believe, belief, faith, believe "in"

[ascund]

Greetings

Originally posted by bmerr:
If baptism is necessary for salvation and the washing away of sins, which is what the Bible tells us (1 Pet 3:21; Acts 2:38; 22:16), then the urgency of being baptized in the middle of the night is completely understandable, and would be a cause for rejoicing.

Your appeal to 1 Peter is done without taking context into consideration.

Gen 6:8-9 clearly shows that Noah was just and perfect BEFORE the Flood saga. In fact, it took Noah at least 120 years after his justification (perhaps closer to 500 years) before he was "baptized."

The whole context happens AFTER justification. Noah’s saga through the flood waters severed his ties to the old world of corruption and judgment as it ushered him into the new world of life. This process had nothing to do with his justification. When Noah disembarked from the Ark, he built an altar to God as an appeal of a cleansed conscience to live the new life under God’s control and direction. Water baptism is to be used as an AFTER justification appeal to God based upon an ALREADY saved conscience.

bmerr believes that water saves; the Bible shows that water brought death and destruction (II Pet 2:5, 3:6). bmerr wants salvation to come through the water; the Bible shows that salvation came BEFORE the waters (Gen 6:8-9). bmerr seeks safety from going through the waters; the Bible shows that safety was inside the ARK (a type of Christ).

Bible teaching ought to be CHRIST centered; not on human obedience to the water thing.

Everything in the OT context points to baptism as an issue of sanctification - not justification.

It is one of the worst possible mistakes a theologian can make to blend or combine justification with sanctificaiton.

Let's use baptism for the right reasons!
Lloyd

 

[ascund]

Hey NLT

Originally posted by Nevertheless:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Repentance is absolutely necessary for salvation. Without it you cannot be saved.

Absolutely! We are told to repent, so when we do, that is obedience. Without such obedience one cannot be saved.</font>[/QUOTE]Jesus gave Nicodemus an illustration of what it took for the new birth in John 3.

He referred to the OT brazen serpent on the pole. The Israelites had grumbled (again) and God had disciplined them by sending poisonous snakes. If they would only look at that brazen serpent, then they would be permanentlly healed.

In this story, Jesus made two parallels. First, He made a parallel between Himself and the serpent. "as Moses lifted up the serpent in the wilderness, even so must the Son of man be lifted up" (John 3:14).

Second, he made a parallel between the Israelites simple look of faith and the NT faith. "That whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have eternal life" (John 3:15).

Salvific faith is a look proposition. It does not include repentance, works, sacraments, or rites. Simply look and live!

Once saved, God's Spirit will go to work on the obedience aspect. Til then, don't make justification depend on sanctification.

For Christ's glory alone!
Lloyd

 

[bmerr]

DHK,

Originally by DHK:

Why do you continue to use irrelevant OT examples?

It is the use of non applicable Old Testament examples to New Testament salvation. How ridiculous, and yet you do it all the time.

bmerr here. You know, as I read through these posts, I marvel at all the irrelevant, non-applicable, ridiculous OT references people use!

But then I read a little bit in my New Testament, and I am utterly astounded at how many times Jesus, Peter, Paul, James, Matthew, Mark, Luke, John, and Jude do the exact same thing!

I wonder if they knew just how irrelevant, non-applicable, and ridiculous they were in doing so?

I wonder if you realized what you were saying, and if not, perhaps you'd like to take it back?

In Christ,

bmerr

 

[bmerr]

ascund,

bmerr here. Was looking at the brasen serpent not something done in obedience to the command of God, with the hope of receiving the promised blessing afterward? Those who did not look died from their snake-bite. Those who looked, did so because they believed that to look upon the brasen serpent was neccessary to be healed.

Looking upon the brasen serpent was a work of obedience in itself.

BTW, I answered the "Jews only" objection on the "Baptism--Why?" thread. It doesn't hold water. Get it? It doesn't hold water?!?!

In Christ,

bmerr

 

[DHK]

Originally posted by bmerr:
bmerr here. You know, as I read through these posts, I marvel at all the irrelevant, non-applicable, ridiculous OT references people use!

But then I read a little bit in my New Testament, and I am utterly astounded at how many times Jesus, Peter, Paul, James, Matthew, Mark, Luke, John, and Jude do the exact same thing!

I wonder if they knew just how irrelevant, non-applicable, and ridiculous they were in doing so?

