Baptism--Why?

[bmerr]

Michael52,

bmerr here. I thought he did a good job of stating my position, so I didn't take time to adress it directly.

For clarity's sake, though, I'd have to say that the man died in his sins, and was lost.

I'd also want to define "trusting in Jesus". The words translated as "trust" in both OT and NT basically mean to "have hope in , or to take refuge in". To take refuge "in Jesus", we have to be "in Jesus". So how do we get in there? What's the door, or entranceway? How does one get "into Christ"?

Rom 6:3-5 and Gal 3:27 say that we are "baptized into Christ". If that is the case, then the man in Pastor_Bob's illustration was not yet "in Jesus", and was therefore lost.

I know this is not a popular position, but it's what the Bible says. I didn't write it, I'm just reading it.

The Bible tells us that three days after Paul believed in Christ, he was still in his sins (compare Acts 9:4-9 with 22:16).

Paul's is the longest recorded delay between faith and baptism in the NT. Three days. Every other conversion account shows that the believer was baptized immediately, no matter what time of day it was.

I think the apostolic teaching about baptism was quite a bit different than what most religious teachers present today. There appears to be an urgency, a real need for it by those to whom they preached.

Too often these days, baptism is presented as an unneccessary, optional, no big deal, "we'll have a baptismal service in a couple of weeks" kind of thing. This seems quite different from the apostle's attitude about it.

I hope this serves as an answer.

In Christ,

bmerr

 

[bmerr]

ascund,

bmerr here. Welcome to the discussion. I think you'll find that I'm in the minority so far, but that's okay. Since you took the time, I'll take the time.

I. Rom 6 is often used to support water baptism. I take two serious differences to that view. First, is context. Paul spends five chapters shows the worthlessness of human obedience, Christ as the only basis of righteousness, Abraham as the father of faith for either testament who was justified by faith alone, and parallels between Adam and Christ.

Differences are what these forums are all about.

I think if you'll go back over Rom ch 1-5, you'll find that it is not obedience that Paul speaks against, but the keeping of the Mosaic Law. In fact, the book opens (1:5) with "...obedience to the faith...", and closes (16:26) with the "...obedience of faith..."

Paul himself declared that he was "...not disobedient to the heavenly vision" (Acts 26:19). So I don't think he was speaking about obedience being of no profit, but of the keeping of the Mosaic Law.

One topic that comes up quite often when dealing with this is circumcision, which actually was instituted in the Abrahamic covenant, and carried over into the Mosaic (Gen 17:10-14). This is something the Judaizers were trying to bind on the Gentile converts.

Also, the Scripture that said "and Abraham believed God, and it was counted unto him for righteousness" was not fulfilled until he offered Isaac (James 2:23). It was only after Abraham did what God told him to do.

The point Paul makes by using Abraham is that he was justified without the Mosaic Law, and so the Jews were "spinning their wheels" by trying to be justified by keeping it.

James makes a different point while using the same man as an example. He points out that one cannot be justified merely by saying he has faith, but by his faith manifesting itself in obedience to God's commands.

Abraham was justified when he obeyed God, but his obedience was not to the Mosaic Law. That's my take on the sum of the two writers' points.

That's five chapters on justification. Only in chapter 6 is baptism mentioned. So baptism comes AFTER justification.

I'd have to question your logic in making this statement. By the same reasoning, one could say that Paul came before Jesus Christ, since he is mentioned first in Rom 1:1. I know you wouldn't take things that far, but that's where that logic ends up.

Second, where is the word "water?" since it isn't here, it must be referring to Spirit baptism.

Not exactly. The word "Spirit" isn't there either. To assume either way is to reveal one's bias. Let's look at how the baptism Paul speaks of is described in Rom 6 and elsewhere.

Rom 6:4 Therefore we are buried with him by baptism into his death: that like as Christ was raised up from the dead by the glory of the Father, even so we also should walk in newness of life.

Col 2:12 Buried with him in baptism, wherein also ye are risen with him through the faith of the operation of God, who hath raised him from the dead.

It appears that the baptism of which Paul speaks is a burial and a raising up again. This is a description of every water baptism I have ever seen, including my own. I don't know if Holy Spirit baptism looked anything like this or not.

It is God's Spirit Who immerses us into Christ (I Cor 12:13).

What is the medium into which the Spirit immerses us, and then raises us up out of?

Moreover, the word "water" isn't used anywhere in Romans.

A quick look at my concordance affirms this statement. Given the references to it in connection with baptism in Acts, I don't think it is neccessary for the word "water" to be in each text that speaks of baptism for it to be implied by the context.

conclusion: Romans 6 baptism is the Spirit's baptism - just like Cornelius!

