Baptism; a part of salvation?
Terry
nessessary step for salvation and others say it is not. I have found
scripture that will show either way.
What is everyone's thoughts and why?
Thanks.
Terry
((( s.r.c.b-s is a moderated group. All posts are approved by a moderator. )))
((( See http://www.mcs.net/~sadams/bible.html for details about this group. )))
Bart Goddard
>
> Something that I have been studying lately is baptism.
> Some say that it a nessessary step for salvation and
> others say it is not.
Before addressing this question, a prior question must
be answered: "What is Baptism and specifically, whose
act is Baptism?"
The minority of Christians see Baptism as an act of
man. This assumption leads to the seeming contradictions
you're finding in Scripture. Roughly, they're saying
either 1. Since we "must" be Baptized and since "we"
are the ones whose act Baptism is, then Baptism is a
legal requirement for salvation. OR 2. Since such
an interpretation is a legal requirement for salvation,
and we know that salvation is not by works, Baptism
can not be a requirement for salvation.
Under the assumption that Baptism is the act of the
baptizee, one can (and you have) found verses supporting
both sides.
OTOH, the majority of Christians see Baptism as the
act of God committed through His hand the Church. The
Great Commission, Matt 28:19 is a command to _the
Apostles_ to Baptize. That is, the Church is commanded
_to Baptize_ in Jesus' name. Individuals are not
commanded to "get baptized."
Under the assumption that Baptism is God's act of
adoption of an individual into His family (i.e.
brother of His Son), then your question doesn't quite
make sense (since it's couched in legalistic terms.)
Grace saves us through faith and faith comes only
one way, via the Word (Rom. 10:17). And the Word
comes to us in different ways: The spoken sermon,
the read Scripture, the visual signs of the bread
and wine in the Eucharist and the visual sign of
the water in Baptism. Before us is laid a variety
of rich "foods" on which to feast. In this light,
you question is like "Is eating this steak necessary
to good health, or can I just get by on these beans?"
So my answer to your question is "you can get to Heaven
without Baptism, but why would anyone want to?" (Recall
that Salvation was promised to Adam and Eve and many
other OT characters and the thief on the Cross, none of
whom had a recorded Baptism.)
Bart
Special Agent Orange
>Something that I have been studying lately is baptism. Some say that it a
>nessessary step for salvation and others say it is not. I have found
>scripture that will show either way.
First of all, that's not how the Scripture works. God is not the
author of confusion. And salvation is not by works. And baptism is a
work. In writing to the Corinthians, Paul contrasted baptism with the
gospel in the same passage that he mentioned he was glad he did not
baptise the Corinthians.
Peter Leeson
>Something that I have been studying lately is baptism. Some say that
it a
>nessessary step for salvation and others say it is not. I have found
>scripture that will show either way.
Baptism is (in my humble opinion) an outward mark of your faith,
symbolising the regeneration and the washing of your sins in the blood
of Jesus. The baptism by water (John's baptism) was a symbolical
washing that was performed through immersion in the Jordan river.
Later baptisms were not necessarily by immersion (e.g., see the 3000
that were baptised in the upper room in Jerusalem in Acts 2, even
though some may trust that they all marched off to the closest river,
it is quite possible that they used the water jars for ritual
cleansing...).
The manner in which the baptism is performed is probably not crucial
to salvation. It is a symbolical public demonstration of your faith,
rather than a key act that needs to be accomplished -- For by grace
you have been saved through faith; and that not of yourselves, it is
the gift of God; not as a result of works, that no one should boast.
(Ephesians 2:8-9 - NAS)
Some traditional faiths (including my own) sometimes seem to be
preaching that you need to be baptised to be saved, and that baptising
babies is sufficient to ensure their salvation. This is not
necessarily true, especially when you actually stop and consider the
words actually being used, but is a misconception based on tradition
by people who have heard the words, but not grasped the meaning
(sometimes this includes the person saying the words!).
Personally, I believe that it is much more important that we translate
the whole idea rather than Anglicising a Greek word. The sentence "go
and be immersed in the name of the Father, the Son and the Holy
Spirit" has more meanings than just go and get wet in their name.
Peter.
Bart Goddard
> And baptism is a work. I
ONLY after the _unproven_ (actually _disproven_)
assumption that baptism is man's act rather than God's.
Bart
Clayton Austin
Peter made the comment that there were three thousand people in the
upper room when the "120 disciples" received Jesus Christ, the
comforter, in the form of his Spirit of truth and liberty; and
consequently became the body of Christ or the church.
The event began at a few seconds into the fiftieth day after the
Lord's bodily resurrection which of course is at sunset, and they were
in the upper room all night rejoicing in the dynamic power of the Spirit
of Christ. At about 9:00 in the morning the 120 people of the new body
of Christ began to leave. And since the city was full of Israelis from
all over the known world that had gather there to celebrate the Feast of
Pentecost the gifts of the Spirit of Christ began to operate to give
witness of the miraculous event that occurred. They all heard them
speaking in their own particular language the marvelous things and works
of God. (Acts 2:1-13)
As the crowd gather the apostle Peter began to speak in his own
language, and miraculously every one there heard and understood what he
was saying. This is where the 3,000 Israelis received the Spirit of
Christ and were added to the church. They all were baptized eventually
in water by immersion in the name of Jesus Christ.
>>>>==Gene=Austin===>
http://www.angelfire.com/nc/multif/index.html &
http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Aegean/2490/science/face.html
Special Agent Orange
>Special Agent Orange wrote:
>> And baptism is a work. I
>ONLY after the _unproven_ (actually _disproven_)
>assumption that baptism is man's act rather than God's.
There are, of course, different baptisms, as John said, "I indeed
baptize with water, one shall come after me that baptise you with the
Holy Ghost..." thus setting two types of baptism in contrast.
Concerning the baptism whereby the Holy Spirit adds born again
believers to the body of Christ, this is indeed a work of God, not
man's. But I don't believe that's what the original poster had in
mind, as you note, in couching her question in legalistic terms.
When Christ was baptized by John, he said in this instance that this
was in order to "fulfill all righteousness." That's exactly what a
work is.
Blane Warrene
>
> Something that I have been studying lately is baptism. Some say that it a
> nessessary step for salvation and others say it is not. I have found
> scripture that will show either way.
> What is everyone's thoughts and why?
>
>
> Terry
>
> ((( s.r.c.b-s is a moderated group. All posts are approved by a moderator. )))
> ((( See http://www.mcs.net/~sadams/bible.html for details about this group. )))
I see baptism as a symbolic act of both what Christ experienced wwith
John the Baptist and the act of dying to oneself and rebirth as washed
in Christ's blood. As if we went to death and our soul is re-surfaced
as new in Christ. I find this basis through the gospel readings and
through prayer and personal introspection.
I do not believe it is mandatory since Christ asked only that we believe
that He is the Way, the Truth and the Life - which is a spiritual
change. However, the symbolic act was an important part of my own
spiritual growth.
Blane Warrene
Bart Goddard
> There are, of course, different baptisms, as John said, "I indeed
> baptize with water, one shall come after me that baptise you with the
> Holy Ghost..." thus setting two types of baptism in contrast.
I disagree. The Baptism which Christ sanctified was
John's Baptism, showing them to be the same. I fully
believe that John's Baptism was a valid Christian
Baptism.
> Concerning the baptism whereby the Holy Spirit adds born again
> believers to the body of Christ, this is indeed a work of God, not
> man's. But I don't believe that's what the original poster had in
> mind, as you note, in couching her question in legalistic terms.
Since the Holy Spirit has tied His work to the Baptism
by water, I don't separate the two. I'm claiming that
water Baptism IS Baptism by the Holy Spirit which He
accomplishes by means of the Church.
Bart
BENJAMIN_H. ZELLNER
> The event began at a few seconds into the fiftieth day after the
> Lord's bodily resurrection which of course is at sunset, and they were
This is fantasy. We don't know exactly when the resurrection occurred,
we only know that the empty tomb was found on Sunday morning. And in
the time of Christ there was no such thing as a clock accurate to "a
few seconds."
Ben
Clayton Austin
(BENJAMIN_H.ZELLNER)
Benjamin, confession is good for your soul. To confess that you don't
know when the Lord quickened and glorified his corporeal body is honest.
But you can rest assure that this event happened. All you have to do Ben
is count back from the day of Pentecost, the fiftieth day that was the
beginning of the new week, and the new week started at sunset Saturday.
Ben, perhaps seconds is a little factious. Maybe I should have said,
"the fiftieth day began after a few grains of sand.
>>>>==Gene=Austin===>
http://www.angelfire.com/nc/multif/index.html &
http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Aegean/2490/science/face.html
Norm queers
don't go by everyones opinion. Study it for yourself. Sometimes you need
to look at the Word and the examples that God gives us in his Word. All
men can lead you astray and you may be lost, but if you follow His Word,
and ask, He will guide you... Matt 28:18-20...Mark 16:15-16...Luke
24:45-47...Acts 2:36-38....Acts 8:26-40....Acts 16:25-34 Acts
22:6-16....Rom 6:1-6..... I challange you to read these verses and every
verse that has to do with someones Salvation, Conversion, and Baptism.
The Bible is not a pick and choose... I believe if the Bible says do it,
then we are wrong not to. For one to say "Oh well ignore that verse, but
look at this one" aren't they questioning or doubting GOD's word and
instructions. Please read 1 Peter 3:21 also. Listen to God's word, not
mans opinion, if you are truely searching......Knock and the door shall
be open, Seek and ye shall find....
A Servant of His
Peter Leeson
Clayton Austin wrote in message <6sifcv$3iq$1...@Jupiter.Mcs.Net>...
> < ZEL...@GSVMS2.CC.GASOU.EDU >
>(BENJAMIN_H.ZELLNER)
>
> Benjamin, confession is good for your soul. To confess that you
don't
>know when the Lord quickened and glorified his corporeal body is
honest.
>But you can rest assure that this event happened. All you have to do
Ben
>is count back from the day of Pentecost, the fiftieth day that was
the
>beginning of the new week, and the new week started at sunset
Saturday.
>
> Ben, perhaps seconds is a little factious. Maybe I should have
said,
>"the fiftieth day began after a few grains of sand.
>
I believe that the original response was to your statement that the
Lord's bodily resurrection "which of course is at sunset". On what do
you base this statement? It seems an extraordinary statement. How do
you reconcile this with the Roman guard set to make the grave secure
(Matthew 27:63-67)?
