say Cornelius and his househould were baptized with the Spirit in Acts 10:42-47.

Jesus said this to His disciples:

Acts 1:5 For John truly baptized with water; but ye shall be baptized with the Holy Ghost not many days hence.

When were they baptized with the Holy Spirit? Is that not what happend on the day of Pentecost, which was "not many days hence" from the time Jesus prophesied it would occur?

Acts 2
1And when the day of Pentecost was fully come, they were all with one accord in one place.
2And suddenly there came a sound from heaven as of a rushing mighty wind, and it filled all the house where they were sitting.
3And there appeared unto them cloven tongues like as of fire, and it sat upon each of them.
4And they were all filled with the Holy Ghost, and began to speak with other tongues, as the Spirit gave them utterance.

I believe this shows that they were baptized with the Holy Spirit at the time they received and were filled with the Holy Spirit.

If that is correct then look at what Peter said:

Acts 10
43To him give all the prophets witness, that through his name whosoever believeth in him shall receive remission of sins.
44While Peter yet spake these words, the Holy Ghost fell on all them which heard the word.
45And 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.
46For they heard them speak with tongues, and magnify God. Then answered Peter,
47Can any man forbid water, that these should not be baptized, which have received the Holy Ghost as well as we?

So, Peter is asking if anyone can forbid that they be water baptized, but notice they had already received the Holy Spirit just as Peter and his fellow Jews had. I believe the baptism with the Holy Spirit occurs when someone receives the gift of the Holy Spirit, so that means Cornelius and his househould were already baptized with the Holy Spirit before being baptized with water.

I believe the following passage clearly shows that the baptism with the Holy Spirit occurs at the moment one receives and is filled with the Holy Spirit. This is Peter recounting the events that occurred in Acts 10:

Acts 11
12And the Spirit bade me go with them, nothing doubting. Moreover these six brethren accompanied me, and we entered into the man's house:
13And 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;
14Who shall tell thee words, whereby thou and all thy house shall be saved.
15And as I began to speak, the Holy Ghost fell on them, as on us at the beginning.
16Then remembered I the word of the Lord, how that he said, John indeed baptized with water; but ye shall be baptized with the Holy Ghost.
17Forasmuch 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?

In verses 15 and 16, Peter is equating the Holy Spirit falling on Cornelius and others of his household with being baptized with the Holy Spirit. Since it says in Acts 10:42-47 that the Holy Spirit fell on them before they were water baptized, this conclusively shows that they were baptized with the Holy Spirit before being water baptized.

Butch5
Mar 4th 2010, 09:47 PM
Sorry I ran out of title room..between being born again and receiving the Holy Spirit or you do think its event that happens at the same time? Post scriptures please..thanks.
I ask because its one of those things tickling me in the back of my mind..which means I am missing something..:hmm:

God bless

Hi Moonglow,

It seems they are the same. The Greek word translated "Again," and I believe primarily also means "Above". The passage means to be born from above.

BroRog
Mar 4th 2010, 11:19 PM
Christ made clear His intentions regarding baptism.Of course he did. But you should be concerned with the modern definition of baptism since you will miscommunicate his intensions if you recommend baptism today.

percho
Mar 5th 2010, 12:17 AM
Haven't seen it. Can you be more specific?

all the best...

What about verse 36? are..............being?

What is being called a birth in these verses? Col. 1:18, Rev. 1:5 Acts 2:24.

losthorizon
Mar 6th 2010, 12:26 AM
Well your basis for this belief is resting on a passage of scripture that is not generally accepted as part of the original writing of Mark. Verses 9-20 in Mark 16 are thought to be a textual aboration. The passage is not in the two most ancient manuscripts the Sinaiticus and Vaticanus. Others have them with partial omissions and variations. I think to make a dogmatic argument as you seem intent on doing you should seek more credible scriptural support. Otherwise one might believe you are given to highly biased speculation.


