Baptism:Luther, Knox, Calvin, Augustine...

[Zenas]

Darron Steele said:

The term "born of water" refers to being "born of the flesh."

Darron, I'm not trained in Greek but the best commentaries I have read would disagree with you. The term "born of water and the spirit" refers to one event, not two events. They don't agree that it means baptism but I have never seen a scholarly commentary that says Jesus was referring to physical birth and spiritual birth.

Darron also said:

This whole thing is mystic speculation gone wild to me. God turning water in magic water? You go further than even the Churches of Christ.

You either didn't read what I posted or you are deliberately trying to mischaracterize what I said. I said, "We do not and should not believe that the water of the Jordan River had any kind of magical qualities." A sacrament is not a magic potion, it is the mode of conveyance of God's graces. As for mystic speculation, we have to remember that the Bible is a mystical book. It tells of things we can't see and of other things that we see only very rarely. Take for example John 5:3-4:

In these lay a multitude of those who were sick, blind, lame, and withered, waiting for the moving of the waters; for an angel of the Lord went down at certain seasons into the pool and stirred up the water; whoever then first, after the stirring up of the water, stepped in was made well from whatever disease with which he was afflicted.

We should not try to equate Biblical phenomena with eastern religions, but we should not ignore the mystical aspect of our faith and pretend that it doesn't exist.

 

[Darron Steele]

As for John 3:5-6, behold:

John 3:5b “unless one is born of water and the Spirit he cannot enter the kingdom of God" (NASB)
John 3:6 “That which is born of the flesh is flesh, and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit” (NASB).
The term "born of water" refers to being "born of the flesh."

Ancient Hebrews used such words as "water" and "drop" to describe natural birth. Jesus was referring to that convention. It is pretty evident from the text.

Darron, I'm not trained in Greek but the best commentaries I have read would disagree with you.

I bet you mean by "best commentaries" as `the commentaries that agree most with me.' Again, I do not care about the opinions of men.

The text shows a definite correspondence.

Also, I would think the compassion of God ought to tell us that baptism is not meant. There was a good length of time between any record of John's baptism and Christian baptism. Had the text been teaching that people could not be saved without baptism, I would like to think the Lord would not have put in a period of time where people could not be baptized. Since He did allow a period when neither Johannine nor Christian baptism was occurring, it seems to me He was not referring to baptism.

The text is not consistent with replacing "water" with `baptism.' The text is consistent with ancient Hebrew terminology for natural birth. The first birth is "of water" = "of flesh." The second birth is "of the Spirit."

it is not the water that cleanses us but the grace of God acting through the water that cleanses us of all unrighteousness. God could have selected a different plan of salvation but He did not. He selected baptism as the mode of our receiving His saving grace and it is incumbent on us to accept it

This whole thing is mystic speculation gone wild to me.

God turning water in magic water? You go further than even the Churches of Christ.

You either didn't read what I posted or you are deliberately trying to mischaracterize what I said.

I read what you said.

No I am not mischaracterizing what you said. What you said has that necessary requirement: the water is made into magic water, capable of taking away sins.

This IS "mystic speculation gone wild." As much as my calling it that might offend you, what I originally had in mind was less flattering. The nicest way I could put it was "It is mystic speculation gone wild."

When you promote speculative ideas this wild, and expect us to take them seriously, you have to give us some credit for `biting our tongues' and trying to put things nicely.

 

[Darron Steele]

I am here for the sme reason that you are on the "Ex-church of Christ" website...

Actually, you are not.

Your goal here is to bring everyone over here to the Churches of Christ. That is the reason you would spend so much time on a Baptist board: the Baptists are relatively similar to the Churches of Christ, and make easier proselytes.

If you were serious about helping people see the `truth' about baptism, you would be over at sites where large numbers of people were not baptized by immersion as believers. It is evident by your presence here, rather than elsewhere, that your primary interest is making proselytes to the Churches of Christ.

When I joined that site, I was a member of the Churches of Christ. My goal in joining was to
1) help people learn things from Scripture that they would not have learned in the Churches of Christ,
2) console people who had suffered from the approved maltreatment common in some Church of Christ circles.
The goal was not to convince people to leave the Churches of Christ or join the Churches of Christ. Even though my home congregation is no longer in the Churches of Christ, I still have no interest in getting people to leave the Churches of Christ.

Dear MR. Darron Steele,
I hope we will be hearing from you on the passages that were originally asked of you and others showing how scripture proves the view that baptism is an "Outward sign of an inward grace", that it is a sign of salvation that has already occured.
...
But please don't let this last comment draw away from the question asked 3 times now. Still waiting.

Pardon me for not granting you the immediate attention that you have demanded.

I have a life. Yesterday afternoon I exercised for the first time in over a week, and in the late afternoon and evening I had a date with my bride-to-be. This morning I went to church. This afternoon I took a nap because last week had me working pretty hard and I am still recovering.

