Is water baptism necessary for salvation?
3 views
Skip to first unread message
Group Monitor
Mar 1, 2009, 9:27:17 AM3/1/09
to One Man Sharpens Another
Every time I read a Christian book or website, I'm captivated by the
idea we seem to accept that all that's necessary for salvation is that
one "accept" Jesus as his Lord and Savior. However, whenever I have
ask people of different denominations what that means I get differing
answers. The one thing most of them agree on is that baptism
(literally: submersion in water) is "an outward sign," or "just a
formality."
I do not believe this is what Jesus or the Apostles taught. Here's
just a small sampling of scripture:
Matthew 28:18
Acts 2:38
Acts 8
Acts 9:18
Acts 10:47, 48
Originally submitted by: Allen G.
idea we seem to accept that all that's necessary for salvation is that
one "accept" Jesus as his Lord and Savior. However, whenever I have
ask people of different denominations what that means I get differing
answers. The one thing most of them agree on is that baptism
(literally: submersion in water) is "an outward sign," or "just a
formality."
I do not believe this is what Jesus or the Apostles taught. Here's
just a small sampling of scripture:
Matthew 28:18
Acts 2:38
Acts 8
Acts 9:18
Acts 10:47, 48
Originally submitted by: Allen G.
Group Monitor
Mar 1, 2009, 9:29:26 AM3/1/09
to One Man Sharpens Another
Arguments can and always will be made both ways which in itself gives
the answer to the fringe of your question. There simply is no hard or
concrete steps mentioned in the Bible of how one can achieve salvation
with the exception of what Jesus himself revealed in John 3. In this
chapter it is revealed and repeated multiple times that it is the
belief in the Son of God that is truly the path to salvation. This is
reinforced in scripture over and over.
A great case study of this would be the thief on the cross who
received salvation apparently for only verbally defending Jesus. If
we look deeper at this passage we notice that the thief did one more
thing which qualified him for salvation… he believed Christ was who He
said He was.
The argument that arises with what I have stated is a semantic one.
There is nothing in the Bible that states that “accepting” Christ
qualifies you to be saved. The truth is that we cannot accept Christ
at all, it is God who sees fit to grant us the gift of calling us into
service. It is ultimately His will and His choice that gives us the
chance to “opt-in”, and try to win this prize that we call salvation.
Christ stated that you must “believe”. This is WAY deeper than mere
acceptance. A person ALWAYS acts according to what he or she believes
to be true.
If I believe that the airplane that I am boarding is going to crash
and I wish to preserve my life, then I will not board the plane. I
could not, regardless of the cost to my bank account or the
inconvenience to the airline. I must come to believe that I will not
die on this plane in order for me to board it.
If I believe that there is a God, and a Christ, and a Holy Spirit; and
if I believe that there is a Heaven and a Hell; and if I believe that
my actions upon this earth will ultimately be taken into account by
God in His decision to send me to Heaven or Hell; then I will act in a
way that gives me the greatest chance of getting me where I wish to
spend eternity.
Most people who call themselves Christians have accepted Christ, but
they do NOT believe in Him. I find this not surprising since we
cannot believe in something that we have no experience or relationship
with. None of us started off knowing God, or any of the people in the
Bible who claim to have developed a relationship, seen, or heard Him.
Therefore to believe in anything that we cannot relate to on this
earth requires faith… which in itself is a gift from the Holy Spirit
(1 Cor. 12). I hope you see the catch 22 in this because it will
cause you to challenge yourself and go even deeper into the Word to
find the real answer to your salvation. (“Without faith it is
impossible to please God”)
Christ himself, nor any of His disciples, never listed water baptism
as a requirement of salvation. Since there are exceptions to the rule
that you must be submerged in water to achieve salvation in the Bible,
I am forced to conclude that this is not a requirement; though I will
not dispute that this practice, formality or not, was taught and
should continue.
I do not believe that if you haven’t been dipped in water, you are
disqualified from salvation. I also do not believe that you can
achieve salvation by being good, being holy, attending church, or
pretty much anything else that we as individuals can do. That, once
again, is up to God. (“We are not saved by works but by grace”)
To sum up the question of water baptism, I can find people in the
Bible that were granted salvation without being submerged in water;
but none of us can find a person in the Bible that was granted
salvation without believing. I think water baptism is more than a
formality but less than a requirement.
-Brennan
the answer to the fringe of your question. There simply is no hard or
concrete steps mentioned in the Bible of how one can achieve salvation
with the exception of what Jesus himself revealed in John 3. In this
chapter it is revealed and repeated multiple times that it is the
belief in the Son of God that is truly the path to salvation. This is
reinforced in scripture over and over.
A great case study of this would be the thief on the cross who
received salvation apparently for only verbally defending Jesus. If
we look deeper at this passage we notice that the thief did one more
thing which qualified him for salvation… he believed Christ was who He
said He was.
The argument that arises with what I have stated is a semantic one.
There is nothing in the Bible that states that “accepting” Christ
qualifies you to be saved. The truth is that we cannot accept Christ
at all, it is God who sees fit to grant us the gift of calling us into
service. It is ultimately His will and His choice that gives us the
chance to “opt-in”, and try to win this prize that we call salvation.
Christ stated that you must “believe”. This is WAY deeper than mere
acceptance. A person ALWAYS acts according to what he or she believes
to be true.
If I believe that the airplane that I am boarding is going to crash
and I wish to preserve my life, then I will not board the plane. I
could not, regardless of the cost to my bank account or the
inconvenience to the airline. I must come to believe that I will not
die on this plane in order for me to board it.
If I believe that there is a God, and a Christ, and a Holy Spirit; and
if I believe that there is a Heaven and a Hell; and if I believe that
my actions upon this earth will ultimately be taken into account by
God in His decision to send me to Heaven or Hell; then I will act in a
way that gives me the greatest chance of getting me where I wish to
spend eternity.
Most people who call themselves Christians have accepted Christ, but
they do NOT believe in Him. I find this not surprising since we
cannot believe in something that we have no experience or relationship
with. None of us started off knowing God, or any of the people in the
Bible who claim to have developed a relationship, seen, or heard Him.
Therefore to believe in anything that we cannot relate to on this
earth requires faith… which in itself is a gift from the Holy Spirit
(1 Cor. 12). I hope you see the catch 22 in this because it will
cause you to challenge yourself and go even deeper into the Word to
find the real answer to your salvation. (“Without faith it is
impossible to please God”)
Christ himself, nor any of His disciples, never listed water baptism
as a requirement of salvation. Since there are exceptions to the rule
that you must be submerged in water to achieve salvation in the Bible,
I am forced to conclude that this is not a requirement; though I will
not dispute that this practice, formality or not, was taught and
should continue.
I do not believe that if you haven’t been dipped in water, you are
disqualified from salvation. I also do not believe that you can
achieve salvation by being good, being holy, attending church, or
pretty much anything else that we as individuals can do. That, once
again, is up to God. (“We are not saved by works but by grace”)
To sum up the question of water baptism, I can find people in the
Bible that were granted salvation without being submerged in water;
but none of us can find a person in the Bible that was granted
salvation without believing. I think water baptism is more than a
formality but less than a requirement.
-Brennan
Group Monitor
Mar 1, 2009, 9:36:02 AM3/1/09
to One Man Sharpens Another
I was waiting for others to speak up, but I guess I'll keep it going
here...
There is one major flaw with your logic. Truth is binary. If something
is a requirement, it's a requirement. If it's not, it's not. In the
case of religion, if something is not required, then it must be a
formality (or, if you prefer, a symbol or ritual. Pick a term)
Your statement then that "...water baptism is more than a formality
but less than a requirement" does not meet the requirement of a binary
truth statement.
