Featured Sola Scriptura in the Bible

There is no concept of the Trinity nor Baptism in scripture. There is however a clear doctrine taught about both in scripture. Just because we use words not specifically used in scripture to refer to a clear doctrine taught in scripture in no way negates that teaching nor does it reduce that doctrine to a mere "concept".

The doctrine of Baptism is taught in scripture in very clear terms when we read Romans 6:

It is clear Paul is speaking of the symbolism of Baptism when he connects its parts to the death, burial, and resurrection of Christ. This he did to show the public confession of commitment we make when we get Baptized. Just as the old man was buried of Christ so should ours be. Just as Christ was raised from the grave so are we when we come up out of the water and are new.

This is not mere experience nor is it tradition. This is a "rock solid" doctrine taught in scripture with no ambiguity involved. This is no just a concept it is however the word of God.

 

So in Acts the apostles found a King James bible opened it up to Acts and then baptized the folks in Acts? Right.

Baptism itself taught the scripture. God nor Jesus opened up the bible and said.....hmmm how bout we do this baptism written here?

 

Absolutely. Everyone knows that Paul used the KJV, spoke KJV English. That is why today we have an increasing number of KJVO churches. This is common knowledge. You should know better.

 

I didn't say that. Not sure how you came to that conclusion. I am not an KJVO proponent.

There is nothing about this statement that is true. In fact it is just an odd, very odd statement. I have shown otherwise.

 

This is another lie! Peter wrote,

1 Peter 3:18. For Christ also died for sins once for all, the righteous for the unrighteous, that he might bring us to God, being put to death in the flesh but made alive in the spirit;
19. in which he went and preached to the spirits in prison,
20. who formerly did not obey, when God's patience waited in the days of Noah, during the building of the ark, in which a few, that is, eight persons, were saved through water.
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 clear conscience, through the resurrection of Jesus Christ,
22. who has gone into heaven and is at the right hand of God, with angels, authorities, and powers subject to him. (RSV)

How can water baptism correspond to Noah and his family being “saved through water” if water baptism has “NOTHING to do with water”?

This is yet another lie! The Bible says,

1 Peter 3:18. For Christ also died for sins once for all, the righteous for the unrighteous, that he might bring us to God, being put to death in the flesh but made alive in the spirit;
19. in which he went and preached to the spirits in prison,
20. who formerly did not obey, when God's patience waited in the days of Noah, during the building of the ark, in which a few, that is, eight persons, were saved through water.
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 clear conscience, through the resurrection of Jesus Christ,
22. who has gone into heaven and is at the right hand of God, with angels, authorities, and powers subject to him. (RSV)

Peter finds here a correspondence between the water of the flood and the water of baptism. The water of the flood lifted the Ark and the eight persons aboard it up out the sinful world that was being destroyed. Corresponding to that, water baptism, when it is not merely the removal of dirt from the flesh, but an appeal to God for a good conscience, now saves us.

 

This is not a lie. This is Bob’s opinion, his view of Scripture which he is entitled to. How did id he lie in presenting what he believed to be the truth?

Bob wrote:

Peter states that it is NOTHING at all to do with water. —not the removal of dirt from the flesh,butan appeal to God for a good conscience—

Water baptism is symbolic. Water baptism does not was the soul, the spirit. It does not save or make one holy. As Peter says (and Bob has quoted in his defence), it doesn’t “remove dirt (sin) from the flesh.” How can it? It is simply water.

Have you read what Jeremiah said about water?

Jeremiah 2:22 For though you wash yourself with lye, and use much soap, yet your iniquity is marked before me, says the Lord Yahweh.
--Not water, not soap, not even lye or very strong soap can wash away your sin. Only the blood of Jesus Christ can do that. Baptism cannot cleanse you from sin. It is only water. It only gets you wet.

No, it is not a lie. It is what he believes. Where is the lie, except that he disagrees with you. Perhaps you are the one that is lying? Differences in interpretation are not lies.

