Which church do you clame membership to?

Belief first, or you die in your sins. It says believe before it says baptize.

Ephesians, chapter 1

"13": In whom ye also trusted, after that ye heard the word of truth, the gospel of your salvation: in whom also after that ye believed, ye were sealed with that holy Spirit of promise,

 

No, Bob, Christ clearly says baptize before teaching, so if you are going to insist on a specific order, you are going to have to follow Christ's order of events or you are violating His command. Matthew 28:19-20 "Go therefore and make disciples of all nations by baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, 20 and by teaching them to observe all that I have commanded you."


"Ephesians 1:11-14 In him we have obtained an inheritance, having been predestined according to the purpose of him who works all things according to the counsel of his will, 12 so that we who were the first to hope in Christ might be to the praise of his glory. 13 In him you also, when you heard the word of truth, the gospel of your salvation, and believed in him, were sealed with the promised Holy Spirit, 14 who is the guarantee of our inheritance until we acquire possession of it, to the praise of his glory. "

Ephesians is not given as a sequence of events in fact if anything it is a simultaneous event believing and sealing. But here in is the fault in your argument, when sealing occurs something is placed upon the person or thing to mark it as belonging to the one in whom they are sealed. The only place we see in Scripture where we are marked by something that identifies us as belong to God is Baptism, where in we are marked in the Name of the Father and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit. Once again you have hit on a verse that indirectly links baptism with the creation of faith.

 

Here is a verse so simple you have to have help to misunderstand it.

He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved.

What is the order here?

Do you really teach that Jesus meant, "He that believeth and is saved shall be baptized", when he actually said, "He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved"?

Did Jesus get the order mixed up?

If you had been standing there, would you have corrected Him?

If belief is for the remission of sins, why did Peter tell them to repent and be baptized for the remission of sins - Acts 2:38?

They already believed (vs 37) or they would not have been cut to the heart. If remission of sins occurs when one believes, Peter, speaking by inspiration of the Holy Spirit (2:1-4) told them wrong, didn't he. Would you have corrected him? He should have told them, you don't have to "do" anything, only believe. The Holy Spirit told them wrong, according to you.

That would make repentance unnecessary since repentance can only come after belief. When God commands all men everywhere to repent, He doesn't really mean that does He (Acts 17:30)?

The demons believe (Jas 2), therefore, according to your logic, God will save them.

 

You need help to stretch all of the following Scriptures. I been around Baptist all my life and didn't know there were some who believed that salvation was in the creek water until I came on BB. Show me in the following Scriptures where it even mentions the water baptism.


Water baptism is for the saved, not to save them. Holy Ghost baptism is to save them and keep them.

Acts, chapter 2
"21": And it shall come to pass, that whosoever shall call on the name of the Lord shall be saved.

Acts, chapter 2
"47": Praising God, and having favour with all the people. And the Lord added to the church daily such as should be saved. Kinda leaves you out of it don't you think?

Romans, chapter 10
"13": For whosoever shall call upon the name of the Lord shall be saved.

Luke, chapter 7
"50": And he said to the woman, Thy faith hath saved thee; go in peace.

Luke, chapter 8
"12": Those by the way side are they that hear; then cometh the devil, and taketh away the word out of their hearts, lest they should believe and be saved.

Luke, chapter 18
"42": And Jesus said unto him, Receive thy sight: thy faith hath saved thee.

John, chapter 10
"9": I am the door: by me if any man enter in, he shall be saved, and shall go in and out, and find pasture.

Ephesians, chapter 2
"8": For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God:

1 Corinthians, chapter 3
"15": If any man's work shall be burned, he shall suffer loss: but he himself shall be saved; yet so as by fire.

1 Corinthians, chapter 15
"1": Moreover, brethren, I declare unto you the gospel which I preached unto you, which also ye have received, and wherein ye stand;

"2": By which also ye are saved, if ye keep in memory what I preached unto you, unless ye have believed in vain.

The one that puts the clincher is the following:

Ephesians, chapter 1

"13": In whom ye also trusted, after that ye heard the word of truth, the gospel of your salvation: in whom also after that ye believed, ye were sealed with that holy Spirit of promise,

 

I feel ignored.

 

Chemnitz
We sure don't want to ignore you.

You say here we need to follow Christ's order of events, but;

Here you say its not a sequence. Is it because it goes against what you are saying about the water baptism?

Ephesians, chapter 1

"13": In whom ye also trusted, after that ye heard the word of truth, the gospel of your salvation: in whom also after that ye believed, ye were sealed with that holy Spirit of promise,

 

We see this sequence clearly in Romans 10

We also see it clearly in Matt 28

#1. GO
#2. MAKE disciples
#3. BAptize them
#4. Do this by "TEACHING" them ALL that I commanded you.