Further, as a practical matter, we cannot consider edge cases. We do
not know the full situation of the theif on the cross. Perhaps he was
one of the several hundred "followers" Jesus had who had deserted him
some time before. If that's the case, he had probably already been
baptized. Even if not, he obviously did not have a chance to be
baptized once he had confessed that he believed Jesus to be the
Christ. Similarly, I fully expect to see King David, Isaiah, Daniel,
Ezekiel, and others. Obviously, they were not baptized in accordance
with Jesus' "Great Commision." However, once Jesus ascends to Heaven,
the only remaining time we are told of people who were "saved" before
they were baptized was the household of Cornelius- again a special
circumstance and a sign specifically to the Jewish Christians that the
Gospel of Christ was for the Gentiles as much as it was for the Jews.
What we must consider is, here and now, what we must do to secure the
gift of Salvation our Lord has offered through Jesus's sacrifice.
While Jesus and the Apostles never said "You must be baptized to go to
heaven," they did repeatedly (and, in fact, every time conversion is
mentioned in roughly the first half of Acts, and again in various
places throughout the Epistles) refer to "this baptism we have been
given" or in otherways to the fact that all believers were baptized.
When this is taken with Peter's impassioned plea against forcing
circumcision on the Gentiles (Acts 15) and the Jerusalem council's
letter that any such trappings of "tradition" or "formality" would
have been avoided. Remember that much of Jesus's ministry was to tear
down the unnecessary, restrictive, and sometimes contridictory laws
and traditions of the Jewish people.
In light of this (who better than the Apostles would know what Jesus
had wanted), can you really say that baptism is not necessary?
Originally submitted by Allen G
>
> - Show quoted text -
here...
There is one major flaw with your logic. Truth is binary. If something
is a requirement, it's a requirement. If it's not, it's not. In the
case of religion, if something is not required, then it must be a
formality (or, if you prefer, a symbol or ritual. Pick a term)
Your statement then that "...water baptism is more than a formality
but less than a requirement" does not meet the requirement of a binary
truth statement.
Further, as a practical matter, we cannot consider edge cases. We do
not know the full situation of the theif on the cross. Perhaps he was
one of the several hundred "followers" Jesus had who had deserted him
some time before. If that's the case, he had probably already been
baptized. Even if not, he obviously did not have a chance to be
baptized once he had confessed that he believed Jesus to be the
Christ. Similarly, I fully expect to see King David, Isaiah, Daniel,
Ezekiel, and others. Obviously, they were not baptized in accordance
with Jesus' "Great Commision." However, once Jesus ascends to Heaven,
the only remaining time we are told of people who were "saved" before
they were baptized was the household of Cornelius- again a special
circumstance and a sign specifically to the Jewish Christians that the
Gospel of Christ was for the Gentiles as much as it was for the Jews.
What we must consider is, here and now, what we must do to secure the
gift of Salvation our Lord has offered through Jesus's sacrifice.
While Jesus and the Apostles never said "You must be baptized to go to
heaven," they did repeatedly (and, in fact, every time conversion is
mentioned in roughly the first half of Acts, and again in various
places throughout the Epistles) refer to "this baptism we have been
given" or in otherways to the fact that all believers were baptized.
When this is taken with Peter's impassioned plea against forcing
circumcision on the Gentiles (Acts 15) and the Jerusalem council's
letter that any such trappings of "tradition" or "formality" would
have been avoided. Remember that much of Jesus's ministry was to tear
down the unnecessary, restrictive, and sometimes contridictory laws
and traditions of the Jewish people.
In light of this (who better than the Apostles would know what Jesus
had wanted), can you really say that baptism is not necessary?
Originally submitted by Allen G
> On Mar 1, 8:27 am, Allen G <allen.good...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > Every time I read a Christian book or website, I'm captivated by the
> > idea we seem to accept that all that's necessary for salvation is that
> > one "accept" Jesus as his Lord and Savior. However, whenever I have
> > ask people of different denominations what that means I get differing
> > answers. The one thing most of them agree on is that baptism
> > (literally: submersion in water) is "an outward sign," or "just a
> > formality."
>
> > I do not believe this is what Jesus or the Apostles taught. Here's
> > just a small sampling of scripture:
>
> > Matthew 28:18
> > Acts 2:38
> > Acts 8
> > Acts 9:18
> > Acts 10:47, 48
>
> > Originally submitted by: Allen G.- Hide quoted text -
>
>
>
> > Every time I read a Christian book or website, I'm captivated by the
> > idea we seem to accept that all that's necessary for salvation is that
> > one "accept" Jesus as his Lord and Savior. However, whenever I have
> > ask people of different denominations what that means I get differing
> > answers. The one thing most of them agree on is that baptism
> > (literally: submersion in water) is "an outward sign," or "just a
> > formality."
>
> > I do not believe this is what Jesus or the Apostles taught. Here's
> > just a small sampling of scripture:
>
> > Matthew 28:18
> > Acts 2:38
> > Acts 8
> > Acts 9:18
> > Acts 10:47, 48
>
>
> - Show quoted text -
Group Monitor
Mar 1, 2009, 9:38:31 AM3/1/09
to One Man Sharpens Another
"The baptism of John, was it from heaven, or of men?"
John did baptize in the wilderness, and preach the baptism of
"repentance for the remission of sins.
The voice of one crying in the wilderness, Prepare ye the way of the
Lord, make his paths straight.
"He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved; but he that
believeth not shall be damned."
And there are three that bear witness in earth, the Spirit, and the
water, and the blood: and these three agree in one.
Originally submitted by Victor
John did baptize in the wilderness, and preach the baptism of
"repentance for the remission of sins.
The voice of one crying in the wilderness, Prepare ye the way of the
Lord, make his paths straight.
"He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved; but he that
believeth not shall be damned."
And there are three that bear witness in earth, the Spirit, and the
water, and the blood: and these three agree in one.
Originally submitted by Victor
> On Mar 1, 8:27 am, Allen G <allen.good...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > Every time I read a Christian book or website, I'm captivated by the
> > idea we seem to accept that all that's necessary for salvation is that
> > one "accept" Jesus as his Lord and Savior. However, whenever I have
> > ask people of different denominations what that means I get differing
> > answers. The one thing most of them agree on is that baptism
> > (literally: submersion in water) is "an outward sign," or "just a
> > formality."
>
> > I do not believe this is what Jesus or the Apostles taught. Here's
> > just a small sampling of scripture:
>
> > Matthew 28:18
> > Acts 2:38
> > Acts 8
> > Acts 9:18
> > Acts 10:47, 48
>
>
>
>
> > Every time I read a Christian book or website, I'm captivated by the
> > idea we seem to accept that all that's necessary for salvation is that
> > one "accept" Jesus as his Lord and Savior. However, whenever I have
> > ask people of different denominations what that means I get differing
> > answers. The one thing most of them agree on is that baptism
> > (literally: submersion in water) is "an outward sign," or "just a
> > formality."
>
> > I do not believe this is what Jesus or the Apostles taught. Here's
> > just a small sampling of scripture:
>
> > Matthew 28:18
> > Acts 2:38
> > Acts 8
> > Acts 9:18
> > Acts 10:47, 48
>
Group Monitor
Mar 8, 2009, 11:32:26 AM3/8/09
to One Man Sharpens Another
Allen, I too am somewhat disappointed by the lack of response on this
topic. It is, after all, at the core of why we practice Christianity
in the first place. There are a few points that I feel I should
address. I’ll try to keep this short but thorough as I would like
others respond as well…
John did baptize, but ONLY unto repentance (Matt 3:11, Mar 1:4). He
was inadequate, indeed water baptism was inadequate to supply anything
more than a cleansing... not salvation. I am not stating my opinion
but a fact as stated by John the Baptist himself.