You present a couple of simple fallacies in your response above – (1) you erroneously state the ‘long ending’ of Mark is a “textual aberration” – it is not and I will be happy to debate the matter with you if you wish. Mark 16: 9-20 appears in over 99% of the Greek texts and it was quoted by the ‘church fathers’ shortly after the apostolic era. (2) You erroneously state the doctrine of Christian baptism rests on the authenticity of Mark 16:9-20. It does not. Many passage that support the essential nature of baptism in God’s economy to save our race have already been presented on this thread (Acts 2:38, Acts 22:16; Romans 6:3-5, 1 Peter 3:21, etc.). Regarding your attempt to impeach God’s word revealed in the longer ending of Mark…
No writer before Eusebius [(c. AD 260-340) court favorite and church historian in the days of the Roman emperor Constantine] is known to have rejected them [Mark 16: 9-21], and their presence in all later MSS [manuscripts] shows that the successors of Eusebius, in spite of his great authority, did not follow his judgment in the matter. ~ James HastingsQuestions for you to clarify your position – (1) do you now agree that the baptism mentioned in Mark 16:16 is water baptism? (2) Do the words of Jesus - “He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved...” – contradict any other passage in the Bible, i.e., does the fact that both belief and baptism precede “shall be saved” disagree with any NT doctrine?

I would refer you to the words of my favorite Calvinist preacher, Charles Spurgeon in his sermon “He that Believes and is Baptized shall be Saved” where he answered the question about the essential nature of baptism in water…
“What do you mean by ‘nonessential’? ‘I mean that I can be saved without being baptized.’ Will you dare to say that wicked sentence over again? ‘I mean that I can be saved without being baptized.’ You mean creature! So you will do nothing that Christ commands, if you can be saved without doing it? You are hardly worth saving at all! A man who always wants to be paid for what he does, whose one idea of religion is that he will do what is essential to his own salvation, only cares to save his own skin, and Christ may go where he likes. Clearly, you are no servant of his; you need to be saved from such a disreputable, miserable state of mind; and may the Lord save you! Oftentimes, I do believe that this little matter of believers’ baptism is the test of the sincerity of our profession of love to him.”Do you think baptism in water as commanded by Jesus Christ "into the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit” is essential to the gospel of grace - is baptism the test of the sincerity of our profession of love to Jesus Christ - the answer of a good conscience toward God?
eight souls, were saved through water...

The like figure whereunto even baptism doth also now save us (not the putting away of the filth of the flesh, but the answer of a good conscience toward God,) by the resurrection of Jesus Christ: (1Pe 3:21 KJV)

notuptome
Mar 6th 2010, 01:09 AM
You present a couple of simple fallacies in your response above – (1) you erroneously state the ‘long ending’ of Mark is a “textual aberration” – it is not and I will be happy to debate the matter with you if you wish. Mark 16: 9-20 appears in over 99% of the Greek texts and it was quoted by the ‘church fathers’ shortly after the apostolic era. (2) You erroneously state the doctrine of Christian baptism rests on the authenticity of Mark 16:9-20. It does not. Many passage that support the essential nature of baptism in God’s economy to save our race have already been presented on this thread (Acts 2:38, Acts 22:16; Romans 6:3-5, 1 Peter 3:21, etc.). Regarding your attempt to impeach God’s word revealed in the longer ending of Mark…
No writer before Eusebius [(c. AD 260-340) court favorite and church historian in the days of the Roman emperor Constantine] is known to have rejected them [Mark 16: 9-21], and their presence in all later MSS [manuscripts] shows that the successors of Eusebius, in spite of his great authority, did not follow his judgment in the matter. ~ James HastingsQuestions for you to clarify your position – (1) do you now agree that the baptism mentioned in Mark 16:16 is water baptism? (2) Do the words of Jesus - “He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved...” – contradict any other passage in the Bible, i.e., does the fact that both belief and baptism precede “shall be saved” disagree with any NT doctrine?
If it as you contest a water baptism then it contradicts all of the NT doctrine of salvation by grace through faith. It make Philip the worlds worst evangelist for not compelling the eunuch to be baptised instead of confirming his belief prior to water baptism.


I would refer you to the words of my favorite Calvinist preacher, Charles Spurgeon in his sermon “He that Believes and is Baptized shall be Saved” where he answered the question about the essential nature of baptism in water…
“What do you mean by ‘nonessential’? ‘I mean that I can be saved without being baptized.’ Will you dare to say that wicked sentence over again? ‘I mean that I can be saved without being baptized.’ You mean creature! So you will do nothing that Christ commands, if you can be saved without doing it? You are hardly worth saving at all! A man who always wants to be paid for what he does, whose one idea of religion is that he will do what is essential to his own salvation, only cares to save his own skin, and Christ may go where he likes. Clearly, you are no servant of his; you need to be saved from such a disreputable, miserable state of mind; and may the Lord save you! Oftentimes, I do believe that this little matter of believers’ baptism is the test of the sincerity of our profession of love to him.”Do you think baptism in water as commanded by Jesus Christ "into the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit” is essential to the gospel of grace - is baptism the test of the sincerity of our profession of love to Jesus Christ - the answer of a good conscience toward God?
eight souls, were saved through water...