Read the word baptism as "immersion". That is what the word means.
For example, "Being immersed does now save us..."
Now let's go back and look at the context which you have posted:

In verse 21, the KJV uses the phrase "the like figure whereunto even...
↑
(ISV) Baptism, which is symbolized by that water, now saves you
(GW) Baptism, which is like that water, now saves you.
(YLT) also to which an antitype doth now save us--baptism
(EMTV) which as an antitype, baptism now also saves us-

Again, remember it is not "baptism" but "immersion," that which the Greek word baptidzo means.
In verse 20 who was baptized or immersed? It was the ungodly that were destroyed and the water was an agent of destruction. The Flood waters destroyed everything in sight. Every human life was lost or destroyed as they were immersed or baptized in these destructive waters. The water symbolizes destruction here.
In your analogy baptism destroys, not saves.
It washed away their physical dirt, but not their spiritual sin. They will someday stand before the Great White Throne and give account of themselves.

Now, Noah and the 8 were born up by the Ark. That Ark was Christ. They went through the waters. The waters from heaven came down. They were on the waters. In a sense there were waters all around them. But it was Jesus that saved them not the water. Only Jesus saves.

1 Peter 3:21 The like figure whereunto even baptism (immersion) 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:
--Water baptism can only wash away the filth of the flesh. It is physical in nature. It makes you wet.
--To be immersed in Christ is what saves. It is a relationship with Him wherein His Spirit becomes joined with ours. We are in Him and He in us.
John 15:4 Abide in me, and I in you. As the branch cannot bear fruit of itself, except it abide in the vine; no more can ye, except ye abide in me.
--It is this spiritual union that Peter is speaking about that gives life and salvation. Salvation is a relationship not a religion, nor a religious work like baptism.

It cleanses our consciences. It comes only through the resurrection, that is the gospel, of which the resurrection is an integral part. Without the resurrection there is no salvation. As Peter adds "the resurrection" he makes salvation perfectly clear. It is not by water baptism. It is through the gospel, the power of the resurrection of Jesus Christ.

This is not a lie. It is what he believes on the grounds of freedom of religion.
Do you believe in freedom of religion? Our fore-fathers fought for that freedom; spilled their blood for it.
Have you read John Bunyan's biography. He is the author of Pilgrim's Progress. He would rather spend time in jail than be licenced by the government to preach.

Asked and answered.

 

The fraud of all Arminians.

 

"Baptised in the cloud". 'Baptised' does not mean being 'immersed', 'GOING DOWN UNDER in water'. Like being "baptised in the NAME" to be baptised means to be passively lifted up into and enclosed within and enshrouded by the Name the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit : SPIRITUALLY.

 

This is absolutely correct.
A large part of our Lord's controversy with the scribes and Pharisees was His insistence that outward cleansing cannot lead to inward purification. We see in Mark 7:3-4 that the Pharisees spent a huge amount of time in ritual washings and purification. Is it likely that the Lord Jesus would be saying to Nicodemus, "What you really need, Nicodemus, is another ritual purification!"? On the contrary, "Woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! For you cleanse the outside of the cup and dish, but inside they are full of extortion and self-indulgence. Blind Pharisee! First cleanse the inside of the cup and dish, that the outside of them may be clean also" (Matthew 23:25-26). The cleansing that NIcodemus needed would have to deal with the guilt within.

Psalm 51:7. 'Purge [or 'cleanse'] me with hyssop and I shall be clean; wash me and I shall be whiter than snow.......Create in me a clean heart, O God, and renew a steadfast spirit within me.' Here we see the two-fold operation of the New Birth: water and sprit. A cleansing from indwelling sin, and renewal by the Holy Spirit. Hyssop is a plant, a sprig of which was used at the Passover to daub the lintel and doorposts of Jewish homes with sacrificial blood (Exodus 12:22-23). Therefore, to be cleansed with hyssop is to be washed in the blood of the Lamb. That alone can cleanse a guilty sinner from his iniquities.

