Water and Blood

[Eric B]

Those baptized under John’s baptism prior to the new law absolutely did it for the right reason, but those baptized under John’s baptism, after Pentecost, were not valid. Where did these men learn about John’s baptism? Most likely from Apollos (Acts 18:25).

So does this mean Apollos instructed them, and then they went to John to be baptized? There is a big problem with this. John was long dead by the time of that Pentecost! Sorry, but you are piecing together whatever you can to maintain your argument, and it doesn't fly. Many gentiles were baptized by John as well, and Apollos is the one who introduced them to Christ, but did not baptize them into Christ; because he too only knew of John's baptism.

If I use a song book, when I get through, the only music I still have is singing. If I use an overhead projector so everyone can see the words, when I get through, I only have singing. If I use a piano, then the music I have is singing and unauthorized instrumental music. Using a song book and piano is not the same thing.

No, with the song book and projector; you have written music. The piano adds its own sound, but this takes nothing away from singing. The people are not no longer singing just because an instrument is playing, any more than because they are reading the words. You are making an issue out of nothing.

NO IT DOESN’T!!! And you cannot show through the scriptures where baptism is a work of merit. It simply can’t be done, because it isn’t. People continue to make these baseless claims without even ONE scripture as a reference to support their statements.

What is a "work of merit," then? Wand whatever you list, you have to find a scripture that CALLS it a "work".
The scripture doesn;t HAVE to say "such and such is a work". When "works" are mentioned; everyone understood what that means. The word is "ergon", meaning "to toil" (as an effort or occupation); an act, deed, doing, etc.
And it it gains you salvation, it is merit.

Here’s what the bible says, “buried with Him in baptism, in which you also were raised with Him through faith in the working of God, who raised Him from the dead.” – Col 2:12

“For you are all sons of God through faith in Christ Jesus. For as many of you as were baptized into Christ have put on Christ.” – Gal 3:26-27

Notice, these statements have 2 parts. buried in baptism; raisedthrough faith. I do not see how you can make faith and baptism EQUAL each other in this. And Gal. doesn;t even mention "water" baptism. Remember; "by ONE SPIRIT are we baptized into ONE BODY". So these verse prove what we have been saying: baptism "into Christ" is a spiritual occurrence; HERE is you "faith"; and it was marked by the water ceremony, but the water ceremony itself is not what put you into Christ; because some, like Simon went through with it and still were not saved!

Baptism is always associated with something. In some cases it is belief (Mk 16:16), repentance (Acts 2:38), or confession (Acts 8:36-37). Never in any case does baptism come after salvation, remission of sins, or rejoicing.

And thus; never does it IN ITSELF cause salvation, remission of sins, or rejoicing.

Jesus said, “He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved, but he that believeth not, shall be condemned.” – Mark 16:16

This verse tells us plainly what is required for salvation and what is required of condemnation. So, basically, do you think Jesus meant “He that believeth is saved and shall be baptized”, when he said, “He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved.”???

Baptism will only be an act that has meaning accompanying belief; but it's without the belief that one is condemned, no matter whether he is baptized or not.

Ok, so the believers in Acts 2:37 were not saved, yet. We both agree.

But you were trying to say they already "believed" at that point, but belief didn't save them. they were convicted. But they had yet to act on that conviction.

What? The believers had to “show” their belief before they were saved. The only way to show something is by “doing” which would be works, according to your definitions. You are teaching salvation by works, right?

No; because the "showing" was not what actually saved, but in order for the apostles and the rest of the church to accept them as saved, they had to show it (James 2:18). Now, you could go on and argue "so you believe they could not show it and still be saved"? But if they were saved; why wouldn't they show it? So for this reason, it appears that baptism in itself determined salvation, but that is really not the case.

The two acts are separate. Just because one was done away doesn’t mean the other one was.

Not done away, but after this period, when the apostles were there, and the NT not circulated; it would not have the same importance it did then. Of course, the post-apostolic church misunderstood this, and attributed regernration to baptism. But then they also began their teachings on Communion, Church leadership, and slowly, Mary (all of which justifies as "spiritua;", and "by faith, above man's reason"), so you can't go by what they said.

Here, you said a person is saved at the point of belief, but those believers in Acts 2:47, you said weren’t yet saved, because they “needed to show their belief before they could be assumed to be saved.”

John 12:42 Nevertheless even among the rulers many believed in Him, but because of the Pharisees they did not confess Him, lest they should be put out of the synagogue; 43for they loved the praise of men more than the praise of God.

I know this was under the old law, but it clearly shows that one can believe without confession. Is that believer saved?

Repentance with baptism for the remission of sins does NOT contradict the rest of the Gospel. It is in complete harmony with the rest of the Gospel. It only conflicts when we try to make faith mean “believe”. When we understand faith as seen in Heb 11, it all fits perfectly. However, when we think we are saved by belief only, then it takes some major league mental gymnastics to try and explain away the clear verses dealing with baptism.

Once again; this was the shallow "belief" we discussed before, or "confession with the lips", similar to that of Simon. They accepted Him as Messiah, but showed that they had not truly received Him as Savior. The same people in ch.8 then begin arguing with him, and He calls them children of their father the devil. "Belief" has different aspects to it. No one is saying that just "mental/verbal acknowledgment" of Jesus as Messiah saves. (Muslims actually do that!) This is what you are criticizing in "belief only", but it is not what we mean by "faith, not works".

