Conversion-Immersion

[Dr. Walter]

Have you been a Presbyterian? I have. I was married in a Presbyterian church and my husband was an elder for 8 years. We had two children when we were members at the Presbyterian church and we had a choice to either baptize the child or to dedicate. They did not believe in baptism being a sign of anything other than the dedication. It did not save a child. Did not keep them in a state of grace. It did nothing special other than be a time of dedication of the child to God from the parents. Thus it was a choice to the parents whether they wanted to do the ceremony as a baptism or a dedication. So your information is not correct. "Sacrament" in the Presbyterian church is QUITE different than "sacrament" in the Catholic church. I was Catholic once and I was Presbyterian once. I'd know the difference.

So Ann, once you baptized the child as a dedication and the child came to faith later, was the child baptized again? If they did the baptism merely as a dedication and the child later came to faith was the child baptized again? If not, then would that be considered administering baptism to unbelievers?

 

[annsni]

You don't need to post out of ignorance. I married someone from the Bible Presbyterian Church. They don't teach baptismal regeneration.

I had no doubt that you would quote the FREE PRESBYTERIAN articles of faith which tries to bend over backward to squirm out of anything that might resemble a Catholic understanding of the word SACRAMENT being they are rabidly anti-Catholic. Try again with any other PRESBYTERIAN STATMENT OF FAITH. Presbyterians do not use the words SACRAMENT and ORDINANCE INTERCHANGABLY. Only the bigoted Free Presbyterians (Ian Paisley bunch) and you, try to wiggel out of what a SACRAMENT is

DHK, try not to pull the wool over our eyes on this nonsense. Prebyterians believe that baptism is a SACRAMENT in the true meaning of the word. Words mean what they mean.

I NEVER called you wife a bigot. You bear false witness which is a sin. I said there are 'bigots within the Free Presbyterian Church'. Ian Paisely first and foremost.

Here is proof, Lori, that you called DHK's wife a bigot. He married someone who is Free Presbyterian. You said "the bigoted Free Presbyterian". That means that DHK's wife is a bigot. You then changed your words here to saying that there are "bigots within the Free Presbyterian church" which is not, in actuality, what you said.

 

[annsni]

So Ann, once you baptized the child as a dedication and the child came to faith later, was the child baptized again? If they did the baptism merely as a dedication and the child later came to faith was the child baptized again? If not, then would that be considered administering baptism to unbelievers?

Yes, the child would be baptized later upon their profession of faith and with their desire to be baptized. We didn't have a baptismal but we went to the local Baptist church to do it or else we did it at the beach.

 

[Zenas]

Actually, you just picked what part of a text that suited you. Peter does not merely say "baptism saves you" but:

The like figure whereunto even baptism doth also now save us (not the putting away of the filth of the flesh, but the answer of a good conscience toward God,) by the resurrection of Jesus Christ:

Notice Peter does not say that baptism saves us by bringing us into spiritual union with Christ but "by the resurrection." It is called a "like" figure because the lifting up of the Ark by the flood waters is a also a type or figure of the resurrection of Jesus Christ.

Notice that "putting away of the filth of the flesh" is set in contrast to "the answer of a good conscience". It does not literally put away the filth of the flesh which is sin but it is a response of a conscience already good, cleansed by faith in Christ.

This is how water saved Noah and this is how baptism saves us "by the resurrection of Jesus Christ" which is the power of God over sin, death and hell. It presents the power of the gospel in FIGURE just as the Ark pictured it in figure.

The parenthetical (not the putting away of the filth of the flesh, etc,) is simply meant to distinguish between the spiritual cleansing of baptism and the physical cleansing of taking a bath. The resurrection of Christ is the sine qua non of baptism's efficacy.

 

[DHK]

The parenthetical (not the putting away of the filth of the flesh, etc,) is simply meant to distinguish between the spiritual cleansing of baptism and the physical cleansing of taking a bath. The resurrection of Christ is the sine qua non of baptism's efficacy.

