Churches of Christ

BD17,

bmerr here. That'd be fine. Present your case.

In Christ,

bmerr

 

It wouldn't matter now would it. There is passage after passage stating the purpose and importance of baptism. If you don't accept them then you would find a reason to not accept one that fit your criteria listed above.

Jesus said, "He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved" (Mark 16:16)- Was He kidding? Did He mean it? If He didn't mean what He said, then what did He mean?

Peter, speaking by inspiration said, "Repent and be baptized, every one of you, in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins" (Acts 2:38).

Saul was told, "Why are you waiting, Arise and be baptized and wash away your sins, calling on the name of the Lord" - Acts 22:16

Why did Saul need to have his sins washed away since he was a believer that had been praying for 3 days.

Peter says baptism now saves us (I Pet 3:21).

Rom 6 tells us that we are baptized into Christ and His death, just as he was raised, we too are raised to walk in NEWNESS of life.

Rather than dream up your hypotheticals, find in the scriptures any other way to get INTO Christ, that doesn't include baptism. Let me save you some time, you CAN'T!

Here is a tip for you. You cannot have faith in what God did not say. You can only have faith in what He did say.

Since God has reavealed in His word that baptism is for the remission of sins, am I to be blamed if I believe and repeat the same words?

 

Eric B,

bmerr here. No, the Scriptures, to my knowledge, do not record anyone believing the gospel, and wanting to be baptized, but not being able to before they died. This fact does not relieve you, or anyone else from the responsibility of obeying the gospel (2 Thes 1:8; Rom 10:16).

The longest time span between a person believing the gospel, and a person being baptized, or obeying the gospel, is 3 days (Acts 9:9). On that third day, when Ananias came to tell Saul what he must do (Acts 9:6), Saul was still in his sins. He was still lost. If he had died before Ananias got there, he'd have gone to hell.

It is worthy of note that the only thing Ananias commanded Saul to do was, "...Arise, and be baptized, and wash away thy sins, calling on the name of the Lord" (Acts 22:16).

Just a word on obeying the gospel. Many may not have ever heard the phrase before. I know I never did during my years as a Baptist, so it seems reasonable to think that others haven't either.

2 Thes 1:7-8 reads, "And to you who are troubled rest with us, when the Lord Jesus shall be revealed from heaven with his mighty angels, In flaming fire taking vengeance on them that know not God, and that obey not the gospel of our Lord Jesus Christ".

Rom 10:16 reads, "But they have not all obeyed the gospel..." This follows under the thought that Paul's "...heart's desire and prayer for Israel is, that they might be saved" (Rom 10:1).

Seems to me, that to be saved, to know God, and to escape Christ's vengeance in flaming fire, one must obey the gospel.

So what does this mean? If obedience is required, there must be commands contained in the gospel. Belief (Acts 16:31), repentance (Acts 17:30), confession (Rom 10:9-10), and baptism (Acts 2:38), are all commands under the gospel of Christ.

In Rom 6:16-18, we read these words from Paul,

16 Know ye not, that to whom ye yield yourselves servants to obey, his servants ye are to whom ye obey; whether of sin unto death, or of obedience unto righteousness?

17 But God be thanked, that ye were the servants of sin, but ye have obeyed from the heart that form of doctrine which was delivered you.

18 Being then made free from sin, ye became the servants of righteousness.

When were they made free from sin? When they obeyed from the heart a form of the doctrine that had been delivered to them.

What was the doctrine that had been delivered to them? The gospel of the death, burial, and resurrection of Jesus Christ.

What command under the NT of Jesus Christ is a form, or picture, of the death, burial, and resurrection of Jesus Christ? Baptism.

Do the phrases, "made free from sin", "remission of sins", and "wash away thy sins" all mean the same thing? Of course they do.

What do all these phrases have in common? They are all found in connection with baptism.

So, to obey the gospel is to believe the gospel, repent of sins, confess Christ as Lord, and be baptized for the remission of sins.

In Christ,

bmerr

 

Yes it does matter, because you read too much into those passages, but one coming from the opposite perspective of someone being condemned just for not being baptized would be a clearer proof of your view.

He may have "believe", but he hadn't yet called on the name of the Lord. That is what is said to save. Now you butcvher the meaning of words by saying that the very act of "calling" IS baptism itself, but there is no reason foir such a ridiculous pasting together of words. They are clealy mentioned as separate acts. You try to split water and spirit baptism off as separate "baptisms" but paste these two things together.
Continuing, there are many examples of people "believing", but still of their father the devil. John 8 is an example. That's why calling on the name of the Lord was necessary. It was the inward testimony to receiving Christ. Water baptism was the outward sign, and "answer of a clear conscience", in that last verse. It is not the water ceremony that unlocks salvation.

