Is Baptism necessary for Salvation?

[Splayd]

Hey guys,
I just thought I'd start a series of polls to get an overview of where we stand on some key RM topics.
Please don't answer if you aren't RM.

Thanks.

[music4two]

Baptism is an outward sign of an inward work. To understand this it is necessary to understand baptism.
The term "baptism" is a poor translation of the real word. When the translators of the KJV came to the word "baptizo" in the Greek, the literal translation should have been immersion. Because of orders from King James they used a transliteration, moving the Greek word into English and keeping the true meaning hidden. This was done because the Catholic Church and the Church of England were sprinkling babies and calling it baptism.
Secondly - one must understand the term "name" from a Hebrew standpoint. Hebrew writers of even the New Testament thought and wrote differently then those of us from the West. The term "name" would have been better translated as "character". With this in mind one can see that we are to be immersed in the character of Christ. This is the inward work that God desires. Being dunked in water without this inward work accomplishes nothing but getting wet. Does it seem reasonable that God would reject someone that is not water baptised if that person accomplishes the inward work?
><(((((((O>
;)

[WesWoodell]

God said to do it - so do it.

Why argue or try to explain away the significance?

[Mary of Bethany]

May I ask a question?

I know y'all don't baptize infants - in fact, I think that you consider it "believer's baptism". But please correct me if I have the wrong idea about your beliefs.

So what do you believe about infants or young children who die before receiving baptism? Do you believe that if they haven't reached the "age of accountability" that they are saved anyway (I think that's the Baptist belief). Or do you believe they are condemned? Or do you leave it at "don't know"?

Thanks for educating me. :)

Mary

[WesWoodell]

I don't believe infants are capable of sin, and I don't believe a person is guilty of anyone's sin but their own.

Ezekiel 18:20
20 The soul who sins is the one who will die. The son will not share the guilt of the father, nor will the father share the guilt of the son. The righteousness of the righteous man will be credited to him, and the wickedness of the wicked will be charged against him.
(NIV)

It is my belief that the child would go to heaven.

[Mary of Bethany]

Oh! So you believe in the same idea of Original Sin as we do - that's cool.

We have the same belief regarding babies/young children who aren't baptized, even though we do baptize infants.

Thanks for answering my question. I really appreciate your kindness in letting me post in here.

Mary

[AJB4]

Oh! So you believe in the same idea of Original Sin as we do - that's cool.

We have the same belief regarding babies/young children who aren't baptized, even though we do baptize infants.

Thanks for answering my question. I really appreciate your kindness in letting me post in here.

Mary
Not quite. Generally, the RM, just like the Orthodox and most Protestants, believes that we carry the guilt of the Original Sin, but not the consequence.

[WesWoodell]

Not quite. Generally, the RM, just like the Orthodox and most Protestants, believes that we carry the guilt of the Original Sin, but not the consequence.


I think you may have that backwards for the RM (at least in the United States).

We believe we all have to deal with the consequences of Adam's sin (death), but we are not guilty of Adam's sin.

[standingstones]

Original Sin - What is origin of this doctrine?

[AJB4]

I think you may have that backwards for the RM (at least in the United States).

We believe we all have to deal with the consequences of Adam's sin (death), but we are not guilty of Adam's sin.
Oh yes. I realised last night that I had it backwards. Sorry, I meant the consequence, but not the guilt.

[Mary of Bethany]

Oh yes. I realised last night that I had it backwards. Sorry, I meant the consequence, but not the guilt.

Which is the same as the Orthodox, so I'm not sure what's different?

But I thought that most Protestants hold to the same idea as the RCC, that there is a stain on every soul because of the Original Sin, which is where we would differ.

Mary

[AJB4]

Which is the same as the Orthodox, so I'm not sure what's different?

But I thought that most Protestants hold to the same idea as the RCC, that there is a stain on every soul because of the Original Sin, which is where we would differ.

Mary
There is a stain on every soul because of the original sin, but should a baby die before baptism, the RM would believe that they would go to heaven for sure, because they would not be held responsible for the sins of Adam and Eve, whereas if a Catholic baby dies prior to Baptism, a Catholic would not be sure whether they in heaven or not (if I'm correct), whereas in the RM, they would be without question.

[JDIBe]

Which is the same as the Orthodox, so I'm not sure what's different?

But I thought that most Protestants hold to the same idea as the RCC, that there is a stain on every soul because of the Original Sin, which is where we would differ.

Mary
All of us must suffer the consequences of original sin, (earthly death, pain, etc.) but no one suffers spiritually but for his own sin. For adults, the argument is moot because all have sinned anyway. We will be hung with our own ropes. :)

But for children, this is a different matter. I believe I can safely say this line of reasoning is common among all RM churches. Please correct me someone if I am wrong.

[hungrytiger]

Which is the same as the Orthodox, so I'm not sure what's different?

But I thought that most Protestants hold to the same idea as the RCC, that there is a stain on every soul because of the Original Sin, which is where we would differ.

Mary

I hope no one minds me chiming in, but I grew up in the Church of Christ and my experience has been the pretty much the same in this resepect as JDIBe's. I do think that the RM and Orthodox views on this are similar which is part of why I was orginally open to looking into the Orthodox church.

[Splayd]

I'm in agreement too. It certainly sounds like there's some consistency on this matter within the RM.

[ConservativeChristian97]

I believe baptism is an outward showing of how God is changing you once you've been saved, but its not required for salvation. As long as you are saved and have obeyed God you will go to heaven should you die before being baptized.

[EdmundBlackadderTheThird]

I believe baptism is part of the salvation process but would never take a stand on where in that process one is actually saved. As far as I am concerned salvation is an ongoing process. I have been baptized. I baptized my wife and will baptize my children but I would say it is necessary for salvation other than being a part of the process. If a person believes in their heart and confesses with their mouth then as far as I am concerned they are my brother in Christ from that moment on.

[Celestron]

i'm strong on romans 4 currently..... i beleive there is a parallel between circumcision and baptism.... abraham was made righteous by faith before he was circumcised, paralleling, we are made righteous by faith before baptism, if we believe...circumcision sealed abraham's righteousnesss, paralleling, baptism seals ours.... now i wouldn't want to go unsealed, but allowing God to save others before baptism give those that die on their way to the baptistry a chance if you get my drift.

[AJB4]

i'm strong on romans 4 currently..... i beleive there is a parallel between circumcision and baptism.... abraham was made righteous by faith before he was circumcised, paralleling, we are made righteous by faith before baptism, if we believe...circumcision sealed abraham's righteousnesss, paralleling, baptism seals ours.... now i wouldn't want to go unsealed, but allowing God to save others before baptism give those that die on their way to the baptistry a chance if you get my drift.
An interesting point about Baptism of Infants is that children were a part of the old covenant and were circumcized. Why would God suddenly change it so they're not part of the new Baptism covenant?

[Celestron]

are you saying that they should be saved as children as long as they're baptized as children?

i'm having trouble following your reply

[sidekick]

I believe it is necessary. Mark 16:16
Also is it a coincidence that every conversion in Acts ends with baptism?
Concerning infants, they are considered innocent because they cannot tell right from wrong, therefore would enter into heaven. Same goes for the mentally handicapped.

[annie1speed]

I belive that baptism is for the remission of sins, and therefore is necessary for salvation. Children below the age of accountability are safe in the Lord.

Annie

[Shumby]

I believe that baptism is necessary, but not in order to be saved. It is obedience to the command to BE baptized. This is done AFTER one has been born again.

[ModestGirlsRock]

okay, assuming three things:
1. baptism symbolizes the death, burial, resurrection of Jesus Christ
2. faith w/o works is dead, but works without a sincere and believing heart is nothing..neither can really stand alone and be enough for salvation.
3. It is a command to repent and be baptized and spread the good news and baptize others.

Without fully understanding or that if you don't understand the gift that God has given us and that you can repent of your sins and be baptized, then of course, you're just getting wet. However, if you do understand, wish to be apart of the lord's church, and your heart is sincere, then naturally, faith leads to obedience of the word and through your actions of obedience because of your faith, you will pray and repent, you will die to your sins, be buried because spirtually you have died to sin, and rise up a new person with a clean slate for the blood of jesus has spirtually washed your sins away. Baptism isn't merely just an acknowledgement that you've been saved. There is an example or two of people who baptized with no mass crowd to see them except for the person baptizing them and of course, the Lord. Now I realize God still sees it, but I've noticed with a lot of people, they argue with me that baptism is to acknowledge to a human audience as well.

Then there is the argument about not having access to water or repenting on your deathbed...well, the deathbed repenter can probably be compared to the thieves that died with Jesus on the cross, but water??? Since when did anyone hear of a someone who wanted to become a christian find a lack of it or not even find it soon enough that repented hence the deathbed repenter... The Lord provides us with opportunities, time, days, people, places...etc.

Considering the command, even if a person didn't want to go through the process of being baptized, they would be disobeying the law of the lord which proves their faith isn't real because if they did have faith then they would obey the Lord's authority and the authority given to the apostles.

Baptism is necessary for salvation...It's just not the only thing needed for it though. There are things needed to be done before and after as well. I mean, afterwards, obviously, you must start your daily walk with God, build a relationship with him, read your bible..etc,etc,etc.

There is no laid out step by step mechanical process, but a guidline that must be considered for one to consider becoming a christian and it's important that a person understands what they're getting themselves into. It's not easy! Realizing and acknowledging that there is a God, confessing your sins to God, giving your life to God, and living your life for God is not easy, but it's sure an infinite times an infinite times better than sin and the ultimate consequence of denying God's gift and inheritance that he has given to all of us in spite that we don't deserve it.

[SEA89]

baptism is necessary but it is only part of being saved. the second part of being saved is after you are baptized you continue to learn ,study , and teach others about Christ.

may god be with you always,SEA89:)

[hopeinGod]

In truth, the answer to your question is yes. But, it's not in water. There are three baptisms: blood, water and spirit. Blood baptism is that which takes place at the moment of justification.

Spirit and water baptisms come after the first phase of salvation: justification.

During the second phase of salvation, sanctification, the other two baptisms come into play.

Baptisms are threefold, for threefold man: spirit, soul and body. The third phase of salvation is glorification.

So, in answer to your question, yes, there is a baptism that takes place the moment one repents. It takes place, however, without an actual ritual as in water baptism.

Dave

[da525382]

Water baptism is an act of obedience, not salvational. Just as any other act of obedience: praying for our leaders, visiting widows, loving our enemies, etc.

Only our Lord is our salvation because it is He who by God's grace went to the cross on our behalf and finished the work of salvation for us.

Our regeneration through our spiritual baptism by the Holy Spirit into our Lord's death, burial, and resurrection when we come to faith, is pictured by our water baptismal ritual, and that ritual (or sacrament or ordinance) provides us a vivid reminder of what God did for us on the cross for the rest of our lives.

[Apollos1]

MGR -

Baptism does not "symbolize" anything and there is not one scripture in the NT that tells us such. Please research this to see that my statement is accurate.

In Romans 6 Paul tells us that water baptism is OUR death, burial, and resurrection in the LIKENESS of Christ's. Paul further states that we must be buried with Christ and raised with Christ to have the resurrection in Christ that he mentions.
<<<*>>>

HopeinGod -

Share some scripture with me that I may better undeerstand what you are saying. Currently I am not buying what you were trying to sell. Thankx!
<<<*>>>

da525382 -

I hope you also will share some scriptures as well. As I read the scriptures, Acts 2:38, 22:16, Matthew 28:18-20, Romans 6 and more are telling me that your position will not withstand the test of inquiry.

