Not to bring up the Catholic thing again, but...

[DHK]

Prayer has two connoations

1) is biblical and only directed to God
2) is communication and can be directed to anyone.

It cannot be directed to anyone. It only can be directed to God. If it is directed to anyone else but God, then it is idolatry!

1) Only applies to the bible

2) applies as in context.

One does not make the other necissary.

In the Bible the usage of prayer must be interpreted according to context.
From that we can apply the principles of prayer to our own modern day usage. We do not use modern definitions of prayer and insert them into the Bible. That is where one goes astray.

For example, what did Jesus mean when he said: "It is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter into the Kingdom of God."

Many Christians automatically think of a stainless steel needle as they think of that metaphor, even though the stainless steel needle hadn't even been invented yet. So what was the needle? I am not asking you to derail the thread and answer that question. I am showing you that you can't but today's definition of a needle (something that had not been invented) into the time of Christ.

Jesus also used the illustration of "old bottles" of wine, when there were no such things as bottles.
You can't use modern definitions of words and insert them into the context being discussed. Find out the Greek word. Choose the appropriate meaning of the word according to the context in which it is used.

 

[Thinkingstuff]

It cannot be directed to anyone. It only can be directed to God. If it is directed to anyone else but God, then it is idolatry!

In the Bible the usage of prayer must be interpreted according to context.
From that we can apply the principles of prayer to our own modern day usage. We do not use modern definitions of prayer and insert them into the Bible. That is where one goes astray.

For example, what did Jesus mean when he said: "It is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter into the Kingdom of God."

Many Christians automatically think of a stainless steel needle as they think of that metaphor, even though the stainless steel needle hadn't even been invented yet. So what was the needle? I am not asking you to derail the thread and answer that question. I am showing you that you can't but today's definition of a needle (something that had not been invented) into the time of Christ.

Jesus also used the illustration of "old bottles" of wine, when there were no such things as bottles.
You can't use modern definitions of words and insert them into the context being discussed. Find out the Greek word. Choose the appropriate meaning of the word according to the context in which it is used.

I'll try to explain it this way. I speak english. I am telling you that I talk to God. Interesting to note that bible describes talking to God as Moses had done so. Now in the context of this discussion. You compare what I said to the bible which would be appropiate based on context. I'm using modern english to describe talking to God. You compare it to the english translation of the bible and understand.

Now using the same english word I say I'm talking to Mary. (Not necissarily Mary, Jesus mother). Now you would not take out the bible to understand my context because its irrelevant because in context I'm using the same vehicle (talking) to communicate to someone other than God. Thus you automatically must assume the reverance I have for talking to God is not consistent with the reverance I use in talking to Mary.

The word prayer is like that. You forcing a context not intended for it.

 

[DHK]

I'll try to explain it this way. I speak english. I am telling you that I talk to God. Interesting to note that bible describes talking to God as Moses had done so. Now in the context of this discussion. You compare what I said to the bible which would be appropiate based on context. I'm using modern english to describe talking to God. You compare it to the english translation of the bible and understand.

Sometimes I have to re-educate our people on the use of Biblical words. For example the word "church" does not refer to a building "the church" as the dictionary defines it. It refers to "the people" as the Bible defines it. Therefore I tell them I am going to the meeting place of the church--the place where the church gathers. I stick with Biblical definitions.

Now using the same english word I say I'm talking to Mary. (Not necissarily Mary, Jesus mother). Now you would not take out the bible to understand my context because its irrelevant because in context I'm using the same vehicle (talking) to communicate to someone other than God. Thus you automatically must assume the reverance I have for talking to God is not consistent with the reverance I use in talking to Mary.

Your example is very confusing. Why not use Bob or Dick if you are referring to another person. If you are using Mary, then automatically one is thinking of the mother of Jesus.

So, I really am not sure what you are trying to get across here.

 

[Emily25069]

A couple of observations:

Why baptize babies? What siginficance does that have?
Why pray to saints? Jesus is our only intercessor.

