Baptism--Why?

[ascund]

Greetings

Great question!

Originally posted by bmerr:
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.

Sure thing. Salvation is the overarching concept that embraces the entire life of the believer.

Justification is associated with the new birth.
Sanctification is the after birth spiritual growth.

One who is justified is saved. One who is saved is justified. It is not an exact two way concept. Justification is a proper subset of salvation for one can be saved without being sanctified.

Justification + sanctification = salvation.

Salvation is far more than being saved (justification). It includes the walk of obedience (sanctification) in God's light (I John 1:5) with Jesus and other believers.

Hope this helps a bit.
Lloyd

 

[ascund]

Greetings

You wrote:

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.

I most heartily reject this statement for it is founded on a serious linguistics violation. Let me illustrate this using the following two sentences.
__1. My nose is running.
__2. I run a race.

Just because the same word “run” is used in both sentences does not mean that the two words have the same meaning. Incidentally, this word has the largest semantic domain in the English language with some 57 uses. Yet English speakers aren’t confused because they understand the word IN CONTEXT.

A 100% survey of remission of sins yields the following verses.
Matt 26:28 For this is my blood of the new testament, which is shed for many for the remission of sins.
Luke 24:47 And that repentance and remission of sins should be preached in his name among all nations, beginning at Jerusalem.
Acts 10:43 To him give all the prophets witness, that through his name whosoever believeth in him shall receive remission of sins.
Luke 1:77 To give knowledge of salvation unto his people by the remission of their sins,

Mark 1:4 John did baptize in the wilderness, and preach the baptism of repentance for the remission of sins.
Luke 3:3 And he came into all the country about Jordan, preaching the baptism of repentance for the remission of sins;
Acts 2:38 Then Peter said unto them, Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins, and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost.

Rom 3:25 Whom God hath set forth [to be] a propitiation through faith in his blood, to declare his righteousness for the remission of sins that are past, through the forbearance of God;
Here is the 1 remaining inexact match:

Mat 26:28, Luke 24:47 and Acts 10:43 are the generic invitations given to the entire world. Acts 10:43 is Peter coming out of his ethnic pride and preaching even to gentile heathen.
Luke 1:77 is a prophetic utterance of Jesus’ salvation and is associated with this generic invitation.

Mark 1:4, Luke 3:3, and Acts 2:38 are given pointedly and solely to national Israel so that they would accept Messiah Jesus.

Rom 3:25 shows how the sins of the past were put on a charge account and paid at the cross with all other present and future sins (Rom 6:7; Col 2:13; I John 2:2, 12).

Hence remission of sins has at least three semantic definitions. It is a violent abuse of God’s Word to take the definition of “remission of sins” from any one group and thrust it upon the other groups. It would be like the abuse of the word “run.” In the same fashion as we understand the word “run” in context, so also must we understand the phrase “remission of sins” in context.

Only national Israelites were commanded to be baptized for the remission of sins – and that only to accept Messiah Jesus in order to avoid the punishment coming on that “untoward generation” (Acts 2:40). Context rules!

Your whole system of human obedience requiring water baptism for process salvation depends on breaking known rules of semantics.
Lloyd

 

[bmerr]

Originally by ascund:

Only national Israelites were commanded to be baptized for the remission of sins – and that only to accept Messiah Jesus in order to avoid the punishment coming on that “untoward generation” (Acts 2:40). Context rules!

Lloyd,

bmerr here. Off the top of my head I can't recall which thread it's on, but I've attempted to show that Acts 2 was not applicable to national Israel only.

This is due to the presence of Gentiles (Acts 2:10 - "strangers of Rome, Jews and proselytes") while Peter preached, and the extension of the "promise" to those present, their children, and all that are afar off (Gentile reference), even as many as the Lord our God shall call (Acts 2:39).

This is the short version. Again, if you've already responded, you need not feel obligated to do so again. I'm sure I'll find it eventually.

And I'm not sure what the "rules of semantics" are, but God has always demanded obedience from men, and blessed those who obeyed.

In Christ,

bmerr

 

[ascund]

Greetings

lol! you sound like me. I'm sure I've responded to your response. It was where ever you posted it!

Originally posted by bmerr:
And I'm not sure what the "rules of semantics" are, but God has always demanded obedience from men, and blessed those who obeyed.

I noted that Paul taught that the HEARING OF FAITH is all that is required for justification in Gal 3:5. This by itself is rather hard on your view.

