Water and Blood

So, Romans 10:9-10 is inadequate and a lie if used for a salvation Sermon?

Mike Sr.

 

Nevermind, I don't want in on this.

 

Don't blame you at all...

Mike Sr.

 

I did a Word search of the KJV and found only two references that specifically stated the formula repent and be Baptized...

I found a host of other references that intimated that Baptizm was not essential...

If Baptism is essential why wasn't it on the list of things for gentiles believers handed down by the Jerusalem Council?

Act 15:23 And they wrote letters by them after this manner; The apostles and elders and brethren send greeting unto the brethren which are of the Gentiles in Antioch and Syria and Cilicia:
Act 15:24 Forasmuch as we have heard, that certain which went out from us have troubled you with words, subverting your souls, saying, Ye must be circumcised, and keep the law: to whom we gave no such commandment:
Act 15:25 It seemed good unto us, being assembled with one accord, to send chosen men unto you with our beloved Barnabas and Paul,
Act 15:26 Men that have hazarded their lives for the name of our Lord Jesus Christ.
Act 15:27 We have sent therefore Judas and Silas, who shall also tell you the same things by mouth.
Act 15:28 For it seemed good to the Holy Ghost, and to us, to lay upon you no greater burden than these necessary things;
Act 15:29 That ye abstain from meats offered to idols, and from blood, and from things strangled, and from fornication: from which if ye keep yourselves, ye shall do well. Fare ye well.

If Baptism is essential then why is it the baptism in the Holy Spirit that quieted the Council instead of them being Batized in Water?

Act 11:16 Then remembered I the word of the Lord, how that he said, John indeed baptized with water; but ye shall be baptized with the Holy Ghost.
Act 11:17 Forasmuch then as God gave them the like gift as he did unto us, who believed on the Lord Jesus Christ; what was I, that I could withstand God?
Act 11:18 When they heard these things, they held their peace, and glorified God, saying, Then hath God also to the Gentiles granted repentance unto life.

In fact it appears that Baptism, far from being essential, was considered a priviledge...

Act 10:44 While Peter yet spake these words, the Holy Ghost fell on all them which heard the word.
Act 10:45 And they of the circumcision which believed were astonished, as many as came with Peter, because that on the Gentiles also was poured out the gift of the Holy Ghost.
Act 10:46 For they heard them speak with tongues, and magnify God. Then answered Peter,
Act 10:47 Can any man forbid water, that these should not be baptized, which have received the Holy Ghost as well as we?

In fact there are more scriptures that plainly state we aren't saved unless we endure to the end than say we have to be baptized!

Mat 10:22 And ye shall be hated of all men for my name's sake: but he that endureth to the end shall be saved.

Mat 24:13 But he that shall endure unto the end, the same shall be saved.

Mar 13:13 And ye shall be hated of all men for my name's sake: but he that shall endure unto the end, the same shall be saved.

And, while the Phillipian Jailer was Baptized. It was not part of the command to be saved...

Act 16:30 And brought them out, and said, Sirs, what must I do to be saved?
Act 16:31 And they said, Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ, and thou shalt be saved, and thy house.
Act 16:32 And they spake unto him the word of the Lord, and to all that were in his house.
Act 16:33 And he took them the same hour of the night, and washed their stripes; and was baptized, he and all his, straightway.

And, here we are saved by Hope!

Rom 8:24 For we are saved by hope: but hope that is seen is not hope: for what a man seeth, why doth he yet hope for?

Check this out...

Rom 1:16 For I am not ashamed of the gospel of Christ: for it is the power of God unto salvation to every one that believeth; to the Jew first, and also to the Greek.

Or here where it's the Word that saes you:

2Ti 3:15 And that from a child thou hast known the holy scriptures, which are able to make thee wise unto salvation through faith which is in Christ Jesus.

Here it's the Power of God that Saves

1Pe 1:5 Who are kept by the power of God through faith unto salvation ready to be revealed in the last time.

By two or three witnesses shall every matter be established...

I would agree that I could make a doctrine on the power of your two proof texts...

**IF**

There were not amplifying (potentially) contradictory scriptures.

And, there are far far more of them that specifically state the basis of Being Saved without Water Immersion Baptism than the two that specifically state that it is...

Note also that the two times Baptsm is required it is required of Jewish Converts...