My former Pastor Chappell said quite often that "you could drown in
the baptistry and still go to hell" i.e. baptism doesn't save you.

The decision is this: you have to put your faith and trust in Jesus. He doesn't save you by osmosis - you must consciously accept the gift. I can hold a gift out to you all day, but if you don't take it from my hands, it is not yours. You are not saved just because he IS. You are saved when you believe and put your absolute faith and trust in him as the ONLY Saviour. No other name under Heaven.....

John 1:12-13 But as many as received him, to them gave he power to become the sons of God, [even] to them that believe on his name: Which were born, not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of God.

Receiving is not quite the same thing as decision making. Decision making requires a thought process. It leans on you. Receiving is a bit different. While it can look like a decision, it is not. As was stated before, I believed. Always did. Someone convinced me that I had to make a decision. It was very confusing to me. I dont remember actually making a decision. I always had believed that Christ died for my sins. I had received Christ, but I hadnt made a decision.

hard to explain, but it leads me to my next topic, which is infant baptism..

I can only say that while there isnt a specific infant being baptized in the bible, there are cases of entire households. Households wouldnt be like my household back then. It would have included many people, and there were most likely infants in those houses. If there were not (of course the bible doesnt say), then it still does not take away the fact that it makes perfect sense for christian parents to baptize their children.

It all depends on what you see baptism as. If you see it as an act of obedience towards God, then of course and infant cannot participate in that. If you see it as Gods act towards us--with promises of sins being washed away and new birth and having Gods name given to us, then it changes things a little. You are then bringing your infants to Christ.

Infants of course cannot repent, but the commands to repent were given to adult believers--then their households were baptized.

Given the ceremonial washings that were going on at that time THAT INCLUDED INFANTS, it would have made much more sense that infants were to be included in this new baptism. We have evidence from the earliest of Christianity that infants were in fact baptized and while other heresies were fought against very early on, we have no evidence of any fight for believers only baptism until the 16th century! This tells me that this is how it was always done--and given what the bible says about baptism, it makes sense.

The bible does NOT say that baptism is an outward sign of an inward grace.
THe bible does NOT say that baptism is act of obedience to Christ.

This is what it does say...

Galations 3:26-We are clothed with Christ!

Act2:38-we receive forgiveness of sins

Acts 22-We wash our sins away (what are you waiting for? the verse says!! that is an amazing scripture!)

Romans 6:3-We are united to Christ through his burial and resurrection


Just like I cannot give you one example of an infant baptized, YOU cannot give me one example of baptism language having anything to do with simple obedience, a personal testimony, or anything else. It is Gods amazing work!

Just as it is natural for christian parents to instruct and disciple our children in the ways of the faith, it is natural for christian parents to also baptize their children.

Now the tricky part

Just because an infant is baptized, it does not mean that when that infant grows old he or she will be walking in the faith..

just as..

Just because a grown adult makes a decision for Christ and participates in an adult baptism, when he or she grows older they will still be walking in the faith.

It makes far more sense for an infant/child to be baptized in the beginning, and be raised in the faith, than to be raised in the faith, believing, and then told that he or she needs to get saved. It honestly makes no sense. Faith is present, or it is not. Once again, it is not a decision.

ANd yes, sometimes it is by osmosis.

Sometimes someone hears the word of God and just starts to believe. The gift has been given and received. This has recently happened to my neice. She has started to believe. I am not going to confuse her with talk of decisions! I am simply going to continue to witness and give her scriptures. I am so happy!



But it is not God who is not faithful, it is we. If the prodigal returns, the father will be waiting.

The bible says that baptism saves. THE BIBLE SAYS THAT BAPTISM SAVES!!

Who am I to question that and speak differently on behalf of the word of God?

When you try to say that that isnt what the bible means, what you are doing is this..


"I know what the bible says, but what it means is.."

and thats dangerous territory, dont you think?

I'll go with my bible on this.

 

[Emily25069]

To Bob Ryan

Bob
No, Lutherans do not believe in OSAS. They leave that open because of things like the parable of the sower and the talk about enduring until the end.