Water baptism is the means authorized and chosen by God through which man appropriates the salvation that God offers to man through His grace.

[Loveaboveall]

Gen 17:11 And ye shall circumcise the flesh of your foreskin; and it shall be a token of the covenant betwixt me and you.

Rom 4:11 And he received the sign of circumcision, a seal of the righteousness of the faith which [he had yet] being uncircumcised: that he might be the father of all them that believe, though they be not circumcised; that righteousness might be imputed unto them also:

Jer 4:4 Circumcise yourselves to the LORD, and take away the foreskins of your heart, ye men of Judah and inhabitants of Jerusalem: lest my fury come forth like fire, and burn that none can quench [it], because of the evil of your doings.

Col 2:11-12 In whom also ye are circumcised with the circumcision made without hands, in putting off the body of the sins of the flesh by the circumcision of Christ: Buried with him in baptism, wherein also ye are risen with [him] through the faith of the operation of God, who hath raised him from the dead.



I will let the texts speak for themselves.

[Bick]

Yes, it is true that during Jesus ministry to his own people, Israel, he, along with John the Baptist, preached "a baptism of repentance fro the forgiveness of sins" (Mark 1:4) "for the kingdom of heaven is near" (Matt. 3:1, 4:18) NIV.

So, at first baptism was in water only. This was to gain admission into the coming kingdom on earth; the Messianic kingdom---the hope of Israel.

John tells us in Matt.3:11, "I baptize you in water for repentance. But after me will come one who is more powerful than I, He will baptize you with the Holy Spirit and with fire." See also Acts 1:5, 7,8.

And, indeed, this occured, beginning on the day of Pentecost when the disciples were gathered in the house. Actually, all the disciples had been baptized in water earlier when they originally followed Jesus.
Then, after that, and through the Acts period, believing Jews, and Gentile proselytes, were baptized in water and the Holy Spirit (Acts 2:38-40, 10:34-48).
In the case of Cornelius and his household, they received the Holy Spirit first, then were baptized with water.

Paul, a called apostle and teacher to the nations, tells us in 1 Cor. 1:13-17, that he was thankful that he had baptized (in water) no one except Crispus and Gaius, and also the household of Stephanas.

As we read the letters of Paul carefully, we learn of the special revelations of mysteries, kept secret for ages past but now revealed, that there is a new called-out body: the church (ecclesia) body of Christ, made up of both Jews and Gentiles, all equal in Christ--a new creation. This church started, IMO, probably after the final recorded rejection of the truth that Jesus is the Messiah, fulfilling all the OT prophecies, as recorded in Acts 28:25-28.

As believers we are indwelt and sealed with the Holy Spirit. Baptism, in it's fullness, means to be "identified with". Reading Romans 6, we see us being baptized into Christ were identified with him into his death; and therefore buried with him into death. Since we have been united with him in his death, we will certainly be united with him in his resurrection.

Bick

[- DRA -]

In truth, the answer to your question is yes. But, it's not in water. There are three baptisms: blood, water and spirit. Blood baptism is that which takes place at the moment of justification.

Spirit and water baptisms come after the first phase of salvation: justification.

During the second phase of salvation, sanctification, the other two baptisms come into play.

Baptisms are threefold, for threefold man: spirit, soul and body. The third phase of salvation is glorification.

So, in answer to your question, yes, there is a baptism that takes place the moment one repents. It takes place, however, without an actual ritual as in water baptism.

Dave

According to Ephesians 4:5, there is only one baptism. According to the conversion of the Ephesians in Acts 19:1-5, the Ephesians were baptized in the name of the Lord - which is identified as being in water in Acts 10:47-48. Therefore, the one baptism that unified both Jews and Gentiles in the one body (or church) was in water. :amen:

[JDIBe]

I'm afraid I have to agree with DRA. Now all 3 of those might occur at the same time....

[cremi]

I'm afraid I have to agree with DRA. Now all 3 of those might occur at the same time....Or???

I don't mean that facetiously either.

Reading in Acts this past...umm....2 months or so (I have a lot of interruptions in my life, so I read slowly) I was struck by the different baptisms.

Can you, DRA, splayed...anyone address the idea that some have that can experience three types of baptisms? I have to admit that the concept still has be baffled a bit. Some teach that if you haven't had the "baptism of the Holy Spirit" that you haven't quite made it....but I read in my bible that there is only one baptism. (Ephesians 4)

Thoughts?

[JDIBe]

Or???

I don't mean that facetiously either.

Reading in Acts this past...umm....2 months or so (I have a lot of interruptions in my life, so I read slowly) I was struck by the different baptisms.

Can you, DRA, splayed...anyone address the idea that some have that can experience three types of baptisms? I have to admit that the concept still has be baffled a bit. Some teach that if you haven't had the "baptism of the Holy Spirit" that you haven't quite made it....but I read in my bible that there is only one baptism. (Ephesians 4)

Thoughts?
No Cremi, I actually can't.

My Bible says the same as yours, "One faith, one Lord, one baptism."

So therefore the only logical conclusion I can see is that perhaps these are different aspects of what happens at that one baptism. Now as for the H.S. and baptism, I believe we have the H.S., but I would differ with those who would say it must manifest itself in miraculous ways.

[Clydson]

Or???

I don't mean that facetiously either.

Reading in Acts this past...umm....2 months or so (I have a lot of interruptions in my life, so I read slowly) I was struck by the different baptisms.

Can you, DRA, splayed...anyone address the idea that some have that can experience three types of baptisms? I have to admit that the concept still has be baffled a bit. Some teach that if you haven't had the "baptism of the Holy Spirit" that you haven't quite made it....but I read in my bible that there is only one baptism. (Ephesians 4)

Thoughts?

Greetings cremi

My understanding is in regard to the words of Jesus to Nicodemus;

John 3:5
5 Jesus answered, "Most assuredly, I say to you, unless one is born of water and the Spirit, he cannot enter the kingdom of God.
NKJV

I believe this is true today, that one must be born of or baptized with water and Spirit.

This sounds like two baptism, and maybe doesn't harmonize with Eph 4:5. However, I believe it does. I believe that Paul explains it quite well and simply;

Col 2:11-12
11 In Him you were also circumcised with the circumcision made without hands, by putting off the body of the sins of the flesh, by the circumcision of Christ,
12 buried with Him in baptism, in which you also were raised with Him through faith in the working of God, who raised Him from the dead.
NKJV

We learn in scripture that only Jesus can baptize with the Holy Spirit. We also learn that water baptism was taught and practiced by the apostles, even Jesus taught water baptism and included it within his commission to assist in making disciples.

I believe that when one is submissive to the will of God in baptism, He, at the same moment, baptizes with the Spirit.

This would comply with Eph 4:5 as one baptism, but it would be one baptism in two elements.

What might also help is the scriptural teaching of man's two elements, the inner man and the outer man. Water covers the outer man in baptism, while the Spirit covers the inner man.

Compare this thought with the words of Jesus;

John 3:5-8
5 Jesus answered, "Most assuredly, I say to you, unless one is born of water and the Spirit, he cannot enter the kingdom of God.
6 That which is born of the flesh is flesh, and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit.
7 Do not marvel that I said to you, 'You must be born again.'
8 The wind blows where it wishes, and you hear the sound of it, but cannot tell where it comes from and where it goes. So is everyone who is born of the Spirit."
NKJV

I may as well include another passage by Paul that projects this same principle;

Titus 3:4-7
4 But when the kindness and the love of God our Savior toward man appeared,
5 not by works of righteousness which we have done, but according to His mercy He saved us, through the washing of regeneration and renewing of the Holy Spirit,
6 whom He poured out on us abundantly through Jesus Christ our Savior,
7 that having been justified by His grace we should become heirs according to the hope of eternal life.
NKJV

Jake

[da525382]

MGR -

Baptism does not "symbolize" anything and there is not one scripture in the NT that tells us such. Please research this to see that my statement is accurate.

In Romans 6 Paul tells us that water baptism is OUR death, burial, and resurrection in the LIKENESS of Christ's. Paul further states that we must be buried with Christ and raised with Christ to have the resurrection in Christ that he mentions.
<<<*>>>

HopeinGod -

Share some scripture with me that I may better undeerstand what you are saying. Currently I am not buying what you were trying to sell. Thankx!
<<<*>>>

da525382 -

I hope you also will share some scriptures as well. As I read the scriptures, Acts 2:38, 22:16, Matthew 28:18-20, Romans 6 and more are telling me that your position will not withstand the test of inquiry.

Water baptism is the means authorized and chosen by God through which man appropriates the salvation that God offers to man through His grace.


Loveaboveall has answered your questions quite well, also some others here.

The one baptism with which we are baptized is the baptism into Christ done to us by the Holy Spirit when we come to faith.

A water baptism pictures this reality of our salvational baptism.

Don

[annie1speed]

da... Welcome to the forum! I have to ask, do you not believe that baptism is for remission of sins?

[- DRA -]

Or???

I don't mean that facetiously either.

Reading in Acts this past...umm....2 months or so (I have a lot of interruptions in my life, so I read slowly) I was struck by the different baptisms.

Can you, DRA, splayed...anyone address the idea that some have that can experience three types of baptisms? I have to admit that the concept still has be baffled a bit. Some teach that if you haven't had the "baptism of the Holy Spirit" that you haven't quite made it....but I read in my bible that there is only one baptism. (Ephesians 4)

Thoughts?

Since you have have been studying the book of Acts, let's use that as a starting place. Note Acts 1:4-5 (NKJV) ...
4 And being assembled together with them [the apostles], He commanded them not to depart from Jerusalem, but to wait for the Promise of the Father, "which," He said, "you have heard from Me;
5 for John truly baptized with water, but you shall be baptized with the Holy Spirit not many days from now."

In this text, Jesus is meeting with the apostles just outside of Jerusalem and just prior to His ascension into heaven. He reminds them to wait in Jerusalem until He sends the Holy Spirit upon them - the baptism of the Holy Spirit per Acts 1:5.

Thinking back, the night He was betrayed Jesus discussed with the apostles what the Holy Spirit would do for them when He came. Let's consider what Jesus promised in John 16:7-14 ...
7 Nevertheless I tell you the truth. It is to your advantage that I go away; for if I do not go away, the Helper will not come to you; but if I depart, I will send Him to you.
8 And when He has come, He will convict the world of sin, and of righteousness, and of judgment:
9 of sin, because they do not believe in Me; 10 of righteousness, because I go to My Father and you see Me no more;
11 of judgment, because the ruler of this world is judged.
12 I still have many things to say to you, but you cannot bear them now.
13 However, when He, the Spirit of truth, has come, He will guide you into all truth; for He will not speak on His own authority, but whatever He hears He will speak; and He will tell you things to come.
14 He will glorify Me, for He will take of what is Mine and declare it to you.

In essence, the baptism of the Holy Spirit was to:
1.) Convict the world of sin
2.) Convict the world of righteousness
3.) Convict the world of judgment
4.) Guide them (the apostles) into all truth
5.) Glorify Jesus

In Acts 2:1-4, the Holy Spirit came upon the apostles. Initially, the Holy Spirit gained the attention of the city by the sound they heard and the appearance of what looked like flames above the heads of the apostles. Then, the Spirit worked a miracle through the apostles - by empowering them to speak in languages and dialects they didn't know. Once this captured the attention of the Jews gathered in Jerusalem for the feast, the Holy Spirit then used O.T. texts such as Joel 2, Psalm 16, 2 Samuel 7, and Psalm 110 to do the things Jesus said would happen in John 16.

