Water and Blood

mman,

bmerr here. Very nicely said, sir. I only recently made (or was reminded of) the connection made between the water and blood in 1 John 5:8.

There may be another connection between water and blood, but I want to check it out before I suggest it.

In the future you may try breaking up your posts into paragraphs, double-spacing between them. It makes them easier to read.

Again, well done, sir.

In Christ,

bmerr

 

Ac 2:21
And it shall come to pass, that whosoever shall call on the name of the Lord shall be saved.

Ro 10:9
That if thou shalt confess with thy mouth the Lord Jesus, and shalt believe in thine heart that God hath raised him from the dead, thou shalt be saved.
Ro 10:10
For with the heart man believeth unto righteousness; and with the mouth confession is made unto salvation.

Peter and Paul both preached the exact same message. Believe and ye shall be saved. Just Call Upon His Name. Not "go swimming".

I always am amazed by the Acts 2:28 folks. They inevitably skim right over Acts 2:21.

In HIS service;
Jim

 

av1611jim,

You know, I have tried to make that Acts 2:21 connection myself, but to be honest, it is a pretty high level statement. Just like whoever professes that Jesus Christ is Lord shall be saved. Well is that how we do our invitation calls in Church? "Ok, everybody who would like to be saved, just say outloud that Jesus Christ is Lord, and you will go to heaven. Uhhh..No. It is a statement, not the procedure.

Acts 2:21 is a statement of truth. HOW we call upon the Lord for salvation is the real question. Acts 2:38 is pretty clear on the how and the text is hard to refute. Just to be honest.

However, we know that somehow these people must have been saved at that moment. I think based on a lot of early history, that we are missing a full description of the rite. I am sure they confessed Jesus at baptism, it just isn't in the text. I am brave enough to admit, what I am saying is not in the text, but it is implied because that is how I believe recapitualtion happens.

 

Baptism was a symbol of the washing away of sins that ooccurred when people called on the name of the Lord; which was done durung the baptism. So that is why Baptism is made so essential. In most churches today, the altar call has taken its place. You can see this discussed here.

 

I guess Jim will not be amazed by you Mman. You obviously have not skimmed over Acts 2:21, yet make a strong case for the context of the actual text itself in your particular context.

So Jim, lol, be not amazed.

However Mman, we as Evangies, KNOW that there is more there than the text. I mean Jim has a point. The real point he is making is that baptism is not a sacrament. It holds no special forgiving power, regardless of what Acts 2:38 says in a literal fashion. So therefore, they had to have asked Jesus into their lives or believed on Him before the water baptism. They surely were already forgiven, it just doesn't use those words.

Passages by Paul later describing his baptism don't really help our case much either, expecially in reference to Acts 2:38, but we all have our crosses to bear.

At least I am honest. We all have to wrestle the NT to fit all of our theological systemic beliefs to some degree. This is one, I at least admit, is where we have to not be literal to the text.

 

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.

Repent and Be baptized...for the remission of sins.

Suppose I were to buy a ticket to go to Chicago.
The stewardess says: Present your ticket, and be seateed...arriving at Chicago in due time.

Suppose I do not sit all the way (have to go to the washroom, and must get up).
Suppose I am completely disobedient and stand all the way.
Will I still get to Chicago? What is the one thing that will get me to Chicago? Is it the sitting or is it the ticket?
Very evidently it is the ticket. My ticket is the only thing that can get me to Chicago. There is only one way to Chicago, and that is via the proper ticket. No other way will do, disobedience nothwithstanding.

There is only one way to Heaven. Jesus is that ticket. He says Repent and be baptized. Repentance is absoultely necessary. Baptism is obedience, but not absolutely necessary to get to heaven. The construction of the statement is the same as in the example above. If I disobey in the latter clause it doesn't mean I won't get there. I will still get to heaven. I have the ticket. Jesus gave it to me when I accepted it as his free gift. It is in my possession and no man can take it from me (John 10:27-30). The price of the ticket has been paid and that is all that matters. Baptism is irrelevant, as far as sallvation is concerned.
DHK

 

Frist my illustration was with a plane, not a train. And no they don't kick you off a plane in mid-flight.
Neither does Jesus. Eternal life is eternal life. Words have meanings. If eternal life could end at any time it would not be eternal any longer but only temporary, and Christ would be found to be a liar.

Let's look at the verse carefully, this time involving the Greek.

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.

Matthew 3:11 I indeed baptize you with water unto repentance: but he that cometh after me is mightier than I, whose shoes I am not worthy to bear: he shall baptize you with the Holy Ghost, and with fire:

The words "for" in Acts 2:38, and "unto" in Mat.3:11 are the same Greek word, "eis." They have the same meaning.
So, tell me: Did John baptize in order that the Pharisees might have repentance, or did he baptize because they had already repented? You tell me.

The same is true in Acts 2:38. The same word is used: "eis" The baptism was "because of" as it is in Mat.3:11. They had already repented therefore they were baptized. It was an accomplished fact.

Third. It is the blood and only the blood that can wash away sin. No other can do.

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.
--This is indisputable.
DHK

 

Well, DHK says that we can clearly just believe (get our ticket), and not get baptized, and still get there. I'll agree, as I think any sytematically intellectual person would, that we do some Olympic style gymnasitcs to get our story to fit the text.

I think DHK says this, although he makes me a 'wee bit' uncomfortable with his black and white demeanor, because of the end of that verse which says, 'but he who does not beleive will be condemned.'