The like figure whereunto even baptism doth also now save us (not the putting away of the filth of the flesh, but the answer of a good conscience toward God,) by the resurrection of Jesus Christ: (1Pe 3:21 KJV)
Water does not save only the blood of Christ is efficacious for the remission of sin. Because he that believeth not is condemned and that because he has not received the regeneration of the Holy Spirit by the baptism that only Christ can administer.

For the cause of Christ
Roger

losthorizon
Mar 6th 2010, 01:54 AM
If it as you contest a water baptism then it contradicts all of the NT doctrine of salvation by grace through faith. It make Philip the worlds worst evangelist for not compelling the eunuch to be baptised instead of confirming his belief prior to water baptism.


You remain confused – the baptism commanded by Jesus in the Great Commission (Mark 16) is a burial in water - of this fact there can be no doubt and per Jesus Christ both belief and baptism (works of faith) come BEFORE one shall be saved. The command to be baptized in water comes from God it does not comes from man. To miss this biblical truth is to miss much.

For the record Philip did exactly as he was instructed by God regarding the eunuch (Acts 8). Philip “preached unto him Jesus” and that preaching included the command to be baptized in water. How do we know - because at the end of the preaching the eunuch said to Philip – “See, here is water; what doth hinder me to be baptized?” Philip did not say as you say – baptism is not essential to the gospel – no Philip revealed the full council of God – Philip said, if you believe Jesus Christ is the Son of God you may be baptized. Belief always precedes baptism because without faith one cannot please God and therefore without faith one is not a proper candidate for baptism - "he who believes not shall be damned."

Ananias told Paul the same thing regarding baptism – Paul believed on the Lord on the road to Damascus but Paul’s sins were not washed away by the blood of Christ until he obeyed his Lord in baptism. No my friend the words of Jesus in Mark 16:16 do not contradict the grace of God who saves us by the blood of Christ – we must obey God by a faith that works (obeys) through love as we “work the works of God” - "by faith...Abraham obeyed..."

If you have not obeyed the Lord in baptism I would ask why not? Have you been baptized in water calling on the name of the Lord to have your sins washed away?
And now why tarriest thou? arise, and be baptized, and wash away thy sins, calling on the name of the Lord. (Act 22:16 KJV)

Butch5
Mar 6th 2010, 12:53 PM
As I stated earlier, I believe that one should be baptized as a public declaration of faith and belief in Jesus Christ.

Could you simply answer this question for me...Where is the thief on the cross that Jesus said would be in paradise...did Jesus lie? What is your take on this. I'm not attempting to mock you, I genuinely want to know your thoughts on what Jesus told the thief on the cross.


In Christ's Love


Hi ClayInHisHands,


The thief on the cross was forgiven before Christ died. Jesus for gave the sins of many people before He died, of which we have no mention of baptism. However, the command to baptize came after Christ's resurrection, not before His death. The New Covenant had not yet begun when thatthief was on the cross. The writer of Hebrews makes this clear.


Hebrews 9:16-17 ( KJV )
For where a testament is, there must also of necessity be the death of the testator.
For a testament is of force after men are dead: otherwise it is of no strength at all while the testator liveth.

The New Covenant took effect after Christ died. Water Baptism is a requirement of the New Covenant, when the thief was forgiven the Old Covenant was still in effect.

Butch5
Mar 6th 2010, 12:56 PM
Of course he did. But you should be concerned with the modern definition of baptism since you will miscommunicate his intentions if you recommend baptism today.

I will miscommunicate His intentions if I tell someone they must be water baptized for the remission of their sins??? How so?

Butch5
Mar 6th 2010, 01:23 PM
True indeed....apples and oranges


So are you telling me that you believe everyone who has ever accepted Christ on their death bed is in fact not saved and promised eternal life?


Hi ClayInHisHands,

We cannot use this type of argument. We cannot use an extreme example to nullify the word God. We also have no evidence that anyone who "DID" accept Christ on their death bed was saved? We cannot know that. So, we don't know one way or the other. However, we do have the teachings of Jesus and the apostles on this issue. If you accept the ending in Mark, Jesus said, He who believes and is baptized shall be saved. The apostle Peter Told the Jews to be baptized for the remission of sins. Paul connects water baptism with our taking part in the resurrection.