Again, I'd look at the descriptions of baptism and draw a conclusion from them. Cornelius, though he did speak in tongues before he was baptized, it has been noted earlier that his speaking in tongues preceded his hearing the gospel as well (Acts 11:15). This rare event took place as Peter "...began to speak..." at which point he had said nothing concerning Jesus Christ, or His death, burial, and resurrection. Cornelius could not possibly have been saved. Additionally, Cornelius was "commanded" to be baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus after the tongues incident.

II. ACTS 2:38 is taken out of context. Peter was preaching to national Israelites who needed to repent in order to receive their promised Messiah Whom they had rejected and crucified. Perhaps it wasn't to late for that "untoward generation" to escape the coming judgment.

Contrary to popular opinion, there were more than just Jews present at Pentecost in Acts 2. There is a list given in Acts 2:9-11 of the nations represented in Jerusalem on that day. Included in this list are "strangers of Rome, Jews and proselytes" (2:10).

"Strangers" is a term for Gentiles, and a proselyte was simply a Gentile who had chosen to bring himself under the Mosaic Law. He was still a Gentile, and could never be a "full Jew". That's why they were listed separately from the Jews.

Reading further, we find that the "...promise is unto you, and to your children, and to all that are afar off, even as many as the Lord our God shall call" (2:39).

The children of those assembled that day did not need to repent of crucifying the Messiah. Nor did "all that are afar off", which is a reference to the Gentiles.

The message preached by Peter that day is good until the Lord returns. There is but one gospel for every creature (Mark 16:15) in all nations (Matt 28:19) in all the world (Mark 16:15). It was first preached in Jerusalem (Luke 24:47) on the first Pentecost after the resurrection of Christ, and is recorded in Acts 2.

It is wrong to take a passage point designed for national Israel and apply it to any Gentile.

That is correct. It would be wrong for one to try to force Gentiles to keep the Mosaic Law (which was given only to the nation of Israel), which is what Paul was speaking about in Romans and other epistles.

I guess this is long enough.

It's gonna seem REALLY long with my comments stuck in there with yours! Peace to you, as well.

In Christ,

bmerr

 

[bmerr]

hillclimber,

bmerr here.

Originally posted by hillclimber:
[QB] bmerr,
Starting with 10:39, Paul gives the complete gospel. This is chronologically before the Holy Spirit falls upon them. This coincides exactly with the gospel today of "Believe in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and thou shalt be saved."[qb]

I would agree that the acount in Acts 10 seems to show that the gospel was preached first, with the Holy Ghost falling on Cornelius following the message. However, there are two little words in 11:4 that differentiate between the two accounts. Those words are "by order". Acts 10 tells us what happened. The Acts 11 account tells us in what order the events took place.

It is in 11:15 that we find that it was as Peter "..began to speak..." that the Holy Ghost fell on Cornelius. This could either mean before he spoke, or at the first part of his speaking. For the sake of arguement, let's say it was during the first part of his speech.

Acts 10:34-35 says nothing about the death, burial, and resurrection of Christ, nor does it even contain the name of Jesus Christ. I think two full verses is sufficient to be called "the beginning" of Peter's speech. Would you agree?

If, on the other hand, the Spirit fell before Peter started speaking, his words in 10:24-35 would be completely understandable, as he would have finally been convinced of the Gentiles having the right to hear the gospel.

The reason that the Holy Spirit falls upon them is that, for the first time, the Holy Spirit initiates His Baptism on these new believers. From that time on the Holy Spirit promises to dwell in any and all believers at conversion. They always before had to baptise before any indwelling. We still have baptisms today but the real ones are of God the Holy Spirit.

This gets into the idea of a "transition" between Acts 2 and Acts 10, which was addressed recently in my response to ascund, I think. Also, there is the issue of the fact that there is "one baptism" as of Eph 4, which means that it's either water baptism, or Holy Spirit baptism, which would mean we should stop baptizing folks in water, since there would then be two, and not one baptism.

I am not familiar with any Scripture which promises that we would be indwelt by the Holy Spirit at conversion, other than Acts 2:38, (which may or may not be speaking of it), and even then it is only after one is baptized that this would occur.

Now Peter is still practicing baptism as he hasn't been shown that it is to be ceasing.

He never was shown that water baptism was ceasing, since it hasn't. It was to continue "...unto the end of the world" (Matt 28:20).

All these sign gifts are still in effect and Israel still has the ability to accept Christ as their Messiah, but of course they don't. It isn't till the end of Pauls ministry that we see some final evidence of the sign gifts being gone. Care to guess what it is?

Well, 1 Cor 13:8-10 indicates that miraculous gifts would end when God's revelation was written down completely. Also, Paul tells Timothy (2 Tim 2:15) to "Study to shew thyself approved...", which indicates that Timothy did not have any miraculous knowledge. That's my guess. How'd I do?