John stated, "I indeed baptize you with water; but one mightier than I
comes, whose shoes I am not worthy to loose, He will baptize you with
the Holy Ghost and with fire."
So there are at least two types of baptism spoken of in the New
Testament: the baptism of water, (immersion in water); and the baptism
of the Holy Ghost, (immersion in the Holy Spirit).
In Matt 20:20 – 23 Christ refers to baptism. Not water baptism. The
baptism in which Christ himself is baptized with. Furthermore He
promises the sons of Zebedee that they too will partake of this same
baptism.
In Luke 12:50 Christ refers to a baptism well after He had been
baptized with water (Luke 3). Even though He had already been
baptized with water, this other baptism had yet to be accomplished and
Christ expresses the feeling of being constrained or confined until it
takes place.
It is not John’s baptism that saves a soul. John preached the baptism
of repentance (not of water) (Mark 1:4). We as Christians know that
repentance is a necessary 1st step. The water baptism was an outer
confirmation of this inward change.
Initially John refused to baptize Christ, stating that he was more in
need of being baptized of Christ (Matt 3:14). Christ AGREED with the
sentiment but asked that he allow it so that all righteousness could
be fulfilled. This righteousness or “what is right” was the
prophecies in the scriptures that the coming messiah would be baptized
in this manner.
John indeed had a need to be baptized of Christ. All of us must
receive the baptism of Christ to be saved. The scriptures state that
Christs’ disciples took up the ministry of John and baptized with
water, for they had no other baptism to baptize men with, yet. Christ
himself did not baptize anyone with water. (John 4:1-2). Could this
be because He was the author of another type of baptism? One in which
water was not adequate? A baptism that repairs the chasm between the
spirit of God, and the spirit of man. One that provides a chance of
salvation?
It wasn’t until Christ’s death and resurrection that the baptism of
Christ became apparent. In Acts 1:4-5, Christ commanded His
disciples, who were with him throughout His ministry and were
specifically chosen and taught by Him, to wait on a new baptism. This
one was of the Holy Ghost. The water baptism of John was inadequate!
Immediately after their new baptism, the disciples were able to
complete the Christian rite as now Christs’ baptism was no longer
constrained. In Acts 2:38, Peter speaking to a multitude offers them
not only the baptism of repentance but also of the Holy Spirit.
The disciples carried out this practice after Christ’s ascension.
There is, of course evidence that they continued water baptism, the
baptism of repentance, but there is also overwhelming evidence that
they recognized that this was not the only baptism required. In Acts
8:14-17 the Samarians had been baptized (undoubtedly with water) in
the name of Jesus Christ. Peter and John were sent to them. Noticing
that they had yet to be baptized with the Holy Spirit, they laid hands
on them and did so.
In Acts 10:43-47 we can clearly see that the baptism of the Holy
Spirit is NOT dependent on the baptism of water. Here we see the Holy
Spirit imparted first, after which Peter requests water for a water
baptism. This shows that even before the water baptism, the baptism
of the Holy Spirit is possible.
I am tired so I am going to stop here. I have over 4 pages of notes
to continue this discussion but I will instead summarize it like
this. We should all read and study: Acts 11, Acts 16, Acts 19, 1 Cor
1, 1 Cor 12.
John 3, Nicodemus asks Christ himself what is required to be saved.
Jesus answered, “Except a man be born again, he cannot see the kingdom
of God.” This confused Nicodemus who imagined that Christ was talking
about being born of his mother again. So Christ clarified this
further by stating, “Except a man be born of water and of the Spirit,
he cannot enter into the kingdom of God.” Born of water addressed
Nicodemus confusion; being born of water is a reference to being
birthed by one’s mother, called born of water because the water
(amniotic fluid) always proceeded the birth of a child. Born of the
Spirit speaks of a new birthing of the Holy Spirit. This is the
baptism that Christ later commanded His disciples to wait for. To
make sure that this was driven home, possibly for future Christians,
Christ broke it down in very plain terms, “That which is born of the
flesh is flesh; and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit.” Then
Christ reveals to Nicodemus the foundation of salvation, the
foundation of Christianity, “And as Moses lifted up the serpent in the
wilderness, even so must the Son of man be lifted up: That whosoever
believeth in him should not perish, but have eternal life.” Christ
himself gave the answer to salvation…believing in Him, not baptism.
It was so important that He repeated himself in verse 16, “For God so
loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever
believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life.” And
again in verse 17-18, “For God sent not his Son into the world to
condemn the world; but that the world through him might be saved. He
that believeth on him is not condemned: but he that believeth not is
condemned already, because he hath not believed in the name of the
only begotten Son of God.” John 3 is the most damaging testimony to
the belief that water baptism is required to be saved. In this
chapter Christ himself explains and repeats multiple times the
requirements of salvation, and NEVER includes the baptism of water.
Even John the Baptist was aware of the requirements to be saved and
once again does not include water baptism. In John’s words,”He that
believeth on the Son hath everlasting life: and he that believeth not
the Son shall not see life; but the wrath of God abideth on him”
You made reference to the Apostles knowing what Jesus wanted. Well in
John 3 we have Jesus telling us what Jesus wants!
Allen wrote, "There is one major flaw with your logic. Truth is
means we only have two choices true or false. Since truth is binary
then it must be true for all cases with no exceptions. If there is
even one exception to the theory that water baptism is required for
salvation, edge case or not; then we must conclude that it is false.
Man's salvation was the whole purpose of Christ's life, death, and
resurrection. The Bible tells this story beginning centuries before
His birth and ending after His return centuries after His death and
resurrection. Every word in the Bible was inspired, even meticulously
dictated by God Himself.
If God chose to leave out any details regarding the thief on the
cross, who won his place in paradise through his belief that Christ is
the son of God, then it wasn't important enough to God to have it
placed in the Bible. To assume or assert that the position that the
thief had been baptized is to add something to the scriptures that is
not there. The Bible itself warns about doing this...
Truth is binary and there is an exception to the theory that water
baptism is required for salvation. This means that this theory is
false!
> > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
topic. It is, after all, at the core of why we practice Christianity
in the first place. There are a few points that I feel I should
address. I’ll try to keep this short but thorough as I would like
others respond as well…
John did baptize, but ONLY unto repentance (Matt 3:11, Mar 1:4). He
was inadequate, indeed water baptism was inadequate to supply anything
more than a cleansing... not salvation. I am not stating my opinion
but a fact as stated by John the Baptist himself.
John stated, "I indeed baptize you with water; but one mightier than I
comes, whose shoes I am not worthy to loose, He will baptize you with
the Holy Ghost and with fire."
So there are at least two types of baptism spoken of in the New
Testament: the baptism of water, (immersion in water); and the baptism
of the Holy Ghost, (immersion in the Holy Spirit).
In Matt 20:20 – 23 Christ refers to baptism. Not water baptism. The
baptism in which Christ himself is baptized with. Furthermore He
promises the sons of Zebedee that they too will partake of this same
baptism.
In Luke 12:50 Christ refers to a baptism well after He had been
baptized with water (Luke 3). Even though He had already been
baptized with water, this other baptism had yet to be accomplished and
Christ expresses the feeling of being constrained or confined until it
takes place.
It is not John’s baptism that saves a soul. John preached the baptism
of repentance (not of water) (Mark 1:4). We as Christians know that
repentance is a necessary 1st step. The water baptism was an outer
confirmation of this inward change.