BroRog
Mar 6th 2010, 08:07 PM
I will miscommunicate His intentions if I tell someone they must be water baptized for the remission of their sins??? How so?Are you saying that anyone who steps into a pool of water will have their sins forgiven?

Butch5
Mar 6th 2010, 08:29 PM
Are you saying that anyone who steps into a pool of water will have their sins forgiven?

No, I am saying that anyone who steps into a pool of water, who also has made an appeal to God will have their sins forgiven. Water baptism in the name of Christ is an appeal to God for forgiveness.

losthorizon
Mar 6th 2010, 09:34 PM
Are you saying that anyone who steps into a pool of water will have their sins forgiven?
Rog, Rog, Rog – you know very well no one in this thread floats the non-biblical notion that baptism without faith saves. We have all pointed out on numerous occasions the words of the Lord – “He who believes and is baptized shall be saved…” The order of words by the inspired writer is very important – please don’t confuse the order – belief (faith) always precedes repentance and baptism – one baptized without faith and true repentance only gets wet. This is the reason infant baptism is non-biblical.
And Peter said to them, "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.
(Act 2:38 ESV)

BroRog
Mar 6th 2010, 10:20 PM
No, I am saying that anyone who steps into a pool of water, who also has made an appeal to God will have their sins forgiven. Water baptism in the name of Christ is an appeal to God for forgiveness.So do you see why you can't simply say, "you must be water baptized for the remission of sins?" For you, the concept of water baptism includes much more than being baptized per se. That's my point. Water baptism has no intrinsic value it itself. In your view, stepping into the water must mean something other than getting wet. The only dunking that means anything is the dunking that is an appeal to God in the name of Christ for forgiveness. To simply say that one must be water baptized for the forgiveness of sins suggests that the water itself has some inherant and intrinsic value with respect to forgiveness, which is not true. It isn't as if God is saying, "Gee, I'd like to forgive you but I can't until you get in the water."

BroRog
Mar 6th 2010, 10:36 PM
Rog, Rog, Rog – you know very well no one in this thread floats the non-biblical notion that baptism without faith saves. We have all pointed out on numerous occasions the words of the Lord – “He who believes and is baptized shall be saved…” The order of words by the inspired writer is very important – please don’t confuse the order – belief (faith) always precedes repentance and baptism – one baptized without faith and true repentance only gets wet. This is the reason infant baptism is non-biblical.
And Peter said to them, "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.
(Act 2:38 ESV)
It is my contention that since baptism was intimately associated with becoming a disciple of Jesus, the NT writers use the term "baptism" as a metonymy for becoming a disciple of Jesus. Therefore, when the Bible says, "He who believes and is baptized shall be saved . . ." It means, "He who believes and becomes a follower of Jesus is saved." Believe and act like you believe; that is the essential, fundamental, and critical exhortation of the New Testament. Likewise when Peter says, "Repent and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins . . ." He means, "Repent and become a follower of Jesus." The verbal concept "be baptized in the name of" indicates the teacher of the disciple. For instance, those who were baptized "into John" became the students of John the Baptist.



And he said, "Into what then were you baptized?" And they said, "Into John's baptism." Acts 19:3

To be baptized into John's baptism is to become a student of John.



Paul said, "John baptized with the baptism of repentance, telling the people to believe in Him who was coming after him, that is, in Jesus." Acts 19:4

John the baptist was a teacher. And he taught his students to repent and await the coming messiah. Those who became John's students were "baptized into John", which is an idiomatic expression to indicate that they became students of John.

When Peter says, "repent and be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ" he means, "repent and become a student of Jesus. Follow and listen to him."

losthorizon
Mar 6th 2010, 10:36 PM
S

It isn't as if God is saying, "Gee, I'd like to forgive you but I can't until you get in the water."


Actually, God is saying one must believe and be baptized (get in the water) and then that one will be saved…wouldn't you agree?
Whoever believes and is baptized will be saved, but whoever does not believe will be condemned. (Mar 16:16 ESV)

"These words are very important. The first clause [belief and baptism] opposes the notion that faith alone is sufficient for salvation, without those works which are the fruit of faith" ~ Pulpit Commentary

"Every one that believed was baptized. But he that believeth not - Whether baptized or unbaptized, shall perish everlastingly." ~ John Wesley

"...in the latter clause baptism is omitted, because it is not simply the want of baptism, but the contemptuous neglect of it, which makes men guilty of damnation..." ~ Matthew Henry

losthorizon
Mar 6th 2010, 10:41 PM
When Peter says, "repent and be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ" he means, "repent and become a student of Jesus. Follow and listen to him."