Peter Leeson
Clayton Austin
< Peter....@usa.net > Peter Leeson)
Peter, I know you have a terrible intellectual condition that
motivates you to believe any thing so-called Christianity expounds as
the truth. But I believe you want the truth. I know you believe the
false doctrine that says Jesus Christ was crucified on "good Friday" and
resurrected at "sunrise Sunday morning."
Jesus Christ was crucified in the middle of the week or on Wednesday,
and put in the tomb before sunset because Thursday was the beginning of
the feast of unleaven bread and it was a high sabbath day, as well as
the last day of the feast.
Wednesday was the traditional preparation day for the Israelis to
purge the leaven from their homes before the feast of unleaven bread
began on Thursday. (Jn.19:31-36--(Lk.23:56)
On Thursday the hign sabbath after sunrise the chief priests and
Pharisees went to Pilate and ask him to seal the tomb so the disciples
of Christ could not steal his body. So after Thursday the high sabbath
was finished, and the Roman soldiers sealed the tomb on Friday the
second day of the feast of unleaven bread. (Mat.62-66)
So after the regular sabbath finished at sunset on Saturday, the
bodily resurrection of Jesus Christ happened. This means that the body
of Jesus Christ was in the tomb three days and three nights, or 72
hours. For as Jonas was three days and three nights in the whale's
belly; so shall the Son of Man be three days and three nights in the
heart of the earth. (Mat.12:39-40)
The heart of the earth is defined as the tomb that held his body, and
it is a type of hell. The revelation of Jesus Christ. His
Spirit-intellect, the Holy Ghost descended quality-wise into the third
dimension of Hell call tartaros hell to witness to the damned
spirit-intellects of the wicked existing in an antitheophany form.
(1-Pt.3:19)
>>>>==Gene=Austin===>
http://www.angelfire.com/nc/multif/index.html &
http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Aegean/2490/science/face.html
((( s.r.c.b-s is a moderated group. All posts are approved by a moderator. )))
Special Agent Orange
>I disagree. The Baptism which Christ sanctified was
>John's Baptism, showing them to be the same. I fully
>believe that John's Baptism was a valid Christian
>Baptism.
This shows me some of the irony that one runs into in this life. I had
an email correspondance with a Landmark Baptist a couple of months
back and that was his big point: that John's baptism was indeed
Christian baptism. His point being that the only true baptism of God
is that of John, which has been passed down through the centuries
through a succession of true baptist churches (or so it seems evident
to him). Of course that does not make Bart a Landmark Baptist (what a
thought!) It was an interesting study. I pointed out that John's
ministry was a baptism of repentence to Israel, not the church (Acts
13: 24), as well as showed him that when John baptized, he admonished
those whom he baptized that they *should* believe on the name of
Christ (Acts 19: 4). When's the last time we heard a baptist preacher
say that when baptizing a convert - that they should believe on
Christ? And then, after being reached with the Gospel which they
apparently not grasped from John's faithful preaching, the disciples
of John the baptist got saved and underwent Christian baptism.
Bryan Rhodes
>Something that I have been studying lately is baptism. Some say that it a
>nessessary step for salvation and others say it is not. I have found
>scripture that will show either way.
>What is everyone's thoughts and why?
>
>Thanks.
>
>Terry
>
There are no scriptures which will 'show either way'. Anyone who says
so is full of #$&*, (heresy; unclean). And the light-hearted
discussion which followed your simple question to a simple act is
indicative of a problem: Too much discussion, and it's an error which
the scritpures did not make, though they make enough and speak very
plain. If one is baptized then is all well? Of course not, and
that's the point made by the scriptures some use to excuse their
ancestors who might not have been baptized, and maybe themselves.
Apostle Peter wrote, "baptism now saves you, not as a removal of dirt
from the body but as an appeal to God for a clear conscience, through
the resurrection of Jesus Christ.
Jesus said, "Unless you are born of the water and the Spirit you
cannot enter the Kingdom of Heaven."
Jesus' baptism was attended by the Holy Spirit, and God, all in
public. They weren't so embarrassed at the event as it is with many,
for it was then when God said, "This is my beloved Son, with whom I am
well pleased."
Bart Goddard
>
> Bart Goddard <Bart_G...@tamu-commerce.edu> wrote:
>
> >I disagree. The Baptism which Christ sanctified was
> >John's Baptism, showing them to be the same. I fully
> >believe that John's Baptism was a valid Christian
> >Baptism.
>
> This shows me some of the irony that one runs into in this life. I had
> an email correspondance with a Landmark Baptist a couple of months
> back and that was his big point: that John's baptism was indeed
> Christian baptism. His point being that the only true baptism of God
> is that of John, which has been passed down through the centuries
> through a succession of true baptist churches (or so it seems evident
> to him). Of course that does not make Bart a Landmark Baptist (what a
> thought!)
Not by a long shot. There's a world of difference between
saying "ONLY John's Baptism is valid" and saying "John's
Baptism was a valid Christian Baptism." Further, the Baptist
and I wouldn't even agree on what John's Baptism was:
> When's the last time we heard a baptist preacher
> say that when baptizing a convert - that they should believe on
> Christ?
Exactly why we (the Baptist and I) differ.
> And then, after being reached with the Gospel which they
> apparently not grasped from John's faithful preaching, the disciples
> of John the baptist got saved and underwent Christian baptism.
I claim that there was a "cult of John" founded by those
disciples of John who didn't follow Jesus. Their baptism,
a corruption of John's Baptism, was the "Baptism of John"
you refer to. Such people would indeed want to undergo
Christian Baptism, for this later cultic baptism was NOT
a valid Christian Baptism.
Bart
Clayton Austin
Special Agent Orange wrote:
Bart Goddard wrote:
Gene Austin responds:
Bart, John the Baptizer was the next to last prophet connected to the
covenant of the law, and this of course has exceptions identified with
the prophetic office and anointing of Elijah. Jesus Christ was the Son
of Man or God prophet in his ministry. So John Baptism was not a "born
again christian."
The Lord sent John to establish water baptism by immersion as a sign
of repentance for lawlessness connected to the covenant of the law, and
the repentants were to believe on the soon appearing Messiah. This is
not a christian baptism for obvious reasons.
The apostles baptized those that believed in water by immersion in the
authoritative name of Jesus Christ. (Acts 2:38) But it was the apostle
Paul, the chief apostle to the Gentiles who was ordained to take the
gospel and to extend the church with the elect of the nations, who
established the doctrine of water baptism by immersion in the name of
Jesus Christ for the people of the church. (Rom.6:1-23) The reason of
course was the truth that the church which began at Pentecost was
Jewish, and it would soon be nonexistant. "Cast to the nations for
committing the abomination that would bring their desolation."
We see that John Baptist's ministry touched hundreds, perhaps
thousands of lives, and all of these people did not stay in and around
Jerusalem. But when some of them heard the gospel (good news) about the
Messiah from the apostle Paul they believed and were baptized in water
by immersion in the authoritative name of Jesus Christ. When Paul laid
his hands on them they experienced spiritual regeneration by receiving
Jesus Christ in the form of his Spirit of truth and liberty.
(Col.1:25-29--Acts 19:1-6)
I have heard many Baptist ministers say that John Baptist establish
the Baptist Church. These ministers are sincerely ignorant of the
revelation of Jesus Christ.
>>>>==Gene=Austin===>
http://www.angelfire.com/nc/multif/index.html &
http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Aegean/2490/science/face.html
Bart Goddard
> These ministers are sincerely ignorant of the
> revelation of Jesus Christ.
Speaking of "ignorant", why don't you do a little
math:
> We see that John Baptist's ministry touched hundreds, perhaps
> thousands of lives, and all of these people did not stay in and
> around Jerusalem. But when some of them heard the gospel
> (good news) about the Messiah from the apostle Paul they
> believed and were baptized in water
> by immersion in the authoritative name of Jesus Christ.
Let x be the year John the Baptist was beheaded.
Let y be the year that Paul had these people Baptized.
Compute y-x and then contemplate that number for a while.
The plain fact is, when John Baptized Jesus, the Holy
Spirit came down on Him, just as He does in any
Christian Baptism. It doesn't take a string of bad
definitions and crazy conclusions to answer this question,
it only takes looling at one picture: Jesus coming
out of the water with the Dove descending. Punkt.
Bart
Clayton Austin
Bart Goddard said that when people are baptized by being sprinkled
with so-called holy water, in the name of the Father, Son and the Holy
Ghost, and not the authoritative name of Jesus Christ, they receive the
third person of the trinity, the Holy Ghost every time. Paraphrased of
course, but the same in essence. I think, but it is not "thus saith the
Lord."
Cornelius received Jesus Christ in the power of his Spirit of truth
and liberty, and then he was baptized inm water by immersion in the
authoritative name of Jesus Christ. There is no other way Bart. Are you
ready?
>>>>==Gene=Austin===>
http://www.angelfire.com/nc/multif/index.html &
http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Aegean/2490/science/face.html
David Booker
Bart Goddard wrote:
Right on!! Paul would agree and so do I Acts 19:3: And he said unto them, Unto
what then were ye baptized? And they said, Unto John's baptism.
4: Then said Paul, John verily baptized with the baptism of repentance, saying unto
the people, that they should believe on him which should come after him, that is,
on Christ Jesus.
5: When they heard this, they were baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus.
God Bless
David B.
Peter R Elfvin
BENJAMIN_H. ZELLNER wrote:
> > The event began at a few seconds into the fiftieth day after the
> > Lord's bodily resurrection which of course is at sunset, and they were
>
> This is fantasy. We don't know exactly when the resurrection occurred,
> we only know that the empty tomb was found on Sunday morning. And in
> the time of Christ there was no such thing as a clock accurate to "a
> few seconds."
True, if the clock were off by as much as a second per day, someone would have had
to investigate the anomalies that would have meant the sun was experiencing.
>
>
> Ben
David Booker
Bart Goddard wrote:
> Clayton Austin wrote:
>
> > These ministers are sincerely ignorant of the
> > revelation of Jesus Christ.
>
> Speaking of "ignorant", why don't you do a little
> math:
>
> > We see that John Baptist's ministry touched hundreds, perhaps
> > thousands of lives, and all of these people did not stay in and
> > around Jerusalem. But when some of them heard the gospel
> > (good news) about the Messiah from the apostle Paul they
> > believed and were baptized in water
> > by immersion in the authoritative name of Jesus Christ.