In Christ,

bmerr

 

[Michael52]

Originally posted by bmerr:
For clarity's sake, though, I'd have to say that the man died in his sins, and was lost.

I'd also want to define "trusting in Jesus". The words translated as "trust" in both OT and NT basically mean to "have hope in , or to take refuge in". To take refuge "in Jesus", we have to be "in Jesus". So how do we get in there? What's the door, or entranceway? How does one get "into Christ"?

Rom 6:3-5 and Gal 3:27 say that we are "baptized into Christ". If that is the case, then the man in Pastor_Bob's illustration was not yet "in Jesus", and was therefore lost.

A less "hypothetical" case:
I was 12 years old when I believed and received Christ as my Lord and Savior. It was on a weekday while I was alone (except for God) in the woods near my house.

According to what you said, I wasn't actually saved at that time, since I hadn't yet been water baptized, by immersion, "into" Christ subsequent to believing. Of course, I publicly professed my faith in church the first sunday following and was baptized by immersion a few weeks later, as best I recollect. To assure the same fate as the poor hypothetical fellow didn't happen to me, what should a 12 year old have done? Should I have immediately found some body of water and took a plunge? Should I have called the pastor and arranged an emergency baptism?

I'm not trying to be flippant, but the more I ponder the situation, the more the scenario seems a little strange to me. That is, what a great amount of fuss and "work" it would have taken to insure that I would be properly baptized, so that Christ would accept and finally save me, lest I die before baptism.

Obviously, being Baptist, I disagree with baptismal regeneration (yes, it also sounds ironic to me

). I believe I was baptized by the Holy Spirit, born again and justified by faith that very day in the woods 32 years ago. I got "into" Christ because Christ, and the rest of the Godhead, got "into" me. It is a "heart" thing. The phrase, "a circumcision made without hands" (Col 2:11) comes to mind.

In my church, we love baptisms. We pray that we get to see baptisms, because each baptism represents another soul who is professing saving faith in Christ and is obediently following His commandment. They are proclaiming their entrance into the new life He won for them with the blood of His baptism on the cross. No human work we can do, will or need add anything to Christ's work. Amen.

Sorry to preach. It is late - need sleep...

In Christ
Michael

 

[hillclimber]

Originally posted by bmerr:

bmerr here.


Well, 1 Cor 13:8-10 indicates that miraculous gifts would end when God's revelation was written down completely. Also, Paul tells Timothy (2 Tim 2:15) to "Study to shew thyself approved...", which indicates that Timothy did not have any miraculous knowledge. That's my guess. How'd I do?

In Christ,

bmerr

That's not bad. I was refering to where Paul tells Timothy, in a letter, "to take a little wine for your stomach." Before there would be no need for treatments because of the gift of healings. By then the sign gifts from God to Israel, were gone.

 

[bmerr]

hillclimber,

bmerr here. I hadn't thought of that. Something else for the "evidence" list.

Do you ever get near Clarksville, TN in your travels, or are you local?

In Christ,

bmerr

 

[bmerr]

Originally posted by Michael52:
A less "hypothetical" case:
I was 12 years old when I believed and received Christ as my Lord and Savior. It was on a weekday while I was alone (except for God) in the woods near my house.

Michael52,

bmerr here. It is an account that I can relate to, actually. One's decision to follow Jesus can be quite emotional. The realization of one's lost condition, coupled with the understanding that Jesus came to save such a one, is such a mixture of despair, sorrow, relief, hope, and joy, that words are hard pressed to describe it.

Emotions are natural, and certainly have their place in Christianity. We must understand, however, that they are not trustworthy, nor are they the standard by which we should judge the authenticity of a situation.

The bottom line is, Michael, that the Bible demonstrates a pattern of conversion, which every conversion account we have in Scripture follows, or lines up with. Our own experience, regardless of how powerful, or meaningful it may seem to us, needs to be judged according to what we find in the Bible.

Acts (a book of conversions) shows repeatedly a pattern of hearing the word, believing the word, repentance from sin, confessing Christ as the Son of God, and being baptized in the name of the Lord.

Not every account explicitly records each part of this pattern, but by implication, we understand that they are present.

According to what you said, I wasn't actually saved at that time, since I hadn't yet been water baptized, by immersion, "into" Christ subsequent to believing.

What I say is not the standard, unless I'm saying what the Bible says. I can still get things wrong, and sometimes I do.

According to what we see in the Bible, no, you weren't saved in the woods. Please know that I'm not trying to demean you or your story. Like I said earlier, I can relate.

Your story simply does not conform to the pattern we find in the word of God, which is the basis of our faith. God has given men lots of patterns to follow. The ark, and the Tabernacle, just for starters. Noah and Moses are recorded as having done all things whatsoever the LORD commanded them, and God never called them "legalists". They were just being obedient.

