Water and Blood

mman said:

Logistics, logistics...what I mean, is that you are baptized in water not blood. You know, the actual Rite of Baptism. In that act of faith, you are saying you are born again right? Not by the work, but rather, the act of faith in baptism, and the rebirth is the work of God during the immediate act? BTW, what words would you use to clarify?

Well now, they also baptize adults, just like you guys do, when a lost person wants to be a Christian. And how can you have NO IDEA what they teach? This stuff is all over this forum?!? You haven't seen some of their posts? Surely, a COC person would check out what they teach regarding baptism, since what you guys teach seems pretty darn close, at least regarding adults. Why not go to the source? You guys didn't come up with this interpretation in a vaccum certainly. Don't you COC guys and RCC guys say the same things when looking at Scriptures on Baptism? (hint...'yes')

You guys may be Protestant, but you sound Catholic on baptism.

 

Hey DHK,

I am really curious about the usage of 'EIS' as you and mman were discussing it. How do we reconcile what he was saying?

 

I'm open to reexamining widely held beliefs, but in a case like this, I'm sorry, but salvation can not be granted or denied based on a work. If we accept that, it opens up a whole pandora's box. As I said above, where is the line drawn then? Nobody obeys perfectly, and God's standard is perfection. So then there is no mroe assurance of salvation, and then no good news. Who then knows who will finally "make it"? (this is the way many Catholics live, and then many give up and go the opposite direction of living how they please and just hoping their good outweighs their bad.) Or, we have to be presumptuous, and think we are doing good enough. Just be baptized, join the true Church, and focus on a few other "commands". But even still, man always misses things. We end up bringing God's standard of perfection down.
Sorry, but works-salvation (including renaming "works" as "faith") just does not fit the Gospel.

they were closely linked, but I showed above where someone was baptized without yet receiving the Spirit, and today, most people are not baptized ont he spot. CofC member Frank is the only one who says he does (and I don't see how he is able to always do it). So we cannot hold salvation off for a convert until they are able to he baptized, or until they are fully taught all the doctrines. The act of going into the water is man's work, and it's the spiritual immersing into Christ that is God's work. God does not lift anyone up and dunk them into the water.

With the exception of infant baptism, it is exactly what the RCC teaches. They go to the next logical step and do the same type of thing with Communion.

I don't remember saying "it was not water baptism". What I did prove was that water baptism plus spirit baptism did not equal TWO separate "baptisms", supposedly proving your idea that water baptism and not spirit baptism is what saves. If that was true, then once again, in Acts 8, the Spirit would not have been necessary.

Obedience comes from the heart. We are to do whatever God tells us, whether it is baptism or anything else. So He told them to be baptized and they were, just as He told Noah to build an ark, and he did. It is not the work done that saves, as we still do not do anything perfectly or consistently. With all these counter accusations of people just being stubborn or whatever, no one is addressing this point. So in whatever means God tells us to obey, it is the faith in God that leads us to obey in the first place, that saves, not whatever we may do. So the altar call has sort of taken place of baptism as the public confession of Christ. I know God did not authorize that, but then we do not go and say people are not saved because they weren't baptized to make up for it.
The antitype of a physical act of salvation is not going to be another physical act. IT is the spiritual immersion into Christ, and water was retained to symbolize it.

I already explained this a few times. A person is immersed into the Body of Christ. At the same time, the old man dies, and a new man (regenerate) arises. The water was to symbolize this. You are trying to force the analogies to be completely exact (there must be a literal "going down" and "rising up" of the person), but this is multifaceted. While immersion into Christ is one way, still, there is at the same time a death of the old person and rise of the new. Two separate analogies; ONE baptism!

 

ERICB said

I can understand that postition. But I think you are missing one key thing here. LISTEN to what they are saying. They don't believe in a works salvation. You may ask, "Then what pray tell, if they are sincere, could they possibly believe regarding works???" Right? They are saying it over and over.

I have have argued until blue in the face with very well versed Catholics (at least on Salvaiton, not other stuff). I am convinced they absolutely in their theology do not believe that works save them. Hey hear me out. They believe the same thing we believe. That GRACE saves you.

The divergence is pretty clear once we understand what they are saying. How do we get to that saveing GRACE? Ah...FAITH of course.

And hence, the REAL difference. The very definition of FAITH. And this is what I, through HOURS of intense discussions with some of these folks, have come to understand that they believe regarding salvation of works. (Note - And when in person, it is so much easier than on these board, because you can keep asking about one aspect without others banging in on your line of thought. Something that could takes weeks on a forum, or maybe never.)

