Be all, end all, baptism thread
Scott W. Schreiber
Here ya go EO, and all other members....
Sho me where it says baptism is a required work of salvation, rather
than obedience to a command of Christ. Be prepared to refute
everything I say about grace....
Scott W. Schreiber
Let me pose this question:
If I can achieve salvation thru baptism, or any other function I
perform, why did Christ die? If I could work up to my own salvation,
then Christ could have come and said "here's the rules," and we would
have to live up to them or face the consequences. God had already
tried that, and there was a need for a sacrifice. Enter Jesus.
To suggest that an act of man can grant salvation is to rob Christ of
the honor and praise He deserves for His sacrifice.
Michael A. Vickers
In article <4sutt2$8...@madrid.visi.net>, sco...@nhr.com (Scott W.
Schreiber) wrote:
hi scott,
i am a proponent of 'by faith' salvation. i have done 'bible talks' with
coc members, though, the their point is that baptism is not something that
_you_ do, but something that is done _to_ you. a matter of semantics, and
still a 'work' of man, none the less, but just thought i would clarify.
i'll be watching this thread =)
Michael
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Michael A. Vickers mvic...@mindport.net
http://www.mindport.net/~mvickers vicke...@aol.com
---------------------------------------------------------------------
'uh, do electric lighters require batteries?' - leslie
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Forrest
There is nothing mystical about baptism. It is an act, through faith, by
which we bury the old man of sin and are reborn into he likeness of
Christ. We are not saved because we got wet. We are saved because
through this simple act we are accepting Christ's promises. Salvation is
a free gift to everyone; all that is required is that we accept it.
If I were to say, "I have a free car. Just come and get it." (I don't,
so nobody try any funny stuff!), then it would be someone else's
responsibility to come and get it. The car is available to anyone,
provided they are willing to make the trip.
Baptism isn't a work, any more than faith is a work, and believe me,
maintaining faith is a LOT more work than getting wet once. It is an act
by which we receive the free gift of salvation. Is it traditional? Of
course. Does that make it bad? Never.
Bryan
--
If we are not our brother's keeper, at least let us not be his
executioner.
-Marlon Brando
Michael A. Vickers
>There is nothing mystical about baptism. It is an act, through faith, by
>which we bury the old man of sin and are reborn into he likeness of
>Christ.
it is still, in and of itself, an act. we do it through faith, yes, but
faith, the changing of the heart, is where the decision to bury the old
man is made... not jumping into the tub.
>We are not saved because we got wet. We are saved because
>through this simple act we are accepting Christ's promises.
er, you just reworded 'getting saved because we got wet.' i'd like to see
your scriptural backing for this. i accepted christ's promises in my heart
and mind, not in the water.
when others promise me things, should i choose to accept them i dont go
about accepting them by performing any act. you _believe_ it.
>Salvation is
>a free gift to everyone; all that is required is that we accept it.
>If I were to say, "I have a free car. Just come and get it." (I don't,
>so nobody try any funny stuff!), then it would be someone else's
>responsibility to come and get it. The car is available to anyone,
>provided they are willing to make the trip.
what does this have to do with the question?
>Baptism isn't a work, any more than faith is a work, and believe me,
>maintaining faith is a LOT more work than getting wet once.
by the biblical definition of work, true, baptism is not a work. however,
it is not a requirement of accepting salvation, either. there is no
scriptural authority for that.
>It is an act
>by which we receive the free gift of salvation.
i'd like to see your scriptural backing for this.
>Is it traditional? Of course. Does that make it bad? Never.
hrm... dont see where this is relevant to this question. i dont think
anybody questioned whether baptism is bad, either.
Laura Ware
In message <mvickers-220...@news.connix.com> - mvic...@mindport.net
>>>>hi scott,
>>
>>i am a proponent of 'by faith' salvation. i have done 'bible talks' with
>>coc members, though, the their point is that baptism is not something that
>>_you_ do, but something that is done _to_ you. a matter of semantics, and
>>still a 'work' of man, none the less, but just thought i would clarify.
>>
>>i'll be watching this thread =)
Hmm....a "work of man.."
What is belief?
What is repentence?
What is confession?