Initially John refused to baptize Christ, stating that he was more in
need of being baptized of Christ (Matt 3:14). Christ AGREED with the
sentiment but asked that he allow it so that all righteousness could
be fulfilled. This righteousness or “what is right” was the
prophecies in the scriptures that the coming messiah would be baptized
in this manner.
John indeed had a need to be baptized of Christ. All of us must
receive the baptism of Christ to be saved. The scriptures state that
Christs’ disciples took up the ministry of John and baptized with
water, for they had no other baptism to baptize men with, yet. Christ
himself did not baptize anyone with water. (John 4:1-2). Could this
be because He was the author of another type of baptism? One in which
water was not adequate? A baptism that repairs the chasm between the
spirit of God, and the spirit of man. One that provides a chance of
salvation?
It wasn’t until Christ’s death and resurrection that the baptism of
Christ became apparent. In Acts 1:4-5, Christ commanded His
disciples, who were with him throughout His ministry and were
specifically chosen and taught by Him, to wait on a new baptism. This
one was of the Holy Ghost. The water baptism of John was inadequate!
Immediately after their new baptism, the disciples were able to
complete the Christian rite as now Christs’ baptism was no longer
constrained. In Acts 2:38, Peter speaking to a multitude offers them
not only the baptism of repentance but also of the Holy Spirit.
The disciples carried out this practice after Christ’s ascension.
There is, of course evidence that they continued water baptism, the
baptism of repentance, but there is also overwhelming evidence that
they recognized that this was not the only baptism required. In Acts
8:14-17 the Samarians had been baptized (undoubtedly with water) in
the name of Jesus Christ. Peter and John were sent to them. Noticing
that they had yet to be baptized with the Holy Spirit, they laid hands
on them and did so.
In Acts 10:43-47 we can clearly see that the baptism of the Holy
Spirit is NOT dependent on the baptism of water. Here we see the Holy
Spirit imparted first, after which Peter requests water for a water
baptism. This shows that even before the water baptism, the baptism
of the Holy Spirit is possible.
I am tired so I am going to stop here. I have over 4 pages of notes
to continue this discussion but I will instead summarize it like
this. We should all read and study: Acts 11, Acts 16, Acts 19, 1 Cor
1, 1 Cor 12.
John 3, Nicodemus asks Christ himself what is required to be saved.
Jesus answered, “Except a man be born again, he cannot see the kingdom
of God.” This confused Nicodemus who imagined that Christ was talking
about being born of his mother again. So Christ clarified this
further by stating, “Except a man be born of water and of the Spirit,
he cannot enter into the kingdom of God.” Born of water addressed
Nicodemus confusion; being born of water is a reference to being
birthed by one’s mother, called born of water because the water
(amniotic fluid) always proceeded the birth of a child. Born of the
Spirit speaks of a new birthing of the Holy Spirit. This is the
baptism that Christ later commanded His disciples to wait for. To
make sure that this was driven home, possibly for future Christians,
Christ broke it down in very plain terms, “That which is born of the
flesh is flesh; and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit.” Then
Christ reveals to Nicodemus the foundation of salvation, the
foundation of Christianity, “And as Moses lifted up the serpent in the
wilderness, even so must the Son of man be lifted up: That whosoever
believeth in him should not perish, but have eternal life.” Christ
himself gave the answer to salvation…believing in Him, not baptism.
It was so important that He repeated himself in verse 16, “For God so
loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever
believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life.” And
again in verse 17-18, “For God sent not his Son into the world to
condemn the world; but that the world through him might be saved. He
that believeth on him is not condemned: but he that believeth not is
condemned already, because he hath not believed in the name of the
only begotten Son of God.” John 3 is the most damaging testimony to
the belief that water baptism is required to be saved. In this
chapter Christ himself explains and repeats multiple times the
requirements of salvation, and NEVER includes the baptism of water.
Even John the Baptist was aware of the requirements to be saved and
once again does not include water baptism. In John’s words,”He that
believeth on the Son hath everlasting life: and he that believeth not
the Son shall not see life; but the wrath of God abideth on him”
You made reference to the Apostles knowing what Jesus wanted. Well in
John 3 we have Jesus telling us what Jesus wants!
Allen wrote, "There is one major flaw with your logic. Truth is
binary. If something is a requirement, it's a requirement. If it's
not, it's not." Allen is absolutely correct. Truth is binary which
means we only have two choices true or false. Since truth is binary
then it must be true for all cases with no exceptions. If there is
even one exception to the theory that water baptism is required for
salvation, edge case or not; then we must conclude that it is false.
Man's salvation was the whole purpose of Christ's life, death, and
resurrection. The Bible tells this story beginning centuries before
His birth and ending after His return centuries after His death and
resurrection. Every word in the Bible was inspired, even meticulously
dictated by God Himself.
If God chose to leave out any details regarding the thief on the
cross, who won his place in paradise through his belief that Christ is
the son of God, then it wasn't important enough to God to have it
placed in the Bible. To assume or assert that the position that the
thief had been baptized is to add something to the scriptures that is
not there. The Bible itself warns about doing this...
Truth is binary and there is an exception to the theory that water
baptism is required for salvation. This means that this theory is
false!
Unknown Author
Mar 10, 2009, 7:46:01 PM3/10/09
to One Man Sharpens Another
If something is true then it must be true. Does one have to be
baptized by water in order to be saved? Wasn't John the Baptist the
forerunner of Christ? Baptism in a sense was just like offering an
animal on the altar (at a certain degree), it only covered the
sins...even more so it is used as an oath to let God know you have
been reborn. It is interesting to speak of baptism, but without the
Holy Spirit you cannot have salvation. The fire that Christ baptizes
us with is the Holy Spirit. When we say baptize, what are the rules
for baptism? Must a priest do it? Must witnesses be there? There are
no rules to my knowledge on what must take place for a baptism to be
"effective". I hope you all are not speaking of baptism as a guarantee
to Heaven. We should not worry about the outside of the cup when the
inside is filthy.
> ...
>
> read more »- Hide quoted text -
baptized by water in order to be saved? Wasn't John the Baptist the
forerunner of Christ? Baptism in a sense was just like offering an
animal on the altar (at a certain degree), it only covered the
sins...even more so it is used as an oath to let God know you have
been reborn. It is interesting to speak of baptism, but without the
Holy Spirit you cannot have salvation. The fire that Christ baptizes
us with is the Holy Spirit. When we say baptize, what are the rules
for baptism? Must a priest do it? Must witnesses be there? There are
no rules to my knowledge on what must take place for a baptism to be
"effective". I hope you all are not speaking of baptism as a guarantee
to Heaven. We should not worry about the outside of the cup when the
inside is filthy.
>
> read more »- Hide quoted text -
Allen Goodner
Mar 10, 2009, 10:39:03 PM3/10/09
to omsa_...@googlegroups.com
To Brennan's post:
Is it a requirement that one have motor vehicle insurance before
operating a motor vehicle legally?
What if I buy a new car on Saturday and get caught speeding: am I
guilty of driving without insurance?
The answers are "Yes" and "No" respectively. It is a requirement for
me to have insurance to drive a car legally, however, the law itself
allows for cases like the one mentioned. I would probably get a
citation from the office who pulled me over, but when I showed up at
the court house with my purchase paperwork and a copy of a new
insurance card, the ticket would be waived.
Similarly, God's law has been shown to have loopholes. Certainly
Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob never received any baptism at all; yet we
are told they are with God in Heaven ("I Am the God of Abraham, Isaac,
and Jacob").