Of course, I publicly professed my faith in church the first sunday following and was baptized by immersion a few weeks later, as best I recollect. To assure the same fate as the poor hypothetical fellow didn't happen to me, what should a 12 year old have done? Should I have immediately found some body of water and took a plunge? Should I have called the pastor and arranged an emergency baptism?

What you should have done is kind of moot at this point. In the end, you did what you had been taught to do. Your objective now is to compare your conversion to the pattern recorded for us in the Bible, and judge for yourself what you ought to do now.

But to answer your quetion, if you had found your pastor and requested to be baptized for the remission of your sins right away, he probably would have tried to explain that baptism had nothing to do with salvation, and reviewd Baptist doctrine concerning salvation.

I'm not trying to be flippant, but the more I ponder the situation, the more the scenario seems a little strange to me. That is, what a great amount of fuss and "work" it would have taken to insure that I would be properly baptized, so that Christ would accept and finally save me, lest I die before baptism.

Likewise, I do not mean to sound dismissive. If I do, it's not intended. But compared to the effort on Christ's part to make salvation available to us, would any effort, no matter how large, be too much to ask of us in order to avail ourselves of the provision of God?

Obviously, being Baptist, I disagree with baptismal regeneration (yes, it also sounds ironic to me

).

When I was a Baptist, that seemed odd to me as well. To be known as a Baptist, and be a part of the Baptist church, and yet to take such a low view of baptism! Of course the method was very important. Full immersion, and nothing less. But essential? Certainly not! Just so you know that you're not the only one who ever saw a disparity there...

I believe I was baptized by the Holy Spirit, born again and justified by faith that very day in the woods 32 years ago. I got "into" Christ because Christ, and the rest of the Godhead, got "into" me. It is a "heart" thing. The phrase, "a circumcision made without hands" (Col 2:11) comes to mind.

Not too much now. You get into having two baptisms when Paul said that there is only "one baptism" (Eph 4:5). Another time, another place...

In my church, we love baptisms. We pray that we get to see baptisms, because each baptism represents another soul who is professing saving faith in Christ and is obediently following His commandment. They are proclaiming their entrance into the new life He won for them with the blood of His baptism on the cross. No human work we can do, will or need add anything to Christ's work. Amen.

Too much to get into now. Very tired (pain meds kicking in). "It is finished"--Jesus' part of salvation's plan was done. Man must do his part as well, starting with believing...not earning, just obeying.

Time for bed.

In Christ,

bmerr

 

[Michael52]

bmerr

It seems what you are saying is that it wasn't enough that Jesus Christ freely chose, by His infinite grace, to save a lost sinner like me, but that selfsame sinner also had to then follow some prescribed plan or pattern (ie "works") to add to what Jesus had already graciously done.

IMO there is one, and only one, baptism which really counts in salvation and that one is not a baptism which any human being can perform. If a person's salvation depends on the work of someone else, then that some else becomes a "priest" who's grace, plus God's grace, is necessary to affect salvation.

 

[yeshua4me2]

why not?

 

[ascund]

Hey bmerr

Originally posted by bmerr:
According to what you said, I wasn't actually saved at that time, since I hadn't yet been water baptized, by immersion, "into" Christ subsequent to believing.

According to what we see in the Bible, no, you weren't saved in the woods.

All one has to do is examine context! Peter clearly shows that baptism comes AFTER being just and forgiven (Gen 6:8-9).

Water isn't a type of anything. It brought death and destruction. Safety and life were from being INSIDE the ark and out of the water. In fact, the ARK was never ever submerged into the water - it floated on top!

No human hands were involved in the sealing since God sealed the doors of the Ark (Gen 7:16). I bet you've never considered this verse. Col 2:11-12 shows that the baptism that counts is done WITHOUT HANDS.

Last, when Noah disembarked from the Ark, he built an altar to God as an appeal from a cleansed conscience to live in the new world.

CONCLUSION
Justification first, then 120-500 years AFTER, one goes through baptism as an appeal to God to live for Him.

Salvation often happens in the woods.
Lloyd

 

[ascund]

Greetings all (& bmerr)
Justification is the key!
Your posts consistently mix sanctification into justification - a most poisonous recipe.

Originally posted by bmerr:
too much now. You get into having two baptisms when Paul said that there is only "one baptism" (Eph 4:5). Another time, another place... [/QB]

Exacto mundo!

Only the Spirit's baptism counts! Water baptism is a mery symbolic act obedience that doesn't count anything toward justification.

If you can see the baptism - it doesn't count!
If it counts, it is done by unseen hands (Col 2:11-12)!

