Baptismal regeneration....

[bound]

"One Lord, one faith, one baptism" is Christian; two baptisms, is not. That. to me, is enough. Let Christ have it His own way, Himself only worshipped; the faith of Him only and alone; and the Baptism over which and through which, He is Lord, Author and Finisher, Himself!

Grace and Peace,

I agree, there is only one 'efficacious' Baptism in Christianity and it's the one which establishes the reign of the Holy Ghost over the soul of the saved. Water Baptism is merely an 'outward' sign of recognition of that fact. In and of itself it is not 'efficacious'.

Peace and God Bless.

 

[Gerhard Ebersoehn]

Bound:

"Baptists just restore the original distinction between these two Baptisms"

The New Testament goes farther. It says "I (John the Baptist) baptise with water, but HE (Jesus, who came after John) baptise with Fire and Power" -- of regeneration. The later annulled the earlier; just as when Jesus had come, nobody longer needed John the Baptist or water to be baptised with the Holy Spirit. In fact, God refuses to have His own work done by another (who may reckon he is God).

 

[Gerhard Ebersoehn]

Grace and Peace,

I agree, there is only one 'efficacious' Baptism in Christianity and it's the one which establishes the reign of the Holy Ghost over the soul of the saved. Water Baptism is merely an 'outward' sign of recognition of that fact. In and of itself it is not 'efficacious'.

Peace and God Bless.

GE:

If you could show me that -- "Water Baptism is merely an 'outward' sign of recognition" -- in the Scriptures, kindly?

 

[Gerhard Ebersoehn]

I have said it before -- on this thread; I say it again:
The Holy Spirit HIMSELF is the 'downpayment' or 'SIGN' 'which establishes the reign of the Holy Ghost over the soul of the saved'. Now we asign it to man's doing and dead water?

 

[Gerhard Ebersoehn]

'Dead' = 'not effecatious'

 

[Darron Steele]

Part 6

If you do not believe that baptism is essential for salvation what do you do with these verses:

Acts 2:38 and 22:16
Rom. 6:1-4
1Cor 6:11 and 12:13
Gal 3:27
Eph 5:25-27
Col 2:11-12
1Ptr 3:18-22

And keep reading in Titus 3:5, "he saved us... through the water of rebirth..."

CA

1 Corinthians 12:13, as much as I hate to concede this because Holy Spirit baptism is so much abused as a debate tool, refers to Holy Spirit baptism.

First part of the verse: "For by one Spirit you have been baptized into one body" (NASB).

In this case, the Spirit baptizes us, not us. Water baptism is administered by people, as people are the ones who are commanded to administer it per Matthew 28:19-20 20 “Go, therefore, and make disciples of all the nations, |bautizad = baptize| them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit, | enseñad = teach| them to obey everything I have told you| ; and lo, I am with you always, even to the end of the age.”
--NBV|RVA margin and translated|NBV|RVA margin and translated|ICB|NASB.

Since it is the Spirit baptizing here, this does not refer to water baptism.

Now, I want to offset the abuses of this by others. Matthew 3:11 has “I Baptise you in water in token of repentaunce” (W. Tyndale 1526), and afterward it says of Christ "he shall baptize you in the Holy Spirit and in fire" (ASV).

There are baptisms we are commanded to do, which is water baptism. Acts 8:26-39 demonstrates an approved example of this happening and it specifically mentions water. There is baptism that God does, which is Holy Spirit baptism.

As for Ephesians 4:5 "one baptism," let it not be abused by anyone who has come to hate water baptism because of its overemphasis by some. In ancient Judaism and Christianity, baptism was the closing of the conversion experience. The point of this verse is that we all serve a common Lord, share a common faith to serve Him, and share a common conversion experience.

 

[Gerhard Ebersoehn]

Baptist Board is also an exercise in spelling: 'efficacious'. Pardon.

 

[mman]

Do any of you go to churches that teach that baptism is essential for salvation?

And do you believe that yourself?

On the basis of what scripture?