That's the spiritual aspect of baptism being described there. As you yourself keep saiying, a person can rise up from a pool and just be wet. This is spiritual.

Getting into Christ is a SPIRITUAL transaction. You're making it of the FLESH, just like the OT.

And that is exactly what you are doing when you take those passages to the point that someone goes to Hell just because they weren't baptized in time. You say you would baptize someone on the spot (and I still find that hard to believe), but you have to argue with Church history as to why baptism became so separated from conversion.
Actually, the hypothetical is important, because it demolishes your position. How could God tell us "by grace are you saved through faith...not of works", and then turn away someone for not making it to a baptismal pool? That is a very significant point. You can try to redefine the verse to "by instructions are you saved through following them", but once again, that is mish-mosh.

 

And if you make a convert wau one minute before baptizing him, they you are the one who has not obeyed the gospel. No indoctrination, no membership classes, no teaching him the rest of CoC doctrine, and no "give me your address and phone number". Doubting Thomas is joining the EOC, which believes this same thing, and he is just finishing his "chrismation process" or whatever he called it with the baptism being the final step, after over two years of making him wait. Thgat is playing with perople's souls, then. One or both of you CoCers say you baptize on the spot, but I have not heard of anyone doing that today.

But that is not up to us to try to speculate on what these commands were. We have to look at the context. Rom 6 and 10 tell us what was being "obeyed" or "not obeyed". 10 is talking about Israel. Do you think their only sin was not being baptized? Many probably had confession and repentance in the Temple rituals as well. Clearly belief (in Christ) is the key to salvation BEFORe those other things, which would not matter if one did not believe in Christ.

And baptism is just the outward SIGN of those SPIRITUAL transactions. But clealy, none of them would mean anything without belief. You say "oh, yeah, belief is in there too", and treat them as equal, but they are not. Clearly, belif is what puts you into Christ before anything else.

 

This clearly shows your lack of understanding.

There is no "indoctrination", "membership classes", "teaching him the rest of CoC doctrine" or a "chrismation process". In fact, I've never even heard of a "chrismation process".

When a person is baptized into Christ, the Lord adds him to the chruch, not man (Acts 2:41,47). I know this has been an area of confusion for you for some time.

There is no such thing as CoC doctrine. The only handbook is the bible. There is no creed or manmade set of guidelines. Each congregation is autonomous, or self governing. So how do the varioius congregations teach the same things? They only use the bible. Sure, there are some cases of division in the CoC, in fact there were in the early church also (I Cor 1), but all such division is wrong. So how can bmerr and I be saying the same thing? We didn't attend any "indoctrination" class. There is no creed. The congregation he attends is self governing and the congregation I attend is self governing. The bible is our only guide. One might say, well all "denominations" use the bible but don't teach the same things. That is true.

Let's look at a simple passage.

Mark 16:16 - Whoever believes and is baptized will be saved, but whoever does not believe will be condemned.

The CoC believes this teaches that "Whoever believes and is baptized will be saved, but whoever does not believe will be condemned." When I believe and repeat this verse, you may call it a CoC doctrine.

How can we all see this verse alike? Only when we do not twist or modify it.

Some groups say this verse really means "Whoever believes and is saved will be baptized, but whoever does not believe will be condemned"

Still other groups teach "Whoever God chooses will be saved, all others will be lost" (belief and baptism have nothing to do with it).

Still others may teach "Whoever believes will be saved and whoever does not believe will be condemned" (and that nobody needs baptism)

And finally others may teach, "Whoever believes and is baptized with the Holy Spirit will be saved and whoever does not believe will be condemned"

Why all the variations? The grammer and meaning of this verse must yield to fit varioius theologies. If the bible doesn't mean what it says, then nobody knows what it really does mean and you will get a variety of meanings. If one uses mental gymnastics to explain away verses, then you will end up with a variety of meanings since not all the metal gymnastics will be the same. If the bible does mean what it says, then we can all be of the same mind and judgment, without any divisions, just as God has said.