>
> Let x be the year John the Baptist was beheaded.
>
> Let y be the year that Paul had these people Baptized.
>
> Compute y-x and then contemplate that number for a while.
>
> The plain fact is, when John Baptized Jesus, the Holy
> Spirit came down on Him, just as He does in any
> Christian Baptism. It doesn't take a string of bad
> definitions and crazy conclusions to answer this question,
> it only takes looling at one picture: Jesus coming
> out of the water with the Dove descending. Punkt.
> Bart
>
>
>
>
Christ's baptism was a special case. (rather obvious I suppose) John's baptism was
one of repentance, not one following salvation. The Holy Spirit came upon Christ
in the form of a dove as a sign to John the Baptist .
Jn 1:32: And John bare record, saying, I saw the Spirit descending from heaven like
a dove, and it abode upon him.
33: And I knew him not: but he that sent me to baptize with water, the same said
unto me, Upon whom thou shalt see the Spirit descending, and remaining on him, the
same is he which baptizeth with the Holy Ghost.
34: And I saw, and bare record that this is the Son of God.
I believe we are baptized into the body of Christ, the church at the time of
salvation.
At the time of this baptism we are indwelt by the Holy Spirit.
13: For by one Spirit are we all baptized into one body, whether we be Jews or
Gentiles, whether we be bond or free; and have been all made to drink into one
Spirit.
God Bless
David B.
Peter R Elfvin
Norm queers wrote:
> Terry
> don't go by everyones opinion. Study it for yourself. Sometimes you need
> to look at the Word and the examples that God gives us in his Word. All
> men can lead you astray and you may be lost, but if you follow His Word,
> and ask, He will guide you... Matt 28:18-20...Mark 16:15-16...Luke
> 24:45-47...Acts 2:36-38....Acts 8:26-40....Acts 16:25-34 Acts
> 22:6-16....Rom 6:1-6..... I challange you to read these verses and every
> verse that has to do with someones Salvation, Conversion, and Baptism.
> The Bible is not a pick and choose... I believe if the Bible says do it,
> then we are wrong not to. For one to say "Oh well ignore that verse, but
> look at this one" aren't they questioning or doubting GOD's word and
> instructions. Please read 1 Peter 3:21 also. Listen to God's word, not
> mans opinion, if you are truely searching......Knock and the door shall
> be open, Seek and ye shall find....
> A Servant of His
>
And how, pray tell, did you come to the conclusion that the Acts of the Apostles
belongs in the New Testament, but the Acts of Paul and Thecla doesn't?
RSy2717
<Bart_G...@tamu-commerce.edu> writes:
>
>> There are, of course, different baptisms, as John said, "I indeed
>> baptize with water, one shall come after me that baptise you with the
>> Holy Ghost..." thus setting two types of baptism in contrast.
>
>I disagree. The Baptism which Christ sanctified was
>John's Baptism, showing them to be the same. I fully
>believe that John's Baptism was a valid Christian
>Baptism.
>
>
How can you have a "Valid Christian Baptism" which you say is an act of the
Church, before the church existed?
Bob S
Bob S
Home Page: http://members.aol.com/RSy2717/index.html
Bart Goddard
> >I disagree. The Baptism which Christ sanctified was
> >John's Baptism, showing them to be the same. I fully
> >believe that John's Baptism was a valid Christian
> >Baptism.
>
> How can you have a "Valid Christian Baptism" which you
> say is an act of the Church, before the church existed?
Since the Church is eternal, she is not bound by time.
It's one thing to say that _in our temporal frame_
the Church was born on Pentecost. But that doesn't
imply that she is therefore _bound_ by our temporal
observations. ANYONE who believes in Jesus is a
member of the Church. This includes Adam and Eve
believing in God's promise to send a savior.
Someone participating in John's Baptism had faith that
his sins would be remitted and that faith was based
on the promise of a coming savior.
Bart
Bart Goddard
> John's baptism was one of repentance, not one following salvation.
There is no difference between these. The only way to be
repentant is to have hope of forgiveness and the only such
hope is Christ's sacrifice, hence salvation. You have
made a distinction where none exists.
> I believe we are baptized into the body of Christ,
> the church at the time of salvation.
> At the time of this baptism we are indwelt by the Holy Spirit.
If that were true, the early Church would not have
bothered with water Baptism.
RSy2717
It seems much confusion exists in the church regarding baptism. That confusion
has existed for centuries for many reasons. What I would like to offer here is
a overview of the teaching of Scripture regarding baptism.
Often a good way to help bring a something into focus is to begin with what it
is not.
First, it is not a means of salvation. Many teach that salvation is provided
through the ordinance (or sacrament) of baptism. Let me begin by setting
aside the teachings of any particular church. The Scripture is the authority
of all that is
true, not a church, not a church father, but the revelation of the Holy Spirit
of God. In order to support this view they look to certain Scriptures:
John 3:5 ". . . Except a man be born of water and of the Spirit, he cannot
enter into the kingdom of God."
This passage is used to suggest that the "water" is the water of baptism.
However, the context does not support that usage. In verse 3 Jesus refers to
being "born again." The born again is a second birth contrasted to the first
birth, natural
birth, of a child. Nicodemus understands that first birth but questions how
there can be a second birth. Now Jesus explains in verse 5, there is a natural
birth by water and a Spiritual birth. Then, in case Nicodemus missed the point
he reiterates it in verse 6. He makes it clear that the first birth is flesh,
the second is Spirit. John uses this same illustration in his Epistle of I
John 5:6-8 when he uses "water" to speak of the incarnate birth of Christ by
Mary.
Mark 16:16 He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved; but he that
believeth not shall be damned.
If you take simply the first phrase of this verse you could certainly conclude
that baptism is a requirement for salvation. However, the first place to
understand any verse is in its own context. The second phrase cannot be
divorced from the
first. It does not say, he that is not baptized shall be damned, it is plain
that it is only those who do not believe. Now, the Bible never pictures a
believer who is not baptized, that concept was totally foreign to the Apostles,
however, they were
careful not teach that is was a requirement for salvation. He Mark is clear,
condemnation is only to those who do not believe.
Acts 2:38 "Then Peter said unto them, Repent, and be baptized every one of you
in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins, and ye shall receive the
gift of the Holy Ghost."
This verse, in our English translations, has been a source of misteaching on
baptism. A. T. Robertson, the noted Greek scholar, states that using this
verse to teach baptism is required for salvation simply cannot be supported
from the Greek
grammar. The grammar requires that the remission of sins ties back to the
command to "repent" and it specifically does not tie to the command to be
baptized. It does not diminish the command to be baptized it is just simply
not coupled with the promise of the remission of sin. This passage may be
confusing with the lack of specificity in English, but those who heard Peter
give this sermon in Greek would not have been confused.
I 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 verse is often misused by those promoting a form of baptismal
regeneration, yet it is a powerful indictment of that position. Peter, the
same Peter who preached the message of Acts 2:38, in writing his epistle,
clearly eliminates the teaching of water baptism for salvation. He says "even
baptism does also now save us," and some people stop reading and say "see I
told you." Taking words out of context makes it possible to prove anything.
The next parenthetical phrase is essential to the understand. "(Not the
putting away of the filth of the flesh . . .)" In otherwords, Peter says, 'I
am not talking about water, this is a spiritual concept.' Water does not save,
it is the answer of a good conscience, which comes by faith in the resurrection
of Jesus Christ.
Therefore, if baptism does not bring salvation what is it and why is it
important. Baptism, which comes from the Greek word 'baptidzo' means to dip,
immerse, or make whelmed. This word was used by those who made cloth to refer
to the
dyeing process where they would make different colored cloth. The idea was to
identify the cloth with the particular color. In the same way, we as believers
are to be identified with the death, burial and resurrection of Jesus Christ.
This
is pictured through the ordinance of baptism. Paul gives the meaning of
Baptism in his treatise on Salvation by Grace, the book of Romans.
Romans 6:3 Know ye not, that so many of us as were baptized into Jesus Christ
were baptized into his death? 4 Therefore we are buried with him by baptism
into death: that like as Christ was raised up from the dead by the glory of the
Father, even so we also should walk in newness of life.
We are baptized into his death, buried with him, and raised up with him, and
now we are to have a new life. This is well illustrated in the tradition of
the early church in taking the believer, placing him under the water as if
buried, and
raising him up again as if resurrected. It is a symbol that our old life is
behind us, and our new life is ahead. It is a picture of our change from death
to life, lost to found, bondage to freedom, or the world to Christ. As we saw,
the water does
not do this, but the baptism of the Holy Spirit which Christ promised prior to
His ascension.
Many churches teach the passing of "grace" through the act of baptism, even
denying it as a work for salvation by saying that it is a work of the church
and not a work of the one recieving baptism. While those who teach this are
exactly
right that baptism is an act of the church and not the believer, it is still
and act of man, not Christ. We are saved by the finished work of Christ on the
cross, His death, His burial and His Resurrection. That is exactly what is
picture in the
baptism, and the fact that the believer is baptized by the church and does not
baptize himself illustrates that he has done nothing to merit his salvation,
but it was given to him. However, that does not make the work of the church
any less of a
work. It is the work of Christ and not the work of His church which saves.
Also debated through the church is the concept of infant baptism. If you
understand that baptism does not save, and that it is a picture of the
salvation that God has given, and a picture of the change from the old life to
the new, then
infant baptism makes no sense. How can a child of a few days express their
faith? How can an infant who has not been born again, walk in the newness of
life which they have not yet received?
The argument continues that baptism is a form of New Testament circumcision.
I have never seen any scripture used to support this argument. However, if you
would like to use this argument, it is still a strong argument against infant
baptism. Under the Old Testament, a child was born by natural birth in the
nation of Israel. He was a son of Abraham by his first birth. Circumcision
was used to identify that birth into the nation. When is a child born into the
family of God?
Not a his natural birth, but at his new birth. Therefore, if baptism is to be
a New Testament circumcision, then it must follow the new birth, not the first
birth.
However, I would still not use that illustration because it is not supported
by Scripture and, in fact, the scripture says that ". . . every man that is
circumcised, that he is a debtor to do the whole law. Christ is become of no
effect unto you, whosoever of you are justified by the law; . . ." There is not
a New Testament circumcision, but a ending of the law of circumcision. The
church is not under law, but grace.