They do believe election of course, but they do not believe in double predestination, because that goes against John3:16.

I think they believe that some things are just mysteries, but they wont speak where the bible does not.

 

[Emily25069]

To DHK

Liturgy doesnt appeal to the emotions.

It DOES appeal to the senses. Its a good thing. Helps to keep our attention where it should be.

Things like candles tell us that something special is going on.

No incense in my church, but I like the reminder that our prayers rise to God just like incense does.

Most of those things are symbolic, and actually quite nice. They help to focus our minds and hearts on worshipping Christ Jesus.

When we walk into church, we are quiet because we recognize that we are here to worship the almighty God. Silence can be very appropriate.

We also ring bells to signify that something special is going on. They did that when my children were baptized this weekend.

Bowing in church reminds us that we should bow down to Christ.

When I speak of worship, I am mostly speaking of the things we speak directly to God. That is lacking in a baptist church completely. Its more like a sing-a-long and bible study.

But singing or speaking the psalms--the praises--the kyrie--all are worship to God. EMotional? I spose it could be, but it isnt intended to be.

 

[DHK]

But singing or speaking the psalms--the praises--the kyrie--all are worship to God. EMotional? I spose it could be, but it isnt intended to be.

It is not emotional as in a rousing Baptist church service with music that really moves the heart and soul.

What you described is what appeals to the senses (probably a better word than "emotions"). The candles (sight), the bells (sound), the incense (smell), and so on. Thus the emphasis is on the environment. The environment for the early Christians was the catacombs--an underground cemetery. It was in the fields, sometimes in houses, in places where their persecutors would not find them. They left behind them a trail of blood.

 

[Emily25069]

Let me say that I really appreciate you sharing your testimony.

***Why thanks..

As a former Catholic, the emotion in the liturgy is different than the emotion in most Bible-based churches. One is based on a carnal emotion; the other based on a Spirit-filled emotion. I explained that in another post. I had the accusation once (by someone unsaved) that they didn't like singing about the blood. It seemed like a horrible thing for them to sing about. But that is what the gospel is all about.


****We sing plenty about the blood in the Lutheran church. You think baptist hymns are deep. Check out the Lutheran hymnal.... whoa.. doesnt appeal to my emotions AT ALL, but it is the truth, so I sing.*****

Three completely different churches.
Many of the things you were either confused or concerned about were "non-essential" or things that really didn't matter in the light of salvation. After coming out of the Catholic Church I wasn't baptized until two years later. I had always taken a stand on alcohol so that wasn't an issue with me. Things like the Lord's Prayer I would go to my pastor and he would teach me, or I would go straight to the Word of God, and find out what I could. I was blessed to have some good teachers shortly after I was saved. Thus I never doubted my salvation. This seems to have been one of your biggest problems, unfortunately.


*****With all due respect, Christ turned water into wine and gave it to people, Christ didnt say "pray like this". He said "Pray this" and the bible does say that baptism saves. It has to be explained away to take your view****

But people did make decisions. The jailer in Acts 16:30,31 made a decision to "believe on the Lord and be saved," and then later was baptized. That was his decision. "For whosoever shall call upon the name of the Lord shall be saved." It is a decision. Even in Acts 2, on the Day of Pentecost, after being convicted of the Holy Spirit 3,000 made a decision. There is no place in the Bible where an unsaved person is given faith. A person must put their faith in the Lord to be saved. That is what the Philippian jailer had to do, as did the thief on the cross. Nowhere do we find God giving a person faith before they are saved. God gives faith (as he does other spiritual gifts) only to the saved.
Thus I can point to a date and time when I put my faith and trust in Christ. I know for sure, based on the promises in His Word, that if I were to die right now, I would go to heaven.


*****The jailor didnt make a decision. He believed. PERIOD. He asked what he had to do, they told him believe.****

****As far as you pointing to a date and time, what if you mess up.. really mess up.. what if you start wondering if you really did put your trust in Him? It could happen. You are a sinful human.. Also, a million Mormons convince themselves that they have the truth. A million people make decisions for Christ all the time and then walk away. A decision doesnt save you. God saves you.***


As long as you got it right now; that is what counts.

