After 25 Years a Baptist

Abiyah & Sola -- Isn't is nice that even those who agree on immersion as the only proper mode of baptism don't agree on its significance??

Abiyah - I assume that you believe that baptism is a sign and symbol of salvation, but in and of itself, it does not save. Correct??

Sola - I assume that you believe that one must be baptised (by immersion only -- all others don't count) in order to be truly saved. Correct??

 

Oh, Sola!! That is not at ALL what I said or meant
by what I said! You have put words in my mouth!
You have completely miscontrued what I actually
said and have added to my thoughts, which never
intended any such thing or anything near it. Never
-- not once! -- did I intend that those who believe
baptism saves were either wrong or stupid or
any other thing. That never crossed my mind, was
not implied, . . .

I don't know what to say. I am stunned. I
appreciate that you answered me, telling me what
you thought, because I had No Idea where you
were coming from before!

This is what I wrote, exactly:

Now, without going into whether or not baptism
saves, my intention was this:

The only examples of baptism we have are those
given in the BIble, which are relatively few and
which are not at all detailed. People who say
that they can baptize by sprinkling or pouring, as
I understand it, base their belief upon either
Christian tradition or upon the examples of
pouring, and sprinkling, for purification, in the
Bible.

Those who say that baptism by sprinkling and/or
pouring may be done based upon Christian
tradition do so based upon the early writings
after the Bible writings were completed. I,
personally, do not accept those writings as
legitimate because of this and other beliefs
taught in them which I see as errant.

Those who base their belief upon what is actually
in the Bible about pouring and sprinkling use, in
my opinion, a more legitimate source, but they
misunderstand those particular Scriptures.

Personal baptism, or mikveh, was used by those
who were already clean, those who had already
accepted doctrine, not by those who were still in
dilusion. When the Bible speaks of sprinkling or
pouring upon things, however, this is used upon
something that was not at all clean -- something
that was ritually impure.

Baptism should always assume that at least a
change of mind has already occurred. Withouu
going into whether or not baptism saves, this is
all I ever meant by my statement above.

 

Abiyah, I am terribly sorry to have misconstrued what you said. Words cannot even express how I feel right now! I suppose I've become too accustomed to hearing the same old tired arguments against baptism being necessary, especially the stereotyping that all those who believe baptism saves attribute salvation to the water itself rather than to Christ's resurrection and would therefore accept any application of water as being "baptism", which your statement very much seemed to resemble. I am sorry for assuming that is what you meant and apologize for using such strong language. It was uncalled for.

Concerning this idea you have brought up that the Jewish immersions were for those who were already clean whereas sprinklings were for things as yet unclean, I think that it must be pointed out that this 'cleanness' to which you refer was not 'cleanness' from sin but having "already accepted doctrine" and not being "in delusion." (The accepting of doctrine and being clean from sin are obviously not the same.) So then, as far as this 'cleanness' to which you refer is concerned, the immersion did not provide it but only (for lack of a better word) 'confirmed' it. Is this right? Well, with the immersion in the name of Christ, there is a huge difference, because Ananias commands Saul "arise, and be immersed, and wash away your sins" showing that this immersion is the 'tool' that God uses to cleanse a person from sin. (Acts 22:16) Peter also refers to it as being "for the remission of sins" (Acts 2:38) and saving by the power of Christ's resurrection. (1 Peter 3:21) So, wheras those Jewish immersions may have been intended to only confirm that something was clean, the immersion in the name of Christ actually makes one clean. BUT I must disagree with you concerning the Jewish immersions even - perhaps I can not speak of the immersion of persons in Judaism, but of things only - please read Gill's comments on Mark 7 which I already posted a link to, in which he shows that if a pillow were considered unclean the simple act of immersing it would render it clean EVEN if it touched the dirt at the bottom of a pool of water.

Peace to you

[ March 26, 2003, 02:12 AM: Message edited by: SolaScriptura in 2003 ]

 

Immediately, before I even read your note, I want
you to know that I understand. Thank you so
much. Thank you. 8o)

Now, I wil read your whole nnote. 8o)

 

Having now read your note a couple times, to be
sure 8o), I also went back and reread my own
note. I can understand your thought, since you
further explained your reasons for thinking as
you did of my note. Considering your point of
view, it certainly does look that way!

I will go back and read the notes you
recommended, but not until I am awake.

Again, thank you.

And by the way, my attitude toward your note was
very snippy. I am so sorry. Please fogive me.

 

Ahhh yes "NOT the magic powers of water touching flesh - BUT the direct APPEAL TO GOD for a clean conscience" as Peter Said.

"So coming UP OUT OF THE WATER" was/is STILL viewed as the correct "method", but the essential element is STILL "The APPEAL to God for a Clean Conscience" by "whosoever WILL".