Repentance with Baptism is either for (eis) the remission of sins or because (hoti) the remission of sins. The bible says it is for (eis). In fact it says that repentance with baptism is for the same reason as the shedding of Jesus blood. Both were done “eis aphesin hamartion” – For the remission of sins.

Are you saying that you reject that repentance with baptism is “for” – (eis) the remission of sins because that contradicts your other beliefs? The other option is repentance and baptism is because your sins have already been forgiven. Surely nobody believes that one repents because their sins are already forgiven. To try and make it mean something else, let the mental gymnastics begin.

Once again; you keep making it one after the other and nothing else. They were repenting as they were being baptized; not they repented months ago, and now decided to show it in baptism. That is what happens today, as unfortunaely, baptism eventually was no longer done at the point of conversion. But since it did change, and the two becaue separate, we have to tie salvation to one of them, and it cannot be the act of going down into water, but rather belief (once again, not the same type of "belief" of the people in John).

Of course, baptism must be accompanied by belief, repentance and confession; otherwise, you are not following God’s instructions or examples.

Then once again, it in itself is not what actually saves. Most of us here both believe, repented and confessed (hopefully, anyway) and have been baptized; though probably not at the same time. What is the point of coming and arguing about baptism? You act as if that is what salvation is all about, but now you admit, later on, it must be "accompanied" by those things.

He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved, he that believeth not, shall be condemned. – Mark 16:16. Here is a verse so simple; one HAS to have help to MISUNDERSTAND it. There is not one verse in the New Testament that contradicts this verse or negates this verse.

No, but you are just taking it and trying to build a doctrine that does contradict the rest of the New Testament. The emphasis is on "believe", bot "baptism". "baptism" here was not spoken of in isolation. This parallels the Matthew's account: "Go into the world, baptizing them in the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost". Anyone refusing that would not be believing, and thus not be saved. but the focus is clearly on believing.

 

[mman]

Eric B.

I have never agrued baptism alone or baptism only. I agree that is contrary to scripture. Let me make it clear, that unless one believes, baptism will be of no benefit. We usually call that swimming. Unless one repents, baptism is of no value. Unless one confesses, of what value could baptism be?

But for the believer who confesses and repents, it is of great value. Baptism is that act of faith that puts us INTO Christ. Scripture backs this up, as I have shown time and time again.

In fact, the original post in this thread shows that it is in baptism that we come in contact with the blood.

I've been waiting this whole time for someone else to show any other way, through the scriptures, how we come in contact with the blood.

You made the comment that Gal 3:26-27 does not mention water. It doesn't have to. The word baptism was transliterated, not translated. It means immersion. Immersion in what? It is always understood to be water, unless the context dictates otherwise.

Both Rom 6 and Gal 3 tell us that we are immersed INTO Christ. Rom 6 shows the similarity between water baptism and "death, burial and resurrection."

Preaching Jesus means preaching water baptism (Acts 8:35-36).

There is but one immersion today (Eph 4:5). What is it? What is it for?

I Pet 3:21, no doubt talks about water baptism, else his previous example would make no sense whatsoever.

Immersion now saves you. Yes we have other passages that tell us what must accompany our immersion, such as belief.

Mark 16:16 says, "He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved".

If they had translated the word baptism, it may read, "He that believeth and is immersed shall be saved" or "He that believeth and is immersed in water shall be saved."

 

[Eric B]

I have never agrued baptism alone or baptism only. I agree that is contrary to scripture. Let me make it clear, that unless one believes, baptism will be of no benefit. We usually call that swimming. Unless one repents, baptism is of no value. Unless one confesses, of what value could baptism be?

But for the believer who confesses and repents, it is of great value. Baptism is that act of faith that puts us INTO Christ. Scripture backs this up, as I have shown time and time again.
In fact, the original post in this thread shows that it is in baptism that we come in contact with the blood.

I've been waiting this whole time for someone else to show any other way, through the scriptures, how we come in contact with the blood.

Immersion now saves you. Yes we have other passages that tell us what must accompany our immersion, such as belief.

Mark 16:16 says, "He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved".

If they had translated the word baptism, it may read, "He that believeth and is immersed shall be saved" or "He that believeth and is immersed in water shall be saved."

You're making it the decisive event that "puts us INTO Christ/the blood", as you say. It might as well stand alone, then. Else, you must admit that perhaps it is really confession and/or repentance that are decisive, or at least preeminent, and baptism accompanies it, rather than the other way around as you are making it sound.

You made the comment that Gal 3:26-27 does not mention water. It doesn't have to. The word baptism was transliterated, not translated. It means immersion. Immersion in what? It is always understood to be water, unless the context dictates otherwise.

Both Rom 6 and Gal 3 tell us that we are immersed INTO Christ. Rom 6 shows the similarity between water baptism and "death, burial and resurrection."

And immersed into Christ is SPIRITUAL, thus setting the context. The water symbolized it. Once again, the old man is buried as he is immersed into the body, and becomes a new man. There is your death and resurrection. If you admit that baptism by itself is just "swimming", then there must be a spiritual dimension required to make it real. This spiritual event is what actually puts you into Christ!