If baptism were not a necessary step in salvation, why did Peter have
the household of Cornelius baptized? Obviously they had, indeed,
already received the Holy Spirit, so what was the point of having them
baptized (again: literally: "to be immersed in water" So the term
"water baptism" is a little repetative: Like "ATM Machine" or "FTP
Protocol.")?
To Kendric: I believe you're mostly right. It's much more important
that someone live as a Christian is supposed to live. But that,
indeed, is the crux of the matter. We are supposed to be in complete
submission to Christ. Christ said, "Go into all the world making
disciples of all nations, baptising them in the name of the Father and
of the Son and of the Holy Spirit," yet many claim this is not a
requirement or necessary for salvation.
Let me be clear: I do not believe that being baptized ever saved
anyone. I do, however, believe that being baptized for the remission
of sins is part of the acceptance necessary to receive the gift of
Grace which has been offered to us.
-Allen G.
--
Infinitus est numerus stultorum.
Is it a requirement that one have motor vehicle insurance before
operating a motor vehicle legally?
What if I buy a new car on Saturday and get caught speeding: am I
guilty of driving without insurance?
The answers are "Yes" and "No" respectively. It is a requirement for
me to have insurance to drive a car legally, however, the law itself
allows for cases like the one mentioned. I would probably get a
citation from the office who pulled me over, but when I showed up at
the court house with my purchase paperwork and a copy of a new
insurance card, the ticket would be waived.
Similarly, God's law has been shown to have loopholes. Certainly
Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob never received any baptism at all; yet we
are told they are with God in Heaven ("I Am the God of Abraham, Isaac,
and Jacob").
If baptism were not a necessary step in salvation, why did Peter have
the household of Cornelius baptized? Obviously they had, indeed,
already received the Holy Spirit, so what was the point of having them
baptized (again: literally: "to be immersed in water" So the term
"water baptism" is a little repetative: Like "ATM Machine" or "FTP
Protocol.")?
To Kendric: I believe you're mostly right. It's much more important
that someone live as a Christian is supposed to live. But that,
indeed, is the crux of the matter. We are supposed to be in complete
submission to Christ. Christ said, "Go into all the world making
disciples of all nations, baptising them in the name of the Father and
of the Son and of the Holy Spirit," yet many claim this is not a
requirement or necessary for salvation.
Let me be clear: I do not believe that being baptized ever saved
anyone. I do, however, believe that being baptized for the remission
of sins is part of the acceptance necessary to receive the gift of
Grace which has been offered to us.
-Allen G.
Infinitus est numerus stultorum.
Unknown Author
Mar 11, 2009, 9:04:26 AM3/11/09
to One Man Sharpens Another
Allen,
Certainly I understand what you are saying, maybe I didn't say what I
was trying to say effectively. If something is true then it must be
true in all ways. God's Law is set to men and as to men it has no
loopholes. But if I am the one who created the Law (God) how can
anyone tell me that I must abide by the Law? I have the power to
change the Law for my own benefit, not for the benefit of those that
must be under the Law. Here is an example I will give you to shed
light on this (since you used motor vehicles :) )....The Speed Limit
on the highway is 65 MPH in most places and we must abide by that Law,
but how often do you see police officers in their car whiz by you? Do
you the one under the law have the right to pull the one over that
enforces the law? You can try that citizen of the law stuff if you
want to and then we will wonder why you got billy clubbed...lol. IN
other cases doesn't policemen have the authority to let his friends go
who are speeding but to give you a ticket if he doesn't like you. You
will argue that this is not fair, we are not speaking of fair we are
speaking of authority. God has authority of all. During Isaac and
Abraham's time they had no baptism, they had no salvation...only a few
of them were saved (but this is a conversation at another time).
The person in the hospital lying on their death bed who is not able to
be submerged under water cannot go to Heaven, is that what you are
saying. The man in the desert that the Lord comes to, are you saying
that they cannot be saved?
If you are saying that one must be baptized to reach Heaven then what
about the Lord's supper? Christ specifically gave directions for us to
do that as often as we come together in remembrance of him. THat was
a command, that most don't follow. There is no command for baptism,
just like there is no command that one must fall to their knees to
pray.
You do not know a lot about me, but I was an atheist until 12/2001. I
did not go searching for God, He came for me and I submitted. During
that time and now I have had to atone for a lot....Christ came to free
us. To the man God convicts to be baptized then he should be
baptized....BUT that man should not convict another. If it is true
then all we have to do is pray that the Lord's will be done and that
person will be convicted if God has chosen to "save" them.
> ...
>
> read more »
Certainly I understand what you are saying, maybe I didn't say what I
was trying to say effectively. If something is true then it must be
true in all ways. God's Law is set to men and as to men it has no
loopholes. But if I am the one who created the Law (God) how can
anyone tell me that I must abide by the Law? I have the power to
change the Law for my own benefit, not for the benefit of those that
must be under the Law. Here is an example I will give you to shed
light on this (since you used motor vehicles :) )....The Speed Limit
on the highway is 65 MPH in most places and we must abide by that Law,
but how often do you see police officers in their car whiz by you? Do
you the one under the law have the right to pull the one over that
enforces the law? You can try that citizen of the law stuff if you
want to and then we will wonder why you got billy clubbed...lol. IN
other cases doesn't policemen have the authority to let his friends go
who are speeding but to give you a ticket if he doesn't like you. You
will argue that this is not fair, we are not speaking of fair we are
speaking of authority. God has authority of all. During Isaac and
Abraham's time they had no baptism, they had no salvation...only a few
of them were saved (but this is a conversation at another time).
The person in the hospital lying on their death bed who is not able to
be submerged under water cannot go to Heaven, is that what you are
saying. The man in the desert that the Lord comes to, are you saying
that they cannot be saved?
If you are saying that one must be baptized to reach Heaven then what
about the Lord's supper? Christ specifically gave directions for us to
do that as often as we come together in remembrance of him. THat was
a command, that most don't follow. There is no command for baptism,
just like there is no command that one must fall to their knees to
pray.
You do not know a lot about me, but I was an atheist until 12/2001. I
did not go searching for God, He came for me and I submitted. During
that time and now I have had to atone for a lot....Christ came to free
us. To the man God convicts to be baptized then he should be
baptized....BUT that man should not convict another. If it is true
then all we have to do is pray that the Lord's will be done and that
person will be convicted if God has chosen to "save" them.
>
> read more »
Greg B
Mar 13, 2009, 10:36:46 AM3/13/09
to One Man Sharpens Another
Let me first write I am very excited to be a part of this group. Just
joined this morning & read each entry on this topic of water baptism
being necessary for salvation or not necessary. I myself at age 8
believed and confessed Christ as my Lord and Savior... was born again
in other words, and then was baptized in the Spirit at the time of my
new birth... but I was not baptized in water, knowing right from
wrong, until age 12. What I mean by "right from wrong" is this: I
was baptized in water at age 6 or 7, but I had no understanding and I
did not ask for it but someone asked me if I wanted to do it. With
my new birth & Spirit baptism, I was the one who took the steps to
receive it. I thought about it and I made the decision myself to do
it and after the church service I went to the pastor and made my
request. In other words, as with the water baptism at age 12, I knew
what I was doing.
I know that was kind of long-winded, but I bring it up because I
thought about this topic a lot last year after leading a friend to
Christ who was about to move far away so there was no time to baptize
with water. What I discovered is that I am still left with
questions. It doesn't seem to be a requirement, as being born again
is a step of faith which is then rewarded... faith being the substance
of things hoped for, etc... but if it is not a requirement, why does
the Lord Jesus specifically tell his disciples in Mk. 16:15 to go into
all the world (which they alone could in no way go into ALL the world,
so He must also be speaking to us)... baptizing them in the name of
the Father... Son... Holy Spirit? Is it that it is simply an outward
sign of that individual believer that they are set apart for the
Lord? I looked up the definition of baptize on dictionary.com & the
2nd meaning reads "to cleanse spiritually; initiate or dedicate by
purifying". Another meaning says to sanctify; consecrate. Why does
Jesus tell us to do this, which is after His resurrection, and not
just tell them to preach the Gospel and baptize with the Holy Spirit?
