Christmas Hypocrites

I am saying:
1. That the Bible never teaches that water saves, not with baptism or in any other way; never.

2. That the word "baptism" simply means "immersion," and when translated that way, 1Pet.3:21 becomes subject to two or three interpretations. But one interpretation not consistent with the rest of Scripture, and therefore wrong, is that water baptism saves. That is not what the passage teaches.

In verse 20 water was a destroying agent. It destroyed everything around. And it destroyed physically, not spiritually.
Peter is making a comparison between the flood and baptism. This doesn't mean that one is just like the other it simply means that there are similarities in what they accomplish. It can be put this way. As the flood separated Noah and his family from the wicked world of their day, so baptism separates believers from the evil world of our day. Baptism, then, is the counterpart of the flood. It is symbolic only, just as it is in Rom. 6:1-4. It is symbolic of our death to our old life, and our rising again to our new life in Christ. It provides the picture of salvation for the believer where he makes that break from his old life of sin, and rises anew with a new life in Jesus Christ. In 1Pet.3:20,21, both Noah and the New Testament believer are safe when they are in the Ark. There is no baptism that is efficacious. Baptism is always symbolic.
DHK

 

GrannyG!!!! My heart plays "Jingle Bells" for Jesus 365 days out of the year!!!!Amen to you, Cajun Sister!! "Sheeeeeeeeannn! Pe-te-va!"

Your Southern Baptist preachin' buddy!
Blackbird

 

Carol, I guess the three of us could be called Christmas Hypocrites by some. Tuor was actually refering to something else when he started the thread but there are those who certainly think we are unGodly for liking colored lights and watching Christmas shows(Oh, btw, when I come over I will bring a copy of the Little House on the Prairie Christmas episode, we try to watch that every Christmas season. Keeps the kids perspective on getting presents when they see that kids use to be happy with a candy cane, a penny, and mittens. )

SheEagle and Carol, God bless you both this Christmas season.

Carson, I want you to think about something. I have three children. My 11 year old was Baptized as an infant in a Lutheran church before I was a Christian. Once I came to faith we left the church and he has never been re-Baptized, though he placed his faith in Christ a few years back. My 9 year old daughter has come to faith pretty recently and my six year old asked Jesus to be her savior not long ago. (We can have the talk about young children really understanding later.) What I want to say to you is that my two dtrs. have not been baptized. They may choose to at some point but because of what the Bible says on the subject, what my church teaches, and what I believe about baptism I am not pushing them to be Baptized. As I have said before that I have not been Baptized as a believer myself (or my wife). I love my children dearly. In the case of my dtrs., and my son too, since he was not Baptized by a priest, am I keeping them from Heaven? If we as a family die in a car accident have I destined my children to eternity in Hell? Since neither my wife or myself have been Catholic Baptized would then all of our "works" done because of faith and love for Jesus Christ be cast aside by God as we are thrown to the pit??? Have I as the father and spiritual leader of my home, made a desicion that will doom our family???

I know that what I said sounded kind of harsh and may only in part represent what you have said and what the CC teaches but it does represent what I hear you saying and how I feel when I read your posts.(posts on Baptism and salvation anyway, Other posts you do show a really nice guy)

Carson, Did water save in the OT, or did Blood save(forgive sin, appease God)?

In Christian Love,
Brian

[ December 19, 2002, 10:02 AM: Message edited by: Briguy ]

 

The Lord's Day is Sunday, that is when the Apostles gathered together.

I think you were refering to Colossians 2:16-17 "Let no man therefore judge you in meat, or in drink, or in respect of an holy-day, or of the new moon, or of the sabbath days: Which are a shadow of the things to come"

This verse works against your thinking.

The holy-day Paul is refering to is the Jewish holy days ordained by God. Jews are no longer bound to these religious ceremonies.