 

Gerhard you say:

But you are wrong.
You also say:

Where is your evidence for saying such things?
When statements are made without evidence they are just opinions and philosophies of men without much meaning or sense.

 

In this thread, some people are strenuously arguing against a belief that is the precise opposite of the belief that I have repeatedly advocated for in this very thread. Moreover, the belief that they are strenuously arguing against is NOT held by the Roman Catholic Church, the Orthodox churches, the Anglican churches, the Lutheran churches, the Methodist churches, the Pentecostal churches, the Presbyterian churches, or any other type of church with which I am familiar. Unless they are to show that at least some Christians believe what they are arguing against—they are arguing against a doctrine that does not even exist!

Please notice, for example, DHK’s repeated reference to Jeremiah 2:22 in which Jeremiah writes,

Jeremiah 2:22 For though you wash yourself with lye, and use much soap, yet your iniquity is marked before me, says the Lord Yahweh. (RSV)

Regarding this verse, DHK says, “Not water, not soap, not even lye or very strong soap can wash away your sin.”

The Roman Catholic Church, the Orthodox churches, the Anglican churches, the Lutheran churches, the Methodist churches, the Pentecostal churches, the Presbyterian churches, and every other type of church with which I am familiar believes the same thing—as do I and as did Peter,

1 Peter 3:18. For Christ also died for sins once for all, the righteous for the unrighteous, that he might bring us to God, being put to death in the flesh but made alive in the spirit;
19. in which he went and preached to the spirits in prison,
20. who formerly did not obey, when God's patience waited in the days of Noah, during the building of the ark, in which a few, that is, eight persons, were saved through water.
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 clear conscience, through the resurrection of Jesus Christ,
22. who has gone into heaven and is at the right hand of God, with angels, authorities, and powers subject to him. (RSV, with my emphasis in bold type)

Please notice that ALL of the words in bold type in v. 21 are what we call in English a “compound adverbial clause” that modifies the verb ‘saves’. It is a “compound” clause because the two parts of it are joined together by the conjunction ‘but’. Therefore, v. 21 is saying that baptism saves the recipients of it, not as the removal of dirt from the body, but as an appeal to God for a clear conscience, through the resurrection of Jesus Christ. Baptism is not “A”, but it is “B.” Baptism is “B”. Baptism is “B”, not for theological reasons—but for indisputable syntactical reasons! Baptism “saves” the recipients of it, not as the removal of dirt from the body, but as an appeal to God for a clear conscience, through the resurrection of Jesus Christ. Water baptism, as an appeal to God, saves the recipients of it. Peter expressly taught this truth, and Peter’s teaching is Scripture. To the fires of hell with Baptist traditions! Sola scriptura!

Moreover, we have the words of Peter in Acts 2,

37. Now when they heard this they were cut to the heart, and said to Peter and the rest of the apostles, "Brethren, what shall we do?"
38. 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 shall receive the gift of the Holy Spirit.” (RSV)

This trumps Baptist tradition—this is Scripture! Peter does not tell the crowd of Jews and proselytes that they need to perform “a symbolic acts of obedience;” he tell them that they need to be baptized, every one of them, in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of their sins; and that they shall receive the gift of the Holy Spirit.


I was saved two months before I was baptized in water; but Peter is not writing about my experience—he is writing about the normative experience is his day.

 

ment. I also mentioned 'to be baptised means to be passively lifted up into and enclosed within and enshrouded by and "IN THE NAME".

Adding, and replacing "IN THE NAME" with ~in water~, corrupts the statement -- Jesus' statement -- not mine. The ~evidence~ baptism or to be baptised means to be passively lifted up into and enclosed within and enshrouded by and "IN THE NAME" is written : "IN THE NAME".

 

Dear DHK,

I find the new mechanisms operating BabtistBoard site, extremely difficult to use. Sorry to complain.