Remeber, if you add anything to the BLOOD of Christ you are saying that it is insufficent to clense your soul and therefore you have to add your own good works to try to earn your salvation, but salvation CAN'T be earned (Eph. 2:8-9, Titus 3:5, the whole books of Gal. and Romans).

:godisgood:

Many people cannot handle the truth. Many people will perform extreme mental gymnastics to "explain away" the simple truth. When Jesus said, "He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved, he that believeth not shall be condemned" (Mk 16:16), can it be any easier to understand?

If you don't want to understand, you won't. You will come up with rationalization as to why Jesus didn't really mean what He said. Some have come up with the most pitiful of attempts to explain this away. This verse tells what to do to be saved and what to do to be condemned. Not believeing is enough to condemn. An unbeliever cannot be scripturally baptized.

Others want to change the term baptism into something other than it ordinary meaning. A word's meaning is always understood to be it's common ordinary meaning unless something in the text demands otherwise. Biblical baptism always means immersion in water unless something in the immediate text demands otherwise.

When Jesus said, "He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved". It would be wrong to teach, "He that believeth and is saved shall be baptized". By what authority can one make such a statement? If belief and baptism are not required to be saved, then how confusing and misleading is Jesus' statement.

Peter told those in Acts 2, "Repent and be baptized....for the remission of sins". If repentance and baptism are not required for the remission of sins, then how confusing this statement is. You don't have to go to some other translation to understand this.

Some "intelligent" folks have actually made the claims that this is only confusing if it means what it says. What????

People are forced to perform all type of mental gymnastics to explain away this passages.

Saul was told, "Arise and be baptized and wash away your sins" (Acts 22:16), yet some would never teach or quote this verse when talking to others about how one's sins are washed away.


I Pet 3:21 makes a statement that baptism now saves us, yet great lengths are gone to in order to say that this does not mean what it says. Here is a case that is clearly talking about water baptism.

There is just one baptism (Eph 4:5).

There is a physical and spiritual aspect to baptism. Baptism does not wash away sins like water washes away dirt, no, God washes us clean by the blood of Jesus. God is powerful and performs this work when we are baptized in water (Col 2:12). The power is not in the water, but in God and the blood of Christ. That is why baptism is not a work of man, but of God. Baptism is not a work of merit but an act of faith. It doesn't make much sense in human terms, but we do it because God commanded it, or by faith.

God says it best, "for in Christ Jesus you are all sons of God, through faith. For as many of you as were baptized into Christ have put on Christ." - Gal 3:26-27

I Jn 5:8, "the Spirit and the water and the blood; and these three agree."

These three do agree and all work together, yet so many want to eliminate the water.

When Jesus was crucified, his side was pierced and what came forth? Blood and water. Was this a coincidence? What is the significance of this? For me it is obvious! Can't you see that we come in contact with the blood in baptism. We are baptized (water) into his death where the blood flowed (Rom 6). We are bapitized (water) INTO Christ (Rom 6) and it is only "in Christ" where we have redemption through his blood (Eph 1:7).

Before they could enter the holy place of the tabernacle, blood and water were required. The laver was placed directly between the alter and the door. Coincidence? Can you not see the connection?

The penalty for trying to enter the holy place without washing in the water was death. There was no water in the holy place. The only way to the Most Holy Place (where God is) as through the holy place.

Yet how many people today are trying to enter the holy place without washing? Then they try to wash after they think they are in the holy place. The water is between the blood and the church, just as the laver (water) was between the alter (blood) and the tabernacle (church/heaven). There was no door directly into the Most Holy Place so one could only get there through the Holy Place. The way to heaven is only through the one church.

Acts 2:38 - Repent and be baptized (water) for the remission of sins (blood)

Acts 2:41 Then those who gladly received his word were baptized; and that day about three thousand souls were added

Acts 2:47 praising God and having favor with all the people. And the Lord added to the church daily those who were being saved.

Here we have people being washed with water and blood entering into the holy place or church.