I wonder if you realized what you were saying, and if not, perhaps you'd like to take it back?

In Christ,

bmerr

I have never read of a NT writer who tried to use an OT passage to prove baptismal regeneration, or a works salvation, both of which you believe, both of which you try to demonstraite by taking OT passages out of their contexts.
DHK

 

[bmerr]

DHK,

bmerr here. That may be. However, many of the OT examples used by NT writers demonstrate a principle, namely that obedience to God's word always precedes the reception of God's blessings.

Of course, things like sunshine and rain may be exceptions to this rule, there is an instance where rain was withheld for 3 1/2 years due to the fervent prayer of one righteous man in the midst of a wicked nation (Elijah and the prophets of Baal 1 Kings 18. Time reference from James 5:17).

It's an eternal principle that God demands obedience of man. Those who obey receive His blessings. Those who do not, don't.

In Christ,

bmerr

 

[DHK]

Originally posted by bmerr:

It's an eternal principle that God demands obedience of man. Those who obey receive His blessings. Those who do not, don't.

In Christ,

bmerr

Here are some differences that you fail to take into consideration.
In the OT, the Lord does not emphasize salvation so much. What he has done is taken out a nation for himself--the nation of Israel, and bestowed his love upon them in a very special way. Israel is God's people, called out of God, in the Old Testament. The Jews were the "saved" of the OT. The surrounding nations were the 'unsaved." We don't have that situation today.
Thus when you use your illustrations you are already dealing with a saved people. Saved people do not need saving. They are already saved. That is why your illustrations don't make sense. They may need to be sanctified but not saved.
The Israelites needed to obey God, but not to be saved. They were saved as soon as they entered into the covenant--at the time of circumcision--8 days old. And I am sure that God, out of his mercy would have taken an infant less than 8 days to heaven had he died. These people were saved, and thus God required obedience out of them, as he does from every believer today. Does that make sense to you so far?

How many works did an 8 day old infant do before he was circumcized? None! And that is how many works it takes to enter heaven. None. Simply believe. Trust in the Lord. Justification by faith and faith alone. An infant in this NT dispensation cannot be saved, for the requirement for salvation is comprehension of the gospel, and to accept it by faith. Those are "requirements" but they are in no way classified as "works."

So there are 2 essential principles that run through the entire Bible.:
1. Justification is by faith and faith alone.
2. Obedience by believers brings blessings to believers, and in abundance.
DHK

 

[bmerr]

DHK,

bmerr here. I was pleasantly surprised that you made the distinction regarding how one entered into the Old, and New Testaments. More people that I thought seem to not understand that. Well done in that respect, sir.

I think it might be going a bit far to say that one was saved simply by being a Jew, though. Even the Jews were required to be faithful to the Covenant. I think we'd agree that those who followed after Baal, for example, did not enjoy the bliss of heaven when they died.

The main purpose for the nation of Israel was to bring in the promised Messiah. Historically we know that as a nation, Israel was largely unfaithful to God, while there always seemed to be a remnant that remained true to Jehovah as best they could.

Something else to consider is that the Mosaic Law was only given to the nation of Israel. The surrounding Gentile nations could still worship God according to the Patriarchal system of worship if they chose to. It seems as though very few did, but the option was there. I think to say that Israel was the saved, and everyone else was the unsaved is less than accurate.

My head is too fuzzy to get too specific right now, but just a word about some of my OT illustrations not being relevant.

You base your statement on the idea of Israel already being saved. While that is up for discussion, several of the OT illustrations use characters that were not under the Mosaic Law. They weren't even Israelites. People like Abel, Noah, and Abraham, for example.

What one sees throughout the Bible is the principle that God blesses faithful obedience to His commands. This rings true throughout all the dispensations, Patriarchal, Mosaic, and Christian.

The example of Abraham is used by both Paul and James. Paul shows that Abraham was justified without the Law, since the Law was not yet in effect. James shows that Abraham was justified when he did what God commanded him to do, not just by acknowledging facts about God.

Justification by "faith alone" is only spoken against in the whole of Scripture.

In Christ,

bmerr

 

[steaver]

James shows that Abraham was justified when he did what God commanded him to do

I don't mean to jump in the middle of you two. I just needed to address this statement. James shows how Abraham's "faith" was justified and not that Abraham's "works" had anything to do with saving him.