Is it because the water is physical, just as the speaking in tongues
is an outward sign of the Holy Spirit? I'm thinking out loud with
that last question, but there has to be something there.
I did not realize any type of change in me with the water baptism at
age 12, but I definitely had a life changing experience, and I still
to this moment remember what it felt like, at age 8. Perhaps the
answer is in the water baptism of Jesus and what He said to John, as
was noted in a prior entry... perhaps water baptism for us is a part
of the completion of our salvation, as is the renewing of our minds,
etc...
Thanks to everyone for their entries prior to mine, and those to
follow... I found them all very enlightening and am eager to further
study this topic as well as other topics in the future.
joined this morning & read each entry on this topic of water baptism
being necessary for salvation or not necessary. I myself at age 8
believed and confessed Christ as my Lord and Savior... was born again
in other words, and then was baptized in the Spirit at the time of my
new birth... but I was not baptized in water, knowing right from
wrong, until age 12. What I mean by "right from wrong" is this: I
was baptized in water at age 6 or 7, but I had no understanding and I
did not ask for it but someone asked me if I wanted to do it. With
my new birth & Spirit baptism, I was the one who took the steps to
receive it. I thought about it and I made the decision myself to do
it and after the church service I went to the pastor and made my
request. In other words, as with the water baptism at age 12, I knew
what I was doing.
I know that was kind of long-winded, but I bring it up because I
thought about this topic a lot last year after leading a friend to
Christ who was about to move far away so there was no time to baptize
with water. What I discovered is that I am still left with
questions. It doesn't seem to be a requirement, as being born again
is a step of faith which is then rewarded... faith being the substance
of things hoped for, etc... but if it is not a requirement, why does
the Lord Jesus specifically tell his disciples in Mk. 16:15 to go into
all the world (which they alone could in no way go into ALL the world,
so He must also be speaking to us)... baptizing them in the name of
the Father... Son... Holy Spirit? Is it that it is simply an outward
sign of that individual believer that they are set apart for the
Lord? I looked up the definition of baptize on dictionary.com & the
2nd meaning reads "to cleanse spiritually; initiate or dedicate by
purifying". Another meaning says to sanctify; consecrate. Why does
Jesus tell us to do this, which is after His resurrection, and not
just tell them to preach the Gospel and baptize with the Holy Spirit?
Is it because the water is physical, just as the speaking in tongues
is an outward sign of the Holy Spirit? I'm thinking out loud with
that last question, but there has to be something there.
I did not realize any type of change in me with the water baptism at
age 12, but I definitely had a life changing experience, and I still
to this moment remember what it felt like, at age 8. Perhaps the
answer is in the water baptism of Jesus and what He said to John, as
was noted in a prior entry... perhaps water baptism for us is a part
of the completion of our salvation, as is the renewing of our minds,
etc...
Thanks to everyone for their entries prior to mine, and those to
follow... I found them all very enlightening and am eager to further
study this topic as well as other topics in the future.
Brennan
Mar 13, 2009, 8:38:20 PM3/13/09
to One Man Sharpens Another
Greg, Welcome.
In my previous post I stated that there were at least two types of
baptism referred to in the New Testament. Upon further study I have
identified three. There is the baptism unto repentence aka water
baptism, the baptism of the Holy Spirit, and the baptism of fire.
(Luke 3:16)
In the few times that Christ spoke of baptism throughout his life, He
never referred to water baptism, or the baptism of repentence.
Whenever he did he always prefaced it with "John baptized with water,
but..." Why is it he never said "I baptize you now with water..." or
"before I baptized you with water..." The reason is that not only did
he not refer to water baptism in his doctrine, but he also did not
baptize anyone with water (John 4:2). (John 1:33). Water baptism or
the baptism of repentence was not a part of Christ's doctrine. Wanna
know why?
Jesus stated to Nicodemus that a man must be born again, this time of
the Spirit, in order to enter into the Kingdom of Heaven. This is
clear proof that a spiritual baptism is indeed necessary. Christ went
on to say, "that which is of the flesh is flesh, and that which is of
the spirit is spirit". The two do not mix. No flesh will enter the
Kingdom of God (1 Cor 15). He never told Nicodemus that one must be
baptized with water!
The baptism of repentence (water baptism) was originated by man, and
performed by man (John the Baptist, John's disciples, Christ's
disciples), the baptism of the Holy Spirit originates and is performed
by the Holy Spirit! The two don't mix...ever.
Maybe I can make it clear by explaining the purpose of the two.
Baptism referenced in the Strongs Lexicon means "to dip repeatedly
until changed". Water baptism is an act of repentance. We repent to
be pardoned for our sins but repentance can not change us. Baptism of
the Holy Spirit is a baptism into the body of Christ (1 Cor 12:13).
This baptism allows us to put on Christ according to Galatians 3:27.
Water baptism, simple repentance, can not make you a member of the
body of Christ. If this were true then the bible would contradict
itself, since Paul stated that we cannot be saved by our own works.
Since we KNOW that the baptism of the Holy Spirit is necessary for
salvation, and we know that Jesus did not place enough importance on
water baptism to incorporate it as his own practice or doctrine, then
we cannot assume in any way that Jesus was refering to water baptism
when he told his disciples to go out preaching and baptizing. After
all he gave them this commission AFTER he told them to wait on HIS
baptism, that of the Holy Spirit!
He wanted the world to be baptized (dipped until changed) with HIS
baptism as he foretold to the sons of Zebedee (Mark 10:38-39). It was
the Holy Spirit, a gift of grace, that must permeate and change our
beings. It is not water! It is not repentance!
I did say there is a third type of baptism. I believe that God has
revealed to me a mystery of His, that I can share with this group.
Remember, Christ will baptize with the Holy Ghost AND with fire. All
shall be baptized. All shall be dipped until changed. Christ has the
duty of being the divider. Those who believe on HIM are dipped in the
Holy Spirit until changed! Those who do not... well the bible also
tells us of a LAKE of fire (Rev. 20:15)
AINT THIS GOOD Y'ALL!
In my previous post I stated that there were at least two types of
baptism referred to in the New Testament. Upon further study I have
identified three. There is the baptism unto repentence aka water
baptism, the baptism of the Holy Spirit, and the baptism of fire.
(Luke 3:16)
In the few times that Christ spoke of baptism throughout his life, He
never referred to water baptism, or the baptism of repentence.
Whenever he did he always prefaced it with "John baptized with water,
but..." Why is it he never said "I baptize you now with water..." or
"before I baptized you with water..." The reason is that not only did
he not refer to water baptism in his doctrine, but he also did not
baptize anyone with water (John 4:2). (John 1:33). Water baptism or
the baptism of repentence was not a part of Christ's doctrine. Wanna
know why?
Jesus stated to Nicodemus that a man must be born again, this time of
the Spirit, in order to enter into the Kingdom of Heaven. This is
clear proof that a spiritual baptism is indeed necessary. Christ went
on to say, "that which is of the flesh is flesh, and that which is of
the spirit is spirit". The two do not mix. No flesh will enter the
Kingdom of God (1 Cor 15). He never told Nicodemus that one must be
baptized with water!
The baptism of repentence (water baptism) was originated by man, and
performed by man (John the Baptist, John's disciples, Christ's
disciples), the baptism of the Holy Spirit originates and is performed
by the Holy Spirit! The two don't mix...ever.