As for the baptism of the Holy Spirit, only one other incident in the N.T. is described as such - the Holy Spirit's coming upon the Gentiles in Acts 10 (see also Peter's description of the events in chapter 11). Note Peter's (only) conclusion after the Gentiles were baptized in the Holy Spirit: "Can anyone forbid water, that these should not be baptized who have received the Holy Spirit just as we have (verse 47)?" The point? God sent the Holy Spirit upon these first Gentile converts to show that He would accept their obedience to the gospel of Christ. Thus, Peter commanded them to be baptized just as He did the Jews in Acts 2:38 - "in the name of Jesus Christ" in Acts 2:38, which is synonymous with "in the name of the Lord" in Acts 10:48 - which is clearly identified in Acts 10:47-48 as being in water (see also Acts 8:35-39) - but was for a totally different reason than the baptism of the Holy Spirit. The baptism in the name of the Lord was for the remission of sins in Acts 2:38, to wash away sins in Acts 22:16, and to free one from sins in Romans 6:7.

As for the baptism of John, it was designed to prepare the Jewish people to receive the Lord when He came. Obviously, in Acts 18:24-19:5, we see that it was no longer applicable. Rather, people were expected to be baptized "in the name of the Lord" (i.e. by His authority - Matt. 28:18-19, Mark 16:15-16).

Now, let's go back to discussing the Holy Spirit. Acts 8:12-17 explains how the Samaritans received the Holy Spirit. It wasn't directly from the Lord as the apostles in Acts 2 or the Gentiles in Acts 10 received, but was by the laying on of the hands of two of the apostles. Note also Acts 19:6, which explains that the Ephesians who were baptized in the name of the Lord were given the Holy Spirit by the hands of the apostle Paul. Is this the same as the Holy Spirit sent directly from the Lord Himself? I don't think it is. He sure didn't guide the first-century disciples to "all truth" as the baptism of the Holy Spirit did for the apostles.

As for those today who claim to have the baptism with the Holy Spirit, I measure them in light of what Paul wrote in 1 Cor. 4:19 to the teachers who opposed what he taught: "But I will come to you shortly, if the Lord wills, and I will know, not the word of those who are puffed up, but the power." His point? He was an apostle with the true power of the Holy Spirit working in His life. These other teachers had only words - with no power. Clearly, in both instances identified as the baptism with the Holy Spirit in the N.T., power was present in both Acts 2 and 10. Like it or not, people today who claim this baptism are just like the teachers that opposed Paul - all talk - no power.

Meanwhile, the "one baptism" of Eph. 4:5 combined with faith (Col. 2:12) still has the power to "wash away sins" - by uniting one with the death, burial, and resurrection of our Lord where the sinner dies to sin, is freed from it, and becomes alive to God (Romans 6:3-11). :clap:

I hope this helps in your studies. :bow:

[annie1speed]

Nicely put.

Annie

[- DRA -]

Loveaboveall has answered your questions quite well, also some others here.

The one baptism with which we are baptized is the baptism into Christ done to us by the Holy Spirit when we come to faith.

A water baptism pictures this reality of our salvational baptism.

Don

Let's translate this understanding to the conversion of the Jews in Acts 2. In verse 37, some of the Jews were pricked to their hearts by the working of the Holy Spirit through the message preached. Were they baptized by the Holy Spirit and saved at this point? If so, then please explain to us Peter's response (being under the direct influence of the Holy Spirit) in verse 38. Why would Peter tell them to repent and be baptized "for the remission of sins" if they were already saved from their sins? I think some kind of explanation is in order.

[Splayd]

That's a good post DRA. (#38)

I don't entirely agree with it all, but it was a good study and well presented nonetheless. Thanks.

I think much of the confusion that people have about baptism stems from the way we use the word "baptism" coupled with a poor understanding of the OT.

The first christians weren't using a special unique bible word that only applied to a specific religious ceremony. The translators essentially turned the word "baptism" into that when they transliterated it instead of translating it. Rather, the writers of the day were using a word that was used in common usage in lots of instances. They'd even use that same word when talking about dipping bread in soup. ie: They baptised the bread in the soup. As such they had a much broader understanding of the word and it's implications. We tend to miss that today and although we acknowledge the mode of baptism as immersion, we tend not to consider the broader applications of the word. Back then, they would have simply heard something like "John only dunked you in water, but in a few days, you'll be absolutely soaked in the Holy Spirit."

Now - of course the word conveyed some understood religious ceremonial connections, but they actually go way back before John the Dunker to the OT. John's "baptism" wasn't completely new at all. The Jews were very used to the concept of ceremonial washing. Every time someone touched a dead body they were meant to be immersed in water. Every time a woman wanted to present herself to her husband again after her period, she'd be immersed in water. By the time of John, ceremonial washing had become very very common place and was used much more often than scripture had required it. In fact, the hand-washing incident involving Jesus and His disciples was related to a derivation of the ceremonial washing.

More than that, the washing was done in a very carefully prescribed manner too. It was understood that the person being washed had to be completely immersed. As such, they would remove any potential obstacle (including clothing) and have someone observe that they were actually and completely soaked. Further - it was imperative that the water be "living water". That is - it had to pool naturally and be free flowing. Of course any natural body of water would suffice for that, BUT as a matter of expediency, special baths were made around the temple especially for this purpose. There were some considerations that had to be included in their design. The water had to be able to pool naturally and the baths were connected in such a way that the water could flow freely between them. All of these things were of utmost importance and were the norm in John's time.

SO - What was new about John's baptism?
He took it to the people for one, but more than that was the message and meaning behind the washing. The immersion he was advocating wasn't merely to clean oneself after becoming ceremonially unclean or even to clean oneself in case one had become unclean. Rather, his message went straight to the heart. Sure - becoming "unclean" required immersion. Sure - touching dead bodies, having periods etc... made someone unclean. BUT what REALLY needs cleaning more than any of that is our heart. It's full of sin. That's what really makes us dirty right to the very core. His baptism was about repenting of sin and preparing for the Messiah.

When Jesus came along, He echoed a similar sentiment when confronted about the hand-washing. More important than that He also explained His relationship to "baptism" at another time. He said that He IS the living water. He's what we need to be immersed in. He's what we need to be totally and completely saturated with and in. Beyond that, He sent the Holy Spirit to saturate us too. Even aside from "water baptism" we're to be immersed in the Father, Son and Holy Spirit... BUT we're also to be immersed in water as part of that.

Incidentally, whenever a gentile converted to Judaism, they would need to undergo immersion as part of the ceremony. Essentially, they were being baptised in the name of the Father. It's purpose was to clean them (understanding that they were necessarily unclean as gentiles), but also acted as an initiation rite.

The early Christians would have recognised all of this. Being baptised for them was an act of cleansing, an initiation rite, an analogy of saturating oneself in God, a symbol of death and resurrection and much more. What's more - it was something that NOW only needed to be done once. While the Jews had to become ceremonially clean every time they'd become unclean, the early church understood that what was unclean was made clean in Christ.

Though there are many sacrifices (time, money etc...), the many ceremonial sacrifices were replaced with the one (Christ - the spotless lamb). Likewise there may be many instances of us being immersed (figuratively and literally) but the many ceremonial water "baptisms" were replaced by the one ceremonial water baptism (in Christ - the living water).

Peace

[Loveaboveall]

Splayd,

Wow, that was some of the best insight I have seen in a while. You a writer?

[Splayd]

Thanks loveaboveall :)

Nah - I'm a student, a teacher and a speaker tho ;)

Peace

[Loveaboveall]

I have some scripture that hopefully some can give me some insight on:

1 Corinthians 1:17 For Christ sent me not to baptize, but to preach the gospel: not with wisdom of words, lest the cross of Christ should be made of none effect.

Is baptism not part of the gospel? Isn't the gospel the good news of how to be saved?

[da525382]

da... Welcome to the forum! I have to ask, do you not believe that baptism is for remission of sins?
Hi, annie1speed,

And thank you very much for the welcome. No, I do not believe a water baptism is done in order to receive remission of sins as you have defined the word "for".

Rather, scripture teaches that Christ's crucifixion on the cross 2,000 years ago was for the remission of sins and that we receive that remission through the vehicle of faith, not through the vehicle of water baptism.

A water baptism is what saved, believers do, what Christians do. It is not something that is done to non-Christians ever in scripture.

Don

[da525382]

Let's translate this understanding to the conversion of the Jews in Acts 2. In verse 37, some of the Jews were pricked to their hearts by the working of the Holy Spirit through the message preached. Were they baptized by the Holy Spirit and saved at this point? If so, then please explain to us Peter's response (being under the direct influence of the Holy Spirit) in verse 38. Why would Peter tell them to repent and be baptized "for the remission of sins" if they were already saved from their sins? I think some kind of explanation is in order.
They were not saved from their sins when they were pierced in the heart. That piercing opened their eyes, convicted them of their sin. That's what the Holy Spirit does for us, it convicts us of sin.

The repentance Peter asked for is what provides the saving faith leading to their remission of sins. Repentance is always the connecting precursor to forgiveness of sins throughout the entire Bible.

The baptism spoken of in Acts 2 is simply Peter's admonition for baptism as he had heard in the Great Commission from Christ. Both repentance and baptism are done "for" the remission of sins that had come to the house of Israel through Messiah. In other words, baptism is an act of obedience, not an act of salvation.

Don

[- DRA -]

I have some scripture that hopefully some can give me some insight on:

1 Corinthians 1:17 For Christ sent me not to baptize, but to preach the gospel: not with wisdom of words, lest the cross of Christ should be made of none effect.

Is baptism not part of the gospel? Isn't the gospel the good news of how to be saved?

The Corinthians were baptized i.e. Acts 18:8.

In fact, Paul baptized some (1 Cor. 1:14,16).

Context: 1 Corinthians 1:10-17 is discussing the division in the church at Corinth because the converts were baptized by different preachers. They seemed to have overlooked one very important point - they were baptized in the name of the Lord - and not in the name of the preacher. In light of this division, Paul was glad that he did not baptize many in Corinth (i.e. verse 15). Rather, he was a preacher. He role wasn't necessarily to baptize.

Consider Philip and the conversion of the eunuch in Acts 8:35-39. Philip was both the preacher and the baptizer. Nothing wrong with that. Note verse 29. The Spirit was with Philip and guiding him. Therefore, there's nothing necessarily wrong with the preacher doing the baptizing.

Paul himself was baptized i.e. Acts 22:16, and he said something about us following his example (note Acts 22:16, 1 Cor. 11:1, Matt. 3:15).

[- DRA -]

That's a good post DRA. (#38)

I don't entirely agree with it all, but it was a good study and well presented nonetheless. Thanks.

I think much of the confusion that people have about baptism stems from the way we use the word "baptism" coupled with a poor understanding of the OT.

The first christians weren't using a special unique bible word that only applied to a specific religious ceremony. The translators essentially turned the word "baptism" into that when they transliterated it instead of translating it. Rather, the writers of the day were using a word that was used in common usage in lots of instances. They'd even use that same word when talking about dipping bread in soup. ie: They baptised the bread in the soup. As such they had a much broader understanding of the word and it's implications. We tend to miss that today and although we acknowledge the mode of baptism as immersion, we tend not to consider the broader applications of the word. Back then, they would have simply heard something like "John only dunked you in water, but in a few days, you'll be absolutely soaked in the Holy Spirit."

