Baptism prior to the 1520s

Steaver:
The context of I Cor. 12:13 indicates that the body is comprised by many members or parts. vs. 12. Furthermore, as the body is animated by one spirit,the different members act under the rule or guide of the one spirit, all members of the church, the body of Christ, were baptized into the one body, whether Jews, Greeks bond or free. vs. 13.

This baptism is that which is commanded by Christ and the holy spirit. This baptism is administered by men as per the one spirit. Mat. 28:18-20. This one baptism is water baptism, as Holy Spirit baptism was: one, not commanded, and two, was not administered by men.

Acts 2:38 connects the one baptism commanded by Christ and the new testament with the gift of the Holy Spirit. 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.

Baptism by the Holy Spirit took place twice in the Bible. Acts 2 and 10. Ephesians 4:4-6 was written years after these happenings. Therefore, the one baptism cannnot be both as this would make two baptisms. Moreover, since Holy Spirit baptism ceased before Ephesians 4 was written water baptism must be in view. I Pet 3:21 teaches us that the like figure whereunto even baptism doth also now save us, not the putting way of the filth of the flesh but the answer to a clean conscience toward God by the resurrection of Jesus Christ from the dead. The context of this passage is a reference to the likefigure of Noah's baptism wherein eight souls were saved by water. vs. 20.

 

the like figure whereunto even baptism doth also now save us,

You have two options in your statemennt of belief here, both of which are not only heretical, but are absolutely ridiculous when thought through logically.
First, it plainly says (as you quoted) "the like figure." It is a figure, a symbol, a figure of speech, a similie. If you are basing your salvation on something entirely symbolic, on a similie or figure of speech, then you are standing on sinking sand. Jesus saves; not symbols.

As it says it was a symbol. But even then it is impossible for baptim to save. Again, only Christ can save. You have a problem with a statement that is repeated over and over again in Scripture. Water of no kind (inlcuding baptismal waters) cannot save. That is pure superstition. Jeremiah mocked at that belief thousands of years ago, when he said:

Jeremiah 2:22 For though thou wash thee with nitre, and take thee much soap, yet thine iniquity is marked before me, saith the Lord GOD.

Get wet. Baptize yourself. Wash yourself while your at it. But it won't wash away your sin. Jeremiah mocks at this very suggestion that water can wash away sin.

The Hindus bathe in the "holy" waters of the Ganges River, thinking that it will wash away their sins. I submit to you that if you beleive that baptism is a part of salvation in washing away your sins, your religion is just as pagan as Hinduism.
DHK

 

Dhk:
Baptism is a symbol. It is an essential symbol. The bible teaches this in Col. 2;12. The phrase be washed in the blood of Christ is symbolic, as no one has ever been literaly washed in his blood. Rev. 1:5-7. By your logic, you would also eliminate the necessity of the blood of Christ in the forgivenes of sins as it is symbolic.
However, these essential symbols represent God's power to save.

 

bmerr here. The text says we are baptized "by one Spirit", not "with one Spirit", as you posted.

The difference? Jesus is the only One Who baptized "with" the Holy Spirit. This occurred in Acts 2 and Acts 10. In these instances, the Holy Spirit was the medium in which the subjects were baptized.

However, the text says that we are baptized "by one Spirit". If you take the position that it is the Holy Spirit that baptizes us, you need to show from Scripture the medium in which He baptizes us, as well as a reference that would indicate that the Spirit would be the administrator of a baptism. The burden of proof is on you, sir.

If, on the other hand, we understand that for us to be baptized "by one Spirit" means that we are baptized according to the teaching of the Holy Spirit, then the problem you encountered concerning more than "one baptism" (Eph 4:5) goes away.

The Holy Spirit, through the apostles, taught men to believe the gospel, repent of their sins, and be baptized in the name (authority) of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins. Then and only then could they expect to receive the gift of the Holy Ghost.

The baptism Paul spoke of is described as a burial and raising up again (Rom 6:3-5; Col 2:12), and "that form of doctrine which was delivered you" (Rom 6:17).

Let's compare. When one supposedly receives the baptism of the Holy Spirit, is he buried in the Spirit and then raised up out of the Spirit? Be honest! That doesn't make a lick of sense, does it?

Now, when one is baptized in water, is he buried in the water and then raised up out of the water? Why yes, I'd have to say that's how it happens.

It seems quite logical to me that only water baptism fits the description given by the apostle Paul, and performed in several conversion accounts in Acts.

Objectivity is required. If we try to make the Bible fit our preconceived ideas, we run into problems.

In Christ,
bmerr

 

Yes, our sins are under the blood, symbolically; that is true. But baptism is a literal act which one submits to. There is a great difference. You do not fill up a tank with the blood of Christ do you? You fill it up with plain old H2O, and then by superstition believe that that mass of two hydrogen atoms to every one oxygen atom is going to wash away your sins. It ain't going to work. It is a superstition. Jeremiah declared it to be so. Why don't you just believe him? In every case in the Bible baptism took place after one was saved--not before, not during, but after. It is an act of obedience that takes place after one is saved. If baptism was a part of salvation, then salvation would be by works, a heresy that contradicts Eph.2:8,9.