Maybe I can make it clear by explaining the purpose of the two.
Baptism referenced in the Strongs Lexicon means "to dip repeatedly
until changed". Water baptism is an act of repentance. We repent to
be pardoned for our sins but repentance can not change us. Baptism of
the Holy Spirit is a baptism into the body of Christ (1 Cor 12:13).
This baptism allows us to put on Christ according to Galatians 3:27.
Water baptism, simple repentance, can not make you a member of the
body of Christ. If this were true then the bible would contradict
itself, since Paul stated that we cannot be saved by our own works.
Since we KNOW that the baptism of the Holy Spirit is necessary for
salvation, and we know that Jesus did not place enough importance on
water baptism to incorporate it as his own practice or doctrine, then
we cannot assume in any way that Jesus was refering to water baptism
when he told his disciples to go out preaching and baptizing. After
all he gave them this commission AFTER he told them to wait on HIS
baptism, that of the Holy Spirit!
He wanted the world to be baptized (dipped until changed) with HIS
baptism as he foretold to the sons of Zebedee (Mark 10:38-39). It was
the Holy Spirit, a gift of grace, that must permeate and change our
beings. It is not water! It is not repentance!
I did say there is a third type of baptism. I believe that God has
revealed to me a mystery of His, that I can share with this group.
Remember, Christ will baptize with the Holy Ghost AND with fire. All
shall be baptized. All shall be dipped until changed. Christ has the
duty of being the divider. Those who believe on HIM are dipped in the
Holy Spirit until changed! Those who do not... well the bible also
tells us of a LAKE of fire (Rev. 20:15)
AINT THIS GOOD Y'ALL!
allen....@gmail.com
Mar 14, 2009, 12:53:06 AM3/14/09
to One Man Sharpens Another
Wow... lots here since I last posted...
Kendrick:
I hate to say it, but the answer to your questions might be 'yes.'
Jesus says he'll come 'like a theif in the night.' While that
specific reference is to His Second Coming, it's no less important in
our normal lives.
Only God knows hearts, and only God can make this decision, but let me
share my understanding:
There are several things which are required (for most people: more on
this in a minute) for salvation. Obviously, the first three are to
hear the Word, believe, and repent. Many doctrins stop there. In the
Church of Christ (in which I was reared) there were two more: Confess
and be Baptised. I hate to contradict Brennan here, but there's one
story that shows that Jesus (or at least the disciples) did baptize
during his ministry: the story in which John's disciples came to him
and said that Jesus was just down the way also baptizing. (aside: I
wonder if they were just commenting, or if they were whinning...)
One thing Jesus NEVER did was leave things in error. If He had not
meant to baptize in the way that people understood the word when he
gave the great commission, he would not have said it: or he would have
redefined it. Remember that in the Sermon on the Mount he redefined
the entire law from one of action to one of thought. If Jesus had
simply meant 'bring them the Holy Spirit' that's what he would have
said. However (see post on 'Spiritual Gifts') not everyone was going
to receive the Holy Spirit in the same way the Apostles and first
generation or so of Christians would. Could it be, perhaps, that
baptism by water is necessary simply because of the continuity it
provides? Regardless, however, baptism is referred to throughout the
epistles, and never as '...with the Holy Spirit' or 'with Fire' when
referring to the believers becoming Christians.
To go back to Kendrick's example of a policeman with the authority to
decide who he pulls over and who he does not: If God can be unjust,
then He is not God. God is (defines) justice, just as He is love,
patience, etc. There must be a clensing before you can live in
harmony with Him. If that can be suspended willy-nilly, then Jesus
died for nothing. So as for the death-bed converts and the believer
'converted in the desert,' maybe they should have thought of that
sooner. Or, maybe, we should be doing more to reach them before it
gets to that point.
Regarding those who really believe, and really do so too late to be
baptized, that is certainly God's baliwick and not mine. But, again,
for practical matters we cannot address edge cases and attempt to
apply them to everything else. So let's get rid of the death-bed
converts, the criminals on the cross, the desert believers, and the
pre-Jesus righteous. Let's look at us, today, and see what we need to
do.
Jesus said "Go into all the world making disciples of all nations
baptising them..."
Peter said "Repent and be baptized..."
Paul is baptized and speaks of baptising others.
Paul is the most anti-'religous' of the Apostles, and still he speaks
of baptism as something that all believers share.
Based on this information, I believe the only logical conclussion- not
saying the others aren't necessary, mind you, simply that their
necessity does not, by definition, negate anything else- is that
baptism (yes: full immersion baptism in water) is a necessary step to
secure one's salvation.
Speak all you want of Baptism by the Holy Spirit, Baptism by Fire, or
any other purely spiritual thing you want. We are creatures of
matter, as well as of spirit, and there are physical things we must do
to secure our salvation. It is not only our spirit which will be
saved, but our bodies, too, after all.
Kendrick:
I hate to say it, but the answer to your questions might be 'yes.'
Jesus says he'll come 'like a theif in the night.' While that
specific reference is to His Second Coming, it's no less important in
our normal lives.
Only God knows hearts, and only God can make this decision, but let me
share my understanding:
There are several things which are required (for most people: more on
this in a minute) for salvation. Obviously, the first three are to
hear the Word, believe, and repent. Many doctrins stop there. In the
Church of Christ (in which I was reared) there were two more: Confess
and be Baptised. I hate to contradict Brennan here, but there's one
story that shows that Jesus (or at least the disciples) did baptize
during his ministry: the story in which John's disciples came to him
and said that Jesus was just down the way also baptizing. (aside: I
wonder if they were just commenting, or if they were whinning...)
One thing Jesus NEVER did was leave things in error. If He had not
meant to baptize in the way that people understood the word when he
gave the great commission, he would not have said it: or he would have
redefined it. Remember that in the Sermon on the Mount he redefined
the entire law from one of action to one of thought. If Jesus had
simply meant 'bring them the Holy Spirit' that's what he would have
said. However (see post on 'Spiritual Gifts') not everyone was going
to receive the Holy Spirit in the same way the Apostles and first
generation or so of Christians would. Could it be, perhaps, that
baptism by water is necessary simply because of the continuity it
provides? Regardless, however, baptism is referred to throughout the
epistles, and never as '...with the Holy Spirit' or 'with Fire' when
referring to the believers becoming Christians.
To go back to Kendrick's example of a policeman with the authority to
decide who he pulls over and who he does not: If God can be unjust,
then He is not God. God is (defines) justice, just as He is love,
patience, etc. There must be a clensing before you can live in
harmony with Him. If that can be suspended willy-nilly, then Jesus
died for nothing. So as for the death-bed converts and the believer
'converted in the desert,' maybe they should have thought of that
sooner. Or, maybe, we should be doing more to reach them before it
gets to that point.
Regarding those who really believe, and really do so too late to be
baptized, that is certainly God's baliwick and not mine. But, again,
for practical matters we cannot address edge cases and attempt to
apply them to everything else. So let's get rid of the death-bed
converts, the criminals on the cross, the desert believers, and the
pre-Jesus righteous. Let's look at us, today, and see what we need to
do.
Jesus said "Go into all the world making disciples of all nations
baptising them..."
Peter said "Repent and be baptized..."
Paul is baptized and speaks of baptising others.
Paul is the most anti-'religous' of the Apostles, and still he speaks
of baptism as something that all believers share.
Based on this information, I believe the only logical conclussion- not
saying the others aren't necessary, mind you, simply that their
necessity does not, by definition, negate anything else- is that
baptism (yes: full immersion baptism in water) is a necessary step to
secure one's salvation.