Preaching Jesus means preaching water baptism (Acts 8:35-36).

No it doesn't. Many of those people knew about baptism, from John, remember. Now that this person heard about
Christ, he knew he had to be baptized into Him. What do you think; that the entire message of Christ is all about baptism? That Jesus is equal to baptism, or something?

I Pet 3:21, no doubt talks about water baptism, else his previous example would make no sense whatsoever.

The context (with Noah) is deliverance, not getting wet. In fact, Nah did not even get wet. They were in the ark, which floated in the water. Like today we are in Christ (whom we are baptized into). Peter made the analogy because water was present in both occasions; but it's not about the water; it's about the shelter. Christ is not the water, but rather the ark!

 

[mman]

Originally posted by Eric B:
You're making it the decisive event that "puts us INTO Christ/the blood", as you say. It might as well stand alone, then. Else, you must admit that perhaps it is really confession and/or repentance that are decisive, or at least preeminent, and baptism accompanies it, rather than the other way around as you are making it sound.

Hold on. I didn't make it anything. God said it, not me. No, it cannot stand alone, I have already shown that.

I can show where baptism puts us into Christ. You cannot show where anything else puts us into Christ. But it is through faith (Col 2:12, Gal 3:26-27), that we are baptized, hence, that necessitates belief(Mark 16:16), repentance(Acts 2:38) and confession(Acts 8:36-38), since all of these are linked to baptism in God's word, where faith originates (Rom 10:17).

And immersed into Christ is SPIRITUAL, thus setting the context. The water symbolized it. Once again, the old man is buried as he is immersed into the body, and becomes a new man. There is your death and resurrection. If you admit that baptism by itself is just "swimming", then there must be a spiritual dimension required to make it real. This spiritual event is what actually puts you into Christ!

When Naaman was cleansed of his leprosy, what cleansed him. The water? Did the water symbolize anything? No, God used the water to cleanse his leprosy. God was the one who was working to cure his leprosy. Naaman did not earn a cure, else anyone who dipped 7 times would have been owed a cure. Was everyone with leprosy cured when they dipped in the Jordan river? No indication of that. The instructions were to Naaman. The instructions, wash and be clean.

That is very similar to baptism today. Saul was told to "arise and be baptized and wash away your sins, calling on the name of the Lord."

Is the power in the water or God? God is the one working as stated in Col 2:12. If our sins were as visible as leprosy, it wouldn't take faith to see the cleansing.

We are raised to walk in newness of life (Rom 6:4), just like Naaman, clean.

Preaching Jesus means preaching water baptism (Acts 8:35-36). </font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr /> No it doesn't. Many of those people knew about baptism, from John, remember. Now that this person heard about
Christ, he knew he had to be baptized into Him. What do you think; that the entire message of Christ is all about baptism? That Jesus is equal to baptism, or something?

</font>[/QUOTE]Yes it does. For you to deny this fact. I have scripture to back this up, and quite frankly, you don't.

Lets look at Acts 2. Was the good news about Jesus preached. Were there instructions concerning water baptism? Yes, Acts 2:38.

Now, lets look at Acts 8:5, Philip "preached Christ". Acts 8:12, those who believed what he preached were baptized. The fact that instructions were given for baptism is obvious.

On to Acts 8:34 So the eunuch answered Philip and said, "I ask you, of whom does the prophet say this, of himself or of some other man?" 35Then Philip opened his mouth, and beginning at this Scripture, preached Jesus to him. 36Now as they went down the road, they came to some water. And the eunuch said, "See, here is water. What hinders me from being baptized?"

How did he know about being baptized? You think it was from prior teaching? He was from Ethiopia. There is a chance he never even heard of John. Surely you don't think after Philip preached Christ that the first words out of the Eunuch's mouth were concerning something Philip didn't even discuss? Certainly Philip would corrected that obivous error and asked the Eunuch "What are you talking about? Weren't you listening?". No, the Holy Spirit had sent Philip to talk to the Eunuch. Obviously, Philip was qualified to preach Christ. To deny that preaching Christ includes water baptism, is to deny the obvious. Every time I bring this up, your response is very similar, "No it doesn't", yet,without fail, no scriptural evidence is provided to the contrary.

OK, lets look at another case. Acts 16:32Then they spoke the word of the Lord to him and to all who were in his house. 33And he took them the same hour of the night and washed their stripes. And immediately he and all his family were baptized.

Yes, I know there is more to this account and we have discussed it before. However, here again, we have preaching the word of the Lord and people being baptized as a result of that preaching.

The context (with Noah) is deliverance, not getting wet. In fact, Nah did not even get wet. They were in the ark, which floated in the water. Like today we are in Christ (whom we are baptized into). Peter made the analogy because water was present in both occasions; but it's not about the water; it's about the shelter. Christ is not the water, but rather the ark!

Peter said there was an antitype which now saves us, baptism (I Pet 3:21).

God used water to cleanse the earth. God used water to cleanse us also. No, baptism is not about washing our flesh - there is no power in the water, but in God. Now, why are you waiting, arise and be immersed in water and wash away your sins (Acts 22:16).

Yes, we are immersed in water into Christ.

 

[Eric B]

Hold on. I didn't make it anything. God said it, not me. No, it cannot stand alone, I have already shown that.