Baptism is not purely symbolical. It is not symbolical when a person gets wet. What happens at baptism? You get wet. You don't get saved. You get wet. That is all. It is does symbolize something--one's death to his old life to sin, and his rising again to a new life in Christ. That is obedience. But in reality, it simply gets you wet. It cannot save; it cannot wash away your sin. That is pure superstition.
DHK

 

Not you, but rather the Bible. You see, you only quoted part of the verse, and that out of its context. What did I emphasize before? The part of the verse that you conveniently ignore--"the like figure..." Peter doesn't say that baptism saves us; he says that statement "baptism saves us" is figurative and pictures something even greater. He even goes on and clarifies himself by adding: " (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 doesn't put away the filth of the flesh. It doesn't save. That is plain and clear in what Peter says. What saves? The gospel saves. Christ by the power of the resurrection gives a clear conscience toward God. Only Jesus Christ by the power of the resurrection can do that. Not baptism, only Christ. The baptism was simply symbolic of what Christ does in the heart.

By faith are you justified.
You are justifed by faith.
Never does it say that one is justified by faith and baptism.

It is in context. Jeremiah was referring to a pagan practice which remains a pagan practice to this day. In reference to Christianity is heresy.

The COC believes that water is essential to baptism. Correct? I have their statement of faith; I know it is correct. What happens at salvation? All our sins are washed away. How are they washed away? By water or the blood? If you believe in baptismal regeneration (as COC does), then you believe that water plays a part in washing away your sins. Absurd!

The same prophet also commanded an iron axe-head to swim. Would you like to repeat that act too?

And in like manner axe-heads swim. Show me. Water doesn't wash away sin, and axe-heads don't swim.

I am not blaspheming anyone or anything. Jeremiah himself referred to it as a pagan practice. I am on the side of the Bible, like Jeremiah. It is a pagan practice just like what the Hindus do. Baptismal regeneration is one of the oldest heresies within Christendom. It is damnable heresy that has been leading people straight to the pit of Hell.
DHK

 

It is Jesus Christ who baptises "with" or "by" the Holy Spirit... (Matt 3:11).

Why do you suppose Jesus said "ask" and it shall be given you? "...how much more shall your heavenly Father give the Holy Spirit to them that ask him?" (Luke 11:13)

Why do you suppose Jesus told the Samaritian woman to "ask" for the Holy Spirit rather than telling her to take a dip in the water to receive it? (John 4:10) Was He telling her a half truth?

Does your doctrine of salvation also teach that one must ask for the Holy Spirit in order to receive it? If not, why not, when Jesus told us to ask.

God Bless!

 

dhk:
The Bible says in Acts 22:16, and now why tarriest thou arise and be baptized and wash away thy sins calling on the name of the Lord. Baptism washes a way sins. It is simply an instrument God uses to remove sin. God used the brazen serpent to save in the wilderness. Numbers 20:8,9. John equates forgiveness to the symbol of the serpent and Christ being on the cross. John said as Moses lifted up the serpent so shall. the son of man be lifted up. John 3:14-16. God used the baptism in the Red Sea to save Israel. I Cor. 10: 1-4. God used water to save in the days of Noah. I Pet. 3:20. 21. Baptism washes away sin through the power of God , not the water itself. No one is making that argument.

Faith and baptism are connected. Jesus said in Mark 16;16, He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved but he that believeth not shall be damned. Baptism saves when it is done by faith of and in Christ. Col. 2:12, Eph. 3:12, Roms. 6: 3-6.

The act of Christ shedding his blood was a literal event. Baptism is also a literal event. However, each act symbolizes God's power to save.
The lifting up of the serpent was a literal act. The looking at the serpent was a literal act. However, the power to save from these acts was God. These acts of faith accessed God's grace that saves. Ephesians 2:8,9.

 

The rest of the verse (which you did not quote) tells us what the medium is. "For by one Spirit are we all baptized into one BODY...". the body of christ is what one is baptized into in this passage.

No; because as a symbol, thw water baptism was not "ANOTHER baptism". It symbolized the one baptism into the body of the saved in Christ.

"baptized BY one spirit" does not mean "according to the teaching of", meaning "according to a particular [physical] method", as you are using it. Even if it did; according to the teaching of the Spirit, baptism into the body (salvation) is spiritual, and not of a physical work.

The Bible clearly speaks of the "old man" going down and dying, and a "new man" rising. This is SPIRITUAL, and only SYMBOLIZED in the water. When a person is baptized into the body, he lays his old man down, and a new man arises. On the other hand, a person can fake it, and go down into the water an "old man", and still rise an "old man". According to your teaching, just going into the water alone should save him. Or now; you'll have to admit that it is the water AND something else ("faith", sincerity, genuine conversion of the heart, etc). Then it is ultimately not the water ceremony that is saving, but rather those spiritual things!

You all are getting closer to the truth now. But once again, baptism symbolized the washing away of sins, and as people were converted on the spot back then, there would be no reason to refuse a water baptism unless the person did not want his sins washed away. But the problem we encounter today, is that churches no longer baptize on the spot. (this is why an altar call has basically taken its place). This may not have been biblically authorized, but now it is almost universal in Christendom (including the CofC, RCC, EOC -wonder if DT ever got his chrismation yet; and all others who say baptism saves!) But you cannot now say the person is not saved until he has the water ceremony.
And while symbolic always precedes the real; remember that also the physical precedes the spiritual, and the physical is the symbolic, and the spiritual is the real, and not the other way around!

 

Eric:
I baptize immediately upon confession. Our congregation does not have ceremonial baptisms. This would not follow the pattern in the new testament.