Speak all you want of Baptism by the Holy Spirit, Baptism by Fire, or
any other purely spiritual thing you want. We are creatures of
matter, as well as of spirit, and there are physical things we must do
to secure our salvation. It is not only our spirit which will be
saved, but our bodies, too, after all.
Brennan
Mar 14, 2009, 9:51:11 AM3/14/09
to One Man Sharpens Another
Allen:
Please read my previous post again. the story you are referring to
with Jesus baptizing is in John 4. He did not baptize anyone with
water, EVER. After his resurrection he was still referring to water
baptism as John's not his.
He told the disciples that He had another baptism to be baptized with
and to baptize with. He never spoke of water baptism except to
compare it to his own; and he never baptized with water but with the
Holy Spirit!
So it is clear that there was no error made. If he was referring to
water baptism when he gave the commission he would have specified
John's baptism as he did EVERY other time he referred to water baptism
or the baptism of repentence.
Jesus and John the Baptist testified that Christ would not baptize
with water, a fact backed by scripture, yet you hold on to the word
"baptize" as if it can ONLY mean water baptism. I told you that the
word of God is not subject to what ANY of us were taught in any
denomination or church. There is NO scripture and NO tie in the
entire Bible that EVER includes water baptism as part of a teaching of
Jesus Christ. Customary? Yes. Requirement? No. Merely stating that
the disciples did it does not mean it is a requirement of salvation.
Especially in the light of overwhelming evidence that Christ does not
list it as a requirement when talking to Nicodemus. It is not what
the flesh does that makes a person a candidate for salvation, it is
the state of his soul.
You also stated, "It is not only our spirit which will be saved, but
our bodies, too", this is not true, Paul states it best:(1 Cor 15:50,
Now this I say, brethren, that flesh and blood cannot inherit the
kingdom of God; neither doth corruption inherit incorruption. )
You stated, "Regardless, however, baptism is referred to throughout
true, Christ referred to it:( Acts 1:5, For John truly baptized with
water; but ye shall be baptized with the Holy Ghost not many days
hence.), there are others.
I love the passion in which you contend, but surely by now you are
coming to realize that what you were taught does not stand up in the
light of the pure word of God. I promise you are not alone. I can
introduce you to a whole fraternity of men who wrestled with the same
convictions over many different topics. I will make sure that they do
their part in signing up and joining in on all of our discussions.
On Mar 13, 11:53 pm, "allen.good...@gmail.com"
Please read my previous post again. the story you are referring to
with Jesus baptizing is in John 4. He did not baptize anyone with
water, EVER. After his resurrection he was still referring to water
baptism as John's not his.
He told the disciples that He had another baptism to be baptized with
and to baptize with. He never spoke of water baptism except to
compare it to his own; and he never baptized with water but with the
Holy Spirit!
So it is clear that there was no error made. If he was referring to
water baptism when he gave the commission he would have specified
John's baptism as he did EVERY other time he referred to water baptism
or the baptism of repentence.
Jesus and John the Baptist testified that Christ would not baptize
with water, a fact backed by scripture, yet you hold on to the word
"baptize" as if it can ONLY mean water baptism. I told you that the
word of God is not subject to what ANY of us were taught in any
denomination or church. There is NO scripture and NO tie in the
entire Bible that EVER includes water baptism as part of a teaching of
Jesus Christ. Customary? Yes. Requirement? No. Merely stating that
the disciples did it does not mean it is a requirement of salvation.
Especially in the light of overwhelming evidence that Christ does not
list it as a requirement when talking to Nicodemus. It is not what
the flesh does that makes a person a candidate for salvation, it is
the state of his soul.
You also stated, "It is not only our spirit which will be saved, but
our bodies, too", this is not true, Paul states it best:(1 Cor 15:50,
Now this I say, brethren, that flesh and blood cannot inherit the
kingdom of God; neither doth corruption inherit incorruption. )
You stated, "Regardless, however, baptism is referred to throughout
the epistles, and never as '...with the Holy Spirit' or 'with Fire'
when referring to the believers becoming Christians." this is not
true, Christ referred to it:( Acts 1:5, For John truly baptized with
water; but ye shall be baptized with the Holy Ghost not many days
hence.), there are others.
I love the passion in which you contend, but surely by now you are
coming to realize that what you were taught does not stand up in the
light of the pure word of God. I promise you are not alone. I can
introduce you to a whole fraternity of men who wrestled with the same
convictions over many different topics. I will make sure that they do
their part in signing up and joining in on all of our discussions.
On Mar 13, 11:53 pm, "allen.good...@gmail.com"
Unknown Author
Mar 14, 2009, 3:26:10 PM3/14/09
to One Man Sharpens Another
I worry about the state of all...something so serious and we only have
our "beliefs" to go on, in my mind that simply will not do. We can
submit scriptures back and forth to no avail, a man will believe what
he wants to believe because of what someone has said to him, and a man
will know what he searches for. Christ came to set us free and to
remove religious "traditions", for a tradition of man has never saved
any soul. If Baptism was MANDATORY then CHrist lied to the thief on
the cross. There is no two ways about it, it is what it is. If
something is not what you thought it was to be then it is not good
practice to make the Word seem as if it had a loophole or that there
is a contradiction within it, there is none. I who hated Christians
and the hypocrisy I saw as an atheist have come to KNOW that God is
perfect. Some of us seem to have an "idea" of what God is. Maybe you
should go and read the book of Job? God is not bound by the logic and
rules that you would use to make someone just or unjust, it is only
His will that matters. I would say that burning up a whole town
because people chose different lifestyles was a little excessive, God
decided it was not...Sodom and Gomorrah. I beg you all again to read
Job.
Allen - You have said that we should do away with the scenarios that
seem to be along the edges...lol...But I say to you my brother, what
other scenarios could there really be from a person such as me? Unless
a man is desperate he cannot change. If you have been a "good" person
your whole life then I can understand your point, but I was evil and
all of my thoughts were evil. When God came to me it was on my death
bed (or so it felt) and it was then that I was baptized by the Holy
SPirit. The truth must be truth even with those "rough edges" or else
it is a lie. I think someone mentioned the word binary...I like that.
our "beliefs" to go on, in my mind that simply will not do. We can
submit scriptures back and forth to no avail, a man will believe what
he wants to believe because of what someone has said to him, and a man
will know what he searches for. Christ came to set us free and to
remove religious "traditions", for a tradition of man has never saved
any soul. If Baptism was MANDATORY then CHrist lied to the thief on
the cross. There is no two ways about it, it is what it is. If
something is not what you thought it was to be then it is not good
practice to make the Word seem as if it had a loophole or that there
is a contradiction within it, there is none. I who hated Christians
and the hypocrisy I saw as an atheist have come to KNOW that God is
perfect. Some of us seem to have an "idea" of what God is. Maybe you
should go and read the book of Job? God is not bound by the logic and
rules that you would use to make someone just or unjust, it is only
His will that matters. I would say that burning up a whole town
because people chose different lifestyles was a little excessive, God
decided it was not...Sodom and Gomorrah. I beg you all again to read
Job.
Allen - You have said that we should do away with the scenarios that
seem to be along the edges...lol...But I say to you my brother, what
other scenarios could there really be from a person such as me? Unless
a man is desperate he cannot change. If you have been a "good" person
your whole life then I can understand your point, but I was evil and
all of my thoughts were evil. When God came to me it was on my death
bed (or so it felt) and it was then that I was baptized by the Holy
SPirit. The truth must be truth even with those "rough edges" or else
it is a lie. I think someone mentioned the word binary...I like that.
Reply all
Reply to author
Forward
0 new messages