Are these things someone DOES?
if not, WHO believes, repents, confesses..? (They look like verbs to me)
And if you acknowledge that someone must DO these things to be saved, then
why are THEY not works, yet baptism IS? :-)
Laura Ware
law...@ct.net
"Do unto others as you would have them do unto you" - Matthew 7:12
DAnder9518
In article <4t14u3$s...@news.campus.mci.net>, Forrest
<for...@ecu.campus.mci.net> writes: {snipped}
>see passages below
>
>Romans 6:3-7
{note: full citations of the standard baptismal prooftexts snipped. . .}
You are using a valid theological technique here, which is to examine the
passages about *baptism*, and consider what they say about *salvation*.
But you should ALSO try the flip-side: do of a concordance search of all
the verses that use the word "salvation" or "saves", and see what, if
anything, they say about "baptism".
The results may surprise you. . .
----->Dave
Forrest
wrote:
>
> >There is nothing mystical about baptism. It is an act, through faith, by
> >which we bury the old man of sin and are reborn into he likeness of
> >Christ.
>
> it is still, in and of itself, an act. we do it through faith, yes, but
> faith, the changing of the heart, is where the decision to bury the old
> man is made... not jumping into the tub.
>
> >We are not saved because we got wet. We are saved because
> >through this simple act we are accepting Christ's promises.
>
> er, you just reworded 'getting saved because we got wet.' i'd like to see
> your scriptural backing for this. i accepted christ's promises in my heart
> and mind, not in the water.
see passages below
> when others promise me things, should i choose to accept them i dont go
> about accepting them by performing any act. you _believe_ it.
If all you do is believe that you will receive something, what good does that do
unless you are willing to go get it. As in the example below, it doesn't do any
good to just believe you will receive the car, if you aren't willing to come get
it. This isn't something that causes you to "earn" the car, just a condition to
receive it.
> >Salvation is
> >a free gift to everyone; all that is required is that we accept it.
> >If I were to say, "I have a free car. Just come and get it." (I don't,
> >so nobody try any funny stuff!), then it would be someone else's
> >responsibility to come and get it. The car is available to anyone,
> >provided they are willing to make the trip.
>
> what does this have to do with the question?
Just an example, or a parable. :)
> >Baptism isn't a work, any more than faith is a work, and believe me,
> >maintaining faith is a LOT more work than getting wet once.
>
> by the biblical definition of work, true, baptism is not a work. however,
> it is not a requirement of accepting salvation, either. there is no
> scriptural authority for that.
>
> >It is an act
> >by which we receive the free gift of salvation.
>
> i'd like to see your scriptural backing for this.
Romans 6:3-7 Or don't you know that all of us who were baptized into Christ
Jesus were baptized into his death? We were therefore buried with him through
baptism into death in order that, just as Christ was raised from the dead
through the glory of the Father, we too may live a new life. If we have been
united with him like this in his death we will certainly also be united with him
in his resurrection. For we know that our old self was crucified with him so
that the body of sin might be done away with, that we should no longer be slaves
to sin - because anyone who has died has been freed from sin.
Galatians 3:26-27 You are all sons of God through faith in Christ Jesus, for all
of you who were baptized into Christ have clothed youselves with Christ.
Colossians 2:12 Having been buried with him in baptism and raised with him
through your faith in the power of God, who raised him from the dead.
I Peter 3:21 And this water symbolizes baptism that now saves you also - not the
removal of dirt from the body but the pledge of a good conscience toward God. It
saves you through the resurrection of Jesus Christ.
Matthew 28:19-20 Therefore go and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them
in the make of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit, and teaching
them to obey everything I have commanded you.(including this final command) And
surely I am with you always, to the very end of the age.
Acts 2:38-39 Peter replied, "Repent and be baptized every one of you, in the
name of Jesus Christ for the forgivness of your sins. And you will receive the
gift of the Holy Spirit. The promise is for you and your children and for all
who are far off - for all whom the Lord our God will call.
> Michael
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> Michael A. Vickers mvic...@mindport.net
> http://www.mindport.net/~mvickers vicke...@aol.com
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> 'uh, do electric lighters require batteries?' - leslie
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
Hope this helps!
Bryan
p.s. This reminds me of a story I heard long ago.
A community on the river was being flooded by spring rains. When the water
reached the roof of one house, the owner climed on top of the roof. Along came
several people in a boat saying "Climb aboard, and we will take you to safety."
"No thanks," replied the man. "I have faith in the Lord, and he will save me."
The next day, the water had reached the apex of the roof, and another boat came
by. "Climb aboard, and we will take you to safety!" they shouted.
"No thanks," replied the man. "I have faith in the Lord, and he will save me."
The next day the water had reached his chin, and he was standing on tip toe on
the highest point of his roof. A helicopter flew over, saw him, and swooped down
dropping a ladder to him."Grab on and we will take you to safety!"