It is never required of Gentile Believers.

So, while I gladly proclaim and accept that Water Baptism is an important step of confession and growth in a believers Life...

I do not believe, nor will I teach that it is an essential part of Salvation.

Mike Sr.

 

Well,

You have not refuted any of my lines of thinking...

Nor have you postulated a reasonable defense for your position.

I have shown that there is insufficient evidence to make Water Imersion Baptism a requirement for Salvation...

I did not expect to change your mind...

But, I would have liked a bit more of a discussion...

A True debate not a dogmatic recitation of a unique sect's interpretation...

I do not disagree that Water Imersion Baptism is an important step in the life of a Believer...

But, it is not a make or break heaven issue...

As a Pentecostal there are more scriptures for making a similar argument for having to be Baptized in the Holy Ghost with Speaking in Tongues to be saved...

But, I do not believe that is the case, either...

(that being Baptised in the holy Spirit and Speaking in other Tongues is a salvation issue)

Eph 2:8 For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God:
Eph 2:9 Not of works, lest any man should boast.

Speaking in Tongues is less of a "Work" than Water Baptism...

But, Water Baptism is clearly a physical work...

Of course if I did make the Tongues argument you'd reject it, and rightly so, on the same grounds I am rejecting yours...

So, much for reciprocity and objectivity...

Sad, very sad...

I'm done...

Mike Sr.

 

By the line of thinking I am seeing presented, it is obvious that, in addition to baptism, the Churches of Christ should add the Lord's Supper to the things required for salvation.

Now, as a baptistic Christian, I see baptism and the Lord's Supper as purely symbolic in nature. As a Church of Christer, I was forced to see a dichotomy: that baptism was not merely symbolic, but the Lord's Supper was. The Bible, however, does not express the Lord's Supper as a purely symbolic act any more than it does baptism. Let us hear what it says on the matter:

"And he took bread, and gave thanks, and brake it, and gave unto them, saying, This is my body which is given for you: this do in remembrance of me. Likewise also the cup after supper, saying, this cup is the new testament in my blood, which is shed for you."--Luke 22:20-21

Jesus referred to the cup and the bread of Communion as His own body and blood. He also said in John 6:53-54:

"Verily, verily, I say unto you, Except ye eat the flesh of the Son of man, and drink his blood, ye have no life in you. Whoso eateth my flesh, and drinkethy my blood, hath eternal life; and I will raise him up at the last day."

This Lord's Supper thing is serious stuff. Jesus said consuming His body and blood is ESSENTIAL to salvation. But what if someone dies before he can partake? Can he still be saved if he's heard, believed, repented, confessed, been baptized, and lived faithfully until that point?

Now, I hope you'll agree with me that the Lord's Supper is in no way required for salvation (after all, it wouldn't fit into the Five Finger Exercise). But if you do agree, then you, too, see a dichotomy that the Scriptures do not make. Either both are purely symbolic of another reality--Christ's death for us, and our death to sin--or both ARE the reality (or the means of effecting it in our lives).

What say ye?

Michael

 

Mman, if you refuted my argument, I didn't see it. You rehashed your old arguments, which I have left others to address (repeating their input would add nothing to the discussion). I didn't mention Acts 2:38 or Matthew 26:28.

However, I will address that.

"Eis" can mean either "because of" or "for the purpose of." I don't see the problem with the phrase "for the forgiveness (remission, whatever) of sins" meaning, in one context, "for the purpose of the forgiveness of sins," and in another, "because of the forgiveness of sins." So, honestly, I don't see the big deal. Christ's death was for the purpose of the forgiveness of our sins. Our baptism is because of the sins that He's forgiven.

My understanding of Acts 2:38 reconciles that "problem" as well, and that is that, in the Greek, because of the way it was phrased, "repent" and "the remission of your sins" are connected, whereas "be baptized" is not. This view is supported by Luke 3:3, when John was said to preach the baptism of "repentance for the remission of sins." There, the same phraseology is used, but the order is changed, and repentance is unambiguously connected with remission of sins, of which baptism is a reflection.

Now, on to the actual subject of my post:

I mean that baptism is symbolic in the same way the Lord's Supper is. Take that as you will, or as you see in the Scriptures. After all, a "plain reading" of the Scriptures, based on what Jesus said, would certainly lend salvific properties to the Lord's Supper. Yet, I think we can agree that there is something more--that it's not the act of Communion itself that saves, but the spiritual reality that it represents.