They believe that Faith is a muti-component thing. That saving faith contains, both mental ascent, and action. Much like James 2 talks about. They believe work are a component of faith. See that is key to beginning to understand HOW they THINK.

Their own theology states, that Works, DO NOT have saving *MERIT*. This is not a play on words, they really believe this stuff.

It is WE Evangelicals, that all too often, refuse to believe that they believe this. And rather than accepting this, and simply agreeing to disagree, we CHARGE them with a doctrine they themselves don't actually teach. Namely, that a man can be saved by works. They just don't teach it that way, when you break down their theology.

This, in and of itself is not so bad, but just hampers true, comprehensive, and clear communication with others of differing theologies.

Remember, we Evangelicals are so very much more black and white in our usage and definition of terms. You have to understand what they MEAN when they say certain phrases or words.

We want to understnad the essence of what they are saying, which takes very careful discussion and listening.

Before you guys hack me to death now...one more thing. We have all met the unlearned Catholic, who seem to think if they do good works, they will go to heaven. That is entirely another issue. Because I have discovered that the Catholics, in their teaching to the masses, focus on HOW to live a Christian life, over the deeper theology.

This brings up other questions of course, namely, can a person be saved if they have faith in Christ, but think about the theology of it incorrectly. Think about that question a while. It also applies to us Fundamentalists too. Too much to cover here.

I'll close with a summary. We at times, simply refuse to acknowledge what these guys tell us they believe. And hense, we will never deal with the real issues that divide us all. We will listen for a key word or phrase, and then dump our version with verses to back it all up, and then tell them what they REALLY believe.

 

Basically, they all SAY they believe in salvation by grace through faith. Problem is, they REDEFINE "faith" as works ("Baptism IS faith"), and then, "grace" becomes simply the providing of a set of intructions on works that we are to do to be saved. That would fit--IF we could actually carry out God's instructions perfect enough to merit salvation. The entire OT record shows that no one can. So the "grace" we need is not a new set of laws, but rather salvation by faith in what Christ did for us. Any works of obedience are a reaction of love (1 John 4:9-5:3), not to be saved. They are done done in faith, (and therefore can be called "Acts of faith") but they do not themselves BECOME the faith that saves.

 

Because the Holy Spirit chose to use the word "eis" and I don't argue with the Holy Spirit. The word "eis" is the word used in the manuscripts and that is the one in contention, thus that is the one we must deal with, not "hoti." As has already been noted, eis has is a very common preposition, has been used to mean "on account of" or "because of" as well as a variety of other meanings. It is more commonly used than "hoti."

Water and baptism are very different.
Matthew 26:28 For this is my blood of the new testament, which is shed for many for the remission of sins.
--The most common meaning of eis is into or unto. Does eis make sense here with that interpretation? Was his blood shed for mnay intothe remission of sins? You can't have it both ways. You want specific definitions for your theology, only to fit when it fits your theology and not the rest of the Bible. The Bible harmonizes together, not contradicts each other.
Scripture must harmonize:
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.
--Water does not wash away sin, but the blood of Jesus does. The preposition eis, therefore means "in order that"

This line of reasining I gave you before. It should be evident that eis has more than one meaning; that it is used in the sense of "because of" in Mat.3:11, and in other places. That is exactly what the word "fur" means--because of. John baptized because they had repented of their sins, and for no other reason.

You never did make much sense with this point.
--for repentance, unto repentance, because of their repentance. It all meant the same thing didn't it. The end result was that John would not baptize them until they brought proof that they had repented. The same is true in Acts 2:38. Peter would no baptize an unregenerated person. They would have had to be saved first. Or do you believe that Peter was baptizing unsaved individuals? No. Their sins had already been washed away.

Point already made.

"for the remission of sins"

Ryrie
I believe that Ryrie has a very good explanation which mman failed to address.

This has been all of the discussion on this subject that I could find in this thread Chadman.
I do not find that mman has much to stand on.
DHK

 

Thanks DHK, good points. Although you are correct, I think mman has a very sound reasoning for believing what he does based on the text, especially in the Greek now that you guys broke it down. A linguist would have a hard time buying our story, but we are after the 'meanings', not the words used.

But like I said before, you can't take everything literally or some things just don't make sense.

I am not sure how people have a hard time understanding why these guys believe what they do? They are taking the Bible too literally. Simple.

