If baptism is essential [Archive]

View Full Version : If baptism is essential

ydouxist

28th January 2005, 01:40 AM

Starforsaken

28th January 2005, 03:03 AM

It isnt essential and its obvious that its not, just the churches way of making you a new member and giving you the *right* to eat christs blood and body... thats how I see it anyway.

Iron Lion

28th January 2005, 07:45 AM

It isnt essential and its obvious that its not, just the churches way of making you a new member and giving you the *right* to eat christs blood and body... thats how I see it anyway.

its obvious its not?? :confused: :confused:

what is with this place and everyone using there opinion rather than what Jesus and the bible taught.??

YES we must be batised.

John 3:5
Jesus answered, “I tell you the truth, no one can enter the kingdom of God unless he is born of water and the Spirit.

Mark 16:16
Whoever believes and is baptized will be saved, but whoever does not believe will be condemned.

1 Pet. 3:21
and this water symbolizes baptism that now saves you also–not the removal of dirt from the body but the pledge[a] of a good conscience toward God. It saves you by the resurrection of Jesus Christ,

Acts 2:38
Peter replied, “Repent and be baptized, every one of you, in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins. And you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit

Acts 22:16
And now what are you waiting for? Get up, be baptized and wash your sins away, calling on his name

Romans 6:3-4
Or don't you know that all of us who were baptized into Christ Jesus were baptized into his death? We were therefore buried with him through baptism into death in order that, just as Christ was raised from the dead through the glory of the Father, we too may live a new life.

Colossians 2:11-12
In him you were also circumcised, in the putting off of the sinful nature,[a] not with a circumcision done by the hands of men but with the circumcision done by Christ, 12having been buried with him in baptism and raised with him through your faith in the power of God, who raised him from the dead.

Stinker

28th January 2005, 09:37 AM

Why did Paul say Christ didn't send him to baptize?

1Cr 1:17 For Christ did not send me to baptize but to preach the gospel,
and not with eloquent wisdom, lest the cross of Christ be emptied of its power.

"I thank thank God that I baptized none of you, but Crispus and Gaius; Lest any should say that I had baptized in mine own name. And I baptized also the household of Stephanas: besides, I know not whether I baptized any other. FOR CHRIST SENT ME NOT TO BAPTIZE, BUT TO PREACH THE GOSPEL:..." (1Cor.1:14-17)

Getting the message out took priority over baptizing the hundreds, and in one case thousands Acts 2:41, of repentant sinners in a day. To baptize all these people the Apostles had help from people such as those in Acts 6.

FaithAlone

28th January 2005, 02:05 PM

OK here we go again even though no one will even listen.

John 3:5
Jesus answered, “I tell you the truth, no one can enter the kingdom of God unless he is born of water and the Spirit.
Such a misinterpretation. The water is not water baptism. Nicodemus asks "How can I crawl back into my mother and be born again?" He can't the flesh(water that breaks when a mother gives birth) is flesh and is the first birth. The second is Spirit and is the baptism of the Holy Spirit; the second and necessary birth.

1 Pet. 3:21
and this water symbolizes baptism that now saves you also–not the removal of dirt from the body but the pledge[a] of a good conscience toward God. It saves you by the resurrection of Jesus Christ,
Not the removal of dirt from the flesh! Not water baptism but a spiritual one that results in a clear conscious toward God!
Acts 2:38
Peter replied, “Repent and be baptized, every one of you, in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins. And you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit
If you look to the original text repent is to all people everywhere. Be baptized is for believers only for(Eis meaning because of) the remission of sins
Acts 22:16
And now what are you waiting for? Get up, be baptized and wash your sins away, calling on his name
Do you call on His name when you're baptized in water? The reference from that scripture took me to Stephan's death when he cries aloud Jesus receive my spirit. Do you do that?

Romans 6:3-4
Or don't you know that all of us who were baptized into Christ Jesus were baptized into his death? We were therefore buried with him through baptism into death in order that, just as Christ was raised from the dead through the glory of the Father, we too may live a new life.

Baptized by the Holy Spirit. There is only one baptism that is necessary and that is of the Spirit. If the necessary one was the water then that would be the one baptism that Ephesians speaks of and it would cancel out the Holy Spirit baptism as being necessary.

Colossians 2:11-12In him you were also circumcised, in the putting off of the sinful nature,[a] not with a circumcision done by the hands of men but with the circumcision done by Christ, 12having been buried with him in baptism and raised with him through your faith in the power of God, who raised him from the dead.
Once again spiritual baptism. If it's not done by hands then how in the world does water baptism save you?

It is by FAITH!

Can you please explain to me how you determine the difference between water and spiritual baptism in the Bible?

Stinker

28th January 2005, 03:08 PM

Such a misinterpretation. The water is not water baptism. Nicodemus asks "How can I crawl back into my mother and be born again?" He can't the flesh(water that breaks when a mother gives birth) is flesh and is the first birth. The second is Spirit and is the baptism of the Holy Spirit; the second and necessary birth. (FaithAlone post #5 on Jn.3:5)

FaithAlone: If Jesus meant that if a man wasn't born of the flesh.....is it your understanding that there was another way that people came into being back then?

western kentucky

28th January 2005, 03:34 PM

OK here we go again even though no one will even listen.

Such a misinterpretation. The water is not water baptism. Nicodemus asks "How can I crawl back into my mother and be born again?" He can't the flesh(water that breaks when a mother gives birth) is flesh and is the first birth. The second is Spirit and is the baptism of the Holy Spirit; the second and necessary birth.

John 3:5; From my understanding, the passage does not teach that the "water" is referring to a physical birth. In 3:4, Nicodemus thought that it was referring to a physical birth, but he was corrected. Everyone on this planet has been born; therefore, all who live automatically have the first point covered. How could this be a condition for salvation, when every person has this point covered?

Not the removal of dirt from the flesh! Not water baptism but a spiritual one that results in a clear conscious toward God!

1 Peter 3:20 - 21 says, "who once were disobedient, when the patience of God kept waiting in the days of Noah, during the construction of the ark, in which a few, that is, eight persons, were brought safely through the water. Corresponding to that, baptism now saves you - - not the removal of dirt from the flesh, but an appeal to God for a good conscience - - through the resurrection of Jesus Christ..."

It clearly says it, "...baptism now saves you..." Peter clarifies that the purpose of baptism is not to remove dirt from the flesh, "but an appeal to God for a good conscience - - through the resurrection of Jesus Christ..." How would a person appeal to God for a good conscience..."? Simply, when comparing the passage to Acts 2:38, one realizes that baptism is for the remission of sins; Doesn't that provide a clear conscience? "-- through the resurrection of Jesus Christ." Understanding that water baptism is symbolic of being baptized into Christ's death, and coming up from the water is symbolic of Christ's resurrection (Romans 6:1 -7) provides clarity on the verse.

If you look to the original text repent is to all people everywhere. Be baptized is for believers only for(Eis meaning because of) the remission of sins!

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

Out of all the times that "EIS" is used in the New Testament, it is never once translated "because of"! There is another passage that (EIS) is used identically; you can be the translator:

Matthew 26:28 - ..."for this is My blood of the covenant, which is poured out for many (EIS) forgiveness of sins.

Also notice that in verse 37 the people were pierced to the heart because they realized they crucified the Son of God (verse 36). Was their realization and belief in Christ enough to save them? If so, then why does Peter command them to repent and be baptized?

Do you call on His name when you're baptized in water? The reference from that scripture took me to Stephan's death when he cries aloud Jesus receive my spirit. Do you do that?

Acts 22:16; You are trying to the verse to read something like, "Call on His name, sins removed, and then you are baptized. This idea does not harmonize with other verses. Notice the sense of urgency associated with baptism; consider Acts 8:36-37, Acts 10:48, Acts 16:31-34, and Acts 22:16. Why would there be a sense of urgency? When comparing with other scriptures, one realizes that baptism is "for the remission of sins," is to be buried with Christ (Romans 6:3, Col. 2:12), and that "baptism saves us" (1 Peter 3:21). It's important to see the big picture.

Baptized by the Holy Spirit. There is only one baptism that is necessary and that is of the Spirit. If the necessary one was the water then that would be the one baptism that Ephesians speaks of and it would cancel out the Holy Spirit baptism as being necessary.

Once again spiritual baptism. If it's not done by hands then how in the world does water baptism save you?

The "one" baptism that Eph. 4:5 is referring to is not "Holy Spirit" baptism. Consider Acts 10: 34 - 38. We see that the Gentiles were baptized with the Holy Spirit. Did this save them? Consider verses 47-48.

FaithAlone

28th January 2005, 04:02 PM

Consider Acts 10: 34 - 38. We see that the Gentiles were baptized with the Holy Spirit. Did this save them? Consider verses 47-48.

Peter did ask for the Gentiles to be baptized but look further into the next chapter. Peter is explaining what happened and says "And I remembered the word of the Lord, how He used to say, 'John baptized with water, but you will be baptized with the Holy Spirit!' Therefore if God gave to them the same gift as He gave to us also AFTER BELIEVING IN THE LORD JESUS CHRIST, who was I that I could stand in God's way?

Once again how do you decide whether the word baptism means water or spiritual?

julian the apostate

28th January 2005, 04:04 PM

i heard this somewhere else -

man was not made for the sacraments but sacraments for the man

i dont think people are deprived of grace on technicalities

western kentucky

28th January 2005, 07:03 PM

Peter did ask for the Gentiles to be baptized but look further into the next chapter. Peter is explaining what happened and says "And I remembered the word of the Lord, how He used to say, 'John baptized with water, but you will be baptized with the Holy Spirit!' Therefore if God gave to them the same gift as He gave to us also AFTER BELIEVING IN THE LORD JESUS CHRIST, who was I that I could stand in God's way?

Once again how do you decide whether the word baptism means water or spiritual?

You are referring to 11:16-17. Also consider verse 18: When they heard this, they quieted down and glorified God, saying, "Well then, God has granted to the Gentiles also the repentance that leads to life."

The point is....... John baptized believers for repentance (Matt. 3:11), in the same way Peter was baptized by the Holy Spirit to lead the Gentiles to repentance (Acts 11:18).

There is a difference between the baptism of John and the baptism of Jesus Christ. We are commanded to be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ (consider Acts 19:1-5). Notice that the believers were baptized into the name of Jesus Christ (verse 5), and then later the Holy Spirit came upon them (verse 6).

Reverting back to Acts 10:47-48, the Holy Spirit fell upon the Gentiles to lead them to repentance, then Peter ordered them to be water baptized into the name of Jesus Christ. They were to be baptized because baptism: "is for the forgiveness of sins (Acts 2:38), "is to be buried into Christ's death" (Romans 6:3), "saves us"(1 Peter 3:21), etc... When harmonizing, the picture becomes much clearer.

western kentucky

28th January 2005, 07:13 PM

Once again how do you decide whether the word baptism means water or spiritual?

1 Cor. 12:13 - For by one Spirit we were all baptized into one body, whether Jews or Greeks, whether slaves or free, and we were all made to drink of one Spirit.

By one Spirit they were baptized.... To understand this verse, we must consider the role and function of the Spirit. Through the scripture, we understand that the Holy Spirit directed the apostles in teaching the word of God. So, through the guidance, teaching, and instruction of the one Spirit, they were baptized (water baptism: Acts 10:47-48; Acts 8:37; 1 Pet. 3:21) into one body (Christ's body Rom. 6:3-4). I hope this helps to answer your question.