 

More accurately, as Jamieson, Faucett, and Brown, as well as others, point out: "having called upon his name." Paul had already called upon the name of the Lord when on the way to Damascus. Read again the account in Acts chapter 9. The Bible doesn't contradict itself. When was Paul saved? When he called upon the name of the Lord, and said: "LORD, What will you have me to do?" Or, when he was baptized much later on? The answer is obvious. Paul even answers that question himself in recounting his testimony in other sections of the Book of Acts. He was not disobedient to the Heavenly vision. He was saved at that point. Baptism has nothing to do with salvation.

Damnable heresy of the worst kind!

False again, God uses FAITH in the sacrificial blood of Jesus Christ to remove sin. Water doesn't wash away sin. Your belief in such superstion is heresy.

God did no such thing. He did not use a brazen serpent to save in the wilderness. That again is heresy. The serpent didn't save. It was faith in obedience to the command to look upon the serpent that saved, just as it is faith to look upon and believe in the Saviour that saves. If you believe that the serpent saved anyone, then you believe in idolatry--more heresy.

No, he did not. The waters (of baptism) signified destruction. Those that were baptized drowned. They were destroyed by the flood. The waters flooded the earth, and destroyed all that was therein. It was the earth that was immersed in water, not Noah. What saved Noah? Noah was safe in the Ark, a picture of Christ, which rode on top of the waters.

You are. Look at what you have written above. The text clearly says that this is a figure, a symbol. And that it is the power of Christ by the resurrection that saves. You just don't like quoting the entire verse.

They are not connected in salvation. The only connection is that baptism is the first step of obedience after salvation by the believer. Notice the verse clearly says: "He that believeth not shall be damned." You don't have to be "not baptized" to be damned.

Yes it was a literal event. And the one that puts his faith in the sacrifice that shed his blood for our sins is a literal event. It is a one time event that gives one eternal life as a free gift of God, that can never be taken away. It is at that time when one is born again (not of baptism), but of the Spirit of God, and of the Word of God (1Pet.1:23), which the water symbolizes. Baptism is nowhere mentioned in John 3.

That's right; it was faith and faith alone that saves. Not baptism--not even faith in baptism. Baptism was always done after salvation. Salvation is by faith and faith alone. It is by grace are you saved through faith, not of baptism (a work)
DHK

 

DHK,

bmerr here. You are the only one espousing such a notion, sir. As I've stated before, water, in and of itself is not profitable for the washing away of sin. However, if we believe the teaching of Christ, and submit to His authority, then we will be immersed in water for the remission of sins, and leave the results up to Him.

I know it doesn't make much sense. It seems foolish to many. But that is what is commanded, and none of your protests will change that fact.

Jeremiah was speaking to the nation of Israel as they polluted themselves with idolatry. The practice they were engaging in may well have been a part of that pagan worship they were involved in.

This does not refute the command of God to be baptized for the remission of sins under the New Testament, which is by the blood of Jesus Christ. Do you understand the difference between the Old and New Covenants? You don't talk like you do.

Just saying it doesn't make it so, sir. You've got to prove it. Nowhere does the Bible teach that one is saved by "faith only". Nowhere in the Bible are we taught that baptism is something one does after salvation.

Eph 2:8, 9 is by far one of the most mis-used texts in the entirety of Holy Writ. I think I've gone over this before, but it's worth repeating.

The "ye" in the text is the saints at Ephesus (1:2). We need to understand Eph 2:8, 9 in the same way they understood it. Let's follow the "ye".

In 1:13, speaking of Christ, we read, "In whom also ye trusted, after that ye heard the word of truth, the gospel of your salvation: in whom also after that ye believed, ye were sealed with that holy Spirit of promise."

Do we see the word "only" in connection with "believed" in that text? No. Let's keep it out of our understanding of the text also.

Next, let's turn to Acts 19:18, where we read, "And many that believed came, and confessed, and shewed their deeds."

Now we have belief and confession, just like in rom 10:9, 10. The Ephesians also "shewed their deeds", or their works. They repented. That means repentance is a work. Doesn't bother me, though, since it is a work commanded by God (Acts 17:30). Faith, repentance, and confession so far. Everyone still on board?

Skip back to 19:1-5, where we see men hear Paul's preaching, demonstrate repentance by accepting his correction, and being baptized.

So, to sum up what we've found, we have preaching, hearing, faith, repentance, confession, and baptism. all of these things would have been in the minds of the saints at Ephesus ("ye") when they read Eph 2:8, 9.

An interesting thing for you to look up is the phrase "faith only". See if you can find it in the New Testament, and tell everyone what it says when you do. It's in there one time. Are you honest enough?

Look at Rom 6:17, 18. It reads,

17 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.

18 Being then made free from sin, ye became the servants of righteousness.

Notice at what point the Romans were made free from sin: When they obeyed from the heart that form of the doctrine they had been delivered.

What was the doctrine that had been delivered to the Romans? And what do you think would be a form, or a symbol of that doctrine?

Nobody's claiming "baptism only", DHK. Just baptism also.

In Christ,

bmerr

 

More accurately, as Jamieson, Faucett, and Brown, as well as others, point out: "having called upon his name."</font>[/QUOTE]Who the heck are Jameison, Faucett, and Brown, but men who have given their opinion on a text? The opinions of men are not authoritative, most especially when they're wrong.

Have you ever noticed that Paul, having believed on the Lord Jesus Christ, still understood that he needed to do something? How about the fact that even Jesus Christ Himself didn't tell Paul what to do, but sent him to wait for a man to tell him.