Also, as I have spent far more time granting attention to you than to Zenas's ideas, I had to prioritize. Even though I spend far less time with Internet discussion boards compared to a few years ago, I spend more time on Internet discussion boards than I probably should.

Real life takes precedence to me over Internet discussion boards. When I do spend time on one, I do prioritize. So, next time, please do not be what you have been when I do not jump right to your question.

Now, as for your silly question, I have not made any allegation "Outward sign of an inward grace." I do not buy that position at all. Quite the contrary, I have already said what I believe the purpose of baptism to be.

If you would like to go back through and actually read what I have posted on this thread, rather than make up a position for me, you would learn what I think the purpose of baptism is. It is stunts like this that make me put you on a lower priority to respond to.

If you take the trouble to actually go back through this thread, read what I posted as the purpose of baptism, rather than make up a position for me, I will be happy to explain to you the reasons for my real position.

 

[Zenas]

This is in reply to Darron Steele's Post No. 22, wherein he said:

I bet you mean by "best commentaries" as `the commentaries that agree most with me.' Again, I do not care about the opinions of men.

Actually, Darron they don't agree with me but I admire good scholarship wherever it is found. They don't agree with you either. The ones I have in mind particularly are The "John" volumes of the New American Commentary by Gerald Bochert, retired Professor of New Testament at Southern Baptist Theological Seminary, and Expository Bible Study Notes, which are published on line by Dr. Thomas Constable of Dallas Theological Seminary. Here is the link to his notes on John: http://www.soniclight.com/constable/notes/pdf/john.pdf As far as I know, both of these men are Baptists so they certainly don't agree with me. However, they both say that the syntax of John 3:5 allows for only one event, not two.

Darron also said:

Also, I would think the compassion of God ought to tell us that baptism is not meant. There was a good length of time between any record of John's baptism and Christian baptism. Had the text been teaching that people could not be saved without baptism, I would like to think the Lord would not have put in a period of time where people could not be baptized. Since He did allow a period when neither Johannine nor Christian baptism was occurring, it seems to me He was not referring to baptism.

Sorry, Darron, that's not right either. The disciples of Christ baptised during His ministry. See John 3:22 and 4:1-2. Somehow it's not talked about much and maybe that is why you missed it but there is no doubt that Jesus' disciples were baptizing during His ministry. There was no "gap" between the baptizing by John and the baptizing by Christ.

Darron also said:

This IS "mystic speculation gone wild." As much as my calling it that might offend you, what I originally had in mind was less flattering. The nicest way I could put it was "It is mystic speculation gone wild."

It doesn't offend me. It saddens me that your eyes are blind to God's word. There was a time I held pretty much the same beliefs about baptism as you do. Then I began to really study the topic with an open mind and much prayer, and the blinders fell off. Sacraments really do exist and you can't approach scripture objectively without realizing this. Incidently, you never addressed my example of Christ's use of sacramentals in many of His miracles.

 

[Darron Steele]

As for John 3:5-6, behold:

John 3:5b “unless one is born of water and the Spirit he cannot enter the kingdom of God" (NASB)
John 3:6 “That which is born of the flesh is flesh, and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit” (NASB).
The term "born of water" refers to being "born of the flesh."

Ancient Hebrews used such words as "water" and "drop" to describe natural birth. Jesus was referring to that convention. It is pretty evident from the text.
...
Also, I would think the compassion of God ought to tell us that baptism is not meant. There was a good length of time between any record of John's baptism and Christian baptism. Had the text been teaching that people could not be saved without baptism, I would like to think the Lord would not have put in a period of time where people could not be baptized. Since He did allow a period when neither Johannine nor Christian baptism was occurring, it seems to me He was not referring to baptism.

...

Darron also said: Sorry, Darron, that's not right either. The disciples of Christ baptised during His ministry. See John 3:22 and 4:1-2. Somehow it's not talked about much and maybe that is why you missed it but there is no doubt that Jesus' disciples were baptizing during His ministry. There was no "gap" between the baptizing by John and the baptizing by Christ.

Zenas: when Jesus and His disciples went away from the Jordan River, there is no evidence that they continued baptizing. See John 4:1-3.

This illustrates the problem we have: it has gone too far away from actual Scripture.

It saddens me that your eyes are blind to God's word. There was a time I held pretty much the same beliefs about baptism as you do. Then I began to really study the topic with an open mind and much prayer, and the blinders fell off. Sacraments really do exist and you can't approach scripture objectively without realizing this.

I am not the person doing mystical speculations. When one gets into that stuff, `objective' is not remotely what would describe the `conclusions.'

I am the one who advocates that we stick to the Scriptures. This is an objective fact: a statement and its negation cannot both be true.