- DRA -

29th January 2005, 01:10 AM

OK here we go again even though no one will even listen.

I am listening.

Such a misinterpretation. The water is not water baptism. Nicodemus asks "How can I crawl back into my mother and be born again?" He can't the flesh(water that breaks when a mother gives birth) is flesh and is the first birth. The second is Spirit and is the baptism of the Holy Spirit; the second and necessary birth.

Jesus described the necessity for being born again in John 3:3-5. The apostle Paul gives us a detailed account of how the new birth occurs. It occurs when one dies to sin, is freed from it, and becomes alive to God. When does this occur according to Romans 6:3-11?

Not the removal of dirt from the flesh! Not water baptism but a spiritual one that results in a clear conscious toward God!

In essence, the thought of 1 Pet. 3:20-21 is that water saved them, and baptism saves us. Have you closely examined the conversions in the book of Acts to check your understanding to see if it is correct? For instance, there is no way around Acts 8:35-39 and Acts 10:47-48 -- those baptisms were in water. Look closely at the one in Acts 10. It was "in the name of the Lord," just as the one in Acts 2:38. Therefore, it means that the one in Acts 2:38 was also in water, as was the one in Acts 19:5. What we see in the book of Acts is the apostles and first-century Christians teaching the necessity of baptism just as the Lord commanded in Mark 16:16.

If you look to the original text repent is to all people everywhere. Be baptized is for believers only for(Eis meaning because of) the remission of sins

First, the phrase "for the remission of sins" in Acts 2:38 is identical in the Koine Greek as "for the remission of sins" in Matt. 26:28. Does this phrase mean "because of" in that passage?

Second, the word "for" (the Greek word "eis") in Acts 2:38 is the same word that is also translated "for" in Rom. 4:5. What does the word "for" mean in that passage? Does it mean because of?

Do you call on His name when you're baptized in water? The reference from that scripture took me to Stephan's death when he cries aloud Jesus receive my spirit. Do you do that?

Yes. Those who do what the Lord tells them are calling on His name when they obey Him. It means that they are acting by His authority (see Acts 4:7).

Baptized by the Holy Spirit. There is only one baptism that is necessary and that is of the Spirit. If the necessary one was the water then that would be the one baptism that Ephesians speaks of and it would cancel out the Holy Spirit baptism as being necessary.

Have you considered why the Holy Spirit was promised to the apostles (see John 16:8-14)? The baptism in the name of the Lord was in water and for the remission of sins. Compare the reasons for the two baptisms. We now have God's complete revelation to man (see 2 Tim. 3:16-17; 2 Pet. 1:3; James 1:25). Do men and women still have sins today that need to be taken away? Assuming that we are in agreement that there are, then we should be able to determine which baptism is applicable today.

Once again spiritual baptism. If it's not done by hands then how in the world does water baptism save you?

By faith in the working of God (see Col. 2:12 and Rom. 6:3-11 for a more detailed description).

It is by FAITH!

Can you please explain to me how you determine the difference between water and spiritual baptism in the Bible?

Assuming that you mean the baptism with the Holy Spirit, I look at the two examples given in Scripture of when that occurred. In Acts 2, that baptism came upon the apostles, just as the Lord promised in John 16. In Acts 10, that baptism came upon the first Gentiles to hear the gospel of Christ. It clearly demonstrated to the Jews that God approved of the Gentiles receiving the gospel. On the other hand, baptism in water was commanded to take sins away e.g. Acts 2:38, Acts 10:47-48, Acts 22:16.

Food for thought:
Jesus commanded the apostles to preach the gospel to every creature (see Mark 16:15-16). In the conversions in the book of Acts we see the apostles and first-century Christians doing that very thing. :thumbsup:

- DRA -

29th January 2005, 01:16 AM

MbiaJc

29th January 2005, 02:18 AM

MbiaJc

29th January 2005, 02:36 AM

i heard this somewhere else -

man was not made for the sacraments but sacraments for the man

i dont think people are deprived of grace on technicalities

That may be true, however i would hate to be standing in front of Jesus and He ask me why i was to stiffneck to be baptised when i had the opertunity.

There is another way of looking at this that hasn't been discussed here, i don't think.

Circumcism was the outward sign that a Iserolite man had intered into a covenant with God. Baptism is outward sign that we have intered into a covenant with God also. It should be one of our first act of odedience to Jesus Christ our Lord.

Remember if a Iserolite male came close to holy things without being circumcised he would be killed.

ydouxist

29th January 2005, 02:38 AM

How the was the thief on the cross saved?
He obviously wasn't baptized with water? :scratch:

- DRA -

29th January 2005, 03:50 AM

How the was the thief on the cross saved?
He obviously wasn't baptized with water? :scratch:

Consider Heb. 9:15-17. Jesus' testament or will went into effect after His death. The thief lived and died while under the law of Moses. Baptism in the name of the Lord was not a requirement under the old covenant (see Heb. 8:6-13).

After Jesus' death the terms to His will or testament were proclaimed first in Acts 2:38. Baptism was a requirement "for the remission of sins" (see also Mark 16:16).

I encourage you to read the book of Acts and consider the examples of conversions before drawing any premature conclusions e.g. Acts 8:12; 8:35-39; 10:43-47-48; 16:30-34; 18:8; 19:1-5; 22:16. :idea:

ydouxist

29th January 2005, 04:12 AM

Consider Heb. 9:15-17. Jesus' testament or will went into effect after His death. The thief lived and died while under the law of Moses. Baptism in the name of the Lord was not a requirement under the old covenant (see Heb. 8:6-13).

After Jesus' death the terms to His will or testament were proclaimed first in Acts 2:38. Baptism was a requirement "for the remission of sins" (see also Mark 16:16).

I encourage you to read the book of Acts and consider the examples of conversions before drawing any premature conclusions e.g. Acts 8:12; 8:35-39; 10:43-47-48; 16:30-34; 18:8; 19:1-5; 22:16. :idea:

Didn't Jesus die first???? :eek:

- DRA -

29th January 2005, 02:41 PM

Didn't Jesus die first???? :eek:

Jesus pardoned the thief before His death -- which was under the law of Moses. If the Lord had not pardoned the thief, he would have been judged under the law of Moses (see Rom. 2:12b).

According to Heb. 9:15-17, Jesus' testament went into effect after His death. When? At the exact moment of death, or when the terms to His will were proclaimed in Acts chapter 2?

If the thief was an example of someone being saved under the new covenant, it would agree or harmonize with the many examples of conversions in the book of Acts. Does it e.g. Acts 2:38? If it does you have a case, if it doesn't, then you don't.

- DRA -

29th January 2005, 02:46 PM

i heard this somewhere else -

man was not made for the sacraments but sacraments for the man

i dont think people are deprived of grace on technicalities

People are rejected for NOT doing the Father's will (see Matt. 7:21-23 and Luke 6:46).

What did the apostle Peter, under the direct influence of the Holy Spirit, tell the Jews to do in Acts 2:38 to have their sins taken away? Did they obey God (see verse 41)? And, what did the Lord do as a result of their obedience (see verse 47)?

W Jay Schroeder

29th January 2005, 06:04 PM

You are referring to 11:16-17. Also consider verse 18: When they heard this, they quieted down and glorified God, saying, "Well then, God has granted to the Gentiles also the repentance that leads to life."

The point is....... John baptized believers for repentance (Matt. 3:11), in the same way Peter was baptized by the Holy Spirit to lead the Gentiles to repentance (Acts 11:18).

There is a difference between the baptism of John and the baptism of Jesus Christ. We are commanded to be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ (consider Acts 19:1-5). Notice that the believers were baptized into the name of Jesus Christ (verse 5), and then later the Holy Spirit came upon them (verse 6).

Reverting back to Acts 10:47-48, the Holy Spirit fell upon the Gentiles to lead them to repentance, then Peter ordered them to be water baptized into the name of Jesus Christ. They were to be baptized because baptism: "is for the forgiveness of sins (Acts 2:38), "is to be buried into Christ's death" (Romans 6:3), "saves us"(1 Peter 3:21), etc... When harmonizing, the picture becomes much clearer. your not harmonizing anything at all read Titus 3:4-8. Acts 19:1-5 hasnt a thing to do with Acts 11:18. You dont harmaonize verse that dont relate to each other. If you repent and are baptized, is this not what John the Baptist told people. This does not save. you believe and then you are baptized in the way Titus 3:4-8 states.

julian the apostate

29th January 2005, 06:42 PM

W Jay Schroeder

29th January 2005, 07:03 PM

Acts 2:38
Peter replied, “Repent and be baptized, every one of you, in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins. And you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit

Peter seperates them in this verse. “Repent and be baptized, water baptism. And you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit, Spiritual baptism. He also makes the point, we don't recieve the Holy Spirit till we are Baptised with water. But Jesus said that the Spirit gives birth to the Spirit so how can water baptism give you the Holy Spirit. It cant and doesnt. The Spirit of Christ gives you the Holy Spirit. All it states is that Jesus died for you and if you recieve this into your heart the Spirit of Christ will dwell in you. Jesus baptises with the Holy spirit and this baptism is what is mentioned in matthew 28 mark 16:16 and Acts 2:38. Its the only wat it can mean to go with John 3;16 Titus 3:4-8 All of Romans and Eph. 2:8, Read Galations 3:22-29. It speaks of the Law and how Faith ".... So that what was promised, being given THROUGH faith in Jesus Christ, might be given to those who BELIEVE". What was promised, Salvation, how by FAITH through Christ to those who believe. Titus 3:4-8 explains this Titus 2:11-15 shows this and 1 cor. 12:12,(Christ baptises with the Holy spirit.) a realy good one is Rom. 10:8-14 Verse 8 explains this FAITH.

MbiaJc

29th January 2005, 11:16 PM

But Jesus said that the Spirit gives birth to the Spirit so how can water baptism give you the Holy Spirit. It cant and doesnt. The Spirit of Christ gives you the Holy Spirit. All it states is that Jesus died for you and if you recieve this into your heart the Spirit of Christ will dwell in you. Jesus baptises with the Holy spirit and this baptism is what is mentioned in matthew 28 mark 16:16 and Acts 2:38. Its the only wat it can mean to go with John 3;16 Titus 3:4-8 All of Romans and Eph. 2:8, Read Galations 3:22-29. It speaks of the Law and how Faith ".... So that what was promised, being given THROUGH faith in Jesus Christ, might be given to those who BELIEVE". What was promised, Salvation, how by FAITH through Christ to those who believe. Titus 3:4-8 explains this Titus 2:11-15 shows this and 1 cor. 12:12,(Christ baptises with the Holy spirit.) a realy good one is Rom. 10:8-14 Verse 8 explains this FAITH.

how can water baptism give you the Holy--- You are confused sister Peter didn't say water baptism gives you the Holy Spirit. Read that verse again. God the Father is the one that sends the Holy Spirit.

At any rate you are arguing with Peter not me.

W Jay Schroeder

29th January 2005, 11:45 PM

how can water baptism give you the Holy--- You are confused sister Peter didn't say water baptism gives you the Holy Spirit. Read that verse again. God the Father is the one that sends the Holy Spirit.