Now - of course the word conveyed some understood religious ceremonial connections, but they actually go way back before John the Dunker to the OT. John's "baptism" wasn't completely new at all. The Jews were very used to the concept of ceremonial washing. Every time someone touched a dead body they were meant to be immersed in water. Every time a woman wanted to present herself to her husband again after her period, she'd be immersed in water. By the time of John, ceremonial washing had become very very common place and was used much more often than scripture had required it. In fact, the hand-washing incident involving Jesus and His disciples was related to a derivation of the ceremonial washing.

More than that, the washing was done in a very carefully prescribed manner too. It was understood that the person being washed had to be completely immersed. As such, they would remove any potential obstacle (including clothing) and have someone observe that they were actually and completely soaked. Further - it was imperative that the water be "living water". That is - it had to pool naturally and be free flowing. Of course any natural body of water would suffice for that, BUT as a matter of expediency, special baths were made around the temple especially for this purpose. There were some considerations that had to be included in their design. The water had to be able to pool naturally and the baths were connected in such a way that the water could flow freely between them. All of these things were of utmost importance and were the norm in John's time.

SO - What was new about John's baptism?
He took it to the people for one, but more than that was the message and meaning behind the washing. The immersion he was advocating wasn't merely to clean oneself after becoming ceremonially unclean or even to clean oneself in case one had become unclean. Rather, his message went straight to the heart. Sure - becoming "unclean" required immersion. Sure - touching dead bodies, having periods etc... made someone unclean. BUT what REALLY needs cleaning more than any of that is our heart. It's full of sin. That's what really makes us dirty right to the very core. His baptism was about repenting of sin and preparing for the Messiah.

When Jesus came along, He echoed a similar sentiment when confronted about the hand-washing. More important than that He also explained His relationship to "baptism" at another time. He said that He IS the living water. He's what we need to be immersed in. He's what we need to be totally and completely saturated with and in. Beyond that, He sent the Holy Spirit to saturate us too. Even aside from "water baptism" we're to be immersed in the Father, Son and Holy Spirit... BUT we're also to be immersed in water as part of that.

Incidentally, whenever a gentile converted to Judaism, they would need to undergo immersion as part of the ceremony. Essentially, they were being baptised in the name of the Father. It's purpose was to clean them (understanding that they were necessarily unclean as gentiles), but also acted as an initiation rite.

The early Christians would have recognised all of this. Being baptised for them was an act of cleansing, an initiation rite, an analogy of saturating oneself in God, a symbol of death and resurrection and much more. What's more - it was something that NOW only needed to be done once. While the Jews had to become ceremonially clean every time they'd become unclean, the early church understood that what was unclean was made clean in Christ.

Though there are many sacrifices (time, money etc...), the many ceremonial sacrifices were replaced with the one (Christ - the spotless lamb). Likewise there may be many instances of us being immersed (figuratively and literally) but the many ceremonial water "baptisms" were replaced by the one ceremonial water baptism (in Christ - the living water).

Peace

Good. You're responding once again.

My response was primarily centered on the book of Acts ... as mentioned in the original request for info.

Likewise, I agree with much of what you say ... but not all.

From a biblical perspective, baptism indeed has some broader usages. Hebrews 6:2, in the KJV, begins with, "Of the doctrine of baptisms." The Koine Greek word for baptisms is "baptismos," which also appears in:

Mark 7:4 And when they come from the market, except they wash, they eat not. And many other things there be, which they have received to hold, as the washing of cups, and pots, brasen vessels, and of tables.

Mark 7:8 For laying aside the commandment of God, ye hold the tradition of men, as the washing of pots and cups: and many other such like things ye do.

Hebrews 9:10 Which stood only in meats and drinks, and divers washings, and carnal ordinances, imposed on them until the time of reformation.

Clearly, there were various "washings" (baptisms) associated with the law of Moses and even those associated with the traditions of men. However, there was still the one commanded "in the name of the Lord" which should not be the focus of our attention (i.e. Acts 2:38, Acts 8:16, Acts 10:48, Acts 19:5, & 22:16).


In John 4, Jesus said to the woman at the well, "If thou knewest the gift of God, and who it is that saith to thee, Give me to drink; thou wouldest have asked of him, and he would have given thee living water. The woman saith unto him, 'Sir, thou hast nothing to draw with, and the well is deep: from whence then hast thou that living water' " (vs. 10-11)?

The conversation continues ...
"Jesus answered and said unto her, Whosoever drinketh of this water shall thirst again: But whosoever drinketh of the water that I shall give him shall never thirst; but the water that I shall give him shall be in him a well of water springing up into everlasting life. The woman saith unto him, 'Sir, give me this water, that I thirst not, neither come hither to draw' " (verses 13-15).

Let's consider the apostle John's commentary on this passage in John 7:37-39:
37 In the last day, that great day of the feast, Jesus stood and cried, saying, If any man thirst, let him come unto me, and drink.
38 He that believeth on me, as the scripture hath said, out of his belly shall flow rivers of living water.
39 (But this spake he of the Spirit, which they that believe on him should receive: for the Holy Ghost was not yet given; because that Jesus was not yet glorified.)

The question is: After Jesus was gloried and sent the Holy Spirit (i.e. Acts 2:1-4), who received the baptism of the Holy Spirit? In Acts 2 who received Him? Why? In Acts 10 who received Him? Why? How did the Samaritans receive the Spirit (i.e. Acts 8:14-18). The Ephesians in Acts 19:6? Are these latter examples the same as the baptism with the Holy Spirit sent directly by the Lord? Are they identified as such? Eph. 4:5 should also be considered. Acts 19:5 tells us the Ephesians were baptized in the name of the Lord (which is in water). Since there's one baptism (Eph. 4:5), and that one baptism that is applicable today is in water, what is there to disagree about?

:scratch:

[- DRA -]

Hi, annie1speed,

And thank you very much for the welcome. No, I do not believe a water baptism is done in order to receive remission of sins as you have defined the word "for".

Rather, scripture teaches that Christ's crucifixion on the cross 2,000 years ago was for the remission of sins and that we receive that remission through the vehicle of faith, not through the vehicle of water baptism.

A water baptism is what saved, believers do, what Christians do. It is not something that is done to non-Christians ever in scripture.

Don

Please check and get back with us ...

Isn't "for the remission of sins" the same in the Koine Greek in Matthew 26:28 and Acts 2:38?
Assuming that we agree it is, then why does the expression mean the exact opposite in Acts 2:38 than it does in Matt. 26:28?

Is it possible that God's plan is for us to be united with Jesus' death, burial, and resurrection in baptism ... providing that we have faith in the working of God? Check out Romans 6:3-11 and Colossians 2:12-13 and see if there just might be some connection between baptism and the cross.

[- DRA -]

Originally Posted by - DRA -

Let's translate this understanding to the conversion of the Jews in Acts 2. In verse 37, some of the Jews were pricked to their hearts by the working of the Holy Spirit through the message preached. Were they baptized by the Holy Spirit and saved at this point? If so, then please explain to us Peter's response (being under the direct influence of the Holy Spirit) in verse 38. Why would Peter tell them to repent and be baptized "for the remission of sins" if they were already saved from their sins? I think some kind of explanation is in order.

They were not saved from their sins when they were pierced in the heart. That piercing opened their eyes, convicted them of their sin. That's what the Holy Spirit does for us, it convicts us of sin.

The repentance Peter asked for is what provides the saving faith leading to their remission of sins. Repentance is always the connecting precursor to forgiveness of sins throughout the entire Bible.

The baptism spoken of in Acts 2 is simply Peter's admonition for baptism as he had heard in the Great Commission from Christ. Both repentance and baptism are done "for" the remission of sins that had come to the house of Israel through Messiah. In other words, baptism is an act of obedience, not an act of salvation.

Don

Okay, I followed you just fine until the last paragraph. I'm really fuzzy about where baptism fits into your understanding of "for the remission of sins." Note the command in Acts 2:38. Repent and be baptized. The word "and" is a coordinating conjunction that connects equal parts. Thus, if repentance is necessary (and it is), then baptism is also necessary. Look at the principle another way: "That if thou shalt confess with thy mouth the Lord Jesus, and shalt believe in thine heart that God hath raised him from the dead, thou shalt be saved (Rom. 10:9)." See that word "and" between confess and believe? It connects both requirements. If one is necessary, then both are necessary. Are they? If they are, then they also are necessary in Acts 2:38.

[Loveaboveall]

Is baptism a "work" of the "new law" or is baptism an outward symbol of our inward full submission to God? Something to ponder...

God has required baptism not because there is merit in our physical act of getting dunked under water, NO, He requires it so that we may fully understand what it is that He has done in our hearts!

One other note, when you are baptized, it is not you that is doing anything, it is the person baptizing that is putting you in the water and bringing you back up. You cannot baptize yourself. This symbolizes that we cannot do anything to cleanse ourselves of our sins, it requires a full submission to God. Note also that oil, which symbolizes the HS, was used to annoint in this service once they were washed and clothed. So we are also to recieve the HS when we have been washed and clothed by Jesus.

This corelates well with How Aaron and his sons were ordained into the minstry of the priesthood.

Lev 8:6-7,12 And Moses brought Aaron and his sons, and washed them with water. And he put upon him the coat, and girded him with the girdle, and clothed him with the robe, and put the ephod upon him, and he girded him with the curious girdle of the ephod, and bound [it] unto him therewith...And he poured of the anointing oil upon Aaron's head, and anointed him, to sanctify him.

Aaron and his sons could not wash themselves, they could not clothe themselves. Just as we cannot cleanse ourselves from our sins and clothe ourselves in righteousness. This is the job Jesus has accepted to do for us. He cleanses us by His blood and clothes us with His righteousness. You have no part in the process accept to allow it to happen.

These were all symbols of what Jesus does for us. It is not the water, or the act that saves. It is Jesus. Maybe we have forgotten as the Jews did what the symbols were for and got lost in legalism? We are to do these things not because God requires it but because we know that we cannot be clean without Jesus and it is Jesus who does everything for us, and there is no obedience to a law that can be done to cleanse us from our sins!

[Loveaboveall]

Another thing to note

"in the name of Jesus Christ"

This is symbolizing our acceptance of our inheritance spoken of in Galatians 3. We become a Child of God when we accept Jesus in our heart and openly confess Him as our Lord and Savior.

[- DRA -]

Is baptism a "work" of the "new law" or is baptism an outward symbol of our inward full submission to God? Something to ponder...

God has required baptism not because there is merit in our physical act of getting dunked under water, NO, He requires it so that we may fully understand what it is that He has done in our hearts!

One other note, when you are baptized, it is not you that is doing anything, it is the person baptizing that is putting you in the water and bringing you back up. You cannot baptize yourself. This symbolizes that we cannot do anything to cleanse ourselves of our sins, it requires a full submission to God. Note also that oil, which symbolizes the HS, was used to annoint in this service once they were washed and clothed. So we are also to recieve the HS when we have been washed and clothed by Jesus.

Romans 6:17
But God be thanked, that ye were the servants of sin, but ye have obeyed from the heart that form of doctrine which was delivered you.

1 Peter 1:22
Seeing ye have purified your souls in obeying the truth through the Spirit unto unfeigned love of the brethren,

This corelates well with How Aaron and his sons were ordained into the minstry of the priesthood.

