Baptism--Why?

[ascund]

Greetings

Originally posted by Frank:
You can search the bible today, tomorrow, and for a thousand years with the mind of Einstein and never find someone being saved by God without an obedient active faith, not one time.

The Bible is loaded with prime verses that say that one is justified by PASSIVELY by faith in Jesus Christ and having God impute to us sinners Jesus' external righteousness. Here is a partial list:

As a passive voice, dikaiow is used in the present (5x), aorist (16x), future (3x), and perfect (3x). Regardless of tense, no passive voice supports conditional justification. Believers passively receive God’s imputed justification by faith without the deeds of law (Rom 3:28) and apart from the law (Gal 3:11). Passive justification is in parallel with historic passive sanctification (I Cor 6:11). Significantly, the Perfect Tense demolishes conditional justification because it shows the permanence of a historic past event. The publican (Luke 18:14) went and remained totally justified. The believer who died in Christ is and permanently remains freed from sin (Rom 6:7). What condition is needed where there is no sin?

My dad's favorite verses were Rom 5:1-2 "being justified by faith we have peace with God through our Lord Jesus Christ, through whom also we have access by faith into this grace in which we stand.

Here, justified is an aorist passive but the second "we have" and "we stand" are both in the perfect tense. The results of PASSIVE justification continue on and on and on . . .

Verb tenses are a rather elementary subject. It is not good to proceed to higher theology if one cannot handle these easy basics.

Lloyd

The active faith of sanctification happens only AFTER the passive faith of justification. Unless your statements clearly reflect biblical views of justification and sanctification, they are prone to big error and confusion.

Lloyd

 

[DHK]

Originally posted by Frank:
DHK:
I never have used the term cocer in reference with my identification with Christ. I am a member of the church ( the saved) of Christ. Acts 2:47; 11:26.

Please provide any post of mine where I have made reference to myself or my brethren as cocer's.

Strange, I call you a baptist because that what you claim to be. Are you offended by being called a baptist. If so, I will not call you one. It is shameful on your part not to show the same courtesy to others.

You identify yourself with:
Bartley Rd. church of Christ

That is what is in your profile. You are a COCer. You belong to the COC. You belong to the COC of Bartley Rd. Why are you just trying to deny it now? You have claimed to be a member of the COC ever snce you joined this board, and have never denied being one. So now what is your issue. I ask you again. Are you in some way ashamed of the COC of which you are ashamed of, that now you don't want to be identified with them?
DHK

 

[Frank]

DHK:
I do not believe webster makes judgments for God as to what he has said in the scriptures. This is a feeble attempt to validate your personal theology. I am glad Jesus will judge me by his words, not merriam-webster. John 12:48.

Furthermore,the bible does not teach one is saved by meritorious works. You are arguing with yourself. An obedient active faith is required of God. Hebrews 11:6, Romans 10;17;15:26.Always has, always will.

 

[Frank]

DHK:
I am a member of the saved of Christ( Acts 2:47) who assemble at ( location) the Bartley Rd. By your logic this makes those in Thessalonica the cogincers. I Thes. 1:1. This is foolishness on your part. I believe you were raised better than this.

 

[DHK]

Originally posted by Frank:
h one is saved by meritorious works. You are arguing with yourself. An obedient active faith is required of God. Hebrews 11:6, Romans 10;17;15:26.Always has, always will.

If you are saying that "an obedient active faith is required of God for salvation, then you are stating heresy.

If you are saying that "an obedient active faith is required of God for sanctification of the believer then I agree with you.
DHK

 

[DHK]

Originally posted by Frank:
DHK:
I am a member of the saved of Christ( Acts 2:47) who assemble at ( location) the Bartley Rd. By your logic this makes those in Thessalonica the cogincers. I Thes. 1:1. This is foolishness on your part. I believe you were raised better than this.

Now you are just playing semantics. Everyone has a label. You have labeled yourself Church of Christ, and further identified yourself by your geography, Bartley Rd. You piously say that you are the saved of Christ that assemble at this location, as any local church can describe themselves as such, for that is the general definition of a local church. So that isn't news to anyone. In order to differentiate yourself from Baptists, Methodists, SDA's, etc. you have labeled yourselves as COC, the abbreviation for the Church of Christ. Surely you are not ashamed to admit this on the board, which also has an abbreviation of BB.
DHK

 

[Michael52]

Originally posted by Frank:
Michael:
I have not read one post advocating that one is saved by baptism alone. I do not believe anyone has promulgated this doctrine. I have not read one post that advocates salvation by meritorious works.

