Featured John 3:5 Is Not Requiring Baptism For Salvation

Are we really discussing the big "H" heresy of baptismal regeneration and Campbellite theology among Baptists? This error deserves to be condemned in the strongest terms.

 

As I have said before on this subject, baptism is a good work, thus it does not save on its own, though, a good work demanded of us. Those that forgo baptism because it makes their faith public in persecuting countries are denying Christ by their actions. We are a holy people and should not hide that fact.

The reason I say this is that a ministry I supported financially, Open Doors, is willing to look the other way. When I discovered this I was forced into soul searching and eventually a switch to other ministries to fund. I mean if our Baptist ancestors, the Anabaptists, died on account of rebaptism, how awful is it to forgo baptism to not be persecuted

 

Baptism is not a good work. Baptism is a positive ordinance of the New Testament church. Baptism is not optional for a believer. If you are looking for good works, all you have to do is read Ephesians 2:10 which reads, "For we are His workmanship, created in Christ Jesus for good works, which God prepared beforehand so that we would walk in them." Baptism stands apart from this.

 

Oh. I saw you posted this in Baptist Theology & Bible Study, so I did not take it as a response to a Roman Catholic.

 

Here is another nice instance where we

LET GOD INTERPRET HIS BIBLE

& in this case, where we

Let Peter Interpret Peter's Own Words.


Peter said,

"Repent ye, therefore, and be Converted,
that your sins may be blotted out."

Concerning Christ, Peter declared:

"To Him give all the Prophets witness,
that through His Name whoever Believes in Him
Will Receive Remission of sins."

(Acts 10:43.)

Peter affirms explicitly
that the New Birth is by virtue of

"The Resurrection of Jesus Christ from the Dead,"

and that it is

"not of corruptible seed, but of Incorruptible,
by the Word of God."

(I Peter 1:3, 23.)

Peter's only mention of Baptism
in his two epistles is in I Peter 3:21,

and there he is careful to MAKE PLAIN
that Baptism is NOT a

"putting away of the filth of the flesh,
but the answer of a good conscience
toward God."


DIVINE INTERPRETATION of ACTS 2:38, where BELIEVERS ARE COMMANDED TO BE BAPTIZED.

 

Ah, I'm sorry. Thank you for correcting that part. Yes it is a command and ordinance for the whole church or holy people like the Lord's Supper.

 

Many Protestant reference Bibles have for a cross reference to "water" in John 3:5 to Mark 16:16 and Acts of the Apostles 2:38. As a Christian learning to study the word of God, I found this disturbing. (I had became a Christian in 1962. Today I find such bad references wholly untenable.)

 

In A Concise History Of The Baptists By G. H. Orchard,

"5. We shall now subjoin the views and testimonies of the writers of the third century, on the subject of baptism.

"Tertullian was born of pagan parents at Carthage. . . .
". . . . Tertullian rebukes the disobedience of such, and he further argues, from Christ’s words, John 3:5, to prove the necessity of obeying and conforming; and asserts, 'that all believers from thenceforth [from the giving of the above words] were baptized.'. . ."

 

As I listened to "Bro. Andrew" my Spirit confirmed within me that same Spirit in him.

I know Open Doors is willing to look the other way. But I am not certain it is their authority to demand.

They are not a church, but a support organization.

They are and have been for decades firmly entrenched in providing needed aide and support for those largely ignored by the SBC and other grouping of churches.

Now, I am not trying you convince you of changing your thinking! No, that decision is between you and God!

I write this so that the readers who are not familiar with the work of Open Doors may want to investigate them more thoroughly.

AND what I am attempting at this point is to show a certain line of secondary separation principle that may be inappropriately applied and to urge caution in taking a secondary separation stand that is weak.

Not all organizations are founded upon "Baptist" views are unworthy of being supported. And by that same thinking not all worthy organizations needing to be supported are founded upon "Baptistic" rule.

For example, I can support the local food pantry. Do they demand that all who receive food are baptized? no
I can support the local Baptist hospital. Do they demand for all who receive care to be baptized? no
I can support a Baptist missionary. Do they demand that all who are converted and join their church must be baptized? yes

See, If Open Doors did the work of a missionary planting churches, rather than providing resource and aide to the persecuted church, then the secondary separation would be less weak.

 

Have I not read that even some posters on this thread stating baptism in terms of a requirement rather than a picture?

Is it not true that some have stated that anytime the word is used in Scriptures it is associated with water?

If Baptism has no "regeneration" benefit, then the importance does not extend past the presentation of a picture.