There is no baptism attached to the new birth. It also is by faith.
After reading the story of Nicodemus, look at 1Pet.1:23 and then John 1:12,13:


*****God uses means. God used a bronze serpent to heal the israelites. IT was by faith that they were healed, but he used the Bronze serpent. He has also used a burning bush. He uses baptism to deliver His promises. Its all over scripture, and as I have said, God is NOT BOUND by baptism. He saves without using it quite regularly, but it is an assurance to us,. "What are you waiting for? RIse up and wash your sins away!!!"****

John 1:12-13 But as many as received him, to them gave he power to become the sons of God, even to them that believe on his name: Which were born, not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of God.
Being born of God is still an act of receiving Christ and becoming God's child.


***Being born of God is being born from above, and has nothing to do with decision making.***

No, Man does the work. Man does the baptizing. Man receives the baptizing. God does nothing. We get baptized because in Mat.28:19, Christ commanded it. We do it in obedience to him, and that is all. What happens? We get wet. It is symbolic of Christ's death and resurrection; and of our death to our old life of sin, and of our new life in Christ. But it has nothing to do with salvation. It is simply the first step of obedience in the Christian's life after salvation.


***Man does the work IN THE NAME OF THE FATHER, SON, and HOLY SPIRIT. That is key. The called and ordained servant of God is literally doing something in Gods name. He's the power of attorney so to speak. Its actually quite a big deal.. and its quite a big deal that is commanded in scripture.. SInce it is done in Gods name, it is Gods work, and the bible also says that.***

No they don't. You need to have a good Bible Study here.


***Yes they do, and I would recommend the same advice to you. I have a friend who was in baptist seminary,and when he started to study baptism in the original languages, he became a Lutheran. ***

There is no promise of forgiveness attached to it--none. This is Catholicism, and where Catholicism is very wrong.


****THere is! There is!!! The Catholics werent so wrong the whole time. Christianity spread because of them. THe bible you read was translated and worked out by them--not some independent fundamental baptist. When did they go wrong? No clue. I am Lutheran because I believe in sola scriptura, but some really good things came from Catholocism. 800 years ago, if you were a christian, you were a catholic too.***

But it is not any assurance of salvation at all. What about the thief on the cross? He wasn't baptized. Salvation is only a picture of what has already happened in a believer's life. It is not related to salvation at all. It simply gets you wet. It is done in obedience to Christ. Our assurance comes from the promises of Christ in His Word.


***Again, God isnt bound to baptism, but He does give it to us and attatches things to it. Baptism isnt just water. It is water PLUS the word of God. Makes the scripture that speaks of "washing with water and word" make a whole lot more sense to me now.*****

"He that hath the Son hath life; he that hath not the Son hath not life."
It is that simple.

I definately agree with you there.

 

[annsni]

Receiving is not quite the same thing as decision making. Decision making requires a thought process. It leans on you. Receiving is a bit different. While it can look like a decision, it is not. As was stated before, I believed. Always did. Someone convinced me that I had to make a decision. It was very confusing to me. I dont remember actually making a decision. I always had believed that Christ died for my sins. I had received Christ, but I hadnt made a decision.

hard to explain, but it leads me to my next topic, which is infant baptism..

I can only say that while there isnt a specific infant being baptized in the bible, there are cases of entire households. Households wouldnt be like my household back then. It would have included many people, and there were most likely infants in those houses. If there were not (of course the bible doesnt say), then it still does not take away the fact that it makes perfect sense for christian parents to baptize their children.

It all depends on what you see baptism as. If you see it as an act of obedience towards God, then of course and infant cannot participate in that. If you see it as Gods act towards us--with promises of sins being washed away and new birth and having Gods name given to us, then it changes things a little. You are then bringing your infants to Christ.

Infants of course cannot repent, but the commands to repent were given to adult believers--then their households were baptized.