God makes it the decisive issue, but it cannot stand alone.
Then it is not all-decisive then, but depends on something else. Or is God contradicting Himself? No, you must be reading things wrong, and trying to force one set of scriptures to fit your interpretation of another. Talk about "major league gymnastics"!

I can show where baptism puts us into Christ. You cannot show where anything else puts us into Christ.

"by one SPIRIT" (1 Cor.12:13). The Spirit does not baptize us into a pool of water (even if you try to argue that it is "His work"), but He does baptize us into the BODY, which is Christ.

But it is through faith (Col 2:12, Gal 3:26-27), that we are baptized, hence, that necessitates belief(Mark 16:16), repentance(Acts 2:38) and confession(Acts 8:36-38), since all of these are linked to baptism in God's word, where faith originates

Hence, faith is really preeminent, as I said!

When Naaman was cleansed of his leprosy, what cleansed him. The water? Did the water symbolize anything? No, God used the water to cleanse his leprosy. God was the one who was working to cure his leprosy. Naaman did not earn a cure, else anyone who dipped 7 times would have been owed a cure. Was everyone with leprosy cured when they dipped in the Jordan river? No indication of that. The instructions were to Naaman. The instructions, wash and be clean.
That is very similar to baptism today. Saul was told to "arise and be baptized and wash away your sins, calling on the name of the Lord."

Is the power in the water or God? God is the one working as stated in Col 2:12. If our sins were as visible as leprosy, it wouldn't take faith to see the cleansing.

We are raised to walk in newness of life (Rom 6:4), just like Naaman, clean.

That's an Old Testament example of a physical act bringing a physical cure. All of that is a shadow of spiritual acts and spiritual cures. The physical water ceremony was retained as the symbol of the spiritual cleansing, but it does not have the same efficiency in the washing, since it is spiritual. So you cannot take the analogy like that without transferring from the physical to the spiritual.

Yes it does. For you to deny this fact. I have scripture to back this up, and quite frankly, you don't.

Lets look at Acts 2. Was the good news about Jesus preached. Were there instructions concerning water baptism? Yes, Acts 2:38.

Now, lets look at Acts 8:5, Philip "preached Christ". Acts 8:12, those who believed what he preached were baptized. The fact that instructions were given for baptism is obvious.

On to Acts 8:34 So the eunuch answered Philip and said, "I ask you, of whom does the prophet say this, of himself or of some other man?" 35Then Philip opened his mouth, and beginning at this Scripture, preached Jesus to him. 36Now as they went down the road, they came to some water. And the eunuch said, "See, here is water. What hinders me from being baptized?"

How did he know about being baptized? You think it was from prior teaching? He was from Ethiopia. There is a chance he never even heard of John. Surely you don't think after Philip preached Christ that the first words out of the Eunuch's mouth were concerning something Philip didn't even discuss? Certainly Philip would corrected that obivous error and asked the Eunuch "What are you talking about? Weren't you listening?". No, the Holy Spirit had sent Philip to talk to the Eunuch. Obviously, Philip was qualified to preach Christ. To deny that preaching Christ includes water baptism, is to deny the obvious. Every time I bring this up, your response is very similar, "No it doesn't", yet, without fail, no scriptural evidence is provided to the contrary.

OK, lets look at another case. Acts 16:32Then they spoke the word of the Lord to him and to all who were in his house. 33And he took them the same hour of the night and washed their stripes. And immediately he and all his family were baptized.

Yes, I know there is more to this account and we have discussed it before. However, here again, we have preaching the word of the Lord and people being baptized as a result of that preaching.

No one is denying that you can preach Christ and mention baptism. I was reacting to the way you are subtly trying to EQUATE Christ=baptism, and going down a tangent. Because Christ is reached, and then a person asks about baptism doesn't mean that baptism is the central element of faith or of Christ. Like later this week, when Billy Graham preaches here in the city, and at the end, people are going down to the altar, does that prove that the altar is what we think saves? Of course not.
Taking all the proof-texts in the world and comparing them to how many I can come up with means nothing when you are reading your own meaning into them. The reason I don't come up with a whole other set of "scriptural proof", is because the proof lies in the correct interpretation of the proof-texts you are giving, so I deal with those. If I did give others, you would only reinterpret those also, anyway.

Peter said there was an antitype which now saves us, baptism (I Pet 3:21).

The antitype was not the water, since that was present in both type and antitype. It is the nature of the "immersion" and what it accomplishes. Noah was saved from physical destruction through a type of physical baptism. We are saved from spiritual destruction through our spiritual baptism into the Body of Christ.

God used water to cleanse the earth. God used water to cleanse us also. No, baptism is not about washing our flesh - there is no power in the water, but in God. Now, why are you waiting, arise and be immersed in water and wash away your sins (Acts 22:16).
Yes, we are immersed in water into Christ.

So now, the earth is the object of "baptism"? We are talking about saving; not, essentially, destroying and replenishing. The antitype of that is the future fiery judgment of the earth, and our being in the ark of the Body of Christ is what saves us from that.

 

[mman]

Originally posted by Eric B:
God makes it the decisive issue, but it cannot stand alone. Then it is not all-decisive then, but depends on something else. Or is God contradicting Himself? No, you must be reading things wrong, and trying to force one set of scriptures to fit your interpretation of another. Talk about "major league gymnastics"!

