Baptism: Essential for salvation or not?

[Christian1004]

so many people have so many different views on this subject... so whats yours... i thinks its time to get it straight.

[New_Wineskin]

If you are referring to *water* baptism , at least two other threads are currently discussing it . As you said , there are several views on it . It won't get straight with another thread but there is no harm in trying . I can say that the Jewish ritual of water baptism that John performed isn't essential to *my* salvation . If you are talking of another baptism , I may have another answer .

[WesWoodell]

Obeying God is essential - yes.

And there is already a thread for this subject.

[servant4ever]

Look at the 4 other threads with the same title. And, baptism is not, and I repoeat NOT required for salvation.

servant4ever

[Stinker]

Look at the 4 other threads with the same title. And, baptism is not, and I repoeat NOT required for salvation.

servant4ever


Baptism is the only means God has provided in which we can get 'into' Christ.

All spiritual blessings are 'in' Christ. (Eph.1:3)

We have our sins washed from us 'in' Christ. (Eph.1:7)

If we walk after the Spirit and not the flesh, there is no condemnation 'in' Christ. (Romans 8:1)



Many, many people intend to imply that somehow we 'believe into' Christ. The Bible says we are 'baptized into' Christ.

"For as many of you as have been baptized into Christ have put on Christ." (Gal.3:27)
"Know ye not, that so many of us as were baptized into Jesus Christ were baptized into His death?" (Rom.6:3)


No where does the Bible say that we 'believe into' Christ.

[James1979]

baptism through the Holy Spirit yes it's needed for our salvation, but water baptism nope nada never. It's a sign, pointing to what will come. Just like the animal sacrfices that were pointing to the ultimate sacrfice which is the Lord Jesus Christ.

[Nazarite]

A scholarly discussion on the subject of baptism. "Can The Church Have It All Wrong?" by Vernard Eller

http://www.hccentral.com/eller9/chap4.html

[inHisgrip]

Water baptism is not essential for salvation, but is a obedience to the Lord.
IMHO
IN Him

[Stinker]

Water baptism is not essential for salvation, but is a obedience to the Lord.
IMHO
IN Him

Now when they heard this, they were pricked in their heart, and said unto Peter and to the rest of the Apostles, "Men and brethren, what shall we do?"

Then Peter said unto them, "Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins, and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost." (Acts 2:37,38)

Then they that gladly received his word were baptized: and the same day there were added unto them about three thousand souls. (Acts 2:41):wave:

[Brother Charlie]

What makes you think that the outward sign of baptism and the interior change are different? There is 1 Lord, 1 faith, and 1 baptism. Not 2 baptisms.

[Beowulf]

If baptism is essential for salvation then I suppose I wasn't saved when I knew I was. But I was saved alright, no doubt in the matter what-so-ever. It wasn't until many months later that I was baptised by water and there was no significant change other than I was wet, nowhere near the experience of salvation.

[Iosias]

so many people have so many different views on this subject... so whats yours... i thinks its time to get it straight.
Some minor questions arose in my mind concerning baptism which caused me to rethink my position upon it. Firstly, why does Paul state in I Corinthians I:xvii “For Christ send me not to baptise, but to preach the gospel: not with wisdom of words, lest the cross of Christ should be made of none effect”? Secondly, why do the requirements for eldership in both I Timothy III:i-vii and Titus II:ii make no mention of baptism? Thirdly, why do we find no mention of water baptism in the Pauline epistles, i.e. those epistles containing church truth?

Let us take a look at three verses:

I Corinthians XII:xiii “For by one Spirit are we all baptised into one body, whether we be Jews or Gentiles, whether we be bond or free; and have been all made to drink into one Spirit.”

Ephesians IV:iv, v “There is one body, and one Spirit, even as ye are called in one hope of your calling; One Lord, one faith, one baptism,”

Neither passage can be a reference to water baptism unless there is more than one baptism in effect today, but we know that is wrong for “there is…one baptism.” Also, if the baptism of I Corinthians XII:xiii was a reference to water baptism, then there would be no margin for the Holy Ghost to baptise us into the body of Christ. The “one baptism” must refer to Spirit baptism and not to water baptism.

Let us now turn to Galatians III:xxvii “For as many of you as have been baptised into Christ have put on Christ.” This cannot be referring to water baptism, unless it is water baptism that places us “into Christ”. Indeed, if it was referring to water baptism, it would make water baptism a requirement for salvation. According to verse xxviii, since we are all “in Christ Jesus,” we first had to be baptised into Christ. But if water baptism actually placed us “into Christ,” then we could not be “in Christ” until we were baptised in water.

I now turn to Romans VI:iii, iv “Know ye not, that so many of us as were baptised into Jesus Christ were baptised into his death? Therefore we are buried with him by baptism into death: that like as Christ was raised up from the dead by the glory of the Father, even so we also should walk in newness of life.” Our baptism into Christ (verse iii) agrees with Galatians III:xxvii as well as I Corinthians XII:xiii. Indeed, if it was referring to water baptism then we could not “walk in newness of life” without first being “buried with him by [water] baptism into death.” No! The verses above only make sense when understood as referring to the “one baptism” of the Holy Ghost that places us “into Christ,” into His “one body.”

So, in Ephesians IV:v we read of the “one baptism” – Spirit baptism - of this present dispensation as opposed to the two baptisms pertaining to the kingdom as illustrated in Acts II:xxxviii when Peter called upon individual Jews to “Repent, and be baptised every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins [water baptism], and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost [Spirit baptism].”

It is therefore my position that water baptism is not for the church and that is why the Pauline epistles do not mention it, and why being baptised in water is not a precondition of eldership.

[Guioam]

Obeying God is essential - yes.

And there is already a thread for this subject.I think what you mean is good not essential. I hope. Member this one?:

"I do not judge anyone who hears my words and does not keep them, for I came not to judge the world but to save the world. The one who rejects me and does not receive my word has a judge."-Jesus
John 12:47

See Jesus loves us so much that as long as we are willing to alow him to save us he will:clap: I think it one could possibly even argue that you have to put effort in and resist to not be saved. Though so many people do put alot of effort into resisting his glorious love:/ Lets pray for them:)

[aggie03]

I see a lot of assertions but very little proof from the Scriptures...in fact the only person who has made a logical argument from the Scriptures seems to have shown that baptism is necessary for the remission of sins as one becomes a Christian...interesting...let the Scriptures speak where they will, let us be silent elsewhere.

***EDIT***

I missed AV1611's post :o My point is still the same. I do not care what you think. This doesn't mean I don't like you or care about you - I want to know what God thinks.

:prayer:

[Toms777]

so many people have so many different views on this subject... so whats yours... i thinks its time to get it straight.
There is a separate thread on this topic and it has been shown that baptism is not essential for salvation. Some of the open issues are:

1) The thief of the cross - he did not get baptized and yet was saved. Now, some argue that that was before the death of Christ, and yet the question remains - are there two differents was to be saved? Scripture says no. The save issue arises when Jesus told different folk that their sins were forgiven - how could that be if baptism was essential?

2) Is 59:2-3 says that sins separates us from God, therefore to reconcile us to God, the price for that sin must be paid. Scripture says that the price is death and that there is no remission of sins without the shedding of blood (not baptism in water). Jesus sacrifice on the cross paid that price in full - what is there that we can add to that?

3) The gospel by which we are to be judged is given in scripture and that gospel says nothing about baptism. If the standard by which we are to be judged is to include baptism why did scripture omit such a critical item?

There is much much more, but this gives an example. Scripture is also clear that receiving Chjrist as savior is all that is required.

[Toms777]

Obeying God is essential - yes.

And there is already a thread for this subject.
Obedience to the commandments is legalism. Since Rom 3:23 says that we all failed on that point, if you are saying that obedience is an essential, then we are all on our way to hell without hope.

But scripture tells us that our salvation is not dependent upon our faithfulness 9which fails), but upon His (which does not fail).

[aggie03]

So we don't have to be obedient?

[Guioam]

I see a lot of assertions but very little proof from the Scriptures...in fact the only person who has made a logical argument from the Scriptures seems to have shown that baptism is necessary for the remission of sins as one becomes a Christian...interesting...let the Scriptures speak where they will, let us be silent elsewhere.

***EDIT***

I missed AV1611's post :o My point is still the same. I do not care what you think. This doesn't mean I don't like you or care about you - I want to know what God thinks.

:prayer:What about what i posted? Jesus said all you had to do was like accept what he said even if you didn't follow it. And in like every part he says all you have to do is belive and you will be saved. Also when you put it in terms of what God thinks doesn't the bible show enough of his character for us to realise that God care about what is in our heart and not what we do in the flesh? In other words wouldn't he would rather we truely and humbly repented and tried to follow him than for example be bapties in water in his name but resent him and go off blaspheming and full of disbelife?

Hope that one is easier to read now;)

[aggie03]

I'm genuinely sorry, but I'm having a hard time trying to make out the last few sentences of your post. Would mind posting them again in perhaps a slightly different way? I would really appreciate it :)

[Guioam]

So we don't have to be obedient?Of course, not Toms is right. If we HAD to do anything we would all be so screwed. That is why Jesus came to do it all for us. Ofcouse that doesn't mean don't do it. If you knew how much he loves you you would be obedient:clap: anyways it is more fun^_^

[Toms777]

So we don't have to be obedient?
I did not say that, but if we depend upon being obedient, then we have placed ourselves under the law, and scripture says that if you fail to obey one part of the law, you have failed it all. Thus if you depend upon obedience, you must be perfectly obedient or you ared on your way to hell.

On the other hand, for those who recognize that as sinners that we have no hope in depending upon our own faulty faithfulness, but rather rely upon Him who nevers fails and He who went to the cross to pay the price for our sins that we might be reconciled, then we are no longer dependent upon the law.

Once we receive Christ as saviour, we receive the baptism of the Holy Spirit and the Holy Spirit indwells us and helps us to be obedient. Prior to that we are slaves of sin, according to scripture, and a slave to sin is not obedient to God.

Thus to trust in obedience is to place trust for your salvation in men; to trust in the sacrifiice on the cross is to place our faith in God.

I choose the latter.

[aggie03]

Again, I've think that you've set up a false dilemma. I don't believe that it's an either or choice - but somehwere in the middle...

[Guioam]

Isn't it so much easier if you have simplistic views? Accept it as a child? If you go too analitical then you can end up useing the wisdom of men which is worthless cause God is to big for it to figure out.
Can anyone deny that the truth goes like this?: If you belive in Jesus you are saved. ?

[Toms777]

Again, I've think that you've set up a false dilemma. I don't believe that it's an either or choice - but somehwere in the middle...
It is not what you or I believe but what matters is what scripture teaches.

[aggie03]

Ok, fine :) The Scriptures teach it's somewhere in the middle :) That's primarily what the book of Romans is about. It's not about being perfectly obedient, but it's not about a total indiscretion for what God has said either...it's in the middle.