I have a friend who was at one time a baptist. His self study led him to a point where he no longer accepted all that was being taught. He didn't know anything about the CoC. Through his self study, he and I now believe alike. How can this be possible? I think bmerr's situation is similar to my friends. Mark 16:16 is truly so simple, one has to have help or strong motivation to misunderstand it.

 

Eric B,

bmerr here. I'm not familiar with the EOC (Eastern Orthodox Church?), or a "chrismation process", and I would agree that such a thing would fall into the category of "playing with people's souls". Two years is an awful long time to drag out a conversion, especially when one considers that most of the conversions in Acts took place after the subject had heard the gospel only once.

There is teaching before conversion, and teaching after conversion (Matt 28:19, 20).

I've not seen any penitent believer's baptism delayed since I left the Baptist church.

Did I not list belief as the first command that must be obeyed? I even gave book, chapter, and verse references. Can you do that with the statement, "Baptism is just the outward SIGN of those SPIRITUAL transactions"?

In Christ,

bmerr

 

I've got one.

Romans 10:9
That if thou shalt confess with thy mouth the Lord Jesus, and shalt believe in thine heart that God hath raised him from the dead, thou shalt be saved.

 

That is a wonderful verse and I believe it wholly. However, it does not negate or void or even conflict with Mark 16:16, "Whoever believes and is baptized will be saved, but whoever does not believe will be condemned."

These two verses are in perfect and complete harmony.

This verse does not mention repentance either, but is repentance excluded or unnecessary?

If a verse mentions repentance and excludes confession, does that mean confession is unnecessary?

No, truth is the sum of God's word (Psalm 119:160), not one verse held at the exclusion of all others.

 

I forget the exact term, perhaps it was "catachumen something". I would have to look up DT's posts. I know that CoC does not have this, but was using it as an example of a Church believing someone is not saved until baptism, yet making him wait an indefinite amoujnt of time to be baptized.

The confusion is in your failure to acknowledge the spiritual transaction salvation is, and not a physical one. Anything physical is a sign, not the reality.
Still, the question is how long you make him wait before you baptized him, not whether he is "added to the Church" then. If someone comes to you and says they want to be saved, do you just baptize him on the spot and send him on his way?

Regardless, you are skirting the issue. Everyone thinks their dosctine comes from the Bible. Yet there so many conflicting doctrines extracted from "the Bible" (as the Catholists here love to remind us, and even you just touched upon). So no one just baptizes anyone and sends him on his way, they teach him what in their view is the teaching of the Bible, and try to get him to become a member of their "church" or congregation, or one that believes just like it. That takes time. If the CoC is the one true interpreter and practicer of the Bible, most people are not familar with it, so they have to be familiarized with it. Even if your freind read those verses and was convinced on your position of baptism, many others read it and convert to Catholicism, for they hold the same position regarding the efficacy of baptism. Yet all the other dosctines are different. So they would have to be taught by a CoC adherent which is the true Church. When I visited a CoC once, they did not ask me if I wanted to be saved or baptized, but rather for my number and addrss so they could contact me and discuss dosctine. They did not do that in the NT, so your group seems to be doing the same thing as every other group, which is indoctrinating, but if salvation depends on baptism, that is a dangerous loss of time.

But belief is not simply a "first step", of a bunch of fleshy deeds, but rather the what brings the spiritual covering itself. Confession and repentance I would say are apart of belief, because if you didn't confess or repent, then must not have believed that Christ paid for the sins that you are confessing and repenting of. But the physical acts is a FRUIT that was to accompany it, and a SIGN of the tru spiritual bapotism that it represents. When Paul says "By one spirit you are BAPTIZED into ONE BODY", that "Body" is not referring to a "body of water". You mistake a spiritual reality plus its fruits for a bunch of equal "STEPS". Once again, this is not a repeat pf the OT literal blood covering, or any of the other OT examples you use. Saying baptism is what finalizes salvation is turning salvation into a fleshy transaction like dropping a token or ticket into a box and getting in.

 

Confession is something that is physical, something you do, something that requires effort, thus classified as a work, yet you want to make it part of belief. To be consistent, confession has to be thrown out of any part of salvation, since it is a work and all work is meritorious and EARNS the end result. That is essentially many people's agrument against baptism.

However, even the casual bible student can see the importance of confession when reading Rom 10. Likewise, they can see the importance of baptism when reading Rom 6. Confession and baptism are both done in response to God's instructions, neither of them "earning" anything.

Baptism in the same sense can be said to be a part of "belief", in fact, the bible at times uses the word "believed" as one who has been baptized.

