Water and Blood

So does this mean Apollos instructed them, and then they went to John to be baptized? There is a big problem with this. John was long dead by the time of that Pentecost! Sorry, but you are piecing together whatever you can to maintain your argument, and it doesn't fly. Many gentiles were baptized by John as well, and Apollos is the one who introduced them to Christ, but did not baptize them into Christ; because he too only knew of John's baptism.

No, with the song book and projector; you have written music. The piano adds its own sound, but this takes nothing away from singing. The people are not no longer singing just because an instrument is playing, any more than because they are reading the words. You are making an issue out of nothing.

What is a "work of merit," then? Wand whatever you list, you have to find a scripture that CALLS it a "work".
The scripture doesn;t HAVE to say "such and such is a work". When "works" are mentioned; everyone understood what that means. The word is "ergon", meaning "to toil" (as an effort or occupation); an act, deed, doing, etc.
And it it gains you salvation, it is merit.

Notice, these statements have 2 parts. buried in baptism; raisedthrough faith. I do not see how you can make faith and baptism EQUAL each other in this. And Gal. doesn;t even mention "water" baptism. Remember; "by ONE SPIRIT are we baptized into ONE BODY". So these verse prove what we have been saying: baptism "into Christ" is a spiritual occurrence; HERE is you "faith"; and it was marked by the water ceremony, but the water ceremony itself is not what put you into Christ; because some, like Simon went through with it and still were not saved!

And thus; never does it IN ITSELF cause salvation, remission of sins, or rejoicing.

Baptism will only be an act that has meaning accompanying belief; but it's without the belief that one is condemned, no matter whether he is baptized or not.

But you were trying to say they already "believed" at that point, but belief didn't save them. they were convicted. But they had yet to act on that conviction.

No; because the "showing" was not what actually saved, but in order for the apostles and the rest of the church to accept them as saved, they had to show it (James 2:18). Now, you could go on and argue "so you believe they could not show it and still be saved"? But if they were saved; why wouldn't they show it? So for this reason, it appears that baptism in itself determined salvation, but that is really not the case.

Not done away, but after this period, when the apostles were there, and the NT not circulated; it would not have the same importance it did then. Of course, the post-apostolic church misunderstood this, and attributed regernration to baptism. But then they also began their teachings on Communion, Church leadership, and slowly, Mary (all of which justifies as "spiritua;", and "by faith, above man's reason"), so you can't go by what they said.

Once again; this was the shallow "belief" we discussed before, or "confession with the lips", similar to that of Simon. They accepted Him as Messiah, but showed that they had not truly received Him as Savior. The same people in ch.8 then begin arguing with him, and He calls them children of their father the devil. "Belief" has different aspects to it. No one is saying that just "mental/verbal acknowledgment" of Jesus as Messiah saves. (Muslims actually do that!) This is what you are criticizing in "belief only", but it is not what we mean by "faith, not works".

Once again; you keep making it one after the other and nothing else. They were repenting as they were being baptized; not they repented months ago, and now decided to show it in baptism. That is what happens today, as unfortunaely, baptism eventually was no longer done at the point of conversion. But since it did change, and the two becaue separate, we have to tie salvation to one of them, and it cannot be the act of going down into water, but rather belief (once again, not the same type of "belief" of the people in John).

Then once again, it in itself is not what actually saves. Most of us here both believe, repented and confessed (hopefully, anyway) and have been baptized; though probably not at the same time. What is the point of coming and arguing about baptism? You act as if that is what salvation is all about, but now you admit, later on, it must be "accompanied" by those things.

No, but you are just taking it and trying to build a doctrine that does contradict the rest of the New Testament. The emphasis is on "believe", bot "baptism". "baptism" here was not spoken of in isolation. This parallels the Matthew's account: "Go into the world, baptizing them in the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost". Anyone refusing that would not be believing, and thus not be saved. but the focus is clearly on believing.

 

You're making it the decisive event that "puts us INTO Christ/the blood", as you say. It might as well stand alone, then. Else, you must admit that perhaps it is really confession and/or repentance that are decisive, or at least preeminent, and baptism accompanies it, rather than the other way around as you are making it sound.