One could just as well use the word baptism (as the Scriptures do) to mean other than immersion in water, but to also include being immersed in the Spirit, in Christ, in death, in persecution.

 

Scripture: "one baptism", water.

Other uses of the word, "baptism": symbolic, figurative.

 

It is both.

If I may quote what my Particular Baptist brethren had to say about it in the 17th-Century:

1689 LBC 28.1 Baptism and the Lord's Supper are ordinances of positive and sovereign institution, appointed by the Lord Jesus, the only lawgiver, to be continued in his church to the end of the world. ( Matthew 28:19, 20; 1 Corinthians 11:26 )

1689 LBC 29.1 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 giving up into God, through Jesus Christ, to live and walk in newness of life. ( Romans 6:3-5; Colossians 2;12; Galatians 3:27; Mark 1:4; Acts 22:16; Romans 6:4 )

So, Baptism is a requirement (or command) and a sign (or picture).

 

The ONLY baptism God requires is ther Baptism by/in the Holy Spirit done by God upon all when saved!

 

Do you see me arguing with anyone all the way around the barn when they Glorify God, and Honor God, and Worship God?

PRAISE Jesus, for the people of The Book.

Those folks were " 'stickin' with The Stuff".

 

There isn't any such thing.

It is a misreading, completely, 100%.

There is no 'Baptism by/in The Holy Spirit'

There is no 'Baptism by/in the Holy Spirit done by God'... (relative to an individual).

And there is no, 'Baptism by/in the Holy Spirit done by God upon all when saved!'

There is "one baptism".

Other references to baptism are figurative, but there are not even any figurative usages referring to, "Baptism by/in the Holy Spirit (and/or) done by God (and/or) upon all when saved!"

Somehow, a misreading has developed into a hybrid invention of this thinking.

And/or a hybrid invention, elsewhere, has lent itself to developing this misreading as an addition error, on top of another error.

 

Baptism is God's Command to all who are Saved.

These thoughts lean toward the issue of being Baptiste after being Saved, however, The Command is what Peter is saying.

The Command is screwed with by Satan with the Saved before baptism denials he tries to draw from it.

DIVINE INTERPRETATION of ACTS 2:38, where BELIEVERS ARE COMMANDED TO BE BAPTIZED.

…
A reading of the Words of God
by Peter makes it become
perfectly clear that in Acts 2:38
Peter was commanding
each of his hearers who Repented,
and no others, to be Baptized.
…

And we may see and read
that the reason Peter
was commanding each of his hearers
who Repented, and no others,
to be Baptized was expressly
because of the Remission of their sins
that they had already obtained
through Repentance.
…
After hearing
the message of Jesus Christ
for the Salvation of their Souls,
the Believers Received Repentance,
which in a scriptural sense
includes Faith,
i.e., Repentance and Faith
Occur simultaneously in a Believer,
when they are Saved.
…

That this was Peter’s meaning,
and The DIVINE INTERPRETATION,
which we gain from
“comparing Scripture with Scripture’
and allowing God to Interpret Himself.
…
God Reveals to us that Peter’s hearers
in that day understood from his words
in Acts 2:38 that Peter
was commanding each of his hearers
who Repented, and no others,
to be Baptized
because of the Remission of their sins
that they had already obtained
through Repentance and Faith.
…
The Historical and biblical Fact
that Peter was commanding his hearers
to be Baptized,
because of the Remission of their sins
that they had already obtained
through Repentance and Faith,
becomes even more obvious
also in verse 41,
where we read that only

“they that
gladly Received his Word
were Baptized.”
…

“They that
gladly Received his Word”
were ALREADY SAVED.

And ALL of THE SAVED
SEEN in THE NEW TESTAMENT
OBEYED THE COMMAND to be baptised.

Even Jesus, although Jesus was not Saved.

He didn't have to be.

Why did Jesus Walk 40- 60 miles to be baptised by John.

John had the Authority from God, "And Jesus answering said unto him, Suffer it to be so now: for thus it becometh us to fulfil all righteousness. Then he suffered him."

"becomes" is a Command.

"us" is all Saved souls in The New Testament Era that are Led by One Spirit, to be baptised, if and when they Obey and Follow Jesus, Who baptised, and Follow His Command.

 

Well, like I posted, there are some on the BB that align all Baptism with H2O.

That would include the statement of Jesus,

“...you heard from me; 5for John baptized with water, but you will be baptized with the Holy Spirit not many days from now.”​

So certainly accordingly, rather than fire, the Holy Spirit opened up some massive sinkhole, filled it quickly with water, and dumped them all in. No wonder some where talking in what some considered gibberish.

Maybe they really were Methodists and it rained on them?