There are several times in the book of Acts where the Gospel is preached and
entire households are saved. In Acts 10, the household of Cornelius and in
Acts 16 the household of Lydia, and the Philippian Jailer are examples.
However, it should be noted that in not one single instance is there any
statement that there were any infants present. It is simply a matter of
speculation by those who teach infant baptism that there must be infants
present. Even if there were children present, it is possible for a child to
believe and be baptized. The term "adult baptism" is a term invented by those
who teach infant baptism, to disparage believers baptism. It is not a term
used by those practicing believer's baptism.
Children can be saved and can be baptized. However, there is not one single
instance in Scripture were baptism preceded salvation.
Baptism is seen in the following places in Acts:
Acts 2:41 Those who believed on the day of Pentecost, were baptized
following salvation.
Acts 8:12 Those who received the Word from Philip in Samaria were
baptized following salvation.
Acts 8:38-38 Philip required a testimony of faith from the Ethiopian
Eunuch before baptism.
Acts 9:18 Paul was baptized after he was saved on the Road to
Damascus.
Acts 10:47-48 Cornelius and his house were baptized after they were
saved and had received the Holy Spirit.
Acts 16:15 Lydia and her household were baptized after they were saved.
Acts 16:33 The Philippian Jailer and his family were baptized after they
believed.
Acts 18:8 The Corinthians believed and were baptized.
Acts 19:3-5 Those who were baptized under the ministry of John the
Baptist, were baptized again after they placed
their faith in Jesus Christ.
Why then, if the scriptures are so clear on believers baptism, do many
churches still teach infant baptism. The history of infant baptism really goes
back to the fourth century and the first establishment of state church under
Rome.
Prior to the existence of state related churches, baptism was given on evidence
of faith. In fact, Christian History Magazine, (Issue 57, p 19) pointed out
that the early church often sifted out candidates through the catechetical
process before allowing them to be baptized or receive communion. The ancient
churches, such as the church a Dura Europos, pictured in the same issue, and
the Church as Ephesus, built in the fourth century, which I visited in 1996,
have baptismal pools for immersing of believers.
Infant baptism was a concept of the state related churches to bring into the
church from the first days of life, all citizens of the empire. True, pagans
who would convert, would be baptized later in life, but all who were born into
families who were part of the state church, would bring their children into the
church at birth. This was done for political, and not spiritual reason. I was
to unify the state and the church. After the fall of Rome, the Bishop of Rome,
or Pope, became the most significant head of state in the Europe over the now
fragmented kingdoms of Europe. This baptizing of citizens into the Church of
Rome became even more significant to tie back to Rome all those born throughout
the various Kingdoms. This kept the Pope supreme in the minds of the people
until that hold was broken during the Reformation.
This unbiblical practice created a major problem for the church. By baptizing
unbelievers into the church, the church became a body of mixed believers and
non-believers. The leaven of heresy naturally followed. Many of these
baptized non-believers became leaders in the church by force of personality not
by the power of the Spirit. Over the years the churches were corrupted and the
doctrine of Balaam thrived and the horrors of the Inquisitions and crusades
was born.
The Protestant churches which emerged from the Reformation, while they
protested and corrected, the false teachings of the established and
reestablished a message salvation by Grace alone through Faith alone, they
adopted many of the other teachings a practices of Rome, often without
question. These Protestant churches also became the new state churches of
Europe. The Lutheran Church became the state church of Germany, the Reformed
Church, the church of Holland, The Presbyterian Church, the Church of Scotland,
and the Anglican Church, the church of England. It also followed that these
churches adopted the baptism of infants for the same reason as Rome, to keep
these citizens members of the church as well as the state. It has also been
the leaven of these churches which now have teachers of false doctrines in
leadership positions in their churches.
Like all teachings of the church, baptism needs to be built on Scripture and
not on what seems expedient. Infant baptism certainly opened the floodgates of
church membership, but it was one source of downfall to the spiritual vitality
of the church.
So what have we seen from Scripture:
1. Baptism is a picture of, and identification with, the death, burial and
Resurrection of Jesus Christ. That is certainly best illustrated in the
practice of Baptism by immersion.
2. Baptism is an ordinance of the church which always follows, and never
precedes, salvation. Therefore, infant baptism is out.
3. Believer's baptism is an essential step in maintaining the purity of
the church. While, of course, this alone will not keep any church pure, (there
are enough liberal Baptist Churches to prove that) it is the first step. If a
church fails on this step, all those which follow will be faltering steps.
Bob S
Home Page: http://members.aol.com/RSy2717/index.html
((( s.r.c.b-s is a moderated group. All posts are approved by a moderator. )))
Clayton Austin
Peter Elfvin wrote that Benjamin H. Zellner wrote:
The event began at a few seconds into the fiftieth day after the
Lord's bodily resurrection which of course is at sunset, and they
were.....
Gene Austin responds:
I think it was Ben H. Zellner who wrote:
This is fantasy. We (Ben H. Zellner) don't know exactly when the
resurrection occurred, we only know that the empty tomb was found on
Sunday morning. And in the time of Christ there was no such thing as a
clock accurate to a few seconds." Ben wrote this in responding to my
post.
Peter Elfvin wrote:
True, if the clock were off by as must as a second per day, someone
would have had to investigate the anomalies that would have meant the
sun was experiencing.
Gene Austin responds:
Ben, you and Peter are locked in a state of cranium hydroplaning in
the bardo state of reflexivity trying to find out how you received that
tachyon. While you guys are investigating the accuracy of mechanical
clocks in relation to the resurrection of Christ, the emphasis is on the
"sunset" at the end of the Jewish sabbath which lasted 72 hours. And
this would be Saturday at sunset.
Then you count, on your fingers if you like, seven sabbaths which is
49 days. The end of the last sabbath on the 49th day occurred at sunset.
Hey! This is also when the day of Pentecost began. Now when the day of
Pentecost was fully come.... This statement indicates that any portion
in the beginning of the day of Pentecost, such as a wink of the eye,
means it is now.
>>>>==Gene=Austin===>
http://www.angelfire.com/nc/multif/index.html &
http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Aegean/2490/science/face.html
DiscipleDH
Baptism is an outward showing of your belief in the all saving grace of Jesus
Christ. Being baptised with water is symbolism for the act of being baptised
"filled" with the holy spirit.
RSy2717
>
>Since the Church is eternal, she is not bound by time.
>It's one thing to say that _in our temporal frame_
>the Church was born on Pentecost. But that doesn't
>imply that she is therefore _bound_ by our temporal
>observations. ANYONE who believes in Jesus is a
>member of the Church. This includes Adam and Eve
>believing in God's promise to send a savior.
>
>Someone participating in John's Baptism had faith that
>his sins would be remitted and that faith was based
>on the promise of a coming savior.
>
>Bart
>
Only God is from eternity past. The church came into being on Pentecost.
Remember, Jesus said, "Upon this Rock I *will* build by church. . ." The
church did not exist when John the Baptist ministered. True, sin was forgiven
on the basis of the faith in the then future work of Christ, but there was no
church so the baptism was not the baptism of the church.
Remember in acts when John's desciples learned of the Gospel of Christ, they
were baptized again. Acts 19:1-5
Bob S
Bob S
Home Page: http://members.aol.com/RSy2717/index.html
((( s.r.c.b-s is a moderated group. All posts are approved by a moderator. )))
Bart Goddard
>
> Baptism is an outward showing of your belief in the all
> saving grace of Jesus Christ.
No, it's an outward showing of God's promise to forgive
us for Christ's sake.
Bart
Bart Goddard
> First, it is not a means of salvation.
1 Pet 3:21 ... baptism doth also now save us...
Too bad you got off on the wrong foot right at
the beginning, thereby invalidating your (overly)
long argument.
Bart
Gary
Bart Goddard wrote in message <6ttvhd$8gt$1...@Jupiter.Mcs.Net>...
>RSy2717 wrote:
>
>> First, it is not a means of salvation.
>
>
>Too bad you got off on the wrong foot right at
>the beginning, thereby invalidating your (overly)
>long argument.
Bart, too bad you didn't read past the first sentence! You
would have found out you are wrong!
Gary
Bart Goddard
> Only God is from eternity past.
Says who? (And "eternity past" is an oxymoron.)
> The church came into being on Pentecost.
> Remember, Jesus said, "Upon this Rock I *will*
> build by church. . ."
It's no good talking about the eternal in temproal
terms. To use "beginn" or "past" or "will" is to
be temporal. But the temporal aspects of the Church
don't bind the eternal aspects.
> Remember in acts when John's desciples learned of the
> Gospel of Christ, they were baptized again. Acts 19:1-5
These weren't John's disciples.
Bart
Bart Goddard
> >> First, it is not a means of salvation.
> >
> >1 Pet 3:21 ... baptism doth also now save us...
> >
> >Too bad you got off on the wrong foot right at
> >the beginning, thereby invalidating your (overly)
> >long argument.
>
> Bart, too bad you didn't read past the first sentence! You
> would have found out you are wrong!
Let's see, Bob says "Baptism is not a means of salvation"
and Peter says "Baptism now saves you." Who should
I believe? Bob starts his post on the assumption that
Baptism is powerless and manages to prove from this
that Baptism is powerless. The only surprising thing
is that it takes him about 6 pages to text to prove
that A implies A.
Bart
Ethan Metsger
[Bob S]
- > First, it is not a means of salvation.
-
- 1 Pet 3:21 ... baptism doth also now save us...
-
- Too bad you got off on the wrong foot right at
- the beginning, thereby invalidating your (overly)
- long argument.
Maybe I'm obtuse, but I thought that the Spirit designated this as *not* a
removal of sin but rather a movement towards better fellowship with God.
(i.e., a clear conscience.)
Now might be a good time to examine the meaning of "save." :)
(I did make some assumptions here, Bart; I'm not really trying to pick on you,
but I *know* someone is going to look at this the "wrong" way, and I was
curious what you have to say about different meanings of "saved" based on
context.)
Be of good cheer (believe it or not, I do mean that!),
Ethan Metsger (eth...@ccil.org; http://www.ccil.org/~ethanm)
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
"There is a kind of happiness and wonder that makes you serious. It is too
good to waste on jokes." - C.S. Lewis, "The Last Battle"
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
As always, take my advice with a grain of salt.