"No thanks," replied the man. "I have faith in the Lord, and he will save me."
The man drowned. As he was standing before the Lord, he asked him, "Lord, all my
life I have put my faith in you. And when I trusted you to save me, you let me
down. What happened?"
The Lord said, "I sent two boats and a helicopter, what more did you want?!?"
DJRTX
On 22 July 1996, in article <4t0rjr$f...@blue.ct.net>, law...@ct.net (Laura
Ware) writes:
>In message <mvickers-220...@news.connix.com> -
>mvic...@mindport.net
>(Michael A. Vickers) writes:
>>>>>hi scott,
>>>
>>>i am a proponent of 'by faith' salvation. i have done 'bible talks'
with
>>>coc members, though, the their point is that baptism is not something
that
>>>_you_ do, but something that is done _to_ you. a matter of semantics,
and
>>>still a 'work' of man, none the less, but just thought i would clarify.
<minor snip>
>
>Hmm....a "work of man.."
>What is belief?
>What is repentence?
>What is confession?
>Are these things someone DOES?
>if not, WHO believes, repents, confesses..? (They look like verbs to me)
>And if you acknowledge that someone must DO these things to be saved,
then
>why are THEY not works, yet baptism IS? :-)
Hi Laura,
I hear what you are saying, and agree in part. :-) Believe, repent,
confess, and baptize *are* verbs. Here is another perspective: I believe a
dichotomy exists among these verbs. One set of verbs is entirely spiritual
in nature, referring to activity of the heart/mind/spirit/soul/will.
Baptize involves a a spiritual response and a physical action.
With further consideration of these verbs, it should be noted that
believing, repenting, & confessing can be done in a physically solitary
manner. They can occur silently or audibly between an individual and God
without the assistance of another person. Baptizing requires the
involvement of two individuals and God.
Joanne
Laura Ware
>>Hi Laura,
>>
>>I hear what you are saying, and agree in part. :-) Believe, repent,
>>confess, and baptize *are* verbs. Here is another perspective: I believe a
>>dichotomy exists among these verbs. One set of verbs is entirely spiritual
>>in nature, referring to activity of the heart/mind/spirit/soul/will.
>>Baptize involves a a spiritual response and a physical action.
Not necessarily (You didn't expect me to give up easily, did you?) ;>
Belief is dead without works, according to James. Confession - don't we have
to confess Jesus before othrs, as he said? That involves more than one
person. And repentence is much more than mental - it involves a change in
lifestyle, behavior, may involve making restitution or seeking the
forgiveness of others, etc..
>>With further consideration of these verbs, it should be noted that
>>believing, repenting, & confessing can be done in a physically solitary
>>manner. They can occur silently or audibly between an individual and God
>>without the assistance of another person. Baptizing requires the
>>involvement of two individuals and God.
See above. I think we sometimes get caught up in salvation being something
of a mental exercise, with nothing else required besides a little brainpower.
Somehow, the Scriptures don't support that.
Michael A. Vickers
In article <4t2v8n$g...@newsbf02.news.aol.com>, dj...@aol.com (DJRTX) wrote:
[snippage[
>>Hmm....a "work of man.."
>>What is belief?
>>What is repentence?
>>What is confession?
>>Are these things someone DOES?
>>if not, WHO believes, repents, confesses..? (They look like verbs to me)
>>And if you acknowledge that someone must DO these things to be saved, then
>>why are THEY not works, yet baptism IS? :-)
>Hi Laura,
>
>I hear what you are saying, and agree in part. :-) Believe, repent,
>confess, and baptize *are* verbs. Here is another perspective: I believe a
>dichotomy exists among these verbs. One set of verbs is entirely spiritual
>in nature, referring to activity of the heart/mind/spirit/soul/will.
>Baptize involves a a spiritual response and a physical action.
well said.
>With further consideration of these verbs, it should be noted that
>believing, repenting, & confessing can be done in a physically solitary
>manner. They can occur silently or audibly between an individual and God
>without the assistance of another person. Baptizing requires the
>involvement of two individuals and God.
ditto.
everything i wanted to say, only more gracefully.
Forrest
>
> But you should ALSO try the flip-side: do of a concordance search of all
> the verses that use the word "salvation" or "saves", and see what, if
> anything, they say about "baptism".
>
> The results may surprise you. . .