Your position: `If a person who believes on Jesus Christ fails to be baptized, s/he will not receive remission of sins.' Simply: `Not everyone that believeth on Jesus Christ receives remission of sins.'

The Scriptures: Acts 10:43 "every one that believeth on him |receives| remission of sins" (ASV|ESV|ASV). Your position says `Not so.'

Given the choice between your mystical speculations and an explicit statement of Scripture, I will go with the Scriptures.

 

[Zenas]

Darron, you're myopic in your focus. There is scripture dealing with salvation besides Acts 10:43. Here are a few:

Believe in the Lord Jesus, and you will be saved, you and your household. Acts 16:31.

He who has believed and has been baptized shall be saved. Mark 16:16.

And it shall be that everyone who calls on the name of the Lord will be saved. Acts 2:21

Not everyone who says to Me, 'Lord, Lord,' will enter the kingdom of heaven, but he who does the will of My Father who is in heaven will enter. Matthew 7:21.

If you confess with your mouth Jesus as Lord, and believe in your heart that God raised Him from the dead, you will be saved. Romans 10:9.

For God so loved the world, that He gave His only begotten Son, that whoever believes in Him shall not perish, but have eternal life. John 3:16.

He who eats My flesh and drinks My blood has eternal life, and I will raise him up on the last day. John 6:54.

Jesus answered, "Truly, truly, I say to you, unless one is born of water and the Spirit he cannot enter into the kingdom of God. John 3:5.

You will be hated by all because of My name, but the one who endures to the end, he will be saved. Mark 13:13.

Corresponding to that [the family of Noah having been brought safely through the water], baptism now saves you--not the removal of dirt from the flesh, but an appeal to God for a good conscience--through the resurrection of Jesus Christ. 1 Peter 3:21.

God, who will render to each person according to his deeds: to those who by perseverance in doing good seek for glory and honor and immortality, eternal life. Romans 2:5-7.

Some of these are very different, yet they are all true. We must obey them all.

 

[Darron Steele]

...

Some of these are very different, yet they are all true. We must obey them all.

Nobody is advocating doing anything less than obeying all.

However, the issue here is not about whether we should obey the commands to serve the Lord, give confession, be baptized, etc..

The issue is whether or not salvation is dependent upon baptism. If a person is a believer on Jesus Christ, will s/he be unsaved if s/he fails to be baptized?

The Bible answers that question and any other `Can a believer on Jesus Christ be unsaved?' questions. It answers them all in one swoop, in Acts 10:43 "every one that believeth on him |receives| remission of sins" (ASV|ESV|ASV).

 

[JSM17]

When I joined that site, I was a member of the Churches of Christ.

Know what stripe do you wear? Are you a Baptist now?

How did you go from believing what you learned in the church of Christ to possibly believing much contrary to those beliefs?

If you prefer to respond in private I understand.

 

[drfuss]

drfuss: My Granddaughter will be baptized in a Presbyterian Church in a few weeks. In doing a data search, I found the Presbyterians say many good things about baptism and what it means in general, but I did not find anything the Presbyterians now say about it being required for remission of sins. I have been told that the Presbyterians do not now believe baptism is requried for the remission of sins.

Considering what Calvin and Knox said in the OP, have the Presbyterians changed their belief since Calvin and Knox? If so, did they specifically change their belief at a certain time or was it just a gradual change?

 

[Darron Steele]

Know what stripe do you wear? Are you a Baptist now?

The answers to these are as easy as clicking on my profile information. You would even find my home congregation.

How did you go from believing what you learned in the church of Christ to possibly believing much contrary to those beliefs?

If you prefer to respond in private I understand.

I am willing to tell you that on the thread, but it will have to wait.

 

[Doubting Thomas]

Regarding John 3:5, I've read in couple of different places (including John MacArthur!) that the word translated "and" comes from the Greek work "kai" which denotes such a strong connection that it can literally mean "and even". So one could legitmately render the phrase "born of water and even the Spirit", with the "water" and "Spirit" being intimately connected rather than contrasted, showing this is all descriptive of ONE event and not TWO as some modern day interpreters allege. However, there is a parallelism being employed by Christ here, but it's not one that many Baptists suppose. The phrase "born of water and (even) the Spirit" is another description of "born again" (or "born from above") in verse 3:

"Most assuredly, I say unto you, unless one is born again, he cannot see the kingdom of God" (v.3)

"Most assuredly I say unto you, unless one is born of water and (even) the Spirit, he cannot enter the kingdom of God" (v.5)

Christ then contrasts this being born again--this being born of water and the Spirit--with the natural birth in verse 6 to correct Nicodemus's misconception of two physical births (expressed in v.4): "That which is born of flesh is flesh, and that which is born of Spirit is Spirit."