Does baptism mean baptism in Peter's discourse to those folks on that Pentecost day? Was he not telling them that in order to become a disciple of Jesus Christ one must first believe, repent and be immersed in water "for the remission of sins"? Was baptism optional...
So those who received his word were baptized, and there were added that day about three thousand souls… And the Lord added to their number day by day those who were being saved. Acts 2: 41, 47

BroRog
Mar 6th 2010, 10:46 PM
Actually, God is saying one must believe and be baptized (get in the water) and then that one will be saved…wouldn't you agree?No. That's my point. I don't think God cares one iota whether someone gets into a tank of water. The essential issue is whether someone becomes a disciple of Jesus Christ.

A disciple of Jesus eventually realizes that Jesus didn't care much for religion for it's own sake. In a conversation with the woman at the well, he points out that the temple in Jerusalem is the proper place for Israel to worship, not the temple in Samaria. However, he points out



But an hour is coming, and now is, when the true worshipers will worship the Father in spirit and truth; for such people the Father seeks to be His worshipers. God is spirit, and those who worship Him must worship in spirit and truth. John 4:23-24Here we learn that the Father doesn't actually care much for temples and our natural penchant for religiosity. The true worshipers will worship in spirit and in truth. Religious ceremony and ritual aren't necessary, though they can be personally meaningful to some people.

Butch5
Mar 6th 2010, 11:09 PM
So do you see why you can't simply say, "you must be water baptized for the remission of sins?" For you, the concept of water baptism includes much more than being baptized per se. That's my point. Water baptism has no intrinsic value it itself. In your view, stepping into the water must mean something other than getting wet. The only dunking that means anything is the dunking that is an appeal to God in the name of Christ for forgiveness. To simply say that one must be water baptized for the forgiveness of sins suggests that the water itself has some inherant and intrinsic value with respect to forgiveness, which is not true. It isn't as if God is saying, "Gee, I'd like to forgive you but I can't until you get in the water."

I don't think anyone has implied that water can do anything apart from faith in Christ. I understood that that was a given in this discussion. However, God has made the promise that the one who is baptized shall receive forgiveness. There is no promise to the one who is not baptized.


"Gee, I'd like to forgive you but I can't until you get in the water."

I have never implied that God "needed" water to forgive sins, it is however, the method that He has given us.

kay-gee
Mar 7th 2010, 12:10 AM
Hi BroRog! The old "God hates ceremony and ritual" card is being played again I see. very feeble Bro.

It appears more to it than that. Don't be like the Pharisees in Luke 7:30. The Pharisees loved ceremony and ritual, yet they rejected Johns baptism whch was Gods PURPOSE for them. As the Lord Himself commanded baptism for our age, I see it as no less Gods purpose.

all the best...

BroRog
Mar 7th 2010, 12:47 AM
I don't think anyone has implied that water can do anything apart from faith in Christ.It depends on what you mean by this. Some Christians, especially Catholics picture salvation as the result of a form of "technology", which requires the usage of certain techniques and methods. Pictured this way, for whatever reason, God will not grant salvation to anyone unless certain techniques are performed, and ritual processes are employed. Among these are the Baptism technique, which utilizes a bath of water as a method and a means to induce God to grant mercy and grace to the person going into the tank. This technique also requires the usage of faith in Christ as another aspect of the technique. As Salvation technology goes, a lack of the water renders the technical process of salvation either void, or at best indeterminate.


I understood that that was a given in this discussion. However, God has made the promise that the one who is baptized shall receive forgiveness. There is no promise to the one who is not baptized.For me, the central question is whether God requires a technological means to salvation such that certain processes must be performed, giving his guarantee that if such processes are performed in the proper manner, Salvation is guaranteed. I don't think God is making such a promise, and is not interested in our technological means to salvation.


I have never implied that God "needed" water to forgive sins, it is however, the method that He has given us.I think we all agree that God doesn't "need" water to forgive sins. But you suggest that God has instructed the church in the proper technological method of obtaining salvation, of which water baptism is one of the practical skills associtated with the salvation procedure.

Butch5
Mar 7th 2010, 02:32 AM
BroRog--- It depends on what you mean by this. Some Christians, especially Catholics picture salvation as the result of a form of "technology", which requires the usage of certain techniques and methods. Pictured this way, for whatever reason, God will not grant salvation to anyone unless certain techniques are performed, and ritual processes are employed. Among these are the Baptism technique, which utilizes a bath of water as a method and a means to induce God to grant mercy and grace to the person going into the tank. This technique also requires the usage of faith in Christ as another aspect of the technique. As Salvation technology goes, a lack of the water renders the technical process of salvation either void, or at best indeterminate.