That phrase, "call upon the name of the Lord" is an interesting one. Paul was not the only one told to do such a thing.

In the first gospel sermon on Pentecost of Acts 2, Peter told the crowd, "And it shall come to pass, that whosoever shall call upon the name of the Lord shall be saved" (Acts 2:21).

Then down in 2:37, those who were pricked in their heart said, "Men and brethren, what shall we do?" These people had believed Peter's message, and it was this faith in his message of the risen Christ that prompted their question, which was, by implication, "What shall we do to call on the name of the Lord?"

What did Peter tell them? "I just told you back in verse 21, ya morons! Call on the name of the Lord! What is ya, ignint? Start hollerin' Lord, Lord!"

Of course not!

We all know (whether we like it or not) that Peter told them to "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."

In obeying Peter's command, they were calling on the name of the Lord.

Also, in Rom 10:16, we read, "But they have not all obeyed the gospel..."

This follows hot on the heels of Rom 10:13, "For whosoever shall call on the name of the Lord shall be saved."

So Paul tells us that to call upon the name of the Lord is to obey the gospel. What could that mean?

Okay, we need to recognize that when Paul was told to be baptized, it was to wash away his sins. Was he saved while still in his sins? Of course not.

Additionally, the "heavenly vision" he obeyed was Jesus telling him his mission (read Acts 26:16-18), not Jesus telling him how to be saved, or that he already was saved.

There you go blasphemeing the Holy Spirit again! Repent, man!

It's a good thing you keep saying things like "baptism does not wash away sin", and "salvation is by faith alone". If it weren't for people like you, people wouldn't believe it, since they won't find it in the Bible.

God did no such thing. He did not use a brazen serpent to save in the wilderness. That again is heresy. [/quote]

God did in the case of the brasen serpent the same thing He did with Naaman, and Jericho, and a host of other examples in the Old Testament. He gave a command to be obeyed in order to receive a promised blessing. These things were written for our admonition (1 Cor 10:11), so that when god commanded immersion in water for the blessing of the remission of sins, we could know tha we could trust Him to deliver if we obeyed.

Now you're getting it, sir! Obedience to God's command to look upon the serpent saved the people from dying from the snake bite. The serpent itself did nothing. Keep this in mind with baptism in the New Testament.

ARRGHH! You almost had it. You need to find something that the Bible actually commands us to do. We are not told to "look upon and believe in the Saviour" for salvation, or the remission of sins. So close!

No, he did not. The waters (of baptism) signified destruction. Those that were baptized drowned. They were destroyed by the flood. The waters flooded the earth, and destroyed all that was therein. It was the earth that was immersed in water, not Noah. What saved Noah? Noah was safe in the Ark, a picture of Christ, which rode on top of the waters.[/quote]

God used water in the days of Noah to separate the righteous from the unrighteous, the like figure of which baptism is used under the New Testament. There are several examples of God using water as a dividing line. Maybe I'll post on that sometime.

Okay, here's the whole enchilada.

20 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.

21 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:

The filth of the flesh is dirt. The filth of the soul is sin. Sin is what gives us a guilty conscience before God. dirt is what makes us need a bath.

Peter is saying that baptism is not a bath for the body, but an answer (or appeal, request) of (for) a good conscience toward God.

When a repentant believer submits to baptism, he is doing so in "faith of the operation of God" (Col 2:12). He understands that his purpose is not to clean his body of dirt, but to have God wash his soul of sin.

Again, let me emphasize that Frank and I are not proposing salvation by baptism only, but salvation by baptism also. To dunk an unrepentant unbeliever under the water would, in fact, just get him wet (and pretty mad, too!).

Faith and repentance are prerequisites for baptism.

How needless would it have been for Christ to say "and is not baptized"? One is condemned at the first sin of unbelief (John 3:18). How much more damned could one be by not submitting to baptism?

What if Mark 16:16 promised a new Cadillac? What would you have to do to get it?

What was Jesus speaking of when He said that one must be born of wter and of the Spirit (John 3:5)?

Again, let me encourage you to find the phrase "faith only" or "faith alone" in the New Testament.

In closing, let me point out that in Noah's case, God's grace was manifested by God telling Noah what to do to escape the coming judgment.

In Titus 2:11, 12, we read,

11 For the grace of God that bringeth salvation hath appeared to all men,

12 Teaching us that, denying ungodliness and worldly lusts, we should leve soberly, reighteously, and godly, in this present world;

God's grace to mankind is manifested by His providing a way of escape from the coming Judgment. Our faith in the Way He has provided, demonstrated by our obedience to His commands, is what saves us.

In Christ,

bmerr

 

More accurately, as Jamieson, Faucett, and Brown, as well as others, point out: "having called upon his name."</font>[/QUOTE]Who the heck are Jameison, Faucett, and Brown, but men who have given their opinion on a text? The opinions of men are not authoritative, most especially when they're wrong.

Have you ever noticed that Paul, having believed on the Lord Jesus Christ, still understood that he needed to do something? How about the fact that even Jesus Christ Himself didn't tell Paul what to do, but sent him to wait for a man to tell him.

That phrase, "call upon the name of the Lord" is an interesting one. Paul was not the only one told to do such a thing.

In the first gospel sermon on Pentecost of Acts 2, Peter told the crowd, "And it shall come to pass, that whosoever shall call upon the name of the Lord shall be saved" (Acts 2:21).