LOL, but I'll admit, I take it literally too, when it supports my view. Did I actually admit that? Hey man, literary honesty.

 

You can’t merge works into Grace for the Christian, for Christian faith is of Paul’s gospel. The Gentile under Acts 2 salvation can only be a proselyte, going with those that have the promise of inheriting the earth. Ephesians 2 is the gift from God to those today that come through the Cross of Jesus, and not [/b]by it, as the Jew must.

There is no King now, and will not be until the King of the Jews reigns on this earth. You are mixing works with the Grace of God that comes through the Cross of Jesus Christ. You have just made the case for the Catholic Pentecostal church giving great credence to the Papal Throne, and its infallibility, that they claim comes from Peter as he proclaimed the "great commission" of repent and be baptized for the remission of sins. Christian faith, ituttut Galatians 1:11-12

 

Sorry, but the analogy does not hold. You are speaking technically ("confess is somethign you do, it's effort; therefore, it's a work") But coming out of the OC system, with its hundreds of physical laborious rituals commanded, there was a clear contrast between "works" abd a simple confession. You could not tell Paul or anyone one else back then that it was the same thing! Sorry; work is work, and faith is faith. Faith is to be evidenced by works, but they are not one in the same! I do not emphasize "confession" as something you get up and do, though this has unofficially taken the place baptism originally held. You are saved the minute you receive Christ into your heart. Public confession and baptism should follow; but I never said salvation depended on that.

they believes AND were baptized. They did BOTH; so in the next verse, you can mention one or the other, and it is true. But it doesn;t mean that ONE or the other BY ITSELF then EQUALS both. Sorry, this method of twisting scripture is just insulting to the intelligence. With this method, you can prove anything is "scriptural".

 

Who is Ryrie? Since we are quoting others, here are some excerpts from debates and from J.W. McGarvey's Commentary on Acts 2:38.
[/QB]</font>[/QUOTE]You still evade the question. We all admit that there dozens of different uses of the word eis. It is a very flexible pronoun. Your problem is that you want to confine it to what your theology restricts you to believe. As Ryrie point out in so many words--Context is everything. If the context of the verse says that your interpretation is going against the grain of the rest of the Bible then you have a problem. The problem, being that you are wrong. The heresy of baptismal regeneration is obviously not taught in the Scriptures. It takes some heavy duty twisting of Scripture to come up with that doctrine.

Stop acting like the typical J.W. and quckly going to another passage, another author, saying "But what about this?' Every cult uses those tactics.

Address the points the Ryrie brought up. What Scripture did he use and why? Why is "eis" used in some passages with the meaning of "on account of" when you say it cannot? You have failed to adress this question, and the Scripture assciated with it.
DHK

 

Yes I fully realize that. It was a slip of the keyboard, you might say.

The argument is: It can't mean what YOU THINK it says for that would contradict the rest of Scripture, and the Scripture does not contradict itself.

I already answered you on Mat.26:28. Eis is a "preposition," having differeent meanings in different contexts. The context is key. It is not translated the same way every single time.

Your point made no sense. It was self-defeating. Jonah preached. The people had faith, i.e. believed. What did they do? They put on sackcloth and ashes. Why? Because they believed the preaching . Because they repented.
"They repented because of (not in order to) the preaching of Jonah."
Matthew 12:41 The men of Nineveh shall rise in judgment with this generation, and shall condemn it: because they repented at the preaching of Jonas; and, behold, a greater than Jonas is here. (KJV)

McGarvey can write what he will. He was a member of the Restoration Movement and primary influence in the Church of Christ. When you already have your mind made up as to what you want to prove, you can make the Greek work for you as well. He doesn't impress me one way or the other. The Jehovah Witnesses use the Greek as well. If the espoused doctrine goes contrary to the Word of God, is still heresy no matter how much Greek you use.

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 word eis (unto) obviuosly means "because of" just as it does in Mat.12:41. There is more than one place that it is translated as such. John did not baptize in order that they would repent, did he??
DHK

 

No;you didn't "state" what the Bible stated. You quoted it, and then read your own interpretation ("Belief IS baptism") into it; when it says no such thing. Once again, there were TWO acts mentioned in those passages; not one act with two names!

That is not by the same logic. Especially not Biblical logic. I explained it before: "work" is physical deeds; "faith" is the opposite; though it is to be evidenced by works. Two totally separate thigns that ACCOMPANY each other!