>
> ----->Dave
Dave,
You have fallen into a trap that many people reading the scriptures fall
into. That is using the adjective "but" as a way of connecting scriptures. I have
always tried to use "and" instead. Yes the Bible says confessing and believing
are required to be saved. However the verses I pointed out on baptism are in
the same Bible. Paul said, "All scripture is God-breathed and is useful for
teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in rightousness, so that the man of
God may be thoroughly equiped for every good work." So one verse may
mention repentance, another mentions confession and belief, and another
mentions baptism. Is any one verse more valid than any other? Rather, put all
the verses together and you will see the complete picture.
DAnder9518
In article <4t3c53$s...@blue.ct.net>, law...@ct.net (Laura Ware) writes
(snipped):
>Not necessarily (You didn't expect me to give up easily, did you?) ;>
>Belief is dead without works, according to James.
Yes, James 2:17 says that faith without works is dead.
But this passage is not about conversion. The "actions" being spoken of
are not baptism, etc, but acts of *compassion*. See how verses 16 and 17
lead into this passage:
"Suppose a brother or sister is without clothes and daily food. If one of
you says to him, 'go, I wish you well; keep warm and well fed,' but does
nothing about his physical needs, what good is it? In the same way, faith
by itself, if it is not accompanied by action, is dead."
>Confession - don't we have
>to confess Jesus before othrs, as he said? That involves more than one
>person. And repentence is much more than mental - it involves a change
in
>lifestyle, behavior, may involve making restitution or seeking the
>forgiveness of others, etc..
I would counter that "repentence" *can* occur instantaneously: in Acts
2:38, Peter asked his audience to "repent and be baptized". One could
argue that the repentence was immediate, since the 3,000 baptisms were
also immediate.
---->Dave
Walter Semerenko
On 28 Jul 1996 01:07:39 -0400 dande...@aol.com (DAnder9518) wrote:
>Well, we're in agreement on at least one thing: we need to look farther
>than just a few scriptures to get the "complete picture."
Right. Like the historical and traditional purposes for baptism, and
what the early church views were on baptism, a greek lexicon and a
concordance...to name a few.
>Assuming the Bible is the inspired Word of God, baptism is either
>necessary for salvation or it's not, and the Bible (as a whole) should
>provide an answer.
Umm...assuming that the bible is the "Word of God" is a pretty big
assumption one has to make. (I could elaborate but this would be
another thread.)
>If baptism is *not* necessary for salvation, we need to consider what to
>do with passages like Romans 6, Colossians 2, Acts 2:38, I Peter 3:21,
>etc. (I will address the verses you listed, if no one else does).
I would be interested.
>So, since you have already listed the "baptism" scriptures which need to
>be addressed, let me list some of the "faith" scriptures. There are
>literally dozens, so I will try to restrict the list to those which not
>only say that faith is *necessary*, but also seem to imply that faith is
>*sufficient*. (I will list some of these in another post)
I have an article someone sent me titled "Bapismal Regenaration & Acts
2:38". I have to see if I still have it, but it advocates the view
that baptism is necessary for salvation. It quotes Alexander Campell
and his views on baptism, does a greek word study on "eis" and how it
is used in Acts 2:38, and lists a whole bunch of "faith" scriptures.
I'm sure I still have it, so you might want to save some typing.
Walter.
Tracy Kreckman
In <4t3c53$s...@blue.ct.net> law...@ct.net (Laura Ware) writes:
<snip>
>And repentence is much more than mental - it involves a
>change in lifestyle, behavior, may involve making restitution
>or seeking the forgiveness of others, etc..
>
>... I think we sometimes get caught up in salvation being
>something of a mental exercise, with nothing else required
>besides a little brainpower. Somehow, the Scriptures don't
>support that.
>
>Laura Ware
Whoa, stop the bus! This is a point that is often
misunderstood by those both in and out of the ICC, but it is
extremely important. Here's a clip from Vine's on the word
used for repentance in Acts 2:38:
REPENT, REPENTANCE
1. metanoeo ^3340^, lit., "to perceive afterwards"
(meta, "after," implying "change," noeo, "to perceive"; nous,
"the mind, the seat of moral reflection"), in contrast to pronoeo, "to
perceive beforehand," hence signifies "to change one's mind or
purpose," always, in the NT, involving a change for the better, an
amendment, and always, except in <Luke 17:3, 4>, of "repentance" from
sin.