[Toms777]

Ok, fine :) The Scriptures teach it's somewhere in the middle :) That's primarily what the book of Romans is about. It's not about being perfectly obedient, but it's not about a total indiscretion for what God has said either...it's in the middle.Agreed. We are to seek to be perfectly obedient, but since we as men fail in that effort, obedience uis not mandated as an essential for salvation. Paul gave us the gospel by which we are to be judged and if baptism were essential, scripture would include that as part of that gospel, since the gospel is exactly that - the way of salvation.

1 Cor 15:1-8
15:1 Moreover, brethren, I declare to you the gospel which I preached to you, which also you received and in which you stand, 2 by which also you are saved, if you hold fast that word which I preached to you--unless you believed in vain. 3 For I delivered to you first of all that which I also received: that Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures, 4 and that He was buried, and that He rose again the third day according to the Scriptures, 5 and that He was seen by Cephas, then by the twelve. 6 After that He was seen by over five hundred brethren at once, of whom the greater part remain to the present, but some have fallen asleep. 7 After that He was seen by James, then by all the apostles. 8 Then last of all He was seen by me also, as by one born out of due time.
NKJV

Baptism is not part of the gospel of salvation. This does not mean that we are not top be baptized, but that failure to do so does not affect our salvation. To undersatnd what is important for salvation and why Paul de-emphasizes baptism (he indicates that he was not sent to baptize, but to preach the gospel), we need to go back to the reasons that we need salvation.

Isaiah 59 clearly says that our sins separate us from God,

Isa 59:2
2 But your iniquities have separated you from your God;
And your sins have hidden His face from you,
NKJV

Note that scripture says that we are reconciled through the cross, not baptism.

Col 1:19-22
19 For it pleased the Father that in Him all the fullness should dwell, 20 and by Him to reconcile all things to Himself, by Him, whether things on earth or things in heaven, having made peace through the blood of His cross. 21 And you, who once were alienated and enemies in your mind by wicked works, yet now He has reconciled 22 in the body of His flesh through death, to present you holy, and blameless, and above reproach in His sight--
NKJV

If we were reconciled through the cross, then how could it be that our sins yet remain? It cannot because we agreed that it is sin which separates us from God, and yet here we are, reconciled through the cross.

The cross can fully reconcile us to God, and thus we are saved through the cross. For us to be reconciled, all sin which separates us has been forgiven. If it were not, we would not be reconciled since it is sin thatseparated us from God.

For baptism to be a means to salvation, you would have to argue it as an alternate means to salvation, or argue that Jesus' death was on the cross was not all-sufficient to pay the price for our sins.

[- DRA -]

Obedience to the commandments is legalism. Since Rom 3:23 says that we all failed on that point, if you are saying that obedience is an essential, then we are all on our way to hell without hope.

But scripture tells us that our salvation is not dependent upon our faithfulness 9which fails), but upon His (which does not fail).

Heb. 5:9 says, "And having been perfected, He became the author of eternal salvation to all who obey Him"

2 Thess. 1:8 says, "in flaming fire taking vengeance on those who do not know God, and on those who do not obey the gospel of our Lord Jesus Christ."

Jesus taught the necessity of obeying ALL of God's commands (see Luke 17:10). Was our Lord a legalist? If one chooses not to obey all of God's commands, then what is the process one uses to determine which commands need to be obeyed?

If your statement, "But scripture tells us that our salvation is not dependent upon our faithfulness 9which fails), but upon His (which does not fail)", is true, then please explain why everyone is NOT saved. God is faithful (1 Cor. 10:13). So, if our salvation is dependent upon God's faithfulness, which is set in concrete (so to speak), then why are we not all saved (Matt. 7:13-14)?

[Toms777]

Heb. 5:9 says, "And having been perfected, He became the author of eternal salvation to all who obey Him"

2 Thess. 1:8 says, "in flaming fire taking vengeance on those who do not know God, and on those who do not obey the gospel of our Lord Jesus Christ."

Jesus taught the necessity of obeying ALL of God's commands (see Luke 17:10). Was our Lord a legalist? If one chooses not to obey all of God's commands, then what is the process one uses to determine which commands need to be obeyed?
Yes, it is necessary to obey all the commands, but none of us have done so (Rom 3:23) and scripture says that if you fail on one point, you failed all of the law, thus under the law, we are all on our way to hell (Gal 2:16). The purpose of the law is not to be our means of salvation but to bring us to Christ where we might be saved through faith (Gal 3:24). That is why Christ had to die on the cross for our sins - because we could not save ourselves, not by the law, not by works, not by personal merit, and not by baptism.

Thus the law is essential, yes, but since you have already failed, as has everyone else, that is no longer an option, Being perfectly obedient to one part of the law, but missing even one other part means that you are on your way to hell.

That is why the law points us to Christ. Since we have failed, the price had to be paid and that was the price that Christ paid in full on the cross.

If your statement, "But scripture tells us that our salvation is not dependent upon our faithfulness 9which fails), but upon His (which does not fail)", is true, then please explain why everyone is NOT saved.
Not all choose to receive Christ as Saviour (Matt 7:13-14 amongst others).

[PaladinGirl]

No, baptism is not required for salvation.

Ephesians 2:8-9

[Stinker]

No, baptism is not required for salvation.

Ephesians 2:8-98 For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God: 9 Not of works, lest any man should boast.

Holly3278: You are understanding Eph.2:8-9 incorrectly.


For by grace we are saved/ via a live faith Jms.2:17/ and not by any fantastic thing we did/ for this grace is the gift of God. 9. Not by the works of the Law of Moses lest any man should boast........"Behold, thou art called a Jew, and restest in the law, and makest thy BOAST of God"........."Thou that makest thy BOAST of the law, through breaking the law dishonourest thou God?" (Romans 2:17,23)

"For we are His WORKMANSHIP. created in Christ Jesus unto good WORKS, which God hath before ordained that we should WALK in THEM." Eph.2:10

[Toms777]

Holly3278: You are understanding Eph.2:8-9 incorrectly.

For by grace we are saved/ via a live faith Jms.2:17/ and not by any fantastic thing we did/ for this grace is the gift of God. 9. Not by the works of the Law of Moses lest any man should boast........"Behold, thou art called a Jew, and restest in the law, and makest thy BOAST of God"........."Thou that makest thy BOAST of the law, through breaking the law dishonourest thou God?" (Romans 2:17,23)

"For we are His WORKMANSHIP. created in Christ Jesus unto good WORKS, which God hath before ordained that we should WALK in THEM." Eph.2:10No, she was right. There is a constant theme in scripture. If we abide by works, we place ourselves under the law.

Gal 2:21
21 I do not set aside the grace of God; for if righteousness comes through the law, then Christ died in vain."
NKJV

[WesWoodell]

I think what you mean is good not essential. I hope. Member this one?:

"I do not judge anyone who hears my words and does not keep them, for I came not to judge the world but to save the world. The one who rejects me and does not receive my word has a judge."-Jesus
John 12:47

See Jesus loves us so much that as long as we are willing to alow him to save us he will:clap: I think it one could possibly even argue that you have to put effort in and resist to not be saved.
Romans 8:1 "Therefore, there is now no condemnation for those who are in Christ Jesus."

Galations 5:6 "For in Christ Jesus neither circumcision nor uncircumcision has any value. The only thing that counts is faith expressing itself through love."

John 14:23-24 "Jesus replied, "If anyone loves me, he will obey my teaching. My Father will love him, and we will come to him and make our home with him. He who does not love me will not obey my teaching. These words you hear are not my own: they belong to the Father who sent me."

[WesWoodell]

What about what i posted? Jesus said all you had to do was like accept what he said even if you didn't follow it. And in like every part he says all you have to do is belive and you will be saved. Can anyone deny that the truth goes like this?: If you belive in Jesus you are saved. ?James 2:19 "You believe there is one God. Good! Even the demons believe that -- and shudder."

Of course, not Toms is right. If we HAD to do anything we would all be so screwed.
James 2:24 "A person is justified by what he does and not by faith alone."

[WesWoodell]

Once we receive Christ as saviour, we receive the baptism of the Holy Spirit.

God doesn't tell us that.

[Toms777]

God doesn't tell us that.Really? Are you telling us that we first receive the baptism of the Holy Spirit before we are saved? Where do we find that in scripture?

1 Cor 12:12-14
12 For as the body is one and has many members, but all the members of that one body, being many, are one body, so also is Christ. 13 For by one Spirit we were all baptized into one body--whether Jews or Greeks, whether slaves or free--and have all been made to drink into one Spirit.
NKJV

Acts 11:15-18
15 "And as I began to speak, the Holy Spirit fell upon them, as upon us at the beginning. 16 Then I remembered the word of the Lord, how He said, 'John indeed baptized with water, but you shall be baptized with the Holy Spirit.' 17 "If therefore God gave them the same gift as He gave us when we believed on the Lord Jesus Christ, who was I that I could withstand God?"
NKJV

[WesWoodell]

Really? Are you telling us that we first receive the baptism of the Holy Spirit before we are saved?

No.

[Toms777]

No.
Okay, then we receive the baptism of the Holy Spirit after salvation as I said.

Thank you for a clear and straightforward response.

[perfectlyok2]

Okay, then we receive the baptism of the Holy Spirit after salvation as I said.


Spirit baptism is unnecessary for us now, but water baptism is(Acts 2:28). In fact, you were already Spirit baptized 2000 years before you were born!

Spirit baptism only happened twice; and in doing so, you were included when it happened. The Lord promised he would pour out His Spirit on all people (Acts 2:17-18), and it was promised to the Jew first, and the Gentile second (Romans 1:16). When this was fulfilled on the day of Pentecost(Acts 2:4), the entire Jewish nation, from that day until this very moment now have been Spirit baptized. Likewise for the Gentiles, when they were Spirit baptized(Acts 10:44) it included every Gentile from that very day until the end of the world.

If you are a Jew, you were baptized with the Holy Spirit on the day of Pentecost, if you are a Gentile you were baptized in the Holy Sprit when Cornelius and his houslehold were. There would be no need for God to continue this baptism when it was already given twice for all time.

There is "One Lord, One faith, one baptism" and it has to be in water considering Holy Spirit baptism has already been given.

[aggie03]

I don't have much time, and I'm sorry for that, but it's important to remember that just because your translation capitalizes the 's' when the word 'spirit' occurrs doesn't mean that it's the Holy Spirit.

The word 'spirit' has a wide variety of uses; thankfully from the context we are able to easily determine what they are so long as we don't approach passages with predetermined views (this works both ways equally :) ).

Predetermined ideas make it very difficult to see passages clearly. This is what we always have to fight against, no matter who we are.

Anyway, just thought I'd point that out. Good night, see you all again soon, Lord willing.

[Toms777]

Spirit baptism is unnecessary for us now, but water baptism is(Acts 2:28).
We have thoroughly refuted the idea that water baptism is essential, but so far no one has validated, from the Bible, the claim that the baptism of the Holy Spirit ceased, though I have asked previously.

I might add though that your view also is contrary to Wes', since Wes disagreed that the Holy Spirit is received before salvation, whereas you appear to be saying that the Holy Spirit was given to everyone before sal;vation because of your unsubstantiated claim that the Holy Spirit was only given 2000 years ago and then ceased.