At any rate you are arguing with Peter not me. I'm confused you said you do not recieve the spirit unless you are water baptised. But That God sends the Spirit. But only if you are Baptised. Though God said that Jesus baptises with the Holy Spirit. or should i say John the baptist said it. Peter said Repent and be baptized .... and you will recieve the Spirit. And if you say it is water baptism then how is it that God gives it. Of course it would have to be that way because you know that Water baptism cant. So if you insist that this passages means water baptism then you must say this, Other wise it Has to mean a spiritual baptism, which Jesus baptizes with and Titus 3:4-8 explains. But it does not say what you say it does. It means spiritual baptism, because like I said before, the Spirit gives birth to the Spirit. Matt. 28, Mark 16:16, and Acts 2:38, all are spiritual baptism, Just as Titus 3:4-8 states and Rom 6 explains and so on. Why do you not argue against the passages i gave you and tell me that i interpreted them wrong.

- DRA -

30th January 2005, 12:51 AM

dra,, i dont know if you noticed my denominational symbol,, i believe in baptismal regeneration

however, people are not going to hell if they disagree with you
(or even me,, but that may be a stretch)

Your comment threw me off. It sounded like you were classifying baptism as a technicality that really didn't make any difference to God.

So then, are we agree that the baptism "in the name of the Lord" is "for the remission of sins" in Acts 2:38?

- DRA -

30th January 2005, 01:02 AM

I'm confused you said you do not recieve the spirit unless you are water baptised. But That God sends the Spirit. But only if you are Baptised. Though God said that Jesus baptises with the Holy Spirit. or should i say John the baptist said it. Peter said Repent and be baptized .... and you will recieve the Spirit. And if you say it is water baptism then how is it that God gives it. Of course it would have to be that way because you know that Water baptism cant. So if you insist that this passages means water baptism then you must say this, Other wise it Has to mean a spiritual baptism, which Jesus baptizes with and Titus 3:4-8 explains. But it does not say what you say it does. It means spiritual baptism, because like I said before, the Spirit gives birth to the Spirit. Matt. 28, Mark 16:16, and Acts 2:38, all are spiritual baptism, Just as Titus 3:4-8 states and Rom 6 explains and so on. Why do you not argue against the passages i gave you and tell me that i interpreted them wrong.

By harmonizing Acts 2:38 and Acts 10:47-48 we understand that the baptism in the name of the Lord was in water and for the remission of sins. The baptism in the name of the Lord is not the same thing as the baptism of John. That is clear in Acts 18:24 - 19:5. There were those at Ephesus who had been baptized only in the baptism of John. When Paul discovered this, he had them baptized "in the name of the Lord."

Titus 3:5, John 3:3-5, and Romans 6:3-11 are all parallel passages that deal with one becoming born again -- not physically, but spiritually -- based on faith in the working of God (Col. 2:12).

We have a way to check our understanding of these passages. We can go to the book of Acts and study the conversions. Whatever was required to become a Christians is what it takes to be born again. If you will go to the first example and consider what was commanded to Jews that were convicted of crucifying the Christ (Acts 2:38), what they did in response to the commands they were given (Acts 2:41), and what the Lord's reaction was (Acts 2:47), then you should be on your way to understanding how one is born again. It involves dying to sin, being freed from it, and becoming alive to God (see Rom. 6:6-7,11).

julian the apostate

30th January 2005, 12:23 PM

dra<<So then, are we agree that the baptism "in the name of the Lord" is "for the remission of sins" in Acts 2:38?

what else would it be? christianity does not use dead symbols, we use sacraments that actually convey grace

but they are not the only means of grace available to us, Christ is not limited to the sacraments

for instance, i think most adults experience conversion (aka experiential baptism) prior to being actually baptized

but we reduce baptism if we make it a contract with fine print and escape clauses and lawyerly insights instead of accepting the promise of God that is unconditionial and non-contractual without escape clause and fine print

it is a relationship not a contract
it is a promise

Stinker

30th January 2005, 12:37 PM

julian the apostate

30th January 2005, 01:05 PM

sorry stinkier
i dont understand

Stinker

30th January 2005, 05:55 PM

but we reduce baptism if we make it a contract with fine print and escape clauses and lawyerly insights instead of accepting the promise of God that is unconditionial and non-contractual without escape clause and fine print

it is a relationship not a contract
it is a promisehttp://www3.christianforums.com/images/quotes/quot-bot-left.gifhttp://www3.christianforums.com/images/quotes/quot-bot-right.gif

Does this sound kind of legal?....................

"But as many as received Him, to them he gave the right to become children of God, even to those who believe in His name,...." (Jn.1:12)

Can you become what you already are?? Faith alone...without any further acts of obedience?? NOT.

According to John 1:12, who has the right to become a child of God?

sorry stinkier
i dont understand

julian the apostate

30th January 2005, 06:14 PM

well that clarifies everything

- DRA -

31st January 2005, 01:14 AM

FaithAlone

31st January 2005, 11:37 AM

Circumcism was the outward sign that a Isrealite man had intered into a covenant with God. Baptism is outward sign that we have intered into a covenant with God also. It should be one of our first act of odedience to Jesus Christ our Lord.

Amen I agree. It is an act of obedience after salvation.

The thief on the cross may have been under the Old Law but how do you know that he practiced the Old Law? If he was a thief there is a good chance that he did not. The Old Law was never for salvation but only a tutor to lead them to Christ. Salvation has always been by Faith. Hebrews 11. Romans 4.

So what in your opinion is the Holy Spirit and what is He for? when you receive Him do you keep Him or does He come and go. I'll post this under a new post so answer there please.

ydouxist

31st January 2005, 12:35 PM

I, like you, have observed that many claim to have experienced conversion before baptism. However, this rationale simply doesn't harmonize with the examples of the conversions in the book of Acts, nor with passages such as Mark 16:16, Rom. 6:3-11, and 1 Pet. 3:20-21.

Speaking of Acts.

Act 10:45 (http://www.blueletterbible.org/kjv/Act/Act010.html#45) And they of the circumcision which believed were astonished, as many as came with Peter, because that on the Gentiles also was poured out the gift of the Holy Ghost.

Act 10:47 (http://www.blueletterbible.org/kjv/Act/Act010.html#47) Can any man forbid water, that these should not be baptized, which have received the Holy Ghost as well as we?

Act 11:15 (http://www.blueletterbible.org/kjv/Act/Act011.html#15) And as I began to speak, the Holy Ghost fell on them, as on us at the beginning.

Act 11:16 (http://www.blueletterbible.org/kjv/Act/Act011.html#16) Then remembered I the word of the Lord, how that he said, John indeed baptized with water; but ye shall be baptized with the Holy Ghost.

PaladinGirl

31st January 2005, 12:51 PM

Requiring baptism is legalism plain and simple.

Stinker

31st January 2005, 03:38 PM

Requiring baptism is legalism plain and simple.

"But as many as received Him, to them He gave the right to become children of God..." (Jn.1:12)

Legalism here? Well, you can't become what you already are!:D

- DRA -

31st January 2005, 03:46 PM

Requiring baptism is legalism plain and simple.

If this is true, then Jesus was a legalist, as were the apostles and first-century Christians (see Mark 16:16, Acts 2:38, Acts 8:12,35-39, Acts 16:30-34, Rom. 6:3-11, and 1 Pet. 3:20-21).

Food for thought:
Was Jesus a legalist for requiring faith or belief (see John 8:24)? Assuming that we are agreed that He was not, how does the acceptance of the requirement that unites us with Jesus' death, burial, and resurrection so that we die to sin, are freed from it, and become alive to God make one a legalist (see Rom. 6:3-11)? :eek:

- DRA -

31st January 2005, 03:53 PM

Speaking of Acts.

Act 10:45 (http://www.blueletterbible.org/kjv/Act/Act010.html#45) And they of the circumcision which believed were astonished, as many as came with Peter, because that on the Gentiles also was poured out the gift of the Holy Ghost.

Act 10:47 (http://www.blueletterbible.org/kjv/Act/Act010.html#47) Can any man forbid water, that these should not be baptized, which have received the Holy Ghost as well as we?

Act 11:15 (http://www.blueletterbible.org/kjv/Act/Act011.html#15) And as I began to speak, the Holy Ghost fell on them, as on us at the beginning.

Act 11:16 (http://www.blueletterbible.org/kjv/Act/Act011.html#16) Then remembered I the word of the Lord, how that he said, John indeed baptized with water; but ye shall be baptized with the Holy Ghost.

Look at Acts 10:48. The baptism "in the name of the Lord" was commanded. What was the reason for this baptism given in Acts 2:38?

Yes, Jesus promised to give the baptism with the Holy Spirit. He did that in both Acts chapter 2 and 10. However, the baptism "in the name of the Lord" was for a totally different reason. What was that reason as stated in Mark 16:16? How about Acts 22:16?

- DRA -

31st January 2005, 04:07 PM

Amen I agree. It is an act of obedience after salvation.

The thief on the cross may have been under the Old Law but how do you know that he practiced the Old Law? If he was a thief there is a good chance that he did not. The Old Law was never for salvation but only a tutor to lead them to Christ. Salvation has always been by Faith. Hebrews 11. Romans 4.

So what in your opinion is the Holy Spirit and what is He for? when you receive Him do you keep Him or does He come and go. I'll post this under a new post so answer there please.

Whether or not the thief on the cross kept the law of Moses or not is irrelevant. Jesus' testament or will didn't go into effect until after His death (Heb. 9:15-17). After His death, the terms to His will were read in Acts chapter 2. In Acts 2:38, we see that both repentance and baptism were required "for the remission of sins" (see this same phrase in Matt. 26:28).

Salvation is indeed by faith (for without it one cannot please God - Heb. 11:6), but NOT by faith alone (see James 2:14-26). What did those of Judea and Samaria do when they believed the preaching of Philip in Acts 8:12? Why? They had faith in the working of God (see Col. 2:12 and Rom. 6:3-11). :clap:

FaithAlone

31st January 2005, 04:14 PM

FaithAlone

31st January 2005, 04:16 PM

Stinker, you really are a Stinker. That's all I have to say to you. You frustrate me but that doesn't mean I don't love you as a brother in Christ : )

- DRA -

31st January 2005, 08:12 PM

It is true that faith without works is dead, but salvation is by grace through faith. You will do works after being saved. If someone claimed to be a Christian and had no good fruit in their life it's likely that they did not put their faith in Christ as their Lord and Savior. If baptism is necessary then why do so many passages say that you are saved by faith? Romans 10:9&10 for example. If baptism is so necessary why isn't it stated here? All scripture about salvation deals with faith, only some baptism.

Salvation is indeed by grace through faith (see Eph. 2:8-9). However, look at the context of Ephesians chapter 2. Note verse 5. See that part about being dead in sins but made alive together with Christ. Note also the first part of verse 6. God has raised us up together with Christ. Now, go over to Romans chapter 6, and read verses 3-11. What do you see in those verses? Isn't it exactly what was being discussed in Eph. 2:5-6a? Finally, go back to Ephesians chapter 2. Note the expression in parentheses in verse 5. It says we are saved by grace, but we can't help but notice that it is in the context of what occurs in baptism. Interesting thought, isn't it? Baptism is associated with God's grace. :bow: Think about it. Baptism is based on faith in the working of God (Col. 2:12). :thumbsup:

Look at Acts 2:38. It doesn't say anything about faith. However, faith is implied because some of the Jews were convicted of their sins and asked what they should do about them in verse 37. Think of it this way, how can one repent of their sins and be baptized "for the remission of sins" if they don't have faith -- faith is essential (Heb. 11:6) -- it goes hand in hand with baptism (Mark 16:16a)?