Abraham's "works" declared Abraham's "faith". James clearly explains his words "not by faith only".

James is speaking about a "said" faith verses a "true" faith. One must keep the entire topic in context. James begins with... "What doth it profit, my brethern, though a man say he hath faith, and have not works? Can faith save him?"

From the very first sentence we see that James is talking about those who only say they have faith yet have no works to justify what they are saying.

Personally, I know dozens of these folks myself.

All true believers will have works that follow their conversion.

God Bless!

 

[bmerr]

Steaver,

bmerr here. Jump on in, the water's fine. You are certainly as welcome as any other. DHK and I are being more civil to each other here lately, too. We're still not seeing eye to eye on everything, but we're not screaming at each other, either.

You seem to be saying the same thing I was saying, yet I get the impression that you disagree with me.

This statement,

Abraham's "works" declared Abraham's "faith". James clearly explains his words "not by faith only".

sounds alot like what I said, or was trying to say, anyway.

Abraham's faith was made perfect, or complete by his works. His works gave substance to his faith, made it real, effectual. His complete, or obedient faith was the "...substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen" (Heb 11:1).

Abraham's doing what God commanded him to do was the evidence that proved that he really believed what God had promised.

Where I see a "disconnect", if you will, is in the fact that there are only two classes of faith: one that works, and one that doesn't. The Bible says that faith apart from works is dead, and cannot save. It also demonstrates that the opposite is true, that being that faith perfected by faith does save.

This seems to be the point you made in the first half of your post.

But then, some maintain that Eph 2:8-9 means that we are saved by grace through faith apart from works of any kind, (which is what the Bible says is dead faith and cannot save), but that the saved will manifest their faith by good works.

"Saving faith" must be one of the two kinds, either dead (without works), or perfect (with works). If it's not one of these two, please explain it to me.

I have come to the conclusion that Paul's use of "works" in Eph 2:8-9 referred to works of the Mosaic Law, and meritorious works, but left room for obedience, such as was demonstrated by Abraham.

Your input is most welcome. May I suggest reading the "Distortion of Scripture" thread as well?

In Christ,

bmerr

 

[ascund]

Hey steaver

Great work!

Originally posted by steaver:

James shows that Abraham was justified when he did what God commanded him to do

Abraham's "works" declared Abraham's "faith". James clearly explains his words "not by faith only".

James is speaking about a "said" faith verses a "true" faith. One must keep the entire topic in context. James begins with... "What doth it profit, my brethern, though a man say he hath faith, and have not works? Can faith save him?"

From the very first sentence we see that James is talking about those who only say they have faith yet have no works to justify what they are saying.

I'd to emphasize this even more - for bmerr quite clearly confuses this fine distinction. The heart of the distinction is justification and sanctification.

Paul used Abraham as an example of justification by faith alone BEFORE GOD.

James used Abraham as an example of sanctification by faith alone BEFORE OTHERS.

You were exactly right to point to context. The context of James 2:23 points to Gen 15 where Abraham was counted as righteous and just by faith alone. This is justification.

James 2:20 refers to 20 years later on Mt. Moriah as recorded in Gen 22. This is sanctification.

As you so rightly noted, Paul uses Abraham as an example for sinners. James uses Abraham as an example for believers. Context rules!

When one blindly uses denominational rhetoric, the Bible is commonly interpreted by dogma and heresy reigns.
LLoyd

 

[mman]

Originally posted by DHK:
I have never read of a NT writer who tried to use an OT passage to prove baptismal regeneration, or a works salvation, both of which you believe, both of which you try to demonstraite by taking OT passages out of their contexts.
DHK [/QB]

First of all, you statement about baptismal regeneration and works salvation are incorrect, and you know it.

What do the scriptures teach? Isn't that what is important.

You teach there are two baptism in effect today, water and spirit. The bible teaches there is only one (Eph 4:5).

You say that the baptism is Gal 3:27 is not water. What from the context leads you to believe that?

Why would you submit to water baptism if there is only one baptism today?

Here is an old test reference that is so simple that shows the importance of baptism,

I Pet 3:20-21(ESV), "because they formerly did not obey, when God's patience waited in the days of Noah, while the ark was being prepared, in which a few, that is, eight persons, were brought safely through water. 21Baptism, which corresponds to this, now saves you, not as a removal of dirt from the body but as an appeal to God for a good conscience, through the resurrection of Jesus Christ,

You can twist this all you want, but it says that baptism now saves you. Obviously, he is talking water baptism, else his reference to Noah and the flood waters is meaningless.