Given the ceremonial washings that were going on at that time THAT INCLUDED INFANTS, it would have made much more sense that infants were to be included in this new baptism. We have evidence from the earliest of Christianity that infants were in fact baptized and while other heresies were fought against very early on, we have no evidence of any fight for believers only baptism until the 16th century! This tells me that this is how it was always done--and given what the bible says about baptism, it makes sense.

The bible does NOT say that baptism is an outward sign of an inward grace.
THe bible does NOT say that baptism is act of obedience to Christ.

This is what it does say...

Galations 3:26-We are clothed with Christ!

Act2:38-we receive forgiveness of sins

Acts 22-We wash our sins away (what are you waiting for? the verse says!! that is an amazing scripture!)

Romans 6:3-We are united to Christ through his burial and resurrection


Just like I cannot give you one example of an infant baptized, YOU cannot give me one example of baptism language having anything to do with simple obedience, a personal testimony, or anything else. It is Gods amazing work!

Just as it is natural for christian parents to instruct and disciple our children in the ways of the faith, it is natural for christian parents to also baptize their children.

Now the tricky part

Just because an infant is baptized, it does not mean that when that infant grows old he or she will be walking in the faith..

just as..

Just because a grown adult makes a decision for Christ and participates in an adult baptism, when he or she grows older they will still be walking in the faith.

It makes far more sense for an infant/child to be baptized in the beginning, and be raised in the faith, than to be raised in the faith, believing, and then told that he or she needs to get saved. It honestly makes no sense. Faith is present, or it is not. Once again, it is not a decision.

ANd yes, sometimes it is by osmosis.

Sometimes someone hears the word of God and just starts to believe. The gift has been given and received. This has recently happened to my neice. She has started to believe. I am not going to confuse her with talk of decisions! I am simply going to continue to witness and give her scriptures. I am so happy!



But it is not God who is not faithful, it is we. If the prodigal returns, the father will be waiting.

The bible says that baptism saves. THE BIBLE SAYS THAT BAPTISM SAVES!!

Who am I to question that and speak differently on behalf of the word of God?

When you try to say that that isnt what the bible means, what you are doing is this..


"I know what the bible says, but what it means is.."

and thats dangerous territory, dont you think?

I'll go with my bible on this.

You are entirely wrong on this. Consistently in Scripture, we read "believed and was baptized".

Secondly, not once does Scripture say baptism saves. I'm sorry but it's just not there.

 

[Emily25069]

Well of course there are differences in times of persecution.

(you honestly think there werent candles in the catacombs? We do know that there was liturgy)

But we are not being persecuted right now, and so we feel free to have all those special things. I find all those traditions quite neat to say the least. Not necessary of course, but neat. We have the tradition of lighting candles and and standing for the reading of the gospel..

Its just traditions-like the lifting of the veil and the cutting of the cake at weddings. Those things arent necessary for a wedding to happen, but they are nice traditions.

When you learn what the traditions of the church mean, they are really cool!

Ever read the description of the temple? Sounds like it appealed to the senses.

There is nothing wrong with having the senses involved in worship. Nothing at all. Its very helpful actually. It creates an atmosphere of worship

 

[Emily25069]

You are entirely wrong on this. Consistently in Scripture, we read "believed and was baptized".

Secondly, not once does Scripture say baptism saves. I'm sorry but it's just not there.

You are kidding, right?

1 peter 3:21
Acts 2:38-39
Romans 6:3

Its there.

It is the baptists who explain it away.

 

[Emily25069]

We do read "believe and are baptized"

because this scripture was speaking to adult believers...who had not been baprtized of course. They were not talking to infants.

Infants are not mentioned.

But infants were brought to the ceremonial washings and other baptisms of the times. Baptism was not new. THIS baptism was new.

It is consistent with how God has done things (think circumcision, think children brought to priests.. unborn children even, dedicated to God, without them having a say at all) that christian parents would also bring their children to baptism-and then raise them in the faith.

I cant give you a scripture that says specifically that infants should be baptized. I agree. Its not there.

