Protecting your position

I personally think that "protecting one's position" is of more value to many people than rightly dividing the word of truth.

The trap is that we all think they are rightly dividing the word of truth, but when we come up with opposing positions; one thing is for sure, we both aren't right. We both may be wrong, but we both aren't right.

Baptism is an area that divides many religious folks. Since I Cor 1 tells us there should not be any divisions among us, and we are to all speak the same thing and be of the same judgment, what should be our approach to scripture?

The only way for everyone to be united is to get back to the bible and accept it for what it says. To understand the purpose of baptism, we need to look at the verses that deal directly with the subject, not with verses that don't mention it.

If you were not trying to protect any "doctrine" or other belief, what is the obvious conclusion to Mark 16:16, "Whoever believes and is baptized will be saved, but whoever does not believe will be condemned."?

While no one verse of scripture stands alone, no one verse contradicts another, either.

When one reads, "Now when they heard this they were cut to the heart, and said to Peter and the rest of the apostles, "Brothers, what shall we do?" And Peter said to them, "Repent and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins, and you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit." (Acts 2:37-38), what is the obvious conclusion of this verse? What is the purpose of baptism, given in this context? It is "for the remission of sins".

Does this contradict Mark 16:16? No, it is in perfect agreement since no one would argue that you can be saved without the remission of sins.

Now if you have to twist these to fit your belief system, and someone else has to twist them to fit their belief system, then it is impossible for all of us to be united, all speaking the same thing, without division.

When I read about Saul, who was a believer and had been praying for 3 days, he was given the following instructions, "And now why do you wait? Rise and be baptized and wash away your sins, calling on his name." - Acts 22:16

Does this violate Mark 16:16 or Acts 2:38? Not in any way, but again it is in complete harmony and agreement. The other passages dealing with baptism all fit and are in agreement with these, but for the sake of space and time, let us go on.

Now when I get to, Eph 2:8-9, "For by grace you have been saved through faith. And this is not your own doing; it is the gift of God, not a result of works, so that no one may boast." does this contradict or nullify the passages on baptism?

NOT IN ANY WAY! In fact, Paul brings these two things together beautifully, "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

 

That is a good question and I am happy to answer it.

First of all, no one can make the dogmatic statement: “The thief had never been baptized.” That is an unknown factor.

Having said that, let’s go in another more definitive direction. Abraham was never commanded to be baptized or to observe the Lord’s Supper. Today, we are not obligated to observe the Passover or make animal sacrifices. Jehovah has had different requirements in different periods of history.

So, under which covenant do we live? Under which covenant did the thief and Abraham live? The new covenant does not equal the old covenant, else there would have been no need to remove the first. By the virtue of stating there is a "NEW" covenant shows there is an "OLD" covenant. Let’s read Heb 9:15-17, “Therefore he is the mediator of a new covenant, so that those who are called may receive the promised eternal inheritance, since a death has occurred that redeems them from the transgressions committed under the first covenant. For where a will is involved, the death of the one who made it must be established. For a will takes effect only at death, since it is not in force as long as the one who made it is alive.”

While Jesus was alive on this earth, He had the authority to forgive men’s sins. There are several instances when He did just that. At the time of His death, the authority of His “will” or the new covenant takes effect. The terms of the new covenant specify the necessity of baptism in our forgiveness or salvation (Mark 16:16, Acts 2:38, Acts 22:16, I Pet 3:21, etc.)
No one has the legal right to eliminate that condition by appealing to something the Lord did while he was implementing his earthly ministry or to the old covenant, which was abolished at his death (Col 2:14, and Gal 3). Once a "will" is in force, no one can add to it or take away from it.

After His death, Jesus gave specific instructions to His apostles, He said, “Go into all the world and proclaim the gospel to the whole creation. Whoever believes and is baptized will be saved, but whoever does not believe will be condemned.” – Mark 16:15-16.

The Apostles first carried this out in Acts 2, where they gave instructions, consistent with Mark 16:16, to repent and be baptized for the remission of sins (vs 38).

If Jesus really meant, “He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved”, what other more plain or easier to understand words could he have used to more accurately portray this message? You have to want to misunderstand this verse to accomplish your goal, because it is that simple and plain. The only reason I can think of for a person to want to misunderstand this verse is to protect their current belief system.

 

Were the Corinthians baptized? Let's read Acts 18:8, "And many of the Corinthians hearing Paul believed and were baptized."

Did Paul baptize any of them? Yes, a few.