As I have shown many times, only the blood can wash away our sins.

Christ's blood was shed for the remission of sins (Matt 26:28), and we are baptized for the remission of sins (Acts 2:38). Here the blood and the water in agreement.

In Him (Christ) we have redemption through his blood, the forgiveness of our trespasses, according to the riches of his grace, (Eph 1:7) and we are baptized INTO Christ (Gal 3:26-27, Rom 6:3-4). Again, the blood and the water are in agreement.

Christ's blood flowed at his death (Heb 9:11-22) and we are baptized INTO his death (Rom 6:3-4). The blood and the water are in agreement.

Christ blood purchased the Church (Acts 20:28) and we are baptized into the Church/body (I Cor 12:13, Acts 2:41, 47) (See Eph 1:22-23 or Col 1:18 to see Church is the body). The blood and the water are in agreement.

The blood and the water are connected. Repent and be baptized (water) for the remission of sins(blood) (Acts 2:38) - The blood and the water are in agreement.

I am thoroughly convinced that it was no coincidence that blood and water flow from our crucified Savior's body when his side was pierced (John 19:34).

Since there is just one baptism today, we need to accept one and show where the other one is no longer needed/required/present. If we preach the same Christ that Philip and others preached, we will be giving instructions for water baptism (Acts 8:35-36). Peter's message in I Pet 3 now can be accepted without any twisting required. Jesus plain teaching in Mark 16:16 can now be accepted for what is says, "He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved".

 

[ascund]

Greetings

Originally posted by mman:
You teach there are two baptism in effect today, water and spirit. The bible teaches there is only one (Eph 4:5).

There is only ONE BAPTISM. It is the Spirit's baptism! He is the One Who immerses the believer into Christ (I Cor 12:13) in a baptism DONE WITHOUT HANDS (Col 2:11-12).

Water baptism doesn't count for justification - period.

We are to do water baptism patterned exactly after Jesus' baptism.

Q1: Did Jesus need salvation?
A1: Silliness! He is the Author of eternal life!
So: water baptism isn't need for eternal life.

Q2: When did Jesus get baptized?
A2: At the beginning of His public ministry.
So: Water baptism is a symbolic act announcing to the world the advent of the new birth.

We must note that Noah waited 120-500 years for his baptism. Abraham was never baptised. Cornelius was baptised AFTER the Spirit's baptism. Since there is only ONE baptism, water baptism doesn't count.


Only confusion with justification and sanctification prevents one from seeing that the only ONE BAPTISM is associated with justification - not sanctification.

Lloyd

 

[bmerr]

ascund,

bmerr here. I think you missed the immediate context when you spoke of when Gen 15:6 was fulfilled. You said,

You were exactly right to point to context. The context of James 2:23 points to Gen 15 where Abraham was counted as righteous and just by faith alone. This is justification.

James 2:23 is immediately preceded by 2:21-22, which reads,

21 Was not Abraham our father justified by works, when he had offered Isaac his son upon the altar?
22 Seest thou how faith wrought with his works, and by works was faith made perfect?
23 And 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.
24 Ye see then how that by works a man is justified, and not by faith only.

It was only after Abraham offered Isaac that his faith was made complete, and at that point, the Gen 15:6 scripture was fulfilled.

James used Abraham as an example of sanctification by faith alone BEFORE OTHERS.

I'm not sure where you got this from, since James does not speak of sanctification anywhere in his letter. Nor was Abraham's offering of Isaac done before an audience.

I think you might have some misleading ideas about sanctification, justification, etc. It seems as though you're trying to separate them from each other, when I don't think they're supposed to be. Here's what I mean.

In 1 Cor 6:11, Paul says to the Corinthians,

"And such were some of you: but ye are washed, but ye are sanctified, but ye are justified in the name of the Lord Jesus, and by the Spirit of our God."

It seems to me that their washing, sanctification, and justification were all part and parcel of their salvation, and that it all took place at once.

I understand that due to certain doctrines that are popular with a lot of folks, explanations have to be made for "church members" who don't act like "church members", if you know what I mean. Steaver put it well when he said,

...James is talking about those who only say they have faith yet have no works to justify what they are saying.

Personally, I know dozens of these folks myself.