[WesWoodell]

No, you have only refuted it in your own mind. Jesus said "Whoever believes and is baptized will be saved."


You cannot refute reality, but you can be deceived.

Goodnight

[Toms777]

No, you have only refuted it in your own mind. Jesus said "believe and be baptized and you will be saved."
You cannot refute reality, but you can be deceived.
Goodnight
All claims have been refuted directly from scripture, and there a numerous open questions which no one has yet been able to answer. For example:

What about the thief on the cross? The argument given is that it was before the cross, and yet so many avoid the question about the fact that that argument denies the necessity and sufficiency of the gospel by creating a need for two means of salvation, one before the cross and one afterward, and thus is contrary to scripture.

Is 59:2-3 and others state that what separated us from God is sin, and scripture says that Jesus' sacrifice on the cross was sufficient to pay that price and was the only sacrifice that could pay that price. If the only thing which separated us from God has been removed, then there is nothing else required. Saying baptism is essential therefore denies the sufficiency of the sacrifice that Jesus made on the cross.

Why was baptism omitted from the gospel by which we are saved and are to be judged?

[flounder7786]

it is commanded of us, but NO...it is not how you become saved. its an act of obedience

[- DRA -]

it is commanded of us, but NO...it is not how you become saved. its an act of obedience

Baptism is indeed commanded (see Acts 2:38; 10:47-48; 22:16).

However, these passages teach that baptism was necessary to be saved (Mark 16:16), to have one's sins remitted (Acts 2:38), and to have one's sins washed away (Acts 22:16). Peter writes that baptism (in water) saves us (1 Peter 3:20-21).

Are you endorsing the teaching of the Holy Scriptures, or the teachings of men?

[- DRA -]

We have thoroughly refuted the idea that water baptism is essential, but so far no one has validated, from the Bible, the claim that the baptism of the Holy Spirit ceased, though I have asked previously.

I might add though that your view also is contrary to Wes', since Wes disagreed that the Holy Spirit is received before salvation, whereas you appear to be saying that the Holy Spirit was given to everyone before sal;vation because of your unsubstantiated claim that the Holy Spirit was only given 2000 years ago and then ceased.

1 Cor. 4:19 makes an interesting contrast. Have you been baptized in the Holy Spirit? If so, what is your evidence? Your words, or the power of God? I think there is an obvious reason that folks today just talk about the power of the Holy Spirit?

Did you consider the study on the baptism of the Holy Spirit that I previously posted? If not, here it is again:
http://www.ch-of-christ.beaverton.or.us/Holy_Spirit_Baptism.htm

[Dr. E W Bullinger]

so many people have so many different views on this subject... so whats yours... i thinks its time to get it straight.
Water baptism is most definitely NOT essential for salvation! Spirit baptism is though!

[- DRA -]

All claims have been refuted directly from scripture,

Really? Yes, I don't deny that you offered some kind of explanation, but I deny that the explanations have refuted what the Scriptures teach. For instance, there's John 3:16. You've used it numerous times to promote salvation by faith only, but have yet to show us where the word "only" or "alone" is connected with faith in the passage. You have also told us that the word "and" means "or" in Mark 16:16, but then won't accept the consequences of what it would mean if "or" was truly intended - - we could be saved by believing or being baptized. Then, you fail to harmonize your understanding of John 3:16 with Acts 2:38 - - where salvation by faith only is clearly NOT in harmony with what Peter tells the Jews to do. There are many questions that you have NOT addressed in the longer thread on this discussion. One is particular is if the blessings realized in baptism occur during baptism as Romans 6:3-11 says they do, or if they occur before baptism as you promote. Clearly, you have opposed the truth, but have NOT refuted it.

Is it hard to kick against the goads (Acts 9:5).

and there a numerous open questions which no one has yet been able to answer.

For example:[/size]

What about the thief on the cross? The argument given is that it was before the cross, and yet so many avoid the question about the fact that that argument denies the necessity and sufficiency of the gospel by creating a need for two means of salvation, one before the cross and one afterward, and thus is contrary to scripture.

Your assessment is quite inaccurate. Jesus had power on earth to forgive sins (Matt. 9:6). He is God (see Mark's account in 2:5-12). I don't recall anyone saying that the thief on the cross "was before the cross." Obviously, the thief hung on the cross. The issue is about when the gospel of Christ went into effect. I have posted Heb. 9:15-17 numerous times. Have you read it? Would you mind explaining to us how Jesus' testament or will went into effect before his death? Assuming that you can't (which is why you haven't addressed the previous references to the passage), then you need to accept that the thief on the cross is not an example of someone being saved under the gospel of Christ. It went into effect after Jesus' death on the cross - - and NOT before.

Assuming that the thief on the cross was Jewish and that the Lord had NOT pardoned him, then he would have been judged by the things under the law of Moses (Romans 2:12).

No one is denying that Jesus made "one sacrifice" for sins forever (Heb. 10:12). The issue is whether the requirements under the law of Moses were different than under the gospel of Christ. If the requirements were the same under both laws, then Paul's reasoning in Romans 3:20-29 is invalid. Is that what you want us to believe?

Is 59:2-3 and others state that what separated us from God is sin, and scripture says that Jesus' sacrifice on the cross was sufficient to pay that price and was the only sacrifice that could pay that price. If the only thing which separated us from God has been removed, then there is nothing else required. Saying baptism is essential therefore denies the sufficiency of the sacrifice that Jesus made on the cross.

Why was baptism omitted from the gospel by which we are saved and are to be judged?

No is denying that sin separates man from God. And, no one is denying that salvation would be possible without Jesus' sacrifice on the cross. What we cannot seem to come to common terms on is whether or not Jesus' sacrifice on the cross automatically takes sin out of the way, or if there is something required on our part. You said, and I quote, "there is nothing else required." My question in response to this statement is: "What about faith or belief?" It is commanded in Acts 16:31. And, Jesus called it a work in John 6:28-29. So, is faith required or not? After all, it is something required on our part. It seems you are saying two things that oppose each other.

What occurs in baptism is detailed in Romans 6:3-11. We are united with Jesus' death, burial, and resurrection. Baptism puts our attention where it belongs - - on Jesus' suffering for our sins, His death on the cross - - where He shed His blood, his burial, our dying to sin (verses 6-7), and our being raised "alive to God in Christ Jesus our Lord" (verse 11). Just as you accept that sin is what separates us from God (Isa. 59:2, you should also accept that in baptism is where we become united with Christ, put off the sinful man, and put on the new man. By faith in the working of God (Col. 2:12), we now can accept that baptism takes away our sins (Acts 2:38; 22:16) and saves us (Mark 16:16; 1 Peter 3:20-21). Why not accept Jesus' sacrifice on the cross in the way that He instructs?

You said,"Saying baptism is essential therefore denies the sufficiency of the sacrifice that Jesus made on the cross." Not according to Romans 6:3-11. Baptism is based on Jesus' sacrifice on the cross. On the other hand, to claim the benefits of the cross without being baptized is to claim salvation apart from the cross of our Lord. I desire better things for you than to persist with this unscriptural reasoning. I ask not that you listen to me, but that you listen to God's word. Why not just simply accept the blessings of God in the way that God has promised them? Why read a word into John 3:16 that is NOT there (the word "only" or "alone"), and then reject the words that are in Romans 6:3-11?

Are you sure baptism is omitted from the gospel? Better take a closer look at Mark 16:15-16. Isn't the gospel based on Jesus' death, burial, and resurrection (in the first part of 1 Cor. chapter 15)? What is baptism based on? If the gospel and baptism are both based on the same things, we should be able to see the connection between the two. Let's see . . . Philip "preached Jesus" and the first thing the eunuch expressed was the desire to be baptized in water (Acts 8:35-39). What was required for Philip to baptize him? Faith was required. Just like Jesus said in Mark 16:16 - - He who believes and (not "or") is baptized." Why was the eunuch baptized. The text in Acts 8 doesn't say. However, Jesus said what it was for in Mark 16:16 - - to be saved, and the apostle Peter said it was for the remission of sins in Acts 2:38. That is how Bible harmony works. We learn in Acts 8:36-37 that the word "and" truly means "and," and we learn the reason why the eunuch wanted to be baptized - - to be saved/to have his sins remitted.

Why continue to kick against the goads? Give God the glory and obey the gospel on Jesus' terms, not on yours. :bow:

[- DRA -]

Water baptism is most definitely NOT essential for salvation! Spirit baptism is though!

Could you explain 1 Peter 3:20-21? It says that baptism saves us and is referring to baptism in water.

[Iosias]

Could you explain 1 Peter 3:20-21? It says that baptism saves us and is referring to baptism in water.
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:

Not via water! But really this is of little concern for Peter was writing to the Jews for he is the Apostle to the circumcision.

Galatians 2
7 But contrariwise, when they saw that the gospel of the uncircumcision was committed unto me, as the gospel of the circumcision was unto Peter;

Hence 1 and 2 Peter are addressed to:

1 Peter 1
1 Peter, an apostle of Jesus Christ, to the strangers scattered throughout Pontus, Galatia, Cappadocia, Asia, and Bithynia,

[Toms777]

1 Cor. 4:19 makes an interesting contrast.

Between what and what?

Have you been baptized in the Holy Spirit? If so, what is your evidence?

Yes. We have the assurance in scripture. Have you studied what scripture says about those who need a sign?

Still waiting for your answer to the question. What about the thief on the cross? Are you saying that there are two ways of salvation - one for those before the cross and one for those after?

Why do you avoid this question? If you are so sure of your beliefs, then why not simply give a straightforward answer?

[- DRA -]

Originally Posted by: - DRA -

Could you explain 1 Peter 3:20-21? It says that baptism saves us and is referring to baptism in water.

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:

Not via water! But really this is of little concern for Peter was writing to the Jews for he is the Apostle to the circumcision.

Galatians 2
7 But contrariwise, when they saw that the gospel of the uncircumcision was committed unto me, as the gospel of the circumcision was unto Peter;

Hence 1 and 2 Peter are addressed to:

1 Peter 1
1 Peter, an apostle of Jesus Christ, to the strangers scattered throughout Pontus, Galatia, Cappadocia, Asia, and Bithynia,

1 Peter 3:20-21 says,

"Which sometime were disobedient, when once the longsuffering of God waited in the days of Noah, while the ark was a preparing, wherein few, that is, eight souls were saved by water.

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."

The comparison is between water saving the eight people on the ark and baptism saving us today - - water saved them & water now saves us. This is a clear reference to water baptism (see Acts 8:35-39; 10:47-48).

How does baptism save us? It doesn't wash the dirt from the body, but gives us a clean conscience. How can it do that? It takes away sin (see Acts 2:38; 22:16). It unites us with Jesus death, burial, and resurrection, where we become alive unto Christ (see Rom. 6:3-11).

Are you trying to suggest that God had a different plan for saving the Jews than He did the Gentiles? If so, then can you explain Ephesian chapters 2 through 4:6? God brought Jews and Gentiles together into one church, where there was to be unity.