Have you noted that your overall apologetic pits one set of verses against another set. You never propose a unifying theological harmonization of these verse. If ALL of God's Word is true, then it isn't right to pit one set of verses that you like against another set that you don't like.

With this in mind, my theological system of justification in parallel with - yet distinct from - sanctification handles all these verses rather seamlessly and smoothly. Justification is by faith and the Spirit's baptism; sanctification is by faithfulness and obedience which includes water baptism.

But it is a huge decision to awaken to the fact that you've clung to an errant system. It requires humility to admit error. Moreover, what will your family and friends think? It is sort of like starting over. We don't that very well. It is a hard decision but one you need to make in light of the difficulties you face in true biblical harmony.

Just a thought. Hope that the sheer repetition of the same thoughts will sooner or later be used by God's Spirit to show you that water baptism isn't part of the gospel message.


Shalom
Lloyd

 

[Frank]

Lloyd:
I do not subscribe to any theologian. I study and decide for myself in all matters of faith. I am not obligated to defend any preacher and what he espouses as doctrine. He will be held in account for himself just as I will. Romans 14:12. You appear foolish and arrogant when you try to tell others what they believe. My duty is to defend the truth.
The baptism of Christ was a submissive act to God. In simple terms he obeyed the one who had authority to command. This makes his action a RIGHTeous thing to do. In this repect, I would imitate Christ's example. The second point made in my post is also true. The baptism of Christ was a picture of his death, burial and resurrection. Romans 6:3-5.

Furthermore, if you want to debate a "theologian" brother of mine about salvation, I suggest you try David Brown in Spring,Texas. I do not know if his schedule would permit, but he has defended the truth against many of your ilk.
By the way, try not to take things out of context such as your quote of mine. You been preaching a lot about context. Follow your own advice.

 

[ascund]

Greetings

Please don't get unduly ruffled.

Originally posted by Frank:
You appear foolish and arrogant when you try to tell others what they believe. My duty is to defend the truth.

Well, if so, I'm not doing it on purpose. I think I'm presenting the truth as much as you think you are.

I simply present that Jesus was not baptised for justification - yet He is the pattern. Hmmmm - common sense dictates that there is a one-to-one correspondence. You have done nothing but sling mud to answer the proposition. Who now is foolish and arrogant? At least I use Bible and common sense.

Furthermore, if you want to debate a "theologian" brother of mine about salvation, I suggest you try David Brown in Spring,Texas. I do not know if his schedule would permit, but he has defended the truth against many of your ilk.
By the way, try not to take things out of context such as your quote of mine. You been preaching a lot about context. Follow your own advice. [/QB]

I'd like that a lot. Unfortunately, I'm not going to fund my own trip to Texas.

With regard to context, I use context in every refutation of your human-centered system-of-death posts.

Have you noticed that you've never yet tried a response to Isaiah 64:6, Jer 17:9 or Rom 1:19-3:19?? But you quickly yank Rom 6 out of context to make up.

Do you not know that if you can see the baptism, then it is only temporal - not eternal (2 Cor 4:18)? This is yet another easy common sense Bible verse that you cannot properly address without appealing to denomination rhetoric.

These type of angry responses usually come when the person realizes that what they have been relying upon is wrong - - - but they are so sold on their denominational creeds that it is difficult to denounce them and return to the Bible truths. Once a person puts denominational creeds ahead of God's Word, the only recourse is personal ego-soothing diatribes. I fear you are reaching this point. Perhaps God's purpose in bringing you to this forum for His truth is passing you by. Now is the time to see how much you cannot answer, how little you can use for support that isn't denominational rhetoric.

Every verse you bring is met with a Bible response. What I bring, you struggle with (like Isaiah 64 or Jesus' baptism).

Hope you have a genuine change of heart.
Lloyd

 

[Frank]

Lloyd:

I did not say Jesus was baptized to be justiifed. Why make such statements. I wrote clearly about this question. If you read my post, you will see that is not true.

I posted an explanation about the baptism of Jesus. You do not like it. My answer is in harmony with the totality of the new testament of Christ.

I did not sling mud. I simply stated things as I see them. You seem to think it is appropriate to label people and represent their belief at your discretion. Then, you act offended when some one questions you about it. I choose to allow others to proclaim their beliefs without preconceived notions. It is called respect.