Then down in 2:37, those who were pricked in their heart said, "Men and brethren, what shall we do?" These people had believed Peter's message, and it was this faith in his message of the risen Christ that prompted their question, which was, by implication, "What shall we do to call on the name of the Lord?"

What did Peter tell them? "I just told you back in verse 21, ya morons! Call on the name of the Lord! What is ya, ignint? Start hollerin' Lord, Lord!"

Of course not!

We all know (whether we like it or not) that Peter told them to "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."

In obeying Peter's command, they were calling on the name of the Lord.

Also, in Rom 10:16, we read, "But they have not all obeyed the gospel..."

This follows hot on the heels of Rom 10:13, "For whosoever shall call on the name of the Lord shall be saved."

So Paul tells us that to call upon the name of the Lord is to obey the gospel. What could that mean?

Okay, we need to recognize that when Paul was told to be baptized, it was to wash away his sins. Was he saved while still in his sins? Of course not.

Additionally, the "heavenly vision" he obeyed was Jesus telling him his mission (read Acts 26:16-18), not Jesus telling him how to be saved, or that he already was saved.

There you go blasphemeing the Holy Spirit again! Repent, man!

It's a good thing you keep saying things like "baptism does not wash away sin", and "salvation is by faith alone". If it weren't for people like you, people wouldn't believe it, since they won't find it in the Bible.

God did no such thing. He did not use a brazen serpent to save in the wilderness. That again is heresy. [/quote]

God did in the case of the brasen serpent the same thing He did with Naaman, and Jericho, and a host of other examples in the Old Testament. He gave a command to be obeyed in order to receive a promised blessing. These things were written for our admonition (1 Cor 10:11), so that when god commanded immersion in water for the blessing of the remission of sins, we could know tha we could trust Him to deliver if we obeyed.

Now you're getting it, sir! Obedience to God's command to look upon the serpent saved the people from dying from the snake bite. The serpent itself did nothing. Keep this in mind with baptism in the New Testament.

ARRGHH! You almost had it. You need to find something that the Bible actually commands us to do. We are not told to "look upon and believe in the Saviour" for salvation, or the remission of sins. So close!

No, he did not. The waters (of baptism) signified destruction. Those that were baptized drowned. They were destroyed by the flood. The waters flooded the earth, and destroyed all that was therein. It was the earth that was immersed in water, not Noah. What saved Noah? Noah was safe in the Ark, a picture of Christ, which rode on top of the waters.[/quote]

God used water in the days of Noah to separate the righteous from the unrighteous, the like figure of which baptism is used under the New Testament. There are several examples of God using water as a dividing line. Maybe I'll post on that sometime.

Okay, here's the whole enchilada.

20 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.

21 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:

The filth of the flesh is dirt. The filth of the soul is sin. Sin is what gives us a guilty conscience before God. dirt is what makes us need a bath.

Peter is saying that baptism is not a bath for the body, but an answer (or appeal, request) of (for) a good conscience toward God.

When a repentant believer submits to baptism, he is doing so in "faith of the operation of God" (Col 2:12). He understands that his purpose is not to clean his body of dirt, but to have God wash his soul of sin.

Again, let me emphasize that Frank and I are not proposing salvation by baptism only, but salvation by baptism also. To dunk an unrepentant unbeliever under the water would, in fact, just get him wet (and pretty mad, too!).

Faith and repentance are prerequisites for baptism.

How needless would it have been for Christ to say "and is not baptized"? One is condemned at the first sin of unbelief (John 3:18). How much more damned could one be by not submitting to baptism?

What if Mark 16:16 promised a new Cadillac? What would you have to do to get it?

What was Jesus speaking of when He said that one must be born of wter and of the Spirit (John 3:5)?

Again, let me encourage you to find the phrase "faith only" or "faith alone" in the New Testament.

In closing, let me point out that in Noah's case, God's grace was manifested by God telling Noah what to do to escape the coming judgment.

In Titus 2:11, 12, we read,

11 For the grace of God that bringeth salvation hath appeared to all men,

12 Teaching us that, denying ungodliness and worldly lusts, we should leve soberly, reighteously, and godly, in this present world;

God's grace to mankind is manifested by His providing a way of escape from the coming Judgment. Our faith in the Way He has provided, demonstrated by our obedience to His commands, is what saves us.

In Christ,

bmerr

 

bmerr here. What you've got there, steaver, is what's called a grammatical error. "With", and "by" do not mean the same thing.

Jesus baptized "with" the Spirit. The apostles were baptized "by" Jesus "with" the Spirit.

Many people were baptized "by" John "with" water.

Do you see the difference? I'm afraid your case is not made, and you are still lacking Scriptural support for the idea that the Holy Spirit would baptize anyone.

"By" the Spirit we are baptized "into" the church, or the "one body", the baptism is administered by man, in keeping with the Savior's command (Matt 28:19), and the element in which we are baptized into the church is water, as demonstrated in Acts 8:38, 10:47, and 16:13-15.

This is an exellent set of questions, and I'm not sure if my answer will be satisfactory, but I'll give it a shot.

As has been covered elsewhere (and maybve on this thread, too), the fact is that Jesus lived and died under the Old Testament. The New Testament is the one in His blood, and is binding until the end of time.

Let's say I decide to give you my 1991 Ranger with 273,000+ miles on it. I could just walk up to you, and hand you the keys, and it'd be yours (lucky you, huh?).