If that is the way God chose to do it then it would be void or intermediate. I fail to see how what men chose to do negates God's commands. Jesus said he who believe and is baptized shall be saved. It seems to me that it is Christ who says that water is part of the "Technique."


For me, the central question is whether God requires a technological means to salvation such that certain processes must be performed, giving his guarantee that if such processes are performed in the proper manner, Salvation is guaranteed. I don't think God is making such a promise, and is not interested in our technological means to salvation.

It doesn't matter what we think, God said what He said. I don't understand why Christians don't want to take God at His word here. It seems when it comes to faith Christians are willing to take God's word at face value, yet regarding baptism all of a sudden the Scriptures don't really mean what they say??? God doesn't really mean you have to be baptized??? He just said it for fun??? It amazes me how a simple misunderstanding of Paul's words are used to negate the clear command of Christ and the clear teaching of Peter. I mean it doesn't get much clearer than "be baptized for the remission of sins". Yet Christians jump through hoops and do all kinds of Scriptural gymnastics to avoid what the passage clearly says. Very few Christians will say that one can be saved without repentance, yet turn right around and say one can be saved without baptism, yet Peter says both are necessary to receive the Holy Spirit. Do we just pick and choose what we want? Most will say no, yet their statements say otherwise. Is it Sola Scriptura except for Acts 2:38???


I think we all agree that God doesn't "need" water to forgive sins. But you suggest that God has instructed the church in the proper technological method of obtaining salvation, of which water baptism is one of the practical skills associated with the salvation procedure.

Hasn't He??? He who believes and is baptized shall be saved. that seems pretty clear.


Luke 24:47 ( KJV )
And that repentance and remission of sins should be preached in his name among all nations, beginning at Jerusalem.

Isn't that what Peter preached?

ClayInHisHands
Mar 7th 2010, 03:09 AM
Hi BroRog! The old "God hates ceremony and ritual" card is being played again I see. very feeble Bro.

It appears more to it than that. Don't be like the Pharisees in Luke 7:30. The Pharisees loved ceremony and ritual, yet they rejected Johns baptism whch was Gods PURPOSE for them. As the Lord Himself commanded baptism for our age, I see it as no less Gods purpose.

all the best...

I believe one should be baptized, but please tell me where do you, in your own personal belief, based on your understanding and conviction(or anyone else who shares your feelings can respond)....do you think that someone who is on their death bed if they were to accept Christ...would you or I need to tell them....that's great you've believed in Jesus Christ as your savior but unfortunately...since you are unable to get out of this bed....you will not inherit eternal life because you can't get up and be baptized.

My motives here are pure...I really would like for you to share your feelings on this. I think it's a pretty staright forward question and with all due respect...I think it is relevant. When we type these reponses it's hard to truly capture the tone in our voice sometimes. I mean no disrespect to you or anyone else.....

In Christ's Love

Butch5
Mar 7th 2010, 04:17 AM
I believe one should be baptized, but please tell me where do you, in your own personal belief, based on your understanding and conviction(or anyone else who shares your feelings can respond)....do you think that someone who is on their death bed if they were to accept Christ...would you or I need to tell them....that's great you've believed in Jesus Christ as your savior but unfortunately...since you are unable to get out of this bed....you will not inherit eternal life because you can't get up and be baptized.

My motives here are pure...I really would like for you to share your feelings on this. I think it's a pretty straight forward question and with all due respect...I think it is relevant. When we type these responses it's hard to truly capture the tone in our voice sometimes. I mean no disrespect to you or anyone else.....

In Christ's Love


Hi ClayInHisHands,

I think the problem comes from the western mind. To the western mind everything has to be an equation if a+b=c then it must be this way all the time every time. However, God is not an equation. If He chooses to do things a different way He can, however, that does not obligate Him. God gave a promise, he who believes and is baptized shall be saved. This does not stop God from saving someone without baptism, He can do that if He chooses to. However, we do know that God will do that. We do know that he who believes and is baptized will be saved because God has given us that promise. Personally, if God said to be baptized I am going to do it rather than taking a chance on maybe He will save me without baptism.

kay-gee
Mar 7th 2010, 04:45 AM
)....do you think that someone who is on their death bed if they were to accept Christ...would you or I need to tell them....that's great you've believed in Jesus Christ as your savior but unfortunately...since you are unable to get out of this bed....you will not inherit eternal life because you can't get up and be baptized.