 

On the contrary, you argue for a doctrine that does not exist. Examine your beliefs in the light of others.
Atheism: God exists. Atheism says "no God." He denies the existence of God.

The Baptist believes that sola scriptura is a Biblical doctrine taught in the Word and can be demonstrated as such. Like the atheist, you say "a-sola scriptura," or "no such thing." You are the one denying the doctrine in a state of unbelief. Yet incredibly you have just said, and I quote:
"They are arguing against a doctrine that doesn't not even exist." Amazing that you should even say such when you are in denial.
Look at one of you previous posts:

This is a denial, not an assertion of a belief. You say you are a Baptist belonging to a Baptist denomination, but at the same time deny what the Baptists believe. I don't believe you. Come out and tell us who you really are. You post more like a Catholic than a Baptist.
Does it matter what the Catholics, Anglicans and Orthodox believe? Does it matter that our beliefs are different than theirs? They should be! These religions are apostate. Their doctrines are not Biblical.

Sola Scriptura is found in the Bible. Your failure to understand two verses of scripture does not change the meaning or deny the rest of the doctrines of the Bible. What an absurd thought! Do you also think that you can over-ride the sovereignty of God just because of your inability to understand the Word of God. Really!!

The OT prophets used the phrase, "Thus saith the Lord," 430 times in the Bible. That is sola scripture--appealing to the finality of scripture, to God's words as the final word. In the OT God spoke through the prophets (Heb.1:1). They were the final authority. In the NT God speaks through the Word of God, that is the Bible. That is the His final authority. This is sola scriptura.
Thus,
2 Peter 3:2 That ye may be mindful of the words which were spoken before by the holy prophets, and of the commandment of us the apostles of the Lord and Saviour:
--The believer is to keep in mind the words of the prophets of the OT, and the words of the apostles of the NT.
This is sola scriptura.

Why not include Hindus, Muslims, Sikhs, Bahaism, as well? Do you think that the majority is always right?
I have no idea of your politics. Was the majority right when they elected Obama as their president? Just a thought to ponder.
Israel stoned the prophets according the word of our Lord, as they stoned Stephen? Why? They spoke the truth, that which the majority did not want to hear.

Answer my post. I have already explained this to you. Why should I do it a second time?

My answer is given here. Please answer the post:
http://www.baptistboard.com/threads/sola-scriptura-in-the-bible.99312/page-5#post-2224818

I have also explained this verse to you. You seem to have an inability to respond to my posts when the verse is actually explained to you. Why is that?

Theology is not trumped by experience.
What was true in the first century concerning salvation is still true today.
If you were not saved immediately after you trusted Christ, then you weren't saved.
If you think you were saved by your baptism or because baptism is a requirement, then you aren't saved.
Those are the facts of the matter. The Bible is clear, and sola scriptura; that the Bible speaks authoritatively on this important question of salvation has not changed.

 

Jesus said:
Matthew 28:19 Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost:
20 Teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you: and, lo, I am with you alway, even unto the end of the world. Amen.

His command to his disciples was to "baptize" those that they had "discipled."
It was a work wherein they had to physically take the candidate and put him under the water and then lift him up out of the water. This is scene most descriptively in Acts 8:

Acts 8:38 And he commanded the chariot to stand still: and they went down both into the water, both Philip and the eunuch; and he baptized him.
39 And when they were come up out of the water, ...
--They went into the water, was baptized, and came up out of the water. The work of going into the water, being immersed or going down under the water, and then coming up out of the water, is not all passive, though on the part of the candidate he does to some degree put his life in the hands of the one baptizing him.
However, the word "baptidzo" means immerse, to dip. You have given an unorthodox meaning to the word.

 

I am not sure which ones you are referring to. When quoting a person. I still do it the old fashioned way. I put the word, quote, inside the brackets [ ], at the beginning of the quote. And at the end of the quote I put /quote, in the brackets [ ], i.e., quote with a backslash.