It is a figure. You seem to recognize that. "The spiritual cleansing of the baptism," is done by "spiritual baptism," that is when we are baptized into Christ. Thus the parenthetical (not the putting away of the flesh)

What had happened? Eight souls were saved. How? They were in the Ark, that is in Christ, which the Ark represented. The baptism in the picture was destruction. All around them were waters of destruction wherein all flesh was destroyed: carcasses lying everywhere. Waters from below and from above were meant for the sole purpose of destroying. They were baptized in waters of destruction. That was physical--physical water. When them came out of that water which held nothing but an old life and death and destruction all around them they came out to a new life.

But they were in Christ. It was the ark that kept them safe. They were in the Ark. That is what kept them safe. If I am not making myself perfectly clear, read this quote:

In the days of Noah, eight people were saved. The rest of the world perished. They were saved because they were in a location which was absolutely safe and secure. They were in the ark. Everyone outside of the ark perished. Today Jesus Christ is our Ark of safety. There is no safer place to be than “in Christ”—“There is therefore now no condemnation to them which are in Christ Jesus” (Romans 8:1). Those outside of Christ are in great danger. How did we get into Christ our Ark of safety? We were baptized into Jesus Christ the moment we were saved. God placed us into His Son, and in Him we are safe and secure forever. Water baptism is meant to be a picture of the real baptism (sometimes referred to as spiritual baptism or Spirit baptism) that took place the moment we were saved. Water baptism is meant to be a picture of this new position and new relationship we now have in Christ, having been totally identified with Him, with His Person and His work.

http://www.middletownbiblechurch.org/salvatio/bapsav08.htm

 

[lori4dogs]

Here is proof, Lori, that you called DHK's wife a bigot. He married someone who is Free Presbyterian. You said "the bigoted Free Presbyterian". That means that DHK's wife is a bigot. You then changed your words here to saying that there are "bigots within the Free Presbyterian church" which is not, in actuality, what you said.

Ok, Ann, it would have benn better for me to say 'there are many bigoted Free Presbyterian's' as has been well documented by the press and Christianity Today. However, I had not intention of saying ALL Free Presbyterians are bigots. There are Southern Baptist bigots as well, but certainly not all Southern Baptists are bigots. They have even apologized for their racists and elitist positions during the civil war era.

 

[DHK]

Ok, Ann, it would have benn better for me to say 'there are many bigoted Free Presbyterian's' as has been well documented by the press and Christianity Today. However, I had not intention of saying ALL Free Presbyterians are bigots. There are Southern Baptist bigots as well, but certainly not all Southern Baptists are bigots. They have even apologized for their racists and elitist positions during the civil war era.

You can retreat now Lori.
The civil war has ended. There is no one here that is a member of the KKK.
Slavery has been abolished. You don't need to dig your claws in any further into the past.
The Free Presbyterians are evangelical and fundamental.
The Bible Presbyterians are evangelical and fundamental.
The Baptists that I am associated with are evangelical and fundamental.

The RCC is an apostate organization that does not know the meaning of the new birth, and whose message sends people to hell everyday.
That is the whole point of this thread isn't it? "Conversion-Immersion" or Baptismal regeneration. It is heresy. Water does not save. That is a superstition that is common among Catholics and Hindus.

 

[adisciplinedlearner]

The book of Acts is THE textbook on evangelism/missions, and conversion-immersion was practiced throughout this book. The real heresy is the teaching that there are thousands or perhaps even millions of unbaptized Christians in the world.

 

[adisciplinedlearner]

Brother DHK, Please show me a person in the New Testament who became a Christian two years before he was baptized. Our beliefs and practices need to be based upon the New Testament.

 

[DHK]

Brother DHK, Please show me a person in the New Testament who became a Christian two years before he was baptized. Our beliefs and practices need to be based upon the New Testament.

That is slander. I became a Christians two years before I was baptized. Don't redefine terms according to your theology.

 

[adisciplinedlearner]

Slander? Please show me that your religious experience ever occurred in the New Testament itself. I do not doubt that Jesus has transformed your life. I just doubt that you became a New Covenant Christian two years before you were baptized. At the very least, this is not the New Testament norm.