Following closely on the heels of His conversation with Nicodemus, John immediately writes that after this conversation about the new birth, Jesus and His disciples baptized (v22-23--verse 23 adds "because there was much water there."). And lets not forget the close connection of the Spirit already associated with Christ's own baptism when He came up out of the water as recorded by John and the Synoptic gospel writers. This close connection of the Spirit and water baptism is continued in the Apostle Peter's sermon at Pentecost:

"Repent and let everyone of you be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins; and you shall receive the gift of the Holy Spirit." (Acts 2:38). (So, even without quibbling over the definition of the underlined "for", it's evident that Peter connects receiving gift of the Holy Spirit to those who become baptized, which follows the pattern of the Spirit coming on Christ at His own baptism which He underwent as an example for us.)

And if there is any doubt about what Peter believed about baptism, he made it clear in his First Epistle that baptism saves us by the resurrection of Christ, just as Noah and his family were saved through water, which was a 'type' of our baptism (baptism being the 'antitype') (1 Peter 3:20,21). In other words, Noah and his family being physically "saved through water", was a type of us being spiritually saved through the water of baptism. Which of course is consistent with what the Apostle Paul wrote:

"buried with Him in baptism in which you were also raised with Him through faith in the working of God who raised Him from the dead." (Colossians 2:12--see also Romans 6:3-5)

Notice two things: First, Paul says we're buried and raised with Christ in Baptism, not apart from it. Second, Paul intimately joins baptism and faith, rather than opposing them as many modern day 'evangelicals' do (see also Galatians 3:26-27).

So Paul would agree with Peter, that baptism saves us by (or through) the resurrection of Christ, since in baptism we are buried and raised with Him. And we can certainly conclude that Peter would agree with Paul in intimately joining faith and baptism. So when we come to Acts 10:43...
"...whoever believes in Him will receive remission of sins", we shouldn't suppose Peter is excluding the necessity of "repentence" and "baptism" from what's necessary for "remission of sins" just because he doesn't specifically mention them here, anymore than supposing that Peter stating in Acts 2:38 that his listeners need to "repent and be baptized" somehow excludes "believing in Him" since he doesn't mention to the Jews that they specifically needed to "believe in Him" during Pentecost. For Peter and the other apostles truly "believing in Christ" involved "repentence and baptism" as well.

It's no wonder then that the early church fathers were unanimous in believing that regeneration normally took place during baptism, nor is it surprising that the reformers cited in the OP did likewise. Therefore, it should give one pause before one says "I don't care what men say" when the men in question are only taking Christ and His apostles at their word and their word at face-value.

 

[Darron Steele]

Regarding John 3:5, ...

"Repent and let everyone of you be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins; and you shall receive the gift of the Holy Spirit." (Acts 2:38). (So, even without quibbling over the definition of the underlined "for", it's evident that Peter connects receiving gift of the Holy Spirit to those who become baptized, which follows the pattern of the Spirit coming on Christ at His own baptism which He underwent as an example for us.)

And if there is any doubt about what Peter believed about baptism, he made it clear in his First Epistle that baptism saves us by the resurrection of Christ, just as Noah and his family were saved through water, which was a 'type' of our baptism (baptism being the 'antitype') (1 Peter 3:20,21). In other words, Noah and his family being physically"saved through water", was a type of us being spiritually saved through the water of baptism. Which of course is consistent with what the Apostle Paul wrote:

"buriedwith Him in baptism in which you were also raised with Himthrough faith in the working of God who raised Him from the dead." (Colossians 2:12--see also Romans 6:3-5)

Notice two things: First, Paul says we're buried and raised with Christ in Baptism, not apart from it. Second, Paul intimately joins baptism and faith, rather than opposing them as many modern day 'evangelicals' do (see also Galatians 3:26-27).

So Paul would agree with Peter, that baptism saves us by (or through) the resurrection of Christ, since in baptism we are buried and raised with Him. And we can certainly conclude that Peter would agree with Paul in intimately joining faith and baptism. So when we come to Acts 10:43...
"...whoever believes in Him will receive remission of sins", we shouldn't suppose Peter is excluding the necessity of "repentence" and "baptism" from what's necessary for "remission of sins" just because he doesn't specifically mention them here, anymore than supposing that Peter stating in Acts 2:38 that his listeners need to "repent and be baptized" somehow excludes "believing in Him" since he doesn't mention to the Jews that they specifically needed to "believe in Him" during Pentecost. For Peter and the other apostles truly "believing in Christ" involved "repentence and baptism" as well.

It's no wonder then that the early church fathers were unanimous in believing that regeneration normally took place during baptism, nor is it surprising that the reformers cited in the OP did likewise. Therefore, it should give one pause before one says "I don't care what men say" when the men in question are only taking Christ and His apostles at their word and their word at face-value.

Without wasting too much more time with this for right now.