I'll be as honest with you as I can Clay. The Bible is silent on these scenarios so I can't speak to them with any sort of authority. I'll leave that to God. But the fact is this...What about you?...are You on your death bed? Belief = baptism. When the gospel hit home to me I was baptised at 11 o'clock pm on a Tuesday night with a couple of witnesses. I did not want to go through another night unbaptized as life is so uncertain. If I had have been on my death bed, I would have told who ever was near to get me in that water a.s.a.p. Not like I would have to worry about drowning or something right? But that's me Clay. I just feel so strongly about it. When God requires something, just give it to the best of your ability, and Let the Lord sweat the details. Hope this helps.



My motives here are pure...I really would like for you to share your feelings on this. I think it's a pretty staright forward question and with all due respect...I think it is relevant. When we type these reponses it's hard to truly capture the tone in our voice sometimes. I mean no disrespect to you or anyone else.....


Never doubted for a moment Clay.

all the best...

percho
Mar 7th 2010, 06:53 AM
What about verse 36? are..............being?

What is being called a birth in these verses? Col. 1:18, Rev. 1:5 Acts 2:24.

Back to the OP Do you think there is a difference between being born again and recieving the HS?

Yes.
In my post above do these verses speak of the resurrection as a birth? Do you see birth in the following verse? 1 cor 15:49 And as we have borne the image of the earthy, we shall also bear the image of the heavenly. When does this take place? Will we then inherit/enter into the kingdom of God? verse 50. What/Who will we be like? Phil 3:20,21 For our conversation is in heaven; from whence also we look for the Saviour, the Lord Jesus Christ Who shall change our vile body, that it may be fashioned like unto his glorious body, according to the working whereby he is able even to subdue all things unto himself. Rom. 8:29 For whom he did foreknow, he also did predestinate [to be] conformed to the image of his Son, that he might be the firstborn among many brethren. Conformed to his image. When? Firstborn from what? Does this make the following verse true? 1 John 3:9 Whosoever is born of God doth not commit sin; for his seed remaineth in him: and he cannot sin, because he is born of God.

I could have quoted much more scripture but this should be enough.

losthorizon
Mar 7th 2010, 03:39 PM
No. That's my point. I don't think God cares one iota whether someone gets into a tank of water. The essential issue is whether someone becomes a disciple of Jesus Christ.

That’s a rather odd response Rog in light of the word of God and the importance God places on baptism. In your theology God appears confused. The ordinance of baptism is from the very mind of God – it is not from man. Baptism was instituted and commanded by Jesus Christ and unlike you Jesus certainly places much importance of the ordinance. Jesus clearly states that belief and baptism come before one will be saved (Mark 16:16). Peter tells us the same thing – the one who believes must also repent and be baptized “for the remission of sins” and then one’s sins are washed away by the blood of Christ and s/he receives the gift of the Holy Spirit (Acts 2:38). Peter also tells us that in some sense “baptism does also now save us” as we publicly confess Christ before men as we are “buried with Him in baptism” – the same baptism that is the answer of a good conscience toward God by the resurrection of Jesus Christ (! Pet 3 21).
He that believes and is baptized shall be saved; but he that believes not shall be damned. (Mark 16:16, AKJV)

Then Peter said to them, Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins, and you shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost. (Acts 2:38, AKJV)

The like figure whereunto even baptism does 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, AKJV)Paul tells us that baptism is a burial in water – a burial “into his death”. The one being baptized is covered and buried in water dead in his sins. At the point of baptism the believer's sins are washed away by the blood of Christ through the working of the Holy Spirit. The one baptized then rises up out of the water “in the likeness of his resurrection” – a “new creature” in Christ Jesus – his sins are remitted and he is engrafted into the body of Christ.
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 KJV)