Sorry, no mental gymnastics required here.

Jesus said, "He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved." - Read it, believe it. - Mark 16:16

Peter said, "Repent and be baptized in the name of Jesus for the remission of sins" - Read it, believe it - Acts 2:38

Saul was told, "Arise and be baptized and wash away your sins." - Read it, believe it. - Acts 22:16

Peter said, "Baptism now saves us". I Pet 3:21- Read it, believe it.

The mental gymnastics only come into play when you try to explain away these clear verses.

"by one SPIRIT" (1 Cor.12:13). The Spirit does not baptize us into a pool of water (even if you try to argue that it is "His work"), but He does baptize us into the BODY, which is Christ.

Actually, the body is the church (Eph 1:22-23 and Col 1:18).

So, we are baptized into the Church. That is exactly what happened on the day of Pentecost in Acts 2. They believed, they repented, and were baptized in water for the remission of sins and the Lord added those being saved to the church. (Acts 2:38,41,47)

Hence, faith is really preeminent, as I said!

Sure, faith is. I agree with that. Belief is not.

That's an Old Testament example of a physical act bringing a physical cure. All of that is a shadow of spiritual acts and spiritual cures. The physical water ceremony was retained as the symbol of the spiritual cleansing, but it does not have the same efficiency in the washing, since it is spiritual. So you cannot take the analogy like that without transferring from the physical to the spiritual.

I think I agree with you on this. The spiritual cleansing takes place at the same time as our physical baptism, hence at water baptism our sins are washed away, but it is really God doing the spiritual washing and our physical baptism symbolizes that. Is that what you are saying?

No one is denying that you can preach Christ and mention baptism. I was reacting to the way you are subtly trying to EQUATE Christ=baptism, and going down a tangent. Because Christ is reached, and then a person asks about baptism doesn't mean that baptism is the central element of faith or of Christ. Like later this week, when Billy Graham preaches here in the city, and at the end, people are going down to the altar, does that prove that the altar is what we think saves? Of course not.
Taking all the proof-texts in the world and comparing them to how many I can come up with means nothing when you are reading your own meaning into them. The reason I don't come up with a whole other set of "scriptural proof", is because the proof lies in the correct interpretation of the proof-texts you are giving, so I deal with those. If I did give others, you would only reinterpret those also, anyway.

I seriously doubt Billy Graham will utter the "baptism".

The alter call is foreign to the scriptures.

Philip preached Christ and the next words out of the Eunuch's mouth is dealing directly about baptism. Preaching Christ includes water baptism. If it doesn't then the whole message is not being preached.

If any respond to the "alter call" after the preaching of Billy Graham, I wonder how many will be asking to be baptized right there on the spot?

The antitype was not the water, since that was present in both type and antitype. It is the nature of the "immersion" and what it accomplishes. Noah was saved from physical destruction through a type of physical baptism. We are saved from spiritual destruction through our spiritual baptism into the Body of Christ.

Let's look a little closer. Noah found grace in the eyes of the Lord. - Gen 6:8.

That grace provided instructions Gen 6:14ff

Noah did all that God commanded - Gen 6:22. The bible calls that faith (Heb 11:7).

By faith, Noah prepared an ark. What is preeminent? Noah's faith? Yes, if you use the biblical definition of faith.

Why did Noah prepare an ark? For the saving of his household. - Heb 11:7

So, Noah was saved by faith. In fact, it can be easily seen that he was saved by grace through faith. Now, I Pet 3:20 tells us, that they were "saved through water". Are both of these true? Yes.

Then he says there is an antitype which saves us, baptism.

God's grace provided instruction (Titus 2:11-12)

Just like Noah, we have to get into the Ark (or INTO Christ).

We are told that "he that believeth and is baptized shall be saved. - Mark 16:16

Acts 2:38, Repent and be baptized...for the remission of sins

Acts 8:37-38 Confession and baptism

Rom 6:3-4 and Gal 3:27 show that baptism is what puts us INTO Christ (or on the ark), where salvation is (II Tim 2:10).

When we obey, just like Noah, that is biblical faith. God's grace provided the instructions. Just like Noah, we are saved by grace through faith. Yes, his was a physical saving and ours is a spiritual saving.

I Pet 3:21 says that antitype that saves us is baptism.

 

[DHK]

Originally posted by mman:
Let's look a little closer. Noah found grace in the eyes of the Lord. - Gen 6:8.

Yes, lets. Noah found grace in the eyes of the Lord. Keep that in perspective throughout the whole narrative. That means that Noah is a saved man. No matter what he does from hereonin he is saved by grace. Not by baptism, but by grace. Note that baptism does not save. At this point in time Noah is already saved--before the flood even takes place, before Noah is "baptized." He is already saved. This very important for you to keep in mind. God is dealing with one of his children, not with an unsaved individual.

That grace provided instructions Gen 6:14ff

Noah did all that God commanded - Gen 6:22. The bible calls that faith (Heb 11:7).

No it doesn't. Faith is confidence or trust. Noah obeyed as a result of his trust in the promises of God. Obedience does not equal faith. It never has. That is a fallacy on your part. Get a good dictionary and look up the two words. You will never find that obedience and faith mean the same thing. Noah obeyed as a result of his faith in God. The obedience was the result; not the faith. Another difference to be made is that Noah's faith was the faith of any normal Christians walk with God. It was not "saving faith." Every Christian exercises faith in God daily in his walk with God. We are commanded to trust him for all things. How is this unusual for Noah? It is normal. He walked by faith. He already was a Christian. It has nothing to do with "saving faith."