I have already laid out the case for not replacing the word "water" with "baptism" in John 3:3-6. I think the text itself compels that.

Acts 2:38, regardless of how it is translated, does not say `for without baptism, no one shall receive remission of sins.' Never mind that in many translations well-received in other parts of the world, the translation differs substantially from what you see in the 1769 KJV and its derivatives. There is no translation that translates any text that has `for without baptism, no one shall receive remission of sins.'

In 1 Peter 3:21 Peter himself states he is talking in "figure" (BishB), and in fact writes "not the removal of dirt from the flesh" (NASB) to prevent being misunderstood as he has been. Paul likewise made clear his use of figurative language at Romans 6:3-5 when he says "in the likeness" (NASB). The same must be true of its parallel in Colossians 2, as our flesh is still attached to us.

As for the alleged distinction between faith and repentance, I cannot understand it. How is it possible to truly believe that Jesus Christ is Lord and not simultanously repent? Nonsense. No one can believe that Jesus Christ is Lord without having repented as part of it. No repentance = no faith. The Bible simply describes faith when it talks about repentance.

It really comes down to this. Acts 10:43 explicitly says "every one that believeth on him |receives| remission of sins" (ASV|ESV|ASV). If Scripture actually teaches the existence of a scenario where a believer on Jesus Christ can be unsaved, I would set aside most of my copies of Scripture and not bother with the Bible anymore. Neither I nor anyone else would have any reason to believe it anymore.

Since it is only human inferences that propose this contradiction, I will reject the human inferences and continue to believe the Bible.

 

[sj]

This may be totally wrong, but this is the way it seems to me. The church of Christ believes that a baptism must be by immersion, and the person being baptised must know that he is being baptised for the remission of his sins for his sins to actually be remitted. Please correct me if I'm wrong, but I think that is why a person with the church of Christ would be trying to convince believers that are baptised by immersion already (baptists), that they have been baptised by immersion incorrectly, and should be baptised again while knowing they are being baptised for the remission of sins.
If this is the case, could someone with the church of Christ show us in scripture, where it says the person being baptised must know they are being baptised for the remission of their sins.
Maybe God doesn't require your agreeing with him at baptism, perhaps in Acts 2:38 God is telling you (the person being baptised) that your sins are being remitted whether you agree with him or not. Then, maybe the church of Christ folks that got immersed and the Baptists that got immersed would all have their sins remitted.
I am sure that theory is full of holes, but thought I'd mention it?

 

[Doubting Thomas]

Without wasting too much more time with this for right now.

I don't think it's actually "wasting too much more time" to at least carefully read my post if you are going to bother responding to it.

I have already laid out the case for not replacing the word "water" with "baptism" in John 3:3-6. I think the text itself compels that.

I disagree that the text "compels" what you claim for it. I showed that in the immediate context of the discussion with Nicodemus, water baptism was mentioned. I also showed in the broader context of Scripture, particularly with the Gospel accounts of Jesus's own baptism, that the Spirit is intimately associated with Jesus coming up out of the water. I also showed the reason why "born of water and (even) the Spirit" refers to one event (being born again) and not two. It's no wonder that the early church was unanimous (based on the records we have) that "born of water and the Spirit" does refer to baptism. I haven't seen any evidence that there were those compelled to interpret that text as you do.

Acts 2:38, regardless of how it is translated, does not say `for without baptism, no one shall receive remission of sins.' Never mind that in many translations well-received in other parts of the world, the translation differs substantially from what you see in the 1769 KJV and its derivatives. There is no translation that translates any text that has `for without baptism, no one shall receive remission of sins.'

I don't think I made that specific claim, but neither does the text assert that you can have remission of sins apart from repentence and baptism. More importantly, I was using this particular verse to point out that the listeners would receive the gift of the Holy Spirit in conjunction with meeting the conditions of repentence and baptism rather not apart from the same.

In 1 Peter 3:21 Peter himself states he is talking in "figure" (BishB), and in fact writes "not the removal of dirt from the flesh" (NASB) to prevent being misunderstood as he has been. Paul likewise made clear his use of figurative language at Romans 6:3-5 when he says "in the likeness" (NASB). The same must be true of its parallel in Colossians 2, as our flesh is still attached to us.

It takes more than invoking the fact that the words "figure" and "likeness" are merely used in particular passages to demonstrate that the writers were teaching that Baptism is only some ceremonial picture of reality that has already taken place. Actually looking at the grammatical construction of these passages reveals something else.