The heart of your error is the confusion of justification with sanctification. Justification is by faith alone. God's Spirit immerses the believing sinner into Christ (1 Cor 12:13) in a baptism done without hands (Col 2:11-12) unto the Day of Redemption (Eph 4:30).

Abraham himself is a great example for believers of either testament. He was NEVER BAPTISED.

Confusion of justification w sanctification is one of the two worst errors a theologian can make.
Lloyd

 

[bmerr]

Michael52,

I'm planning to go into the "which baptism is the one baptism" thing in a response to ascund, but I wanted to address your statement referring to man's adding to Christ's work.

There is nothing that man can do to complement, or add to, the atonement that Jesus made available by His death on the cross. Absolutely nothing.

When Jesus said "It is finished", He meant it.

But did He mean that everyone would be saved? Did He mean that His dying on the cross would result in every human being that ever lived spending eternity in Heaven with Him?

Of course not. Jesus had finished His work. He alone could make salvation available to man. His works bore witness to Who He was (John 5:36; 10:25, 38). By rejecting His words, and the evidence of His works, the Jews condemned themselves (John 15:22-24). Jesus even said that he had come to finish His Father's work (John 4:34).

The work finished by Jesus could only have been done by Him. It was the ultimate expression of God's love for mankind. I have often been accused of trying to add to Christ's work, and it's a false accusation. I usually let it slide, but I don't like it.

Okay, with that said, we need to answer the question, "What determines who will be saved, and who won't?"

In the 25th chapter of Matthew, in the Judgement Day scene with the sheep and the goats, what is the main difference between the sheep and the goats? Both called Jesus "Lord", and yet the sheep went into life eternal, while the goats went away into everlasting punishment.

What was the difference?

The difference is in what they did or did not do. Their works determined, in part, their eternal destination. The sheep had works consistent with their professed faith. The goats did not.

The sheep had faith perfected by works (James 2:22), the goats had "faith only" (James 2:24).

My point is that works of obedience are a neccessary part of saving faith. Not works of the law, not works of merit. Obedience. How else would one demonstrate their submission to God's will, but by obedience to His commands?

Obedience adds nothing to the work of Christ. It simply is the manifestation of one's faith in Christ's work. Without it, faith is dead.

If a person's salvation depends on the work of someone else, then that some else becomes a "priest" who's grace, plus God's grace, is necessary to affect salvation.

Read Rom 10:14-17. We can't believe unless someone preaches the word to us. Sinners are dependant on Christians being faithful in sharing the word of the grace of God.

In Christ,

bmerr

 

[ascund]

Hey bmerr

This is a foray into the deep ditch.

Originally posted by bmerr:
In the 25th chapter of Matthew, in the Judgement Day scene with the sheep and the goats, what is the main difference between the sheep and the goats? Both called Jesus "Lord", and yet the sheep went into life eternal, while the goats went away into everlasting punishment.

What was the difference?

The difference is in what they did or did not do. Their works determined, in part, their eternal destination. The sheep had works consistent with their professed faith. The goats did not.

First, even the best of human righteous deeds are viewed by God as filthy rags (Isa 64:6). If you make your theology dependent upon perfected works, then no one will ever get saved (Rom 3:19, 23; 6:23). Please pay special note to Rom 3:19. Your so-called differentiation is based on aspects of sanctification which is one of the two worst mistakes a theologian can make.

Second, the differentiation is in justification - alone. One group believes in Jesus and goes to heaven (justification). Another group trusts that their human-centered, self-righteousness will please God and they all go to hell (sanctification).

Jesus Himself warned of the seriousness of trusting in the fleeting fickle foibles of human obedience when He declared "I AM the WAY" (John 14:6). Luke declared that No other name given under heaven leads to eternal life (Acts 4:12).

Your appeal to sanctification as the basis of justification is a most serious theological error.
Lloyd

 

[bmerr]

Originally posted by ascund:
Greetings all (& bmerr)
Justification is the key!
Your posts consistently mix sanctification into justification - a most poisonous recipe.

ascund,

bmerr here. Greetings to you, as well. I think the mix of sanctification and justification is only posonous to the doctrine of justification by "faith only", meaning "belief apart form works of any kind".

Originally posted by bmerr:
too much now. You get into having two baptisms when Paul said that there is only "one baptism" (Eph 4:5). Another time, another place...

Exacto mundo!

Only the Spirit's baptism counts! Water baptism is a mery symbolic act obedience that doesn't count anything toward justification.

If you can see the baptism - it doesn't count!
If it counts, it is done by unseen hands (Col 2:11-12)!

I've often heard the argument, "We're supposed to baptize believers in water, but Spirit baptism is the only real baptism..."

It seems to be grounded in a desire to have or do more than the Scriptures authorize, in an effort to avoid what God has commanded.