By faith, Noah prepared an ark. What is preeminent? Noah's faith? Yes, if you use the biblical definition of faith.

Apparently you do not have a Biblical definition of faith. What was preeminent? Noah's obedience to God was preeminent. He obeyed because he had faith in God. Remember he was already a saved man. His salvation was not in question here.

Why did Noah prepare an ark? For the saving of his household. - Heb 11:7

Noah was already a saved man. Remember? This is speaking of "physical deliverance" not "spiritual salvation." His household was saved from drowning in the flood because of the obedience of Noah. Noah obeyed by faith. It was not the faith, per se, it was the obedience that was the result of the faith.

So, Noah was saved by faith. In fact, it can be easily seen that he was saved by grace through faith. Now, I Pet 3:20 tells us, that they were "saved through water". Are both of these true? Yes.

Noah was saved by grace through faith. He was saved long before God ever gave him any order to build an ark. That has already been established by Scripture. The water was a destructive force. It did not save Noah, and the Scripture does not say that it did. Noah was saved by the ark from the destructive forces of the waters of the flood. And that was a physical deliverance only, not spiritual. As Noah looked around him he could see the "filthiness of the flesh," rotting and dead bones of human and animal flesh floating in the water. He was saved from such a calamity by being in the Ark. It was the Ark that saved him from that destruction. Certainly the Ark was a picture of Christ. Noah was in Christ.

Then he says there is an antitype which saves us, baptism.

Saves us from what? Nothing yet has been said about spiritual salvation. Noah was saved from the destruction of the world, from the filthiness of the flesh. He was in Christ. What does the verse say:
1 Peter 3:21 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:

If it is the antitype that saves, then it saves from physical destruction, not spiritual deliverance. The believer is immersed in Christ (the Ark) and all around is surrounded by the filth of the flesh (the world). It is Christ that does the saving. It is not even talking about spiritual salvation, but a daily cleansing from sin which result from the filth of the flesh which comes as a result of the world, and its filth. We need to come to Christ on a daily basis, be immersed in Him.
What saves is a good conscience toward God, by the resurrection of Jesus Christ, and that has nothing to do with baptism. A clear conscience comes from abiding in Christ, and can only be found by the believer, the one who has already been saved, as Noah was.

God's grace provided instruction (Titus 2:11-12)

No, it was God's grace that initially provided salvation for Noah.

Just like Noah, we have to get into the Ark (or INTO Christ).

Not for salvation. Noah was already saved. He was simply a believer obeying God. This was his daily walk with God, which he lived by faith (not saving faith.)

We are told that "he that believeth and is baptized shall be saved. - Mark 16:16

So what! We are also told that "he that believes not shall be damned."

{qb]

Acts 2:38, Repent and be baptized...for the remission of sins[/qb]

Otherwise tranlsated: "Repent and be baptized--because of the remission of sins."

Acts 8:37-38 Confession and baptism

Your point? Baptism always follows salvation, when one confesses Christ as Saviour.

Rom 6:3-4 and Gal 3:27 show that baptism is what puts us INTO Christ (or on the ark), where salvation is (II Tim 2:10).

You are not rightly dividing the word of truth.
Romans 6:3,4 shows nothing more than baptism is a symbolic act of a believer being dead to his old life of sin before salvation and a new life in Christ after salvation. Nothing more than that. It has nothing to do with salvation.

When we obey, just like Noah, that is biblical faith.

Get a dictionary and learn how to use it. Obedience is not faith. Look these terms up for yourself.

God's grace provided the instructions. Just like Noah, we are saved by grace through faith. Yes, his was a physical saving and ours is a spiritual saving.

You are not being consistent. Noah's was saved physically. That is what the passage was talking about. Don't make it say anything more than that. Don't read into it more than what it is saying just to fit your own preconceived ideas.
DHK

 

[Eric B]

Sorry, no mental gymnastics required here.

Jesus said, "He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved." - Read it, believe it. - Mark 16:16

Peter said, "Repent and be baptized in the name of Jesus for the remission of sins" - Read it, believe it - Acts 2:38

Saul was told, "Arise and be baptized and wash away your sins." - Read it, believe it. - Acts 22:16

Peter said, "Baptism now saves us". I Pet 3:21- Read it, believe it.

The mental gymnastics only come into play when you try to explain away these clear verses.

In the first two of those cases, it is repent or believe AND be baptized. Baptism is a physical act that accompanies those things, not the other way around, so it's being mentioned there does not mean that it saves.
Next case, it is "arise and be baptized AND wash away your sins; not "FOR", this time. So once again, baptism is something that accompanies washing away of sins, not causes it.
In the last case, it is the spiritual aspect of baptism (by one Spirit into one body) that saves.
You are trying to read too much into these scriptures, and what you are reading into them contradicts the rest of the Gospel of salvation not by deeds of righteousness you have done.

Actually, the body is the church (Eph 1:22-23 and Col 1:18).

And it's the Body of Christ.