But infant baptism isnt inconsistent with scripture, it isnt inconsistent with the culture and what was going on, and we have no record of there being any fight until...dun dun dun dun... the baptists come to town! It wasnt mentioned I believe, because it didnt need to be. It was how it was always done. There is lots of evidence of early baptisms from some of the earliest christians.

The fight for believers only baptism'?

Silent.

Crickets chirping.

Believers only baptism is new.

 

[Marcia]

You are kidding, right?

1 peter 3:21
Acts 2:38-39
Romans 6:3

Its there.

It is the baptists who explain it away.

No one explains these away. And there are many Christians who are not Baptists who do agree that these verses indicate one must be water baptized to be saved. Each of these has been shown that they do not mean one must be baptized to be saved. The dispute with the Church of Christ over baptism being necessary for salvation has engendered a lot of serious material on this issue. Have you read any of it?

Rom. 6:3 for example, does not necessarily refer to water baptism. The word "baptism" in the NT does not always mean water baptism; it means to immerse. When on has faith in Christ, one is baptized into Him, one is "in Christ." If it does refer to water baptism, it is not saying one must have to be saved. It is symbolic or representative of the salvation one has through faith.

The other point is that scripture does not contradict itself. It is clear from many, many passages that we are saved by faith alone. We compare scripture with scripture.

Here's one article on this topic (and I don't think he's Baptist)
http://www.carm.org/christianity/baptism/baptism-necessary-salvation

So do you deny sola fide?

 

[annsni]

Let's look at the Scriptures:


1 peter 3:21

We need to look at the whole passage since verse 21 starts with "The like" which means that it's comparing to something that was just said. So let's look at the passage:

12For the eyes of the Lord are over the righteous, and his ears are open unto their prayers: but the face of the Lord is against them that do evil.

13And who is he that will harm you, if ye be followers of that which is good?

14But and if ye suffer for righteousness' sake, happy are ye: and be not afraid of their terror, neither be troubled;

15But sanctify the Lord God in your hearts: and be ready always to give an answer to every man that asketh you a reason of the hope that is in you with meekness and fear:

16Having a good conscience; that, whereas they speak evil of you, as of evildoers, they may be ashamed that falsely accuse your good conversation in Christ.

17For it is better, if the will of God be so, that ye suffer for well doing, than for evil doing.

18For Christ also hath once suffered for sins, the just for the unjust, that he might bring us to God, being put to death in the flesh, but quickened by the Spirit:

19By which also he went and preached unto the spirits in prison;

20Which sometime were disobedient, when once the longsuffering of God waited in the days of Noah, while the ark was a preparing, wherein few, that is, eight souls were saved by water.

21The 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:

22Who is gone into heaven, and is on the right hand of God; angels and authorities and powers being made subject unto him.

OK - So we're looking at verse 20 right now where the eight souls were saved by water. But were they saved by water or the boat? They were saved by the boat but the boat was useless unless there was water. There was nothing to save them from if there was no water. Likewise, it is not the water that saves us but the resurrection of Jesus Christ. It tells us clearly that it is not a putting away of the filth of the flesh but the answer of a good conscience toward God. Baptism does not cleanse us which is what is necessary to be made righteous before God, but it gives us a clear conscience - it brings us through from the old life to the new life like water did for both Noah and the Israelites who passed through the waters.

_______________

Acts 2:38-39

8Then Peter said unto them, Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins, and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost.

39For the promise is unto you, and to your children, and to all that are afar off, even as many as the LORD our God shall call.

Note it's not just baptism here. It's repentance. You cannot separate them and say that baptism is what saves you.


________________


Romans 6:3

3Know ye not, that so many of us as were baptized into Jesus Christ were baptized into his death?

This says nothing about being saved by baptism. It speaks of those who were baptized into Jesus Christ. These people were believers who were baptized. I was baptized into Jesus and when I was baptized, it symbolized my identification with Jesus' death and resurrection. It could also be speaking of being immersed in Christ because Colossians 2:8-15 speaks about this and it talks about circumcision and baptism and it's clear that the circumcision is a symbolic circumcision so it could possibly be speaking of a symbolic baptism.

