Churches of Christ

Eric B,

bmerr here. Have you asked your pastor for a copy of your group's confession of faith yet?

 

Interesting question. We get 2 choices?

1. Dirt
2. Water

Let's see, the Holy Spirit baptizes (transfers Col.1:13) us into the Spiritual body or Spiritual church via dirt or water?

How about none of the above.

 

Rom.6:4 (and also the preceding verse) tells us what we are buried "inTO": death. His death, and death of the old man, and a new man rises up at that point. Once again, all of this is spiritual, so the "burial" and "rising up" out of physical water is a symbolic sign of the spiritual reality, and not the reality itself.

Your questions on why baptism was so important in Acts were answered: no one ever said it was unimportant.

As for a confession of faith; I don't think we have one. I couldn't find it on our website (the closest thing was a brief mission statement). "Confession" is more along the lines of an older, mainline body anyway. There may be a list of basic doctrinal beliefs somewhere, but then I have seen CoC doctrine outlined in places as well. We are similar to your CoC in that we don't get bogged down in manmade creeds and confessions, but use the Bible only.

 

bmerr here. So we are agreed that it is in water baptism that we are baptized into Christ's death, and raised a new man to walk in newness of life, correct? Of course, you maintain this is all symbolic, and I'm okay with that.

I would point out, however, that in the Bible, the symbolic always precedes, or comes before, the actual, or the real.

So, just for the record, what were the reasons given for baptism in the book of Acts and other NT books?

So, using the Bible only, what are the reasons, purposes, and results of water baptism in the NT? Is that what your group teaches on the subject?

In Christ,

bmerr

 

You can't overgeneralize that like this. If baptism as an ordinance symbolized Christ's burial and resurrection, along with the Lord's Supper; right there the symbol came after the reality.

A figure which is an "answer of a good conscience" (1 Pet.3:21)

 

Eric B,

bmerr here. In baptism, we are symbolically buried with Christ, and raised with Him. Jesus is not symbolically buried when we are baptized. Our baptism is in the likeness of His death (Rom 6:5), which came first. The Lord's Supper is a memorial of Christs' sufferings. By its' observance, Christians proclaim the Lord's death 'til He comes. A memorial, by definition, comes after the event.

Certainly 1 Pet 3:21 isn't the only verse you could find about baptism, was it? Even that verse tells us that baptism is the answer (appeal, or request), of a good conscience toward God. It is in baptism that one's sins are remitted, or washed away (Acts 2:38; 22:16). Sin is what soils the conscience before God. In baptism, one appeals to God for a good conscience by the resurrection of Jesus Christ.

The flood of Noah's day was a type of baptism. NT baptism is the anti-type, or reality, which "...doth also now save us..."

Keep going.

In Christ,

bmerr

 

BAPTISM (literal, in water) is the REALITY/antitype? Are you kidding?
This explains everything with your theology. But if baptism is the "reality", that mean's Christ's burial and resurrection itself must also be a shadow of it (along with Noah's flood), then. Especially since you are arguing over which came first not being the reality. I never said that Christ was "symbolically" buried, but it seems you are (i.e. He was symbolically baptized), if our baptism in water is the ultimate "reality".

No, all of this further shows that the "baptism" that saves and washes away sins is the spiritual act of being immersed into the body of Christ, and that the water ceremony is just a "figure" of it. It IS a memorial, just as the Lords Supper is, even though that word is not used for it. Still, the correlation is obvious when it is called a figure of Christ's burial and resurrection.

1 Pet.3:21 is all that is needed right now. And in the Noah story, the water itself was not what saved, but rather what one needed to be saved from. Being IN the ARK was what "saved", and that prefigures being in Christ as well, though the water analogy is useful to compare with baptism.

 

How in the world can the flood of Noah be a type of baptism? They were on top of the water. Baptism is emersion in the water.

The flood of Noah is a type of the coming tribulation in which a remnant of Israel will be saved through.

 

bmerr here. Yes, baptism is the antetype of Noah's flood. That's what "the like figure" means. Here's how the NKJV renders verses 20-21:

20 who formerly were disobedient, when once the Divine longsuffering waited in the days of Noah, while the ark was being prepared, in which a few, that is, eight souls were saved through water.
21 There is also an antitype which now saves us - baptism (not the removal of the filth of the flesh, but the answer of a good conscience toward God), through the resurrection of Jesus Christ.

As water separated between the old world and the new in Noah's day, so now the water of baptism separates the sins of the old man from a person, allowing him to rise to walk in newness of life. There are lots of times when God has used water to separate an old life from a new.

Again, I did not say that NT baptism was the antitype of Christ's death, burial, and resurrection. I said what the Bible says, that baptism in the NT is the antitype, or like figure, of Noah's flood.

I would ask you again, then, what is the medium into which the Holy Spirit immerses us, and then raises us up from?

NT baptism is described as a burial and a raising (Col 2:12; Rom 6:3-5). If you hold to the idea that the Spirit immerses us into the church, or body of Christ, then He must also raise us up out of the church, or body of Christ. I can't imagine anything more ridiculous, and I really don't think that's what you are proposing, but the question remains.