Funny, I could say you pit scripture against scripture by your theology. This label works both ways. If you think I am unduly ruffled, you give yourself too much credit!

Frank

 

[mman]

Originally posted by ascund:
I simply present that Jesus was not baptised for justification - yet He is the pattern. Hmmmm - common sense dictates that there is a one-to-one correspondence. You have done nothing but sling mud to answer the proposition. Who now is foolish and arrogant? At least I use Bible and common sense.

Jesus did not use faith for His justification either. Follow that logic trail of yours and see where it leads.

Jesus did state in words so plain that anyone can understand them, "He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved, he that believeth not, shall be condemned." - Mark 16:16

Did Jesus really mean this or did he mean something else?

This verse is so simple it takes help to misunderstand it.

This was the commission, to go into all the world and preach the gospel. The apostles were to be witnesses in Jerusalem, Judea, Samaria, and to the uttermost parts of the earth. Acts 1:8.

That message began to be preached in Jerusalem in Acts 2.

Baptism was "for the remission of sins". Acts 2:38.

Since baptism is for the remission of sins, Jesus statement in Mark 16:16 is even more clear, if that is possible.

Can one be justified or sanctified while still in their sins? Surely you don't teach that?

Saul was told to arise and be baptized and wash away your sins (Acts 22:16). This all fits together, whether you want it too or not. It takes mental gymnastics to attempt to explain away these clear teachings.

 

[webdog]

Jesus did state in words so plain that anyone can understand them, "He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved, he that believeth not, shall be condemned." - Mark 16:16

You are right. The words are so plain. Believe and be baptized (obedience to God) = saved, believe NOT (oh...where's batism here?!?) = NOT SAVED! You would like Mark 16:16 to read "He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved, he that believeth not and is BAPTIZED NOT, shall be condemned." Sorry, it's not there.

 

[riverm]

Originally posted by webdog:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr /> Jesus did state in words so plain that anyone can understand them, "He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved, he that believeth not, shall be condemned." - Mark 16:16

You are right. The words are so plain. Believe and be baptized (obedience to God) = saved, believe NOT (oh...where's batism here?!?) = NOT SAVED! You would like Mark 16:16 to read "He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved, he that believeth not and is BAPTIZED NOT, shall be condemned." Sorry, it's not there. </font>[/QUOTE]IF one believeth not, one wouldn’t be baptized to begin with. How can you be baptized in the name of the Father Son and Holy Sprit and not believe?

 

[webdog]

Originally posted by riverm:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by webdog:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr /> Jesus did state in words so plain that anyone can understand them, "He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved, he that believeth not, shall be condemned." - Mark 16:16

You are right. The words are so plain. Believe and be baptized (obedience to God) = saved, believe NOT (oh...where's batism here?!?) = NOT SAVED! You would like Mark 16:16 to read "He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved, he that believeth not and is BAPTIZED NOT, shall be condemned." Sorry, it's not there. </font>[/QUOTE]IF one believeth not, one wouldn’t be baptized to begin with. How can you be baptized in the name of the Father Son and Holy Sprit and not believe? </font>[/QUOTE]Not true. I know plenty of people who have been "baptized" (term used loosely) and "believe not".

 

[mman]

Originally posted by webdog:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr /> Jesus did state in words so plain that anyone can understand them, "He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved, he that believeth not, shall be condemned." - Mark 16:16

You are right. The words are so plain. Believe and be baptized (obedience to God) = saved, believe NOT (oh...where's batism here?!?) = NOT SAVED! You would like Mark 16:16 to read "He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved, he that believeth not and is BAPTIZED NOT, shall be condemned." Sorry, it's not there. </font>[/QUOTE]No, it says what it says. It plainly tells us what it takes to be saved and what it takes to be condemned.

What does it take to be saved?

What does it take to be condemned?

 

[DHK]

Originally posted by mman:

What does it take to be saved?

John 3:36 He that believeth on the Son hath everlasting life:

John 3:18 He that believeth on him is not condemned:

What does it take to be condemned?

and he that believeth not the Son shall not see life; but the wrath of God abideth on him. John 3:36

but he that believeth not is condemned already, John 3:18

 

[ascund]

Greetings

It is easy to fall into the negative fallacy trap with Mark 16. For instance let's add another something for emphasis. Believe + baptize + brushing teeth to be saved. I guarantee that if everyone believes, gets baptized and brushes their teeth, then they will be saved. Are you getting the picture.