First, the word translated "figure" by the AV in 1 Peter 3:21 is translated "antitype" by the NKJV for instance. In the 'type/antitype' relationship, the passage clearly indicates that the 'type' is Noah and his family being saved through water. The 'antitype' IS baptism. (Another example, in Romans 5 Adam is 'type' and Christ is the 'antitype'--certainly both are real figures) The passage does NOT state that baptism is a picture of something else which allegedly is the real antitype that actually saves us. No, it says the baptism is the antitype which saves us by the resurrection of Christ. The parenthetical statement merely indicates that baptism saving us is not due to the physical action of the water on our physical bodies, but rather what is going on the inwardly concurrently with the water being administered. Otherwise, the parallel with the 'type', Noah being "saved through water" would break down (*Noah was in fact "saved through the water", ie concurrently with the flood waters on the earth, without being touched by it).

Secondly, in Romans 6 if one acknowledges that water baptism is indeed the "likeness of His (Christ's) death" Paul is describing, then the passage does teach that we are united to Christ in this "likeness" and NOT apart from it (v.5). Backing up to verse 3:
"Or do you not know that as many as were baptized into Christ were baptized into His death? Therefore we were buried with Him through baptisminto death, that just as Christ was raised from the dead by the glory of the Father, even so we should walk in newness of life. For if we have been united together in the likeness of His death (baptism), certainly we also shall be in the likeness of His resurrection" (v3-5). This, of course, agrees with what Paul wrote to Colossians as I wrote in my previous post: that we are buried and raised with Christ in baptism, not at some alleged moment apart from it (2:12).

As for the alleged distinction between faith and repentance, I cannot understand it. How is it possible to truly believe that Jesus Christ is Lord and not simultanously repent? Nonsense. No one can believe that Jesus Christ is Lord without having repented as part of it. No repentance = no faith. The Bible simply describes faith when it talks about repentance.

That is true enough. Yet I was using Acts 2:38 as an example of how your logic can be hypothetically employed to exclude the necessity "believing in Christ" from Peter's message to "repent and be baptized for the remission of sins" on the day of Pentecost by the mere absense of that specific phrase from Peter's command recorded in that passage. We both would agree that would be absurd, since true "believing in Christ" does involve repentance. I would submit, however, that based on the testimony of Scriptures, and the universal belief of the early church, that one cannot truly be having faith in Christ if one refuses to be baptized. Again, Paul intimately links the two--faith and baptism--in Colossians 2:12:
"buried with Himin baptism in which you were also raised with Him through faith in the working of God who raised Him from the dead." So we are likewise not justified in supposing that Peter excludes the necessity of baptism simply because he doesn't specifically mention "baptism" (or "repentance") in Acts 10:43.

I'll end by politely suggesting that what God has joined together, let no man put asunder. :smilewinkgrin:

 

[Darron Steele]

Without wasting too much more time with this for right now.

I don't think it's actually "wasting too much more time" to at least carefully read my post if you are going to bother responding to it....

This was not personal against you. I apologize for the misunderstanding; it was my fault.

My response to your post was not to me a "waste of time"; what I meant was dealing so much with the subject.

As I said before, Acts 10:43 explicitly states "every one that believeth on him |receives| remission of sins" (ASV|ESV|ASV).

There are people here who will read that explicit statement of Scripture, and say `Not so.' They do so based upon inferences of other parts of Scripture -- inferences that are
1) beyond what the text says or requires,
2) contrary to the text says, and/or
3) instead of what the text says.
Then, they argue for the negation of what Acts 10:43 explicitly says based on these inferences of Scripture.

Fact is, these people are going to think whatever they have decided to think. I do not have a whole bunch of time to go over every `I know it says that, but I still think it is not so.'

I would submit, however, that based on the testimony of Scriptures, and the universal belief of the early church, that one cannot truly be having faith in Christ if one refuses to be baptized.

Amen. I agree with this.

However, that is not the premise this thread was created to advance. This thread was created to promote the idea that without baptism, a believer on Jesus Christ will not be saved -- regardless of the reason s/he was not baptized.

Not every unbaptized Christian refuses to be baptized. A lot of them think they are baptized. Some think that a pouring or sprinkling ceremony they underwent was a valid or semi-valid baptism. Some think a water ceremony they underwent before they were believers was a valid or semi-valid baptism. Some Christians are in a congregation where the leadership is delaying or withholding baptism. There are other reasons why unbaptized Christians are still unbaptized that are not obstinate rebellion.

If anyone wants to argue that Christians who died unbaptized are in Hell, I will oppose that error. If anyone wants to argue that we should put a division against Christians who are not properly baptized, I will oppose that error. If anyone wants to argue that we should misdirect evangelistic resources away from unbelievers and onto `evangelizing' Christians I will oppose that error. All of these are side effects of `salvation by baptism.'

If you or anyone else wants to posit that a person who
a) knows rightly of baptism, and
b) refuses to be baptized
is a rebel against Jesus Christ, I will `amen' you `til the cows come home.' I will go further: I am opposed to arguing unwilling people into baptism pools; baptism in the Name of Jesus Christ is a privilege, and befitting only for His followers.