(Christ never commanded infant baptism in the Gospels. That is obvious).

Notice that text does not say "teach BY Baptizing" NOR does he say "Make disciples BY baptizing" NOR does he say "Make disciples THEN teach".

Indeed that "BY baptizing" is exaclty what it does NOT say!

Notice the sequence "Pope" Peter gives --

Acts 2
38 Peter said to them, "" Repent, and each of you be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins; and you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit.[/b]

Now is not the time to start ignoring him!

In Christ,

Bob

 

I "clame" (sic) (Good 'Netiquette' or no, am I off base for wanting to see simple words spelled correctly?) membership in the church that is His body.

As to the local church, I claim membership in the Forks of Dix River church, which no doubt, annoys (and probably more, for some) some of it's other members. (These Graemlins probably cover a range of opinions of some.) I can often be found there , due to a physical problem.

I did not see either of these as options, so I did not vote, either.
In His grace,
Ed

 

You need help to stretch all of the following Scriptures. I been around Baptist all my life and didn't know there were some who believed that salvation was in the creek water until I came on BB. Show me in the following Scriptures where it even mentions the water baptism. </font>[/QUOTE]Not one of your listed verses negates or in any way voids Mark 16:16. In fact, it they are all in complete harmony.

If I were you, I would avoid Acts 2 if you believe that baptism is for the saved.

As for verse 21, is that the answer Peter gave them in Verse 38 when they asked what they need to do in verse 37?

Did Peter's answer contradict what he had said earlier? No!!!!! Therefore, calling on the name of the Lord must include repentance and baptism.

Want more proof? Let's go to Acts 22:16 - "Saul, Saul, why tarriest thou? Arise and be baptized and wash away your sins, calling on the name of the Lord"

Here is the only example in scripture of anyone "calling on the name of the Lord". How did he do it? By being baptized, just like they did in Acts 2.

"In the name of" means by the authority of. In Matt 28:18, Jesus said all authority had been given to Him. He then tells his apostles to go teach and baptize. In that parallel account, Mark plainly states, "He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved"

Now for verse 47, yes, the Lord adds to the church. We don't join the church, we are not voted in, but the Lord adds us. In verse 41, we see that they were added at baptism.

Verse 38 plainly teaches that baptism is for the remission of sins.

This same Greek phrase is used in Matt 26:28 that says Jesus' blood was shed "for the remission of sins".

Now if you can understand the meaning of "for the remission of sins" in Matt 26:28, you can understand Acts 2:38.

How are these baptized believers refered to in Verse 44? As all who "believed".

Acts 22:16 is the only example we have of anyone calling on the name of the Lord and that was done in baptism.

Jesus had the power to forgive sins while he was on the earth. His new covenant went into effect after His death (Heb 9:16-17)

Mark 16:16 - He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved.

Anyone who omits either of these will not be saved.

John 1:12 - But to all who did receive him, who believed in his name, he gave the right to become children of God, (ESV)

Notice, he didn't say they were the children of God, but they could become a child of God.

This again was under the old law. The new law could not go into effect before His death (Heb 9:16-17)

Yes, Jesus is the door. So, how do we get INTO Christ?

You can search your bible from cover to cover and you will only find that we get INTO Christ through baptism (Rom 6:3-4, Gal 3:27).

Oh, one of my favorite verses. I'm so glad I don't or can't earn any part of my salvation. Praise God!!!!!

You may misunderstand my beliefs. I believe that we are saved by grace though faith. Salvation by faith. Nothing could be made more plain in the scriptures. I believe that with all my heart!!!!

When God said in Heb 11:30, "By faith the walls of Jericho fell down after they had been encircled for seven days".

Did this require any action? Did their acitons earn the walls falling down? Did you know that Jericho had been already given to them? (Joshua 6:2). They didn't earn it because God gave it to them, yet obedience was required. Do you really think they could have ignored God's instructions and still be listed here as having faith. Do you think we can we ignore God's instructions and still be said to have faith?

Here's how Paul put it in Gal 3:26-27, "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.

We are childern through faith because we have been baptized. It's really very simple.

Read this chapter and understand it. Notice verse 9, "For we are God's fellow workers. You are God's field, God's building.

So, they were workers and those who were receptive to the gospel were God's building and field.

I Cor 3:12-15 Now if anyone builds on the foundation with gold, silver, precious stones, wood, hay, straw-- each one's work will become manifest, for the Day will disclose it, because it will be revealed by fire, and the fire will test what sort of work each one has done. If the work that anyone has built on the foundation survives, he will receive a reward. If anyone's work is burned up, he will suffer loss, though he himself will be saved, but only as through fire.

The people are the building. The work is adding people to the building. Paul is saying just because you work to convert someone and that person is lost, doesn't mean you will be lost, just because your work was lost.