Is there any indication that any of the believers were NOT baptized? NONE!!!!

They were baptized, but Paul didn't do very much of the baptizing and he was glad. Why? Because Paul and the Corinthians understood the importance of baptism. In order to belong to Christ, He would have to die for you and you would have to be baptized in His name. In order for you to belong to Paul, he would have to be crucified for you and you would have to be baptized in his name.

Let's read it in context.

I Cor 1:12-17 "What I mean is that each one of you says, "I follow Paul," or "I follow Apollos," or "I follow Cephas," or "I follow Christ." Is Christ divided? Was Paul crucified for you? Or were you baptized in the name of Paul? I thank God that I baptized none of you except Crispus and Gaius, so that no one may say that you were baptized in my name. (I did baptize also the household of Stephanas. Beyond that, I do not know whether I baptized anyone else.) For Christ did not send me to baptize but to preach the gospel, and not with words of eloquent wisdom, lest the cross of Christ be emptied of its power."

The word “baptize” here denotes “to administer the rite” of baptism (J.H. Thayer, Greek Lexicon, p. 94).

Paul's primary mission was to preach the gospel which he did as seen in Acts 18:8. The people who believed his message were baptized, therefore his gospel message contained instructions for baptism.

We obey the gospel (death, burial, and resurrection according to I Cor 15) in baptism according to Rom 6:3-4, 17.

If "Baptism wasn't important to the gospel message" why were they baptized at the preaching of it?

If "Baptism wasn't important to the gospel message", was Jesus confused when He said, "Go into all the world and proclaim the gospel to the whole creation. Whoever believes and is baptized will be saved, but whoever does not believe will be condemned."? If baptism wasn't important to the gospel message then neither would "belief" be.

Belief and baptism are always the proper response to the preaching of the gospel (Mark 16:15-16, Acts 18:8, Acts 2:37-38, Acts 8:5,12,35-38, 16:30-34), but not according to you.

 

That is a good question and I am happy to answer it.

First of all, no one can make the dogmatic statement: “The thief had never been baptized.” That is an unknown factor.</font>[/QUOTE]Not quite. It is not as unknown as you would have us think. Palestine is a small country. Everyone had heard of John the Baptist. If this thief had been baptized it would have been either by John or one of Jesus' disciples. These are the only two possibilities. John demanded repentance before baptism. In fact he was so strict on this condition he had to see the fruit of repentance before he would baptize them. "Bring forth fruit fit for repentance," he said. The disciples of Jesus held to the same manner. The testimony of the thieves, both of them, was this:

Luke 23:39-43 And one of the malefactors which were hanged railed on him, saying, If thou be Christ, save thyself and us. But the other answering rebuked him, saying, Dost not thou fear God, seeing thou art in the same condemnation? And we indeed justly; for we receive the due reward of our deeds: but this man hath done nothing amiss. And he said unto Jesus, Lord, remember me when thou comest into thy kingdom. And Jesus said unto him, Verily I say unto thee, To day shalt thou be with me in paradise.

Their testimony was that they receive the due reward of their deeds. Jesus had done nothing amiss. They were thieves. They were theives all their lives. They had not repented. They had not been baptized. If they had been baptized they wouldn't be on that cross. They were receiving their due reward of a life of crime. They had not repented from that crime. They were not baptized.
DHK </font>[/QUOTE]Merely speculation and opinion, which I personally happen to agree with. However to state it as a fact, one way or another, is presumptous. That was not the meat of the arguement anyway.

 

Did someone tell you that and you believed them?

The only reason a person would want it to mean "because of" would be to protect their current belief system.

Find one translation that renders it "because of".

The same Greek phrase is used in Matt 26:28, "For this is My blood of the new covenant, which is shed for many for the remission of sins."

Does anyone have any trouble in understanding the phase here? Was Jesus blood shed because peoples sins were already forgiven? No, Jesus blood was shed in order for people to obtain the forgiveness of sins, which is the same reason given for baptism.

Never once is "eis" ever translated as "because of". Never. It is used over 1750 times.

Robinson noted that the baptism/eis connection, as used in Acts 2:38, marked “the object and effect of the rite of baptism; chiefly with eis c. acc. to baptize or be baptized into anything. . . ” (p. 118). J.H. Thayer said that the significance of eis in Acts 2:38 is “to obtain the forgiveness of sins” (p. 94). Arndt & Gingrich affirmed that eis denoted “purpose, in order to. . . for forgiveness of sins, so that sins might be forgiven” (p. 228). It is wholly unnecessary to continue piling up authorities with reference to this matter.