In Christ,

Bob

 

What are you saying, Bob? Unless a man is born of water and the Spirit he cannot see the kingdom - period.

 

Well said, Bob.

Anyone who still holds to 1 Peter 3:21 as saying that baptism saves is totally ignoring the wording of the verse, as well as the previous verses, especially when compared to Hebrews 11:7.

 

Peter's statement "Baptism NOW saves you - NOT the water touching the flesh BUT an APPEAL to God for a Clean Conscience" - means that the one being Baptized must be "Appealing to God for a clean conscience".

There is no "substitute" for that.

Christ stands at the door and knocks "if any man HEAR My voice and OPENs the door, I WILL come In".Rev 3

Christ "IN you" the hope of Glory (Col 1:27) - only takes place on that condition.

Baptism can only be performed on one who already believes in Christ - one who is already making the "appeal to God for a clean conscience". It is an outward confession and sign of the inward change. "Repent AND be baptized".

Then the "method" of "coming up out of the water" indicates full water baptism as the FORM of that "outward sign".

However - the mechanism of salvation received into the soul happens as Paul states in Romans 10:10 "With the heart man BELIEVES resulting in righteousness and with the Mouth man confesses resulting in Salvation".

"If you Confess with your mouth and Believe with you heart... you shall be saved" Rom 10:8

It is not the unsaved - rebel that enters the water of Baptism - it is the transformed, born-again saved person who HAS already repented, who HAS already "appealed to God for a clean conscience". The born-again, new creation that has spiritually-understood spiritual things (1Cor 2 the last 5 vs) - is the one that enters the waters of Baptism.

That is why we see Spiritual gifts poured out on the saved PRE-Baptism in Acts 11.

In Christ,

Bob

 

Don:

The wording is quite simple - BAPTISM SAVES!!!

There is no question about that - the question is HOW DOES IT SAVE? Peter answers by saying that it does NOT save due to magical powers in the water but due to it's uniting us with the resurrection of Christ (by planting us into his death), as the NIV says "It [baptism] saves you by the resurrection of Jesus Christ." Paul explains the same thing saying: "IF we have been planted together in the likeness of his death, we shall be also in the likeness of his resurrection" (Romans 6:5) where in context the likeness of His death is baptism and the likeness of His resurrection is newness of life.

Bob:

I agree! This corresponds with Acts 22:16 where Paul is told to be baptized calling on the name of the Lord and wash away his sins. We see that in baptism there is an appeal for a clean conscience (calling on the name of the Lord) and the reception of a clean conscience (washing away of sin by the blood of Christ).

I will agree with this only if it be understood that the inward change CANNOT take place prior to baptism. Baptism is where one is born again of water and the Spirit. They are baptized by man into water and by the Spirit into the body of Christ simultaneously. The inward change is simultaneous with the outward sign. To understand the inward change as being prior to or after the sign is great error. This is why Paul says "For if we have been planted together in the likeness of his death, we shall be also in the likeness of his resurrection" -- this reception of new-life (the inward change) happens IN baptism -- that's a major point of Romans 6, Acts 2:38, Acts 22:16 and 1 Peter 3:21. It is also confirmed in the following:

(Titus 3:5 NIV) he saved us, not because of righteous things we had done, but because of his mercy. He saved us through the washing of rebirth and renewal by the Holy Spirit,

[ March 29, 2003, 12:39 AM: Message edited by: SolaScriptura in 2003 ]

 

"NOT the magic of water touching the flesh BUT INSTEAD it is the APPEAL to God for clean conscience THROUGH the resurrection of Jesus Christ" - that APPEAL for a clean conscience THROUGH the resurrection of Christ was made BEFORE the head touches the water.

Indeed - the saints "REPENTED and THEN were Baptized".

In Christ,

Bob

 

It is also made IN the water. BUT the question is not when the appeal is made anyway, the question is when is the appeal answered by God? Acts 22:16 "Get up and be baptized, and wash away your sins, calling on His name." The washing away of sins will certainly make the conscience clean, and we find that this washing away of sins takes place in baptism. Also Acts 2:38 "Repent, and each of you be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of your sins" -- the remission of sins will make the conscience clean, and we find that this remission of sins comes when a believer repents AND is baptized both together.

 

Since this thread appears to really be on the subject of Baptism...

Romans 8 regarding the UNSAVED person PRIOR to the New Birth - the total depravity of man

"The heart set on the flesh DOES not subject itself to God's Will/Law/Word neither indeed CAN it". Romans 8:3-6

"There is NONE that does good NOT EVEN ONE" Romans 3.

The "idea" that the unforgiven/unchanged heart "hears with faith", "believes", "repents", "studies to know the will of God", "submits to Baptism" and is THEN transformed... does not work.