Stinker

31st January 2005, 08:51 PM

Stinker, you really are a Stinker. That's all I have to say to you. You frustrate me but that doesn't mean I don't love you as a brother in Christ : )

Is it because people who believe 'faith alone' saves (without any further acts of obedience) wish that John 1:12 said; (be) instead of "become" ?

ydouxist

1st February 2005, 01:02 AM

- DRA -

1st February 2005, 02:32 AM

I really can't understand how some people can deny grace.
There were people in Acts who received the baptism of The Holy Spirit before they were baptised with water.
How can they deny it? It's really sad.

Is this supposed to be a response to post #43 where I discuss grace in the context of Eph. 2:5-6a? If so, why don't you go to the passage and show me where my understanding is wrong? If I am indeed wrong, then I would be very grateful if you would show me what that passage is discussing so I can better understand it. Will you do that? :idea:

ydouxist

1st February 2005, 02:48 AM

Stinker

1st February 2005, 10:41 AM

- DRA -

1st February 2005, 01:22 PM

According to Acts they received the Holy Spirit before they were baptised. That's my point.
It's all about the condition of the heart. Always has been, always will be.
I am not, not, not, opposed to water baptism.

Acts 10:47 Can any man forbid water, that these should not be baptized, which have received the Holy Ghost as well as we?

Agreed. The Gentiles in Acts chapter 10 received the baptism of the Holy Spirit before they were baptized in the name of the Lord. However, that still doesn't change the purpose of the baptism "in the name of the Lord," which was "for the remission of sins" (see Acts 2:38) -- to take sins away (see Acts 22:16).

What that leaves is determining why God sent the baptism with the Holy Spirit upon these Gentiles before they were baptized into Christ (see Gal. 3:26-27). Could it be that it had something to do with these being the first Gentiles to receive the gospel? Since they received the Holy Spirit just as the apostles did in Acts chapter 2, who could forbid them from being baptized in water?

Stinker

1st February 2005, 03:33 PM

DRA: Maybe many here are thinking that since the Cornelius household received the Holy Spirit prior to their being water baptized, that THAT indicated that their souls had been cleansed of sins, thus made ready for a Holy Personal Indwelling of their bodies.

muffler dragon

1st February 2005, 03:50 PM

Yet another thread certain to go nowhere...

- DRA -

1st February 2005, 06:33 PM

Perhaps this thread is just like the walls of Jerusalem (see Nehemiah 4:1-3 ) - - some chose to make light of what was being done . . . but the work continued.

western kentucky

1st February 2005, 06:39 PM

your not harmonizing anything at all read Titus 3:4-8. Acts 19:1-5 hasnt a thing to do with Acts 11:18. You dont harmaonize verse that dont relate to each other. If you repent and are baptized, is this not what John the Baptist told people. This does not save. you believe and then you are baptized in the way Titus 3:4-8 states.

Jay,

Acts 11:16-18 is referring to the baptism of the Holy Spirit. Verse 16 states,"John baptized with water, but you (referring to Peter) will be baptized with the Holy Spirit." The point is, John baptized believers for repentance (Matt. 3:11), but Peter was baptized with the Holy Spirit on this occasion (Acts 10:34-38) to lead the Gentiles to repentance.

I then jumped to Acts 19:1-5 to explain the difference between the baptism of John and the Baptism into Jesus Christ. John's baptism was for repentance, and the baptism into Jesus Christ is for the remission of sins (Acts 2:38). I hope this helps to clarify.

Titus 3:4-8 speaks of God's grace. I agree that one is saved by God's grace (Eph. 2:8). But look closer in the context of Ephesians chapter 2 starting at verse 5.

"even when we were dead in our transgressions, made us alive together with Christ (by grace you have been saved), and raised us up with Him, and seated us with Him in the heavenly places in Christ Jesus (...)"
Paul is describing what happens in baptism. Compare with Col. 2:12: having been buried with Him in baptism, in which you were also raised up with Him through faith in the working of God, who raised Him from the dead.

It's interesting that "baptism" is in association with God's grace.

muffler dragon

2nd February 2005, 09:56 AM

Perhaps this thread is just like the walls of Jerusalem (see Nehemiah 4:1-3 ) - - some chose to make light of what was being done . . . but the work continued.

I've never made light of the fact that you feel strongly about your OPINION on this matter.

I will stand and contend that your interpretation and usage of Scripture is lacking.

How does that differ from the experience of Nehemiah?

So much so that your analogy lacks tremendously.

Reasons for such lack:

1) Nehemiah (and those that were working with him) were Jews.
2) As Jews, baptism was never necessary for salvation.
3) Nehemiah believed that the Torah was inspired over all other truth.

I don't see anywhere in your post that you would hold any of the traits described above. Therefore, your not-so-veiled condemnation of myself is lacking.

Btw, I'm still awaiting a response in the other thread to posts 1635 and 1636. Anyone who is in your camp is welcome to respond.

Andyman_1970

2nd February 2005, 11:54 AM

Reasons for such lack:

1) Nehemiah (and those that were working with him) were Jews.
2) As Jews, baptism was never necessary for salvation.
3) Nehemiah believed that the Torah was inspired over all other truth.

I don't see anywhere in your post that you would hold any of the traits described above.

Oh no, the dreaded "c" word is being alluded to.............

context. :doh:

W Jay Schroeder

2nd February 2005, 01:19 PM

Jay,

Acts 11:16-18 is referring to the baptism of the Holy Spirit. Verse 16 states,"John baptized with water, but you (referring to Peter) will be baptized with the Holy Spirit." The point is, John baptized believers for repentance (Matt. 3:11), but Peter was baptized with the Holy Spirit on this occasion (Acts 10:34-38) to lead the Gentiles to repentance.

I then jumped to Acts 19:1-5 to explain the difference between the baptism of John and the Baptism into Jesus Christ. John's baptism was for repentance, and the baptism into Jesus Christ is for the remission of sins (Acts 2:38). I hope this helps to clarify.

Titus 3:4-8 speaks of God's grace. I agree that one is saved by God's grace (Eph. 2:8). But look closer in the context of Ephesians chapter 2 starting at verse 5.

"even when we were dead in our transgressions, made us alive together with Christ (by grace you have been saved), and raised us up with Him, and seated us with Him in the heavenly places in Christ Jesus (...)"
Paul is describing what happens in baptism. Compare with Col. 2:12: having been buried with Him in baptism, in which you were also raised up with Him through faith in the working of God, who raised Him from the dead.

It's interesting that "baptism" is in association with God's grace. Scripture always speaks of the heart and how this is what counts with God. Ephisians 2:8 speaks of the baptism of the holy spirit by Christ because it is the Spirit of man that needs cleansing as in Titus 3:4-8 and this baptism is discribed in rom 6 as well. you spiritually die with Christ and raise again with him to life. Jesus baptises with the holy spirit and when it speaks of salvation then it is this baptism that is explained. In Col 2:12 it still speaks of the Holy Spirit baptism because it is explaining again this death and ressurection with Christ. Read above when it speaks of circumcision. So if we take it as a physical act in verse 12, then in verse 11 we should be circumcised to putt off the sinfull nature, but if you read further it says its not a physical act, So why is verse 12 a physical act. Read the rest of the passage its figurative for or rebirth and renewal as in Titus 3:4-8

- DRA -

2nd February 2005, 03:36 PM

I've never made light of the fact that you feel strongly about your OPINION on this matter.

I will stand and contend that your interpretation and usage of Scripture is lacking.

Exactly what is it about my interpretation and usage of Scripture that you don't approve of? Could it be that I won't accept that only repentance was required both under the law of Moses (per your use of Isa. 45:22) and for those today under the gospel of Christ? Why is it that you won't evaluate, compare, harmonize or whatever you want to call it your understanding of Isa. 45:22 with passages in the N.T. that deal with salvation under the gospel of Christ e.g. John 8:24, Heb. 11:6, Matt. 10:32-33, Rom. 10:9-10, all the conversions in the book of Acts, Romans 6:3-11, Gal. 3:26-27, and 1 Pet. 3:20-21?

How does that differ from the experience of Nehemiah?

So much so that your analogy lacks tremendously.

Reasons for such lack:

1) Nehemiah (and those that were working with him) were Jews.
2) As Jews, baptism was never necessary for salvation.
3) Nehemiah believed that the Torah was inspired over all other truth.

I don't see anywhere in your post that you would hold any of the traits described above. Therefore, your not-so-veiled condemnation of myself is lacking.

The gospel of Christ is extended to both Jews and Gentiles (Rom. 1:16, Matt. 28:18-20). There is much to learn from the examples of the Old Testament (Rom. 15:4, 1 Cor. 10:11). That is why I referred to the example in Nehemiah.

Yes, Nehemiah and those working with him were Jews. So, what is your point? The point I made is that they were doing God's will, but those who were NOT doing God's will made light of their efforts. Just like you did about this thread. I think it is a correct application of the principle taught there.

Here goes: this is where the rubber meets the road . . . How do you say, "As Jews, baptism was never necessary for salvation" in light of Acts 2:38, 41, and 47? It is necessary under the gospel of Christ. Three thousand Jews obeyed the gospel in Acts 2. If baptism does for us what Romans 6:3-11 says, then how a Jew be saved that is NOT united with Jesus' death, burial, and resurrection to die from sins, be freed from them, and become alive to God? Have you ever heard of a necessary inference? The point? The Scripture clearly describes what occurs in baptism. Therefore, the inference or implication is that the blessings described in Rom. 6:3-11 could not be claimed BEFORE baptism, because they offered in baptism. Frankly, it doesn't matter if the sinner that refuses to submit to baptism is a Jew or Gentile, they have to obey the gospel or be rejected (compare Mark 16:16 with 2 Thess. 1:8 and Matt. 7:21-23). Perhaps I missed something, but aren't we supposed to obey the Lord (James 2:21-24, Heb. 5:9)?

Yes, Nehemiah accepted the writings of the O.T. However, can we be faithful today if we try to blend the old law with the new (see Gal. 5:1-4)? Why do you cling to that which is old and has vanished away (Heb. 8:13)?

Btw, I'm still awaiting a response in the other thread to posts 1635 and 1636. Anyone who is in your camp is welcome to respond.

Lord willing (James 4:15), I will work up a short, concise reply to your posts. I haven't forgotten about them. Just taking my good ole time.

BTW, patience is a fruit of the Spirit (see Gal. 5:22).

- DRA -

2nd February 2005, 03:41 PM

Oh no, the dreaded "c" word is being alluded to............. context. :doh:

Are you sure it isn't the dreaded "b" word ................ baptism? You know, like in Acts chapter 2 where the apostle Peter spoke that dreaded word to the Jews, and where 3,000 of them didn't find it so dreadful. In fact, they rejoiced at having their sins taken away. (Acts 2:38,41,47) :clap:

muffler dragon

2nd February 2005, 04:18 PM

Exactly what is it about my interpretation and usage of Scripture that you don't approve of?