GoldRush
Bart Goddard <Bart_G...@tamu-commerce.edu> wrote in article
<6ttvh9$8gq$1...@Jupiter.Mcs.Net>...
> DiscipleDH wrote:
> >
> > Baptism is an outward showing of your belief in the all
> > saving grace of Jesus Christ.
>
> No, it's an outward showing of God's promise to forgive
> us for Christ's sake.
>
> Bart
>
group. )))
>
No, it is an outward showing of having "crucified the
flesh" [Gal.5:24] and having been resurrected in the Spirit. [Rom. 6:5]
See Romans 6:3-11.
--
GoldRush
For Scriptures & Christian Studies
visit . .http://www.mlode.com/~jrrush
RSy2717
<Bart_G...@tamu-commerce.edu> writes:
>
>RSy2717 wrote:
>
>> First, it is not a means of salvation.
>
>1 Pet 3:21 ... baptism doth also now save us...
>
>Too bad you got off on the wrong foot right at
>the beginning, thereby invalidating your (overly)
>long argument.
>
>Bart
Unfortunately it is long to be sure to cover everything. However, that does
leave a lot take out of context as you just did. Go back and see that I
addressed that very scripture.
Bob
Bob S
Home Page: http://members.aol.com/RSy2717/index.html
((( s.r.c.b-s is a moderated group. All posts are approved by a moderator. )))
RSy2717
>
>Gary wrote:
>
>> >> First, it is not a means of salvation.
>> >
>> >1 Pet 3:21 ... baptism doth also now save us...
>> >
>> >Too bad you got off on the wrong foot right at
>> >the beginning, thereby invalidating your (overly)
>> >long argument.
>>
>> Bart, too bad you didn't read past the first sentence! You
>> would have found out you are wrong!
>
>Let's see, Bob says "Baptism is not a means of salvation"
>and Peter says "Baptism now saves you." Who should
>I believe? Bob starts his post on the assumption that
>Baptism is powerless and manages to prove from this
>that Baptism is powerless. The only surprising thing
>is that it takes him about 6 pages to text to prove
>that A implies A.
>
>Bart
>
Bart,
You certainly have proven the old addage, "A text without its context is a
pretext." No go read the entire text.
Bob S
Thomas James Brower
Irenaeus- "This class of men have been instigated by Satan to a
denial of that baptism which is regeneration to God."
On 17 Sep 1998, RSy2717 wrote:
> John 3:5 ". . . Except a man be born of water and of the Spirit, he cannot
> enter into the kingdom of God."
> This passage is used to suggest that the "water" is the water of baptism.
> However, the context does not support that usage.
Not that I think that the early church leaders are the same as
Scripture(even though I think that the Scripture is pretty clear), but
their what they say may shed some light on the subject:
Irenaeus- "As we are lepers in sin, we are made clean from our old
transgressions by means of the sacred water and the invocation of
the Lord. We are thus spiritually regenerated as newborn infants,
even as the Lord declared: 'Except a man be born of again through water
and the Spirit, he shall not enter into the kingdom of heaven'"
Cyprian- "Considering my character at the time, I used to regard
it as a difficult matter that a man should be able to be born again.... Or
that a man who had been revived to a new life in the bath of saving water
could be able to put off what he had fromerly been--that he could be
changed in heart and soul, while retaining his physical body.... I used to
indulge my sins as if they were actually a part of me, inherent in me.
But later, by the help of new birth, the stain of former years was washed
away, and a light from above--serene and pure was infused into my
reconciled heart. Then through the Spirit breathed from heaven, a second
birth restored me to a new man.
Justin Martyr- "Those who are convinced that what we teach is true
and who desire to live accordingly are instructed to fast and to pray to
God for the remission of all their past sins. We also pray and fast with
them. Then we bring them to a place where there is water, and they are
regenerated in the same manner in which we ourselves were regenerated.
They then receive the washing with water in the name of God (the Father
and Lord of the universe) and of our Savior Jesus Christ, and of the Holy
Spirit. For Christ said, 'Unless you are born again, you shall not enter
into the kingdom of heaven
> Mark 16:16 He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved; but he that
> believeth not shall be damned. Now, the Bible never pictures a
> believer who is not baptized, that concept was totally foreign to the Apostles,
Probably because believing included getting baptized.
> Acts 2:38 "Then Peter said unto them, Repent, and be baptized every one of you
> in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins, and ye shall receive the
> gift of the Holy Ghost."
> grammar. The grammar requires that the remission of sins ties back to the
> command to "repent" and it specifically does not tie to the command to be
> baptized.
What does 'and' mean in Greek? Does 'and' act differently in that
language so forgiveness would not be tied to baptism?
> I 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 verse is often misused by those promoting a form of baptismal
> regeneration, yet it is a powerful indictment of that position.
The context of the section is about how "Christ died for sins once for
all". The context of v. 21 starts in the verse before when it talks about
the water that saved Noah and his family. It is spiritual concept that
Peter is talking about but don't ignore the water part.
Another verse that I haven't seen yet and that can sum this all up is
Titus 3:5- "He saved us, not because of any righteous thing we had done,
but because of his mercy. He saved us through the washing of rebirth and
renewal by the Holy Spirit." It seems pretty clear to me that baptism is
where we are forgiven of our sins and given the Holy Spirit(Acts 2:38).
Thomas
Ethan Metsger
- > Acts 2:38 "Then Peter said unto them, Repent, and be baptized every one of you
- > in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins, and ye shall receive the
- > gift of the Holy Ghost."
- > grammar. The grammar requires that the remission of sins ties back to the
- > command to "repent" and it specifically does not tie to the command to be
- > baptized.
- What does 'and' mean in Greek? Does 'and' act differently in that
- language so forgiveness would not be tied to baptism?
No where in any context (I'm not talking about "kai" but rather "aphesis") is
the word translated (poorly) as remission dealing with your legal forgiveness.
Aphiemi always deals with your relationship to God, not your standing in front
of him!
(There are two words for forgive; charizomai deals with the legal price paid
for your sin by Christ on the cross and aphiemi deals with how you relate to
God. Charizomai never occurs as a noun in the New Testament. When we demand
forgiveness for sin, it's relational forgiveness, not legal forgiveness.)
- > This verse is often misused by those promoting a form of baptismal
- > regeneration, yet it is a powerful indictment of that position.
- The context of the section is about how "Christ died for sins once for
- all". The context of v. 21 starts in the verse before when it talks about
- the water that saved Noah and his family. It is spiritual concept that
- Peter is talking about but don't ignore the water part.
The part I believe that was being referred to was the direct statement by the
Holy Spirit that baptism is not what cleanses the filth from our flesh - it is
the death of Christ.
- Another verse that I haven't seen yet and that can sum this all up is
- Titus 3:5- "He saved us, not because of any righteous thing we had done,
- but because of his mercy. He saved us through the washing of rebirth and
- renewal by the Holy Spirit." It seems pretty clear to me that baptism is
- where we are forgiven of our sins and given the Holy Spirit(Acts 2:38).
The Greek grammar indicates that it is rebirth which washes, not washing which
causes rebirth.
Be of good cheer (believe it or not, I do mean that!),
Ethan Metsger (eth...@ccil.org; http://www.ccil.org/~ethanm)
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
"There is a kind of happiness and wonder that makes you serious. It is too
good to waste on jokes." - C.S. Lewis, "The Last Battle"
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
As always, take my advice with a grain of salt.
Peter R Elfvin
Clayton Austin wrote:
I must be delirius. I could have sworn that I was making reference to sundials, and
that they are, of neccessity, accurate.
>
>
> >>>>==Gene=Austin===>
> http://www.angelfire.com/nc/multif/index.html &
> http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Aegean/2490/science/face.html
>
Bart Goddard
> >Too bad you got off on the wrong foot right at
> >the beginning, thereby invalidating your (overly)
> >long argument.
>
> Unfortunately it is long to be sure to cover everything.
> However, that does leave a lot take out of context as
> you just did. Go back and see that I
> addressed that very scripture.
You know me better than that. You address that
very Scripture, but you neglect to mention WHO is
making the pledge. Since you approach the issue
with the assumption you are trying to prove, you
necessarily make the us the pledger, rather than
the pledgee.
Bart
Clayton Austin
Thomas James Brower wrote:..........
Ethan Metsger wrote: No where in any context is the word remission
dealing with legal forgiveness.
Gene Austin responds:
The word aphesis is defined as pardon, forgiveness and remission, and
is in the legal context of the covenant of the law. In this context we
can see that aphesis deals with the Israelis relationship to God through
the baptism of repentance administered by John Baptist. When they
repented of their iniquities, sins, and offences to the covenant of the
law, John baptized them for the remission of their sins and they stood
right with God. Mat.3:1-12
On the day of Pentacost the apostle Peter exhorted the Israelis to
repent of their legal iniquities, sins and offences, and be baptized in
the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of their legal sins, and you
shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost. Therefore, those that repented
and were baptized in the name of Jesus Christ were pardon or forgiven of
their legal offences, and they received the gift of Jesus Christ in the
form of his Spirit of truth and liberty. (Col.1:25-29--Jn.14:15-20)
Ethan, this form of baptism (Acts 2:38) is null and void simply
because the gospel has gone to the uncircumcision or Gentiles. This is
why the apostle Paul established the doctrine of water baptism for the
church. With the doctrine of water baptism being firmly establish by
Paul (Rom.6:1-23), not to wash away sins, or forgive legal offences, but
only to identify the people with the life, death, burial and
resurrection of Jesus Christ. (His vicarious and substitutional work of
redemption) In other words, those who receive the faith, the revelation
of Jesus Christ, and believe, and receive the Spirit of truth and
liberty, the comforter in spiritual regeneration, were baptized by
immersion in water in the name of Jesus Christ.
This form of baptism was simply a rule of thumb, because some received
the Spirit of Christ before they were baptized, and some after they were
baptized. The reality of receiving Christ's Spirit in the new birth
experience is the destruction of the power of original sin. (The
efficacy of the blood of the corporeal body of Christ is in the
Spirit-word) The saints are dead to the transgression of the law or sin,
but alive to God in Christ. The saints have the divine nature and
righteousness of God in Christ, in the Sonship position.
The Israelis received remission, or were forgiven of their legal
offences by the blood of animal, and later by the baptism of John
Baptist. The efficacy of the blood of the corporeal body of Christ in
his Spirit-word annihilates the power of original sin in the
spirit-intellect of those that receive Christ in the power of his
Spirit.