And immersed into Christ is SPIRITUAL, thus setting the context. The water symbolized it. Once again, the old man is buried as he is immersed into the body, and becomes a new man. There is your death and resurrection. If you admit that baptism by itself is just "swimming", then there must be a spiritual dimension required to make it real. This spiritual event is what actually puts you into Christ!

No it doesn't. Many of those people knew about baptism, from John, remember. Now that this person heard about
Christ, he knew he had to be baptized into Him. What do you think; that the entire message of Christ is all about baptism? That Jesus is equal to baptism, or something?

The context (with Noah) is deliverance, not getting wet. In fact, Nah did not even get wet. They were in the ark, which floated in the water. Like today we are in Christ (whom we are baptized into). Peter made the analogy because water was present in both occasions; but it's not about the water; it's about the shelter. Christ is not the water, but rather the ark!

 

God makes it the decisive issue, but it cannot stand alone.
Then it is not all-decisive then, but depends on something else. Or is God contradicting Himself? No, you must be reading things wrong, and trying to force one set of scriptures to fit your interpretation of another. Talk about "major league gymnastics"!

"by one SPIRIT" (1 Cor.12:13). The Spirit does not baptize us into a pool of water (even if you try to argue that it is "His work"), but He does baptize us into the BODY, which is Christ.

Hence, faith is really preeminent, as I said!

That's an Old Testament example of a physical act bringing a physical cure. All of that is a shadow of spiritual acts and spiritual cures. The physical water ceremony was retained as the symbol of the spiritual cleansing, but it does not have the same efficiency in the washing, since it is spiritual. So you cannot take the analogy like that without transferring from the physical to the spiritual.

No one is denying that you can preach Christ and mention baptism. I was reacting to the way you are subtly trying to EQUATE Christ=baptism, and going down a tangent. Because Christ is reached, and then a person asks about baptism doesn't mean that baptism is the central element of faith or of Christ. Like later this week, when Billy Graham preaches here in the city, and at the end, people are going down to the altar, does that prove that the altar is what we think saves? Of course not.
Taking all the proof-texts in the world and comparing them to how many I can come up with means nothing when you are reading your own meaning into them. The reason I don't come up with a whole other set of "scriptural proof", is because the proof lies in the correct interpretation of the proof-texts you are giving, so I deal with those. If I did give others, you would only reinterpret those also, anyway.

The antitype was not the water, since that was present in both type and antitype. It is the nature of the "immersion" and what it accomplishes. Noah was saved from physical destruction through a type of physical baptism. We are saved from spiritual destruction through our spiritual baptism into the Body of Christ.

So now, the earth is the object of "baptism"? We are talking about saving; not, essentially, destroying and replenishing. The antitype of that is the future fiery judgment of the earth, and our being in the ark of the Body of Christ is what saves us from that.

 

Yes, lets. Noah found grace in the eyes of the Lord. Keep that in perspective throughout the whole narrative. That means that Noah is a saved man. No matter what he does from hereonin he is saved by grace. Not by baptism, but by grace. Note that baptism does not save. At this point in time Noah is already saved--before the flood even takes place, before Noah is "baptized." He is already saved. This very important for you to keep in mind. God is dealing with one of his children, not with an unsaved individual.

No it doesn't. Faith is confidence or trust. Noah obeyed as a result of his trust in the promises of God. Obedience does not equal faith. It never has. That is a fallacy on your part. Get a good dictionary and look up the two words. You will never find that obedience and faith mean the same thing. Noah obeyed as a result of his faith in God. The obedience was the result; not the faith. Another difference to be made is that Noah's faith was the faith of any normal Christians walk with God. It was not "saving faith." Every Christian exercises faith in God daily in his walk with God. We are commanded to trust him for all things. How is this unusual for Noah? It is normal. He walked by faith. He already was a Christian. It has nothing to do with "saving faith."

Apparently you do not have a Biblical definition of faith. What was preeminent? Noah's obedience to God was preeminent. He obeyed because he had faith in God. Remember he was already a saved man. His salvation was not in question here.

Noah was already a saved man. Remember? This is speaking of "physical deliverance" not "spiritual salvation." His household was saved from drowning in the flood because of the obedience of Noah. Noah obeyed by faith. It was not the faith, per se, it was the obedience that was the result of the faith.