You and eisegesis get along too well. That's my problem with it. You don't evaluate the context. You only view the Scripture as to how it meets your needs and wants.

Could it be that I won't accept that only repentance was required both under the law of Moses (per your use of Isa. 45:22) and for those today under the gospel of Christ?

Nope. It's your eisegesis and that alone. And for the record, repentance goes before the Mosaic Law. Once again, context seems to be avoided by you.

Why is it that you won't evaluate, compare, harmonize or whatever you want to call it your understanding of Isa. 45:22 with passages in the N.T. that deal with salvation under the gospel of Christ e.g. John 8:24, Heb. 11:6, Matt. 10:32-33, Rom. 10:9-10, all the conversions in the book of Acts, Romans 6:3-11, Gal. 3:26-27, and 1 Pet. 3:20-21?

It's not my job to harmonize the former with the latter. It's the other way around. The "New" Testament must get into agreement with the Tanakh. Even according to your Timothy passage, the Scripture FROM TIMOTHY'S CHILDBIRTH is the Tanakh.

The gospel of Christ is extended to both Jews and Gentiles (Rom. 1:16, Matt. 28:18-20).

Salvation is offered to Gentiles in the Tanakh. See the Exodus and Isaiah 56 and before Moshe.

Yes, Nehemiah and those working with him were Jews. So, what is your point?

Apparently, the three points taken together is above the realm of reason. I wasn't making it a race issue. Once again, I WAS PROVIDING CONTEXT.

The point I made is that they were doing God's will, but those who were NOT doing God's will made light of their efforts. Just like you did about this thread. I think it is a correct application of the principle taught there.

I know exactly what your point was. It was a not-so-veiled threat and condemnation of me. Your thought process would proceed as such:

"I'm doing the work of G-d as Nehemiah did, and m.d. is just like Sanballat." And as v. 5 presents, I'm sure you feel the same way:

Nehemiah 4
5Do not forgive their iniquity and let not their sin be blotted out before You, for they have demoralized the builders.

That insinuation is absolutely ridiculous and derogatory. Unfortunately, that's what has become your modus operandi.

Here goes: this is where the rubber meets the road . . . How do you say, "As Jews, baptism was never necessary for salvation" in light of Acts 2:38, 41, and 47? It is necessary under the gospel of Christ. Three thousand Jews obeyed the gospel in Acts 2. If baptism does for us what Romans 6:3-11 says, then how a Jew be saved that is NOT united with Jesus' death, burial, and resurrection to die from sins, be freed from them, and become alive to God? Have you ever heard of a necessary inference? The point? The Scripture clearly describes what occurs in baptism. Therefore, the inference or implication is that the blessings described in Rom. 6:3-11 could not be claimed BEFORE baptism, because they offered in baptism. Frankly, it doesn't matter if the sinner that refuses to submit to baptism is a Jew or Gentile, they have to obey the gospel or be rejected (compare Mark 16:16 with 2 Thess. 1:8 and Matt. 7:21-23). Perhaps I missed something, but aren't we supposed to obey the Lord (James 2:21-24, Heb. 5:9)?

I've addressed this mantra of yours over and over again. You refuse to acknowledge what I say. Therefore, I'll leave the vain repetitions to you: questions after questions after questions ALL WITHOUT CONTEXT AND UNDERSTANDING.

Address my posts, 1635 and 1636, and let's see where that takes us. You base you whole 'baptism' ideology off of a few scant Scripture verses. Whereas, I'm trying to present you with the picture that the entire Word of G-d presents. Have I condemned you as a sinner who can't be saved? Not once, and I won't. Yet, that's all I, and the other people who don't believe as you do, get.

Yes, Nehemiah accepted the writings of the O.T. However, can we be faithful today if we try to blend the old law with the new (see Gal. 5:1-4)? Why do you cling to that which is old and has vanished away (Heb. 8:13)?

Because my eyes see things from the Judaic perspective: as Y'shua, Sha'ul, the Apostles, and first century believers would view it. Not from how things become manicured in the last 1800 years.

Lord willing (James 4:15), I will work up a short, concise reply to your posts. I haven't forgotten about them. Just taking my good ole time.

BTW, patience is a fruit of the Spirit (see Gal. 5:22).

Yeah, this is mantra no. 2.

Andyman_1970

2nd February 2005, 04:32 PM

Are you sure it isn't the dreaded "b" word ................ baptism? You know, like in Acts chapter 2 where the apostle Peter spoke that dreaded word to the Jews, and where 3,000 of them didn't find it so dreadful. In fact, they rejoiced at having their sins taken away. (Acts 2:38,41,47) :clap:

It's not a dreaded word, I love that word, I loved it so much I chose to be immersed just like those in the 1st century - just like Jesus, Paul, etc.

Your dreaded word seems to be context - again, Scripture taken out of context creates a hermenutical gap in which Jesus and Christianity can be remade into whatever idea of point of view man choses.

I chose to view Baptism as those who wrote the Scriptures (ie those Jewish authors living in the 1st century) not how some men in the 1500's decided it should mean.

"The Council of Trent (1545-63) stated that while Christ "merited for us justification by His most holy passion ... the instrumental cause [of justification/regeneration] is the sacrament of baptism .... If anyone says that baptism is ... not necessary for salvation, let him be anathema."

I seems history is also lost on you in addition to context.

- DRA -

2nd February 2005, 05:54 PM

You and eisegesis get along too well. That's my problem with it. You don't evaluate the context. You only view the Scripture as to how it meets your needs and wants.

Nope. It's your eisegesis and that alone. And for the record, repentance goes before the Mosaic Law. Once again, context seems to be avoided by you.

If I am so far off with this thing that you call context, then perhaps you can go to Acts chapter 2 and explain to us what happened, who it happened to, how they responded to it, and how the Lord reacted to it. Why not give us something to work with?

It's not my job to harmonize the former with the latter. It's the other way around. The "New" Testament must get into agreement with the Tanakh. Even according to your Timothy passage, the Scripture FROM TIMOTHY'S CHILDBIRTH is the Tanakh.

The old covenant replaced the new (Heb. 8:13). Is this what that passage says? Isn't it the other way around? Do you accept the N.T. as Scripture? What is your scriptural basis for using the Old Testament to interpret the New? It sounds to me like you are making up the rules as you go. The Old Testament contained the copies, shadows, and types of things under the New Testament (see Heb. 10:1, Rom. 5:14, 1 Pet. 3:20-21).

If 2 Tim. 3:16-17 is referring to just the Old Testament, then you must believe that the Old Testament gives us what we need to "be complete, thoroughly equipped for every good work" (verse 17). If so, then why the New Testament . . . the perfect law of liberty (James 1:25)?

Salvation is offered to Gentiles in the Tanakh. See the Exodus and Isaiah 56 and before Moshe.

Sorry, but I believe that Jesus is the one that came and blessed all families of the earth (see Gen. 12:3, Acts 3:25-26, and Acts 10:34-35). That is the reason He is presented as He is in Matt. 1:1 as the Son of Abraham.

Apparently, the three points taken together is above the realm of reason. I wasn't making it a race issue. Once again, I WAS PROVIDING CONTEXT.

I know exactly what your point was. It was a not-so-veiled threat and condemnation of me. Your thought process would proceed as such:

"I'm doing the work of G-d as Nehemiah did, and m.d. is just like Sanballat." And as v. 5 presents, I'm sure you feel the same way:

Nehemiah 4
5Do not forgive their iniquity and let not their sin be blotted out before You, for they have demoralized the builders.

That insinuation is absolutely ridiculous and derogatory. Unfortunately, that's what has become your modus operandi.

Tell me about all the Jews that didn't obey what Peter told them in Acts 2:38? Did they have their sins taken away?

I've addressed this mantra of yours over and over again. You refuse to acknowledge what I say. Therefore, I'll leave the vain repetitions to you: questions after questions after questions ALL WITHOUT CONTEXT AND UNDERSTANDING.

Once again, why not take just a few minutes and explain to us what Romans 6:3-11 is discussing? You can talk all day long about this thing that you call context, but you don't address passages where baptism is discussed. It sounds like you have formed an understanding of baptism under the gospel of Christ by looking at passages other than where baptism is discussed. Sorry, but that simply won't work for me. Take that passage that you have repeatedly brought up -- Isaiah 45:22. I accept that passage. I think that the Jews that had departed from faithfulness to God under the law of Moses and engaged in idolatry (determined by what I call context) needed to return to God. However, when I look at the New Testament, I do NOT find that only repentance was required for salvation under the gospel. If ignoring all the N.T. passages that discuss salvation under the gospel is what it takes for you and I to stand on common ground, then it "ain't" gonna happen. End of story.

Address my posts, 1635 and 1636, and let's see where that takes us. You base you whole 'baptism' ideology off of a few scant Scripture verses. Whereas, I'm trying to present you with the picture that the entire Word of G-d presents. Have I condemned you as a sinner who can't be saved? Not once, and I won't. Yet, that's all I, and the other people who don't believe as you do, get.

I certainly don't categorize every example of conversion in the book of Acts as a "few scant Scripture verses."

I am not condemning you. I am simply contending (Jude 3) for those things that the Lord says are necessary to be saved today under the gospel of Christ. The necessary inference is that those who don't obey them are condemned by the Lord (see Heb. 5:9, 2 Thess. 1:8) -- not by me. Credit needs to go to whom credit is due! :bow:

Because my eyes see things from the Judaic perspective: as Y'shua, Sha'ul, the Apostles, and first century believers would view it. Not from how things become manicured in the last 1800 years.

If this is true, then you have obeyed the Lord (see Mark 16:16) and teach as those in the first century taught, right? Just like in Acts 8:35-39, right?

How can baptism "for the remission of sin" be a product of 1800 years of manicuring when the apostle Peter commanded it in the first-century (Acts 2:38)?

- DRA -

2nd February 2005, 06:13 PM

It's not a dreaded word, I love that word, I loved it so much I chose to be immersed just like those in the 1st century - just like Jesus, Paul, etc.

What is the outcome of those who say they love the Lord and don't do what He says (Luke 6:46, Matt. 7:21-23, Mark 16:16, Acts 2:38 -- remember, all Scripture is given by inspiration of God - 2 Tim. 3:16a -- Acts 8:12, Acts 8:35-39, Acts 10:43 & 47-48, Acts 16:30-34, Acts 18:8, Acts 19:1-5, and Acts 22:16).

Your dreaded word seems to be context - again, Scripture taken out of context creates a hermenutical gap in which Jesus and Christianity can be remade into whatever idea of point of view man choses.

It seems as if you and M.D. work from the same definition of "context". Now, if it's not too much trouble, perhaps you can go to the passages that I previously listed and tell me what I am taking out of context. For instance, I think those people needed the gospel of Christ, and when they received it they obeyed it. Show me exactly where I get derailed from "context"?

I chose to view Baptism as those who wrote the Scriptures (ie those Jewish authors living in the 1st century) not how some men in the 1500's decided it should mean.

I seems history is also lost on you in addition to context.

Can you show us what the Scriptural basis is for baptism under the gospel of Christ? I base my understanding on what the Scripture says, not upon reformationists in the 1500s. Take, for instance, Romans 6:3-11. Yea. I believe that would be a good starting point. Now, let's discuss "context", shall we?