Generally speaking, Peter was an apostle to the Jews, and Paul an apostle to the Gentiles. However, Peter also taught Gentiles (see Acts chapter 10), just as Paul also taught Jews (see Acts chapters 22-23).

So, what is your point about who 1 Peter is addressed to? You seem to be suggesting that 3:20-21 only applies to Jews? Is that the case? Assuming that is your point, then what about the rest of the things in the epistle? Do they only apply to Jews? How about 1:4? Are they the only ones with the hope of heaven? How about 1:18-19? Were the Jews the only ones redeemed with the blood of Christ? How about 4:1? Did Jesus suffer just for the Jews?

[- DRA -]

Originally Posted by: - DRA -

1 Cor. 4:19 makes an interesting contrast.

Between what and what?

Between the mere words of men and the power of God. The apostle Paul was contrasting the signs that accompanied an apostle (see Heb. 2:3b-4), and those who opposed him with just the words of men.

Originally Posted by: - DRA -

Have you been baptized in the Holy Spirit? If so, what is your evidence?

Yes. We have the assurance in scripture.

Really? I read in John chapters 14-16 where Jesus promised to send the Comforter to the apostles. Among other things, He (the Holy Spirit) would bring to their remembrance Jesus' words and guide them into all truth. Jesus commanded the apostles to wait in Jerusalem for the Holy Spirit, which they would be baptized in (Luke 24:49; Acts 1:4-5). The Holy Spirit came upon them in Acts 2:1-4). Peter reminds the Jews of Joel's prophecy - - that God's Spirit would be poured out on all flesh. In Acts chapter 10, the Gentiles received the baptism of the Holy Spirit (see Acts 11:15-17). In both of these instances of baptism in the Holy Spirit - - the only two in the N.T., there were obvious manifestations of what had occurred. Is this what happened when you were baptized in the Holy Spirit? Did you speak in tongues?

I mentioned 1 Cor. 4:19 because you are only offering words, when there should be power displayed. If you are claiming the baptism of the Holy Spirit, then you should have the evidence that the apostles and Cornelius and his family had. However, by your previous response, it seems that you did NOT experience what the apostles did in Acts 10, nor what the Gentiles did in Acts 10. I suspect that you have confused the "gift of the Holy Spirit" that follows salvation (see Acts 2:38) with the baptism of the Holy Spirit. Isn't the gift or indwelling of the Holy Spirit what you are really claiming? If it is not, and you are indeed claiming the baptism of the Holy Spirit, then you should have the power to support your claims. If you don't have the power that you say you do, then you have only words - - just like those who opposed Paul.

Have you studied what scripture says about those who need a sign?

:) Yes, I have studied passages such as Matt. 12:38-39 & 16:1-4. Was Paul violating the meaning of these passages in 1 Cor. 4:19. He was NOT. Those who opposed Paul had NO power. Paul was simply bringing this to their attention. In the passages that you allude to in the gospels, Jesus worked miracles prior to some of the Jews asking for a sign (see Matt. 12:22 & 15:30-38). He had given signs. But, the unbelieving Jews wanted more. You, on the other hand, claim that which you do NOT have. Just as Paul did to those who opposed the truth in 1 Cor. 4:19, I am asking about the power you possess. I already know the answer - - just as you know the answer. There is NO power . . . only words.

[Toms777]

Really? I read in John chapters 14-16 where Jesus promised to send the Comforter to the apostles. Among other things, He (the Holy Spirit) would bring to their remembrance Jesus' words and guide them into all truth. Jesus commanded the apostles to wait in Jerusalem for the Holy Spirit, which they would be baptized in (Luke 24:49; Acts 1:4-5). The Holy Spirit came upon them in Acts 2:1-4). Peter reminds the Jews of Joel's prophecy - - that God's Spirit would be poured out on all flesh. In Acts chapter 10, the Gentiles received the baptism of the Holy Spirit (see Acts 11:15-17). In both of these instances of baptism in the Holy Spirit - - the only two in the N.T., there were obvious manifestations of what had occurred. Is this what happened when you were baptized in the Holy Spirit? Did you speak in tongues?



Hmmm….maybe you need to study the topic a bit further. It sounds to me like you believe in the apostolic theology that initial sign of the baptism of the Holy Spirit is speaking in tongues. This is standard theology of the more charismatic Pentecostal movements, but unfortunately not substantiated in scripture.

In fact the majority of cases where we find this recorded, we do not find tongues recorded, for example Acts 9 (This also refutes the belief that it was only for the apostles). Your comments also reveal an error made by the movement, and that is that there must be a visible supernatural appearing manifestation, but of course even in the passage that you referred to, we see the real reason for the power of the Holy Spirit indwelling the believer:

Acts 1:8
8 But you shall receive power when the Holy Spirit has come upon you; and you shall be witnesses to Me in Jerusalem, and in all Judea and Samaria, and to the end of the earth."
NKJV

Yes, I have studied passages such as Matt. 12:38-39 & 16:1-4. Was Paul violating the meaning of these passages in 1 Cor. 4:19. He was NOT. Those who opposed Paul had NO power. Paul was simply bringing this to their attention. In the passages that you allude to in the gospels, Jesus worked miracles prior to some of the Jews asking for a sign (see Matt. 12:22 & 15:30-38). He had given signs. But, the unbelieving Jews wanted more. You, on the other hand, claim that which you do NOT have. Just as Paul did to those who opposed the truth in 1 Cor. 4:19, I am asking about the power you possess. I already know the answer - - just as you know the answer. There is NO power . . . only words.
You have again stepped over the line, claiming to judge my heart and my relationship with God, something you cannot do. Why don’t you just stay on topic? Your personal attacks do not bring credit to you, nor do they appear consistent with your profession of faith. I am not launching person attacks on you nor questioning your faith and I do not expect that type of abusive comment from you either.

If you really believe what you are saying, you should be able to rely on the truth without resorting to personal attacks. My personal observation is that those who resort to such personal attacks have run out of any arguments by which to refute the facts.

So, the challenge to you is to try to stay on topic, stay off abuse and deal with the issue.

And, no, if you attempt was to get me to go down to the same level by getting personal, it will not happen.

Finally, if there is not power in my words, why do you so vehemntly avoid such a simple question?

What about the thief on the cross? Are you saying that there are two ways of salvation - one for those before the cross and one for those after?

Why do you avoid this question? If you are so sure of your beliefs, then why not simply give a straightforward answer? Could it be that these words carry such power that you cannot answer the question?

Note that the power of the Holy Spirit is to be a witness:

John 16:12-14
13 However, when He, the Spirit of truth, has come, He will guide you into all truth; for He will not speak on His own authority, but whatever He hears He will speak; and He will tell you things to come.
NKJV

How could it be that words with no power could create a question which cannot be answered by those who do have the power of the Holy Spirit? The Holy Spirit power is second to none, so how could that be?

[- DRA -]

Originally Posted by: - DRA -

Really? I read in John chapters 14-16 where Jesus promised to send the Comforter to the apostles. Among other things, He (the Holy Spirit) would bring to their remembrance Jesus' words and guide them into all truth. Jesus commanded the apostles to wait in Jerusalem for the Holy Spirit, which they would be baptized in (Luke 24:49; Acts 1:4-5). The Holy Spirit came upon them in Acts 2:1-4). Peter reminds the Jews of Joel's prophecy - - that God's Spirit would be poured out on all flesh. In Acts chapter 10, the Gentiles received the baptism of the Holy Spirit (see Acts 11:15-17). In both of these instances of baptism in the Holy Spirit - - the only two in the N.T., there were obvious manifestations of what had occurred. Is this what happened when you were baptized in the Holy Spirit? Did you speak in tongues?

Hmmm….maybe you need to study the topic a bit further. It sounds to me like you believe in the apostolic theology that initial sign of the baptism of the Holy Spirit is speaking in tongues. This is standard theology of the more charismatic Pentecostal movements, but unfortunately not substantiated in scripture.

In fact the majority of cases where we find this recorded, we do not find tongues recorded, for example Acts 9 (This also refutes the belief that it was only for the apostles). Your comments also reveal an error made by the movement, and that is that there must be a visible supernatural appearing manifestation, but of course even in the passage that you referred to, we see the real reason for the power of the Holy Spirit indwelling the believer:

Acts 1:8
8 But you shall receive power when the Holy Spirit has come upon you; and you shall be witnesses to Me in Jerusalem, and in all Judea and Samaria, and to the end of the earth." NKJV

There are only two instances in the N.T. that are identified as the baptism of the Holy Spirit - - the apostles in Acts 2:1-4 and Cornelius and his household in Acts 10:44-46 (see Acts 11:15-17). In both of these instances the baptism with the Holy Spirit included speaking in tongues. Since you are claiming to be baptized in the Holy Spirit, I was inquiring about the signs that accompanied your experience. Obviously, there were no signs - - and, no confirmation from God.

After the Holy Spirit came upon the apostles, they were indeed witnesses according to Acts 1:8. Evidently, they were very efficient at their work (see Col. 1:23). That were also accompanied by signs that confirmed both them as messengers of God, and confirmed the message that they brought (see Heb. 2:3-4).

[Toms777]

There are only two instances in the N.T. that are identified as the baptism of the Holy Spirit - - the apostles in Acts 2:1-4 and Cornelius and his household in Acts 10:44-46 (see Acts 11:15-17). In both of these instances the baptism with the Holy Spirit included speaking in tongues. Since you are claiming to be baptized in the Holy Spirit, I was inquiring about the signs that accompanied your experience. Obviously, there were no signs - - and, no confirmation from God.

After the Holy Spirit came upon the apostles, they were indeed witnesses according to Acts 1:8. Evidently, they were very efficient at their work (see Col. 1:23). That were also accompanied by signs that confirmed both them as messengers of God, and confirmed the message that they brought (see Heb. 2:3-4).
First, no one said that there were no signs - you seem to like trying to judge where scripture says that you ought not to judge. So lets just stay on topic and avoid the personal attacks and judgements, what say?

Now, as for the topic, I showed you otherwise from scripture and you did not respond to the example that I gave in scripture. I stand by my previous comments.

[- DRA -]

Originally Posted by: - DRA -

Yes, I have studied passages such as Matt. 12:38-39 & 16:1-4. Was Paul violating the meaning of these passages in 1 Cor. 4:19. He was NOT. Those who opposed Paul had NO power. Paul was simply bringing this to their attention. In the passages that you allude to in the gospels, Jesus worked miracles prior to some of the Jews asking for a sign (see Matt. 12:22 & 15:30-38). He had given signs. But, the unbelieving Jews wanted more. You, on the other hand, claim that which you do NOT have. Just as Paul did to those who opposed the truth in 1 Cor. 4:19, I am asking about the power you possess. I already know the answer - - just as you know the answer. There is NO power . . . only words.