Baptism is not a memorial. It is a command to be obeyed. It is commanded of all who wish to call on the name of the Lord and be saved (Acts 2:21, 38). It is only required once. How many memorials are only to be observed one time?

The Lord's Supper is a memorial. It is to be observed "...in remembrance of me [Christ]" (1 Cor 11:25). It is to be observed each first day of the week (Acts 20:7).

See the difference?

The text says that "eight souls were saved by water". They were saved because they were in the ark, which the text also states. Again, as the flood waters washed away the filth of the world, and separated between the old and the new, baptism washes away sin (Acts 22:16), as the old man is buried into Christs' death, and is raised to walk in newness of life (Rom 6:3-5). It is the operation of God (Col 2:12). It is how one gets "into Christ" (Rom 6:3; Gal 3:27), where salvation, and all other spiritual blessings are (Eph 1:3).

That's what the Bible says, Eric. I didn't write it, I'm just reading it.

In Christ,

bmerr

 

OK, you're right on that. It's really ard to tell the way the Old KJV has it; it made it look like baptism was the "figure". But you did make it look like baptism was "the [ultimate] reality" of everything. But it's not, as it still "corresponds" to Christ's buial and resrrection; which is part of what opened salvation to us, so THAT is the ultimate "reality".

That's still SYMBOLIC, with Noah and the other instances as types of salvation. You all are the ones that keep denying that water has any power in itself. If you say it's "faith", then that right there shows that water is only symbolic.

We do not rise "out of the body of Christ", but we still are said to rise "a new man". The analogy only carries so far. You are hooked on "the medium", but it's not about the medium (esp. since it's spiritual, not physical), but rather about new life.

It still points back to Christ's burial and resurrection. Don't you believe the Lord's supper is a command to be obeyed? That does not stop something from being a memorial. Neither does how many times something is observed. A funeral is called a "memorial service", and it is held only once for each person.

There, you answered your own earlier question. "as the old man is buried into Christ's death, and raised to walk in the newness of life". "Christ's death" is not a literal pool of water, so the water is only a representative symbol, of the true "reality", which is Christ's death. So it's is Christ's death (His blood) therefore, that actually washes away the sin, separates us from it, puts us into Christ; not the water that symbolizes it.

 

Eric B,

bmerr here. Certainly wasn't my intention to diminish the importance of Christs' burial and resurrection. My apologies for seeming to say such.

I still deny any power in water. The power is with God, there can be no doubt.

Agreed, we do not rise "out of the body of Christ", but that is what must happen if it is the Spirit that baptizes us into the body, for NT baptism is described as a burial and a raising up again (Rom 6:3-5; Col 2:12). And indeed it must be that way, for baptism is in the likeness of Jesus' burial and resurrection. The old, dead man of sin is buried, and we rise to walk in newness of life.

As far as "being hooked on the medium", NT baptism is commanded to be administered by men. The Bible record shows that the apostles baptized in water. Jesus is the One Who baptized with the Spirit, and that only happened twice (three times if one counts Cornelius).

The way I understand your position is that you teach that the Spirit baptizes us into the body, based on 1 Cor 12:13, "For by one Spirit are we all baptized into one body". Is this a fair representation of your position?

Point made. Perhaps point missed. I may be up to my "over generalization" again. The observance of the Lord's Supper is indeed a command to be obeyed. It is also observed in remembrance of Jesus' death. It looks back to His death, which the observer is to have been baptized into. I don't think I'd call one's baptism a memorial, though, as it is the entrance into the body of Christ.

Agreed that it is the blood of Christ that washes away sin (Rev 1:5). However, it cannot be denied that water baptism was commanded "for the remission of sins" (Acts 2:38), and to "wash away thy sins" (Acts 22:16). Since we are baptized into Christs' death (Rom 6:3-5), it stands to reason that baptism is the point at which the soul of man is cleansed by the blood of Christ, since it is in death that Christ shed His blood.

The water is the commanded, physical part, but the spiritual part is the operation of God (Col 2:12).

No person, properly baptized, goes into the water thinking that the water will wash away his sin. But every properly baptized person went into the water understanding that baptism was commanded, and must be obeyed, in order for his sins to be washed away.

In Christ,

bmerr

 

Leave the part in bold out of your statement and you'll have it right.:thumbs:

 

Glad to hear that.

Noah's Ark was the Body of Christ, the church.

Immersion in the water meant Death.

We can see the Ark floating on top of Water, which means the Church travelling on top of Death of Jesus Christ.

As we can get the salvation by entering the Body of Christ, 8 people got the salvation by entering the Ark.

Ark was covered with pitch, koper which is the same word for Atonement.

 

But the "old man" is not "buried" in literal water, but rather in Christ. I guess we do rise "out of Christ" in one sense; not going outside of Christ, but it is from being in Him tha we do "rise" up in newness of life. That's why I say the analogy can't be taken but so far.

Yes. What was administered by men was the symbol, but what is administered by the Spirit is the reality.

And the spiritual part is what really washes the sins away, for that is spiritual; not the physical part.

 

That message is from God's word.

Unfortunately, that is how many handle God's word....just leave out the parts you don't like.

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.