Read Heb 10:19-22 Therefore, brethren, having boldness to enter the Holiest by the blood of Jesus, by a new and living way which He consecrated for us, through the veil, that is, His flesh, and having a High Priest over the house of God (or church, see I Tim 3:15), let us draw near with a true heart in full assurance of faith, having our hearts sprinkled (blood) from an evil conscience and our bodies washed with pure water.

Blood purchased church (Acts 20:28)
Baptized (water) into church (Acts 2:38, 41, 47; I Cor 12:13)

Blood for the remission of sins (Matt 26:28)
Baptism (water) for the remission of sins (Acts 2:38)
(Note: If you can understand "for the remission of sins" in Matt 26:28, then you can understand it in Acts 2:38, it's the same phase used in the same way).

In Christ we have redemption through His blood (Eph 1:7)
We are baptized (water) INTO Christ (Rom 6:3-4, Gal 3:27)

It's no wonder that one is baptized into one body(church), baptized into Christ, and baptized for the remission of sins. The blood and the water in full agreement, that flowed from His side at His death.

 

[Darron Steele]

Part 7

If you do not believe that baptism is essential for salvation what do you do with these verses:

Acts 2:38 and 22:16
Rom. 6:1-4
1Cor 6:11 and 12:13
Gal 3:27
Eph 5:25-27
Col 2:11-12
1Ptr 3:18-22

And keep reading in Titus 3:5, "he saved us... through the water of rebirth..."

CA

For 1 Peter 3:
I refer to Acts 2:38a again: “You-people-must-repent-you -- and-so let-s/he-be-baptized each one of you in the name of Jesus Christ -- in-order-for the pardon/remission of you-people’s sins”
Main sources: Hyphenation is from Charles B. Williams, The New Testament in the Language of the People, page 261. "And-so" is from Greek kai and is one of its meanings (Vine et al, Expository Dictionary, page 694 NT). Another source is the consensus of a number of Spanish and Portuguese translations; these languages have more nuanced verb forms than English does, and can better reflect the nuances of Greek verbs.

This was in a sermon at a Jewish festival, and ancient Judaism viewed conversion baptisms as `washing away’ previous life.* These Jewish converts were to `wash away' their prior lives of rebellion against God.
*So That’s Why! Bible, page 1287.

The application for us: we are to repent for the remission of our sins. We are obligated by such repentance to be baptized.

Now, to 1 Peter 3:21b we go: “after a true likeness doth now save you, even baptism,| not the removal of dirt from the flesh, but an appeal to God for a |clear conscience,| by the resurrection of Jesus Christ” (ASV|NASB|RSV 1952|KJV).

In this passage, we had been discussing water and how it saved Noah's family from the evil that surrounded them -- the water in literal reality would have killed them. We will be saved from the sins in our lives. Peter then decided to link the water there to our conversion experiences, which should involve baptism. However, Peter is explicit that he does NOT mean the actual getting in the water, but rather what getting in the water represents, as spelled out in Acts 2:38a.

 

[bound]

Bound:

"Baptists just restore the original distinction between these two Baptisms"

The New Testament goes farther. It says "I (John the Baptist) baptise with water, but HE (Jesus, who came after John) baptise with Fire and Power" -- of regeneration. The later annulled the earlier; just as when Jesus had come, nobody longer needed John the Baptist or water to be baptised with the Holy Spirit. In fact, God refuses to have His own work done by another (who may reckon he is God).

Grace and Peace GE,

I'm not sure if you are agreeing with me and trying to establish what I have just said or your believe we are in disagreement but I would use this verse to established the distinction between Water Baptism being a 'sign' of what would 'fulfill' Water Baptism in Christ's Baptism of the Holy Ghost.

Just as there is a distinction between 'Circumcision of the flesh' which is fulfilled in the 'Circumcision without hands' there is a 'Baptism of Water' which is sign fulfilled by the 'Baptism of the Holy Ghost'. This is paralleled throughout the Bible the practices of Judaism which is Fulfilled in Christ and Christianity.

Please elaborate where we differ?