So, we are baptized into the Church. That is exactly what happened on the day of Pentecost in Acts 2. They believed, they repented, and were baptized in water for the remission of sins and the Lord added those being saved to the church. (Acts 2:38,41,47)

Once again, immersion into the Church is a spiritual act. A pool of water is not the Church. It is a symbol.

Sure, faith is. I agree with that. Belief is not.

But belief can mean faith. Once again, there was false "belief", but when it is said "believe and be baptized", it means have faith, and then because of your faith you would go and be baptized.

I think I agree with you on this. The spiritual cleansing takes place at the same time as our physical baptism, hence at water baptism our sins are washed away, but it is really God doing the spiritual washing and our physical baptism symbolizes that. Is that what you are saying?

Basically

I seriously doubt Billy Graham will utter the "baptism".

The alter call is foreign to the scriptures.

Philip preached Christ and the next words out of the Eunuch's mouth is dealing directly about baptism. Preaching Christ includes water baptism. If it doesn't then the whole message is not being preached.

If any respond to the "alter call" after the preaching of Billy Graham, I wonder how many will be asking to be baptized right there on the spot?

I didn't say Billy Graham would be using baptism. And I didn't say the altar call was from scripture. I have always said that the altar call is what has taken the place of baptism as the immediate on the spot visible response of faith and conversion. I always thought it would be more scriptural to baptize on the spot, but that has become associated with membership of a local congregation (or perhaps a particular denomination), so Graham's organization helps find them a tgood church to join. Frank may say he baptizes on the spot, but I never see the Campbellites standing outside the rallies with their "where is the altar call in scripture?" literature offering to baptize them into Christ. No, they want the people to come and be baptized into their organizations instead, so they once again are just as much apart of denominationalism or better yet sectarianism, though they claim otherwise. At least Graham doesn't say they are not saved until they reach the baptismal pool.

Then he says there is an antitype which saves us, baptism.

God's grace provided instruction (Titus 2:11-12)

The instruction there is not the "grace". It is what is "taught" by the grace, meaning that once we are saved, we should deny ungodliness, worldly lusts, live soberly, etc. Once again, as I keep saying, obedience is out of love, not to gain salvation.
And notice; nothing there about baptism!

Just like Noah, we have to get into the Ark (or INTO Christ).

And then the water comes after that...

We are told that "he that believeth and is baptized shall be saved. - Mark 16:16

Acts 2:38, Repent and be baptized...for the remission of sins

Acts 8:37-38 Confession and baptism

Rom 6:3-4 and Gal 3:27 show that baptism is what puts us INTO Christ (or on the ark), where salvation is (II Tim 2:10).

...the water is not what puts him into the ark!

When we obey, just like Noah, that is biblical faith. God's grace provided the instructions. Just like Noah, we are saved by grace through faith. Yes, his was a physical saving and ours is a spiritual saving.

I Pet 3:21 says that antitype that saves us is baptism.

And this spiritual saving is accomplished through a spiritual baptism.

 

[mman]

Originally posted by DHK:
Yes, lets. Noah found grace in the eyes of the Lord. Keep that in perspective throughout the whole narrative. That means that Noah is a saved man. No matter what he does from hereonin he is saved by grace. Not by baptism, but by grace. Note that baptism does not save. At this point in time Noah is already saved--before the flood even takes place, before Noah is "baptized." He is already saved. This very important for you to keep in mind. God is dealing with one of his children, not with an unsaved individual.

If we are saved by grace alone, then all men would be saved according to Titus 2:11.

If Noah had ignored God's instructions he would have perished with the rest of the world. No, Noah prepared an ark for the saving of his household - Heb 11:7.

Noah did all that God commanded - Gen 6:22. The bible calls that faith (Heb 11:7). </font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />No it doesn't. Faith is confidence or trust. Noah obeyed as a result of his trust in the promises of God. Obedience does not equal faith. It never has. That is a fallacy on your part. Get a good dictionary and look up the two words. You will never find that obedience and faith mean the same thing. Noah obeyed as a result of his faith in God. The obedience was the result; not the faith. Another difference to be made is that Noah's faith was the faith of any normal Christians walk with God. It was not "saving faith." Every Christian exercises faith in God daily in his walk with God. We are commanded to trust him for all things. How is this unusual for Noah? It is normal. He walked by faith. He already was a Christian. It has nothing to do with "saving faith."

</font>[/QUOTE]Uh, yes it does. Heb 11:7 - By faith Noah, being warned by God concerning events as yet unseen, in reverent fear constructed an ark for the saving of his household. By this he condemned the world and became an heir of the righteousness that comes by faith.

By faith, Noah prepared an ark. What is preeminent? Noah's faith? Yes, if you use the biblical definition of faith. </font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Apparently you do not have a Biblical definition of faith. What was preeminent? Noah's obedience to God was preeminent. He obeyed because he had faith in God. Remember he was already a saved man. His salvation was not in question here.

</font>[/QUOTE]Biblical faith - I'll discuss this later in the post.

