Pretty much agreed on this one, Steaver.
Welcome to Baptist Board, a friendly forum to discuss the Baptist Faith in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to all the features that our community has to offer.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!
Eric, do you want the truth?Originally posted by Eric B:
Who said anything about US baptizing with the holy Spirit? That was ONE use of the term baptize. There are others which are literal referring to water, and still others that are spiritual meaning immersed into the Body of Christ. You are blurring them all together to try to get literal water baptism to be what saves.
This "two baptisms" thing is old already. No one ever confessed to any two baptisms, and nobody sees it that way, except you, as a straw man you make of our position, because that's the only answer you have against it. There is one baptism, with both a spiritual and physical aspect. Nobody said anything about one of them "ending", or one being "replaced" by the other. This continues as long as the Church and this world continues.
You're so busy trying to divide water baptism from spirit baptism into "two baptisms", that you miss when we point out that once again, the water ceremony simply represented the spiritual transaction that occurred when people received Christ. They then made the public profession of him on the spot. Yet since it is faith that saves, and not works, (and "Faith" is NOT works, though it should be accompanied by them), then we see that it is not the water ceremony that has the saving power, but the spiritual act of joining Christ. The two were viewd as one in the same and thus used interchangeably, as we see in your examples, yet in the Church it later changed, with the water ceremony taking place later. It was this later Church that split them into two things, (and we cannot just wave our hands and change it back), so it is futile to keep using that "two baptisms" rhetoric against us. You still cannot deny salvation to the people who have received Christ until that later date.
You are making up your own definition of words. Where does it say there that the "instructions" WERE themselves the "grace", or even "provided by" the grace? The word means "favor", and is also translated as that, and as "precious", and "pleasure" elsewhere. He found the grave or favor with God FIRST, then God decided he should be saved from the flood and provided him the instructions for the ark. Two totally separate things! THEN he by faith in God's warning prepared the ark. A THIRD separate thing. The building of the ark was in itself not the "faith", but was something done "BY" the faith [separate entity!], showing the opposite of what you are always trying to teach by it. Yet then you try to mesh it all together by mixing Hebrews' use of the word "grace" into it, along with the "grace through faith" of Eph. to prove that the "grace" WAS the instructions, and the "Faith" was the work. Faith is trusting God for whatever He says. Whether it is instructions to do something, or otherwise. In Noah's case, it was instructions for work that physically "saved" him. It is used as an example for the spiritual salvation promised us now, and like the salvation translating from a physical one to a spiritual one; God has determined this is attained by a spiritual act (acceptance of Christ) and not a physical work, "lest any man should boast".
This is a heretical fallacy.Originally posted by mman:
We know that there is no inherent power in the water, but the blood of Christ. That is how we come in contact with the death of Christ, where his blood flowed.
This is a heretical fallacy.Originally posted by DHK:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by mman:
We know that there is no inherent power in the water, but the blood of Christ. That is how we come in contact with the death of Christ, where his blood flowed.
You still mix up the "Baptism WITH the spirit" (Acts) with Baptism BY the Spirit into one Body. Noone ever said we baptize with the Spirit, like John said Jesus would do. This is your own straw man. Yes, the only command we can carry out is to baptize with water, but it is the Spirit that baptizes (immerses) the person into the Body. If you insist that the only baptism now for us is something men do, then it is men who have the power to add a person (spiritually) to the Church. Now, that is beginning to sound like the Romanists!Eric, do you want the truth?
It's really simple. The bible makes a distinction between baptism in water and baptism with the Holy Spirit. They NEVER occurred simultaneously. That fact alone destroys your total logic. I can show beyond any doubt where they occured separetely, therefore they CANNOT be one in the same!!!!!!! Get tired of it all you want, it does not change the truth.
Since they are distinct, then the one baptism in Eph 4:5 is water baptism. That is the only command man can carry out, since the other was a promise and something Jesus would do.
You STILL mix all of this up. The grace is not the "INSTRUCTIONS"; it "brings" SALVATION; which then, (through the conviction of the Spirit) instructs us in those things. It is NOT "the grace of God whch brings instructions to renounce ungodliness, etc., [in turn] training us unto salvation". That's BACKWARDS. But that is what you are reading into the text. It doesn't matter how many translations you quote; it just does not say what you are trying to make it say.Now on to God's grace providing instructions.
Let's read Titus 2:11-12,
"For the grace of God has appeared, bringing salvation for all people, training us to renounce ungodliness and worldly passions, and to live self-controlled, upright, and godly lives in the present age," - ESV
What trains us?
What instructs us?