 

[Gerhard Ebersoehn]

DS:

"... people are the ones who are commanded to administer it per Matthew 28:19-20 20 “Go, therefore, and make disciples of all the nations, |bautizad = baptize| them in the name "

GE:

The Apostles are the ones, not 'people'.
And they are not commanded to baptise in or with water, but "in the Name ...".
In fact Jesus exactly qualifies with which baptism the Apostles (as chosen instruments in the hands of the Holy Spirit) are obliged to baptise: with THAT baptism wherewith 'people', shall be 'taught' ("teach") and be "ma(d)e disciples". Nothing can or is allowed to substitute the 'efficacious' work of the Holy Spirit in this matter of life and death!

 

[Darron Steele]

Part 8

If you do not believe that baptism is essential for salvation what do you do with these verses:

Acts 2:38 and 22:16
Rom. 6:1-4
1Cor 6:11 and 12:13
Gal 3:27
Eph 5:25-27
Col 2:11-12
1Ptr 3:18-22

And keep reading in Titus 3:5, "he saved us... through the water of rebirth..."

CA

I believe that I have addressed all of your passages.

Now, I have a passage for you:
Ephesians 2:8-10 “for by grace you have been saved through faith. And this is not your own doing; it is the gift of God, not a result of works, so that no one may |boast hym selfe. For |in Christ Jesus, God made us new people| for good works, which God prepared beforehand, that we should walk in them” (ESV|BishB|ICB|ESV).

It seems clear to me: salvation without works by faith, and then works.

If salvation is `through faith by baptism’ and a baptizee has the same faith
1) before baptism that motivates confirmation of that faith by baptism, and
2) which s/he is acknowledged to have after completed baptism,
then s/he would not be saved because of the faith but rather because of the baptism. Such a teaching would contradict the cited passage.

Acts 16:30-4. At Acts 16:30 a Philippian jailer asked Paul and Silas “Sirs, what must I do to be saved?” (ASV) upon which they replied at Acts 16:31 solely “Believe on the Lord Jesus|, and you will be saved, you and all your household” (ASV|NASB). Then the jailer’s family was preached to with words unspecified at Acts 16:32. After this, he washed their wounds, and after that he was baptized at Acts 16:33 “And he took them the same hour of the night, and washed their stripes; and was baptized, him and all his, immediately” (ASV). The matter of baptism was not of such urgency that it precluded medical treatment; the wounds of Paul and Silas were washed which would have been a matter of mortal health, and then baptism was done. All would have had a perspective on the eternal life of the soul which certainly would have been viewed as a more weighty matter than physical health, yet medical treatment was done before baptism. It is evident that immediate baptism here was not viewed as a matter of eternal urgency. Therefore, it is evident that completed baptism was not viewed as the deciding factor of eternity -- the belief specified was.

I agree with you that water baptism is of high priority, because it was taken care of before comfort convenience. It was only at Acts 16:34 that anyone ate, and I am sure that Paul and Silas were hungry after their ordeal. However, I cannot ascribe to it the status that Scripture gives faith.

 

[Gerhard Ebersoehn]

Just as much as to heal people and to speak in unknown though actual tongues, were supernatural, Divine miracles, so much, because they were the chosen and separated Apostles of Jesus, was their ministry of baptism, supernatural, Divine and the establishment of the New Kingdom.
Theirs came in between the baptism of John the baptist and the baptism of Jesus Christ by the Holy Spirit -- that is to say, mentally considered, not exactly chronologically, for it is the Kingdom of heaven wherewith we have to do here - not names on paper for statistics as with the Church's water-baptisms.

 

[Gerhard Ebersoehn]

Many people cannot handle the truth. Many people will perform extreme mental gymnastics to "explain away" the simple truth. When Jesus said, "He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved, he that believeth not shall be condemned" (Mk 16:16), can it be any easier to understand?

If you don't want to understand, you won't. You will come up with rationalization as to why Jesus didn't really mean what He said. Some have come up with the most pitiful of attempts to explain this away. This verse tells what to do to be saved and what to do to be condemned. Not believeing is enough to condemn. An unbeliever cannot be scripturally baptized.