Here are two examples:

1) And all who believed were together and had all things in common. - Acts 2:44

Note: These are the same people who had believed the preaching of Peter and the apostles (Acts 2:37), had repented and been baptized (Acts 2:38, 41). Thus the term "believed" encompasses "belief, repentance, and baptism" in this instance.

2) Then he brought them up into his house and set food before them. And he rejoiced along with his entire household that he had believed in God. - Acts 16:34

Note: He had heard the word of the Lord (vs 32), showed his repentant attitude in the washing of their stripes (vs 33) and been baptized (vs 33). Again, the word "believed" is uses as a summary term to include belief, repentance and baptism.

A careful study of the use of the word belief in the book of Acts will reveal that in many instances it is a summary term that embraces all the conditions inherent in God's instructions for salvation, including immersion in water.

 

A careful study of Acts will show no such thing. There is nothing within that word or the grammatical structure that would indicate that to be the case. Believe means believe. Let's just let the Bible say what the Bible says.

 

The bible says all who believed (Acts 2:44). Does this mean that they had only believed?

This group had believed the preaching (vs 37) repented (Acts 2:38) and been baptized for the remission of sins (Acts 2:38, 41). Thus the summary term "believed" used in vs 44 includes all these things.

If any there believed the preaching yet refused to repent or be baptized do you really think they would be included in vs 44? Of course not, they would not have been included there as having all things in common with the other believers who had repented and been baptized for the remission of sins.

Some people believed in Jesus, yet refused to confess him (John 12:42). If any of those were around, do you think they would be included in Acts 2:44? Of course not!!! Study the verses above in context.

 

Eric B,

bmerr here. I would do as the Scriptures teach one ought to do. If someone came up to me wanting to be saved, I'd speak unto him the word of the Lord (Acts 16:32), which would include preaching Christ crucified (1 Cor 2:2; 15:3-4; Acts 8:5), and the things concerning the kingdom of God, (the church), and the name, or authority, of Jesus Christ (Acts 8:12). The one seeking salvation would desire baptism, for the proper preaching of these things includes it (Acts 2:38-41; 8:12, 36; 10:48; 16:15, 33; 19:5).

If it didn't, and if baptism was not neccessary, why on earth would such urgency and immediacy be seen in the above mentioned accounts? Why would it be commanded at all? Please answer these questions.

True, just about every religious group under the banner of "Christendom" claims the Bible as the source of their numerous, conflicting doctrines. The reason is that most hold alongside the Scriptures a creed book, confession of faith, catechism, church manual, etc., which either contains less than the Bible, or adds to what the Bible says, or both. If we could all get rid of those things, we might be able to get back to the Bible and nothing more, nothing less. Ask your pastor for a copy of your confession of faith. If he hands you anything other than the bible, you're not in the church that Jesus built.

What would be the point of baptizing someone if they didn't know the significance? Even John the baptist refused to baptize the Pharisees until they brought forth fruits meet for repentance (Matt 3:7-10).

What would be the point in baptizing a non-believer (Mark 16:16)?

What would be the point in baptizing an impenitent person (Acts 2:38)?

What would be the point in baptizing one who refused to confess Christ as the Son of God (Acts 8:37).

What would be the point in baptizing one who thought they were saved already (1 Pet 3:21)?

It is only truth that can set one free (John 8:32). Any of the above cases would be an example of one in error.

As a friend of mine use to say, "Even a blind squirrel finds an acorn now and then." The fact that the RCC teaches something is not a basis for rejecting that teaching. Most religious groups teach some truth. The basis for accepting or rejecting a doctrine is whether or not the Bible teaches it.

The RCC is correct in teaching that baptism is essential to salvation, but in error as to the method of baptism, and who is a legitimate candidate for baptism (baptizing infants by sprinkling).

They could even teach themselves through personal study and learn what to do to be saved.

The reason you were asked about studying the Bible is the vast sea of error and half-truth in the denominational world. They needed to make sure you had a proper understanding of the word, so you could make an informed decision as to whether to obey it or not.

The early church had no need to sift through the manifold denominational doctrines when preaching the gospel, because those errors had not yet sprung from the minds of uninspired men. They simply preached the gospel, and those who believed responded accordingly. Ah, the good ol' days!

Confession and repentance DO take physical, and emotional effort. Far more effort is required in those than in submitting to baptism. Just as one who didn't believe wouldn't repent or confess, one who doesn't believe will not be baptized, either. All are commanded, the verses have been provided you, as have the purposes and meaning of baptism. Your refusal to submit to the righteousness of God does not make it unneccessary.