I'm afraid I know several of them, too.

Anyway, when such people respond to an invitation, walk the aisle, cry the tears, say the prayer, whatever, and then fail to exhibit any change in their sinful behavior, speech, or attitude, excuses are made such as, "Well, so-and-so got saved, he's justified before God, he just hasn't been sanctified yet."

Personally, I think that's a lot of baloney.

"But only God knows the heart!" some will say. True, but Jesus said that out of the abundance of the heart, the mouth speaketh (Matt 12:34). He also said, "For out of the heart proceed evil thoughts, murders, adulteries, fornications, thefts, false witness, blasphemies" (Matt 15:19).

Well, I'm on a rant, aren't I?

To sum it up, we are sanctified at the same time we're justified. Both functions are by Christ at the time of our washing. That's how it looks to me, anyway.

In Christ,

bmerr

 

[ascund]

Greetings

I think you might have some misleading ideas about sanctification, justification, etc. It seems as though you're trying to separate them from each other, when I don't think they're supposed to be. Here's what I mean.

In 1 Cor 6:11 . . . [/QB]

Salvation is the overarching umbrella for justification and sanctification. Much of what you say regarding sanctification, you wrongly attribute to the whole of salvation. Justification is the activity of God the Judge as He declares sinners righteous. Sanctification is the activity of God our Father as He adopts believers into His covenantal family and fellowships with them. The status of complete and perfect righteousness has nothing to do with the actual degree of holiness or defilement demonstrated by the believer.

Justification and sanctification are part of salvation but yet need to be kept distinct. This is the heart of your error.

Have you done a lexical analysis of sanctification? It comes with 3 definitions. As you probably know, a word has no meaning outside of context.


With regard to the past, both justification and sanctification are viewed as completed events (1 Cor 6:11). Both verbs are in the Perfect Tense showing the continuation of the past EVENT of faith.

With regard to the present, they are viewed as separate events (Heb 10:14). Believers are "perfected forever" (a permanent standing of justification) while they are failing in sanctification. Since no one can be perfect, obedience is always flawed.

With regard to the future, they are again linked in Rom 8 where justified and glorified are presented as CERTAIN events. The future glorification is so certain that Paul described it using the aorist tense.

One must note verb tenses in addition to the domain of God's activity. It is confusion to ignore tense, activity and context.

With respect to salvation, justification and sanctification are parallel - yet distinct concepts.

It is a tremendous error to blend them.
Lloyd

 

[mman]

Originally posted by ascund:
[There is only ONE BAPTISM. It is the Spirit's baptism! He is the One Who immerses the believer into Christ (I Cor 12:13) in a baptism DONE WITHOUT HANDS (Col 2:11-12).

Water baptism doesn't count for justification - period.

We are to do water baptism patterned exactly after Jesus' baptism.

Q1: Did Jesus need salvation?
A1: Silliness! He is the Author of eternal life!
So: water baptism isn't need for eternal life.

Q2: When did Jesus get baptized?
A2: At the beginning of His public ministry.
So: Water baptism is a symbolic act announcing to the world the advent of the new birth.

We must note that Noah waited 120-500 years for his baptism. Abraham was never baptised. Cornelius was baptised AFTER the Spirit's baptism. Since there is only ONE baptism, water baptism doesn't count.


Only confusion with justification and sanctification prevents one from seeing that the only ONE BAPTISM is associated with justification - not sanctification.

Lloyd [/QB]

Col 2:11In him also you were circumcised with a circumcision made without hands, by putting off the body of the flesh, by the circumcision of Christ, 12having been buried with him in baptism, in which you were also raised with him through faith in the powerful working of God, who raised him from the dead.

The circumcision is what is talked about as "made without hands".

Baptism is a burial. Are you buried in the Spirit then raised up out of the spirit?

Baptism means immersion. It is always understood to mean immersion in water unless otherwise clarified by the text.

When Philip preached Jesus in Acts 8:35-36, the Eunuch said, "See, here is water! What prevents me from being baptized?", is there any question as to what type of baptism the Eunuch was asking for? Philip had preached Jesus and the Eunuch is asking about water baptism (Acts 8:35-36).

Is it not clear that preaching Jesus includes instructions for water baptism?