Jim Woodell

2nd February 2005, 07:13 PM

Turn Signals

I am driving a car. I have an intention already established in my heart that I would like to change my direction. I turn my blinker on to the left or to the right. I have already purposed in my heart what I am going to. I then show the world what I have purposed in my heart. The turn signal is an outward expression of an inward heart condition.

The problem with your presentation is this, and I use the same analogy. You are sitting on the outside observing this car driving down the street. Only in this regard, your preconceived ideas are that turning to the left (Yochanan's baptism of repentance) denotes a different intent than turning to the right[baptism of the L-rd). Whereas, I am asserting the primary fact that baptisms are an outward expression of an inward heart condition. A baptism can be used to demonstrate a change regarding numerous purposes, but that never changes the fact that it is strictly symbolic and outward.

The problem with the "turn signal" analogy (that comes from post #1635 from the thread on the question by Wes Woodell, "Is baptism essential for salvation?"), is that we all know some who have turned on the signal but never turned. You haven't turned until you turn.

If the people who asked, "Men and brothers, What shall we do?", in Acts 2:37 were already saved, why were they told to "Repent and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ, for the for the forgiveness of your sins and you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit."?? The turn signal was on but they were not forgiven until they complied with the directions of God.

Andyman_1970

2nd February 2005, 08:12 PM

DRA - I will be more than happy to address your post however I have one question for you before I address your post point by point.

What is the outcome of those who say they love the Lord and don't do what He says

Are you implying that somehow I have not been obedient to the Lord? And are you implying that such "disobedience" renders me "unsaved"?

W Jay Schroeder

2nd February 2005, 09:15 PM

The problem with the "turn signal" analogy (that comes from post #1635 from the thread on the question by Wes Woodell, "Is baptism essential for salvation?"), is that we all know some who have turned on the signal but never turned. You haven't turned until you turn.

If the people who asked, "Men and brothers, What shall we do?", in Acts 2:37 were already saved, why were they told to "Repent and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ, for the for the forgiveness of your sins and you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit."?? The turn signal was on but they were not forgiven until they complied with the directions of God. This"for remissions of sin" Or Forgiveness of sins, only after baptism is wrong. Read Acts 10: 43-44 who believes in him recieves FORGIVENESS of sins, 44 While speaking the holy Spirit fell on them, on ward it states afterward they were Baptised. How many examples have we given where it says believe and recieve forgivness. Well then this fits in with Mark 16:16 since it says believe and is baptised. so you believe your saved and then you get water baptised and are saved again. what thats not right, you must do both at once and your saved. how do you do that. Or you say the "and" means both together as one act. but that is ruined with the next part where it states but whoever does not BELIEVE is condemed. It leaves out the baptism part. So it must be one in the same, but it cant if its a spiritual and a physical, because Christ baptises with the holy spirit and to leave that out here would not be right because this is how we are cleansed Titus 3:5. Just believing doesnt cleans us Baptism of the Spirit does. So i just explained Mark 16 and Acts 2:38. I was wondering if you all have done what the rest of Mark 16:17-18. These signs which will accompany them. I doubt it. All the apostles did though.

Qoheleth

2nd February 2005, 10:42 PM

It cant and doesnt. The Spirit of Christ gives you the Holy Spirit

Water baptism and the Spirit are again closely associated. When the Gentiles receive the Spirit, Peter concludes before his Jerusalem audience that who was he to "hinder" (koluein) God. Peter uses the same word "hinder" (koluein) in Acts 11 that he had used in Acts 10:47 in relation to the need for the people to be baptized. Even as no one should hinder baptism, so Peter says that he must not hinder God. To hinder the people from being baptized is to HINDER GOD. It is GOD who is at work in baptism.

Luke clearly establishes a connection between water baptism and the Spirit. In Acts 2:38 the Spirit is promised to those who are baptized. But in Acts 10 Cornelius' household receives the Spirit first and then is baptized. Acts 19 records the "disciples" first being baptized and then receiving the Spirit. Luke does not then seem to be establishing a clear sequence between the events. BUT: note how they are always in the immediate context of the other.

The Spirit is assuredly a promise in connection with baptism in Acts 2:38. It's a lot like John 3:8: you hear the sound of the wind but don't know where it's coming from or where it's going. The two are certainly connected.

Q

muffler dragon

3rd February 2005, 09:27 AM

The problem with the "turn signal" analogy (that comes from post #1635 from the thread on the question by Wes Woodell, "Is baptism essential for salvation?"), is that we all know some who have turned on the signal but never turned. You haven't turned until you turn.

Jim,

You're missing the point. There are exceptions to every rule. What I am presenting is the general consensus of action. The main point that I am getting to, is that for all your observation and consideration: you can never know when someone is forgiven, saved or anything of an internal nature. You can try to guage from the outside (viewing a car with a turn signal); but you don't know the intentions. Everything is symbolic to the outside person.

If the people who asked, "Men and brothers, What shall we do?", in Acts 2:37 were already saved, why were they told to "Repent and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ, for the for the forgiveness of your sins and you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit."?? The turn signal was on but they were not forgiven until they complied with the directions of God.

Let's say there is a total of 5 books in the Bible that talks about salvation and baptism (as you allude it does). It's just a guess of a number. Some might say more, some might say less. That is equivalent to 7.5% of the Bible, and less than 100 years in chronological time (considering this is only in the B'rit Chadasha). Are you that gung-ho on a doctrine that has such little support that you would go so far as to condemn as DRA has? Are you that ready to question the salvation of others over something that only a few denominations in the entire world of Christendom hold to? Sorry, but I find it to be trivial. You've treated me with more respect than your counterpart(s), and that is why I am asking you these questions. You're certainly free to not respond, and that would be fine. I'm just throwing it out there for internal reflection, if nothing else.

Lastly, I mentioned this before, and I believe we can use this as the litmus test that will give us a 'end' to the situation (it may just take a while). You go ahead and hold on to your belief that my salvation is somehow in jeopardy. I will go ahead and NOT get baptised as is prescribed, and we'll see how it all pans out after we're dead. How does that sound for a deal?

Regards,

m.d.

Jim Woodell

3rd February 2005, 10:03 AM

You're missing the point. There are exceptions to every rule. What I am presenting is the general consensus of action. The main point that I am getting to, is that for all your observation and consideration: you can never know when someone is forgiven, saved or anything of an internal nature. You can try to guage from the outside (viewing a car with a turn signal); but you don't know the intentions. Everything is symbolic to the outside person.

I don't think I am missing your point: Generally when people engage their turn signal they turn, but some don't. The rule is they do turn. So the rule I insist on, and the Bible supports, is that those who believe were (as a rule) baptized. Trees didn't fall on them on the way to the water and they didn't get killed in chariot wrecks. I know God will deal with the exceptions. Whether symbolic or not, people in the NT who believed Jesus Christ was the Son of God were baptized in water.

It is my observation that people today, you seem to be included, want to take POSSIBLE exceptions to the rule of baptizing believers immediately, as they did in the NT, to teaching baptism is not necessary or having special baptismal ceremonies every quarter, etc.

Where is the example in scripture where any believer delayed in getting baptized after the believed and repented?

muffler dragon

3rd February 2005, 10:29 AM

If I am so far off with this thing that you call context, then perhaps you can go to Acts chapter 2 and explain to us what happened, who it happened to, how they responded to it, and how the Lord reacted to it. Why not give us something to work with?

I have DRA. I've shown you extra-biblical and Jewish documentation on this situation, yet you refuse it out-of-hand, because of the myopic nature of this project. What point is there to a dialogue if one side refuses to acknowledge the truth outside of the box?

The old covenant replaced the new (Heb. 8:13). Is this what that passage says? Isn't it the other way around?

Here is something for you to consider:

There is a process within the heavenlies where the lunar schedule is set upon 28 days. Within this lunar schedule, there are a number of different phases of the moon. One of these phases is the New Moon. Do you realilze that the word used for "New" in New Moon is the same word used when describing the B'rit Chadasha. I assure you that it is. Therefore, what insight can this give us? The very fact that the moon does not re-create itself every 28 days. Instead, the cycle is refreshed; it is RENEWED. The exact same thing is considered with the "reNEWed" Covenant. It's not a creation from scratch. It's a renewing. And in this situation, the contract is the same: the Torah.

Do you accept the N.T. as Scripture?

How many times do I need to explain my view of this? I view the B'rit Chadasha as inspired. However, there are different levels of inspiration (and this is even a Jewish consideration): the highest inspiration is the Torah. The next level involved the Tanakh, and thirdly, there is commentary. I rank the B'rit Chadasha somewhere between the Tanakh and the commentary.

What is your scriptural basis for using the Old Testament to interpret the New? It sounds to me like you are making up the rules as you go.

It's a Judaic concept. Something I would presume you can't understand.

The Old Testament contained the copies, shadows, and types of things under the New Testament (see Heb. 10:1, Rom. 5:14, 1 Pet. 3:20-21).

And? What's your point? Is that supposed to make the Tanakh suspect or of less meaning than the B'rit Chadasha? As I've mentioned numerous times, the only Scripture that Y'shua and Sha'ul held as "inspired" was the Tanakh. What's good enough for them is good enough for me. If you've got a problem with that, then I suggest you take it up with them.

If 2 Tim. 3:16-17 is referring to just the Old Testament, then you must believe that the Old Testament gives us what we need to "be complete, thoroughly equipped for every good work" (verse 17). If so, then why the New Testament . . . the perfect law of liberty (James 1:25)?

Let me walk you through this passage:

James 1
22But prove yourselves doers of the word, and not merely hearers who delude themselves.

23For if anyone is a hearer of the word and not a doer, he is like a man who looks at his natural face in a mirror;

24for once he has looked at himself and gone away, he has immediately forgotten what kind of person he was.

25But one who looks intently at the perfect law, the law of liberty, and abides by it, not having become a forgetful hearer but an effectual doer, this man will be blessed in what he does.

DRA, do you know what Ya'acov is referencing here? Let me show you, and then we'll discuss it:

Exodus 19

8(A)All the people answered together and said, "All that the LORD has spoken we will do!" And Moses brought back the words of the people to the LORD.

Exodus 24

3Then Moses came and recounted to the people all the words of the LORD and all the ordinances; and all the people answered with one voice and said, "(D)All the words which the LORD has spoken we will do!"

7Then he took (I)the book of the covenant and read it in the hearing of the people; and they said, "(J)All that the LORD has spoken we will do, and we will be obedient!"

The Lord has spoken = to hear or be a hearer of the Word.
We will do = doer of the Word.

Therefore, what is Ya'acov talking about above with the "the perfect law, the law of liberty"? HE IS TALKING ABOUT THE TORAH. And he admonishes us not to just be "hearers" of it, but also "doers". The Torah frees us from the "law of sin". This is the same thing that Sha'ul talks about; yet is so confused by people of a non-Jewish persuasion. Once again, this is why context is crucial.

Sorry, but I believe that Jesus is the one that came and blessed all families of the earth (see Gen. 12:3, Acts 3:25-26, and Acts 10:34-35). That is the reason He is presented as He is in Matt. 1:1 as the Son of Abraham.

You prove my point over and over again. You only see what fits your dogma. I don't care what your opinion is. I have presented Scripture with the fact of the matter. Salvation was available before 2000 years ago. It's visible in the Tanakh. If you can't accept that, then take it up with G-d.

Tell me about all the Jews that didn't obey what Peter told them in Acts 2:38? Did they have their sins taken away?