Since the writing of Paul's letter to the Ephesians, there has only been "one baptism". There may have been more before that time, and there may be another one coming at the Lord's return, but from that day until the 2nd coming, there's only "one baptism" that is Scriptural.

So which one is it, Spirit or water? Let's investigate.

First off, let's recognize the fact that HS baptism was never commanded, but was promised by Jesus to the apostles (John 14:16-17, 26; 16:7-15; Luke 12:11-12; Acts 1:5,8).

We see this promise fufilled in Acts 2:1-4, when the kingdom came with power.

The only other time we see anything like this is in Acts 10 with Cornelius, and there it occurred before Cornelius heard the gospel, and thus before he was saved (Acts 11:15).

The baptism commanded by Christ, which was to continue "...to the end of the world" (Matt28:20),

was to be administered by men (Matt 28:19; Mark 16:15-16),

required water (Acts 8:36-39; 10:47),

was in the name (or authority) of Jesus Christ (Matt 28:19; Acts 2:38; 8:16; 10:48; 19:5),

was preceded by faith and repentance (Mark 16:16; Acts 2:38; 8:37),

was for the remission, or washing away of sins (Acts 2:38; 22:16),

is described as a burial and raising up again (Rom 6:3-5; Col 2:12),

is the only way that the Bible says one gets "into Christ" (Rom 6:3; Gal 3:27),

is the response of those who receive the message to "save yourselves" (Acts 2:40-41),

and is the point at which one is saved and added to the Lord's church (1 Cor 12:13; 1 Pet 3:21; Acts 2:41, 47).

Please forgive me for not typing out all of these Scripture references. You're likely familiar with most of them.

The heart of your error is the confusion of justification with sanctification.

I believe it may be your error in separating them.

Justification is by faith alone.

You speak in direct conflict with James 2:24.

God's Spirit immerses the believing sinner into Christ (1 Cor 12:13)

Please tell me what the Spirit immerses one in. Men are commanded to baptize in water. Jesus promised to baptize with the Spirit. What does the Spirit baptize in or with?

...in a baptism done without hands (Col 2:11-12)

Please notice there are two separate things mentioned in Col 2:11-12, those being a circumcision made without hands, and a baptism described as a burial and a raising up again.

If anything, the text tells us that we are circumcised without hands when we are "buried with him in baptism, wherein also ye are risen with him through the faith of the operation of God."

The circumcision made without hands is the operation of God, performed when we are buried and raised with Christ in baptism.

Abraham himself is a great example for believers of either testament. He was NEVER BAPTISED.

Nor was Abraham ever commanded to be baptized. We, under the NT of Jesus Christ, are. Abraham's example lies in the fact that he did what God commanded him to do, even when it didn't make sense.

I urge you all to examine the evidence and judge for yourselves. In the end, we all ought to do one of two things:

- Decide that HS baptism is the "one baptism", and stop baptizing in water, or

- Decide that water baptism is the "one baptism", and start doing it for the reasons God ahs commanded it.

In Christ,

bmerr

 

[ascund]

Greeting

You put a lot (too much) into this post. I'll respond with separate posts one issue at a time.

First, Biblical harmony. You do not rightly divide God's Word because you do not see or admit to the distinctiveness between justification and sanctification.

Therefore, to preserve your denominational creeds you go to unsound measures. Is it right to pit the Bible against itself? You have compiled several verses showing human activity in water baptism. Are these to be pitted against the verses that show that spiritual baptism is done only and solely by God's Spirit? Is it right to appeal to ONE BAPTISM and then use a human-centered act of obedience to choose between the two? This is silliness for it sets fickle imperfect sanctification ahead of God's righteous declarations of justification.

Biblical harmony uses both! There are many examples of both/and theology. The Trinity is but the greatest.

The "both/and" hermeneutic works well with justification/sanctification. One is justified by God's Spirit. One is also sanctified by works. These are easy truths verified by several verses. It is a bad hermeneutic to pit the Bible against itself.

God's Spirit is the only saving baptism that counts. Water baptism is commanded for sanctification but is not an absolute requirement for heaven. Proof of this are the millions, perhaps billions, of OT saints who were never baptized or circumcized. Enoch, Noah and Job for example. Since there is but ONE FAITH, the OT demands that saving faith is without baptism. NT theology cut apart from the OT is not rightly dividing God's Word.

But this does not eliminate water baptism either. One must align the verses according to the justification / sanctification dimension. Failure to do this results in great error.

Lloyd

 

[ascund]

Greetings

This is my second response to your lengthy posting.

Originally posted by bmerr:
The only other time we see anything like this is in Acts 10 with Cornelius, and there it occurred before Cornelius heard the gospel, and thus before he was saved (Acts 11:15).