But what if, instead of just giving it to you, I leave it to you in my last will and testament. Then you have to wait for me to die before you can get it.

While I'm alive, it's mine to do with as I please, but after I'm dead, it has to be distributed according to my last will and testament. Anything other than that would be against my instructions.

Okay, where am I going with this, right? Here's the deal. While Jesus was alive (before the crucifixion, I mean), He was free to distribute His posessions to anyone He chose, under any conditions that He chose.

Take the rich young ruler from Mark 10:17-ff for example. He was told to sell what he had and give to the poor, and to follow Jesus in order to have eternal life.

In contrast, the thief on the cross did nothing more than ask Jesus to remember him when He came into His kingdom, and he was promised paradise.

Blind Bartimaeus (Mark 10:46-52) received his sight at the word of Christ, but the man born blind in John 9:1-ff got clay made of Jesus' spit and dirt put on his eyes, and then had to go wash in the pool of Siloam before he received his sight. Why the difference?

It was His stuff to give as He pleased before His death.

It's the same way with the Holy Spirit. Before His death, Jesus could tell people to pray to the Father to send Him, or suggest to the woman at the well to ask Him for Him.

But after the cross, Jesus last will and Testament went into effect. Now the Spirit is given only according to the New Testament, which requires faith, repentance, and baptism, and supercedes the Old.

I hope that helps. It's how I see it, and if I've got it wrong, I'm willing to be corrected. I'm in the process of learning like everyone else.

In Christ,

bmerr

 

bmerr here. I didn't mean to seem like I was avoiding the text, just trying to avoid carpal tunnel syndrome.

The one body is what we are baptized "into", not what we're baptized "with".

The apostles were baptized "with" the Holy Ghost "by" Jesus.

Many were baptized "with" water "by" John.

So again, if one interprets 1 Cor 12:13 as though the Holy Spirit is doing the baptizing, then he must identify the medium in which the Spirit baptizes us "into" the one body.

No, immersion in water is a form of the death, burial, and resurrection of Christ (Rom 6:17). It IS a real baptism totally separate and apart from the baptism of the Holy Spirit, with a completely different purpose, and thus makes TWO baptisms, when Paul said years after Acts 10 that there is only "one baptism" (Eph 4:5).

Who would you say inspired Peter and the rest of the apostles to preach and teach immersion in water for the remission of sins then?

The baptism Paul spoke of is described as a burial and raising up again (Rom 6:3-5; Col 2:12), and "that form of doctrine which was delivered you" (Rom 6:17).

Let's compare. When one supposedly receives the baptism of the Holy Spirit, is he buried in the Spirit and then raised up out of the Spirit? Be honest! That doesn't make a lick of sense, does it?

Now, when one is baptized in water, is he buried in the water and then raised up out of the water? Why yes, I'd have to say that's how it happens.

It seems quite logical to me that only water baptism fits the description given by the apostle Paul, and performed in several conversion accounts in Acts.

I'm not sure where you are getting the idea that I am espousing salvation by "baptism only". That would be as false as preaching salvation by "faith only".

I've stated several times that faith and repentance are prerequisites to baptism. And whether you see baptism as merely a "water ceremony" or not, it's still commanded by God in order to obtain the remission of sins.

 

Remember you are posting on a Baptist Board, in an Other Religions or Denominations Forum. No Baptist believes in baptismal regeneration, so you are clearly in the minority, not me. There are very few people here that espouse what you believe, in fact. Baptismal regeneration is a well known documented heresy. Baptism doesn't save. Only Christ can save. It is that simple. Your problem is that you take a few Scriptures out of context and ignore the rest of the Bible. You have a problem with the very words of Christ, don't you?

John 14:6 Jesus saith unto him, I am the way, the truth, and the life: no man cometh unto the Father, but by me.

John 5:24 Verily, verily, I say unto you, He that heareth my word, and believeth on him that sent me, hath everlasting life, and shall not come into condemnation; but is passed from death unto life.

John 3:16 For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life.

John 3:18 He that believeth on him is not condemned: but he that believeth not is condemned already, because he hath not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God.

John 3:36 He that believeth on the Son hath everlasting life: and he that believeth not the Son shall not see life; but the wrath of God abideth on him.

Acts 4:12 Neither is there salvation in any other: for there is none other name under heaven given among men, whereby we must be saved.

Acts 10:43 To him give all the prophets witness, that through his name whosoever believeth in him shall receive remission of sins.

Acts 16:31 And they said, Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ, and thou shalt be saved, and thy house.

1 John 5:12-13 He that hath the Son hath life; and he that hath not the Son of God hath not life. These things have I written unto you that believe on the name of the Son of God; that ye may know that ye have eternal life, and that ye may believe on the name of the Son of God.

None of these Scriptures speak about baptism. They all speak of faith or belief. Your cultish heretical belief is what the Bible defines as damnable heresy.

What the Bible commands is to be saved, and then to be baptized. Baptism follows salvation all the time. No matter what you assert, you will not change the teachings of the Bible.

You are absolutely right. It was a pagan practice. And so is baptismal regeneration, a practice carried out by the Hindus--a superstition that water can wash away sins. Pure paganism.

I understand, but apparently you do not. The Bible does not contradict itself. Let's look at that command of Scripture that the Lord Himself gave us:

Matthew 28:19-20 Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost:
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.