 

[JSM17]

If you or anyone else wants to posit that a person who
a) knows rightly of baptism, and
b) refuses to be baptized
is a rebel against Jesus Christ, I will `amen' you `til the cows come home.' I will go further: I am opposed to arguing unwilling people into baptism pools; baptism in the Name of Jesus Christ is a privilege, and befitting only for His followers.

That is great and I agree.

But what is the specific purpose of water baptism according to scripture? Verses and application would be nice. Here is one:

Acts 22:16

16 And now why are you waiting? Arise and be baptized, and wash away your sins, calling on the name of the Lord.'
NKJV

Saul believed on the road, yet was still in sin because it was not until three days later after prayer and fasting that Ananias tells Saul to be baptized, and wash away his sins. Which is in harmony with other plain passages about baptism referring to the purpose and to those who should receive it.


Oh and the post by SJ is very telling. If one does not understand what our Lord said about baptism and is sprinkled or poured instead of immersed for the remission of sins then they do so in vain as those in Acts 19 needed to be baptized for the right reasons. It should be done in faith understanding what our Lord said about baptism (Mk16:16).As well as what the Apostles were instructed to write through inspiration (Acts2:38; 1 Peter 3:21; etc..)


As for the Presbyterian church denying the purpose of baptism, is due to the pressure of unity among people to strive for evangelical oneness. It is now heritical to claim baptism for the remission of sins. Peter is now a heritic according to many in churches, along with our Lord who taught that one should be baptized in water (immersion) for the remission of sins. But as you can see those in OP knew clearly what it meant. I would disagree with the sprinkling and pouring of infant, due to lack of scripural authority, but at least they understand what the scriptures said about the purpose.

 

[Darron Steele]

That is great and I agree.

But what is the specific purpose of water baptism according to scripture? Verses and application would be nice. Here is one:

Acts 22:16

16 And now why are you waiting? Arise and be baptized, and wash away your sins, calling on the name of the Lord.'
NKJV

Saul believed on the road, yet was still in sin because it was not until three days later after prayer and fasting that Ananias tells Saul to be baptized, and wash away his sins. ...

As for the Presbyterian church denying the purpose of baptism, is due to the pressure of unity among people to strive for evangelical oneness. It is now heritical to claim baptism for the remission of sins. Peter is now a heritic according to many in churches, along with our Lord who taught that one should be baptized in water (immersion) for the remission of sins.

This does not merit much comment. Fact is, how the Greek of the verse should be understood is disputable. I know you insist that the KJV 1769 and derivative English translations have it translated the best, but that does not eliminate the fact there are other valid ways the Greek can be translated that affect meaning. The Greek Peter spoke may be properly understood to mean what you would like -- it may also mean how it is translated in other parts of the world instead. To allege that a church group would call Peter a heretic based on an uncertain mode of translation is rather reckless.

Be careful about making accusations. When you know that the basis of your accusation is disputable -- and you have been shown -- you best hold your peace. One of Satan's most notorious characteristics is that he is an accuser.

If you would like to discuss the Scriptures, rather than take shots at church groups, I think we can move on. My comments on Acts 22:16 will lead right into that.

 

[Darron Steele]

I would submit, however, that based on the testimony of Scriptures, and the universal belief of the early church, that one cannot truly be having faith in Christ if one refuses to be baptized.

If you or anyone else wants to posit that a person who
a) knows rightly of baptism, and
b) refuses to be baptized
is a rebel against Jesus Christ, I will `amen' you `til the cows come home.' I will go further: I am opposed to arguing unwilling people into baptism pools; baptism in the Name of Jesus Christ is a privilege, and befitting only for His followers.

That is great and I agree.

You do not really agree. See below.

But what is the specific purpose of water baptism according to scripture? Verses and application would be nice. Here is one:

Acts 22:16

16 And now why are you waiting? Arise and be baptized, and wash away your sins, calling on the name of the Lord.'
NKJV

Saul believed on the road, yet was still in sin because it was not until three days later after prayer and fasting that Ananias tells Saul to be baptized, and wash away his sins. ....

but not necessarily by being baptized:

the 1560 English Geneva Bible in its 1602 revision: "Arise, and be baptized, and wash away thy sinnes, in calling on the Name of the Lord" (GenB)

the 1568 English Bishops’ Bible: “aryse, & be baptized, & wasshe away thy sinnes, in calling on the name of the Lorde” (BishB).​

Paul would "wash away" his sins by "calling on the Name of the Lord."

Also: Paul did not believe yet. One thing was missing: he had not yet done "calling on the name of the Lord." THAT is how he would wash his sins away, at least literally. Based upon how Jews viewed conversion baptism among them, I suspect Paul's baptism was to symbolize his washing away of his prior life of sin. Ancient Jews saw conversion baptism as `washing away' prior life** -- see below.