 

Jeremiah 7:31 "to burn their sons and their daughters in the fire; which I commanded them not, neither came it into my heart"

These people thought they were pleasing God by buring their sons and daughters, but God said "I commanded them not". God never commanded us to make a holy day of Jesus Birth. We may think we are pleasing God, but is God pleased?

Lev 23 was a reference in the Holy Writ. It was to show you the place where God makes the holy-days.

Isaiah 8:20 "To the law and to the testimony: if they speak not according to this word, it is because there is no light in them"

What this is saying: If you don't speak according the the Holy Writ, then you are not a "born-again" true believer.

 

Brian --

Ask yourself this question:

In the Old Covenant, if a man professed to believe in God, but would not be circumcized, after circumcision was given to the Jewish nation, what was the status of that man? What was the status of his family?

Check it out and then get back to me.

Brother Ed

 

Aaaieee, BroBlackbird! I can always count on you shooting gun-barrel straight!

And the granny has never said anyone was ungodly for what they do or do not do with how the Lord has led you; sorry if y'all have taken it that way.

 

Hi Brian,

In the case of my dtrs., and my son too, since he was not Baptized by a priest, am I keeping them from Heaven?

One does not have to be baptized by a priest. Anyone can baptize; even an atheist can baptize as long as he/she intends to do what the Church does and uses water and the form includes the name of the Holy Trinity.

With that said, yes, you are keeping your children from receiving the grace of the Holy Sirit by withholding baptism. There is the possibility of your children receiving baptism of desire, but that doctrine states that if baptism was offered right now, at this instant, they would accept it. Apparently, from what you have said, you do not have this desire, and so you cannot be saved until you are water baptized because baptism is necessary for salvation.

I know that what I said sounded kind of harsh

GK. Chesterton was once told that heresy isn't a nice word, and he replied: "Heresy isn't a nice thing."

Brian, your words are harsh because they reflect the reality that you speak of.

Carson, Did water save in the OT, or did Blood save (forgive sin, appease God)?

The shedding of blood was symbolic of two things: the sacrifice of the heart before God and the blood of the Eternal Lamb that takes away the sin of the world. The main reason that God required sacrifice was in order to root idolatry out of the hearts of Israel; this is why sheep, goats, and cattle were sacrificed. These were part of the Egyptian cult that Israel adopted after their 400 year stay in that land. God, in his ineffable ways, used this to prefigure his own self-offering upon the altar of the cross on Golgatha.

While the blood of Jesus is what washes us clean, do you take the blood of Jesus and wash yourself with it? How is it applied to you? You would say "through faith". If it is through faith, then what saves Brian.. Faith or Blood? You see, you're creating false categories.

In the same way, you falsely separate faith and baptism. Your argument goes like this: If faith saves, then baptism certainly can't save, and so baptism can't save us; therefore, 1 Peter 3:21 can't be believed - it must be ignored or explained away. Faith is the cause of salvation, and Baptism is the instrument. They aren't to be separated.

The New Testament teaches us that in the Old Dispensation, the floodwaters of the Deluge prefigures baptism and that the eight persons saved through water serves as a foretype of baptism, which saves you now.

1 Peter 3:20-21:

1. eight persons were saved through water.
2. Baptism, which corresponds to this, now saves you

The question, Brian, is are you going to believe this? Or, are you going to remain in your anti-sacramental ways, regardless of what God says himself in his Word?

Are you going to continue to awkwardly disbelieve that the eight were saved through water and say that Peter can't possibly mean what he is saying - all because you approach the text with an anti-sacramental bias; or, are you going to believe the Word? Which is it?

Bless you,

Carson

 

Hi DHK,

You wrote, "the Bible never teaches that water saves, not with baptism or in any other way; never."

Compare what you just wrote with Peter's words in 1 Peter 3:20

"eight persons were saved through water."

Now, do you mean that (1) the Bible never teaches that people were saved through water or (2) you teach that people were never saved through water and therefore the Bible can't possibly teach what you don't teach?