None of these Scriptures, in light of their context, speak of baptism saving people. Additionally, we need to read ALL of Scripture and see what it says about how we are to be saved:

Acts 2:21 "And it shall come to pass that everyone who calls upon the name of the Lord shall be saved."

Acts 16:30-33 "Then he brought them out and said, "Sirs, what must I do to be saved?" And they said, "Believe in the Lord Jesus, and you will be saved, you and your household." And they spoke the word of the Lord to him and to all who were in his house. And he took them the same hour of the night and washed their wounds; and he was baptized at once, he and all his family."

** Note that he told them to believe and they will be saved - and THEN they were baptized.

Romans 10:10 "For with the heart one believes and is justified, and with the mouth one confesses and is saved."

Baptism is not what saves us but it is an obedience and a testimony to the life that is now inside.

 

[Zenas]

Let's look at the Scriptures:


1 peter 3:21

We need to look at the whole passage since verse 21 starts with "The like" which means that it's comparing to something that was just said. So let's look at the passage:



OK - So we're looking at verse 20 right now where the eight souls were saved by water. But were they saved by water or the boat? They were saved by the boat but the boat was useless unless there was water. There was nothing to save them from if there was no water. Likewise, it is not the water that saves us but the resurrection of Jesus Christ. It tells us clearly that it is not a putting away of the filth of the flesh but the answer of a good conscience toward God. Baptism does not cleanse us which is what is necessary to be made righteous before God, but it gives us a clear conscience - it brings us through from the old life to the new life like water did for both Noah and the Israelites who passed through the waters.

If that is what Peter meant in 1 Peter 3:21, he sure picked a strange way of saying it. He certainly fooled me (and the vast majority of people who ever read this verse as well)

 

[Matt Black]

You are entirely wrong on this. Consistently in Scripture, we read "believed and was baptized".

Secondly, not once does Scripture say baptism saves. I'm sorry but it's just not there.

Whaa...?! Do you have the same Bible as I do?

 

[JohnDeereFan]

You are kidding, right?

1 peter 3:21

Why is it that Catholics never quote the whole passage where this verse is concerned, but always take the dishonest way out by ripping this verse out of the context of the rest of the passage?

Acts 2:38-39
Romans 6:3

Could you please explain how either of these verses say that we're saved by baptism?

 

[Thinkingstuff]

Sometimes I have to re-educate our people on the use of Biblical words. For example the word "church" does not refer to a building "the church" as the dictionary defines it. It refers to "the people" as the Bible defines it. Therefore I tell them I am going to the meeting place of the church--the place where the church gathers. I stick with Biblical definitions.

Your example is very confusing. Why not use Bob or Dick if you are referring to another person. If you are using Mary, then automatically one is thinking of the mother of Jesus.

So, I really am not sure what you are trying to get across here.

Ok use Bob in place of Mary that was my intention anyway. Now re read the post with Bob. See if that makes more sense. There is a vehicle to communication. Talking. If I use this english word talking in context with God then the implication is a special reverance. If I use that same word in context with talking to Bob the significance is different and reverance that is given to God is not included in the understanding of what I am saying. The english word prayer is like that.
If I'm talking to God or man the hebrew word is the same להתפלל like the english word pray or talk so it depends which context the speach is in. However, if I worship God and give reverance to him the Hebrew word is לסגוד or if I want to be more fervant I would use חיה כדי לסגוד

 

[webdog]

Bob
No, Lutherans do not believe in OSAS. They leave that open because of things like the parable of the sower and the talk about enduring until the end.

They do believe election of course, but they do not believe in double predestination, because that goes against John3:16.

I think they believe that some things are just mysteries, but they wont speak where the bible does not.

The parable of the sower is about sowing God's Word...not believers falling from grace. The only lost in that parable was the seed that fell on the hard ground and never took root.

 

[webdog]

Whaa...?! Do you have the same Bible as I do?

Where does yours say baptism (works) saves?