Now if you look in the Greek, or even a number of other translations, you will find that the first command (after Go) is "disciple" translated "teach" in the KJV. In order to disciple someone, they first have to be brought to Christ. The plan Christ gave to the disciples was:
1. GO
2. Win them to Christ (no baptism). This is the first part of the discipling process.
3. Disciple. This is what is meant by the word teach.
4. Baptize. They weren't to be baptized until after they were saved and then well taught.
5. Teach them more--all things.
--It is very evident that baptism is far removed from salvation, just as it was in the life of Saul.

I have already quoted enough Scripture for you to prove this point. If you don't believe Christ, then who will you believe? Did Christ say I am the way, or did He say Baptism is the way? Which is it? You obviously discredit Christ and disbelieve the Bible. You would rather believe a superstition that water saves.

1 John 1:7 But if we walk in the light, as he is in the light, we have fellowship one with another, and the blood of Jesus Christ his Son cleanseth us from all sin.
--Notice it says blood of Christ, not baptism or water.

It is one of the plainest and simplest verses in the Bible. You reject its teaching because it goes directly against the heresy that you espouse. You have gone out of your way to make something so simple, so complicated.

So let's follow it. Simply put, the letter Paul wrote was to the "saints" at Ephesus--the saved. Not hard to understand at all.

As I pointed out to you. It is simple. Paul again says that he is writing to the saved. They had "trusted" Christ as their Saviour. They had believed. They were saved.

Let's look at another example to answer that question.
John 14:6 Jesus saith unto him, I am the way, the truth, and the life: no man cometh unto the Father, but by me.
--I suppose you would think that because Jesus didn't use the word only that He didn't mean that He alone was the way to Heaven. One can get to Heaven through Mohammed, Krishna, Confucius, and a host of other gods, right? Christ has to say ONLY, according to your theology, in order to make the statement valid. If it doesn't say "Christ ONLY" then He doesn't really mean, that he is the way, and there is no other way to Heaven. This is your ridiculous theology.

No, everyone is not on board, because your theology has really gone off the deep end here.
First, look at Eph.19:18 in the ASV

Acts 19:18 Many also of them that had believed came, confessing, and declaring their deeds.
--Note: They HAD believed. They were already Christians. They came and confessed. What did they confess? They confessed their invlovement in magic, much like a believer might confess their involvement using a ouiji board today. It is wrong. Delving into the paranormal for any Christian is wrong. That is what they were confessing. They were already Christians. The text says "they had believed."
Skip back to 19:1-5, where we see men hear Paul's preaching, demonstrate repentance by accepting his correction, and being baptized.
They showed their deeds. That's right. Every Christian ought to "show their deeds." Don't you? Good works is the fruit of a Christian. So is giving up bad works or bad habits. That is part of the fruit of a growing Christian.
You use the words: faith, repentance, and confession, as acts or works. They are not. When one puts their faith in Christ he is repenting at the same time. His faith is not a dead faith. These are not separate acts. The only requirement for salvation is faith and faith alone.

This is all according to bmmer's confused and contradictory theology which doesn't exist in the Bible.

I have already addressed that. I hope you read it carefully.
Now I will adress Eph.2:8,9 and explain it to you. It is very simple to understand:

Ephesians 2:8-9 For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God:
9 Not of works, lest any man should boast.

1. "For by grace are ye saved" Grace is God's free unmerited favor. We are saved by grace because salvation is entirely of God, and man has no part in it at all, and that includes baptism. When Christ was dying on the cross, John 19:30 records one of his last words: "It is finished." Meaning, Salvation is finished. There is nothing more to be done. It is accomplished. Man can do nothing. Christ accomplished it all. It was all of grace--God's grace--His free unmerited favor. We didn't deserve that which he provided for us. Salvation begins and ends with the grace of God. Man has no part in the grace of God. Paul defines that very clearly when he says:

Romans 11:6 And if by grace, then is it no more of works: otherwise grace is no more grace. But if it be of works, then is it no more grace: otherwise work is no more work.
--If there is any work at all involved in the grace of God (and that includes baptism), then grace isn't grace.

2. "through faith" You are saved through faith. It is evident that the "alone" is implied. Do I have to go through my illustration with John 14:6 all over again. Shall I quote the dozens, even hundreds of verses that tell us plainly that salvation is by faith and faith alone. Or, will you throw a childish temper tantrum like some Catholics do because the exact words "faith alone" is not found in the Bible. This one of the most childish arguments I have ever heard. Salvation is by faith, and by faith alone. The context dictates it is. Paul makes sure of that.

3. "and that not of yourselves"
It is not of yourself that you are saved. Baptism is of yourself. It is something that you do; that someone does to you. It is an act, a work. It takes away from the grace of God. It is not necessarily an act of faith. Infants have no faith when they are baptized do they? (A Catholic belief). It is the same concept however, because it is believed that it is the baptismal waters that saves, so why not baptize the infants. One heresy leads to another.

4. "It is a gift of God."
Notice carefully. A gift is a gift. One does not work for a gift. Gifts are given without cost to the recipient. Gifts are free. My children never have to pay me or work for a birthday gift or a Christmas gift. I give it to them out of my own love for them. And God gives us the gift of eternal love at the time of our salvation out of his love for us, because we believe on him. We accept it by faith and faith alone.