Frank

I was just responding to webdog. He said he didn't think someone who was not saved would desire baptism. I was pointing out that certainly there are "unchurched" people who may falsely think that getting baptized is equivalent to being saved.

Hey, lots of people have "strange" notions. No doubt I qualify for that also.

I hope to learn better, Lord willing.

 

[ascund]

Greetings Michael52

Originally posted by Michael52:
I have not read one post advocating that one is saved by baptism alone. I do not believe anyone has promulgated this doctrine. I have not read one post that advocates salvation by meritorious works.[/qb]

Frank

You have fingered a key concept in the discussion of water baptism. There is only one verse that links faith and baptism. However, Bible students recognize that the link is to salvation - NOT JUSTIFICATION. Those who embrace error glibly continue forcing their denominational creeds upon the text and convert "salvation" into "justification."

The great weight of scripture links justification to faith alone. Nothing else is ever added or implied. Your observation is a vital building block of systematic theology.

Kudos to you!
Lloyd

 

[Frank]

Loyd:
To state a thing has been accomplished does not tell us how or when as it relates to others. Context will tells us these things. Furthermore, the totality of what is written should be considered before one makes his conclusions. It is called rationality. Again, you cannot provide one example of a person being saved without an obedient active faith, not one. It seems you fail to grasp this concept.

 

[ascund]

Greetings

Why Frank - this is an easy lexical exercise. Have you never considered examining the rudamentary verbs in the Greek? Let me help you.

PASSIVE VOICE of DIKAIOW (justification)
Acts 13:39; Pres Pass Ind; All who believe are justified
Rom 3:24; Pres Pass Ptcp; Being justified freely by his grace through Jesus’ redemption.
Rom 3:28; Pres Pass Infin; We are justified by faith without the deeds of the law.
Rom 4:5; Pres Act Ptcp; Those who believe in Jesus are justified. Faith is counted for righteousness.
Gal 2:16; Pres Pass Ind; We are not justified by the works of the law.
Gal 3:11; Pres Pass Ind; No one is justified by the law. The just (dikaios) shall live by faith.
Gal 5:4; Pres Pass Ind; Christ is of no effect if you are justified by the law. Ye are fallen from grace.
Matt 11:19; Aor Pass Ind; Wisdom is justified of her children.
Luke 7:35; Aor Pass Ind; Wisdom is justified by her children.
Rom 3:4; Aor Pass Subj; God’s Word is given that you might be justified.
Rom 4:2; Aor Pass Ind; If Abraham was justified by works he can boast.
Rom 5:1; Aor Pass Ptcp; Being justified by faith, we have peace with God.
Rom 5:9; Aor Pass Ptcp; Being justified by Jesus’ blood, we shall be saved from God’s wrath.
I Cor 6:11; Aor Pass Ind; We are justified and sanctified in Jesus’ name by God’s Spirit.
Gal 2:17; Aor Pass Infin; If we seek to be justified by Christ and found to be sinners, is Christ the minister of sin? God forbid!
Gal 3:24; Aor Pass Subj; The law brought us to Christ that we might be justified by faith.
I Tim 3:16; Aor Pass Ind; God was manifest in the flesh, justified in the Spirit, believed in the world, and received up into glory.
Tit. 3:7; Aor Pass Ptcp; Being justified by His grace, we should be made heirs.
Rev 22:11; Aor Pass Imper; He who is righteous, let him be righteous still.
Matt 12:37; Fut Pass Ind; You will be justified by your words.
Rom 2:13; Fut Pass Ind; The doers of the law will be justified.
Rom 3:20; Fut Pass Ind; No one will be justified by the deeds of the law.
Luke 18:14; Perf Pass Ptcp; The publican went away justified.
Rom 6:7; Perf Pass Ind; He that is dead is freed (justified) from sin.
I Cor 4:4; Perf Pass Ind; I am not yet justified (because of stewardship).


So Frank, I left out a few active voice verses. But they all point to God's activity in justification alone! There is not one verse in scripture that refers in the active voice to human activity. The insistence on human activity is your denominational creed that stands in blatant opposition to the easy to see truths of scripture.

These verses clearly show that justification is a passive event. I'm not making it up - but I have used ALL of God's Word - not just the parts that are conducive to my denominational bias. Did you read the list?

This is the reason why I challenge you on adding human activity to faith. Your unbiblical view of required human activity in obedience makes faith the measure of justification. The Bible treats it as the instrument that enables God to impute Christ's righteous to the believing sinner.

The difference is substantial and alarming. Alarming? Yes! because God clearly condemns all human righteousness as filthy rags (Isa 64:6) and condemns all to hell left to their own means (Rom 3:19).