Brushing teeth isn't needed for justification but fits within the general care of the body as part of sanctification. One can get justified even without brushing teeth. The negative fallacy error says that failure to brush ones teeth is the equivalent of not being saved.

The same fallacy holds for Mark 16 with respect to baptism. It is part of sanctification - not justification.

Anything that is associated with sanctification is part of salvation but not justification. If one cannot keep the simple terms straight, then big error happens at once.

Faith (justification) alone saves a person and fixes ones destiny with Jesus in heaven. Obedience (sanctification) adds rewards to the certain destiny. Justification + sanctification = salvation.

Why is this so hard?
Lloyd

 

[Frank]

Lloyd:

Peter said in I Pet. 1:18,19, Forasmuch as ye know that ye were not redeemed with corruptible things such as silver and gold from the vain conversation received by the tradtion of your fathers but withthe precious blood of Christ as Lamb without blemish or spot.

Peter said in Acts 2:38, The Peter said unto them Repent and be baptized every one of you in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ for the remission of sins and ye shalll receive the gift of the Holy Spirit.

Peter said in I Pet. 3:21, The like figure whereunto even baptism doth also now save us not the putting away of the flesh but the answer to a clean conscinece toward God by the resurrection of Jesus Christ.

John writes in Revelation 1:5, And from Jesus Christ who is the faithful witness and the first begotten from the dead and the prince of the kings of the earth . Unto him who loved us and washed us form our sins in his own blood.

Paul writes in Romans 5:9, Much more being justified by his blood we shall be saved from wrath through him.

Peter Paul and John state one is justified by the blood of Christ. When? They are washed. How? By baptism. I Pet. 3:21, Acts 22:16, Col. 2:12.

Paul said in Ephesians 5:25, Husbands love your wives as Christ also loveed the church and gave himself for it; that he might SANCTIFY IT ( How?) by the washing of water by the word. Why? That he might present it to himself a glorious church not having spot or wrinkle or any such thing but that it should be holy and without blemish.

Peter and Paul both teach that one is justified and sanctified by the blood of Christ when we are baptized into Christ. cf.I Pet. 1:2, Gal. 3:26-29.

The doorway into Christ where all spiritual blessings are located is through baptism into Christ. Eph. 1:3, Col. 1:14, Eph. 1:7 Gal. 3:26,27. It will read that way on the day of judgment, too.

 

[Frank]

Lloyd:
The grammatical construction of Mark 16:16 teache sus the following:
1. One that believes and is baptized shall be saved. And is a coordinating conjunction. This conjunction links belief and baptism in oneness or likeness in order to be saved.
2. But is a conjunction of contrast. It makes a distinction between things. It makes things dissimilar or incompatiable to one another. In short, the first clause is different from the second. He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved. ( first clause). But, contrast the first and second clause. He that believeth not shall be damned.And links ideas in oneness ( belief and baptism). But contrasts the first clause from the second. It would be redundant for the Lord to say but he that believeth not and is baptized not shall be damned. The Lord is not an illiterate.

 

[ascund]

Hey Frank

Your whole post is built up using verses out of context. Do you purposely do that or is the denominational blinders so powerful that you can't see?

Originally posted by Frank:
Acts 2:38, Repent and be baptized.

The context is Peter preaching to Jews. He urges them to avoid the coming judgment on the "untoward generation" (Acts 2:40). It is a terrible mistake to apply this to Gentiles.

Originally posted by Frank:
I Pet. 3:21

Context in Gen 6:8-9 shows that Noah was just and perfect BEFORE the Flood. Baptism points backward to the fact of faith.

Originally posted by Frank:
Romans 5:9 and Revelation 1:5

This is almost blasphemous. Jesus' blood alone washes from sin. No way should anyone think that they can raise themselves up to His perfection and apply His saving work to themselves. Near kin to blasphemy! Jesus saves - not us!

cCol. 2:12.

Context Frank!
Did you notice the circumcision of Jesus?
Did you see the WITHOUT HANDS?
Did you contemplate THE OPERATION OF GOD?

Nothing here applies to human activity. It is all of God. Baptism is an act of sanctification. Col 2:11-12 is God's activity in preparation of the plan of redemption.

It is near blasphemy to confuse this as well.

Originally posted by Frank:
Ephesians 5:25, ... Christ also loveed the church and gave himself for it; that he might SANCTIFY IT ( How?) by the washing of water by the word.