Noah was saved by grace through faith. He was saved long before God ever gave him any order to build an ark. That has already been established by Scripture. The water was a destructive force. It did not save Noah, and the Scripture does not say that it did. Noah was saved by the ark from the destructive forces of the waters of the flood. And that was a physical deliverance only, not spiritual. As Noah looked around him he could see the "filthiness of the flesh," rotting and dead bones of human and animal flesh floating in the water. He was saved from such a calamity by being in the Ark. It was the Ark that saved him from that destruction. Certainly the Ark was a picture of Christ. Noah was in Christ.

Saves us from what? Nothing yet has been said about spiritual salvation. Noah was saved from the destruction of the world, from the filthiness of the flesh. He was in Christ. What does the verse say:
1 Peter 3:21 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:

If it is the antitype that saves, then it saves from physical destruction, not spiritual deliverance. The believer is immersed in Christ (the Ark) and all around is surrounded by the filth of the flesh (the world). It is Christ that does the saving. It is not even talking about spiritual salvation, but a daily cleansing from sin which result from the filth of the flesh which comes as a result of the world, and its filth. We need to come to Christ on a daily basis, be immersed in Him.
What saves is a good conscience toward God, by the resurrection of Jesus Christ, and that has nothing to do with baptism. A clear conscience comes from abiding in Christ, and can only be found by the believer, the one who has already been saved, as Noah was.

No, it was God's grace that initially provided salvation for Noah.

Not for salvation. Noah was already saved. He was simply a believer obeying God. This was his daily walk with God, which he lived by faith (not saving faith.)

So what! We are also told that "he that believes not shall be damned."

{qb]

Otherwise tranlsated: "Repent and be baptized--because of the remission of sins."

Your point? Baptism always follows salvation, when one confesses Christ as Saviour.

You are not rightly dividing the word of truth.
Romans 6:3,4 shows nothing more than baptism is a symbolic act of a believer being dead to his old life of sin before salvation and a new life in Christ after salvation. Nothing more than that. It has nothing to do with salvation.

Get a dictionary and learn how to use it. Obedience is not faith. Look these terms up for yourself.

You are not being consistent. Noah's was saved physically. That is what the passage was talking about. Don't make it say anything more than that. Don't read into it more than what it is saying just to fit your own preconceived ideas.
DHK

 

In the first two of those cases, it is repent or believe AND be baptized. Baptism is a physical act that accompanies those things, not the other way around, so it's being mentioned there does not mean that it saves.
Next case, it is "arise and be baptized AND wash away your sins; not "FOR", this time. So once again, baptism is something that accompanies washing away of sins, not causes it.
In the last case, it is the spiritual aspect of baptism (by one Spirit into one body) that saves.
You are trying to read too much into these scriptures, and what you are reading into them contradicts the rest of the Gospel of salvation not by deeds of righteousness you have done.

And it's the Body of Christ.

Once again, immersion into the Church is a spiritual act. A pool of water is not the Church. It is a symbol.

But belief can mean faith. Once again, there was false "belief", but when it is said "believe and be baptized", it means have faith, and then because of your faith you would go and be baptized.

Basically

I didn't say Billy Graham would be using baptism. And I didn't say the altar call was from scripture. I have always said that the altar call is what has taken the place of baptism as the immediate on the spot visible response of faith and conversion. I always thought it would be more scriptural to baptize on the spot, but that has become associated with membership of a local congregation (or perhaps a particular denomination), so Graham's organization helps find them a tgood church to join. Frank may say he baptizes on the spot, but I never see the Campbellites standing outside the rallies with their "where is the altar call in scripture?" literature offering to baptize them into Christ. No, they want the people to come and be baptized into their organizations instead, so they once again are just as much apart of denominationalism or better yet sectarianism, though they claim otherwise. At least Graham doesn't say they are not saved until they reach the baptismal pool.

The instruction there is not the "grace". It is what is "taught" by the grace, meaning that once we are saved, we should deny ungodliness, worldly lusts, live soberly, etc. Once again, as I keep saying, obedience is out of love, not to gain salvation.
And notice; nothing there about baptism!

And then the water comes after that...

...the water is not what puts him into the ark!

And this spiritual saving is accomplished through a spiritual baptism.