If faith is active, then all go to hell.
If faith is passive, then Christ's righteousness prevails!

Why would you embrace a system of death?
Lloyd

 

[bmerr]

Originally by ascund:
However, Bible students recognize that the link is to salvation - NOT JUSTIFICATION.

ascund,

bmerr here. You seem to be the one with the formal education, am I right? Perhaps you could explain how one could be justified without being saved, or saved without being justified. Either way is fine, but since you want to separate justification and salvation, I thought you might show everyone how this is done.

In Christ,

bmerr

 

[Doubting Thomas]

Lloyd:
If faith is active, then all go to hell.
If faith is passive, then Christ's righteousness prevails!

That's the most ridiculous, antibiblical statement I've ever read in my life.

Faith without works is dead (James 2:17), and the only thing that avails for anything is faith working through love (Gal 5:6).

 

[ascund]

Greetings

Your Bible ignorance is showing quite readily here.

Originally posted by Doubting Thomas:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Lloyd:
If faith is active, then all go to hell.
If faith is passive, then Christ's righteousness prevails!

That's the most ridiculous, antibiblical statement I've ever read in my life.

Faith without works is dead (James 2:17), and the only thing that avails for anything is faith working through love (Gal 5:6). </font>[/QUOTE]Gal 5:6
First, you misquoted Gal 5:6. Paul is talking about circumcison or uncircumcision as two manners of salvation. Neither way works because they don't include faith.

Second, faith does work by love. The dynamo behind saving faith is God's love for us sinners - even while we hated Him (Rom 5:8). We love God because He first loved us (I John 4:7,10,19).

Third, you missed the context - again. When will you ever read the passage from which you violently yank the verse? Paul exhorts ALREADY SAVED BELIEVERS to stand fast in the liberty wherewith Christ has made us free (Gal 5:1). Believers are called to liberty to serve one another (Gal 5:13). This is an issue of sanctification that you are abusing by trying to blend it with justification.

One of the two worst errors a theologian can make is to confuse justification with sanctification.

ACTIVE FAITH
Here is the complete list of active voice verses that involve justification (sorted by tense).

Luke 10:29; Pres Act Inf; The lawyer, willing to justify himself, said to Jesus …
Luke 16:15; Pres Act Ptcp; You are those who are justifying yourselves before men.
Rom 3:26; Pres Act Ptcp; God is the One justifying those who believe in Jesus.
Rom 8:33; Pres Act Ptcp; God is the One Who justifies.
Gal 3:8; Pres Act Ind; God would justify the heathen through faith.

Rom 3:30; Fut Act Ind; God will justify by faith.

Rom 8:30; Aor Act Ind; Those who he called, he justified and glorified.
Luke 7:29; Aor Act Ind; The publicans justified God.

These show that only God is active in justification. For you to deny this shows that you have never read your Bible. When will you stop throwing denominational rhetoric around without checking it out against God's Word?

Ignorance of easy Bible facts is no excuse for heresy.
Lloyd

 

[Doubting Thomas]

Lloyd:
These show that only God is active in justification. For you to deny this shows that you have never read your Bible. When will you stop throwing denominational rhetoric around without checking it out against God's Word?

Ignorance of easy Bible facts is no excuse for heresy.
Lloyd

It's quite amusing hearing a proponent of a doctrine invented in the 16th century accusing someone else of "heresy" and "denominational rhetoric". But anyway...

God is indeed the one who justifies--declares righteous. I don't believe I've said otherwise. However, you are mistaken by saying God is the only one "active" in justification. For our faith to be the kind that God will justify it has to be working through love, and not dead. It is in Christ through faith that one can do works of love by His grace, but that one is still doing the works. If he doesn't continue to abide in Christ and quits bearing fruit, he will be cast off from the vine. At that point that one is most certainly not justified.

 

[ascund]

Greetomgs

Originally posted by Doubting Thomas:
It's quite amusing hearing a proponent of a doctrine invented in the 16th century accusing someone else of "heresy" and "denominational rhetoric".

What a laugher! I've never referenced any author from the 16th century. Instead, I've listed the results of the authors from the 1st century who wrote the Bible. Really, you have to get a grip on your denominational ego and get into God's Word. Justification is all over the Bible. Do you only read denominational magazines?

Originally posted by Doubting Thomas:
God is indeed the one who justifies--declares righteous. I don't believe I've said otherwise. However, you are mistaken by saying God is the only one "active" in justification.