It is obious from this passage that belief alone doesn't save, else it would be impossible to have "believed in vain".

He goes on to say that that gospel is the death, burial, and resurrection of Jesus.

From II Thess 1:8 "In flaming fire taking vengeance on them that know not God, and that obey not the gospel of our Lord Jesus Christ:" we see the importance of obeying the gospel.

How does one obey the death, burial, and resurrection? Paul tells us in Rom 6 that it is through baptism that we obey this. In verse 17 he says we obey a form of this. Of course we don't physically die and are buried and resurrected, so we obey a form of this in baptism. We die to sin and we are buried in the waters of baptism and raised to walk a new life. That is how we obey the gospel.

That is not quite the clincher you need. We have just seen how we obey the gospel. Acts 2:44 talks about all who believed and this in no way precluded baptism. You see, "all who believed" were those who had repented and were baptized.

Acts 16 is another wonderful example, "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. Then he brought them up into his house and set food before them. And he rejoiced along with his entire household that he had believed in God. (30-34)

He was told to believe and at the end, he rejoiced having believed. What happened in the middle? They spoke the word of the Lord to him and he was baptized at once! It's no wonder he rejoiced having believed since he had just been baptized. He had obeyed the word of the Lord, "He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved" - Mark 16:16

Again, there is not one verse that negates, voids, or contradicts Jesus commission in Mark 16:16. Why don't you believe that?

Now, was Jesus just kidding or wrong when he stated, "He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved"

 

I went through all of your Scriptures and it seems all of them say to believe first. I hope I don't have to skip any Scriptures to make my point and I certainly do not want to over look the word "believe" to make it convenient to my stance. Thought I would throw in just one more:

Romans, chapter 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? (That hope is Jesus Christ)

Again I say, I did not know there were Baptists that advocated water baptism for the saving of the soul, I have learned something on BB for sure. Now my neighbors believe that but they are all Church of Christ, if I am allowed to mention their name.

 

Here Peter denies the "magic sacrament" as the SOURCE of salvation when it comes to the doctrine of "Baptism" and instead directs us to the ACT of belief and repentance.

In Christ,

Bob

 

Here Peter denies the "magic sacrament" as the SOURCE of salvation when it comes to the doctrine of "Baptism" and instead directs us to the ACT of belief and repentance.

In Christ,

Bob </font>[/QUOTE]Peter doesn't deny anything.

He states, "baptism now saves you". What part of that do you not understand?

Furthermore, it is evident he is refering to baptism in water, else his Noah example of water is meaningless.

Ok, let's review a few passages.

Mark 16:16 - He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved.

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

Acts 22:16 - be baptized and wash away your sins

Rom 6:3 - Baptized into Christ Jesus

Gal 3:27 - Baptized into Christ

I Pet 3:21 - baptism now saves you

Why don't you just accept them for what they say and not try and twist them to what you want them to say.

If Peter really meant belief and repentance is what saves you, why did he say baptism saves you?

The last part of verse 21 is describing baptism.

 

Did you even read what I said about sealing in the Holy Spirit?

Actually the greek does say by baptizing and by teaching. The only active verb in the great commission is the imperative to make disciples, while baptizing and teaching are both participles. Participles in the greek language are very flexible in their use. Most marketed translations have taken the copout and simply added -ing (I think they allow their preconceptions rule over the grammar) when in reality there is deeper meaning in the participle form. In this case we have two participles of means explaining the means by which disciples are made. If you don't believe me you can check out a good Greek Grammar such as "Greek Grammar beyond the Basics" By Daniel B. Wallace.

Note it is not this than this than that. Each of these actions can and does happen concurrently.

I do not believe there is a specific order to be followed, faith can come through baptism or through teaching. Others, however, have insisted that there is a specific order of events that must occur, if they are going to insist on a specific order then they must follow the order of events as given by Christ Baptism then teaching.

 

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by BobRyan:

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1 Peter 3
21 Corresponding 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,
22 who is at the right hand of God, having gone into heaven, after angels and authorities and powers had been subjected to Him.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Here Peter denies the "magic sacrament" as the SOURCE of salvation when it comes to the doctrine of "Baptism" and instead directs us to the ACT of belief and repentance.

In Christ,

Bob
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The part you excluded from the text is the part that starts with "NOT the touching of magic sacramental holy water to the flesh" --

oops!!

The part you turn a blind eye to - "THE APPEAL to GOD for a clean conscience" IS NOT something that happens with infants!!

See - reading the ENTIRE text is good for something!

Lets make it simple. IN the case of WATER baptism it is NOT the magical sacramental waters or holy mantras that is doing anything at ALL here! RATHER it is the APPEAL to God for a clean conscience that is made by the BELIEVER who is choosing to undergo water baptism.