The "one body" we are baptized into is the church (Eph 1:22-23). It was the "one Spirit" Who gave instructions for the "one baptism", which puts us into the "one body" (Eph 4:4-6).

Again, if baptism is of so little importance, why were so many baptized in the book of Acts? Please use the Scriptures to explain.

In Christ,

bmerr

 

The CoC guys are missing one important aspect of the argument.

No one here is arguing that baptism is unimportant. What is being argued is that baptism is a work and is not saving in itself. The significance of Jesus' death and resurrection is that it was a once and for all work. The NT is clear that faith is sufficient for salvation (not works lest any man should boast).

If one makes baptism necessary for salvation then salvation by faith is out the window and Jesus died in vain. Baptism in that sense would be a one-work Torah.

Now the point is probably actuarial since no one who truly accepts Jesus will refuse baptism. Now one could come up with the scenario of the individual who comes to faith in Jesus and arranges to be baptized at the next Sunday service but is killed that day in a car wreck. Is the individual saved?

ABSOLUTELY.

The NT is clear that faith is necessary for salvation.
The NT is clear that believers were baptized after being saved.
But...

The NT specifically localizes salvation in the faith and not in the baptism.

Otherwise you cannot get around baptism being a ritualistic work!!!

 

That's a great line coming from someone that is taking passages of Scripture and ripping them from their context. Eternal salvation is not the context of those passages as much as you twist and try to make them.

As Charles Meadows said if you include baptism you are including works in eternal salvation and the Bible says that is an impossibility. I completely agree if the verses were studied in the proper context we wouldn't even be having this conversation.

 

You two are going way out there saying that confession is physical effort. You mean just moving one's mouth? That may be technically a physical movement, but that is not what the Bible calls "work". It is not a deed that you have to GET UP and PERFORM, and as I'm pointing out, it cannot be done immediately from right where you are now. That is why you end up with the problem we have been discussing of someone dying before finishing whatever process one may put him through to be bapotized. It is not just a mere "hypothetical", but a real problem with that doctrine. Yet belief, confession and repentance do not suffer that problem. That is why some physical ceremony like baptism cannot be what salvation depends on. You are forced to redefine terms to fit your argument, but we must accept the Bible's defnintions.

If by "submitting to the righteosness of God" you mean baptism, I have been baptized. Maybe not by a CoC minister, but I do not believe that group has submitted to the righteousness of God because that term actually referred to people trying to be justified by works! You can deny "earning" all you want, but you still have not explained what you think "earning" is, if that isn't. I DO this, that gets me saved.

Once again, in thiose examples, the deeds were SIGNS of belief, not the act of belief itself. You cannot just mash things together like that and decide they are synonymous.

That still does not address how long you would make him wait to be baptized.

As Jump pointed out, no one said "unnecessary". It is just not what does the actual saving.

This is precisely what I have been pointing to you all this time. That's why baptism was so closely equated with the other acts in the NT. There was only one Church to be baptized into. But now, because of this, almost nobody baptizes on the spot (this is why the altar call has taken its place, unofficially, in many circles). But we cannot say the converts are walking around unsaved while they wait to learn "the truth" (according to whichever group gets ahold of them first).

So now you're admitting that you won;t baptize on the spot, but will make him wait until you're sure he's truly repentant. That's what I thought! But in fact, now, they have to produce fruits first, on top of that. How long does that take?
Basically, they have to "prove themselves" and work their way UP TO even conversion itself (being the act of baptism according to you), and no matter how much you deny "earning", that is climbing one's way to salvation any way you twist it!

The point was not whether the RCC is true, or had some truth, it's whether simply "reading the Bible" and being convinced on this point of baptism would lead them to the Church of Christ, or instead, another group that held that one doctrine in common with them instead.

That still would not necessarily lead them to the CoC understanding of truth. I myself have read the Bible independantly of any tradition, and first, I thought the sabbatarian position was true, and then unitarian, but over time, I came to see the truth. I agree with the CoC position against denominationalism (But the term "Church of God" is used more than the single "Churches of Christ), but the other doctrines, like the silly ban on instruments (an argument from silence), and Acts.20:7 teaching a weekly Sunday Communion service (They "broke bread" daily, though this is a more trivial issue), and also everyone outside the group being unsaved (since that mistakes an organized Church body for the Body of Christ, and thus is just another form of denominationalism and sectarianism), and the position on baptism. So once again, that "just read the Bible and you'll find the truth like we have" doesn't work, because everyone says that, and the Bible can be hard to understand, and everyone has added some tradition, or system of interpretation, or plain bias to their reading of it, the CoC included.