God's grace provides instructions. It provided Noah instructions and it provides us instructions today.
If we ignore those instructions, it's not because God's grace didn't provide them.
And I've explained this to you several times now. The water baptism accompanied the spiritual baptism (INTO the BODY), and thus marked it. They were not separated at that time, so could be spoken of as one. If a person openly confessed Christ by being baptized, they were then considered to be in Christ.I Pet 3:20-21 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. 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,
You can perform all the mental gymnastics you want, but if you will remove the prejudice and prior teaching and read this for what it says, you will see how baptism in water saves us.
We know that there is no inherent power in the water, but the blood of Christ. That is how we come in contact with the death of Christ, where his blood flowed.
Let's read Rom 6:3-4, "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."
Just the mere fact that baptism always means baptism in water unless something in the text dictates otherwise should be enough to convince anyone that water baptism is essential to salvation.
It truly takes help to misunderstand the clear teaching of God's word that He has graciously provided to us.
I'm disappointed in you. The verses were not taken out of context, you just don't like the obvious conclusion.Originally posted by DHK:
Nothing like stringing a series of passages together (all taken out of context). Do you believe on transubstantiation too? It sounds like it.
DHK
Totally agree, very good answer!Originally posted by gb93433:
James talks about faith by itself is not a saving faith but rather an empty creedal faith. Faith which is a genuine saving faith is accompanied by actions which are the proof of their faith. Faith without works is dead. The Jews held that their faith was in the shema and that they were God's people. Tey did not have agenuine saving faith in Chirst but their faith was in the pages of the OT. James teachesd that a genuine saving faith is dynamic and written in the hearts of men. James teaches that a genuine saving faith is clearly demonstrated in works which accompany faith. Faith by itself is not faith. Faith in the NT is a verb not a static head knowledge. A genuine saving faith is dynamic. Works come as a result of a genuine saving faith in Jesus Christ. Faith does not come as a result of works.
I'm disappointed in you. The verses were not taken out of context, you just don't like the obvious conclusion.Originally posted by mman:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by DHK:
Nothing like stringing a series of passages together (all taken out of context). Do you believe on transubstantiation too? It sounds like it.
DHK
And your point is??John 14:14 says, "...Thy word is truth.
Other places refer to the "Spirit of Truth".
Men inspired of the Holy Spirit spoke the truth and it is recorded for us.
And therefore?? Your point being?? The Holy Spirit spoke through all the Apostles. The Apostles were the authors of the books of the New Testament. This is nothing strange. And it has nothing to do with baptism.Read Acts 2:4, "And they were all filled with the Holy Spirit and began to speak in other tongues as the Spirit gave them utterance."
Therefore it was the Spirit speaking through the Apostles of which Peter was included.
We know that it is a lie to exagerrate; however if I have told you the meaning of this verse once, I have told it to you a million times and yet you will not believe. You will also give me your same old stock COC answer.Now, Acts 2:38, "And Peter said (by the Holy Spirit) to them, "Repent and be baptized (water)every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins(blood), and you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit.
So? It was. That is the truth of the whole matter. But baptism has nothing to do with this truth. Baptism destroys this truth if included in salvation.Matt 26:28 clearly tells us that his blood was shed for the remission of sins.
Therefore it isn't. Baptism always follows salvation, never precedes it. Study the Scriptures. Baptism has nothing to do with the blood.Therefore, Acts 2:38 is a place where the blood, water, and Spirit all come together and agree as one.
No. Both were evidences of the death of Christ. They were physical evidences of his death. They have nothing to do with baptism. Neither does the bath water in my bath tub. They are unrelated.Do you really think it was a coincidence that blood and water came forth from our Savior's side at His death? (Jn 19:34)
It is not clear at all. You have to twist Scripture and read into it your own COC doctrine to get it to mean what you want it to mean.When you consider I John 5 when reading Rom 6, it is so clear how they agree as one.
This is a summary of the same commission given in Mat.28:18,19Do you also think it is a coincidence that part of Jesus last instructions was "He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved"? Do you believe Jesus or not? Was he being misleading, just kidding, or mistaken?
This is not true. I have demonstrated that already. Here is what Peter says about your interpretation:Since the water and blood are two of the things that are in agreement, any passage that you can come up with that shows how we come in contact with the blood,
Romans 6 gives a picture of a believers baptism; baptism after salvation. It has nothing to do with salvation at all. It has nothing to do with the blood. "Ye do err not knowing the Scriptures..."I can tie back to baptism. Rom 6 already does that on it's own, but since all the scriptures are in harmony, there is nothing to preclude water baptism in any verse dealing with the blood.