 

[DHK]

Slander? Please show me that your religious experience ever occurred in the New Testament itself. I do not doubt that Jesus has transformed your life. I just doubt that you became a New Covenant Christian two years before you were baptized. At the very least, this is not the New Testament norm.

Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ and thou shalt be saved.
Then the Philippian Jailor believed and was saved.
Sometime after that, Paul was taken to his house, the rest of his house believed, and then they had a baptismal service. They all believed first.

Saul was saved the moment he called Jesus Lord. No Jew would ever say: "Lord, what would thou have me to do," and still be unsaved. The very thought of an unsaved Jew submitting to Christ as master and Lord of his life is unthinkable. It was some time later that he met Ananias and then was baptized. On the basis that his sins had already been remitted he was baptized.

 

[Dr. Walter]

Slander? Please show me that your religious experience ever occurred in the New Testament itself. I do not doubt that Jesus has transformed your life. I just doubt that you became a New Covenant Christian two years before you were baptized. At the very least, this is not the New Testament norm.

Whoa!! You have not yet been able to prove your position!!

Your candidates for baptism are unrepentant and unbelievers so why would they suddenly have a change of mind and heart when they step into the waters of baptism and decide to confess repentance from sins and faith in Christ in water and not before?

You can't have your cake and eat it to! Ephesians 4:18 and Romans 7:8 describes the unregenerate state and it denies that while in that condition they are at ENMITY with God. So how do you get someone who is at ENMITY with God to be baptized if that ENMITY is not removed until baptism?

The unregenerate state is a state of rebellion against the authority of God (Rom. 8:7) so how do you get someone who is in rebellion against the authority of God to enter into baptism?

The unregenerate state is a state of incompetency to understand spiritual things and IGNORANCE so how do you get someone blind and ignorant of the spiritual state to enter into the waters of baptism?

DHK's testimony fits scripture as repentance and faith occur BEFORE baptism but your position CANNOT POSSIBLY harmonize with Scripture and YOU HAVE NOT BEEN ABLE TO HARMONIZE IT! So the burden of proof is on you not DHK!

Show anywhere in the book of Acts where unrepentant and unbelievers were baptized?

 

[adisciplinedlearner]

Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ and thou shalt be saved.
Then the Philippian Jailor believed and was saved.
Sometime after that, Paul was taken to his house, the rest of his house believed, and then they had a baptismal service. They all believed first.

Saul was saved the moment he called Jesus Lord. No Jew would ever say: "Lord, what would thou have me to do," and still be unsaved. The very thought of an unsaved Jew submitting to Christ as master and Lord of his life is unthinkable. It was some time later that he met Ananias and then was baptized. On the basis that his sins had already been remitted he was baptized.

Brother DHK, I agree that the order is repentance, faith, baptism, but baptism does not occur two years later in the New Testament. Also, forgiveness follows baptism (Acts 2:38; Col. 2:12-13). Lost people are going to confess Jesus as Lord, so Saul's use of this term does not prove he was a Christian at this point.

 

[adisciplinedlearner]

In the New Testament, convicted sinners expressed their repentance and faith in baptism. They became disciples of Christ or Christians upon their baptism. See Acts 2.

 

[Dr. Walter]

The fact is that repentance and faith ALWAYS Precede baptism rather than are concurrent with baptism as you teach: For example John demands "fruit" or proof of repentance BEFORE he would baptize these. If as you say repentance is concurrent with baptism then John is contradicting the very nature of baptism.[/COLOR]

Mt. 3:6 But when he saw many of the Pharisees and Sadducees come to his baptism, he said unto them, O generation of vipers, who hath warned you to flee from the wrath to come?
8 Bring forth therefore fruits meet for repentance:


For example, Philip demanded PRIOR faith in Christ BEFORE he would baptize the Eunuch:

Acts 8:36 See, here is water; what doth hinder me to be baptized?
37 And Philip said, If thou believest with all thine heart, thou mayest. And he answered and said, I believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God.