You have again stepped over the line, claiming to judge my heart and my relationship with God, something you cannot do. Why don’t you just stay on topic? Your personal attacks do not bring credit to you, nor do they appear consistent with your profession of faith. I am not launching person attacks on you nor questioning your faith and I do not expect that type of abusive comment from you either.

If you really believe what you are saying, you should be able to rely on the truth without resorting to personal attacks. My personal observation is that those who resort to such personal attacks have run out of any arguments by which to refute the facts.

How have I judged your heart? You claimed to be baptized with the Holy Spirit? I pointed out the two times this occurs in the N.T., the speaking of tongues accompanied the baptism. I inquired about the signs that accompanied your baptism. What was the answer? Was there any power, or just your words?

So, the challenge to you is to try to stay on topic, stay off abuse and deal with the issue.

And, no, if you attempt was to get me to go down to the same level by getting personal, it will not happen.

Was Paul off-track in 1 Cor. 4:19? Was he abusive? Refusing to deal with the real issue? Launching a personal attack? Or, simply pointing out the obvious?

Finally, if there is not power in my words, why do you so vehemntly avoid such a simple question?

What about the thief on the cross? Are you saying that there are two ways of salvation - one for those before the cross and one for those after?

Frankly, although I have NOT given you the answer in the exact format that you wanted it in, I have not avoided your questions. To illustrate, I have referred you to Heb. 9:16-17 several times. Thus far, you have yet to even acknowledge that the passage is in your Bible. I have asked you if the requirements to please God were the same under the law of Moses as under the law of Christ. What was your answer? Nothing more than to keep parroting the same ole questions over and over and over and over again. Is this the power that you are referring to?

Why do you avoid this question? If you are so sure of your beliefs, then why not simply give a straightforward answer? Could it be that these words carry such power that you cannot answer the question?

I am told that arrogance is the difference between the true worth of a person and what that person actually thinks they are worth.

Note that the power of the Holy Spirit is to be a witness:

John 16:12-14
13 However, when He, the Spirit of truth, has come, He will guide you into all truth; for He will not speak on His own authority, but whatever He hears He will speak; and He will tell you things to come.
NKJV
How could it be that words with no power could create a question which cannot be answered by those who do have the power of the Holy Spirit? The Holy Spirit power is second to none, so how could that be?


Your questions have been answered (see Post #748 on page 75 of the thread entitled, "Do you believe Baptism is essential for Salvation?").

Now, can you get the Holy Spirit to answer if the blessings that are described in Romans 6:3-11 occur during baptism, or before baptism - - as you reason?

[Toms777]

Originally Posted by: - DRA -
Yes, I have studied passages such as Matt. 12:38-39 & 16:1-4. Was Paul violating the meaning of these passages in 1 Cor. 4:19. He was NOT. Those who opposed Paul had NO power. Paul was simply bringing this to their attention. In the passages that you allude to in the gospels, Jesus worked miracles prior to some of the Jews asking for a sign (see Matt. 12:22 & 15:30-38). He had given signs. But, the unbelieving Jews wanted more. You, on the other hand, claim that which you do NOT have.
Okay DRA - you have mis-represented and personally attacked me one time too many.

I want an apology and I want the attacks to cease.

I have not mis-represented or attacked you but seem unable to stop yourself.

Can your arguments not stand on their own without personal attacks?

I have no intention of interacting on the topic with you nor answering any more of your questions until and unless you can show that you have behave in a respectful manner.

[- DRA -]

Now, can you get the Holy Spirit to answer if the blessings that are described in Romans 6:3-11 occur during baptism, or before baptism - - as you reason?

"It is hard for you to kick against the goads." (Acts 9:5).

2 Timothy 4:1-4 says . . .
4:1
I charge you therefore before God and the Lord Jesus Christ, who will judge the living and the dead at* His appearing and His kingdom:
4:2
Preach the word! Be ready in season and out of season. Convince, rebuke, exhort, with all longsuffering and teaching.
4:3
For the time will come when they will not endure sound doctrine, but according to their own desires, because they have itching ears, they will heap up for themselves teachers;
4:4
and they will turn their ears away from the truth, and be turned aside to fables.

Matt. 15:14 says, "Let them alone. They are blind leaders of the blind. And if the blind leads the blind, both will fall into a ditch."

[aggie03]

Toms777, it seems to me that you've been quoting some of the passages out of context with regards to the audience. Who was Jesus talking to in John 16?

[Toms777]

Toms777, it seems to me that you've been quoting some of the passages out of context with regards to the audience. Who was Jesus talking to in John 16?I am always willing to examine any and all verses in context. But be aware that I believe in examining the veerses in the context of the local passages of scripture and to the whole of God's word since we know that the Holy Spirit does not contradict Himself.

John 16 was spoken to the Apostles. I hope that you are not going to try to tell me that the message is restricted to them because then you would have to ignore the rest of the NT.

For example, who was Paul speaking to here?

1 Cor 2:15-16
16 For "who has known the mind of the LORD that he may instruct Him?" But we have the mind of Christ.
NKJV

Let's look:

1 Cor 1:1-2
1:1 Paul, called to be an apostle of Jesus Christ through the will of God, and Sosthenes our brother, 2 To the church of God which is at Corinth, to those who are sanctified in Christ Jesus, called to be saints, with all who in every place call on the name of Jesus Christ our Lord, both theirs and ours:


Ah, we are are instructed by the mind of Christ, all who are saved wherever they are. How are these things revealed to us?

1 Cor 2:10-14
10 But God has revealed them to us through His Spirit. For the Spirit searches all things, yes, the deep things of God. 11 For what man knows the things of a man except the spirit of the man which is in him? Even so no one knows the things of God except the Spirit of God. 12 Now we have received, not the spirit of the world, but the Spirit who is from God, that we might know the things that have been freely given to us by God. 13 These things we also speak, not in words which man's wisdom teaches but which the Holy Spirit teaches, comparing spiritual things with spiritual.
NKJV

This is the guidance of the Holy Spirit promised in John 16, and here clearly given to all who are saved.

But maybe Paul was speaking to the more mature Christians....No, that is not the case either.

1 Cor 3:1-3
3:1 And I, brethren, could not speak to you as to spiritual people but as to carnal, as to babes in Christ. 2 I fed you with milk and not with solid food; for until now you were not able to receive it, and even now you are still not able; 3 for you are still carnal. For where there are envy, strife, and divisions among you, are you not carnal and behaving like mere men?
NKJV

So this message was also for those who were still fairly immature in Christ. It appears that the indwelling and guidance of the Holy Spirit is truly for all Christians, according to the word of God, in context, considering the audience.

Thanks Aggie for challenging this because I am glad that if there is a mis-understanding on this point of scripture that it be clarified, but no I am not taking it out of context but rather I did use it in accurately and in context.

[- DRA -]

Quote:

"John 16 was spoken to the Apostles. I hope that you are not going to try to tell me that the message is restricted to them because then you would have to ignore the rest of the NT."

Some things given to the apostles were restricted to the apostles e.g. Luke 24:49. They were to tarry in Jerusalem until the power came that they had been promised e.g. John 16:7-14. They obeyed the Lord (see Acts 1:12). The Lord sent the Holy Spirit upon them just as He promised (see Acts 2:1-4).

Should Christians go to Jerusalem today and tarry according to Luke 24:49?

[Toms777]

Quote:

"John 16 was spoken to the Apostles. I hope that you are not going to try to tell me that the message is restricted to them because then you would have to ignore the rest of the NT."

Some things given to the apostles were restricted to the apostles e.g. Luke 24:49. They were to tarry in Jerusalem until the power came that they had been promised e.g. John 16:7-14. They obeyed the Lord (see Acts 1:12). The Lord sent the Holy Spirit upon them just as He promised (see Acts 2:1-4).

Should Christians go to Jerusalem today and tarry according to Luke 24:49?As I stated previously, I have no intention of interacting on the topic with you nor answering any more of your questions until and unless you can show that you will behave in a respectful manner in your conversations with me. It is thus of no value to respond to any of my messages until and unless you are prepared to address that point in a satisfactory manner.

[- DRA -]

Galatians 4:16 says, "Have I therefore become your enemy because I tell you the truth?"

[WesWoodell]

lol :)

[Toms777]

Galatians 4:16 says, "Have I therefore become your enemy because I tell you the truth?"
Perhaps I should pose the same question to you since it is you who have chosen to act abusively towards me when I tried to deal with scripture, and not the other way around.

You are not my enemy (at least I do not consider you to be), never have been, and I have no issue with discussing the issues with you or anyone else who can behave in a respectful manner. And indeed I put up with you abusive behaviour for an extended period of time, requesting several times that you cease the inappropriate behaviour. You chose not to alter your behaviour and thus until you can demonstrate that you can discuss in a respectful manner, I see no reason to discuss the topic with you. As soon as you are prepared to take responsibility for your behaviour and to commit to dealing in a respectful manner, we can discuss.

As to why you are unwilling to make such a commitment, that is your business and that is between you and the Lord, but I am under no obligation to condone or encourage such behaviour. I would not condone such behaviour in my kids and I certainly would not expect it from adults.

My requests are simple.

1) Demonstrate your commitment to respectful discussion and interaction
2) Don't just do so with words, but in your actions. Words are cheap but you have a long history on here. However, you have not shown your commitment in either words or action so I have no basis on which to anticipate any change.
3) If you cannot do so, then cease to respond to my messages and let's go our separate ways.

This is neither difficult nor unreasonable.

[- DRA -]

Perhaps I should pose the same question to you since it is you who have chosen to act abusively towards me when I tried to deal with scripture, and not the other way around.

You are not my enemy (at least I do not consider you to be), never have been, and I have no issue with discussing the issues with you or anyone else who can behave in a respectful manner. And indeed I put up with you abusive behaviour for an extended period of time, requesting several times that you cease the inappropriate behaviour. You chose not to alter your behaviour and thus until you can demonstrate that you can discuss in a respectful manner, I see no reason to discuss the topic with you. As soon as you are prepared to take responsibility for your behaviour and to commit to dealing in a respectful manner, we can discuss.

As to why you are unwilling to make such a commitment, that is your business and that is between you and the Lord, but I am under no obligation to condone or encourage such behaviour. I would not condone such behaviour in my kids and I certainly would not expect it from adults.

My requests are simple.

1) Demonstrate your commitment to respectful discussion and interaction
2) Don't just do so with words, but in your actions. Words are cheap but you have a long history on here. However, you have not shown your commitment in either words or action so I have no basis on which to anticipate any change.
3) If you cannot do so, then cease to respond to my messages and let's go our separate ways.

This is neither difficult nor unreasonable.

These charges started during our discussion on page 6 of this thread (posts #52-#58). It all goes back to the baptism of the Holy Spirit that you claim to have. I pointed out the same thing that Paul did in 1 Cor. 4:19 - - that there is tremendous difference between the mere words of men and the power of God. Rather than consider things from a Scriptural perspective, you responded with charges of abuse, judging your heart, and personal attack. I asked how these things were so in post #56 on page 6. Thus far, you have NOT explained how I did any of those things. Why should I apologize when it has NOT been shown what I have done that is wrong?