That's not what it says. You have just blatantly added to that scripture. You are trying to avoid the fact that "baptism into the body" is a spiritual act, there. We are spiritually baptized into the Body, by the Spirit. The Spirit may have given instructions for baptism, but that is not what is being addressed there.

 

Baptism is no more a work than confession. Both take effort.

The only SCRIPTURAL work associated with baptism is done by God (Col 2:12). It is His powerful working that He used to raise Jesus from the dead.

If God can raise Jesus from the dead, he can raise us from the dead, to a new life, one that begins at baptism. Rom 6 makes this so clear.

Rom 6:3-8 Do you not know that all of us who have been baptized into Christ Jesus were baptized into his death? We were buried therefore with him by baptism into death, in order that, just as Christ was raised from the dead by the glory of the Father, we too might walk in newness of life. For if we have been united with him in a death like his, we shall certainly be united with him in a resurrection like his. We know that our old self was crucified with him in order that the body of sin might be brought to nothing, so that we would no longer be enslaved to sin. For one who has died has been set free from sin. Now if we have died with Christ, we believe that we will also live with him.

It takes faith to accept this. It is foolishness to many. I think this is exactly what Paul is talking about in I Cor.

I Cor 1:27-31 "But God chose what is foolish in the world to shame the wise; God chose what is weak in the world to shame the strong; God chose what is low and despised in the world, even things that are not, to bring to nothing things that are, so that no human being might boast in the presence of God. He is the source of your life in Christ Jesus, whom God made our wisdom and our righteousness and sanctification and redemption. Therefore, as it is written, "Let the one who boasts, boast in the Lord."

One can see the wisdom and value in believing that Jesus, the Son of God, died for us, shedding His precious blood.

One can see the wisdom and value in repentance. You no longer have the same attitude and mindset, because of Jesus' sacrifice, you change your mind and your actions.

One can see the wisdom and value in confessing that Jesus, our sacrifice, is the Son of the most High God.

But who can see the wisdom in baptism? It is foolish, even to many religious folks. It doesn't make any human sense. When I submit to baptism for the remission of my sins, I can't boast in any good thing I've done. How can I boast, I don't even understand it. How can baptism wash away my sins (Acts 22:16), uniting me with the death of Jesus where His blood was shed (Rom 6:3-4)? I don't know, but by FAITH, I accept it that by God's powerful working, if He can raise Jesus from the dead, He also can raise me to a new life. Since it does not make any sense in human terms, there is no way I could boast. I did nothing of merit, therefore, I cannot boast. It didn't even make sense. That would make as much sense as someone boasting how they cured themselves from a snakebite by looking at a brass serpent on a rod.

Baptism is the ulitmate in faith.

Now, did Jesus really mean, "He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved" or did He mean something else? You know the logical conclusion to this Mark 16:16. Do you really believe it? Do you have that much faith?

 

And "raising us from the dead" is a SPIRITUAL transaction, not a physical one. The Physical one is a WORK that is a SIGN made to accompany the spiritual. As I showed above, you have to get up and find water AFTER to be baptized, and that AFTER proving to the baptizer that you're produced fruits if repentance (according to bmerr), while confession is something you can do anytime, wherever you are.

Everybody always throws up both "the foolishness of God" and "faith" when they have some doctrine that causes confusion (esp. conflicting with other scriptural teaching). But then you say: "You know the logical conclusion to this Mark 16:16." So you use your logic when convenient. Perhaps THAT is "the foolishness of God"-- that even though baptism was important, and accompanied faith, it is still not the key that opens up salvation, even though you read it into Mark. I ahave been bapotized, and so have many others here, so that is moot. The question is do you have faith to believe that God's Spirit will baptize you into the body by His spiritual transaction (like you professed to say, above), or is it YOUR getting into a pool that saved you? You can boast of that, rahter than in the Lord.

 

Eric B,

bmerr here. Concerning 1 Cor 12:13, in the NT, baptism is described as a burial and a raising (Rom 6:4; Col 2:12). If the Spirit baptizes us into the one body, or church, in what does He bury us, and raise us up out of? So far you have not answered many (if any) questions asked you. Please answer this.

In Christ,

bmerr