Which is it? Does God's Word remain the measuring rod against which to measure the opinions of men in this case? Or do DHK's assertions and opinions remain the measuring rod against which the Word of God must be measured and judged?

May God bless you and have mercy on you,

Carson

[ December 19, 2002, 10:14 PM: Message edited by: Carson Weber ]

 

Did the water save them or the ark save them? Which one?
DHK

 

HI DHK,

You asked me, "Did the water save them or the ark save them? Which one?"

What does Peter say?

"eight persons were saved through water" (1 Peter 3:20)

Apparently, they were saved by the ark through the water.

Take your anti-sacramental prejudice up with Peter and God whose Word you contradict. It is they you argue against, not I

Do you agree that

1. eight persons were saved through water

and that this prefigured the fact that

2. baptism now saves you?

Do you agree DHK? Yes or No?

You have the following reponses to make:

1. No, No
2. Yes, No
3. Yes, Yes
4. No, Yes

And only one response will reveal whether the Word of God is the standard of your Christian faith.

God bless you,

Carson

 

Show me one occurence of the word "sacrament in the Bible. There are no sacraments.

As to the rest of your questions concerning 1Pet.3:20,21, I already explained them to you at 4:15 a.m. today.
DHK

 

In fairness, I thnk it should be said tha it is easy for a person to make the misatake of seeing sacramentalism in 1 pter 3:20. That does not make it any less a mistake, mind.

If one were to ignore (or innocently miss) the fact that Peter clearly says that the baptism which saves is not an external matter, but one fo coscience, internal, then one would mis thefact that Peter is not referring to literal baptism. There is a double symbolism here. The flood symbolises baptism, and baptism symbolises salvation in that baptism is the expression of saving faith.

But as I say it is easy to miss. That is excusable.

Refusing to accept the fact once it is pointed out, however, is another matter.

 

Hi DHK,

You wrote, "Show me one occurence of the word "sacrament in the Bible. There are no sacraments."

The foundation of your argument is so thin it is barely worth taking the effort to shatter. In respect to your demand, show me one occurance of the word "Trinity" in the Bible. According to your logic, there is no Trinity.

You wrote, "As to the rest of your questions concerning 1Pet.3:20,21, I already explained them to you at 4:15 a.m. today."

Of course, you did not answer my question in my post directly above. You cannot answer my question because your conclusion directly contradicts Scripture, and thus, you admit your false doctrine through your silence, which is louder than words can speak.

God bless you,

Carson

 

"The refusal of the angels to submit to their Creator was matched by the mockery of Noah's contemporaries, who did not respond to God's warning of impending judgment, given by Noah's preaching (cf. 2 Pet. 2:5) and by the slow construction of the ark miles from the sea (v. 20). The water in which they died was, paradoxically, the very medium of Noah's salvation. In this respect the flood foreshadows Christian baptism, for that too pictures death but leads to life. When they were baptized, Peter's readers pledged themselves to live for God and embraced the hope of resurrection through Jesus Christ. But in so doing they actually brought suffering upon themselves, just as Noah did by his obedience to God's command to build an ark and to warn his generation. Yet in their suffering, symbolized by their baptismal "death," they follow the path already trodden by their Savior on the way to glory." (Evangelical Commentary of the Bible)

The typical Catholic takes a verse out of its context and uses it as a pretext to justify an unbiblical doctrine. The entire epistle of First Peter was written to persecuted and suffering Christians. (Note 1Pet.1:6,7). In that day and age when a person was saved, the evidence of their salvation was their step of obedience in baptism, which became a public declaration of their faith in Christ. Baptism does not save. But those who were baptized brought persecution upon themselves, much as Christians do in Muslim lands today.
The water in Noah's day didn't save them; the ark did. However the water saved them from the wickedness of the world that perished. It saved them from the old world that perished. Baptism doesn't save. Christ does. But baptism is a picture of our being dead to our old life. In baptism we are buried symbolically leaving the old life behind, and rising again to a new life in Christ by His resurrection. Baptism is but a picture.
It saved (symbolically) one from the old world, the old life, the sinful lifestyle that they used to live, just as the water saved Noah from the old sinful world that he used to live in.