5. "It is not of works."
How plain can it be!!! It is not of works. Baptism is a work. It is not of works; not of baptism. If one thinks that baptism is part of salvation they are clearly wrong and contradicting Scripture. There is no work whatsoever involved in salvation. Christ paid the penalty completely with no help from mankind. That is the grace of God. It is a gift of God to be received by faith and faith alone.

Romans 6:17 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.
The meaning is obvious. They were (in their unsaved life) the servants of sin. But now, that they are saved, they obey from the heart the doctrines that they have learned. Sure that may include baptism, prayer, witnessing, fellowship, etc. All of these things follow salvation. Paul was writing to the saints at Rome. He was writing to Christians.
It is important to note that Paul "came not to baptize, but to preach the gospel." Baptism didn't seem to be all important to Paul.

1 Corinthians 1:17 For Christ sent me not to baptize, but to preach the gospel: not with wisdom of words, lest the cross of Christ should be made of none effect.

The doctrines that Paul referred to had nothing to do with baptism. That is just reading into the Scripture things that are not there. It is called "wrongly dividing the word of truth." Peter calls is specifically "wresting the Scriptures to ones own destruction." (2Pet.3:16)
DHK

 

As you said, to “dunk” someone while he is an “unrepentant unbeliever” would not save him. I agree. Let’s say a particular “unrepentant unbeliever” has somehow just moved, or been moved, to the state of being a “repentant believer.” I’m assuming most would consider this individual is now a candidate for baptism. Unfortunately, in the interim, this person dies before the actual water baptism ceremony. What should happen to him? Saved or damned?

For those who believe the Bible teaches baptismal regeneration, I guess they could argue he is damned. Though, I have never heard of any denomination officially or unofficially teaching this. I have heard people say that since, “his heart was right” and his sincere desire was to be baptized, then God would make an allowance in this case.

God doesn’t make arbitrary “allowances”. He does what is right and consistent with His nature in all cases, even when we don’t know or do what is right. He does know our hearts. It just seems to me, this is the overarching tenor and message of the scriptures. What good thing can we do that He did not first give us the power to do? What ceremony or rite can we perform to put Him in our debt or make us holy?

Jesus did all the work necessary for our salvation.

 

DHK,

bmerr here. Do you actually think that being in the majority means you're right? Not a wise choice at all, sir. In the Bible, the majority is almost always in error. The flood of Noah's day; how many were saved? 8. The spies sent in to check out the Promised land; how many gave a bad report? 10. How many believed God? 2.

Or how about those over the age of twenty in the group last mentioned who actually entered into the Promised land; 2 out of what, 2-4 million?

The broad gate that leadeth to destruction; many there be which go in thereat.

The strait and narrow gate that leadeth unto life; few there be that find it.

I could go on, but I am hard pressed to think of an example where the majority is right.

Just for the record, would you mind telling me exactly what "baptismal regeneration" is? I've heard it mentioned several times, but I'm not sure I know what it is. I'm serious.

None of these scriptures says "faith only" or "faith alone" either, but you act as though they do. You still didn't show the one verse where we find the phrase "faith alone". Do you really not know where it is?

I think what's keeping you in error is that you are arguing from a false premise. If you start out with an incorrect premise, then you conclusion will also be incorrect.

You keep arguing from the standpoint of salvation by "faith alone", which the Bible does not teach. In fact, it is "faith alone" that the devils have (James 2:19).

James 2:17 says that faith without works is dead. Surely you aren't submitting the view that we are saved by a dead (non-working) faith, which produces a living (working) faith?

Again (!) let me emphasize that I do not teach or believe that water washes away sin. Immersion in water of a penitent believer is what God (not me) had commanded in order to receive the remission, or washing away, of sins.

I'll have to check it out, but I believe "teach" is translated as "make disciples", not "disciple". Like I said, I'll have to check it out.

Are you then saying that Saul was saved while still in his sins? An answer one way or the other would be helpful.

Notice also that this was written to Christians, not to alien sinners.

Eph 2:8, 9 is no more complicated that mark 16:16 or Acts 2:38, verses you seem to have trouble believing.

We can't pick one over the other, DHK. We've got to make them all work together.

You sir, are a master of misrepresentation. Calm down a little. Don't get upset because you're losing a debate. You're letting your emotions get the better of you and you're spouting off things that no one takes seriously.

No, everyone is not on board, because your theology has really gone off the deep end here.
First, look at Eph.19:18 in the ASV

Had they "believed only"?

John 6:28, 29

28 Then said they unto him, What shall we do, that we might work the works of God?

29 Jesus answered and said unto them, This is the work of God, that ye believe on him whom he hath sent.

Belief is a work.

Jonah 3:10

10 And God saw their works, that they turned from their evil way (repented)...

Repentance is a work.

Baptism is not a work. Baptism is always presented in the passive voice, "be baptized".

Believe is something one must do.

Repent is something one must do.

Confess is something one must do.

Baptism is something one must have done to them.

Faith purifies the heart. Repentance purifies the life. Baptism purifies the soul.

I have already addressed that. I hope you read it carefully.[/quote]

No you didn't, and I did read it carefully. You cited verses that said "faith" and "believe". There's one that says "faith alone", but you haven't shown it. My guess is that it goes against your doctrine of salvation by "faith only".

,

Are you a Universalist? God is no respecter of persons (Acts 10:34). If your assertion is true, that God does everything and man does nothing in regards to salvation, then why are all men not saved?

Why would God do for one, what He would not do for another? I eagerly await your explanation, sir

I'll finish this up later.

In Christ,

bmerr