Even the verse you used disproves your system of death. You even used SANCTIFY in uppercase. You see it to type it - but you don't see it! Sanctification is not justification.

This is a most amazingly string of verses abused by context. Yet it seems to be a standard technique to obsfuscate God's Word.

Context. Use it rightly!
Lloyd

 

[bmerr]

Lloyd,

bmerr here. I'm trying to figure out how it is that you wrote this,

Originally by ascund:

Faith (justification) alone saves a person and fixes ones destiny with Jesus in heaven.

and then you, seemingly in the same breath, follow it up with your equation,

Justification + sanctification = salvation.

Do you see the discrepancy, or do I have a misunderstanding of what you're saying?

There was also this between the two:

Obedience (sanctification) adds rewards to the certain destiny.

So, justification = salvation, but justification + sanctification also = salvation?

As I've said before, hats off to you for your educational efforts and all, but I think you may have a less-than-accurate view of the "justification/sanctification" thing.

I don't mean that in a "you're so stupid" way. I just think you might have sincerely believed some wrong things that were taught to you by men who sincerely believed them, too. It could happen to anyone.

If I could, I too, would like to encourage you to not be so sure that you know what others believe. Whether you mean for it to, or not, it does come across as a bit "know-it-all-ish", if you know what I mean. I haven't said anything about it up to now, but since Frank brought it up...

In Christ,

bmerr

 

[ascund]

Greetings

I think you might almost be ready to grasp this justification thing.

Let's try it using set language. Draw a circle. This is salvation. Now draw a line down the center of the circle. The left side is justification; the right side is sanctification.

The left half and the right half make up the whole. Justification + sanctification = salvation.

Justification settles salvation with respect to destiny. Sanctification deals with obedience which relates to rewards. It is also a part of salvation, but alas, not associated with justification.

Sanctification only counts if justification has been imputed by faith. Otherwise, they are just noble non-salvific good works that still lead the good-doer to hell.

Sanctification depends on justificaiton. Sanctification is important; justification is primal.

I think you might have a chance of getting this!
Lloyd

Originally posted by bmerr:
Lloyd,

bmerr here. I'm trying to figure out how it is that you wrote this,

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally by ascund:

Faith (justification) alone saves a person and fixes ones destiny with Jesus in heaven.

and then you, seemingly in the same breath, follow it up with your equation,

Justification + sanctification = salvation.

Do you see the discrepancy, or do I have a misunderstanding of what you're saying?

There was also this between the two:

Obedience (sanctification) adds rewards to the certain destiny.

So, justification = salvation, but justification + sanctification also = salvation?

As I've said before, hats off to you for your educational efforts and all, but I think you may have a less-than-accurate view of the "justification/sanctification" thing.

I don't mean that in a "you're so stupid" way. I just think you might have sincerely believed some wrong things that were taught to you by men who sincerely believed them, too. It could happen to anyone.

If I could, I too, would like to encourage you to not be so sure that you know what others believe. Whether you mean for it to, or not, it does come across as a bit "know-it-all-ish", if you know what I mean. I haven't said anything about it up to now, but since Frank brought it up...

In Christ,

bmerr </font>[/QUOTE]

 

[bmerr]

Lloyd,

bmerr here. If I dissect a circle with a line, then I end up with two semi-circles, which only make a complete circle if they're brought together. One half does not make a whole.

Honestly, I think you may be the one making the mistake by trying to have one without the other.

The Bible seems pretty clear on the idea that an obedient faith is the faith that justifies man before God, for obedience to God is the manifestation of one's faith in God.

God didn't tell Abraham "...for now I know that thou fearest God..." until He was able to say, "...seeing that thou hast not withheld thy son, thine only son from me" (Gen 22:12).

It is at this point that James tells us that "...the scripture was fulfilled which saith, Abraham believed God, and it was imputed unto him for righteousness: and he was called the friend of God" (James 2:23).

After Abraham's obedience, not before. I know we've been over this, but the point cannot be made too many times. Justification was imputed by faith, but "not by faith only".

As far as all the "good works" men may do to try to justify themselves before God, I tried to cover that on the "faith only" thread in a belated response to your inquiry about Is 64:6. I can agree with you to a point, but I think Paul was not ruling out works of obedience in his writings. Context usually indicates he is speaking about the works of the law (Mosaic).

Time for bed.

In Christ,

bmerr