Where does this verse say that? There is not verse saying "baptism is a work". It was automaticallyt understood that work was physical deeds, such as "works of the Law". Spiritual baptism "into Christ" is the work of God. Water baptism is a work we do to show our faith and baptism into Christ. "a part of faith" is a more acceptable statement. But you seem to be making it equate faith.

all all of this shows is that "believing" is manifest by obedience. Nobody here disputes that. But once again, the works of obedience do not EQUATE "faith", and thus earn salvation! None of this proves that idea.

Not so fast! So now; ANY "baptism" is "believing"? Even if it was not into Christ? No, that is not what you are trying to prove. Of course, if a person is going to go through this ritual of baptism; they must be doing it for a reason, and thus "believing" in something. Once again here, just like all the other examples, baptism was a sign of a belief in something. In that case; John's message of repentance. So they needed to be in Christ, and thus a baptism in the name of Christ would mark their acceptance of Christ.

 

Yes, this is exactly the same gospel. The story does not stop in verse 31 of Acts 16. Keep reading. What is the full meaning of "believe".

Acts 16:31They said, "Believe in the Lord Jesus, and you will be saved, you and your household."
32And they spoke the word of the Lord to him together with all who were in his house.

33And he took them that very hour of the night and washed their wounds, and immediately he was baptized, he and all his household.

34And he brought them into his house and set food before them, and rejoiced greatly, having believed in God with his whole household.

But I believe you will find what they believed at this time is not what they believed earlier. If you won’t take Paul’s word, then perhaps you will believe Peter. Acts 11:16. ”Then remembered I the word of the Lord, how that he said, John indeed baptized with water; but ye shall be baptized with the Holy Ghost .

You will not find Peter again, or any other preaching the “great commission” of repent and be baptized for the remission of sins” This is a ritual that was to die a slow death, along with the Pentecostal church. John writing his books approximately 30 years after the destruction of the Temple will not even mention repentance other than prophecy, or water baptism unless in connection with Jesus on the earth. But man doesn't want to let go of the Jewish baptism, so they all brought it with them when they came out of the Catholic church.

Ask yourself, why would John not mention the “great commission”. It was laid aside, for today there is neither Jew nor Gentile. He will come in His wrath and again deal with His people. Today is a new dispensation. This is baptism into the Body of Christ of Once Saved Always Saved, and not having to endure until the end of the earthly baptism of those promised to inherit the earth by “repenting and water baptism for the remission of sins”. They can only become “righteous” at death.

We Christians upon belief are immediately baptized into the death of Jesus Christ, and buried with Him. We are dead to the Law and it Ordinances which are for the King’s people. He is our Lord and Savior today. There is no King, for they (the house of Israel) exiled Him to heaven. He is today filling His church in heaven, the Body of Christ, His kingdom, and will come and be Israel’s King after the tribulation, and those looking for the kingdom to come.

Notice, he was told to believe, the word of the Lord was spoken to him, immediately he was baptized, the he rejoiced HAVING BELIEVED.

Acts 16:34, ”And when he had brought them into his house, he set meat before them, and rejoiced, believing in God with all his house.” They now had peace in their hearts for they believe the Word of God which is just as Paul and Silas proclaimed, “Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ, and thou shalt be saved, and thy house.” It doesn’t say you will be saved if you do this or that. Baptism was changing, and at this time it didn’t hurt to do it, for this is all very new and confusing. What Paul and Silas said had no works tied to salvation. This is now the work of man, of which Paul acknowledges, in saying he is happy he didn’t baptize more, as in the confusing, people would be saying they were baptized in the name of “Paul” (I Corinthians 1:14-31).

Now notice Acts 2:44, And all those who had believed were together and had all things in common;

What had those who are described as having believed done? According to Acts 2:38,41 they had repented and been baptized, and later in verse 44 this entire process is described and "those who had believed".

Acts 8:35Then Philip opened his mouth, and beginning from this Scripture he preached Jesus to him.

36As they went along the road they came to some water; and the eunuch said, "Look! Water! What prevents me from being baptized?"

You are back to what Peter later says is no longer valid, as shown above.

Peter was still preaching the “great commission” in Acts 8:25, ”And they, when they had testified and preached the word of the Lord, returned to Jerusalem, and preached the gospel in many villages of the Samaritans.” How do we know this is what Peter preached to the house of Israel. That is all he knew, at that time. Damascus Road, and Cornelius had not yet occurred.

Peter and John come to believe as Paul as found in I 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.”[qb]


Preaching the good news about Jesus, we call it the gospel, contains water baptism.