Paul had the Lord part of Jesus; he did not yet have the Savior part. Paul had not yet appealed to Jesus Christ for salvation.

So to say that he believed is not correct. He did not yet fully believe on Jesus Christ.

After he learned the fullness of what he believed about Jesus Christ, then and only then was it appropriate to baptize him.

Jesus did not tell us to baptize non-Christians -- but that is exactly what your position would require. That is why you do not really agree with what you assented to above. If people are not Christians before they arise from baptism, then we baptize non-Christians.

This was not to be, according to Jesus Christ. Jesus said in Matthew 28:19-20 “Go, therefore, and make disciples of all the nations|. Baptize them in the name of the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit. Teach them to obey everything that I have taught you” (NASB|NCV).

Jesus told us to "baptize them" and "them" is the "disciples" that we make. Your idea that no one is a Christian until s/he comes up after baptism is contrary to this verse, because in your position, we baptize non-Christians. If you are right, then there would be no way to do as Jesus said.

In the thought of American culture, baptism means far less than it did in the Bible. In the New Testament-era world, the term "baptism" meant more than a submersion in water. When we see "baptize" or "baptism" in Scripture we need to see those additional meanings with those words too.

In the New Testament-era world, baptism was nothing new. Judaism practiced it. It is not prescribed in Scripture, but they were baptizing converts. This was a practice Christianity picked up and adapted.

Ancient Jews saw convert baptism as showing entrance to a new life* and `washing away’ of prior life to match earlier conversion.** The people who were baptized were already considered converts. The Talmud at Yebamoth 47a-b says male converts were circumcised then baptized; passages such as Galatians 2:9 indicate that one was a Jew at circumcision. A baptized convert to Judaism was a Jew when he was baptized.

The first Christians were Jews and stayed Jews. Baptism retained those meanings. A new Christian is a Christian when s/he is baptized. That is precisely the primary meaning of baptism in the Name of Jesus Christ: we show that we have left our old lives behind and have converted to Jesus Christ.

You can see it in Romans 6:3-5

“Or do you not know that all of us who have been baptized | in | Christ Jesus have been baptized | in-the | His death? |Of result that| we have been buried with Him through baptism | in-the | death, so that as Christ was raised from the dead through the glory of the Father, so we too might walk in newness of life. For if we have become united | in-the similarity of-the| His death, certainly we shall also be | in-the similarity of-the | His resurrection”^*​

After baptism, we are expected to "walk in newness of life" -- having left our pre-conversion lives behind.

We identify with Jesus Christ in baptism. Notice that baptism is "in-the similarity of the" His death and His resurrection. We follow His death and resurrection in the water.

The meaning of baptism is what it was in the New Testament era, and that is its purpose. The purpose: to show ourselves converts to following Jesus Christ, to show that we have left our pre-conversion lives behind, and to identify ourselves as followers Jesus Christ.


_____
* E. J. Bicknell article in Gore, et al, A New Commentary on Holy Scripture, New Testament page 335.
** So That’s Why! Bible, page 1287.
^* NASB with |”in” = ARA “em” translated, “in-the” = ARA “na” translated, “Of result that” = AEC “De sorte que” translated, “in-the similarity of-the” = ARA “na semelhança da” translated|.

 

[Darron Steele]

After he learned the fullness of what he believed about Jesus Christ, then and only then was it appropriate to baptize him.

Oops! I meant to type something like

After he learned the fullness of what was to be believed about Jesus Christ, and believed on Him, then and only then was it appropriate to baptize him.​

 

[Gerhard Ebersoehn]

There is baptism, and there is water baptism, and there is church baptism.

The Word is though: "One Lord; one faith; ONE baptism". This is, 'baptism' - the baptism that SAVES: like only the one Lord saves; and only by the one faith saves. Obviously and without a doubt, this, CAN be but the 'baptism of the Holy Spirit' whereby a man is regenerated, reborn, into eternal life.

I believe this only 'baptism' of the New Testament.

There is no single word of our Lord Jesus Christ to baptise in or with water! There is his unambiguous commandment to the apostles - to NO ordinaries like any of us here on this board bickering over the baptism the Church demands for salvation as had the Church the monopoly in salvation - to go baptise "in the NAME" with the baptism that saves.

Then we find these same apostles baptising people in water; whether in or with water - it no longer exists, and so no longer matters. THEY, baptised with water-baptism, and only in one or is there more instances? WHY? For a sign of their authority, which they could either have kept to themselves, or could directly have transferred unto whomsoever through whom they wanted their apostolic authority mediated.

The bus stopped there for any and all 'water-baptism', and the commutors 'demonstrated and burned the bus in protest to this day. What a legacy of all the Church and all Protestantism: this unholy infight over something not only meaningless but never even hinted at in the Scriptures to become the common property and sign of authority at the disposal of each and every heretic and schism.