I'll need a verse better than your confused appeal to Gal 5:6. Context dictates that Gal 5:6 is written to ALREADY SAVED believers. Hence, it has no application to justification. Instead, it is relevant to sanctification. One of the two worst mistakes a theologian can make is to confuse justification with sanctification. Apparently, you have no clue as what I'm saying.

Originally posted by Doubting Thomas:
If he doesn't continue to abide in Christ and quits bearing fruit, he will be cast off from the vine. At that point that one is most certainly not justified.

This is from Jesus' Upper Room Discourse. Have you not read that in context either? Jesus delievered this AFTER Judas left. The only ones remaining were believers. The whole discourse is about AFTER JUSTIFICATION. Will you ever learn that this is sanctification and not related to justification?

Apparently, you don't know much about viticulture either or you wouldn't have made such an outlandish error about pruning.

If the grape vine has too few growing points, it produces only vegetative growth with few grape clusters. If the plant has too many growing points, it grows extensively and wastes it nutrients on growth and produces few grape clusters. The vine dresser needs to keep a careful balance of growing points for maximum fruit production.

The vine dresser maximizes fruit production by pruning, which occurs twice a year. Immediately after harvest, the vine is severely pruned to reduce the number of growing points. Later, in early spring, the vine is pruned to remove excess shoots. Significantly, the vine dresser leaves a number of non fruit-bearing branches on the vines. These non fruit-bearing branches serve several purposes. Some non fruit-bearing branches become the main trunk for future growth while others are used for structural support to keep the fruit bearing branches from contacting the soil and being ruined. Since Jesus spoke this during the Passover, it is likely that He had a visible illustration in the spring pruning that was well known in that culture.

Cultural context dictates that spring pruning was for the purpose of maximizing growth. Both fruit-bearing and non fruit-bearing branches were pruned removing only small sprouts. Branches that had grown off of existing support beams needed to be lifted up off the soil to avoid rotting. The implications are quite clear. Since the Passover and crucifixion happened in the spring, Jesus intends His followers to abide in Him and bear much fruit. Those who do not bear fruit will be subject to severe pruning for the express purpose of producing fruit.

When - oh when indeed - will you ever use context?
Lloyd

 

[bmerr]

To All,

bmerr here. I'm not opposed to chasing a few rabbits now and then, but we've wandered far from the topic under discussion. Most of what is being said here is also being said on other threads. So if we could, let's return to the topic of "Baptism--Why?"

I'm as guily as anyone else, so I won't be pointing any fingers.

The original goal was to show from the Bible the reasons for water baptism. I've found it's best to use verses that mention, or describe a topic when discussing that topic. So, If we could...

In Christ,

bmerr

 

[ascund]

Originally posted by bmerr:
So if we could, let's return to the topic of "Baptism--Why?"

Sounds good here. Let's start with Jesus' baptism.

Q1: Did Jesus get baptised to get saved?
A1: Silliness! Jesus, as the Author of eternal life, didn't need justification.
So: baptism is NOT for justification.

Q2: When did Jesus get baptised?
A2: Just prior to His public ministry. Jesus was 30 some years old.
So: We should get baptised at the beginning of our Christian ministry.

Observation: Jesus waited 30 years to get baptized. Thus, the Bible denies an immediate need to get baptized after justification.

So why did Jesus get baptised? As a pattern to fulfill all righteousness showing the sequence
justification - large time period - baptism - sanctification.

Well, your turn. Hope it doesn't lead to more rabbit trails. There are many sanctification verses for you to choose. What is your comment on Jesus' baptism without an appeal to CoC theology?

Good luck on this difficult endeavor.
Lloyd

 

[Frank]

The why of the baptism of Jesus has little to do with ours. It is a false propostion to say we are baptized for the same reasons Christ was baptized.

1. Christ had no sin. I Pet. 1:22. We do. Romans 3:23.
2. Jesus had no need to confess which was a condition of John's baptism. Mt. 3:6-8. We do. Mat. 10:32.
3. John's baptism was for the remission of sins. Jesus needed no redemption. We do. Mk. 1:4, Col. 1:14.
Therefore, my friend makes a false propositon. Things that are equal to each other are equal to the same thing. In the case of the baptism of Chriat as it relates to our baptism, the above logical consequence is not applicable. Your conclusions are wrong.

One who purports we are baptized because we are already the children of God contradicts the plain teaching of Gal. 3:26,27. He imperils his soul by believing a lie. II Thes. 2:9-11;1:6-9.
The baptism of Christ is similar to ours in that both are submissive acts to God. Furthermore, it was a picture of the redemption of Christ by way of the cross. Col. 1:20, Romans 6:3-6.