Lev 8:6-7,12 And Moses brought Aaron and his sons, and washed them with water. And he put upon him the coat, and girded him with the girdle, and clothed him with the robe, and put the ephod upon him, and he girded him with the curious girdle of the ephod, and bound [it] unto him therewith...And he poured of the anointing oil upon Aaron's head, and anointed him, to sanctify him.

Aaron and his sons could not wash themselves, they could not clothe themselves. Just as we cannot cleanse ourselves from our sins and clothe ourselves in righteousness. This is the job Jesus has accepted to do for us. He cleanses us by His blood and clothes us with His righteousness. You have no part in the process accept to allow it to happen.

These were all symbols of what Jesus does for us. It is not the water, or the act that saves. It is Jesus. Maybe we have forgotten as the Jews did what the symbols were for and got lost in legalism? We are to do these things not because God requires it but because we know that we cannot be clean without Jesus and it is Jesus who does everything for us, and there is no obedience to a law that can be done to cleanse us from our sins!

1 Peter 3:21
The like figure whereunto even baptism doth also now save us (not the putting away of the filth of the flesh, but the answer of a good conscience toward God,) by the resurrection of Jesus Christ:

Romans 2:13
(For not the hearers of the law are just before God, but the doers of the law shall be justified.

James 1:25
But whoso looketh into the perfect law of liberty, and continueth therein, he being not a forgetful hearer, but a doer of the work, this man shall be blessed in his deed.

1 John 3:4
Whosoever committeth sin transgresseth also the law: for sin is the transgression of the law. [The inference? No law = no sin. No sin = no need for a savior. No need for a savior = Jesus died in vain. Result. Foolish thinking. Or, Jesus was terribly misguided. Bad choice. Go back to foolish thinking. Best choice.] :scratch:

[- DRA -]

Another thing to note

"in the name of Jesus Christ"

This is symbolizing our acceptance of our inheritance spoken of in Galatians 3. We become a Child of God when we accept Jesus in our heart and openly confess Him as our Lord and Savior.

"In the name of" means to act by someone's authority.
Acts 4:7
And when they had set them in the midst, they asked, By what power, or by what name, have ye done this?
The response to the question of the Sanhedrin:
Acts 4:10
Be it known unto you all, and to all the people of Israel, that by the name of Jesus Christ of Nazareth, whom ye crucified, whom God raised from the dead, even by him doth this man stand here before you whole.

[Loveaboveall]

You supply scripture but do not supply why it fits with your understanding?:scratch:

Romans 6:17
But God be thanked, that ye were the servants of sin, but ye have obeyed from the heart that form of doctrine which was delivered you.

1 Peter 1:22
Seeing ye have purified your souls in obeying the truth through the Spirit unto unfeigned love of the brethren,

What is the truth that is to be obeyed? A law? A covenant? NO! The truth is, God humbled himself, came down to this earth and lived the perfect life for us that we did not, to show us the TRUTH of how this can be done! He became what He created, and then died.
To take away the condemnation of sin which is death. Because He rose we know this sacrifce was acceptable and we have assurance that He will come again and save us.

To obey the TRUTH... is to FULLY humble your heart before God so that He may FULLY work through you. When this is done, you will love as Christ loved and obey as Christ obeyed. The HS does this work in you! You cannot obey without this power from above, but, if you become humble as Jesus, you can live as Jesus lived in perfect harmony with the law of God.


1 Peter 3:21
The like figure whereunto even baptism doth also now save us (not the putting away of the filth of the flesh, but the answer of a good conscience toward God,) by the resurrection of Jesus Christ:

This is describes perfectly the symbol of what baptism is; It is not a cleaning of the outward body but a cleaning of the heart, which CANNOT be done by water but by God. This is why it is a symbol.

Romans 2:13
(For not the hearers of the law are just before God, but the doers of the law shall be justified.

Did you knowingly leave out the next 2 verses which completely do away with your argument as I assume it is? It is a parenthetical statement, so let me post the whole statement.

Romans 2:13-15 (For not the hearers of the law [are] just before God, but the doers of the law shall be justified. For when the Gentiles, which have not the law, do by nature the things contained in the law, these, having not the law, are a law unto themselves: Which shew the work of the law written in their hearts, their conscience also bearing witness, and [their] thoughts the mean while accusing or else excusing one another;)

It is clear, this is speaking of obedience AFTER baptism. This is the gentiles living in the new covenant, the law written in their hearts by the HS. The HS working through them to do the righteousness of the law. This is not speaking of baptism at all! This is what occurs after our heart is fully submitted to the HS which is the symbol of baptism.

James 1:25
But whoso looketh into the perfect law of liberty, and continueth therein, he being not a forgetful hearer, but a doer of the work, this man shall be blessed in his deed.

Again there is NO way you can do any part of the perfect law of liberty until the HS has written this law onto your heart! You would definitely not consider it the perfect law of liberty! For until Jesus has washed your sins clean, when you accept His sacrifice and, openly to the world, acknowledge what you know in your heart through baptism, you will not be able to "continue therein".

1 John 3:4
Whosoever committeth sin transgresseth also the law: for sin is the transgression of the law. [The inference? No law = no sin. No sin = no need for a savior. No need for a savior = Jesus died in vain. Result. Foolish thinking. Or, Jesus was terribly misguided. Bad choice. Go back to foolish thinking. Best choice.] :scratch:

Have I ever said there is no law that must be kept today? If I have said something for you to make that assumption I apologize. There is a perfect "law of liberty" that we are obligated to keep. But, in the new covenant, Jesus has taken care of that for us. He demonstrated to us how it is possible to keep this law, through the indwelling of the HS.

Romans 8:3-4

For what the law could not do, in that it was weak through the flesh, God sending his own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh, and for sin, condemned sin in the flesh: That the righteousness of the law might be fulfilled in us, who walk not after the flesh, but after the Spirit.

[annie1speed]

Hey Loveaboveall,:hug:

I spent a lot of time writing out this big long post with quotes and everything and then .... hit a wrong key. So this is the abbreviated version. My comments are in BLUE.:)

You supply scripture but do not supply why it fits with your understanding?


Quote:
Originally Posted by - DRA - http://www3.christianforums.com/images/buttons/viewpost.gif (http://www.christianforums.com/showthread.php?p=36467720#post36467720)
Romans 6:17
But God be thanked, that ye were the servants of sin, but ye have obeyed from the heart that form of doctrine which was delivered you.

1 Peter 1:22
Seeing ye have purified your souls in obeying the truth through the Spirit unto unfeigned love of the brethren,

What is the truth that is to be obeyed? A law? A covenant? NO! The truth is, God humbled himself, came down to this earth and lived the perfect life for us that we did not, to show us the TRUTH of how this can be done! He became what He created, and then died.
To take away the condemnation of sin which is death. Because He rose we know this sacrifce was acceptable and we have assurance that He will come again and save us.

What is TRUTH? It is true that God humbled himself, and came to earth and lived a perfect life. But I disagree that it was to show us that it could be done. The primary purpose for Jesus coming to earth was to be sacraficed for us and our sin.

Look at John 3:16. It says 'For God so loved the world that He gave His only begotten Son that whosoever believeth on Him should not perish but have everlasting life'. That's pretty clear. The verse does not say God sent His Son to show us how to live a perfect life. If does not say God sent His Son to show us it was possible to live a perfect life. Where does the idea that Jesus came to show us that it is possible to live a perfect life come from? Can you give me a Bible verse?

To obey the TRUTH... is to FULLY humble your heart before God so that He may FULLY work through you. When this is done, you will love as Christ loved and obey as Christ obeyed. The HS does this work in you! You cannot obey without this power from above, but, if you become humble as Jesus, you can live as Jesus lived in perfect harmony with the law of God.


I agree that we must fully humble ourselves and submit to God's will in order to live our lives for Him, in His service, but I'm not understanding where the 'you cannot obey without this power from above' part comes from. Jesus said we were to Abide in Him. Is this what you are referring to?

Quote:
1 Peter 3:21
The like figure whereunto even baptism doth also now save us (not the putting away of the filth of the flesh, but the answer of a good conscience toward God,) by the resurrection of Jesus Christ:
This is describes perfectly the symbol of what baptism is; It is not a cleaning of the outward body but a cleaning of the heart, which CANNOT be done by water but by God. This is why it is a symbol.

Can something be a symbol and an act - both? Baptism is full of symbolism. We are 'buried' with Him in baptism. Our sins are 'washed' away. Absolutely, baptism is a symbol. But it is certainly also an act of obedience.


Quote:
Romans 2:13
(For not the hearers of the law are just before God, but the doers of the law shall be justified.
Did you knowingly leave out the next 2 verses which completely do away with your argument as I assume it is? It is a parenthetical statement, so let me post the whole statement.

Romans 2:13-15 (For not the hearers of the law [are] just before God, but the doers of the law shall be justified. For when the Gentiles, which have not the law, do by nature the things contained in the law, these, having not the law, are a law unto themselves: Which shew the work of the law written in their hearts, their conscience also bearing witness, and [their] thoughts the mean while accusing or else excusing one another;)

It is clear, this is speaking of obedience AFTER baptism. This is the gentiles living in the new covenant, the law written in their hearts by the HS. The HS working through them to do the righteousness of the law. This is not speaking of baptism at all! This is what occurs after our heart is fully submitted to the HS which is the symbol of baptism.


Quote:
James 1:25
But whoso looketh into the perfect law of liberty, and continueth therein, he being not a forgetful hearer, but a doer of the work, this man shall be blessed in his deed.
Again there is NO way you can do any part of the perfect law of liberty until the HS has written this law onto your heart! You would definitely not consider it the perfect law of liberty! For until Jesus has washed your sins clean, when you accept His sacrifice and, openly to the world, acknowledge what you know in your heart through baptism, you will not be able to "continue therein".

Question: When you talk about doing any part of the perfect law of liberty, what are you referring to?


Quote:
1 John 3:4
Whosoever committeth sin transgresseth also the law: for sin is the transgression of the law. [The inference? No law = no sin. No sin = no need for a savior. No need for a savior = Jesus died in vain. Result. Foolish thinking. Or, Jesus was terribly misguided. Bad choice. Go back to foolish thinking. Best choice.] :scratch:
Have I ever said there is no law that must be kept today? If I have said something for you to make that assumption I apologize. There is a perfect "law of liberty" that we are obligated to keep. But, in the new covenant, Jesus has taken care of that for us. He demonstrated to us how it is possible to keep this law, through the indwelling of the HS.

Romans 8:3-4

For what the law could not do, in that it was weak through the flesh, God sending his own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh, and for sin, condemned sin in the flesh: That the righteousness of the law might be fulfilled in us, who walk not after the flesh, but after the Spirit.

Hope you can make some sense of this.

Love,

Annie

[Loveaboveall]

Hey Loveaboveall,:hug:

I spent a lot of time writing out this big long post with quotes and everything and then .... hit a wrong key. So this is the abbreviated version. My comments are in BLUE.:)

I understand, this has happened to me on several occasions and very frustrating. I would love to have read all of your thoughts!

What is TRUTH? It is true that God humbled himself, and came to earth and lived a perfect life. But I disagree that it was to show us that it could be done. The primary purpose for Jesus coming to earth was to be sacraficed for us and our sin.

Look at John 3:16. It says 'For God so loved the world that He gave His only begotten Son that whosoever believeth on Him should not perish but have everlasting life'. That's pretty clear. The verse does not say God sent His Son to show us how to live a perfect life. If does not say God sent His Son to show us it was possible to live a perfect life. Where does the idea that Jesus came to show us that it is possible to live a perfect life come from? Can you give me a Bible verse?