(This just isn't that hard folks!)

In Christ,

Bob

 

Matt 28 inserting the idea of "makeing disciples BY baptizing" is not an eisegetical error that the primary Bible translators make. But I know why the RCC has to "insert" such an idea -

But here we see the RCC historians ADMITTING that the the NT early church DID NOT practice infant baptism!!

Parenthetical notes “mine”.

 

Here they deny that infant baptism ever had any use for infants at all!

 

Here they claim that Infant BAptism is an error that "evolved over time"

From Catholic Digest (Parenthesis mine in the quotes below) from the June 1999 article. Article by Bill Dodds begins on page 42 and is titled “Baptism Comes Full Circle”. (Page 42 is just a picture of an infant being sprinkled – so no actual words on that page).

Please see www.catholicdigest.org for the full article that hints to the changes that have evolved over time.

"in the early (dark ages) middle ages when entire tribes in northern Europe were being converted, the whole clan was
baptized if the chief chose to be...by the end of the eighth century, what before had taken weeks (of preparation and process by
non infants) had been greatly abridged. Children received three exorcisms on the sundays before easter, and on holy
saturday;..youngsters were immersed three times."

"the rite was further abridged when the tradition of child or infant receiving communion at baptism fell into disfavor.

"and because baptism was now viewed as essential for acceptance into heaven, the church offered a shorter "emergency"
rite for infants in danger of death. By the beginning of the 11th century, some bishops and councils pointed out that infants
were always in danger of sudden death and began to encourage parents not to wait until holy Saturday ceremony"

&lt;&gt;
</font>[/QUOTE]-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Didache on BELIEVER’s Baptism by Immersion:

 

So why would anyone want to mindlessly follow the twisted meandering course of the RCC when it comes to doctrinal questions like Baptism?

What is the incentive for denying the teaching of Peter on this subject for Catholics?

 

Infant baptism is not scriptural because infants don't meet the qualifications for baptism.

I'm not sure who you are answering on that, but I agree, infant baptism is unscriptural.

Now, on to I Pet. The power is not in the water, the power is in God. I have never made the claim that there is any saving power in water, however, there is a saving power in baptism. There is a tremendous difference. Peter makes that clear.

I Pet 3:20-21 "in which a few, that is, eight persons, were brought safely through water. 21Baptism, which corresponds to this, now saves you, not as a removal of dirt from the body but as an appeal to God for a good conscience, through the resurrection of Jesus Christ,"

So, baptism is an appeal to God for a good conscience. Why, because there is power in the water? NO, CERTAINLY NOT! But because there is power in God! God had the power to raise Jesus from the dead and he has the power to raise me as a new man from the dead when I am buried in the waters of baptism.

That's exactly what it says in Rom 6.

Rom 6:3-11, - Do you not know that all of us who have been baptized into Christ Jesus were baptized into his death? We were buried therefore with him by baptism into death, in order that, just as Christ was raised from the dead by the glory of the Father, we too might walk in newness of life. For if we have been united with him in a death like his, we shall certainly be united with him in a resurrection like his. We know that our old self was crucified with him in order that the body of sin might be brought to nothing, so that we would no longer be enslaved to sin. For one who has died has been set free from sin. Now if we have died with Christ, we believe that we will also live with him. We know that Christ being raised from the dead will never die again; death no longer has dominion over him. For the death he died he died to sin, once for all, but the life he lives he lives to God. So you also must consider yourselves dead to sin and alive to God in Christ Jesus."

You see, that is why we can "appeal to God for a good conscience, through the resurrection of Jesus Christ" because just as Christ was raised, so also are we, to walk in a new life with a clean conscience.


Now, what did Jesus really mean when he said, "He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved and he that believeth not shall be condemned"?

If he actually meant, "He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved" what other words could he have used to convey this message any more plainly than the ones he actually used?

I'm sure you are familiar with the story of Naaman. What cured Naaman's leprosy? The water or God?

 

What you are missing is the Romans 10 sequence and the problem of the New Birth vs the sinful nature (total depravity described in Rom 3).

If unsaved mankind is depraved and being "drawn" to God "convicted of sin and righteousness and judgment" then at the point he believes and confesses (Romans 10) he is saved. Just as the text says. It is THEN that he makes the "appeal to God for a clean conscience".

But when he is baptized he simply is "following in obedience". Obedience is not "optional" - but long before he begins LIVING this life of "obedience" he had to be "born again" saved, forgiven, walking in the Spirit so that "By the Spirit" he puts to death the deeds of the flesh and that includes choosing to follow in obedience - the step of water Baptism.

But can you really believe that the lost person does not decide to appeal to God for a clean conscience until his head touches the water?

In Christ,

Bob