This is a public forum. I don't see that it is wrong to respond to the reasoning that you promote. Why don't you stop making accusations and start addressing some of the Bible passages that are before us e.g. Romans 6:3-11; Heb. 9:15-17?

[Toms777]

These charges started during our discussion on page 6 of this thread (posts #52-#58). It all goes back to the baptism of the Holy Spirit that you claim to have. I pointed out the same thing that Paul did in 1 Cor. 4:19 - - that there is tremendous difference between the mere words of men and the power of God. Rather than consider things from a Scriptural perspective, you responded with charges of abuse, judging your heart, and personal attack. I asked how these things were so in post #56 on page 6. Thus far, you have NOT explained how I did any of those things. Why should I apologize when it has NOT been shown what I have done that is wrong?

This is a public forum. I don't see that it is wrong to respond to the reasoning that you promote. Why don't you stop making accusations and start addressing some of the Bible passages that are before us e.g. Romans 6:3-11; Heb. 9:15-17?
No, DRA, you turned it into personal attacks and accusations. When asked to deal with the doctrine, and to cease the personal attacks, you would not do so, but continued along that vein. If you cannot see what is wrong with that, then I guess that is why I will not get into a topical discussion with you.

That answers your second question.

As I said before, my requests are simple.

1) Demonstrate your commitment to respectful discussion and interaction
2) Don't just do so with words, but in your actions. Words are cheap but you have a long history on here. However, you have not shown your commitment in either words or action so I have no basis on which to anticipate any change.
3) If you cannot do so, then cease to respond to my messages and let's go our separate ways.

[- DRA -]

No, DRA, you turned it into personal attacks and accusations. When asked to deal with the doctrine, and to cease the personal attacks, you would not do so, but continued along that vein. If you cannot see what is wrong with that, then I guess that is why I will not get into a topical discussion with you.

That answers your second question.

As I said before, my requests are simple.

1) Demonstrate your commitment to respectful discussion and interaction
2) Don't just do so with words, but in your actions. Words are cheap but you have a long history on here. However, you have not shown your commitment in either words or action so I have no basis on which to anticipate any change.
3) If you cannot do so, then cease to respond to my messages and let's go our separate ways.

Red herrings.

Meanwhile, Romans 6:3-11 is still there. It hasn't gone away. And you still want to claim the blessings described in the verses, but won't acknowledge that the blessings occur in baptism. Amazingly, somehow I end up being the bad guy for pointing out the obvious.

Once again, this is a public forum. If you don't want feedback, then post elsewhere.

[WesWoodell]

DRA could you please clear out your PM inbox - its full and people can't send you PMs.

[- DRA -]

DRA could you please clear out your PM inbox - its full and people can't send you PMs.

Thanks. I didn't realize it was full. There's room now.

[Toms777]

Red herrings.

Meanwhile, Romans 6:3-11 is still there. It hasn't gone away. And you still want to claim the blessings described in the verses, but won't acknowledge that the blessings occur in baptism. Amazingly, somehow I end up being the bad guy for pointing out the obvious.

Once again, this is a public forum. If you don't want feedback, then post elsewhere.I am sorry that you think abuse is a "red herring". I don't. In my view, that says much if you will not commit yourself dealing respectfully with others on here.

I agree that on a public forum you can do pretty much as you wish, but I do not agree that it is moral or ethical to do so. That appears to be where we differ. I'll be blunt - I do not understand why respect and civil discussion is a difficult concept or a difficult thing to do.

1 Cor 10:23-25
23 All things are lawful for me, but not all things are helpful; all things are lawful for me, but not all things edify. 24 Let no one seek his own, but each one the other's well-being.
NKJV


And no, I will not engage you in a topical discussion as long as you cannot find it within yourself to agree to behave in a civil and respectful manner. One can disagree but can do so respctfully - until you can understand the difference, do not expect me to agree to a discussion with you. I am quite happy with feedback from anyone, including you, who can discuss respectfully and would be more than willing once you can agree to do what most everyone else on here does as a normal matter of daily interaction.

If you think that you are right, then let knowledge and logic of your argument win the day - abuse is the refuge of those who cannot defend their position by such means.

[Codeman]

Well, I think you both need to grow up. It's the same attitudes as my class of 3rd graders.

As far as salvation goes- it is ridiculous to think that anything physicall such as hydrogen and oxygen can save our souls from eternal damnation. This is a spiritual matter of the soul. The thief is a good example. (BTW-I do remember someone mentioning that it was before christ died- untrue- JC died before the two thieves.)

Codeman

[FaithAlone]

Wow, I don't believe that water baptism is necessary, but first let me just say that you two are being really immature. Tom, you are being disrespected but so what? You know the truth. Christ never promised that we would be respected on earth. You're being attacked because of the arrogance and low self-esteem of another(yes the two often go together). You are confident in what you know from scripture so just let it go. Only God can change a person's heart. Let's all pray for our friends who believe that water baptism is necessary, that they would truly ask God to open their heart and reveal to them through the Holy Spirit what the scriptures really say. Until you read the New Testament all the way through and get the big picture, Church of Christ and other denominations that believe in water baptism will never understand the truth. I used to be COC until I really sought after the truth from God. I had been baptized for the remission of my sins, but I was not saved until much later when I understood that I could not make it on my own. I knew that I needed a Savior. I realized what Christ did for me and I cried out to Him and accepted Him as my Lord and Savior. Romans 10:9. Then and only then was I truly saved. I have since then been baptized in water to give a beautiful gospel presentation and to show that I am one with the body of Christ.

One thing against water baptism for salvation that I haven't seen is in Acts 11? where Peter preaches to the Gentiles and they recieve the Holy Spirit BEFORE they are baptized in water. Is it possible for an unsaved person to recieve the Holy Spirit? Later Peter says that when they recieved the Holy Spirit that he remembered that Christ spoke of a spiritual baptism and how was he to stop God from giving them that gift after BELIEVING.

Just a thought. Please pray for God to show you the truth as you read and don't just pick out a few scriptures. Don't go into a passage of scripture believing that you already know exactly what it means. The word of God is living and active and might just show you something new if you let Him.

[feo]

Baptism is essential; but with water? Thats questionable.

[- DRA -]

As far as salvation goes- it is ridiculous to think that anything physicall such as hydrogen and oxygen can save our souls from eternal damnation. This is a spiritual matter of the soul. The thief is a good example. (BTW-I do remember someone mentioning that it was before christ died- untrue- JC died before the two thieves.)

Codeman
Note the following passages concerning baptism in water:

1 Peter 3:20-21 says,
3:20
Who formerly were disobedient, when once the Divine longsuffering waited in the days of Noah, while the ark was being prepared, in which a few, that is, eight souls, were saved through water.
3:21
There is also an antitype which now saves us--baptism (not the removal of the filth of the flesh, but the answer of a good conscience toward God), through the resurrection of Jesus Christ.

Acts 8:35-39 says,
8:35
Then Philip opened his mouth, and beginning at this Scripture, preached Jesus to him.
8:36
Now 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?"
8:37
Then Philip said, "If you believe with all your heart, you may." And he answered and said, "I believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God." F44
8:38
So he commanded the chariot to stand still. And both Philip and the eunuch went down into the water, and he baptized him.
8:39
Now when they came up out of the water, the Spirit of the Lord caught Philip away, so that the eunuch saw him no more; and he went on his way rejoicing.

Note the following passages concerning what occurs during baptism:

Romans 6:3-11 says,
6:3
Or do you not know that as many of us as were baptized into Christ Jesus were baptized into His death?
6:4
Therefore we were buried with Him through baptism into death, that just as Christ was raised from the dead by the glory of the Father, even so we also should walk in newness of life.
6:5
For if we have been united together in the likeness of His death, certainly we also shall be in the likeness of His resurrection,
6:6
knowing this, that our old man was crucified with Him, that the body of sin might be done away with, that we should no longer be slaves of sin.
6:7
For he who has died has been freed from sin.
6:8
Now if we died with Christ, we believe that we shall also live with Him,
6:9
knowing that Christ, having been raised from the dead, dies no more. Death no longer has dominion over Him.
6:10
For the death that He died, He died to sin once for all; but the life that He lives, He lives to God.
6:11
Likewise you also, reckon yourselves to be dead indeed to sin, but alive to God in Christ Jesus our Lord.

Colossians 2:12 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.

Note the following passages concerning the reason for baptism:

Mark 16:16 says,
He who believes and is baptized will be saved; but he who does not believe will be condemned.

Acts 2:38 says,
Then Peter said to them, "Repent, and let every one of you be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins; and you shall receive the gift of the Holy Spirit.

Acts 22:16 says,
And now why are you waiting? Arise and be baptized, and wash away your sins, calling on the name of the Lord.

Concerning the thief on the cross:

Hebrews 9:15-17 says,
9:15
And for this reason He is the Mediator of the new covenant, by means of death, for the redemption of the transgressions under the first covenant, that those who are called may receive the promise of the eternal inheritance.
9:16
For where there is a testament, there must also of necessity be the death of the testator.
9:17
For a testament is in force after men are dead, since it has no power at all while the testator lives.

In essence, Jesus' testament or will did NOT go into effect until after His death. Jesus pardoned the thief before His death. Therefore Jesus' will was NOT in effect at that time. The thief on the cross is an example of someone who was pardoned while living under the law of Moses. It is NOT an example of someone who was converted under the testament or will of Christ. Look to the book of Acts for those examples. In fact, considering the analogy of Heb. 9:16-17, we can think of Acts chapter 2 as the reading of Jesus' will. Especially note Acts 2:38, 41.

[Telrunya]

That doesn't answer Faithalone's comment about Acts 11 though:

Acts 11:15-16 "As I began to speak, the Holy Spirit came on them as he had come on us at the beginning. Then I remembered what the Lord had said: 'John baptized with water, but you will be baptized with the Holy Spirit.'

Clearly this was after Jesus's death and clearly they recieved the Holy Spirit which is the mark of salvation without being baptized in water.

[Codeman]

Well DRA, I will do what I can...:) I enjoy a challenge and the opportunity to learn, especially from one 30 years older than I.

This is what mine says on 1 Peter.
1 Peter 3:18-22
18 For Christ died for sins once for all, the righteous for the unrighteous, to bring you to God. He was put to death in the body but made alive by the Spirit, 19 through whom also he went and preached to the spirits in prison 20 who disobeyed long ago when God waited patiently in the days of Noah while the ark was being built. In it only a few people, eight in all, were saved through water, 21 and this water symbolizes baptism that now saves you also-not the removal of dirt from the body but the pledge of a good conscience toward God. It saves you by the resurrection of Jesus Christ, 22 who has gone into heaven and is at God's right hand-with angels, authorities and powers in submission to him.
(from New International Version)
What I get from this is that the water that saved Noah and his family, and baptism by water is symbolic for the commitment that we have made to Christ by entering into a relationship with him. The water is not what brings us to God, it's the sacrifice JC made.

As far as Acts 8:35-39, no where does it say that he must, only that he may. Awesome story by the way.