Then he says there is an antitype which saves us, baptism. </font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Saves us from what? Nothing yet has been said about spiritual salvation. Noah was saved from the destruction of the world, from the filthiness of the flesh. He was in Christ. What does the verse say:
1 Peter 3:21 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:

If it is the antitype that saves, then it saves from physical destruction, not spiritual deliverance. The believer is immersed in Christ (the Ark) and all around is surrounded by the filth of the flesh (the world). It is Christ that does the saving. It is not even talking about spiritual salvation, but a daily cleansing from sin which result from the filth of the flesh which comes as a result of the world, and its filth. We need to come to Christ on a daily basis, be immersed in Him.
What saves is a good conscience toward God, by the resurrection of Jesus Christ, and that has nothing to do with baptism. A clear conscience comes from abiding in Christ, and can only be found by the believer, the one who has already been saved, as Noah was.

</font>[/QUOTE]First, baptism doesn't save us from physical destruction. To try and explain away water baptism from this passage is an obvious attempt not to accept the plain teaching of the passage.

I Pet 3:20 who once were disobedient, when the patience of God kept waiting in the days of Noah, during the construction of the ark, in which a few, that is, eight persons, were brought safely through the water.

21Corresponding to that, baptism now saves you--not the removal of dirt from the flesh, but an appeal to God for a good conscience--through the resurrection of Jesus Christ,

How can a non water baptism correspond to others who were safely brought "through the water"?

If this is not talking about water baptism, then his example makes absolutely no sense.

This is talking about water baptism and his example makes perfect sense and does not have to be twisted from it logical conclusion.

Just like Noah, we have to get into the Ark (or INTO Christ). </font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Not for salvation. Noah was already saved. He was simply a believer obeying God. This was his daily walk with God, which he lived by faith (not saving faith.)

</font>[/QUOTE]So, are you arguing that Noah would have been saved if he had ignored God's instructions? Remember, his was the "type" and baptism is the "antitype".

We are told that "he that believeth and is baptized shall be saved. - Mark 16:16 </font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />So what! We are also told that "he that believes not shall be damned."]

</font>[/QUOTE]So What??? Is that your attitude toward scriptures? Jesus said something and you say, "So What". Yes, both parts of that verse are true, however, you have yet to say you believe the first part of it.

Acts 2:38, Repent and be baptized...for the remission of sins Otherwise tranlsated: "Repent and be baptized--because of the remission of sins."

Oh really. Name one reputable translation that translates it that way.

Acts 8:37-38 Confession and baptism </font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Your point? Baptism always follows salvation, when one confesses Christ as Saviour.

</font>[/QUOTE]Really? If I can find even one place where it baptism preceeds salvation, then your statement is wrong. Mark 16:16 - He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved. So if baptism always follows salvation then Jesus got the wrong order.

Which comes first in this verse.?

Acts 2:38 - Repent and be baptized in the name of Jesus for the remission of sins.

Which comes first?

Acts 22:16 - Arise and be baptized and wash away your sins. Which comes fisrt?

I Pet 3:21 - Baptism now saves us. Which comes first?

Rom 6:3-4 - baptized INTO Christ Jesus.

Can one be saved outside of Christ? Surely you don't think that.

Gal 3:27 - Baptized INTO Christ.

Rom 6:3-4 and Gal 3:27 show that baptism is what puts us INTO Christ (or on the ark), where salvation is (II Tim 2:10 </font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />You are not rightly dividing the word of truth.
Romans 6:3,4 shows nothing more than baptism is a symbolic act of a believer being dead to his old life of sin before salvation and a new life in Christ after salvation. Nothing more than that. It has nothing to do with salvation.

</font>[/QUOTE]It is symbolic of Jesus' death, burial, and resurrection. IT NEVER ONCE SAYS IT IS SYMBOLIC OF OUR SALVATION. It is how we obey the Gospel (death, burial, and resurrections - I Cor 15) (Rom 6:17)

It clearly says that we are baptized into Christ. When I accept the clear meaning of this passage, you accuse me of not rightly dividing the word of truth.

It says we are baptized into Christ's death. That is where the blood flowed.

Gal 3:26-27 plainly teaches that we are children by faith because we have been baptized into Christ.

When we obey, just like Noah, that is biblical faith. </font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Get a dictionary and learn how to use it. Obedience is not faith. Look these terms up for yourself.

</font>[/QUOTE]Why do I need a man-made dictionary when God has not only defined it but given us examples of it in Heb 11? The only reason I would need man's dictionary is if God's definition didn't suit me.

For someone who obviously has a great deal of bible knowledge and obviously studies the scripture (said in all sincerity), I cannot understand why you don't want to accept the concept of biblical faith.

Heb 11:30 - By faith the walls of Jericho fell down.

OK lets substitute the different terms.

"By 'belief only' the walls of Jericho fell"

"By 'faithful obedience' the walls of Jericho fell.

One more: Heb 11:7 - "By 'belief only' Noah, being warned by God about things not yet seen, in reverence prepared an ark for the salvation of his household"

Or ""By 'faithful obedience' Noah, being warned by God about things not yet seen, in reverence prepared an ark for the salvation of his household"

Heb 11:6 - Without faith it is IMPOSSIBLE to please Him (God).

This is the same impossible as it is for God to lie or for the blood of bulls and goats to take away sin.

Then he gives us wonderful examples of pleasing faith.

Would Noah have been counted with the faithful if he only believed and was not obedient?

Jesus said, "He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved, but he that believeth not shall be condemned" - Mark 16:16

If I don't accept that and obey it, do you think I could be counted as faithful?

How many words would it take to try and explain away this clear passage that means exactly what it says?