Others want to change the term baptism into something other than it ordinary meaning. A word's meaning is always understood to be it's common ordinary meaning unless something in the text demands otherwise. Biblical baptism always means immersion in water unless something in the immediate text demands otherwise.

When Jesus said, "He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved". It would be wrong to teach, "He that believeth and is saved shall be baptized". By what authority can one make such a statement? If belief and baptism are not required to be saved, then how confusing and misleading is Jesus' statement.

Peter told those in Acts 2, "Repent and be baptized....for the remission of sins". If repentance and baptism are not required for the remission of sins, then how confusing this statement is. You don't have to go to some other translation to understand this.

Some "intelligent" folks have actually made the claims that this is only confusing if it means what it says. What????

People are forced to perform all type of mental gymnastics to explain away this passages.

Saul was told, "Arise and be baptized and wash away your sins" (Acts 22:16), yet some would never teach or quote this verse when talking to others about how one's sins are washed away.


I Pet 3:21 makes a statement that baptism now saves us, yet great lengths are gone to in order to say that this does not mean what it says. Here is a case that is clearly talking about water baptism.

There is just one baptism (Eph 4:5).

There is a physical and spiritual aspect to baptism. Baptism does not wash away sins like water washes away dirt, no, God washes us clean by the blood of Jesus. God is powerful and performs this work when we are baptized in water (Col 2:12). The power is not in the water, but in God and the blood of Christ. That is why baptism is not a work of man, but of God. Baptism is not a work of merit but an act of faith. It doesn't make much sense in human terms, but we do it because God commanded it, or by faith.

God says it best, "for in Christ Jesus you are all sons of God, through faith. For as many of you as were baptized into Christ have put on Christ." - Gal 3:26-27

I Jn 5:8, "the Spirit and the water and the blood; and these three agree."

These three do agree and all work together, yet so many want to eliminate the water.

When Jesus was crucified, his side was pierced and what came forth? Blood and water. Was this a coincidence? What is the significance of this? For me it is obvious! Can't you see that we come in contact with the blood in baptism. We are baptized (water) into his death where the blood flowed (Rom 6). We are bapitized (water) INTO Christ (Rom 6) and it is only "in Christ" where we have redemption through his blood (Eph 1:7).

Before they could enter the holy place of the tabernacle, blood and water were required. The laver was placed directly between the alter and the door. Coincidence? Can you not see the connection?

The penalty for trying to enter the holy place without washing in the water was death. There was no water in the holy place. The only way to the Most Holy Place (where God is) as through the holy place.

Yet how many people today are trying to enter the holy place without washing? Then they try to wash after they think they are in the holy place. The water is between the blood and the church, just as the laver (water) was between the alter (blood) and the tabernacle (church/heaven). There was no door directly into the Most Holy Place so one could only get there through the Holy Place. The way to heaven is only through the one church.

Acts 2:38 - Repent and be baptized (water) for the remission of sins (blood)

Acts 2:41 Then those who gladly received his word were baptized; and that day about three thousand souls were added

Acts 2:47 praising God and having favor with all the people. And the Lord added to the church daily those who were being saved.

Here we have people being washed with water and blood entering into the holy place or church.

Read Heb 10:19-22 Therefore, brethren, having boldness to enter the Holiest by the blood of Jesus, by a new and living way which He consecrated for us, through the veil, that is, His flesh, and having a High Priest over the house of God (or church, see I Tim 3:15), let us draw near with a true heart in full assurance of faith, having our hearts sprinkled (blood) from an evil conscience and our bodies washed with pure water.

Blood purchased church (Acts 20:28)
Baptized (water) into church (Acts 2:38, 41, 47; I Cor 12:13)

Blood for the remission of sins (Matt 26:28)
Baptism (water) for the remission of sins (Acts 2:38)
(Note: If you can understand "for the remission of sins" in Matt 26:28, then you can understand it in Acts 2:38, it's the same phase used in the same way).