What some may have misunderstood is that I believe we must be obedient to please God. However, we are not saved by obedience to ANY law except the "law of faith".

On that note, there are many texts that demonstrate that God wants us to live a holy/perfect life as Jesus lived. I believe everyone in here would agree that Jesus was not just our savior but also an example of how we are to live.

When you have been saved by Jesus you understand what a GREAT sacrifice He made. His love draws you to HIm. You would rather die yourself then dishonor the one who has given you so much. You obey because you love not because you have bee commanded. You want to glorify God not to be saved but because you are saved.

1 John 2:1 My little children, these things write I unto you, that ye sin not. And if any man sin, we have an advocate with the Father, Jesus Christ the righteous:

James 1:4 But let patience have [her] perfect work, that ye may be perfect and entire, wanting nothing.

John 15:10 If ye keep my commandments, ye shall abide in my love; even as I have kept my Father's commandments, and abide in his love.

I agree that we must fully humble ourselves and submit to God's will in order to live our lives for Him, in His service, but I'm not understanding where the 'you cannot obey without this power from above' part comes from. Jesus said we were to Abide in Him. Is this what you are referring to?

Yes, we must abide in Him to do anything that glorifies God.

John 15:4 Abide in me, and I in you. As the branch cannot bear fruit of itself, except it abide in the vine; no more can ye, except ye abide in me.

Note also what Paul says:

Romans 7:18 For I know that in me (that is, in my flesh,) dwelleth no good thing: for to will is present with me; but [how] to perform that which is good I find not.

Without God in us we are "carnal, sold under sin." vs 14 We cannot do anything that is pleasing to God

But, in that same thought Paul says this at the end of chapter 7 and the beginning of Chapter 8

7:29 I thank God through Jesus Christ our Lord. So then with the mind I myself serve the law of God; but with the flesh the law of sin.

8:1-4 [There is] therefore now no condemnation to them which are in Christ Jesus, who walk not after the flesh, but after the Spirit. For the law of the Spirit of life in Christ Jesus hath made me free from the law of sin and death. For what the law could not do, in that it was weak through the flesh, God sending his own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh, and for sin, condemned sin in the flesh: That the righteousness of the law might be fulfilled in us, who walk not after the flesh, but after the Spirit.

Paul says he KEEPS God's law that defines sin with His mind. He knows that it defines sin, He knows that it is holy, just and good. He understands that the only way he is able to keep this law which God requires us to keep is through the Spirit working through him.

Can something be a symbol and an act - both? Baptism is full of symbolism. We are 'buried' with Him in baptism. Our sins are 'washed' away. Absolutely, baptism is a symbol. But it is certainly also an act of obedience.

The point I was trying to make, and I must not have done a good job:) ! Is that when you look at baptism, it is not a work for the person who is being baptized in any sense. Just as we make the choice to humble our hearts before God and accept the free gift of grace, we choose to be baptized. It is a choice, that is it. You do nothing else. Just as Aaron and his sons could not wash and cleanse themselves, neither can we. Have you ever seen someone baptize themselves? It requires someone else to dunk you in the water. God designed it this way so no one would ever think that you were cleansing your self or doing any work to save yourself!


Question: When you talk about doing any part of the perfect law of liberty, what are you referring to?

James makes it clear what the perfect law of liberty is...


James 1:15 Then when lust hath conceived, it bringeth forth sin: and sin, when it is finished, bringeth forth death.

It is the law that defines sin. Lust at its very core is selfishness. Loving your self rather then God or others! God gave us guidelines on how to Love Him and Love others to help us with our selfishness problem.

James 1:25 But whoso looketh into the perfect law of liberty, and continueth [therein], he being not a forgetful hearer, but a doer of the work, this man shall be blessed in his deed.

When we obey the perfect law of liberty we look to it and continue in it(HS working fruits through you)and the person will be blessed.

James 2:8 If ye fulfil the royal law according to the scripture, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself, ye do well:

Here he calls it the "royal law" and gives more of a definition of it.

James 2:10-11 For whosoever shall keep the whole law, and yet offend in one [point], he is guilty of all. For he that said, Do not commit adultery, said also, Do not kill. Now if thou commit no adultery, yet if thou kill, thou art become a transgressor of the law.

James makes it very clear here what the Royal law of liberty is. The Law of God which defines sin.

[da525382]

Originally Posted by - DRA -

Let's translate this understanding to the conversion of the Jews in Acts 2. In verse 37, some of the Jews were pricked to their hearts by the working of the Holy Spirit through the message preached. Were they baptized by the Holy Spirit and saved at this point? If so, then please explain to us Peter's response (being under the direct influence of the Holy Spirit) in verse 38. Why would Peter tell them to repent and be baptized "for the remission of sins" if they were already saved from their sins? I think some kind of explanation is in order.



Okay, I followed you just fine until the last paragraph. I'm really fuzzy about where baptism fits into your understanding of "for the remission of sins." Note the command in Acts 2:38. Repent and be baptized. The word "and" is a coordinating conjunction that connects equal parts. Thus, if repentance is necessary (and it is), then baptism is also necessary. Look at the principle another way: "That if thou shalt confess with thy mouth the Lord Jesus, and shalt believe in thine heart that God hath raised him from the dead, thou shalt be saved (Rom. 10:9)." See that word "and" between confess and believe? It connects both requirements. If one is necessary, then both are necessary. Are they? If they are, then they also are necessary in Acts 2:38.

DRA,

Probably I would say your own reference to Romans 10:9 is the essence of salvation, that is, our faith, and actually answers your question. It is a saving faith, comprised of repentance and turning to God, as it always has been since the beginning of time.

The Holy Spirit pricked the hearts of those on Pentecost to SEE, they were then able to respond to Peter's call to repent. The Holy Spirit was not piercing their hearts as a salvational completion. The baptism he refers to is not connected, as I understand it, in Greek or in the context of Acts 2, to remitting sins. The reference contextually of Acts 2:38 is similar to saying "for the remission of sins that has come to us through Messiah". It is not a reference to a water baptism remitting the sins of man, for only Christ's shed blood on that cross did that, and we receive that forgiveness through repentance, that is, through faith, through our trust, our belief. In other words, it is repentance that connects with remission of sins in Acts 2:38 as it always does throughout the entire Bible, not a water baptism or any other kind of baptismal ceremony.

A baptism is a sign, a seal that believers do as an act of obedience. It is what Christians do to proclaim to the world what Christ has already done. It is not for non-Christians in scripture.

Don

[- DRA -]

Originally Posted by - DRA -

Romans 6:17
But God be thanked, that ye were the servants of sin, but ye have obeyed from the heart that form of doctrine which was delivered you.

1 Peter 1:22
Seeing ye have purified your souls in obeying the truth through the Spirit unto unfeigned love of the brethren,

What is the truth that is to be obeyed? A law? A covenant? NO! The truth is, God humbled himself, came down to this earth and lived the perfect life for us that we did not, to show us the TRUTH of how this can be done! He became what He created, and then died.

To take away the condemnation of sin which is death. Because He rose we know this sacrifce was acceptable and we have assurance that He will come again and save us.

In Romans 6, the context began discussing the blessings enjoyed in baptism. Since in baptism is where a person is freed from sin (verse 7), and a person has to obey the command to be baptized (i.e. Acts 2:38, Acts 10:47-48, Acts 22:16), then the obvious conclusion is that obedience to baptism is a consideration in Romans 6:17.

As for 1 Peter 1:22, the obedience being discussed there involves the purification of the soul. That is synonymous with having sins taken away (i.e. Acts 2:38) or being saved (i.e. 1 Pet. 3:21).

Considering that God remembers sin no longer under the "new" covenant (i.e. Heb. 8:12), and the forgiveness of sins occurs when one is obedient to the gospel of Christ (e.g. Acts 2:38,41), then one makes a covenant with the Lord when the terms to salvation are accepted.

To obey the TRUTH... is to FULLY humble your heart before God so that He may FULLY work through you. When this is done, you will love as Christ loved and obey as Christ obeyed. The HS does this work in you! You cannot obey without this power from above, but, if you become humble as Jesus, you can live as Jesus lived in perfect harmony with the law of God.

If what you are saying agrees with a conversion such as recorded in Acts 8:26-39, then we have something to work with. On the other hand, if it doesn't, then we are back at Hebrews 5 and struggling with the "first principles." In the example cited in Acts 8, Philip was under the direct influence and direction of the Holy Spirit. And, the results of eunuch's acceptance of the message is pretty clear.

Originally Posted by - DRA -

1 Peter 3:21
The like figure whereunto even baptism doth also now save us (not the putting away of the filth of the flesh, but the answer of a good conscience toward God,) by the resurrection of Jesus Christ:

This is describes perfectly the symbol of what baptism is; It is not a cleaning of the outward body but a cleaning of the heart, which CANNOT be done by water but by God. This is why it is a symbol.

In its context, baptism (the antitype) is being compared to the waters of the flood (the type). The point? The waters of the flood saved Noah and his family - and baptism (in water - determined by necessary inference according to the comparison) now saves us. Question. Can baptism save one who doesn't submit to it? Back to Acts 2:41. What separated the 3,000 from the other Jews that heard the message preached? Who was saved and added to the church by the Lord in verse 47? Those who obeyed, or those that didn't?

Originally Posted by - DRA -

Romans 2:13
(For not the hearers of the law are just before God, but the doers of the law shall be justified.

Did you knowingly leave out the next 2 verses which completely do away with your argument as I assume it is? It is a parenthetical statement, so let me post the whole statement.

Romans 2:13-15 (For not the hearers of the law [are] just before God, but the doers of the law shall be justified. For when the Gentiles, which have not the law, do by nature the things contained in the law, these, having not the law, are a law unto themselves: Which shew the work of the law written in their hearts, their conscience also bearing witness, and [their] thoughts the mean while accusing or else excusing one another;)

Now, "Did you knowingly leave out the next 2 verses which completely do away with your argument as I assume it is?" Let's look at those passages - again!

Romans 2:17 Behold, thou art called a Jew, and restest in the law, and makest thy boast of God,
18 And knowest his will, and approvest the things that are more excellent, being instructed out of the law;

It is clear, this is speaking of obedience AFTER baptism. This is the gentiles living in the new covenant, the law written in their hearts by the HS. The HS working through them to do the righteousness of the law. This is not speaking of baptism at all! This is what occurs after our heart is fully submitted to the HS which is the symbol of baptism.

One thing that is clear is the law the Jews focused on for instruction was the law of Moses. The Gentiles understood and kept the moral concepts of that law, even though the law wasn't given to them per se. Why try to read the "new covenant" into the context? Is that how truth is determined? Isn't that what the Calvinists try to do with John 3:16 when they try to insert the word "alone" or "only" after faith?

Now, back to verse 13. Obedience is expected. It was expected from the Jews living under the law of Moses, and it also applies to those of us today who desire to accept the blessings offered through Christ. As mentioned numerous times now, three thousand Jews heard and did what they were told under the law of Christ in Acts 2:38,41.

Again there is NO way you can do any part of the perfect law of liberty until the HS has written this law onto your heart! You would definitely not consider it the perfect law of liberty! For until Jesus has washed your sins clean, when you accept His sacrifice and, openly to the world, acknowledge what you know in your heart through baptism, you will not be able to "continue therein".