When you become G-d how about you let me know? As for me, I have no idea when a person's sins are taken away. Nor does anyone else for that matter. G-d is the One Who takes care of that issue.

Once again, why not take just a few minutes and explain to us what Romans 6:3-11 is discussing?

I've dealt with before. Sha'ul is talking about symbolism. Do you not recall that I asked you if believe you were physically crucified and resurrected with Christ? It's called symbolism. Just like baptism: it's a symbolic expression of an inward heart condition. That's the part you can't get past.

You can talk all day long about this thing that you call context, but you don't address passages where baptism is discussed.

Let's not get into a discussion about who addresses who's arguments. I have been a lot more forthright in addressing your arguments and your tangents, then you ever have been of mine. The part that you fail to realize is the fact that you never counter my "context" argument. Do you realize that Y'shua (your Jesus) was a Jew in the first century, who was a Jewish rabbi? Do you cognitively comprehend that? If you do, then why not accept the context of the situation? If you don't, then at least admit it.

It sounds like you have formed an understanding of baptism under the gospel of Christ by looking at passages other than where baptism is discussed.

And you seem to ignore the myriad of passages that talk about salvation OUTSIDE of baptism. The proof is overwhelmingly on my side; not just by numbers, but also by substance.

Sorry, but that simply won't work for me. Take that passage that you have repeatedly brought up -- Isaiah 45:22. I accept that passage. I think that the Jews that had departed from faithfulness to God under the law of Moses and engaged in idolatry (determined by what I call context) needed to return to God.

It's addressed to Cyrus, a GENTILE Ruler. It's addressed to ALL THE NATIONS OF THE EARTH. That would include EVERYONE. Do you honestly miss that? It's not just the Jews.

However, when I look at the New Testament, I do NOT find that only repentance was required for salvation under the gospel. If ignoring all the N.T. passages that discuss salvation under the gospel is what it takes for you and I to stand on common ground, then it "ain't" gonna happen. End of story.

The Tanakh is all that was available to Y'shua and Sha'ul. What's good for the goose is good for the gander. I will gladly ignore the B'rit Chadasha and take the Tanakh. You, unfortunately, do the exact opposite and ignore the Tanakh. And by doing so, you take the foundation out from underneath your feet. Without the Tanakh, you don't have a leg to stand on. And that, my friend, is context.

As far as salvation goes, I have also shown how it is addressed in the B'rit Chadasha. As you may recall (or may not), there are no verses in the Brit Chadasha that say "baptism is essential to salvation". I don't see that anywhere. I also don't see any verses where baptism and salvation are even in the same sentence. Even in your beloved KJV there is no verse where the two words are used together. I have given you figures that show that salvation is in the Tanakh more than two times the amount in the B'rit Chadasha. The word saved is used on a 1:1 basis. Yet, this makes no impression upon you? Is this sacred cow becoming a little too golden? Myopic is the only word I can think of to describe it.

I certainly don't categorize every example of conversion in the book of Acts as a "few scant Scripture verses."

Are we talking about conversion or instances of baptism. Let's talk about actual baptism occurrences in the B'rit Chadasha.

1) Matthew 3, Mark 1, Luke 3,
2) Luke 7
3) John 3
4) Acts 2
5) Acts 8:12
6) Acts 8:36
7) Acts 9
8) Acts 10
9) Acts 16:15
10) Acts 16:33
11) Acts 18
12) Acts 19
13) Acts 22

There are thirteen different occurrences within the B'rit Chadasha that discuss people getting baptised.

Now, let's look at the ones after the gospels, because these would supposedly be the baptism for this new forgiveness or remission of sins (explicitly stated by someone):

1) Acts 2 (check)
2) Acts 8:12 (no)
3) Acts 8:36 (no) *and btw, you do realize that "eunuch" is a mistranslation, correct?
4) Acts 9 (no)
5) Acts 10 (no) this time Kefa made no mention of "forgiveness/remission of sins"
6) Acts 16:15 (no)
7) Acts 16:33 (no)
8) Acts 18 (no)
9) Acts 19 (no)
10) Acts 22 (no)

Only one time is 'baptism' said to be for the 'remission of sins'; and even Kefa was not consistent in making this known. So, out of all this mess, there is only one verse that blatantly says, "be baptized for the remission/forgiveness of sins". I find that to be scant.

I am not condemning you. I am simply contending (Jude 3) for those things that the Lord says are necessary to be saved today under the gospel of Christ.

Color it however you want. Condemnation is condemnation. There is no reason why salvation would be any more intricate under the 'gospel of Christ' than it would have been before hand.

The necessary inference is that those who don't obey them are condemned by the Lord (see Heb. 5:9, 2 Thess. 1:8) -- not by me. Credit needs to go to whom credit is due! :bow:

The understanding of 'obedience' is even quite different between you and me.

If this is true, then you have obeyed the Lord (see Mark 16:16) and teach as those in the first century taught, right? Just like in Acts 8:35-39, right?

My goal is to operate under the example of Jewish rabbi 2000 years ago; not in how you would interpret it. I care much more about not being labed "lawless" than I do about your ideology of baptism.

How can baptism "for the remission of sin" be a product of 1800 years of manicuring when the apostle Peter commanded it in the first-century (Acts 2:38)?

Well, DRA, since Kefa only says this once, and it's only said by him that might lead to a lack of exegesis on the part of the folks within your congregation. That's not for me to evaluate, because I don't care. It's you who is trying to divorce Y'shua, Sha'ul, and the Apostles from being Jews; not me. Therefore, I can't help you on how you may or may not construe their messages.

muffler dragon

3rd February 2005, 10:34 AM

So the rule I insist on, and the Bible supports, is that those who believe were (as a rule) baptized.

And somehow you read into that that 'baptism is essential for salvation"? According to the Jewish perspective, baptism is an outward expression of an inward heart condition. According to a Jewish perspective, baptism can be performed more than once. Do you agree with these two premises of context?

And there is no proof positive consideration that all believers throughout eternity were baptised. Therefore, you can't say that it is the rule.

Whether symbolic or not, people in the NT who believed Jesus Christ was the Son of God were baptized in water.

Then why do you believe it was more than symbolic? There's nothing to suggest from history and Scripture that it was anything more than symbolic.

It is my observation that people today, you seem to be included, want to take POSSIBLE exceptions to the rule of baptizing believers immediately, as they did in the NT, to teaching baptism is not necessary or having special baptismal ceremonies every quarter, etc.

I don't care if someone gets baptised. It's an outward expression of an inward heart condition. IF ONE DOES NOT GET BAPTIZED, THEN THAT DOES NOT MEAN THAT THEIR HEART CONDITION IS ANY LESS SINCERE.

Where is the example in scripture where any believer delayed in getting baptized after the believed and repented?

Show me proof that every believer in eternity got baptised IN ORDER TO BE SAVED, and I'll answer your request.

Qoheleth

3rd February 2005, 02:15 PM

baptism is an outward expression of an inward heart condition

There's nothing to suggest from history and Scripture that it was anything more than symbolic

I feel that it is safe to assume that you do not subscribe to infant baptism, no matter. I am not attempting to prove its validity. What I would like to demonstrate to you is that Baptism was not considered what you have above labeled it as being in your quote from early church History.

Although I use quotes from the early church, this will provide a basis of information from credible church History. Indeed, church history shows the need for baptism, even in infants (which is not our dispute, but it is telling).

Secondly, Look at the words used in relation to the act of baptism: Remission, Sanctification, Grace, Mercy, Sacred, Forgiveness, Washed, Purified, Regenerated, Sacrament and so on.

These words assuredly are attach to baptism and are more than an "inward condition". Our salvation is hinged upon our being righteous and perfect before the Father. We only have this condition through Christ and his sacrifice which gained for us the forgiveness of sins and therefore the righteous standing before the Father. Without being forgiven, we do not have paradise to call our home. This is the History that needs to be considered.

Irenaeus
"He [Jesus] came to save all through himself; all, I say, who through him are reborn in God: infants, and children, and youths, and old men. Therefore he passed through every age, becoming an infant for infants, sanctifying infants; a child for children, sanctifying those who are of that age . . . [so that] he might be the perfect teacher in all things, perfect not only in respect to the setting forth of truth, perfect also in respect to relative age" (Against Heresies 2:22:4 [A.D. 189]).

"And [Naaman] dipped himself . . . seven times in the Jordan [2 Kgs. 5:14]. It was not for nothing that Naaman of old, when suffering from leprosy, was purified upon his being baptized, but [this served] as an indication to us. For as we are lepers in sin, we are made clean, by means of the sacred water and the invocation of the Lord, from our old transgressions, being spiritually regenerated as newborn babes, even as the Lord has declared: Except a man be born again through water and the Spirit, he shall not enter into the kingdom of heaven [John 3:5]" (Fragment 34 [A.D. 190]).

Hippolytus
"Baptize first the children, and if they can speak for themselves let them do so. Otherwise, let their parents or other relatives speak for them" (The Apostolic Tradition 21:16 [A.D. 215]).

Origen
"Every soul that is born into flesh is soiled by the filth of wickedness and sin. . . . In the Church, baptism is given for the remission of sins, and, according to the usage of the Church, baptism is given even to infants. If there were nothing in infants which required the remission of sins and nothing in them pertinent to forgiveness, the grace of baptism would seem superfluous" (Homilies on Leviticus 8:3 [A.D. 248]).

"The Church received from the apostles the tradition of giving baptism even to infants. The apostles, to whom were committed the secrets of the divine sacraments, knew there are in everyone innate strains of [original] sin, which must be washed away through water and the Spirit" (Commentaries on Romans 5:9 [A.D. 248]).

Cyprian of Carthage
"As to what pertains to the case of infants: You [Fidus] said that they ought not to be baptized within the second or third day after their birth, that the old law of circumcision must be taken into consideration, and that you did not think that one should be baptized and sanctified within the eighth day after his birth. In our council it seemed to us far otherwise. No one agreed to the course which you thought should be taken. Rather, we all judge that the mercy and grace of God ought to be denied to no man born" (Letters 64:2 [A.D. 253]).

"If, in the case of the worst sinners and those who formerly sinned much against God, when afterwards they believe, the remission of their sins is granted and no one is held back from baptism and grace, how much more, then, should an infant not be held back, who, having but recently been born, has done no sin, except that, born of the flesh according to Adam, he has contracted the contagion of that old death from his first being born. For this very reason does he [an infant] approach more easily to receive the remission of sins: because the sins forgiven him are not his own but those of another" (ibid., 64:5).

Gregory of Nazianz
"Do you have an infant child? Allow sin no opportunity; rather, let the infant be sanctified from childhood. From his most tender age let him be consecrated by the Spirit. Do you fear the seal [of baptism] because of the weakness of nature? Oh, what a pusillanimous mother and of how little faith!" (Oration on Holy Baptism 40:7 [A.D. 388]).

"Well enough, some will say, for those who ask for baptism, but what do you have to say about those who are still children, and aware neither of loss nor of grace? Shall we baptize them too? Certainly , if there is any pressing danger. Better that they be sanctified unaware, than that they depart unsealed and uninitiated" (ibid., 40:28).