In I Pet 3:20-21, is it not obviously clear that Peter is talking about water baptism? If he is not, his example makes absolutly no sense. Let's read it again, "20because they formerly did not obey, when God's patience waited in the days of Noah, while the ark was being prepared, in which a few, that is, eight persons, were brought safely through water. 21Baptism, which corresponds to this, now saves you, not as a removal of dirt from the body but as an appeal to God for a good conscience, through the resurrection of Jesus Christ,"

Holy Spirit baptism was a promise from Jesus, to be performed by Jesus.

Water baptism, performed by man, was instructed by Jesus in Matt 28:19-20, "Go therefore and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, teaching them to observe all that I have commanded you. And behold, I am with you always, to the end of the age."

What had he just commanded them? To go teach, baptize and teach them what I have taught you to observe. Those who were taught, were then to go teach, baptise and teach others. This is a continous chain that extends from them to us.

Just when was this chain broken? Where is the scripture that nullifies this?

No, baptism in the bible is always water baptism unless something in the text demands otherwise.

Jesus was baptized to fulfill all righteousness. After his death, when the new law went into effect, instructions for water baptism were given. This was first carried out in Acts 2 and continues today (teach, baptise, and teach).

A parallel passage to Matt 28 is Mark 16:16, that simply states, "He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved".

 

[ascund]

Hey mmann

Originally posted by mman:
Col 2:11 In him also you were circumcised with a circumcision made without hands, by putting off the body of the flesh, by the circumcision of Christ, 12 having been buried with him in baptism, in which you were also raised with him through faith in the powerful working of God, who raised him from the dead.

The circumcision is what is talked about as "made without hands".

Baptism is a burial. Are you buried in the Spirit then raised up out of the spirit?

Baptism means immersion. It is always understood to mean immersion in water unless otherwise clarified by the text.

First, the circumcision of Col 2 is done to JESUS. It is error to assume that this is something involving humans. Second, both verses are God's activity. Human activity results in death.

Saving baptism is done by God's Spirit (I Cor 12:13) Who seals the believer unto the Day of Redemption (Eph 4:30). If you see the word water, then it refers to the non-salvific human water baptism. You must not use verses with the word "baptism" in them indiscriminantly. Context rules! You must not mix up contexts.

You are unwittingly using context that point to the Spirit as proof of human baptism. This is great confusion and terrible hermeneutics.

Originally posted by mman:
In I Pet 3:20-21, is it not obviously clear that Peter is talking about water baptism?

You miss context - again. Noah was just and perfect BEFORE the Flood. Baptism corresponds to Noah's AFTER JUSTIFICATION experience in which he built an altar to God as an appeal to live for Him in the new world.

In the Flood, water brought death and destruction. You ignore the easy context in favor of denominational creeds. Not a wise choice!

Originally posted by mman:
Water baptism, performed by man, was instructed by Jesus in Matt 28:19-20, "Go therefore and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, teaching them to observe all that I have commanded you. And behold, I am with you always, to the end of the age."

The Chain isn't broken. It is just seen as part of the process of sanctification. The main verb is "make disciples" (Justification). Baptizing is a dependent participle that depends entirely on the main verb. How much clearer can it be? Justification, then baptism!

Originally posted by mman:
Jesus was baptized to fulfill all righteousness.

Wow! Did Jesus need to be saved? Never! If we are to be baptized like Jesus, then it can never be for justification. Just like Jesus! Let's do baptism for the right reasons!


One must stop interpreting the Bible using denominatinal creeds. Instead, use a common sense reading.
Lloyd

 

[mman]

First, the circumcision of Col 2 is done to JESUS. It is error to assume that this is something involving humans. Second, both verses are God's activity. Human activity results in death.
Saving baptism is done by God's Spirit (I Cor 12:13) Who seals the believer unto the Day of Redemption (Eph 4:30). If you see the word water, then it refers to the non-salvific human water baptism. You must not use verses with the word "baptism" in them indiscriminantly. Context rules! You must not mix up contexts.

You are unwittingly using context that point to the Spirit as proof of human baptism. This is great confusion and terrible hermeneutics.

First, it wasn't done to Jesus, but by Jesus. If you compare I Cor 12:13 to Acts 2:38, 41, and 47 you can see how these agree prefectly.

I Cor tells us we are baptized into one body and Acts tells us that at baptism, we are added to the body (Church). The baptism in Acts is clearly in water.