With Romans 6:3-11, I see nothing here that contradicts anything that I have said. "baptized into Christ " "baptism into death" -both of these are spiritual matters, none physical. Same with Colossians 2:12.

Mark 16:16, Acts 2:38, Acts 22:16 are all good points, but is it possible that the things that are said are not as they seem? That there is more than one type of baptism? Such as spiritual as used in the previously mentioned verses?

As far as the thief argument, JC died before the thief died, or they would have broken his legs too.

I think it important for me to mention that I am not against baptism- I have been baptized myself. I agree with it and encourage it, but I do not see it as an absolutely mandatory process in order to get salvation.

Codeman

[Toms777]

Well, I think you both need to grow up. It's the same attitudes as my class of 3rd graders.

CodemanCodeman (and the same would go for faithalone,

Do you note that what my concern was was the behaviour of DRA. Did you note that what you focused on was judging the person. That was the same issue that I have with DRA's attitude.

Let's get the discussion off the person and on to the topic. That is exactly the concern.

James 2:9-10
9 but if you show partiality, you commit sin, and are convicted by the law as transgressors.
NKJV

We are not to be partial to an individual but to treat all persons with equal respect. That is what I am asking.

It is wrong according to scripture (and teh rules of this board I might add) for you to make personal comments as you did about either DRA or myself. I no more condone personal comments against those with whom I agree (or by those with whom I agree) than about or by those with whom I dio not agree.

I think that your comments are just as wrong when you make the about DRA or myself as when DRA made personal comments about me.

I would agauin encourage ALL on this forum to get off the personal attacks ABOUT ANYBODY and get on to dealing with each other respectfully and dealling with the topic.

[Toms777]

As far as the thief argument, JC died before the thief died, or they would have broken his legs too.

I think it important for me to mention that I am not against baptism- I have been baptized myself. I agree with it and encourage it, but I do not see it as an absolutely mandatory process in order to get salvation.

Codeman



As for the thief, it is irrelevant as to when the theif died or Jesus died unless one is trying to promote a theology which has two ways of salvation, one before the cross and one afterward. Scripture is very clear that there is and always has been only one way to salvation and to suggest a second way is a second gospel, a false gospel, which Paul warned about.

[Xzist]

Well DRA, I will do what I can...:) I enjoy a challenge and the opportunity to learn, especially from one 30 years older than I.

This is what mine says on 1 Peter.
1 Peter 3:18-22
18 For Christ died for sins once for all, the righteous for the unrighteous, to bring you to God. He was put to death in the body but made alive by the Spirit, 19 through whom also he went and preached to the spirits in prison 20 who disobeyed long ago when God waited patiently in the days of Noah while the ark was being built. In it only a few people, eight in all, were saved through water, 21 and this water symbolizes baptism that now saves you also-not the removal of dirt from the body but the pledge of a good conscience toward God. It saves you by the resurrection of Jesus Christ, 22 who has gone into heaven and is at God's right hand-with angels, authorities and powers in submission to him.
(from New International Version)
It says and this water symbolizes baptism that now SAVES you
it does not say that baptism symbolizes the water that saved the eight.

its a reaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaal big difference there

As far as the thief argument, JC died before the thief died, or they would have broken his legs too.




And where does it say that in the bible?

[william jay schroeder]

in john i read that 1:29-34 that the two babtisms are clearly made john with water batbtism vrs. 33 and jesus with the holy spirit vrs. 33 also. It doesnt say with water to recieve the holy spirit. but that he will babtise with the holy spirit. So john batism cant be used as a command because he did to reveal Jesus to isreal vrs 31. So you have to go by what Jesus says and he says he babtizes with the holy spirit.John in all his discussens with the pharisees says he babtises with water noting that the One will babtize with something better. and it is also states that Jesus never babtized with water in 3:24. Read 6:63 the Spirit gives life... doesnt this show that water does nothing. Also 3:4-6 mostly misinterpreted but in 5-6 says it clearly must be born of flesh vrs.6 but to get to heaven must be born of the spirit.

[Toms777]

It says and this water symbolizes baptism that now SAVES you
it does not say that baptism symbolizes the water that saved the eight.

No, read again. It says that water, both in Noah's day and baptism are symbolic of that which does save us.

Or are you trying to say that it is water, not blood through which sins are forgiven?

its a reaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaal big difference there
And where does it say that in the bible?
This is irrelevant. The thief of the cross was saved through the blood of Christ - he had to be unless you try to argue that there are two ways to salvation, instead of one.

[william jay schroeder]

read john 1:32-34 and 2:5,6 especially vrs6. Seven times in the new testement it mentions this ministry of Jesus. Seven the number that relats to completion So spirit batism is the completion of being saved. When Jesus speaks of babtism its always spirtual, check it to see if im wrong. then read 4:23-24.

[Evie]

it is commanded of us, but NO...it is not how you become saved. its an act of obedience
it;s an act of obedience for public confession or acknowledgment,yes.

[FaithAlone]

It wasn't the water that saved Noah. The ark that God told him to build is what saved him.

[FaithAlone]

Actually it was Noah's obedience to God that saved him.

[WesWoodell]

Actually it was Noah's obedience to God that saved him.
In my opinion it was Noah's faith in God that saved him. Without that faith Noah wouldn't have been obediant. Obediance is a fruit of good faith.

To the topic at hand - we are instructed to be baptized both through the examples in the Word and direct command through the Word. Does a person truly trust God and have faith in God if they refuse to follow the examples and commandements laid out by God?

I would say - no. A person who refuses to make an effort to be obediant to God has a faith that is dead (James 2).

[FaithAlone]

nevermind this post

[Toms777]

In my opinion it was Noah's faith in God that saved him. Without that faith Noah wouldn't have been obediant. Obediance is a fruit of good faith.

Except Is 59:12 and others tell us that it is sin that separates us from God and that only through blood can there be remission of sins, so obedience cannot save unless that obedience is perfect obedience (i.e. never sin). Once a person has sinned once, they are condemned by their own actions until and unless there is a perfectb sacrifice which includes shedding of blood. There has only ever been one such sacrifice.

Thus, your opinion does not align with scripture.

[- DRA -]

One thing against water baptism for salvation that I haven't seen is in Acts 11? where Peter preaches to the Gentiles and they recieve the Holy Spirit BEFORE they are baptized in water. Is it possible for an unsaved person to recieve the Holy Spirit? Later Peter says that when they recieved the Holy Spirit that he remembered that Christ spoke of a spiritual baptism and how was he to stop God from giving them that gift after BELIEVING.

While the apostle Peter was preaching to Cornelius and his household the Holy Spirit came upon these Gentiles (see Acts 10:44). The Jews were astonished by this - - God had given the Gentiles the gift of the Holy Spirit just as He had the Jews (see verse 45). Thus, Peter asks if anyone can forbid water so that the Gentiles that have received the Holy Spirit should NOT be baptized (see verse 47). Since none of the Jews could protest under the circumstances, Peter commanded the Gentiles to be baptized (in water) in the name of the Lord (see verse 48).

Later, Peter explains the sequence of events in chronological order to the Jews in Jerusalem (see Acts 11:1-14). Once again, he explains how the Holy Spirit came upon the Gentiles (see verse 15). He explained how he remembered the Lord's promise to baptize with the Holy Spirit (verse 16). Peter asks his Jewish brethren a question in verse 17 -- "If therefore God gave them the same gift as He gave us [the apostles in Acts chapter 2:1-4] when we believed on the Lord Jesus Christ, who was I that I could withstand God?" Once they understood the sequence of events, the Jewish Christians first became silent, but then glorified God because He granted repentance to the Gentiles (see verse 18).

The issue for us to grapple with is what truth we should derive from this incident. Obviously, it clearly demonstrated that God was now extending the gospel to the Gentiles. What we have to determine is at what point the Gentiles were saved. The text doesn't specifically say. However, the text does tell us that the Gentiles were commanded to be baptized in water (see Acts 10:47-48). Why? The text doesn't tell us. However, if other texts tell us why people were commanded to be baptized in the name of the Lord then we have our answer. I submit Acts 2:38 and 22:16 for your consideration. Baptism is commanded in those passages for the remission of sins and to wash away sins, respectively. There is our answer. That is why the Gentiles were commanded to be baptized. They were baptized for the remission of sins or to have their sins washed away.

Does God's Spirit dwell in an unclean temple? This question is frequently asked because it is supposed to lend credibility to salvation under the gospel of Christ occurring before baptism. However, God's Spirit dwelling in an unclean temple is not the issue. The issue is God showing His approval of extending the gospel to the Gentiles. That is all the texts of Acts 10 and 11 offer for us. God is showing that it is okay to extend the gospel to the Gentiles. He approved of it. There was no dispute once the facts were understood by the Jews. On the other hand, if one reasons that the Gentiles were indeed saved before baptism, then one should be prepared to harmonize that understanding with passages such as Mark 16:16; Acts 2:38; Acts 22:16; Rom. 6:3-11: Gal. 3:26-27; Col. 2:12; and 1 Pet. 3:20-21.

[- DRA -]

Well DRA, I will do what I can...:) I enjoy a challenge and the opportunity to learn, especially from one 30 years older than I.

This is what mine says on 1 Peter.
1 Peter 3:18-22
18 For Christ died for sins once for all, the righteous for the unrighteous, to bring you to God. He was put to death in the body but made alive by the Spirit, 19 through whom also he went and preached to the spirits in prison 20 who disobeyed long ago when God waited patiently in the days of Noah while the ark was being built. In it only a few people, eight in all, were saved through water, 21 and this water symbolizes baptism that now saves you also-not the removal of dirt from the body but the pledge of a good conscience toward God. It saves you by the resurrection of Jesus Christ, 22 who has gone into heaven and is at God's right hand-with angels, authorities and powers in submission to him.
(from New International Version)
What I get from this is that the water that saved Noah and his family, and baptism by water is symbolic for the commitment that we have made to Christ by entering into a relationship with him. The water is not what brings us to God, it's the sacrifice JC made.

The comparison being made is that water saved them just as baptism saves us.

Agreed. The water is not what brings us to Christ.

As far as Acts 8:35-39, no where does it say that he must, only that he may. Awesome story by the way.

It is indeed as awesome story. Note the last part of verse 35. Philip "preached Jesus." Then, note the eunuch's response after hearing Jesus preached. The eunuch wants to be baptized in water. There is a necessary inference here that you shouldn't miss - - since Philip preached Jesus, and the eunuch desired to be baptized in water immediately after being taught, then preaching Jesus obviously involves teaching about baptism in water. What hindered the eunuch from being baptized? Nothing, as long as he believed (see Acts 8:36b-37a). Note that baptism alone wouldn't work. Belief was also required. Doesn't that remind you of another passage? Like, Mark 16:16?

With Romans 6:3-11, I see nothing here that contradicts anything that I have said. "baptized into Christ " "baptism into death" -both of these are spiritual matters, none physical. Same with Colossians 2:12.

Romans 6:3-11 describes what occurs during baptism. Note especially verses 7 and 11. A person dies and becomes free from sin, but alive to God. This occurs during baptism. What does that imply about one's state before baptism?