(from Vine's Expository Dictionary of Biblical Words)
(Copyright (C) 1985, Thomas Nelson Publishers)
Note the emphasis on the mind, especially the working definition: "to
change one's mind or purpose". Repentance, as used by the New
Testament authors, is a mental action only. Now, there may well be
actions that follow repentance such as those you suggest, but they are
in *relation to* repentance, and results of it, but not equivalent with
repentance itself. If physical actions (works) *were* part of
repentance, you'd then have a conflict with Eph. 2:8+9.
Also interesting to note; nearly every NT scripture that lists a
criteria for salvation includes either faith, belief or repentance (all
mental actions). The same is not true about baptism, and it's
important to understand why. Check it out for yourself, but I'll be
glad to elaborate further if anyone desires.
Tracy
DAnder9518
In article <31F631...@ecu.campus.mci.net>, Forrest
<for...@ecu.campus.mci.net> writes:
>Dave,
>
>You have fallen into a trap that many people reading the scriptures fall
>into. That is using the adjective "but" as a way of connecting
scriptures. I have
>always tried to use "and" instead. Yes the Bible says confessing and
believing
>are required to be saved. However the verses I pointed out on baptism are
in
>the same Bible. Paul said, "All scripture is God-breathed and is useful
for
>teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in rightousness, so that the
man
>of God may be thoroughly equiped for every good work." So one verse may
>mention repentance, another mentions confession and belief, and another
>mentions baptism. Is any one verse more valid than any other? Rather, put
all
>the verses together and you will see the complete picture.
Well, we're in agreement on at least one thing: we need to look farther
than just a few scriptures to get the "complete picture."
Assuming the Bible is the inspired Word of God, baptism is either
necessary for salvation or it's not, and the Bible (as a whole) should
provide an answer.
If baptism is *not* necessary for salvation, we need to consider what to
do with passages like Romans 6, Colossians 2, Acts 2:38, I Peter 3:21,
etc. (I will address the verses you listed, if no one else does).
But if baptism *is* necessary for salvation, then we need to consider what
to do with the verses which support a "faith saves" position. So, those
of us on the "faith" side of the debate need to address the "baptism"
scriptures, and those on the "baptism" side need to address the "faith"
scriptures. Each side of the debate has a responsibility:
The "baptism" side: Must prove that baptism is *necessary*, and that
faith is not *sufficient*.
The "faith" side: Must prove that faith is *sufficient*, and that baptism
is not *necessary* for salvation.
DJRTX
In article <4temph$4...@dfw-ixnews4.ix.netcom.com>, t...@ix.netcom.com(Tracy
Kreckman ) writes:
> t...@ix.netcom.com(Tracy Kreckman )
>Date: 28 Jul 1996 03:28:49 GMT
Very well said, Tracy. Thanks for responding. :-) I have not had time to
do so.
Joanne
DJRTX
This post has been transferred from the "'Re: and the Winner is. . ."
thread because of its relevance.
On 18 July 1996, in the thread, "Re: and the Winner is," article
<4smgs4$6...@newsbf02.news.aol.com>,
ov...@aol.com (Ovum), expressed concern for my salvation [I do appreciate
that you care, and I hope, Ovum, you appreciate that I care as much about
you. :-)]. She asked if God *really* said certain verses which are found
in the Scripture.
Since I believe the Bible is the inspired, inerrant Word of God, I would
agree these verses are the Word of God. We would agree up to this point.
Ovum has offered these verses as proof texts that God requires an
individual be baptized to be saved. Before addressing the texts cited, I
believe it is critically important to make several observations about
applying basic rules of language/communication to the Bible (which itself
is written language). When applied to the study of the Bible, these
principles are called hermeneutics (or principles of Biblical
interpretation).
Biblical interpretation requires a variety of disciplines. Among them, (as
perhaps many readers might know) is a text without a context is a pretext.
An abbreviation of one most memorable illustrations of this type of
misapplication of Scripture is one where various verses are pulled from
throughout the Bible, and result in a false conclusion. I have even heard
Kip McKean relate this example:
1. Judas went and hanged himself.
2. Go thou and do likewise.
3. Whatsoever thou doest, doest thou quickly.
IMO, most people would concur the above instance represents a misusage of
the texts because the context has been disregarded. However, more than the
context has been neglected in this illustration. What also has been
overlooked is another principle: Scripture interprets Scripture.
Phrased in another way, a text or conclusion must agree (not contradict)
with the totality of Scriptural teaching on a subject. In this case, we
automatically know suicide/murder is not condoned by God, as the Scripture
is very clear on the subject. However, not every conclusion can be so
easily reached or tested.