Subjectively, I say that because of this verse structure, maybe you can believe and not be babtized, although that is not what the text says. I can see objectively, if you don't believe, who in their right mind would follow through with baptism?!? So I would imagine to a Catholic or COC, this type of logic DHK or me uses, may seem ludicrous. I don't intellectually think that the author here is stating explicilty what DHK says, he obviously is not. DHK is deducing what the underlying meaning is here not based on sentence structure (I sure hope not), but on other principles understood in a 'faith without works' or sacraments theology.

What I find amazing, is how some here think the Catholics or whomever is on the side of Sacramental Baptism, does not read all of the Scriptures. It is pretty blatantly obvious they do. The real deal, is that when someone appears to 'interpret' said Scriptures differently, they somehow don't read all of the Bible.

 

Quite correct Chadman.
Justification by faith (and faith alone) is a theme which thunders through the Bible and is unavoidable. In another thread I gave an exposition of Eph.2:8,9 which none of these COCers cared to refute, but ignored, and changed the topic spouting off their favorite verses out of context as usual. They fail to deal with the hundreds of verses in the Bible that simply say:
"Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ and thou shalt be saved."
That is the message of the Bible, repeated over and over again. Jesus repeated it many times. It is recorded in John 3:16 and John 14:6, two of the most popular verses of the Bible. But if they will not believe the words of Christ Himself, then there is not much hope of them believing anyone else.
DHK

 

DHK said:

C'mon DHK, seriously, these type of metaphorical stories don't define theology, they can be twisted worse than the Scriptures. Example...'Oh, yes you can get taken off a plane in mid flight...they land early because you were acting up...so you don't get to your destination. Therefore you can lose your salvation." Silly really and these can be bantered back and forth forever.

DHK you also said

Well, now here is where you make a, I think,a logical error. I believe, correct me if I am wrong, that this is not a literal statement of what actually happens to you in salvation. You don't get blood all over you. His blood is the catalyst that allows what you ARE saved by, GRACE, to come into your life in a spiritual rebirth.

So then, the blood is the essence that allows the resulting substance, GRACE, for salvation. For we are SAVED BY GRACE.

The real question being discussed here as I understand the breakdown, is the CONDUIT of that saving grace. How does that saving grace make its way to our lives?

We say through a prayer. The sinnners prayer. Period. That is the conduit or 'rite of passage' to recapitulation.

The others say Baptism as a spiritual sacrament. That is the conduit in their understanding.

What is confounding is when you jump across defining terms and try to debate these guys down by comparing Blood to Water in baptism as a conclusion. That is is simply not what they or we are saying. You changed at the end to compare the essence with the conduit.

We are contrasting the conduit by which we have saving Grace manifested to us personally.

This is how your arguments seem slam dunk to you, but leave confusion sometimes. They have logic that leaves us scratching our heads. I hope I am not demeaning, as I agree with you, but we have to debate point for point to be clear.

 

DHK said

Well I don't agree at all with that pretty limited and paranoid sentiment. I think you fail to be honest with yourself in realizing that so many non-Baptist, or non-evangelicals, read the whole Bible, and utterly believe what they read. It is clear even from this board, that these folks can articulate in writing, why they believe there is more to faith than thoughts and words only.

You and I may disagree with them, but you have honestly got to be deluding yourself not to see where the true differences are. They are in interpretation intermingled with history (the Bible is part of Christian history , btw). They don't define terms the same as you, therefore the Scriptures don't mean the same things. You honestly don't see that???

What does 'Call upon the name of the Lord' mean? You know that is subjective, and can be seen many ways depending on what theological model you are working from.

You simply have an Evangelical viewpoint, and others don't. Can't you accept that? If it makes you feel better inside to think they don't read or believe the whole Bible, then believe it. But don't kid yourself. They believe it fully and really.

Does it make you uncomfortable to know that in the end, our decision to be Evangelical is just a probability of being correct? Because thats what it is. A probability. Maybe that's uncomfortable, but it is the reality of today's reformed Churches. I can live with that.

 

Absolutely not.
There are no probabilities when it comes to the doctrine of salvation. It is clearly set forth in 1Cor.15:1-4, and further substantiated in hundreds of other verses. Either it is accepted or rejected. Paul writes that if any other gospel other than the one that he has given is preached than that person is accursed. So you had better be sure that your gospel is the right one. Christ died for your sins, was buried, and rose again the third day. He paid the penalty for your sin that you could never pay. He did so with his sacrifice. It was his blood that atoned for your sin. Either you accept that sacrifical death by faith or you reject it. There is no inbetween. This message I am 100% sure of. There is no doubt about it. Salvation is a gift of God offered to all who will accept it by faith. You have the choice to receive or reject. God will not force you to accept his free gift of salvation.
Neither is there any works such as baptism associated with it. It is all of grace. These things are made very plain to us in Scripture. Those that do not understand these things do not understand soteriology. Salvation is not a difficult doctrine to understand, and yet many refuse it anyway.
DHK

 

Biblical faith is not doing at all. Doing is a work. Faith is not a work. That is why the COC have a works salvation which puts it in the realm of a cult. They believe tehy are going to heaven because of their works. They have a wrong definition of faith. Look up faith in a dictionary, preferably a Bible dictionary, or a Greek lexicon. Faith is not doing. Faith is believing. It is trusting. Faith is putting confidence in the Word of another.

Romans 4:19-21 And being not weak in faith, he considered not his own body now dead, when he was about an hundred years old, neither yet the deadness of Sara's womb:
20 He staggered not at the promise of God through unbelief; but was strong in faith, giving glory to God;
21 And being fully persuaded that, what he had promised, he was able also to perform.

Abraham was a man of faith. Faith is definned here. Abraham was confident. He was fully persuaded that what God had promised he was able to perform.
He had confidence in the word of another, specifically God's Word. That is faith. Faith is not doing. Faith is trust, confidence.
DHK