Or, perhaps, you should add another thing to check off on the list of things to do to become a Christian.

Michael

 

That is correct -- Peter says "NOT the sacramental touching of water to the flesh" (mere water baptism) but "The APPEAL TO GOD for a clean conscience" -

Paul says that when we BELIEVE we are saved in Romans 10.

There is no such thing as "saved and yet unforgiven" as some have tried to imagine.

But to their credit -- there IS such a thing as saved and in need of "experiencing" the full assurance of forgivness received. WE see that in 2John 2 - "if anyone does sin we have an advocate with the Father" -- "if WE confess our sins HE IS faithful and just to forgive us our sins AND to cleanse us from all unrighteousness".

I do not deny the benefit of Baptism or of footwashing in terms of "experiencing" the full promise of assurance and "peace" with God claimed in the Gospel. But the fact of salvation at the time we believe shows that real forgiveness has taken place then --

It is not the unbeliever that follows His Lord in Baptism - it is the believer.

(It was innevitable - SFC and I could not continue to "dissagree on everything")

In Christ,

Bob

 

Acts 10 is a good example of those who receive the sign of full pardon - new birth - acceptance by God and the Gifts of the Spirit given to the church PRIOR to baptism!

 

Those who believe in "Baptismal regeneration" do not understand the full problem of sin and the full scope of the solution.

Romans 3 defines the "problem" as the depravity of man - the wicked man is simply NOT GOING to go and be baptized and then "see if you don't feel more like a Christian after that".

The Saved believer CAN NOT be accepted by God as "saved" apart from forgiveness!

This was true in EVERY age of mankind! This is saving faith model (seen in Romans 10)is the way the ONE gospel has worked in all ages!

IN Christ,

Bob

 

BobRyan,

I liked your posts and can't think of a thing to add to them!

Mike Sr.

 

Mman,

Perhaps it's never translated as the word "because," but:

Matthew 12:24--"The men of Ninveveh... repented at (eis) the preaching of Jonas."

Did they repent in order to hear the preaching of Jonah, Mman, or because of it?

You were right; with 1700-plus to pick from, that WAS easy!

I'll respond to the rest later, but my case is closed on the meaning of "eis."

Michael

 

A hearty amen to you on that one. The rest of that post is fairly well answered by my last post, so I'll move on to your next one.

Yep. He just got past the part about Jesus, probably preaching for no more than thirty seconds, from what I see. That's barely the beginning of a sermon. Unless, of course, you're positing a contradiction between Acts 10 and Acts 11.

They heard, believed, and received the Holy Spirit, the mark of salvation. Then, like all good Christians, they were baptized.

Acts 8, if you recall, took place with Samaritans, upon whom the Holy Spirit had not yet been poured out in general. Therefore, for them to receive the indwelling Holy Spirit as the mark of salvation required a special blessing (the laying on of the Apostles' hands).

Acts 19 actually supports our view, Mman. You see, the disciples of John were clearly trusting in their baptism rather than in the saving power of Jesus Christ (see Acts 19:4). They didn't understand that the purpose of John's preaching and baptism was to direct faith toward Christ. Obviously, they hadn't received the Holy Ghost since they believed, since they weren't trusting in Christ, but their baptism. Having been baptized for the wrong reason, they consented to re-baptism.

Acts 2 has been beaten to death, but here goes. You know where I stand on Acts 2:38, the Scriptural support for it, and both views concerning the Greek I see as valid, so let us proceed. Acts 2:41 says that those who gladly received his word were baptized. Whether they were saved or unsaved prior to being dunked is not articulated in the passage, and, therefore, is contingent upon the view of verse 38.

We both know that the Greek word for repentance, "metanoia," means a changing of one's decision. Faith and repentance are flip-sides of the same coin, in that faith is trusting Christ for salvation, and repentance is no longer trusting anything anything else. So, in answer to your question, the condition for salvation is trusting Christ alone for it, consisting of faith and repentance.

Any more questions?

Michael

 

Oh, yeah, one more thing.

You still haven't answered my question about why the Lord's Supper is merely symbolic and baptism is not, based on Scripture.

Michael