In Christ we have redemption through His blood (Eph 1:7)
We are baptized (water) INTO Christ (Rom 6:3-4, Gal 3:27)

It's no wonder that one is baptized into one body(church), baptized into Christ, and baptized for the remission of sins. The blood and the water in full agreement, that flowed from His side at His death.

GE:

It's a big post to repeat; cyber-space won't mind; but my capacities have dwindled this time of night (this side of the world). I wish you won't mind me answering, but later on. I feel there is much to be put straight in your post. So a Christian good night, people!

 

[Darron Steele]

The heterodox proclivity of GE seems to be endless, boundless, limitless and self-imposed.

In Christ,

Bob

...

You found some big words somewhere and wanted everyone to know, Mr Bean!

Then you act plain dishonest without shame, using just a part of what I said. It's defamation nothing short. But it just shows to what anhorient lengths people who call themselves Christians will go in defence of their arrogance.

DS:
"... people are the ones who are commanded to administer it per Matthew 28:19-20 20 “Go, therefore, and make disciples of all the nations, |bautizad = baptize| them in the name "
GE:
The Apostles are the ones, not 'people'.
And they are not commanded to baptise in or with water, but "in the Name ...". In fact Jesus exactly qualifies with which baptism the Apostles (as chosen instruments in the hands of the Holy Spirit) are obliged to baptise: with THAT baptism wherewith 'people', shall be 'taught' ("teach") and be "ma(d)e disciples". Nothing can or is allowed to substitute the 'efficacious' work of the Holy Spirit in this matter of life and death!

Mr. Ebersoehn, BobRyan's analysis of you is not defamation, but rather accurate.

I have already debated to utter waste of time with you on your obstinate insistence that we disobey Jesus Christ by not baptizing.

Remember this thread:
http://www.baptistboard.com/showthread.php?t=35472
starting here:
http://www.baptistboard.com/showthread.php?t=35472&page=3 #22
and ending here:
http://www.baptistboard.com/showthread.php?t=35472&page=7 #63.

In that thread, you rejected water baptism on the grounds of speculations that you shifted. As another example of your odd behavior, you would ask for a passage showing that we were to baptize "always," I would show it to you, and then you would go on pretending that I never showed it to you, and then afterward ask for such a passage, and repeat the cycle again and again.

Now, if anyone would like to see a debate with Mr. Ebersoehn over our obligation to continue baptizing in water, please see that thread. It is true that I have some more time on my hands this week, but I do not want to waste it repeating that.

 

[CarpentersApprentice]

I believe you will find that there is no biblical inerrantist here who would suggest that any part of Scripture can be disregarded.

This reminds me of a common Church of Christ debating tactic. I realize that it is very common, and very commonly approved, to try to make others appear to not believe the Bible -- even when the accuser knows differently.

I hope such conduct not fitting for Christians is not where you were going.

I shall rephrase my rejoinder.

CA

 

[CarpentersApprentice]

... In Acts 2:38 Aside from some proselytes, Peter was speaking to the nation of Israel. Not only had Paul not yet been designated as the first Apostle to the Gentiles, Gentiles were never under the law.

Oasis,

Please let me know what you believe to be the significance of these two events.

Some might take it that you are saying that this part of the NT can be disregarded by Christians.

CA

 

[Darron Steele]

...
Others want to change the term baptism into something other than it ordinary meaning. A word's meaning is always understood to be it's common ordinary meaning unless something in the text demands otherwise. Biblical baptism always means immersion in water unless something in the immediate text demands otherwise....

I like this idea.

Let us discuss baptism's ordinary meaning as of New Testament times.

Ancient Judaism commonly assumed baptisms to accompany any conversion experience.* The Talmud at Yebamoth 47 a-b says only after this “immediate” ceremony was one “deemed” a Jew** even though Scripture indicates “circumcision” (ASV) made one a Jew, as in Acts 10:45 and Galatians. Baptism was considered to be marking the making of a new person by `washing away’ earlier life.***
*In Stamps, Adams, The Full Life Study Bible New Testament, page 249.
**Slotki, The Soncino Talmud: Yebamoth;reference in Sandmel, Judaism and Christian Beginnings, page 233.
***So That’s Why! Bible, page 1287.