John Chrysostom
"You see how many are the benefits of baptism, and some think its heavenly grace consists only in the remission of sins, but we have enumerated ten honors [it bestows]! For this reason we baptize even infants, though they are not defiled by [personal] sins, so that there may be given to them holiness, righteousness, adoption, inheritance, brotherhood with Christ, and that they may be his [Christs] members" ([i]Baptismal Catecheses in Augustine, Against Julian 1:6:21 [A.D. 388]).

Augustine
"What the universal Church holds, not as instituted by councils but as something always held, is most correctly believed to have been handed down by apostolic authority. Since others respond for children, so that the celebration of the sacrament may be complete for them, it is certainly availing to them for their consecration, because they themselves are not able to respond" ([i]On Baptism, Against the Donatists 4:24:31 [A.D. 400]).

"By this grace baptized infants too are ingrafted into his [Christs] body, infants who certainly are not yet able to imitate anyone. Christ, in whom all are made alive . . . gives also the most hidden grace of his Spirit to believers, grace which he secretly infuses even into infants. . . . It is an excellent thing that the Punic [North African] Christians call baptism salvation and the sacrament of Christs Body nothing else than life. Whence does this derive, except from an ancient and, as I suppose, apostolic tradition, by which the churches of Christ hold inherently that without baptism and participation at the table of the Lord it is impossible for any man to attain either to the kingdom of God or to salvation and life eternal? This is the witness of Scripture, too. . . . If anyone wonders why children born of the baptized should themselves be baptized, let him attend briefly to this. . . . The sacrament of baptism is most assuredly the sacrament of regeneration" (Forgiveness and the Just Deserts of Sin, and the Baptism of Infants 1:9:10; 1:24:34; 2:27:43 [A.D. 412]).

Council of Carthage V
"Item: It seemed good that whenever there were not found reliable witnesses who could testify that without any doubt they [abandoned children] were baptized and when the children themselves were not, on account of their tender age, able to answer concerning the giving of the sacraments to them, all such children should be baptized without scruple, lest a hesitation should deprive them of the cleansing of the sacraments. This was urged by the [North African] legates, our brethren, since they redeem many such [abandoned children] from the barbarians" (Canon 7 [A.D. 401]).

Council of Mileum II
"[W]hoever says that infants fresh from their mothers wombs ought not to be baptized, or say that they are indeed baptized unto the remission of sins, but that they draw nothing of the original sin of Adam, which is expiated in the bath of regeneration . . . let him be anathema [excommunicated]. Since what the apostle [Paul] says, Through one man sin entered into the world, and death through sin, and so passed to all men, in whom all have sinned [Rom. 5:12], must not be understood otherwise than the catholic church spread everywhere has always understood it. For on account of this rule of faith even infants, who in themselves thus far have not been able to commit any sin, are therefore truly baptized unto the remission of sins, so that that which they have contracted from generation may be cleansed in them by regeneration" (Canon 3 [A.D. 416]).

muffler dragon

3rd February 2005, 03:16 PM

I feel that it is safe to assume that you do not subscribe to infant baptism, no matter. I am not attempting to prove its validity. What I would like to demonstrate to you is that Baptism was not considered what you have above labeled it as being in your quote from early church History.

No, I do not believe in infant baptism either. I think dedication is fine, but that's neither here nor there.

Although I use quotes from the early church, this will provide a basis of information from credible church History. Indeed, church history shows the need for baptism, even in infants (which is not our dispute, but it is telling).

Secondly, Look at the words used in relation to the act of baptism: Remission, Sanctification, Grace, Mercy, Sacred, Forgiveness, Washed, Purified, Regenerated, Sacrament and so on.

These words assuredly are attach to baptism and are more than an "inward condition". Our salvation is hinged upon our being righteous and perfect before the Father. We only have this condition through Christ and his sacrifice which gained for us the forgiveness of sins and therefore the righteous standing before the Father. Without being forgiven, we do not have paradise to call our home. This is the History that needs to be considered.

I do, sincerely, appreciate you taking the time to present your argument. And I have to admit that it is rather disconcerting that you had not been involved from beforehand, not only for our benefit; but also for your own.

The reason I say that is because I have been driving home a main point from day one, and I'll share it with you here: baptism is not something that was novel to Christianity. It was a part of Judaism, and therefore, the proper context and understanding of baptism will come from a Judaic understanding, perspective and context. None of the people you write of below were Jews. None of them present an argument/statement/belief based on a Judaic perspective of 'baptism'. Only one even uses a passage from the Tanakh, and it takes one singular instance of a baptism and adopts it as the "plumb line" by which all other instances are adopted. Therefore, I have to admit that, while I understand exactly what you are presenting, I don't see how it becomes any more relevant to the situation than what is presented by the other pro-essentials. To me, the context is still absent, and therefore anything that comes afterwards is not based on a clear understanding of what is going on.

Regards,

m.d.

Qoheleth

3rd February 2005, 03:54 PM

To me, the context is still absent, and therefore anything that comes afterwards is not based on a clear understanding of what is going on.

You are trying to establish the similarities of the Jewish use of baptism as compared and contrasted to the Christian use. Indeed, I understand your purpose.

"But, this custom, though observed as a religious action, yet has scarce any appearance of religion and devotion in it; but looks rather like a civil affair, it being in some cases under the cognizance and by the direction of the Sanhedrim, or court of judicature. There was no divine solemnity in the performance of it. It was not administered in the name of the God of Israel, whom the Jews professed; nor in the name of the Messiah to come, expected by them, as was the baptism of John; nor in the name of the Three divine Persons in the Trinity, which yet the ancient Jews believed.(Gill)

"To suppose that John took up the practice of baptizing as he found it among the Jews, and from a tradition and custom of theirs, greatly detracts from the character of John, his divine mission, and the credit of baptism, as administered by him; and is contrary to what the scriptures say concerning him. They represent him as the first administrator of baptism, and, for a while, the sole administrator of it; for, for what other reason do they call him the Baptist, and distinguish him by this title, if it was then a common thing, and had been usual in time past, to baptize persons?

The scriptures say he was a man sent of God, and sent by him "to baptize with water" (John 1:6, 33). But what need was there of a mission and commission to what was in common use, and had been so time out of mind? The Jews hearing of John’s baptizing persons, sent messengers to him, to know who he was that took upon him to baptize; who asked, "Why baptizest thou, if thou art not that Christ, nor Elijah, nor that prophet?" As if it was a new thing; and that it was expected he should be some extraordinary person who baptized. But why should such questions be put to him, if this was in common use, and if any ordinary person, however any common doctor or Rabbi, had then, and in former times, been used to baptize persons(JG)?

The scriptures speak of John’s baptism as the "counsel of God": but according to this notion, it was a device and tradition of men; and had this been the case, the Jews would not have been at a loss, nor under any difficulty, to answer the question Christ put to them, nor indeed, would he ever have put such an one; "The baptism of John, whence was it? from heaven, or from men?" for his putting the question thus, supposes the contrary, that it was not from men, but from God: and if it was not of God, but a tradition of men, they could have readily said, "Of men"; without being confuted by him, or exposed to the people; but being thrown into a dilemma, they took the wisest way for themselves, and answered, "We cannot tell". "

Toney

3rd February 2005, 03:57 PM

Here is the link to an informative essay on Myth, Ritual and Initiation. (http://www.stkate.edu/art/mysterymanifesto/E3.html) That is what is being discussed, in a rather myopic way, in this thread. This is a quote from that essay (emphasis mine):

The crucial experience of the initiate is that of death to the old self–and the rebirth of a new. In traditional puberty initiations, the initiate dies to her or his childhood and is reborn as an adult member of the society. In initiatory rites like the ones depicted at the Villa of the Mysteries, the initiate is entering a single-sex, secret society. Unlike the puberty initiation, this ritual is not obligatory for all members of the society, and its secrets are carefully guarded from the uninitiated. Again Eliade explains, "It is an almost universal religious idea that the physical birth produces only a physical man and that the living spirit has to be brought into being by a second birth" (Myths, Dreams and Mysteries, 179). Today we are familiar with the idea of a second, spiritual birth via the Christian ritual of baptism, in which one is accepted into the community of Christian believers. In the case of the cult of the Villa of the Mysteries, the Roman matron, feeling a need for spiritual, inner rejuvenation, "died" to her profane condition as a social being, and through the initiatory ordeal, was born again, this time on a deep, archetypal level.

These rituals are entirely symbolic. Water is a universal religious symbol for regeneration, rebirth, renewal, etc.

Toney

3rd February 2005, 04:14 PM

"The baptism of John, whence was it? from heaven, or from men?" for his putting the question thus, supposes the contrary, that it was not from men, but from God: and if it was not of God, but a tradition of men, they could have readily said, "Of men"; without being confuted by him, or exposed to the people; but being thrown into a dilemma, they took the wisest way for themselves, and answered, "We cannot tell". "

Nice quote from John Gill. Why not put it in context? The question was not answered because of fear of John's disciples (Mt 21) since John was considered a prophet. The discussion went to authority, not to the nature of baptism itself.

Why quote John Gill in the first place? Our understanding of the Bible has come a long way since the 1700's what with Biblical scholarship, don't you agree?

(Sorry to but in on this fine discussion, m.d. I will but back out. There is little point in arguing John Gill's sermons with Fundies.)

muffler dragon

3rd February 2005, 04:16 PM

Toney,

Do you feel that baptism is essential for salvation? I am reading into your statements above that you do not, but I would like to be corrected if wrong.

m.d.

Toney

3rd February 2005, 04:21 PM

Toney,

Do you feel that baptism is essential for salvation? I am reading into your statements above that you do not, but I would like to be corrected if wrong.

m.d.

Of course not. Contrary to the religious thought of the great Agustine, I do not believe infant exorcism is necessary.

I am, however, baptized as are my children and grandchildren. If one is to be raised in the Christian tradition, it is, IMO, essential. Males in this same group of people to whom I refer are also circumcized, for religious reasons. That was not necessary either, but just makes us all feel that we are part of something big.

Qoheleth

3rd February 2005, 04:28 PM

Why quote John Gill in the first place? Our understanding of the Bible has come a long way since the 1700's what with Biblical scholarship, don't you agree?

I have not seen arguments, with as much validity as his put forth (why I quoted him anyway) since.

If scholarship has "come a long way", than has the church been in complete error since the beginning? Is it Logic and scholarship that guides the scripture only or is the Holy spirit present to guide also.

Was the Holy spirit absent for many centuries and scholarship the only means available?

Q

muffler dragon

3rd February 2005, 04:29 PM

You are trying to establish the similarities of the Jewish use of baptism as compared and contrasted to the Christian use. Indeed, I understand your purpose.

Glad to hear it.

But, this custom, though observed as a religious action, yet has scarce any appearance of religion and devotion in it; but looks rather like a civil affair, it being in some cases under the cognizance and by the direction of the Sanhedrim, or court of judicature. There was no divine solemnity in the performance of it. It was not administered in the name of the God of Israel, whom the Jews professed; nor in the name of the Messiah to come, expected by them, as was the baptism of John; nor in the name of the Three divine Persons in the Trinity, which yet the ancient Jews believed.

You add some qualifiers on this that might be of interest to discuss:

1) appearance of religion and devotion. I disagree. If my premise is correct, then there is plenty of "religion and devotion" in it. If baptism is an outward expression of an inward heart condition, then what is that heart condition? Repentant. I view that as a religious and devotional act. However, I do not view it as more than that.

2) under the direction of t