Neither the water in Noah's day, or in baptism imparts grace. Neither one are sacraments.
DHK

 

Hi Carson, You sound a little grumpy in these last few posts. Don't forget the golden rule, even when you are frustrated.

You wrote:
""While the blood of Jesus is what washes us clean, do you take the blood of Jesus and wash yourself with it? How is it applied to you? You would say "through faith". If it is through faith, then what saves Brian.. Faith or Blood? You see, you're creating false categories.""

Interesting point here but not very logical. When Jesus shed his blood, who sprinkled it over the Ark and other things in the Holy of Holy's?
The answer of course is that that ceremony was not needed anymore because the shed blood of Jesus was different. The shed blood of Jesus was sprinkled by God not a Levite priest. It is available to all men. The blood is shed and the door of salvation is open. Now comes our part and the Bible is clear that to access the Blood one must trust in Christ by faith. Direct scripture says we are saved by grace through faith. The blood was shed to open Heaven to us, by faith we get in.

Carson, Now to do to you what you did to DHK.

In Acts Peter clearly says to Repent and be Baptized. In that order, Repent must come first according to this direct scripture. Also the Eunuch asked Phillip what prevented him from being Baptized, and Phillip said to believe in the Lord Jesus Christ and you can be Baptized

That is what scripture says directly. Thus we can conclude that Baptism is not for an infant because repentance and belief need to come first. Yet you will explain these verses away or even say that a 2 week old infant can believe and have faith. Don't you believe what the Bible says Carson??
How can you deny these straight forward scriptures and follow the that false doctrine of yours?

Carson, Above is what you have done to me and DHK. I apologise if you think I am questioning your salvation, your service and commitment to Christ, or your knowledge of scripture.

Unfortunatly, your belief system does not allow you to give me the same benefit of the doubt or for you to even think that God is the one who grants salvation, not anyone else. For some reason God gave me as a gift to Jesus. I do not know why, but I am sure as I am sure that Christmas is next week, that he did.

I will think today, as I sit in prison with my friend, that according to Carson and the CC that I am wasting my time, and I might as well be out partying, for my works to God must still be filthy rags. Carson, My heart breaks to think that you believe that I would chance my family being lost to Hell.

I wish you all the best Carson, Merry Christmas to you and your family. I hope you get home for the holidays

In God who saved me,
Brian

[ December 20, 2002, 09:04 AM: Message edited by: Briguy ]

 

It doesn't matter if one does it out of a sense of duty, in order to get to Heaven, or out of love. Here is what the Bible says on the issue:

Gal.3:10 For as many as are of the works of the law are under the curse: for it is written, Cursed is every one that continueth not in all things which are written in the book of the law to do them.

If I were to keep all of the laws, do all of the works required of me, all of my life (including the two greatest ones about loving God and neighbor), and never sin once in my entire life, then maybe I might have a chance. I break but one law. If there is but one time in my life that I do not love God with all of my heart, or I do not love my neighbor as myself, just one time, just one second of my life, then I am cursed under the law.
Cursed is everyone that CONTINUES not in ALL things which are written in the book of the law to do them.
Do you sin? Are you perfect before God?
DHK

 

Hi Nils and DHK, Thanks for what you wrote. Hopefully I have posted enough for you both to know that I know I can't earn Heaven with good works. I do what I do out of my thankfulness to Jesus for saving me. My works are just the proof that I have a living faith. (Christians will do "works") I wrote what I wrote to emphasize a point. I guess I didn't write it well, now that I see how it was taken.

DHK, You do believe that "works" done, by the believer, to the honor and glory of God, are a sweet smell to Him don't you?

Anyway, Merry Christmas to all

In Christ,
Brian