Another rule which should be applied to interpretation is the
historical-grammatical principle. Essentially, all this means is that
certain questions should be asked to arrive at an accurate understanding
of a passage. If you had read a card which said "I love you,"it would be
important to know who sent it, to whom was it sent, and what is the
surrounding idea so you could understand how the phrase was meant -- e.g.
was the card from a child to a parent, one friend to another, husband to a
wife, or even a person writing to the Lord? Likewise, when studying the
Bible, important questions would include:
1. To whom was the text written (i.e. to Gentiles, Gentile Christians,
Jews, Jews who accepted the gospel, et. al.)?
2. What is the historical background?
3. What was the topic of discussion?
4. What understanding or knowledge would the recipients have regarding
what was written?
5. What is/are the possible linguistic meanings of the words an idioms
used? How is the word used elsewhere?
One excellent example of the necessity of these principles is the word,
spirit. In Greek, "pneuma" has several possible meanings -- wind, breath,
the spirit of a man, and the Holy Spirit. Bible translators carefully paid
attention to sound hermeneutical principles in determining the appropriate
translation because in early the Greek manuscripts, there were only
uncials (letters were uniform in size, without differentiation between
upper and lower case letters).
After much study and prayer, the translators had to determine which
meaning was intended by the author. Fortunately, the translators used
capital letters to differentiate between the Holy Spirit and man's
"spirit," and substituted the word "wind" where appropriate so we have no
need to make that determination each time we read a verse containing
spirit.
Other factors which should be considered when interpreting Scripture
include:
1. Are there other topics which have relevance to the passage?
2. Is the passage intended to be understood in a metaphorical,
allegorical, literal, or symbolic sense?
3. The intent of apparently unclear passages are interpreted by the clear
ones.
4. Is the passage a historical narrative, or is it a command?
5. If the passage is a historical narrative, the significance of an event
or statement is not always explained in the passage.
An excellent example of bypassing the importance of clarity on points #4 &
#5, besides other interpretative principles, is the ICC's doctrine of "one
church to a city." Here, a historical fact -- there was one church to a
city during the early days of Christianity -- has been elevated to the
level of doctrine.
Topics which are quite relevent to the study of baptism are
believe/belief, grace, covenants, salvation, and faith. As applicable,
they will be discussed in my response to the verses which Ovum has listed,
and passages which others have cited.
Joanne
DAnder9518
Forrest quoted a number of scriptures to support the view that baptism is
necessary for salvation. Some comments on these passages. . .
<< Romans 6:3-7 Or don't you know that all of us who were baptized into
Christ
Jesus were baptized into his death? We were therefore buried with him
through
baptism into death in order that, just as Christ was raised from the dead
through the glory of the Father, we too may live a new life. If we have
been
united with him like this in his death we will certainly also be united
with him
in his resurrection. For we know that our old self was crucified with him
so
that the body of sin might be done away with, that we should no longer be
slaves
to sin - because anyone who has died has been freed from sin. >>
1. Contextually speaking, this passage is not about salvation (or how to
be saved), but about sin, and why it should be avoided.
2. With this in mind, it is possible (even likely) that Paul is referring
to baptism figuratively. Paul makes frequent use of figurative language
in his writings. Take as an example the scripture where Paul says we were
once "slaves to sin" and are now "slaves to righteousness" -- the passage
doesn't mean that literal SLAVERY is involved -- the language in the
passage is figuarative.
3. One could conclude the same things about Romans 6's mention of
baptism. Romans 6 never states that baptism is an ACTUAL particpation in
the death, burial & resurrection of Christ.
<< Galatians 3:26-27 You are all sons of God through faith in Christ
Jesus, for all
of you who were baptized into Christ have clothed youselves with Christ.
>>
Any connection between baptism & salvation here is less than clear. Let's
save space for some of the more prominent passages. . .
<< Colossians 2:12 Having been buried with him in baptism and raised with
him
through your faith in the power of God, who raised him from the dead. >>
Note: the previous verse says "you were also circumcised". Just as the
"circumsion" was not a physical one, neither is the "burial" with Christ a
physical event. See comments under the Romans 6 passage about figurative
language.
<< I Peter 3:21 And this water symbolizes baptism that now saves you also
- not the removal of dirt from the body but the pledge of a good
conscience toward God. It
saves you through the resurrection of Jesus Christ. >>
Of course, this is a primary "prooftext" for baptismal regeneration
because one can say "See, the Bible says 'baptism saves you'!" Keep in
mind that the Bible also says "women will be saved through childbearing."