>>>>==Gene=Austin===>
http://www.angelfire.com/nc/multif/index.html &
http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Aegean/2490/science/face.html
MatthewJohnson
>Bart Goddard wrote in message <6ttvhd$8gt$1...@Jupiter.Mcs.Net>...
>>RSy2717 wrote:
>>
>>> First, it is not a means of salvation.
>>
>>1 Pet 3:21 ... baptism doth also now save us...
>>
>>Too bad you got off on the wrong foot right at
>>the beginning, thereby invalidating your (overly)
>>long argument.
>Bart, too bad you didn't read past the first sentence! You
>would have found out you are wrong!
>Gary
Oh, really? Well, Gary, I _did_ read past the first sentence, and I
agree with Bart; Bob S "got off on the wrong foot right at the
beginning". His arguments concerning 1 Pt 3:21 and Rom 6, etc. are
quite confused.
Matthew Johnson
Ex Oriente Lux!
Clayton Austin
Gary wrote: ......
Bart Goddard wrote: .......
RSy2717 wrote: .......
(Baptism) First it is not a means of salvation.
Gene Austin responds:
Roman 6:1-23, is the absolute doctrine of water baptism by immersion
in the authoritative name of Jesus Christ established by the apostle
Paul for the one and only church. This baptism was administered to
identify the believers with the life, death, burial and resurrectiuon of
Jesus Christ. Some times the believers received the Spirit of Christ in
spiritual regeneration before water baptism, and some times after they
were baptized in water. It is part of the faith, or revelation of Jesus
Christ we are to complete in obedience to Christ, and whatsoever is not
of faith is sin period. If any one refuses for any reason to be baptized
in water by immersion in the name of Jesus Christ, they are workers of
iniquity. (Mat.7:21-29)
The writings of the apostle Peter in 1-Pt.3:20-21, reveals, in his
simile, that water saved Noah, his family, and all the creatures in the
ark. But in the Book of Hebrews, we find that Noah was saved by the
faith-knowledge he received from God and obeyed. Also, what about the
ark? We can apply a direct comparison between the ark and the word of
truth or Christ as a means of salvation. Heb.11:7--Gen.6:13-22)
I believe Peter was just comparing the water of the flood and the
water of baptism to reveal the importance of obeying Christ's
faith-knowledge in identifying with the vicarious and substitutional
work of Christ. Why? Because he then states, not the putting away of the
(offences of the law) filth of the flesh, say in the baptism of John
Baptist, and the one administered by Peter himself on the day of
Pentecost so the people could receive Jesus Christ in the power of his
Spirit (Acts 2;38), but the answer of a good conscience toward God by
the resurrection of Jesus Christ. (Eph.1:13-14)
>>>>==Gene=Austin===>
http://www.angelfire.com/nc/multif/index.html &
http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Aegean/2490/science/face.html
mejo...@my-dejanews.com
Ethan Metsger <eth...@ccil.org> wrote:
> On 19 Sep 1998, Thomas James Brower wrote:
> No where in any context (I'm not talking about "kai" but rather "aphesis") is
> the word translated (poorly) as remission dealing with your legal forgiveness.
> Aphiemi always deals with your relationship to God, not your standing in front
> of him!
This sounds plausible, but what does it have to do with the question? What
does it have to do with whether or not baptism is the rebirth of the
Christian? Or are you going to claim that baptism could be the rebirth only
if "aphesis" refered to legal forgiveness rather than relational? That would
be a l-o-n-g stretch!
> The part I believe that was being referred to was the direct statement by the
> Holy Spirit that baptism is not what cleanses the filth from our flesh - it is
> the death of Christ.
And we put on the likeness of this death in baptism, as described in Rom 6.
>
> - Another verse that I haven't seen yet and that can sum this all up is
> - Titus 3:5- "He saved us, not because of any righteous thing we had done,
> - but because of his mercy. He saved us through the washing of rebirth and
> - renewal by the Holy Spirit." It seems pretty clear to me that baptism is
> - where we are forgiven of our sins and given the Holy Spirit(Acts 2:38).
>
> The Greek grammar indicates that it is rebirth which washes, not washing which
> causes rebirth.
Not so, not so. What it indicates is that washing = rebirth & renewal. It
doesn't tell you which causes which.
The genitives are genitives of description.
Matthew Johnson
Ex Oriente Lux!
-----== Posted via Deja News, The Leader in Internet Discussion ==-----
http://www.dejanews.com/rg_mkgrp.xp Create Your Own Free Member Forum
RSy2717
<Bart_G...@tamu-commerce.edu> writes:
>
>DiscipleDH wrote:
>>
>> Baptism is an outward showing of your belief in the all
>> saving grace of Jesus Christ.
>
>No, it's an outward showing of God's promise to forgive
>us for Christ's sake.
>
>Bart
>
Actually, your both right.
Bob S
Bob S
Home Page: http://members.aol.com/RSy2717/index.html
((( s.r.c.b-s is a moderated group. All posts are approved by a moderator. )))
RSy2717
<Bart_G...@tamu-commerce.edu> writes:
>
>RSy2717 wrote:
>
>> >Too bad you got off on the wrong foot right at
>> >the beginning, thereby invalidating your (overly)
>> >long argument.
>>
>> Unfortunately it is long to be sure to cover everything.
>> However, that does leave a lot take out of context as
>> you just did. Go back and see that I
>> addressed that very scripture.
>
>You know me better than that. You address that
>very Scripture, but you neglect to mention WHO is
>making the pledge. Since you approach the issue
>with the assumption you are trying to prove, you
>necessarily make the us the pledger, rather than
>the pledgee.
>
>Bart
>
Here is my comment on that verse again. Now, where did I say that "we" are the
pledger??
I 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 verse is often misused by those promoting a form of baptismal
regeneration, yet it is a powerful indictment of that position. Peter, the
same Peter who preached the message of Acts 2:38, in writing his epistle,
clearly eliminates the teaching of water baptism for salvation. He says "even
baptism does also now save us," and some people stop reading and say "see I
told you." Taking words out of context makes it possible to prove anything.
The next parenthetical phrase is essential to the understand. "(Not the
putting away of the filth of the flesh . . .)" In otherwords, Peter says, 'I
am not talking about water, this is a spiritual concept.' Water does not save,
it is the answer of a good conscience, which comes by faith in the resurrection
of Jesus Christ.
Therefore, if baptism does not bring salvation what is it and why is it
important. Baptism, which comes from the Greek word 'baptidzo' means to dip,
immerse, or make whelmed. This word was used by those who made cloth to refer
to the dyeing process where they would make different colored cloth. The idea
was to identify the cloth with the particular color. In the same way, we as
believers
are to be identified with the death, burial and resurrection of Jesus Christ.
This is pictured through the ordinance of baptism. Paul gives the meaning of
Baptism in his treatise on Salvation by Grace, the book of Romans.
However, I think the relevant paragraph in my long winded statement to your
comment is this:
Many churches teach the passing of "grace" through the act of baptism, even
denying it as a work for salvation by saying that it is a work of the church
and not a work of the one recieving baptism. While those who teach this are
exactly right that baptism is an act of the church and not the believer, it is
still
and act of man, not Christ. We are saved by the finished work of Christ on the
cross, His death, His burial and His Resurrection. That is exactly what is
picture in the baptism, and the fact that the believer is baptized by the
church and does not baptize himself illustrates that he has done nothing to
merit his salvation,
but it was given to him. However, that does not make the work of the church
any less of a work. It is the work of Christ and not the work of His church
which saves.
*** Read the whole thing, Bart.
RSy2717
<tj...@dana.ucc.nau.edu> writes:
>
>On 17 Sep 1998, RSy2717 wrote:
>> John 3:5 ". . . Except a man be born of water and of the Spirit, he cannot
>> enter into the kingdom of God."
>> This passage is used to suggest that the "water" is the water of baptism.
>> However, the context does not support that usage.
>
>Not that I think that the early church leaders are the same as
>Scripture(even though I think that the Scripture is pretty clear), but
>their what they say may shed some light on the subject:
What the early church leaders say is interesting and instructive, but not the
same as Scripture. Even Paul told the Bereans that they were more noble for
verifying what he said from Scripture, and he had the prophetic gift. These do
not.
> Irenaeus- "As we are lepers in sin, we are made clean from our old
> transgressions by means of the sacred water and the invocation of
> the Lord. We are thus spiritually ** regenerated as newborn infants,**
> even as the Lord declared: 'Except a man be born of again through water
> and the Spirit, he shall not enter into the kingdom of heaven'"
*** Interesting quotem, it sounds like Irenaeus agrees with what I said. He
seems to be understanding the comparison of physical birth and spiritual birth.
> Cyprian- "Considering my character at the time, I used to regard
> it as a difficult matter that a man should be able to be born again....
Or
> that a man who had been revived to a new life in the bath of saving
water
> could be able to put off what he had fromerly been--that he could be
> changed in heart and soul, while retaining his physical body.... I used
to
> indulge my sins as if they were actually a part of me, inherent in me.
> But later, by the help of new birth, the stain of former years was
washed
> away, and a light from above--serene and pure was infused into my
> reconciled heart. Then through the Spirit breathed from heaven, a
second
> birth restored me to a new man.
**** Interesting quote. I would like to see the whole context. This part
could be understood either way. Is he literally saying that the bath in H2O
saved him or is he saying the Spirit gave him a second birth? I would suspect
he does not mean H2O but "living water" as in the context of John 4.
> Justin Martyr- "Those who are convinced that what we teach is true
> and who desire to live accordingly are instructed to fast and to pray
to
> God for the remission of all their past sins. We also pray and fast
with
> them. Then we bring them to a place where there is water, and they are
> regenerated in the same manner in which we ourselves were regenerated.
> They then receive the washing with water in the name of God (the Father
> and Lord of the universe) and of our Savior Jesus Christ, and of the
Holy
> Spirit. For Christ said, 'Unless you are born again, you shall not
enter
> into the kingdom of heaven
*** Again, is he speaking of H2O or "living water?"
>> Mark 16:16 He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved; but he that
>> believeth not shall be damned. Now, the Bible never pictures a
>> believer who is not baptized, that concept was totally foreign to the
Apostles,
>>Probably because believing included getting baptized.