In Christ,

Bob

 

Romans 3:11,12 states there is none that understandeth there is none that seeketh after God. They have ALL GONE out of the way, they are together BECOME unprofitable; there is none that doeth good no, not one.
The none in these passages are those who have gone out of the way. The grammatical conjugation of the action verb Go indicates the none at one time have been going in the way. (GO present, GONE past). The context of these passages is a discussion of those once faithful to God but had gone out of his way and BECOME UNPROFITABLE. Therefore the context and grammatical construct and meanig of the words Become and goneindicate those in view were at one time going in the way and being profitable.

 

Romans 3 does not allow itself to be limited to "Apostate Jews" that had gone out of the way.

Rather it is explicit "ALL are under sin" - "Are WE better than THEY (gentiles)" Paul INCLUDES himself.

Then he points out that ALL is "BOTH Jews AND GREEKS" ... ALL are under sin.

And then he further provides explicit proof that ALL is really ALL "For by the works of the law shall NO FLESH be justified".

All these Romans 3 statements go to prove the depravity of MANKIND - not just of apostate Jews.

In Christ,

Bob

 

Romans 3 says nothing of total depravity. In fact, the grammar and context teach the contrary. Those in consideration were Christians at Rome. The example of apsotate Jews is used to demonstrate the same principle that men may leave righteousness ( go out of the way- GONE) and become unprofitable and show they do not know God by doing so. The tense of the verbs GONE and BECOME as well as the meaning of the words so indicate. One of the cardinal rules of interpretation is context, boh immediate and remote. One cannot ignore context or the meanings of words and have any hope of properly undertstanding any passage of scripture.
Furthermore, God made man upright. Eccl. 7:29. One must sin in order to face the punishment of it. Ezekiel 18:4. He is not held accountable for the sin of others. Ezekiel 18:20. Individuals are accountable for their personal conduct. Romans 14:12, II Cor. 5:10.
Moreover, Paul, in Romans 7:9, states For I was alive without the law once; but when the commandment came, sin revived, and I died. When was Paul alive without law? In verse 8 Paul states, "But sin, taking occasion by the commandment, wrought in me all manner of concupiscence. For without the law sin was dead.
Furthermore, Paul states, What shall we say then? Is the law sin? God forbid. Nay, I Had not KNOWN LUST, except the law said thou shalt covet. ( vs. 7). In James 1: 13- 15 the Bible says,  ¶Let no man say when he is tempted, I am tempted of God: for God cannot be tempted with evil, neither tempteth he any man:
14  But every man is tempted, when he is drawn away of his own lust, and enticed.
15  Then when lust hath conceived, it bringeth forth sin: and sin, when it is finished, bringeth forth death.
Men sin when they choose to submit to their lust and violate the law of God. This requires the knowledge of law and the abilty to discern it.
Babies do not have the knowledge of law nor the ability to discern good or evil. Sin, the Bible says takes place when one KNOWS to do good and does not do it. James 4:17. It is an act, not an inheritance. I John 3:4.
Jesus said, in Luke 18:16, " Suffer the little children to come unto me, and fobid them not: for of such is the kingdom of God." In Mat. 18:3, Jesus said, " Verily I say unto you except ye be converted and become as little children, ye shall in no wise enter the kingdom of heaven."
Those who espouse total depravity would, by implication, write Luke 18:16 as suffer the little DEVILS to come unot me and forbid them not for of such is the kingdom of heaven. David said at the death of his son in II Samuel 12:23, "But now he is dead, wherefore should I fast? can I bring him back again? I shall go to him, but he shall not return to me." Where was David going to be with his son? And, How do you know? Did David anticipate going to hell to be with his son? Did David see himself with his son in glory?

 

The New Birth takes place IN baptism and is therefore of water and the spirit (Jn 3:5) and justly called the washing of rebirth (Titus 3:5). It is also the point at which newness of life is received (Rom 6:5) and the point at which a person's status is changed from "dead IN sin" to "dead TO sin." (Rom 6:2)

The idea that the New Birth is a purely emotional experience that has no water to it does not work. (John 3) {3}..."I say unto thee, Except a man be born again, he cannot see the kingdom of God...{5}...I say unto thee, Except a man be BORN OF WATER AND OF THE SPIRIT, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God."

[ April 02, 2003, 12:07 AM: Message edited by: SolaScriptura in 2003 ]

 

And as it turns out "Greeks" are not "Apostate Jews".

As it turns out - we ALL have Flesh "not just Apostate Jews".

So when Romans 3 says "NO FLESH is saved by obedience to the Law of God" he has not limited himself by "NO FLESH" to just apostate Jews.

When Paul says "WE are ALL under sin" and that there is "NONE righteous not EVEN ONE" - his remark is in no way limited to apostate Jews.

Paul argues that the "US" in Romans consists of BOTH Jew and Gentile (Romans 9:24) as it turns out "Jew AND Gentil" is "everybody".

And so - we read the text - not just a snippet.

In Christ,

Bob