Tranlate what you are saying to the conversion in Acts 2, please. We know the Holy Spirit came upon the apostles in 2:1-4. And, we know that some of the Jews were convicted of their sin in verse 37. Three thousand obeyed what the Spirit told them to do (through the apostle Peter in verse 38) in verse 41. Therefore, when were they saved. Before - or after - they obedyed what the Spirit told them to do to have their sins taken away. If before, then you must believe that a person can be saved while still in their sins. This reasoning would conflict with Isaiah 59:1-2. And, if after, then we agree that a person must do what the Lord requires before their sins can be taken away. So ... explain.

Have I ever said there is no law that must be kept today? If I have said something for you to make that assumption I apologize. There is a perfect "law of liberty" that we are obligated to keep. But, in the new covenant, Jesus has taken care of that for us. He demonstrated to us how it is possible to keep this law, through the indwelling of the HS.

Romans 8:3-4

For what the law could not do, in that it was weak through the flesh, God sending his own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh, and for sin, condemned sin in the flesh: That the righteousness of the law might be fulfilled in us, who walk not after the flesh, but after the Spirit.

Thanks for acknowledging James 1:25. And, yes, you previously denied we are under any law today. It's good to see you adjust your thinking so that it falls in line with the truth taught in God's word.

Not sure exactly what you mean by, "There is a perfect "law of liberty" that we are obligated to keep. But, in the new covenant, Jesus has taken care of that for us." Please translate what you mean. Take the example that keeps coming up - Acts 2. Jesus had already died upon the cross. However, the Jews still had sins that needed to be taken away (verse 38). And, the requirements were given to have those sins taken away. Therefore, wouldn't those Jews have had to obey what they were told to do to have their sins taken away?
Please explain.

For sure, any who walk in the Spirit must begin by doing what His word initially teaches us to do in coming to Christ.

[- DRA -]

Originally Posted by - DRA -

Let's translate this understanding to the conversion of the Jews in Acts 2. In verse 37, some of the Jews were pricked to their hearts by the working of the Holy Spirit through the message preached. Were they baptized by the Holy Spirit and saved at this point? If so, then please explain to us Peter's response (being under the direct influence of the Holy Spirit) in verse 38. Why would Peter tell them to repent and be baptized "for the remission of sins" if they were already saved from their sins? I think some kind of explanation is in order.

Okay, I followed you just fine until the last paragraph. I'm really fuzzy about where baptism fits into your understanding of "for the remission of sins." Note the command in Acts 2:38. Repent and be baptized. The word "and" is a coordinating conjunction that connects equal parts. Thus, if repentance is necessary (and it is), then baptism is also necessary. Look at the principle another way: "That if thou shalt confess with thy mouth the Lord Jesus, and shalt believe in thine heart that God hath raised him from the dead, thou shalt be saved (Rom. 10:9)." See that word "and" between confess and believe? It connects both requirements. If one is necessary, then both are necessary. Are they? If they are, then they also are necessary in Acts 2:38.

DRA,

Probably I would say your own reference to Romans 10:9 is the essence of salvation, that is, our faith, and actually answers your question. It is a saving faith, comprised of repentance and turning to God, as it always has been since the beginning of time.

I still think we are overlooking something. Repentance and baptism are connected in Acts 2:38 just like confession and belief in Romans 10:9. Therefore, if salvation precedes baptism in Acts 2:38, then salvation also must precede belief in Romans 10:9, right? Actually, I believe that is the wrong answer. It takes both confession and faith to be saved according to Romans 10:9, and takes both repentance and baptism according to Acts 2:38. So, which passage do we accept? Look at it another way. Matthew 2 presents Jesus as being born in Bethlehem, called out of Egypt, and yet called a Nazarene? Which aspect is true? Aren't they all true. Likewise, since "all Scripture is given by inspiration of God (2 Tim. 3:16a)," shouldn't both Acts 2:38 and Romans 10:9 be accepted and harmonized.

The Holy Spirit pricked the hearts of those on Pentecost to SEE, they were then able to respond to Peter's call to repent. The Holy Spirit was not piercing their hearts as a salvational completion. The baptism he refers to is not connected, as I understand it, in Greek or in the context of Acts 2, to remitting sins. The reference contextually of Acts 2:38 is similar to saying "for the remission of sins that has come to us through Messiah". It is not a reference to a water baptism remitting the sins of man, for only Christ's shed blood on that cross did that, and we receive that forgiveness through repentance, that is, through faith, through our trust, our belief. In other words, it is repentance that connects with remission of sins in Acts 2:38 as it always does throughout the entire Bible, not a water baptism or any other kind of baptismal ceremony.

First, not sure how you concluded: "The Holy Spirit was not piercing their hearts as a salvational completion." The gospel is the good news of salvation through Jesus. I think it is apparent in Acts 2:38 that the remission of sins is the driver for the preceding sermon.

"For the remission of sins" is identical in the Koine Greek and English in Acts 2:38 and Matthew 26:28 (i.e. Jesus' blood was shed for the remission of sins). Is it possible that the baptism in Acts 2:38 somehow is connected with the cross and the shedding of Jesus' blood? Perhaps other Scriptures can help us make that determination. I submit Romans 6:3-11 for your consideration.

The command to be baptized is qualified with "in the name of Jesus Christ," which is synonymous with being baptized in the name of the Lord in Acts 10:47-48. How is that baptism identified? And, you might also want to consider the conversion in Acts 8:35-39. Philip preached Jesus. In response, the eunuch desired to be baptized in water. Harmonize the passages. They agree. :clap: I believe that is how truth is supposed to work.

I think it is clear that baptism in water was commanded. Why? Is there some magic or mystical power in the water? No. According to Colossians 2:12-13, baptism is an act of faith in the working of God. So, evidently, there is much more involved than just the water. Baptism is really about faith in God. It's about Jesus. And, it's about our willingness to be united with His death, burial, and resurrection. God has provided the way for this to happen. But, it takes faith to "see" it. Without faith, all one sees is the water.

A baptism is a sign, a seal that believers do as an act of obedience. It is what Christians do to proclaim to the world what Christ has already done. It is not for non-Christians in scripture.

Don

If what you say is true, Saul was a Christian while still in his sins (see Acts 22:16).

And, in consideration of the new birth that takes place in baptism according to Romans 6:3-11, if what you say is true, a person becomes a Christian before being born again.

Are these things true? :scratch:

[spiritfilledjm]

I wouldn't say this is a bad question. This is a big part of debate but I would say that Jesus does say to get baptized and so that really should be enough.

[- DRA -]

Originally Posted by - DRA -

Truth, as I understand it, has rules of interpretation i.e. Matthew 4:5-7, Matthew 22:23-33, and Matthew 22:41-46. At the very core of the matter is being able to harmonize texts/passages. I believe you understand that things must harmonize, but haven't quite seemed to grasp how to simply grasp what a text simply says. Take Acts 2:38. Is that rocket science? How about Hebrews 5:8-9. It not only says we should be obedient to the Lord, but tells us that He set this very example for us to follow. Rocket science? Not quite. This is a first principle. Which should remind us of Hebrews 5:12-14

The passages I directed you to were Matthew 4:5-7 and Matthew 22:23-33. They help teach the first two basic steps of Bible interpretation: 1.) read a passage/text and gain an understanding 2.) assure that your understanding of a passage/text agrees with others. .

Maybe you could teach me how to harmonize then. Could you please look at the verses I posted earlier and harmonize them with your doctrine of works?

Sure.

First, let me point something out.

Note my earlier post and your response:

Originally Posted by - DRA -

If you disagree with the Calvinist concept of a "work," then why this disagreement about obedience? Be straightforward. Did the 3,000 Jews in Acts 2:41 do the right thing by obeying what they were told to do in verse 38? If so, we should be able to wrap up this point and move on ... as long as we agree that they were saved after they did what they were told to do to be saved from their sins in verse 38. If not, then you need to explain how your reasoning is different than the Calvinists.

Response by Loveabove all

Baptism is not a work.

First observation: Do you have some kind of phobia about addressing this example of conversion to Christ?

Second: How is belief described in John 6:28-29? What do you think that "you believe" means in verse 29? Acts 16:31 presents a similar question: does "believe on the Lord Jesus Christ" mean the jailer (and his household) had to do something to be saved? As for baptism, Ananias told Saul to arise and be baptized in Acts 22:16. Was there any action on Saul's part involved in baptism?

For your consideration: Belief is described in John 6:28-29 as a work. It is a work of God in the sense that it is the work that God would have us do. I base this conclusion on the words of our Lord, who said, "You believe." Like belief, which is a conviction based on the evidence presented, baptism in the same sense is a work. It involves doing what God said.

Calvinists define baptism as a work, and therefore, baptism can't be necessary for salvation based on their understanding that Eph. 2:8-9 is addressing any/all types of works. The problem is that they fail to understand what "work" means, and that there are different types. Consider the "works" of Cornelius in Acts 10:1-2. Despite his "good" works, he still needed to hear and obey the gospel. Therefore, works of that type would surely fall under the realm of Eph. 2:8-9. However, the problem arises when we consider the works described in James 2:14-26. Note the example given in verse 21. It involved Abraham's sacrifice of Isaac as recorded in Genesis 22. Abraham obeyed what God specifically told him. And, we are encouraged to do this type of "work." Therefore, what do we conclude? Does this mean that we don't have to obey commands like Acts 2:38, Acts 10:47, and Acts 22:16 because we would be "working" for our salvation? Or, should we conclude there are certain "works" (i.e. things we do) which will not result in our salvation, and there are other things we must do (i.e. obey God) to be initially saved from our sins (i.e. Rom. 10:9-10, Acts 2:38)?

Food For Thought:
If belief/faith is a work in John 6:28-29, and baptism is an act of faith in the working of God according to Col. 2:12-13 and something we must get up and do, then is it wrong/unscriptural to consider baptism as a work?

Your Position:
Baptism is not a work. Okay, explain more. Is it something that we must do in order to be saved? Yes, or no? Don't give me that stuff about a person who is baptized doesn't do anything. He/she does indeed do something. They act upon their faith. Supposedly, it is to have their sins taken away (Acts 2:38), or washed away (Acts 22:16). Take the first part of the command in Acts 22:16? Did Saul have to arise? Doesn't that mean he had to do something? Now, when he arose and was baptized, didn't he do something?

I think you reason much the Calvinists in Eph. 2? That is why you seem to be reluctant to admit that we have to do something (i.e. obey God) to be saved. It leads to dragging your feet when discussing obedience to God, and recognizing that we are indeed responsible for "working out our salvation with fear and trembling" (Phil. 2:12). Going back to that dreaded example in Acts 2:38, the command was given and obeyed by 3,000. The result is they were saved and added by the Lord to the ekklesia (i.e. the church - the called out). No, those Jews didn't "earn" their salvation. And, they didn't work for their salvation in violation of Eph. 2:8-9. Instead, they worked out their salvation with fear and trembling when they accepted the teaching delivered by the Holy Spirit through the apostles and humbled themselves in obedience to what the Spirit commanded.

[Loveaboveall]

Originally Posted by - DRA -

Truth, as I understand it, has rules of interpretation i.e. Matthew 4:5-7, Matthew 22:23-33, and Matthew 22:41-46. At the very core of the matter is being able to harmonize texts/passages. I believe you understand that things must harmonize, but haven't quite seemed to grasp how to simply grasp what a text simply says. Take Acts 2:38. Is that rocket science? How about Hebrews 5:8-9. It not only says we should be obedient to the Lord, but tells us that He set this very example for us to follow. Rocket science? Not quite. This is a first principle. Which should remind us of Hebrews 5:12-14

The passages I directed you to were Matthew 4:5-7 and Matthew 22:23-33. They help teach the first two basic steps of Bible interpretation: 1.) read a passage/text and gain an understanding 2.) assure that your understanding of a passage/text agrees with others. .