>> Acts 2:38 "Then Peter said unto them, Repent, and be baptized every one of
you
>> in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins, and ye shall receive
the
>> gift of the Holy Ghost."
>> grammar. The grammar requires that the remission of sins ties back to the
>> command to "repent" and it specifically does not tie to the command to be
>> baptized.
>What does 'and' mean in Greek? Does 'and' act differently in that
>language so forgiveness would not be tied to baptism?
Again, you are trying to take the English text and understand exactly what is
being said. This is a passage that does not translate comfortably. Had Peter
intended to include baptism in salvation he would have simply given "repent"
"baptized" and "remission of sins" in the 2nd person plural aorist tense. He
did not. Therefore the progression of repent to baptize to remission of sins
does not exist.
A T Robertson, the noted Greek scholar stated, "You can ignore the grammar and
build a doctrine of repentance and baptism, bt you do so by ignoring the
grammar."
>> I 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 verse is often misused by those promoting a form of baptismal
>> regeneration, yet it is a powerful indictment of that position.
>The context of the section is about how "Christ died for sins once for
>all". The context of v. 21 starts in the verse before when it talks about
>the water that saved Noah and his family. It is spiritual concept that
>Peter is talking about but don't ignore the water part.
But look at the text. He specifically says the water is a FIGURE, then he
underscore it by saying he is not talking about water on the outside of the
body.
>Another verse that I haven't seen yet and that can sum this all up is
>Titus 3:5- "He saved us, not because of any righteous thing we had done,
>but because of his mercy. He saved us through the washing of rebirth and
>renewal by the Holy Spirit."
>It seems pretty clear to me that baptism is
>where we are forgiven of our sins and given the Holy Spirit(Acts 2:38).
Clear that it is H2O????? Is he talking about washing the inside or the
outside?
>Thomas
Alexander R Pruss
: - Another verse that I haven't seen yet and that can sum this all up is
: - Titus 3:5- "He saved us, not because of any righteous thing we had done,
: - but because of his mercy. He saved us through the washing of rebirth and
: - renewal by the Holy Spirit." It seems pretty clear to me that baptism is
: - where we are forgiven of our sins and given the Holy Spirit(Acts 2:38).
: The Greek grammar indicates that it is rebirth which washes, not washing which
: causes rebirth.
It could well be a semiticism. As a semiticism, "washing of rebirth" would
mean: "regenerative washing". It is a common semitic practice to use a
genitive construction in place of an adjectival one. For instance: "spirit
of holiness" for "holy spirit". Read in this way, it would indeed be the
washing that would be doing the rebirthing.
Alex
--
Alexander R. Pruss || e-mail: pru...@pitt.edu
Graduate Student || home page: http://www.pitt.edu/~pruss
Department of Philosophy || alternate e-mail address: pr...@member.ams.org
University of Pittsburgh || Erdos number: 4
Pittsburgh, PA 15260 ||
U.S.A. ||
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
"Philosophiam discimus non ut tantum sciamus, sed ut boni efficiamur."
- Paul of Worczyn (1424)
Bart Goddard
> >> Baptism is an outward showing of your belief in the all
> >> saving grace of Jesus Christ.
> >
> >No, it's an outward showing of God's promise to forgive
> >us for Christ's sake.
>
> Actually, your both right.
No. _I'm_ not showing anything in Baptism. Baptism
is the tangible to which my belief holds, NOT the
tangible evidence OF my belief.
Bart
Bart Goddard
> Here is my comment on that verse again. Now, where did I say
> that "we" are the pledger??
Right here:
> Water does not save, it is the answer of a good conscience,
What is doing the answering (pledging)? "A good consience".
God's good conscience? No. Ours.
Does water save? No. Our pledge.
If we read this verse your way, it's not God's pledge of
forgiveness which saves, but rather OUR pledge to do
good works. I'm not the one taking things out of context,
you are. In order to undo the impact of "Baptism now
saves you", you have to make some contrasting thing in
the verse be the agent of salvation. Namely, in your
case, an action of our "good conscience."
> However, I think the relevant paragraph in my long winded
> statement to your comment is this:
>
> Many churches teach the passing of "grace" through the
> act of baptism, even denying it as a work for salvation
> by saying that it is a work of the church and not a work
> of the one recieving baptism. While those who teach this are
> exactly right that baptism is an act of the church and not
> the believer, it is still and act of man, not Christ.
Not even close. Christ has promised to be present wherever
two or more are gathered in His name. I.e., actions
of the Church ARE actions of Christ. (That's why she
is called "His body".)
> We are saved by the finished work of Christ on the
> cross, His death, His burial and His Resurrection.
But if we never hear about it, we will never have
faith. Baptism is the primary way to hear about it.
It is the primary way of receiveing faith. Baptism
is only a "grace deliviery system" in the same way
that a sermon is "hearing the Word". Baptism "saves"
in the exact same way as the man or Church act of
evangelism saves, namely, by APPLYING the finished
work of Christ to the hearer.
> *** Read the whole thing, Bart.
I did, and you know it.
Clayton Austin
On Sept. 17, 1998, RSy2717 wrote about Jn.3:5 ......... "Except a man
be born of water and the Spirit, he cannot enter into the Kingdom of
God."
This passage is used to suggest that the "water" is the water of
baptism However, the context does not support that usage.
Gene Austin responds:
I believe you are right RSy2717. It is noteworthy to note that Jn.3:5,
indicates a person must be born of water and Spirit to enter into the
Kingdom of God. And then in verse 6, a comparison is made between the
natural birth of the corporeal body or flesh being born of flesh; and
the spiritual new birth is the result of the spirit-intellect of people
being born of the Spirit. Where did the water go in this verse.??
If you notice that the Roman spear pierced the heart of the body of
Christ on that Roman torturing stake and blood and water flowed out of
the wound. This occurred after the Lord gave up the Holy Ghost or his
disembodied Spirit. (Jn.6:63-Jn.19:30)
Now we have the disembodied Spirit of Christ, the Holy Ghost, and we
have the blood and water of his corporeal body a type of his collective
corporeal body the church. Before any one could experience the spiritual
new birth, Jesus Christ had to complete every phase of human development
without sin and iniquity according to the law, and as the Lamb of God
nail all our sins to the stake in his passion.
So because the efficacy of the vicarious and substitutional work of
Christ, the blood of his corporeal body is in his Spirit, we can receive
the Spirit of Christ in spiritual regeneration through his faith. Our
spirit-intellect is born of and by his Spirit of truth and liberty. This
takes care of the Spirit and the blood.
Now what is going to be revealed is the truth that the <<water>> of
the "water and the Spirit" (Jn.3:5) is the Spirit of Christ expressed in
the anointing of the individual christians and the five-fold ministry to
wash away everything unlike Christ by the ministration of the "word of
truth, which is Spirit. (Jn.6:63) This is the progressive process of
sanctification of the saints until we all attain the status of the
perfect and glorious church. Jesus Christ expressed. This is called by
the apostle Paul, "that he might sanctify and cleanse it with the
washing of water by the word.
In Jn.5:6-8, we find there are three that bear record in the earth.
Since Jesus' corporeal body came from the virgin Mary in natural birth
by the breaking of the water followed by the blood, and then he fused
his Spirit with the body to become the Son of God, and these agree in
one. So we receive Jesus Christ in the power of his Spirit of truth and
liberty, And then we complete the faith-knowledge by identifying with
his life, death, burial and resurrection by being immersed in water in
the name of Jesus Christ.
There are three that bear record in the mind of God residing in
omnipresence. There is the predesigned master plan of the ages that
reveals God as the Father, and there is the word, or God expressed as
the Son to create the Father/Son relationship for his people. And there
is the record of the Holy Ghost, or the disembodied Spirit of Jesus
Christ who entered into the heavenly Holy of Holies or omnipresence to
finish the work of redemption: and then to return on the day of
Pentecost to create his God-body the church in which he is the head.
>>>>==Gene=Austin===>
http://www.angelfire.com/nc/multif/index.html &
http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Aegean/2490/science/face.html
RSy2717
In article <6ubmvu$och$1...@Jupiter.Mcs.Net>, Bart Goddard
<Bart_G...@tamu-commerce.edu> writes:
>RSy2717 wrote:
>> Here is my comment on that verse again. Now, where did I say
>> that "we" are the pledger??
>Right here:
>> Water does not save, it is the answer of a good conscience,
*** Note that I have made a direct quote of Scripture, so you are not arguing
with me, but rather Peter.
>What is doing the answering (pledging)? "A good consience".
>God's good conscience? No. Ours.
>Does water save? No. Our pledge.
*** An answer is not necessarily a pledge. It is simply a reply. The pledge
is the promise or guarantee. Christ is our guarentee, our pledge. He gave
Himself, and His resurrection guarentees our salvation. Baptism is an answer
given to that pledge.
>If we read this verse your way, it's not God's pledge of
>forgiveness which saves, but rather OUR pledge to do
>good works. I'm not the one taking things out of context,
>you are. In order to undo the impact of "Baptism now
>saves you", you have to make some contrasting thing in
>the verse be the agent of salvation. Namely, in your
>case, an action of our "good conscience."
*** All of the above is only valid if you interpret "answer" to mean "pledge."
However, no such interpretation can be made from Scripture or from my Webster's
dictionary.
>> However, I think the relevant paragraph in my long winded
>> statement to your comment is this:
>> Many churches teach the passing of "grace" through the
>> act of baptism, even denying it as a work for salvation
>> by saying that it is a work of the church and not a work
>> of the one recieving baptism. While those who teach this are
>> exactly right that baptism is an act of the church and not
>> the believer, it is still and act of man, not Christ.
>Not even close. Christ has promised to be present wherever
>two or more are gathered in His name. I.e., actions
>of the Church ARE actions of Christ. (That's why she
>is called "His body".)
*** All actions of the church are actions of Christ? How about when such
actions directy contradict Scripture? You are correct that Christ has promised
to be whereever two are more are gathered in his name. However, to make the
leap of logic that therefore all actions of the body are Christ's does not
follow.
Consider, a Christian man and a Christian woman are together. Christ is in
them, he is present with them. However, they fall into sin and commit
adultery. Is Christ any less present? Is that an act of Christ?
>> We are saved by the finished work of Christ on the
>> cross, His death, His burial and His Resurrection.
>But if we never hear about it, we will never have
>faith.
Agreed.
>Baptism is the primary way to hear about it.
>It is the primary way of receiveing faith.