The picture in baptism points two ways, backwards to Christ’s death and burial and to our death to sin (Rom_6:1), forwards to Christ’s resurrection from the dead and to our new life pledged by the coming out of the watery grave to walk on the other side of the baptismal grave (F. B. Meyer).Are you really sure God doesn’t cares one iota whether someone gets into a tank of water Rog or do you simply downplay baptism because it runs counter to your sectarian bias? I think I will go with what the Bible teaches – baptism is the New Testament ordinance ordained by Jesus Christ to be a sign of our fellowship with Him, in His death, and resurrection and of our engrafting into the body of Christ. Yes that dipping in water accomplishes much in God's plan to save our race – it is sad that baptism remains maligned by those who remain in ignorance of God’s word.
Baptism is an Ordinance of the New Testament, ordained by Jesus Christ, to be unto the party Baptized, a sign of his fellowship with him, in his death, and resurrection; of his being engrafted into him; of remission of sins; and of his giving up unto God through Jesus Christ to live and walk in newness of Life. ~ London Baptist Confession of FaithQuestions for you Rog - can one become a disciple of Jesus Christ without being baptized in water? Does the NT know of any who can be labeled the 'righteous unbaptized' or must we first be baptized in water - baptized into His death to be His disciple?
Know ye not, that so many of us as were baptized into Jesus Christ were baptized into his death...arise, and be baptized, and wash away thy sins, calling on the name of the Lord.

BroRog
Mar 7th 2010, 09:29 PM
If that is the way God chose to do it then it would be void or intermediate. I fail to see how what men chose to do negates God's commands. Jesus said he who believe and is baptized shall be saved. It seems to me that it is Christ who says that water is part of the "Technique."At least you are consistent. :)


It doesn't matter what we think, God said what He said.Of course. :) But the issue centers on your view of the role of water baptism. You said, "I don't think anyone has implied that water can do anything apart from faith in Christ." I responded to your statement, suggesting that it depends on what you mean by what you said. I fleshed out the fact that, indeed, according to your view water is integral to the technical process of salvation. In your view, water is necessary if you want to be guaranteed salvation. What you give with one hand you take with the other.


I don't understand why Christians don't want to take God at His word here. It seems when it comes to faith Christians are willing to take God's word at face value, yet regarding baptism all of a sudden the Scriptures don't really mean what they say??? God doesn't really mean you have to be baptized??? He just said it for fun??? It amazes me how a simple misunderstanding of Paul's words are used to negate the clear command of Christ and the clear teaching of Peter. I mean it doesn't get much clearer than "be baptized for the remission of sins". Yet Christians jump through hoops and do all kinds of Scriptural gymnastics to avoid what the passage clearly says. Very few Christians will say that one can be saved without repentance, yet turn right around and say one can be saved without baptism, yet Peter says both are necessary to receive the Holy Spirit. Do we just pick and choose what we want? Most will say no, yet their statements say otherwise. Is it Sola Scriptura except for Acts 2:38???The issue isn't that simple. We already know that according to you, water baptism is more than simply getting into a tank of water. So even you must admit that you aren't taking God's word at face value. According to post #233 you add, "who also has made an appeal to God." Where does Peter say anything in Acts about making an appeal to God? Acts 2:38 taken at face value simply commands repentance and baptism. Nothing is said about making an appeal to God, but you feel comfortable about adding that concept to Acts 2:38. According to you, when Peter commands Baptism, he doesn't simply mean, "get in the water", he also means, "get in the water and make an appeal to God." I could ask you the same thing, "all of a sudden the scriptures don't mean what they say?" For some reason, you have a blind spot as it concerns your own explanatory addition to the text, while accusing others of doing the very thing you are. :)


Hasn't He??? He who believes and is baptized shall be saved. that seems pretty clear.But it isn't clear is it? If by "clear" you mean "simple" I agree. The statement is simple, but it isn't clear. Such simple statements are ambiguous by nature. That is why we can't take this verse at face value as you suggest. We need to know more about the meaning and significance of getting in the water, so that we can truly understand Peter's command. You offer your own explanatory insertion and I offer another one. The question is whether one or both of us are wrong.

Kudo Shinichi
Mar 7th 2010, 09:44 PM
Sorry I ran out of title room..between being born again and receiving the Holy Spirit or you do think its event that happens at the same time? Post scriptures please..thanks.
I ask because its one of those things tickling me in the back of my mind..which means I am missing something..:hmm:
God bless

Read Acts and other letters to the churches written by Apostle Paul. Born again is the process where you repent and turn away from your sins while accepting the salvation as the gift given by GOD and praying the sinner's prayer. Receiving Holy Spirit is as the same time you born again...unless you are referring to Acts 2...especially Apostles to the Jews waiting for the promise said by the LORD Jesus Christ.

Matthew 28:18-20
The Great Commission
18Jesus came and told his disciples, “I have been given all authority in heaven and on earth. 19Therefore, go and make disciples of all the nations,b baptizing them in the name of the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit. 20Teach these new disciples to obey all the commands I have given you. And be sure of this: I am with you always, even to the end of the age.”