Your appeal eliminates the OT. Yet in the exact same post you appeal to Eph 4:5 for ONE FAITH. Thus, you contradict yourself in the same post. Which is it? Do we use the OT or ignore it? You cannot do both.

If we use the OT, then it does not matter whether or not Cornelius heard the gospel. Furthermore, I simply disagree with your statement because Peter preached the gospel quite well to Cornelius and never ever touched on water baptism until AFTER Cornelius was saved.

You change the rules of hermeneutic interpretation to suit your needs. Since the Bible declares ONE FAITH, do you now have two (or more)? Is there ONE FAITH for you and me, ONE FAITH for Cornelius, and ONE FAITH for the OT saints? Why not throw in ANOTHER FAITH for the Thief on the Cross. Be consistent! If there is truly one faith, then it applies to the OT as well.

When you look to the OT you avoid the trappings of sanctification associated with water baptism. Since there was no OT circumcision or water baptism that saved Enoch, Job or Abraham, it must be true also for the NT!

Consistency is the hallmark of good theology.
Lloyd

 

[ascund]

Greetings

Here, you have drawn an errant conclusion by ignoring context. Context rules!

Originally posted by bmerr:
Salvation was preceded by faith and repentance (Mark 16:16; Acts 2:38; 8:37),

was for the remission, or washing away of sins (Acts 2:38; 22:16)

You completely ignore the context of this verse. In Acts 1:6, the disciples asked, “Lord, wilt thou at this time RESTORE AGAIN the kingdom to Israel?” In Acts 3:19, Peter’s second sermon, he preaches, “Repent ye therefore, and be converted, that your sins may be blotted out, when the TIMES OF REFRESHING shall come from the presence of the Lord.”

If Peter is looking for the restoration of national Israel BEFORE and AFTER Acts 2, then he is IN Acts 2. With proper context in mind Peter first shows his fellow countrymen that they have crucified their Messiah (2:23). Jesus rose from the dead, will return, and execute Messianic vengeance upon His enemies (2:35; Psa 110:1-2; Isa 61:1-2;l; Jer 46:10). He reminds them that they are the ones who crucified the One (2:36) Who is both “Lord and Christ.” So, repent and be baptized (2:38). Save yourselves “from this untoward generation” (2:40).

It is deceptive manipulation to misrepresent the great weight of scripture by a verse intended only for 1st century Jews looking for national restoration and wishing to avoid God’s wrath on their UNTOWARD GENERATION before judgment falls in AD 70. Acts 2:38 is not a normative principle today.

Lloyd

 

[ascund]

Greetings

This is yet another response to your lengthy post. This much confusion requires many short responses.

Originally posted by bmerr:
[Baptism] is described as a burial and raising up again (Rom 6:3-5; Col 2:12)

Have you ever examined Romans 6 is context? Context rules!


A. ROMANS 1:19-3:19 – HUMAN DEPRAVITY
Adam’s one sin spread death to the entire race (Rom 5:17-19; 1 Cor 15:22). The entire race is dead in sin (Eph 2:1,5). We are helpless to change our plight for our hearts are so desperately wicked that they are beyond knowing (Jer 17:9). Indeed, even in our best of states, we are still nothing but vanity (Psa 39:5) for all – every one – of our righteous deeds are as filthy rags (Isa 64:6).

In Romans, God purposefully and with great elaboration builds an airtight case against all ungodliness, unrighteousness, and those who hold the truth in unrighteousness (Rom 1:18). God condemns: the perverts and the immoral (Rom 1:19-32), the moral Gentiles with or without the law (Rom 2:1-16), the self-righteous Jew (Rom 2:17-3:9), and all humans in general (Rom 3:10-18). In the final Day of Judgment, God’s case will so convincing that no one will be able to say one word in self-defense (Rom 3:19).

B. ROMANS 3:19-31 – CHRIST’S RIGHTEOUSNESS: THE BASIS OF SALVATION.
The Bible declares that Christ is the center of redemption. He is the basis of salvation from start to end – period. The power of the gospel unto salvation is God’s righteousness – apart from corrupted human obedience (Rom 1:16,17; 3:21-22a) – through Christ (Rom 3:22b-25, 5:21, 10:4; Phil 1:11; 2 Pet 1:1).

C. FAITH: THE INSTRUMENT OF JUSTIFICATION.
The basis of Christian salvation is Jesus Christ and His righteousness. Human faith is not the reason that God accepts those who believe. Faith is merely the instrument that appropriates Christ’s righteousness and God’s subsequent favor (Rom 3:26-31) God justifies whether or not the sinner has gone through any sacramental rite (3:30).

Salvation occurs when God IMPUTES Christ’s righteousness to the believing sinner simply and only because of faith in Christ. The word IMPUTE (Ps 32:2; Rom 4:6, 8, 11, 22, 23; 2 Cor 5:19; and Jam 2:23) is a cardinal aspect of this presentation. Impute is an accounting term that means “to reckon” and has nothing to do with activity.