The “latest good news”, came by the preaching of the “Cross”, which came by Paul, and it is a heavenly gospel. Where do you find the Body of Christ, and our Spiritual Baptism in Acts 2? That is the “gospel of the kingdom” for those saints that will go marching in, not those that will be there to meet them in the Body of Christ.

Our Baptism is up there now with our circumcision. It is the gospel of Grace, without works of the hands, through faith of Jesus Christ, and it is a gift when we believe. Colossians 2:11-13, ”In whom also ye are circumcised with the circumcision made without hands, in putting off the body of the sins of the flesh by the circumcision of Christ: 12. Buried with him in baptism, wherein also ye are risen with him through the faith of the operation of God, who hath raised him from the dead. 13. And you, being dead in your sins and the uncircumcision of your flesh, hath he quickened together with him, having forgiven you all trespasses”.

Baptism is not a work but an act of faith, Gal 3:26-27. The work is of God, not man (Col 2:12). You cannot show from the scripture where baptism is a work. Any definition of a work that you can come up with would certainly include confession. It is something that requires effort and something man does. Will this work negate grace?

Then if the “work is of God, and not of man” as you say, then why should we do it? It won’t “unsave” us, but it won't do any good either. What is its purpose, other than for one endeavoring to prove their faith. You are saved, so you are now saying we will prove our faith to God by acting out our faith in a dead work? What’s next, blood sacrifices? All connected with the Old Covenant is DEAD, and water baptism associated with Israel is Dead, as God cut them off as Christ warned them in a parable, and it happened at the stoning of Steven.

I have no idea what you are trying to claim. Neither the Catholic church nor the Papal Throne are scriptural.

That’s what I just explained to you, and you believe as do the Catholic church. They believe the “great commission”, and what Peter says in Acts 2, of which you keep coming back to. This is what the Catholic church believes. You are, as are almost all of the other churches, still tied to the “mother church”, yet deny.

Read and understand Gal 3:26-27 </font>[/QUOTE]Paul wrote this letter to the Galatians warning against that other gospel of Judaizers from Jerusalem and Judah. We see in chapter 1:6-7 the urgency of this letter. Paul can’t believe a Gentile going under the law, or a Jew going back under the law. Paul says that other church of Jesus Christ perverts the gospel of grace. Galatians is scripture of Law Vs. Grace.

”26. For ye are all the children of God by faith in Christ Jesus.” By faith in Christ Jesus, we are all children of God. This agrees with Paul’s gospel “as it does not say by faith in Christ plus water Baptism, circumcision, or any thing done by mans hands before or after. We can’t add words to Paul’s gospel. In Galatians 4:9 through 11 Paul tells the Galatians, the Gentiles they were idol worshipers, and why do they want to go back, losing their freedom in Christ. They are going back where they must do certain things in that other gospel that is a religion with works that also believe in Jesus Christ, but when they do, they will be placed under the law and will be expected to keep the laws.

Paul is giving a lesson to the Jew and the Gentile how all were under the law to bring us to Christ, before faith came so that we could be justified by that faith. And faith did come, the curse of the law being removed of the justified - (verses 22-25). The Judaizers from the Jerusalem church were trying to tell the Gentile they must do as the Jew to be justified.

” 27. For as many of you as have been baptized into Christ have put on Christ.” This of course is our one spiritual baptism.

”28. There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither bond nor free, there is neither male nor female: for ye are all one in Christ Jesus. 29. And if ye be Christ's, then are ye Abraham's seed, and heirs according to the promise.” For understanding go to chapter 4:22-31, where in verse 31, I claim to be free in Christ, and not of the bondwoman. Christian faith, ituttut Galatians 1:11-12

 

the scriptures would support it, for one thing.
Just what is "in the light", then? You have not yet told us. Since it is all a works-based system (whether you call baptism a "work" or not, because obviously that is really not enough anyway), then there must either be a limit to the amount of works that place us "in the light", or, perfection is required. So all we are getting from you is a bunch of "supposes". The ones who aren't in the light and will call Jesus Lord, but be lost are the ones who think they are justifying themselves by works. Why else do you think that Jesus told those religious leaders that harlots and robbers (people truly practicing "lawnessness") would enter before they did. Accusations of "what man likes or dislikes", or "leave it up to man" mean nothing, when you change the gospel to something man earns (which is truly what man "likes", and is "up to man"!)
You yourself said how we et into Christ: we are "baptized" into Christ; but this is the spiritual baptism into the body; symbolized by the water, but not equating a water ceremony.