Now, if Jesus had said, "He that believeth and is saved shall be baptized", you might have a point.

Baptism is not a work of righteousness. To the contrary, it makes no sense whatsoever, other than Jesus said to do it. What merit is there in being immersed in the water? That is nothing of merit. Baptism is an act of faith and the source of faith is God's word. Faith does not come from my own understanding, or foolish estimation, no, it comes from God's word (Rom 10:17). I don't earn anything in baptism, rather, I accept Jesus' words and believe He really meant, "He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved" - Mark 16:16.

 

You are skirting the issue.
Was Paul commisioned to baptize?

1 Corinthians 1:17 For Christ sent me not to baptize, but to preach the gospel: not with wisdom of words, lest the cross of Christ should be made of none effect.

NO! Christ sent him not to baptize!
Why?
but to preach the gospel

Because Christ sent him to preach the gospel.
--Is baptism therefore a part of the gospel?
NO!
It is not a part of the gospel message.
It was not essential to the message that Paul was commissioned to preach: not in Corinth, not in Ephesus, not in Philippi, not in Berea, not Thessalonica, not in any place that he went.
Why?
Christ did not commission Paul to baptize.
Christ only commissioned Paul to preach the gospel of which baptism has no part of. Baptism is not part of the gospel.

Now what does it say in 1Cor.15:1-4

1 Corinthians 15:1-4 Moreover, brethren, I declare unto you the gospel which I preached unto you, which also ye have received, and wherein ye stand; By which also ye are saved, if ye keep in memory what I preached unto you, unless ye have believed in vain. For I delivered unto you first of all that which I also received, how that Christ died for our sins according to the scriptures; And that he was buried, and that he rose again the third day according to the scriptures:

The gospel saves. It is the only message that saves. The gospel is defined in verses 3 and 4: the death, the burial, and the resurrection of Jesus Christ. It does not include baptism.
Christ did not commission Paul to baptize. Why? Baptism plays no part in the gospel; no part in the salvation of man whatsoever. It is the gospel that saves, not baptism.
Baptismal regeneration is heresy.
DHK </font>[/QUOTE]What was the result of Paul's preaching of the gospel?

They believed and were baptized, exactly what Jesus said in Mark 16:16.

This is a perfect example of what I am talking about. You try so desperately to protect your beliefs that you ignore the simple teachings of Jesus and His Apostles.

Now, if you were not trying to protect your position, what would be your understanding of "He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved"?

 

What is the logical conclusion of II Pet 2:20-22 "For if, after they have escaped the pollutions of the world through the knowledge of the Lord and Savior Jesus Christ, they are again entangled in them and overcome, the latter end is worse for them than the beginning. For it would have been better for them not to have known the way of righteousness, than having known it, to turn from the holy commandment delivered to them.
But it has happened to them according to the true proverb: "A dog returns to his own vomit," and, "a sow, having washed, to her wallowing in the mire."?

How could it ever "have been better for them not to have known the way of righteousness" for the person who has "escaped the pollutions of the world through the knowledge of the Lord and Savior Jesus Christ" if OSAS were true? That is impossible, because under that belief system, one is always better off knowing the way of righteousness and escaping the pollutions of the world through the knowledge of the Lord and Savior Jesus Christ.

I agree that the bible teaches that the christian is secure. However, the christian does not loose his free will. Jesus' sheep hear his voice and follow Him. No one can snatch them out of His hand, but does that mean it is impossible for them to stop hearing his voice and stop following Him?

The bible is filled with conditional statements for the christian, warnings against falling away, or being led away by false teachers, and encouragement to continue to the end. All of these have to be explained away to fit the "OSAS" philosophy.

You wouldn't believe the wildly fabricated explainations I've seen on James 5:19-20 "Brethren, if anyone among you wanders from the truth, and someone turns him back, let him know that he who turns a sinner from the error of his way will save a soul from death and cover a multitude of sins., "

What is the logical conclusion of this passage?

That if you wander from the truth, it will result in death because you have a multitude of uncovered sins.

If someone brings you back, your soul will be saved from death and a multitude of sins will be covered.

This is not physical death, because both the saint and the sinner die physically.

This person is in the truth, because it is impossible to wander from something that you were never in.

If one holds to the OSAS belief, when they come to passages such as these, they are forced to twist them to fit that belief system. Therefore, verses can't be followed to their logical conclusion making it impossible for everyone to see the bible alike, without any division.