This is the Biblical order not your CONCURRENT repentance/faith/baptism that begins with stepping into the water and concludes by stepping out of the water.

Paul was a repentant believer DAYS BEFORE he was baptized proving neither his repentance and faith proclaimed in "Lord what will thou have me to do" PRECEDED baptism rather than was concurrent in baptism.

What you teach cannot be found in the book of Acts - Baptism inclusive of repentance and faith

1. Biblical order - repentance/faith preceding baptism
2. You order - baptism (repentance faith)baptism

Your candidates for baptism are unregenerate, unrepentant unbelievers by your own confession. You are the one who has departed/apostatized from the New Testament practice in the book of Acts not DHK.

Whoa!! You have not yet been able to prove your position!!

Your candidates for baptism are unrepentant and unbelievers so why would they suddenly have a change of mind and heart when they step into the waters of baptism and decide to confess repentance from sins and faith in Christ in water and not before?

You can't have your cake and eat it to! Ephesians 4:18 and Romans 7:8 describes the unregenerate state and it denies that while in that condition they are at ENMITY with God. So how do you get someone who is at ENMITY with God to be baptized if that ENMITY is not removed until baptism?

The unregenerate state is a state of rebellion against the authority of God (Rom. 8:7) so how do you get someone who is in rebellion against the authority of God to enter into baptism?

The unregenerate state is a state of incompetency to understand spiritual things and IGNORANCE so how do you get someone blind and ignorant of the spiritual state to enter into the waters of baptism?

DHK's testimony fits scripture as repentance and faith occur BEFORE baptism but your position CANNOT POSSIBLY harmonize with Scripture and YOU HAVE NOT BEEN ABLE TO HARMONIZE IT! So the burden of proof is on you not DHK!

Show anywhere in the book of Acts where unrepentant and unbelievers were baptized?

 

[DHK]

Brother DHK, I agree that the order is repentance, faith, baptism, but baptism does not occur two years later in the New Testament. Also, forgiveness follows baptism (Acts 2:38; Col. 2:12-13). Lost people are going to confess Jesus as Lord, so Saul's use of this term does not prove he was a Christian at this point.

Well so far adisciplinedlearner:
You have called me unregenerate,
My sins were not forgiven,

And you have demonstrated that you have no Biblical understanding of Acts 2:38 or of Paul's own testimony of his salvation.
That is quite a list.

Understand this.
If I was unregenerate when I called upon the name of the Lord, that is when I trusted Christ as my Savior, (and as you say I was during those first two years), then I am not saved today. For I have not called on the name of the Lord for salvation since then. According to you I still am an unregenerated wretch on my way to hell with no forgiveness of sins, and no hope for heaven.

Acts 2:38 demands a proper understanding of the Greek preposition "eis", which apparently you don't have. The same word is used in Mat.3:11, where John says "I baptize you unto (for in ASV) repentance." Did he baptize them because they had repented, or in order that they would gain repentance?
The same is true in Acts 2:38. He baptized on the basis or because their sins had been forgiven, not in order that their sins might be forgiven. A little study goes a long way.

Paul called upon the name of the Lord.
Paul himself stated in Romans 10:13: "For whosoever shall call upon the name of the Lord shall be saved."
I believe Paul, not you.

 

[adisciplinedlearner]

I have never said you are not a Christian. You have put words in my mouth.

 

[adisciplinedlearner]

As I have stated before, "eis" is always forward-looking. There is no such thing as a causal "eis," but this is what most Baptists argue for in Acts 2:38.

 

[DHK]

I have never said you are not a Christian. You have put words in my mouth.

Your theology demands that you believe I am not a Christian. I never called upon the name of the Lord when I was baptized. If I was not saved two years prior, not saved at the time of baptism, did not call upon the name of the Lord during Baptism, then I am not saved now. For I have not called upon the name of the Lord (that is trusted in him for my salvation) since two years before my baptism, at which time you declared me unsaved. Thus I am still unsaved today. This is your theology. Think through your own logic. There is no way, according to your logic that I could be a saved person. You have concluded that I am unsaved.