(I Tim 2:15) As I pointed out earlier in this thread, context and common
sense tells us that bearing children is NOT a requirement for salvation.
One can make the same case about baptism, in spite of the literal
appearance of passages like I Peter 3:21.
So in what sense do the flood waters of Noah "symbolize baptism that now
saves you also"? To some readers, the passage even implies that it's not
the WATER that saves us ("the removal of dirt from the body") but the
pledge ("of a good conscience toward God").
<< Matthew 28:19-20 Therefore go and make disciples of all nations,
baptizing them
in the make of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit, and
teaching
them to obey everything I have commanded you.(including this final
command) And
surely I am with you always, to the very end of the age. >>
The Great Comission clearly commanded the apostles to baptize their
followers, and passages like Romans 6, Colossians 2, etc. are strong
evidence that the members of the church were indeed baptized. However,
this alone does not draw a causal connection between baptism and
salvation.
There is no argument here with the *idea* of baptism, only with the
*necessity* of baptism for salvation.
<< Acts 2:38-39 Peter replied, "Repent and be baptized every one of you,
in the
name of Jesus Christ for the forgivness of your sins. And you will receive
the
gift of the Holy Spirit. The promise is for you and your children and for
all
who are far off - for all whom the Lord our God will call. >>
This passage is the "biggie" -- without this verse, we probably wouldn't
even be *debating* whether baptism is necessary for forgiveness/salvation!
The big issue is the Greek word "eis", which is translated "for" in this
translation. The NIV translation in English seems to command us to "repent
and be baptized" (for the purpose of) the forgiveness of sins.
In a previous post on this Newsgroup, the grammar of "eis" was explored at
length: {snipped & reposted}
******************************************************
Subject: rain drops keep falling on my head...
From: j...@ingress1.murdoch.edu.au (Jeb)
Date: 5 Apr 1996 23:45:52 GMT
What Campbell failed to mention was that the preposition "eis" has several
shades of meaning. In the KJV eis is translated in this way:
Against -- 25 times
Among -- 16 times
At -- 20 times
Concerning -- 5 times
For -- 91 times
In -- 131 times
Into -- 571 times
That -- 30 times
On -- 57 times
To -- 282 times
Toward -- 32 times
Unto -- 208 times
Upon -- 25 times
In Dana and Manty's, A Manual Grammar Of The Greek New Testament
"eis" classified in five of eight categories as:
Direction: into, unto, to.
Position: in, among, upon.
Relation: as, for, against, in respect to.
Cause: because of.
Purpose: for the purpose of.
*********************************************************
With this knowledge of the Greek "eis" in mind, it is possible to
translate Acts 2:38 in several other ways:
"Repent and be baptized every one of you, in the name of Jesus Christ [in
respect to] the forgivness of your sins."
"Repent and be baptized every one of you, in the name of Jesus Christ [in
accordance with] the forgivness of your sins."
"Repent and be baptized every one of you, in the name of Jesus Christ
[because of] the forgivness of your sins."
. . .So Acts 2:38 by itself does not conclusively make baptism necessary
for salvation.
Ovum
Here's an analogy about how salvation works:
You're standing on the beach in L.A., knowing you have to get to Hawaii to
be saved. You have absolutely no means of getting there at all. The
Captain of the only boat going from L.A. to Hawaii sees you in this
predicament, and sends someone to you with a note. The note says for you
to go to the third boat in the marina, the blue one with "Ekklesia"
painted on it, and it will take you to Hawaii -- for free!
To be saved, you have to: (1) Believe the note, (2) Get on the right boat,
and (3) Stay on it until it reaches Hawaii.
The following actions will result in you NOT being saved:
(1) Putting the note in your pocket until you can have the handwriting
analyzed by the FBI, the CIA and the NSA and have the paper dusted for
prints and carbon-dated, and research all the books about all the notes
ever handed to anybody on a beach since the dawn of time.
(2) Deciding that you will be taken to Hawaii no matter WHICH boat you get
on; after all, they all SAY they're going to Hawaii, and so you get on the
red boat because it looks so much sleeker.
(3) Getting on the right boat, but jumping overboard halfway to Hawaii
because the other passengers on board get on your nerves so much.
In this analogy, Hawaii = Heaven. The Captain = Jesus. The Note = the
Bible. The Boat = the Body of Christ. Getting on the Boat = Baptism.
Getting on the boat is the result of you believing the note; both are
essential to you being saved.