 

The result of Paul's preaching of the gospel was salvation, nothing more. Baptism had nothing to do with it. Christ did not call Paul to baptize. 1Cor.15:1,2 states that it is the gospel, not baptism that saves. The result of preaching the gospel was salvation; the forgiveness of sins; the gift of God being eternal life. This was the result of preaching the gospel, not baptism.

I was not baptized until two years after I was saved. Does that mean I was not saved during that time?

Now, what is the result of being saved? That is a different question. The result of salvation is obedience to Christ. The first step of obedience in a saved person's life is baptism. But baptism has no part in salvation. It is not a requirement for salvation. It happens as a consequence of being saved. It is done out of obedience because one has already been saved.
But you don't believe that do you?
In fact you don't believe that I was saved in those interveneing two years between the time that I was saved and I was baptized do you?
DHK </font>[/QUOTE]DHK - You just don't understand, do you. I do not think that the power is in the water. Your baptism did nothing for you. I think even you might admit that. All it did was get you wet. You were not baptized "for the remission of sins", but you were baptized because you thought your sins were already forgiven.

You do not believe Jesus was correct, do you? Jesus said, "He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved". According to your belief system, the order of events should be, "He that believeth and is saved shall be baptized".

Biblical baptism is for the remission of sins (Acts 2:38).

Biblical baptism washes away sins (Acts 22:16).

Biblical baptism puts us into Christ (Gal 3:27, Rom 6:3-4), where there is salvation, redemption, justification, sanctifcation, forgiveness of sins through the power of His blood, and all spiritual blessings.

You cannot find another way into Christ!

You seem to glory in the fact that it took 2 years for you to be "baptized".

Well, that certainly is not biblical, is it? The bible places a different importance on baptism than you do, that is evident. In Acts 2, we have 3000 being baptized the same day they heard the gospel. How long would you have streched it out? They baptized them that "same day"!

The jailer was baptized immediately. So was the eunuch. In fact, there is not one instance when anyone was told to wait. How strange, if baptism isn't important.

To say that baptism is because your sins were already forgiven is to say that Jesus shed his blood because people's sins had already been forgiven, since the exact same phrase is used to describe both events (Acts 2:38, Matt 26:28). You accept the meaning in Matt 26:28, but you reject and are forced to twist the same phase in Acts 2:38, because it doesn't "fit".

You are forced to twist Acts 22:16 from its logical conclusion (be baptized and wash away your sins) because it doen't fit.

You are forced to twist Rom 6:3-4 and Gal 3:27 from their logical conclusion because they do not "fit".

You are forced to twist I Pet 3:21 (Baptism now saves us) from its logical conclusion because it doesn't fit.

You are forced to twist Mark 16:16 from its logical conclusion, because it doesn't fit.

Why don't you just have faith in what Jesus said in Mark 16:16, "He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved"?

Baptism is, after all, a matter of faith (Gal 3:26-27, Col 2:12).

 

I think I know what you are saying???? I think you are trying to say that "hearing, obeying, and believing the gospel" are prerequisites to salvation but baptism is not. Is that correct?

If not, please explain some more.

To understand the purpose of baptism, we must look at the passages that deal with baptism. From those passages, I learn that baptism is necessary for being saved (Mark 16:16), that it is "for the remission of sins (Acts 2:38), that it washes away sins (Acts 22:16), that it puts one into Christ (Rom 6:3-4, Gal 3:27), that it saves (I Pet 3:21). Either these verses don't really mean what they say or they do.

I think, based on my understanding of your statements, that obeying the gospel is necessary for salvation? Is that correct? If so, I totally agree with you.

But how does one obey the gospel? First, what is the gospel? I Cor 15:1-4, the gospel is the good news about the death, burial, and resurrection. How do we obey that?

Paul tells us in Rom 6:3-4, "Or do you not know that as many of us as were baptized into Christ Jesus were baptized into His death? Therefore we were buried with Him through baptism into death, that just as Christ was raised from the dead by the glory of the Father, even so we also should walk in newness of life."

and verse 17, "But God be thanked that though you were slaves of sin, yet you obeyed from the heart that form of doctrine to which you were delivered.

We can't actually die, be buried, and raised from the dead, but we can obey a form of that in baptism.

They were slaves to sin, but they had obeyed the gospel (died to the love and practice of sin, been buried in the watery grave of baptism and raised to walk in a new life).