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. In fact, you yourself, have indicated that should be omitted.

WHY? Because it does not fit with your theology?

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).

I agree with Eric B. is some aspects. 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!

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 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 (I Cor 12:13)

Blood for the remission of sins (Matt 26:28)
Baptism (water) for the remission of sins (Acts 2:38)

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.

 

The problem with that is, you have the blood we are "washed" with as spiritual (pointing back to Christ's literal blood shed 2000 years ago), while the "water" that actually "washes" is literal.

You said you agree Baptism does not wash away sins like water washes away dirt, but then you say 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...

Ephesians 5:25 clarifies this by saying Christ cleanses the Church by washing of water BY the Word. This is SPIRITUAL, and the water ceremony was only a symbol of it. We are no longer in the OT where God ordered mechanical acts we can't understand to "unlock" his power, just to test our faith. It's all by the Spirit now, with the physical work as an outward testimony.

 

First, why would that be a problem? It's God's plan, not mine. He has it all figured out. I don't have to figure it out, I obey though faith, because His word gives me that instruction. God is powerful. If he can raise Jesus from the dead, he can raise me from the dead also (Col 2:12).

Second, Eph 5:25 clearly mentions water. How could anyone ever know they needed to be baptized? By figuring it out on paper or by using logic? Certainly not! Only by the word of God do we know that baptism is for the remission of sins (Acts 2:38). Yes, baptism is a washing of water by the word. That is what makes baptism different that being submerged in water. Unless it is done by the word, you are just getting wet.

Try as you might, the water and blood still agree, just as John said. He also mentioned the Spirit. We know God's word was given by inspiration of the Holy Spirit. That word tells us that baptism is for the remission of sins and Jesus blood was shed for the remission of sins. The Spirit, water and blood do all agree as one. Blood and water flowed from Jesus' side, a fact that is seemingly of no consequence to you.

 

Mman the funny thing is that the Spirit, the blood and the water all do testify and they all do agree. The problem is they don't agree with the doctrine that you are espousing.

Every Scripture reference you have used contextually has nothing to do with eternal salvation, yet you still put your man-made twist on it.

Rightly divide the Word of Truth and you would see these things, but until you do so you will continue in the error of believing and teaching that baptism is required for eternal salvation. That is an error that is just not taught anywhere in Scripture.

 

Contextually, it has everything to do with eternal salvation. One cannot be eternally saved without the forgiveness of sins. One cannot be eternally saved outside of Christ. One cannot be eternally saved without coming in contact with the blood of Christ. One cannot be eternally saved without being saved. One cannot be eternally saved and not be in the church. One cannot be eternally saved without being a child of God.

The mental gymnastics you must perform are of olympic caliber. You spout off, and as usual you provide no scriptural references. Don't provide a copout like, I've tried to tell you before and you won't listen, or others have shown you, or it won't matter, you won't change your mind, or other tactics you've used in the past to avoid debate.

You made your claim, now where's your proof!!!

 

Just because you say its the context does not make it so.

That is exactly the case. You have been shown time and time again the error of your way. And your favorite comeback to avoid debate is you must perform mental gymnastics of olympic caliber.

You weren't able to refute what was shown to you in the past and you will just insist on continuing in your error now I suppose.

Let's just take one of your favorites: Mark 16:16. Again I will ask you the question are you able to drink posion without it harming you. Are you able to pick up serpents without harm? Are you able to cast out demons? If you lay hands on the sick do they recover?

Becuase that is exactly what was in context for those who believed. Obviously if you want to say that Mark 16:16 continues on to this day then 17 and 18 surely do as well or do you just get to pick and choose?

Let's take your other favorite Acts 2:38. What is the context of Acts chapter 2. Was it eternal salvation? The answer is no.

This is Acts 2:37 - Now when they heard this, they were pierced to the heart, and said to Peter and the rest of the apostles, "Brethren, what shall we do?"

What is the "this" referring to? When these people heard what? Well when they heard Peter's "sermon." What was in Peter's sermon? Peter tells these people that they were the ones that crucified their own King.

Notice the question that is asked. Brethren what shall we do. First of all why would they call them brethren if they weren't part of the same family. They wouldn't. These were eternally saved individuals. Part of the same family (God's family) hence the term Brethren.

Now notice the rest of the question...what shall we do...in regard to eternal salvation? No...that's not what the context of the passage is about. The context of the passage is in regard to them killing their King. What do we have to do to right this wrong of killing our King.

Again these were saved individuals and we not in need of eternal salvation. Eternal salvation was not the message that was being delivered to them it was the message of the kingdom. Those are not the same messages as most of Christendom likes to make them.

Contextually baptism doesn't have ANYTHING to do with eternal salvation. Now you can continue on with your mental gymnastics nonsense or you can believe the Bible. I choose to believe the Bible.

I don't understand why CoCers (and others) can't just accept Ephesians 2:8-9 without having to add their own works into the mix. God tells us how we are saved. We are saved by grace through faith (that is believing on the works done of Another in my stead - not faith in my own work) and works never enter the picture so that no one is even capable of boasting regardless of whether they do or not.

It really is that simple. Why complicate a simple message?