Col. 2:12 is a very concise version of Romans 6:3-11. However, it clearly points out that baptism is based on faith in the working of God.

Think about these passages and then ask yourself why the eunuch in Acts 8 was so anxious to be baptized.



Mark 16:16, Acts 2:38, Acts 22:16 are all good points, but is it possible that the things that are said are not as they seem? That there is more than one type of baptism? Such as spiritual as used in the previously mentioned verses?

Thank you for acknowledging these passages. However, don't be so quick to dismiss them. After all, the real question is why are these passages anything other than what they seem to be? We know that Philip preached about a baptism in water (Acts 8), as did Peter in Acts 10 and 1 Pet. 3:20-21. If the baptism of the Holy Spirit was being commanded in Acts 2:38 and 22:16, then what exactly does a person do to obey this command?

As far as the thief argument, JC died before the thief died, or they would have broken his legs too.

Who died first is NOT an issue. The issue is with what Heb. 9:15-17 says. Jesus testament or will did not go into effect until after He died. He pardoned the thief before He died. Therefore, this occurred before Jesus' will went into effect. In essence, the thief lived and died under the law of Moses, not under the gospel of Christ.

If the thief on the cross is an example of how one is saved under the gospel of Christ today, then the examples of conversions in the book of Acts would agree, right? Do they?

I think it important for me to mention that I am not against baptism- I have been baptized myself. I agree with it and encourage it, but I do not see it as an absolutely mandatory process in order to get salvation.

Codeman




I am glad that you are NOT against baptism. However, understanding what the Lord requires for the sinner initially coming to Him is vitally important. See Matt. 7:21-23. There will be many folks who think they are saved and serving the Lord, but are NOT saved at all. Why not? They said, "Lord, Lord," but did NOT do the Father's will. The Lord rejects them saying, "I never knew you" (NKJV). Think about it as you study the conversions in the book of Acts.

Codeman,

I sincerely appreciate you taking the time to share your thoughts with us. I pray that God will richly bless you in your efforts to study His word and apply it to your life.

In his service, :bow:
. . . DRA

P.S. Don't be intimidated by your age. Rather, use it to serve the Lord. See 1 Tim. 4:12 and Eccl. 12:1.

[- DRA -]

in john i read that 1:29-34 that the two babtisms are clearly made john with water batbtism vrs. 33 and jesus with the holy spirit vrs. 33 also. It doesnt say with water to recieve the holy spirit. but that he will babtise with the holy spirit. So john batism cant be used as a command because he did to reveal Jesus to isreal vrs 31. So you have to go by what Jesus says and he says he babtizes with the holy spirit.John in all his discussens with the pharisees says he babtises with water noting that the One will babtize with something better. and it is also states that Jesus never babtized with water in 3:24. Read 6:63 the Spirit gives life... doesnt this show that water does nothing. Also 3:4-6 mostly misinterpreted but in 5-6 says it clearly must be born of flesh vrs.6 but to get to heaven must be born of the spirit.

The difference between the baptism of John and the baptism in the name of the Lord Jesus can be noted in Acts 18:24 through 19:5.

Jesus indeed baptizes with the Holy Spirit. Peter says this is what He did in Acts 11:15-17, referrring to Acts 2:1-4 and Acts 10:44-45.

In John 3:3-5 Jesus tells Nicodemus, who had already been born in the flesh, that one must be born again -- of water and of the Spirit. Are there any passages in the N.T. that describe this process? I submit Rom. 6:3-11 for your consideration. Also, I suggest that you consider that "preaching Jesus" involves teaching about baptism -- NOT with the Holy Spirit -- but in water (see Acts 8:35-39). Peter declares that baptism saves us (1 Pet. 3:21). That baptism is in water (consider the comparison between 1 Pet. 3:20 and verse 21).

[- DRA -]

It wasn't the water that saved Noah. The ark that God told him to build is what saved him.

What does 1 Peter 3:20 say saved the eight souls?

What saves us in verse 21?

[- DRA -]

Originally Posted by: FaithAlone

Actually it was Noah's obedience to God that saved him.

In my opinion it was Noah's faith in God that saved him. Without that faith Noah wouldn't have been obediant. Obediance is a fruit of good faith.

To the topic at hand - we are instructed to be baptized both through the examples in the Word and direct command through the Word. Does a person truly trust God and have faith in God if they refuse to follow the examples and commandements laid out by God?

I would say - no. A person who refuses to make an effort to be obediant to God has a faith that is dead (James 2).

Since without faith it is impossible to please God (Heb. 11:6), faith is not something to be overlooked.

The demons believe - and tremble, but yet are found lacking (James 2:19).
Likewise, many people claim salvation and to be serving the Lord, but are NOT (Matt. 7:21-23). :eek:

Those Jews that gladly received the word obeyed it (Acts 2:38,41). We should follow their example. :clap:

[Telrunya]

What does 1 Peter 3:20 say saved the eight souls? 1 Peter 3:20 who disobeyed long ago when God waited patiently in the days of Noah while the ark was being built. In it only a few people, eight in all, were saved through water,


The ark that Noah built because of his Faith in God is what saved them. The verse says it saved them through water as one goes through a trial.

What saves us in verse 21?1 Peter 3:21 and this water symbolizes baptism that now saves you also--not the removal of dirt from the body but the pledge of a good conscience toward God. It saves you by the resurrection of Jesus Christ,

Baptism of the Spirit by the resurrection of Jesus Christ. Water baptisms are to be encouraged because it was an outward declaration, "the pledge of a good concious toward God" to the members of the Body who are then bond by God's word to keep us accountable. The eunuch spoken of in Acts was anxious to make that declaration.

[Bulldog]

What does 1 Peter 3:20 say saved the eight souls?

The Ark.

What saves us in verse 21?

Baptism, but not the removal of dirt (as with literal baptism) but baptism of the heart, a pledge to God.

[william jay schroeder]

The difference between the baptism of John and the baptism in the name of the Lord Jesus can be noted in Acts 18:24 through 19:5.

Jesus indeed baptizes with the Holy Spirit. Peter says this is what He did in Acts 11:15-17, referrring to Acts 2:1-4 and Acts 10:44-45.

In John 3:3-5 Jesus tells Nicodemus, who had already been born in the flesh, that one must be born again -- of water and of the Spirit. Are there any passages in the N.T. that describe this process? I submit Rom. 6:3-11 for your consideration. Also, I suggest that you consider that "preaching Jesus" involves teaching about baptism -- NOT with the Holy Spirit -- but in water (see Acts 8:35-39). Peter declares that baptism saves us (1 Pet. 3:21). That baptism is in water (consider the comparison between 1 Pet. 3:20 and verse 21). 1 peter 3:20 says that it synbolizes the babtism now used. which one spirit or water. all the scriptures only speak singularly about babtism so how could it be both that is needed. water babtism is never ossiated with Christ except for when John babtized him. water babtism is never explain how when and why its needed. All the other ordanaces and commands in scripture are. if was essential why isnt it given a chapter in scripture to show the importance. vrs 21 the rest of the story. ....It (spirtual) saves you by the resurrection of Jesus. It doesnt say They save you , it would have to if both were needed.

[Toms777]

The Ark.
Baptism, but not the removal of dirt (as with literal baptism) but baptism of the heart, a pledge to God.
Quiote right - that is why it is called an antitype!

Scriopture is quite clear that the only thing that can save us is the sacrifice on the cross. To try to take away from what Christ did on the cross and to suggest that mere water and an act of man can save us is to replace the gospel of the cross in part or in whole with a different gospel.

[Toms777]

1 peter 3:20 says that it synbolizes the babtism now used. which one spirit or water. all the scriptures only speak singularly about babtism so how could it be both that is needed. water babtism is never ossiated with Christ except for when John babtized him. water babtism is never explain how when and why its needed. All the other ordanaces and commands in scripture are. if was essential why isnt it given a chapter in scripture to show the importance. vrs 21 the rest of the story. ....It (spirtual) saves you by the resurrection of Jesus. It doesnt say They save you , it would have to if both were needed.You are correct.

Scripture says that the only thing separating us from God is sin and the only thing which can take away sin is the blood shed by Jesus on the cross. There never has been any other means of salvation.

[Codeman]

I am trying to think of reasons why this discussion is pertinent.

I am saved, baptized or not. So why do we debate this? what are we really arguing? One side is saying that if I die and am not baptized in H2O, I am bound for hell, while the other says that it is not necessary. I guess for the reason that others are not misled that thier loved ones who were not baptized (but were potentially saved) are headed to hell?

Honestly, if some want to believe that, then thats fine. The only time I would dislike it is within the situation I just outlined, and maybe some others like it. Otherwise, who cares? its between you and God now.

Or maybe its just very, very late and I am tired...

[New_Wineskin]

I am trying to think of reasons why this discussion is pertinent.

I am saved, baptized or not. So why do we debate this? what are we really arguing? One side is saying that if I die and am not baptized in H2O, I am bound for hell, while the other says that it is not necessary. I guess for the reason that others are not misled that thier loved ones who were not baptized (but were potentially saved) are headed to hell?

Honestly, if some want to believe that, then thats fine. The only time I would dislike it is within the situation I just outlined, and maybe some others like it. Otherwise, who cares? its between you and God now.

Or maybe its just very, very late and I am tired...
There are at least three sides :
a) salvation doesn't occur unless one is baptized in water
b) same as a but a very specific ritual performed by certain people ( and using a specific magical incantation ) are required for the baptism to be authentic
c) Water baptism is not required for salvation but is required for obedience
d) it is not required in any way
e) it is only required if the Lord specifically tells the individual


There are several reasons why people are discussing this . It isn't as much about themselves as it is in what to demand of those who have not as yet been water baptized . Those that don't consider it as a requirement won't push newborn Christians into having it performed on them .

I am not sure if those that consider it as a requirement for salvation would accept the water baptism of those that do so out of obedience but not for the purpose of salvation . It may depend on the individual who thinks that way .

[Toms777]

I am trying to think of reasons why this discussion is pertinent.

I am saved, baptized or not. So why do we debate this? what are we really arguing? One side is saying that if I die and am not baptized in H2O, I am bound for hell, while the other says that it is not necessary. I guess for the reason that others are not misled that thier loved ones who were not baptized (but were potentially saved) are headed to hell?

Honestly, if some want to believe that, then thats fine. The only time I would dislike it is within the situation I just outlined, and maybe some others like it. Otherwise, who cares? its between you and God now.

Or maybe its just very, very late and I am tired...
I'll tell you why discussions like this matter. You may clearly undersatand the truth on this matter, but there are others who do not, who lurk. I know because having been on discussions such as this before, I sometimes hear from some lurkers. You can ofetn assume maybe 10 lurkers for each participant.

For those people it canm be important for them to hear what the scripture says on important topics such as this that relate to salvation. I concern myself with those who may fear their salvation when they are in fact saved having received Jesus as their Saviour.

For those who have heard the truth and make their decision, I agree that