Sure.

First, let me point something out.

Note my earlier post and your response:

Originally Posted by - DRA -

If you disagree with the Calvinist concept of a "work," then why this disagreement about obedience? Be straightforward. Did the 3,000 Jews in Acts 2:41 do the right thing by obeying what they were told to do in verse 38? If so, we should be able to wrap up this point and move on ... as long as we agree that they were saved after they did what they were told to do to be saved from their sins in verse 38. If not, then you need to explain how your reasoning is different than the Calvinists.

Response by Loveabove all

Baptism is not a work.

First observation: Do you have some kind of phobia about addressing this example of conversion to Christ?

Second: How is belief described in John 6:28-29? What do you think that "you believe" means in verse 29? Acts 16:31 presents a similar question: does "believe on the Lord Jesus Christ" mean the jailer (and his household) had to do something to be saved? As for baptism, Ananias told Saul to arise and be baptized in Acts 22:16. Was there any action on Saul's part involved in baptism?

For your consideration: Belief is described in John 6:28-29 as a work. It is a work of God in the sense that it is the work that God would have us do. I base this conclusion on the words of our Lord, who said, "You believe." Like belief, which is a conviction based on the evidence presented, baptism in the same sense is a work. It involves doing what God said.

Calvinists define baptism as a work, and therefore, baptism can't be necessary for salvation based on their understanding that Eph. 2:8-9 is addressing any/all types of works. The problem is that they fail to understand what "work" means, and that there are different types. Consider the "works" of Cornelius in Acts 10:1-2. Despite his "good" works, he still needed to hear and obey the gospel. Therefore, works of that type would surely fall under the realm of Eph. 2:8-9. However, the problem arises when we consider the works described in James 2:14-26. Note the example given in verse 21. It involved Abraham's sacrifice of Isaac as recorded in Genesis 22. Abraham obeyed what God specifically told him. And, we are encouraged to do this type of "work." Therefore, what do we conclude? Does this mean that we don't have to obey commands like Acts 2:38, Acts 10:47, and Acts 22:16 because we would be "working" for our salvation? Or, should we conclude there are certain "works" (i.e. things we do) which will not result in our salvation, and there are other things we must do (i.e. obey God) to be initially saved from our sins (i.e. Rom. 10:9-10, Acts 2:38)?

Food For Thought:
If belief/faith is a work in John 6:28-29, and baptism is an act of faith in the working of God according to Col. 2:12-13 and something we must get up and do, then is it wrong/unscriptural to consider baptism as a work?

Your Position:
Baptism is not a work. Okay, explain more. Is it something that we must do in order to be saved? Yes, or no? Don't give me that stuff about a person who is baptized doesn't do anything. He/she does indeed do something. They act upon their faith. Supposedly, it is to have their sins taken away (Acts 2:38), or washed away (Acts 22:16). Take the first part of the command in Acts 22:16? Did Saul have to arise? Doesn't that mean he had to do something? Now, when he arose and was baptized, didn't he do something?

I think you reason much the Calvinists in Eph. 2? That is why you seem to be reluctant to admit that we have to do something (i.e. obey God) to be saved. It leads to dragging your feet when discussing obedience to God, and recognizing that we are indeed responsible for "working out our salvation with fear and trembling" (Phil. 2:12). Going back to that dreaded example in Acts 2:38, the command was given and obeyed by 3,000. The result is they were saved and added by the Lord to the ekklesia (i.e. the church - the called out). No, those Jews didn't "earn" their salvation. And, they didn't work for their salvation in violation of Eph. 2:8-9. Instead, they worked out their salvation with fear and trembling when they accepted the teaching delivered by the Holy Spirit through the apostles and humbled themselves in obedience to what the Spirit commanded.

You seem to be really adamant that you can of yourself do something to be saved! Why do you want to hold onto yourself? Why can't you just accept what Paul clearly teaches? You can do NO work to be saved! It is that simple. Baptism IS NOT a work. I am sorry I have to give you this "stuff" because it is very important.

Is opening the door to your heart a "work". Jesus is standing there knocking, is it a "work" to open it. Apparently, you seem to be reasoning more like the Calvinists! Baptism is no different then opening your heart to God. In fact, baptism is an outward symbol of just that, a humbling of your heart, opening the door. Are sins are NOT cleansed by the water, they are cleansed by God. The act is symbolic of what is taking place in your heart.

Yes, it is required by God. Just as opening your heart to God is required. One is inward, the other an outward expression of the inward. You must realize, however, that baptism is not a work, for if it is then you play a part in your salvation. That is completely unscriptural! We play no part except to accept the free gift given to us. Part of this acceptance is baptism.

You can write all you want about the jews "obeyed" this or that. You fail to recognize, obedience is from the heart. It is not a "work" to obey the Holy Spirit pricking your heart, to give in and humble yourself before God.

I have never understood the emphasis most place on baptism. There is sooo much more placed on it then on repentance, or belief, or even Jesus. It is like we have to hurry up and get people into the water so that they can be saved. Baptism is important, but maybe the emphasis should be on the heart more than the water, because the heart is what matters!

[da525382]

Originally Posted by - DRA -

Let's translate this understanding to the conversion of the Jews in Acts 2. In verse 37, some of the Jews were pricked to their hearts by the working of the Holy Spirit through the message preached. Were they baptized by the Holy Spirit and saved at this point? If so, then please explain to us Peter's response (being under the direct influence of the Holy Spirit) in verse 38. Why would Peter tell them to repent and be baptized "for the remission of sins" if they were already saved from their sins? I think some kind of explanation is in order.

Okay, I followed you just fine until the last paragraph. I'm really fuzzy about where baptism fits into your understanding of "for the remission of sins." Note the command in Acts 2:38. Repent and be baptized. The word "and" is a coordinating conjunction that connects equal parts. Thus, if repentance is necessary (and it is), then baptism is also necessary. Look at the principle another way: "That if thou shalt confess with thy mouth the Lord Jesus, and shalt believe in thine heart that God hath raised him from the dead, thou shalt be saved (Rom. 10:9)." See that word "and" between confess and believe? It connects both requirements. If one is necessary, then both are necessary. Are they? If they are, then they also are necessary in Acts 2:38.



I still think we are overlooking something. Repentance and baptism are connected in Acts 2:38 just like confession and belief in Romans 10:9. Therefore, if salvation precedes baptism in Acts 2:38, then salvation also must precede belief in Romans 10:9, right? Actually, I believe that is the wrong answer. It takes both confession and faith to be saved according to Romans 10:9, and takes both repentance and baptism according to Acts 2:38. So, which passage do we accept? Look at it another way. Matthew 2 presents Jesus as being born in Bethlehem, called out of Egypt, and yet called a Nazarene? Which aspect is true? Aren't they all true. Likewise, since "all Scripture is given by inspiration of God (2 Tim. 3:16a)," shouldn't both Acts 2:38 and Romans 10:9 be accepted and harmonized.



First, not sure how you concluded: "The Holy Spirit was not piercing their hearts as a salvational completion." The gospel is the good news of salvation through Jesus. I think it is apparent in Acts 2:38 that the remission of sins is the driver for the preceding sermon.

"For the remission of sins" is identical in the Koine Greek and English in Acts 2:38 and Matthew 26:28 (i.e. Jesus' blood was shed for the remission of sins). Is it possible that the baptism in Acts 2:38 somehow is connected with the cross and the shedding of Jesus' blood? Perhaps other Scriptures can help us make that determination. I submit Romans 6:3-11 for your consideration.

The command to be baptized is qualified with "in the name of Jesus Christ," which is synonymous with being baptized in the name of the Lord in Acts 10:47-48. How is that baptism identified? And, you might also want to consider the conversion in Acts 8:35-39. Philip preached Jesus. In response, the eunuch desired to be baptized in water. Harmonize the passages. They agree. :clap: I believe that is how truth is supposed to work.

I think it is clear that baptism in water was commanded. Why? Is there some magic or mystical power in the water? No. According to Colossians 2:12-13, baptism is an act of faith in the working of God. So, evidently, there is much more involved than just the water. Baptism is really about faith in God. It's about Jesus. And, it's about our willingness to be united with His death, burial, and resurrection. God has provided the way for this to happen. But, it takes faith to "see" it. Without faith, all one sees is the water.



If what you say is true, Saul was a Christian while still in his sins (see Acts 22:16).

And, in consideration of the new birth that takes place in baptism according to Romans 6:3-11, if what you say is true, a person becomes a Christian before being born again.

Are these things true? :scratch:

Really,

You and I are passing as ships in the night. Your mindset on scripture is that a water baptism is linked to your salvation. Therefore, when you read scripture, you read that preconception into it. What I am saying, without disputing you at all, is yes, baptism is necessary, but as an act of obedience, not as an act of salvation, as presented in scripture.

Therefore, a baptismal ceremony becomes an act of obedience just as prayer (we are commanded to pray), to love others, to pray for our rulers, and all the many other things that we, as Christians, are commanded to do.

No, Paul was not saved by his water baptism. It, again, was the proclamation of what the Holy Spirit already did to his spirit, as He does to ours, upon our coming to faith, that is we are baptized spiritually by Him into Christ's death, and raised with Him, and a baptismal ceremony pictures that.

There is no such thing as a 'hybrid" believer who exists dead in his sins in scripture. We are either believers or non-believers. It is our saving belief that makes us Christians. With your notion, a water baptism actually kills the new believer rather than burying the old non-believer. A baptismal ceremony is representing what happened to us as non-believers, how we were transformed into believers through the Holy Spirit through faith. His baptism is the one baptism all of us as believers partake in when we come to faith.

I hope this helps you see how I distinguish the concept of baptism for salvation vs. baptism as an act of obedience.

Don

[Loveaboveall]

Originally Posted by - DRA -

Romans 6:17
But God be thanked, that ye were the servants of sin, but ye have obeyed from the heart that form of doctrine which was delivered you.

1 Peter 1:22
Seeing ye have purified your souls in obeying the truth through the Spirit unto unfeigned love of the brethren,



In Romans 6, the context began discussing the blessings enjoyed in baptism. Since in baptism is where a person is freed from sin (verse 7), and a person has to obey the command to be baptized (i.e. Acts 2:38, Acts 10:47-48, Acts 22:16), then the obvious conclusion is that obedience to baptism is a consideration in Romans 6:17.

Paul doesn't say "you have obeyed from your physical works" he says "you have obeyed from the heart" This is not a "work" as you would like to call it.

As for 1 Peter 1:22, the obedience being discussed there involves the purification of the soul. That is synonymous with having sins taken away (i.e. Acts 2:38) or being saved (i.e. 1 Pet. 3:21).

Considering that God remembers sin no longer under the "new" covenant (i.e. Heb. 8:12), and the forgiveness of sins occurs when one is obedient to the gospel of Christ (e.g. Acts 2:38,41), then one makes a covenant with the Lord when the terms to salvation are accepted.

Where are the works? Where is the "law" you are obeying? If it is the "law of faith" I have no problems with what you are saying. If it is a "new law" that most like to make up then we have some problems. You cannot do any work to save yourself.



If what you are saying agrees with a conversion such as recorded in Acts 8:26-39, then we have something to work with. On the other hand, if it doesn't, then we are back at Hebrews 5 and struggling with th