In Jewish conversion baptisms, baptism was done as quickly as possible. The convert was already made a Jew by circumcision, but not considered one until after s/he had shown a `washing away' of prior life.

John's baptism was a "baptism of repentance" (NASB) per Luke 3:3b. Josephus explains at Antiquities 18:5:2 that John the Baptist preached to

“the Jews to exercise virtue, both as to righteousness towards one another, and piety towards God, and so to come to baptism; for that the washing [with water] would be acceptable to him, if they made use of it, not in order to the putting away [or the remission] of some sins [only], but for the purification of the body; supposing that the soul was thoroughly justified beforehand by righteousness" (as translated by W. Whiston -- brackets his).

In John's baptism, the baptizee was cleansed beforehand by the repentance and piety towards God -- but was nonetheless obligated to come to baptism.

Christianity originally viewed itself as a sect of Judaism. It is natural that Christian conversion baptisms would be similar. In Christian baptism, we are made saved Christians by biblical faith in Jesus Christ as Lord per Acts 16:31/Ephesians 2:8-10. Under known opportunity and correct knowledge, such faith obligates us to be baptized to demonstrate our conversions and our forsaking of pre-Christian living.

 

[Darron Steele]

Do any of you go to churches that teach that baptism is essential for salvation?

And do you believe that yourself?

On the basis of what scripture?

Remeber, if you add anything to the BLOOD of Christ you are saying that it is insufficent to clense your soul and therefore you have to add your own good works to try to earn your salvation, but salvation CAN'T be earned (Eph. 2:8-9, Titus 3:5, the whole books of Gal. and Romans).

:godisgood:

Many people cannot handle the truth. Many people will perform extreme mental gymnastics to "explain away" the simple truth. ...

Mman, I was not originally going to post this, but I will. A post like the one that I quoted is more likely to irritate opponents and insult potential `win-overs' than get anyone to change their mind.

AAA gave all of us relevant Scriptures that show that we are saved by faith, and not a result of works. The only thing your Scriptures will do, which you believe oppose this and "trump" those passages, is create apparent contradictions in Scripture.

In December of 1998, such activities caused me to doubt whether or not I could trust Scripture in teaching me how to be saved. Fortunately, I studied for myself; I learned learned how passages teaching salvation by faith, and passages that link baptism to salvation, work together.

I have explained with great detail how passages that link baptism to salvation do not contradict Ephesians 2:8-10. Ephesians 2:8-9 was pointed out in the opening post, which you replied to with heat, but with no discussion of any part of Ephesians 2:8-10. Please explain why Ephesians 2:8-10 does not mean what it appears to say, and that regardless of faith, we are not saved until we have completed the work of getting ourselves baptized.

On the other hand, if debating whether or not to obey the Lord in baptizing in water becomes a bigger point of contention here, I request an immediate cease-fire in advance to free-up anyone to oppose such a dangerous teaching. However, based upon a poll I took a while back, I doubt that this will be necessary; I know that most people here like to stick to obeying what Scripture says to do.

 

[CarpentersApprentice]

Darron,

Certainly faith and repentance are necessary. (I apologize if I gave you the impression that they are not.) Nevertheless, baptism is an integral part of salvation.

The necessity of baptism for salvation is attested to in the passages I cited earlier. (Is it not at least even hypothetically possible that it is the Holy Spirit who, working through baptism, cleanses and washes us?)

The necessity of baptism for salvation is cited by the early Christians:

Tertullian, On Baptism
Justin Martyr, Apology (16)
Hippolytus, Discourse on the Holy Theophany (8)

The necessity of baptism for salvation is reiterated at the Reformation:

Martin Luther. On Baptism, in Sermons on the Catechism 1528
John Calvin. Instututes of the Christian Religion, Book IV, Chapter XV

By your copious references you have amply demonstrated that people can come up with alternate meanings to the texts cited. The constant testimony of the Christian community for 2000 years, however, is in favor of baptismal regeneration.

CA