Romans 10:8-15 identifies the Preaching of the Gospel as the means of
receiving faith.
>Baptism
>is only a "grace deliviery system" in the same way
>that a sermon is "hearing the Word".
** I would agree. It is a picture of the plan of salvation, the death burial
and resurrection of Christ.
> Baptism "saves"
>in the exact same way as the man or Church act of
>evangelism saves, namely, by APPLYING the finished
>work of Christ to the hearer.
*** Here's where there is a problem. It is the Holy Spirit who applies the
work of Christ to the hearer. Whether the person is witnessing a baptism, or
hearing the evangelist preach, until the Holy Spirit applies the finished work
of Christ, that person cannot have faith, and remains lost. It is not the
hearer's work, it is not the preacher's work, it is the Holy Spirit's work.
>> *** Read the whole thing, Bart.
>I did, and you know it.
>Bart
>
Bob S
Bob S
Home Page: http://members.aol.com/RSy2717/index.html
((( s.r.c.b-s is a moderated group. All posts are approved by a moderator. )))
Stephen Bayzik
>What the early church leaders say is interesting and instructive, but not the
>same as Scripture. Even Paul told the Bereans that they were more noble for
>verifying what he said from Scripture, and he had the prophetic gift. These do
>not.
Was not Paul and "early church leader"?
Reflect upon the absurdity of your comment.
mejo...@my-dejanews.com
rsy...@aol.com (RSy2717) wrote:
> In article <6u1n2p$5ab$1...@Jupiter.Mcs.Net>, Thomas James Brower
> <tj...@dana.ucc.nau.edu> writes:
>
> >
> >On 17 Sep 1998, RSy2717 wrote:
> >> John 3:5 ". . . Except a man be born of water and of the Spirit, he cannot
> >> enter into the kingdom of God."
> >> This passage is used to suggest that the "water" is the water of baptism.
> >> However, the context does not support that usage.
> >
> >Not that I think that the early church leaders are the same as
> >Scripture(even though I think that the Scripture is pretty clear), but
> >their what they say may shed some light on the subject:
>
> What the early church leaders say is interesting and instructive, but not the
> same as Scripture. Even Paul told the Bereans that they were more noble for
> verifying what he said from Scripture, and he had the prophetic gift. These
> do not.
What makes you so sure of this? Many of the early church leaders did have
prophetic gifts. But there is often no reference to them because they did
not show off their gifts.
[snip]
>
> >> Acts 2:38 "Then Peter said unto them, Repent, and be baptized every one of
> you
> >> in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins, and ye shall receive
> the
> >> gift of the Holy Ghost."
>
> >> grammar. The grammar requires that the remission of sins ties back to the
> >> command to "repent" and it specifically does not tie to the command to be
> >> baptized.
>
> >What does 'and' mean in Greek? Does 'and' act differently in that
> >language so forgiveness would not be tied to baptism?
>
> Again, you are trying to take the English text and understand exactly what is
> being said. This is a passage that does not translate comfortably.
True.
> Had Peter
> intended to include baptism in salvation he would have simply given "repent"
> "baptized" and "remission of sins" in the 2nd person plural aorist tense.
This would have been the more modern, correct idiom, but there is no
guarantee that Peter would speak in such scholarly Greek. Semitic speakers
OFTEN used tenses contrary to the strict rules of Greek grammar. A
particulary common usage is to use present tenses (or imperfects) where
strict grammar demands the aorist.
So there is no guarantee that he would have put all these in the aorist if he
meant to link repentance, baptim and remission.
> A T Robertson, the noted Greek scholar stated, "You can ignore the grammar and
> build a doctrine of repentance and baptism, bt you do so by ignoring the
> grammar."
Now it is our turn to ask you: what is the context of this quote?
>
> >> I 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 verse is often misused by those promoting a form of baptismal
> >> regeneration, yet it is a powerful indictment of that position.
No, it is not.
> But look at the text. He specifically says the water is a FIGURE,
No, he does not. How are you reading this into 1 Peter??? Or did you fail
to notice that the word "figure" must refer not to baptism, but to the flood
of Noah's day, which is the "figure" of baptism? Read the whole chapter!
> then he
> underscore it by saying he is not talking about water on the outside of the
> body.
No, he said he is not talking about the washing away of bodily filth, i.e.,
baptism is not for washing the body, but for washing something more.
>
> >Another verse that I haven't seen yet and that can sum this all up is
> >Titus 3:5- "He saved us, not because of any righteous thing we had done,
> >but because of his mercy. He saved us through the washing of rebirth and
> >renewal by the Holy Spirit."
>
> >It seems pretty clear to me that baptism is
> >where we are forgiven of our sins and given the Holy Spirit(Acts 2:38).
>
> Clear that it is H2O????? Is he talking about washing the inside or the
> outside?
He is talking about washing the whole man; baptism washes more than just the
body. Even the washing of the body in baptism is more than just the physical
removal via water of bodily filth; it is the rebirth of the whole man,
physical and spiritual.
-----== Posted via Deja News, The Leader in Internet Discussion ==-----
http://www.dejanews.com/rg_mkgrp.xp Create Your Own Free Member Forum
((( s.r.c.b-s is a moderated group. All posts are approved by a moderator. )))
Ethan Metsger
- > No where in any context (I'm not talking about "kai" but rather "aphesis") is
- > the word translated (poorly) as remission dealing with your legal forgiveness.
- > Aphiemi always deals with your relationship to God, not your standing in front
- > of him!
-
- This sounds plausible, but what does it have to do with the question? What
- does it have to do with whether or not baptism is the rebirth of the
- Christian? Or are you going to claim that baptism could be the rebirth only
- if "aphesis" refered to legal forgiveness rather than relational? That would
- be a l-o-n-g stretch!
The point I'm making is that you're righteous apart from baptism. That's why
Christ died. (This is charizomai - a legal transaction of a debt.) Aphiemi
(and its noun, aphesis) doesn't speak of your righteousness, but rather your
relationship. The former deals with a constant, the latter a variable. One
can't say that you're forgiven in the sense of charizomai because of baptism;
that is, one couldn't extrapolate that you're righteous because you've been
baptized.
- And we put on the likeness of this death in baptism, as described in Rom 6.
Romans six speaks of spiritual baptism, not water baptism. The conditions
described in the passage are those of reality - in other words, we are dead to
sin, etc., etc. (Verses five and six lead to the conclusion of verse seven;
the Spirit is telling us the *reality* of our spiritual baptism, not the
*possiblity* of it.)
Be of good cheer (believe it or not, I do mean that!),
Ethan Metsger (eth...@ccil.org; http://www.ccil.org/~ethanm)
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
"There is a kind of happiness and wonder that makes you serious. It is too
good to waste on jokes." - C.S. Lewis, "The Last Battle"
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
As always, take my advice with a grain of salt.
Bart Goddard
> >> Here is my comment on that verse again. Now, where did I say
> >> that "we" are the pledger??
>
> >Right here:
>
> >> Water does not save, it is the answer of a good conscience,
>
> Note that I have made a direct quote of Scripture, so you are
> not arguing with me, but rather Peter.
This is not a "direct quote" of Peter. Peter says that
the saving power of Baptism lies not in the external
washing, but in the promise it carries. He never says
"Water does not save".
> *** An answer is not necessarily a pledge.
> It is simply a reply.
It doesn't matter what you call it, "pledge" or
"answer", becomes, in your interpretation, the
saving power.
> *** All of the above is only valid if you interpret "answer"
> to mean "pledge."
No, the arguments are just as valid if you substitute
"answer" for "pledge" throughout.
> However, no such interpretation can be made from Scripture
> or from my Webster's dictionary.
Then why does the NIV (and KJV?) have "pledge"?
> *** All actions of the church are actions of Christ? How
> about when such actions directy contradict Scripture?
Those are not actions of the Church.
> You are correct that Christ has promised to be whereever
> two are more are gathered in his name. However, to make
> the leap of logic that therefore all actions of the body
> are Christ's does not follow.
It's not a leap, it's a matter of simple definition.
> Consider, a Christian man and a Christian woman are together.
> Christ is in them, he is present with them. However, they
> fall into sin and commit adultery. Is Christ any less present?
> Is that an act of Christ?
Is it an act of the Church? Yes, Christ is "less present"
when they are no longer together "in His Name" but
rather "in lust". No, it is not an act of Christ and
NO it is not an act of the Church. (I'm not RC.)
> >Baptism is the primary way to hear about it.
> >It is the primary way of receiveing faith.
>
> Romans 10:8-15 identifies the Preaching of the Gospel
> as the means of receiving faith.
And Baptism is a means of preaching the Gospel. Intellectual
verbage from sermons is certainly no more noble than
the symbol of Baptism.
> > Baptism "saves"
> >in the exact same way as the man or Church act of
> >evangelism saves, namely, by APPLYING the finished
> >work of Christ to the hearer.
>
> *** Here's where there is a problem. It is the Holy Spirit
> who applies the work of Christ to the hearer.
The problem is that you want the Holy Spirit to apply
the work without means (sermons and sacraments.) The
WAY the Spirit applies the work of Christ is via
the Word which is delivered in Sacraments as well as
sermons.
> Whether the person is witnessing a baptism, or
> hearing the evangelist preach, until the Holy Spirit applies
> th> finished work of Christ, that person cannot have faith,
> and remains lost.
The preaching and administration of the Sacraments IS the
application BY the Spirit OF Christ's merits VIA the
Church. We don't separate the action of the Spirit from
the Spirit.
> >of His promise. It's my half of the indentured contract.
> >I am forgiven for Christ's sake, but Baptism is the
> >personal application of Christ's Word to me. I hold
> >tightly to my Baptism whenever my faith wavers.
>
> *** You did pretty well until here. Where in Scripture
> are we told to hold tightly to our baptism.
Your legalism rears it's ugly head at last. When it
comes down to brass tacks, you go looking for some
rule that you got "told to" do. But if you'd been
paying attention, Baptism's power lies in (and only
in) the Word of God. By "holding tightly" to Baptism
I am holding tightly to the Word of God's promise which
is what Baptism is. So find the verses you want for
yourself. Are we supposed to hold tightly to the Word
or not?
> We are told to glory in the cross, Glory in Christ,
> hold fast to our confession, and hold fast to His Word,
> but where baptism?
You're going to glory in the cross of Christ without
the God-ordained symbol of His death?
> Where is that