“The righteousness of faith is declared to be our only righteousness before God. This righteousness consists in the obedience of the divine-human Christ in both life and death, by which He fulfilled and satisfied the law on behalf of poor, condemned sinners. God imputes this righteousness to all who believe the gospel, and by it they are justified and saved. Justification is a declaration or verdict of God that the sinner is acquitted and counted as righteous for the sake of the obedience and death of Jesus Christ.”

The only righteousness that pleases God is Christ’s righteousness. In 2 Cor 5:21, God clearly shows that He Himself and nobody else has effected this two-way IMPUTATION. Our sins are imputed to Christ; His righteousness is imputed to us.

The relation between salvation and faith denies the question of human activity and/or merit because God reckons faith as righteousness (Rom 4:3, 5, 9, 13, 24). God is pleased to do this on the basis of Christ’s ALIEN righteousness – not because of intrinsic human worth. Saving faith, and that alone by itself, is the key to receiving Christ’s IMPUTED righteousness. If anything human (including commanded baptism) is included in this simple passive faith, then faith is converted to a work (Rom 11:6).

D. ABRAHAM – THE FATHER OF OUR FAITH (ROMANS 4).
Paul’s entire object lesson using Abraham begins with the fact that Abraham was declared to be righteous BEFORE his sacramental rite of circumcision (4:2,3,5,9). Abraham is presented as a proper example for both Jews (12a) and Gentiles (12b). Paul takes great care to emphasize that Abraham’s sacramental rite of circumcision came AFTER his salvation and through IMPUTATION of Christ’s righteousness (10-11). Abraham is a fitting example for all those who would receive the righteousness of faith in either testament (13).

E. ROMANS 5: JUSTIFICATION BY FAITH
Chapter 5 begins with “being justified by faith.” Faith gives access to grace (v2). Whereas the entire race was plunged into death by Adam’s one sin, the free gift of eternal life comes by Jesus alone (v18). Grace reigns through righteousness unto eternal life (v21). In context, the only righteousness being spoken of is Jesus’ righteousness – not human righteousness. Chapter 5 is a mini summary of everything that has proceeded using the Adam – Christ contrast as a metaphor. Baptism isn’t mentioned.


F. ROMANS 6: SPIRIT BAPTISM
Only here,
AFTER denial of human obedience,
AFTER Christ’s righteousness,
AFTER faith as the instrument of justification,
AFTER Abraham’s example,
does Paul mention baptism. Since the word “water” is not used anywhere in the chapter or the entire book, this baptism must be seen as the saving spiritual baptism that comes at the moment of faith (justification).

Any move to force common sense spiritual baptism to mean earthly water baptism is heresy.

Any attempt to move baptism out of the Bible sequence (faith – justification – baptism) is high heresy.


Context rules!
Baptism only AFTER justification.
Lloyd

 

[ascund]

Greetings again!

Originally posted by bmerr:
... and is the point at which one is saved and added to the Lord's church (1 Cor 12:13; 1 Pet 3:21; Acts 2:41, 47).

Nowhere does the Bible say that the Church started at Pentecost. What would you do with all the OT saints? Father Abraham is used as a fine example of the Church (Romans 4). Jesus used the murmuring Israelites as an example of NT saving faith (John 3). Peter used Noah (Gen 6-7; I Pet 3). Moses used Enoch. There are many more (Grieviously sinning suicidal Samson).

The failure to look at the OT has deleterious effects to your theology of human righteousness.

All these little errors make your machine gun posts hard to address in one response. Please try to stick with one topic per post.
Lloyd

 

[ascund]

Greetings

Originally posted by bmerr:
and is the point at which one is saved and added to the Lord's church (1 Cor 12:13; 1 Pet 3:21; Acts 2:41, 47).

Here, you lump verses about Spirit Baptism as proof of justification. Do you realize how you blend Spirit baptism and water baptism with justification and sanctification. Worse yet, you confuse the context of Acts 2 by trying to force the culture of national Israel upon us Gentiles. This is a truly topsy turvy hermeneutic.

Peter shows that the analogy of baptism rests upon Noah. But Noah was declared to be JUST and PERFECT BEFORE the saga. Just because water is used somewhere in the Flood narrative does not mean that water saves anyone. Context rules! Context dictates that water baptism happens AFTER justification.

Here is where short posts are really beneficial. Try to answer the context here without hiding behind a bunch of other verses or running to another aspect of theology. What is the common sense reading of Gen 6:6-8? How much theologizing does it take to convert BEFORE into AFTER?

Confusion of justificaiton with sanctification is a grave error.
Lloyd