 

[ascund]

Greetings Frank

Originally posted by Frank:
The why of the baptism of Jesus has little to do with ours. It is a false propostion to say we are baptized for the same reasons Christ was baptized.

Whoa! I personally have heard many CoC sermons that appeal to Jesus' baptism for proof of the need for water baptism. See Dan Corner's confusion at:
http://www.evangelicaloutreach.org/baptism.htm .

A simple search finds lots of links that say the same: http://www.bibletruths.net/Archives/BTAR230.htm .

You and your theologians should at least try to speak in union.

The key is that Jesus didn't need to get baptized yet commanded that we follow His baptism. Hmm. A common sense reading would indicate that it be done for the same reason. Otherwise, we need to look for a secondary explanation. Where is it? Until then, let's simply use a common sense reading.

Lloyd

 

[bmerr]

Originally posted by ascund:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by bmerr:
So if we could, let's return to the topic of "Baptism--Why?"

Sounds good here. Let's start with Jesus' baptism.

Q1: Did Jesus get baptised to get saved?
A1: Silliness! Jesus, as the Author of eternal life, didn't need justification.
So: baptism is NOT for justification.

Q2: When did Jesus get baptised?
A2: Just prior to His public ministry. Jesus was 30 some years old.
So: We should get baptised at the beginning of our Christian ministry.

Observation: Jesus waited 30 years to get baptized. Thus, the Bible denies an immediate need to get baptized after justification.

So why did Jesus get baptised? As a pattern to fulfill all righteousness showing the sequence
justification - large time period - baptism - sanctification.

Well, your turn. Hope it doesn't lead to more rabbit trails. There are many sanctification verses for you to choose. What is your comment on Jesus' baptism without an appeal to CoC theology?

Good luck on this difficult endeavor.
Lloyd </font>[/QUOTE]ascund,

bmerr here. Not so difficult, perhaps. There is still the rabbit trail of how one can be justified without being saved, or saved without being justified for you to answer, though. I'm not trying to be a jerk about it. My understanding of justification as it relates to salvation may be wrong. I'd appreciate your thoughts on it.

Q1: Did Jesus get baptised to get saved?
A1: Silliness! Jesus, as the Author of eternal life, didn't need justification.
So: baptism is NOT for justification.

Concerning Jesus'baptism, we both understand that Jesus had no sin to be remitted. So you are correct in pointing out that His baptism was not for salvation.

Jesus told John, "Suffer it to be so now: for thus it becometh us to fulfill all righteousness" (Matt 2:15). The commandments of God are righteousness (Ps 119:172). God had commanded baptism. Jesus obeyed the commands of God. It was the proper thing to do.

Under the NT however, sinful men like you and me are commanded to be baptized for the remission of sins. In submitting to this, we are fulfilling the righteousness (commandments) of God.

Q2: When did Jesus get baptised?
A2: Just prior to His public ministry. Jesus was 30 some years old.
So: We should get baptised at the beginning of our Christian ministry.

So when does our "Christian ministry" start? Is it not when we become a Christian? Do we not have the Christian duty to study and grow from the moment we obey the gospel? That's all part of our "ministry". Unless you know of some authorization for one to just "chill out" for a peroid of time after he is saved...

Observation: Jesus waited 30 years to get baptized. Thus, the Bible denies an immediate need to get baptized after justification.

So why did Jesus get baptised? As a pattern to fulfill all righteousness showing the sequence
justification - large time period - baptism - sanctification.

(With due respect for the education that is yours, I still think your view of justification is incorrect. I haven't got to any response you may have given to my post looking at Gen 22 yet, so don't feel obligated to rehash the issue if you've already hashed it.)

I'm going to go out on a limb here (I like it out here): Since John's baptism was commanded by God, and justification is not by "faith only", but by faith with appropriate works, could Jesus be Who He was, and as such justified, if He had not submitted to it?

I'm not saying either way, it's just a thought that crossed my mind.

Aside from that, Jesus was about 30 years old when He was baptized of John. That's not the same as saying He waited 30 years to be baptized. I don't know if we can determine how long John had been preaching when Jesus came to him. We do know that John was about 6 months older than Jesus (Luke 1:36).

Also, we see that Jesus made the trip from Galilee to Jordan for the purpose of submitting to John's baptism (Matt 3:13).

If anything, I'd say the fact that Jesus was baptized shows the importance of obeying God's commands. We also need to remember that the baptism commanded by God since Acts 2 is not the same as John's baptism, which Jesus submitted to.

Jesus was baptized to fulfill all righteousness.

Sinners are commanded to be baptized for the remission of their sins.

In Christ,

bmerr