You miss context - again. Noah was just and perfect BEFORE the Flood. Baptism corresponds to Noah's AFTER JUSTIFICATION experience in which he built an altar to God as an appeal to live for Him in the new world.

In the Flood, water brought death and destruction. You ignore the easy context in favor of denominational creeds. Not a wise choice!

What? Are you reading the same passage as me. Where in the context is water said to be bringing death and destruction?

I Pet 3:20 because they formerly did not obey, when God's patience waited in the days of Noah, while the ark was being prepared, in which a few, that is, eight persons, were brought safely through water. 21Baptism, which corresponds to this, now saves you, not as a removal of dirt from the body but as an appeal to God for a good conscience, through the resurrection of Jesus Christ,

You are taking this out of context. The water did not bring death and destruction to Noah and his family. Corresponding to his deliverance through water, baptism now saves you. How hard is that to understand?

No matter how you want to twist this, it clearly states something saves us. What is it? Is this talking Spirit baptism? Of course not!

I do not follow any creed. I only follow the bible. The bible is all sufficient, I don't need a creed.

Yes, the bible is easy to understand, yet men twist the plain teaching. Did Jesus really mean, "He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved"? I think he did.

The Chain isn't broken. It is just seen as part of the process of sanctification. The main verb is "make disciples" (Justification). Baptizing is a dependent participle that depends entirely on the main verb. How much clearer can it be? Justification, then baptism!

So, water baptism is in effect today, since the chain isn't broken? You said there is just one baptism, Spirit baptism. I agree that it could not be made more clear, especially when you read the parallel passage in Mark 16:15-16, "And he said to them, "Go into all the world and proclaim the gospel to the whole creation. 16Whoever believes and is baptized will be saved, but whoever does not believe will be condemned."

This was first carried out in Acts 2. They believed Peter and asked what then must do. Peter told those believers to repent and be baptized for the remission of sins. (Acts 2:38)

What was the purpose for their repentance and baptism? Remission of sins. It is easy to understand.

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by mman:
Jesus was baptized to fulfill all righteousness.

Wow! Did Jesus need to be saved? Never! If we are to be baptized like Jesus, then it can never be for justification. Just like Jesus! Let's do baptism for the right reasons!</font>[/QUOTE]Did you not like my answer. I simply stated what the scriptures state. Matt 3:15, "But Jesus answered him, "Let it be so now, for thus it is fitting for us to fulfill all righteousness." Then he consented."

By your logic, we can not have remission of sins, since Jesus never did anything for the remission of sins. Our faith cannot provide justification since it didn't provide Jesus justification.

The scriptures plainly teach that baptism is for the remission of sins (Acts 2:38), baptism washes away our sins (Acts 22:16), baptism saves us (I Pet 3:21) and he that believeth and is baptized shall be saved (Mark 16:16).

Baptism puts us into Christ (Gal 3:26-27, Rom 6:3-4).

One must stop interpreting the Bible using denominatinal creeds. Instead, use a common sense reading.
Lloyd

I agee with that statement 100%!!!!! I do not follow any creed. Denominations are condemned. The bible is all sufficient, therefore creeds are unnecessary. Great statement!

 

[steaver]

Baptism puts us into Christ (Gal 3:26-27, Rom 6:3-4).

So then what are you guys proclaiming? That unless a person is baptised by water they cannot be in Christ?

The soldier in a fox hole, witnessed to by a fellow soldier, who crys out to Jesus cannot be saved unless he makes it to water? Do you believe that there is no such thing as a death bed confession which places a person in Christ?

The only way your proclamation holds truth is if you declare that God makes exceptions for many people. Is this what you believe? Or, are those who call upon the name of the Lord Jesus damned if they die before they could be baptised in water?

God Bless!

 

[DHK]

Originally posted by steaver:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr /> Baptism puts us into Christ (Gal 3:26-27, Rom 6:3-4).

So then what are you guys proclaiming? That unless a person is baptised by water they cannot be in Christ?

The soldier in a fox hole, witnessed to by a fellow soldier, who crys out to Jesus cannot be saved unless he makes it to water? Do you believe that there is no such thing as a death bed confession which places a person in Christ?

The only way your proclamation holds truth is if you declare that God makes exceptions for many people. Is this what you believe? Or, are those who call upon the name of the Lord Jesus damned if they die before they could be baptised in water?

God Bless! </font>[/QUOTE]That's one of those questions that I have asked before, that continues to go unanswered.