Ovum
Dave,
Taking the WHOLE counsel of God, it's difficult to come up with the
conclusion you draw that baptism is not necessary for salvation. The main
thing to ask yourself is: what is it that keeps a person from being saved?
The answer is: sin. Sin separates us from God. What is it that takes
away my sin? Acts 2:38.
Acts 2:38 was spoken to those still separated from God. Other passages in
the epistles, such as 1John1:3-6 and Revelation 3 are written to those who
have been baptised and already have their sins removed. Statements made
to those in the Gospels, like to the Thief on the Cross, were written to
people still a different covenant than the one we live under.
><< Romans 6:3-7
<snip>
>1. Contextually speaking, this passage is not about salvation (or how to
>be saved), but about sin, and why it should be avoided.
This passage is talking about how erroneous it is to believe that you
should go on sinning so that grace may increase. He brings up baptism as
part of his argument to show WHY that belief is erroneous. It's analogous
to saying "Should you go on dates with other men, now that you're married?
No way! Don't you know that when you were married, you and your husband
became one flesh? Why do you need to go on dates anymore?"
><< Galatians 3:26-27 You are all sons of God through faith in Christ
>Jesus, for all
>of you who were baptized into Christ have clothed youselves with Christ.
>>>
>
>Any connection between baptism & salvation here is less than clear.
Let's
>save space for some of the more prominent passages. . .
"Less than clear" to whom? Pretty clear to me! You get *IN* Christ
through baptism. You get baptized because you believe God. Pretty
simple.
><< Colossians 2:12 Having been buried with him in baptism and raised with
>him through your faith in the power of God, who raised him from the dead.
>>
>
>Note: the previous verse says "you were also circumcised". Just as the
>"circumsion" was not a physical one, neither is the "burial" with Christ
a
>physical event. See comments under the Romans 6 passage about figurative
>language.
Why can't a spiritual reality take place because of a physical event?
Happens ALL THE TIME in scripture. You become *one* spiritually because
you go through a physical marriage ceremony. You commune with Jesus
spiritually because you physically eat the Lord's supper. Your sinful
nature is circumcized away spiritually because you physically get
baptized.
><< I Peter 3:21 And this water symbolizes baptism that now saves you also
>- not the removal of dirt from the body but the pledge of a good
>conscience toward God. It saves you through the resurrection of Jesus
Christ. >>
>Of course, this is a primary "prooftext" for baptismal regeneration
>because one can say "See, the Bible says 'baptism saves you'!" Keep in
>mind that the Bible also says "women will be saved through childbearing."
>(I Tim 2:15) As I pointed out earlier in this thread, context and common
>sense tells us that bearing children is NOT a requirement for salvation.
>One can make the same case about baptism, in spite of the literal
>appearance of passages like I Peter 3:21.
Context and common sense of this passage says baptism saves you. Just as
with the flood, the "sinners" were "washed away" by the flood, so in
baptism, our sins are washed away.
> << Matthew 28:19-20 Therefore go and make disciples of all nations,
>baptizing them in the make of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy
Spirit, and teaching them to obey everything I have commanded
you.(including this final
>command) And surely I am with you always, to the very end of the age. >>
>
>The Great Comission clearly commanded the apostles to baptize their
>followers, and passages like Romans 6, Colossians 2, etc. are strong
>evidence that the members of the church were indeed baptized. However,
>this alone does not draw a causal connection between baptism and
>salvation.
You left out Mark 16:16. "Those who believe AND are baptized will be
saved." How much more clear can you get? Why do you think folks in the
Bible were baptized? "An outward sign of inward grace? As a public
confirmation of salvation?" Those reasons are nowhere in the Bible.
Neither is salvation through "Praying Jesus Into Your Heart" or "Saying
the Sinner's Prayer."
>. . .So Acts 2:38 by itself does not conclusively make baptism necessary
>for salvation.
The verse that says confess and you'll be saved doesn't talk about faith,
and yet we know that's necessary for salvation. When Jesus says "unless
you repent you too will be condemned," He doesn't mention faith, and yet
we know that's necessary. Thessalonians says those who don't "obey the
gospel" will go to hell, yet it doesn't spell out all the ingrediants
thereof. How about putting faith, baptism, repentance, confession, etc.
all together? Every command of God is necessary.
DAnder9518
Forrest quoted a number of scriptures to support the view that baptism is
necessary for salvation. Some comments on these passages. . .
<< Romans 6:3-7 Or don't you know that all of us who were baptized into
Christ
Jesus were baptized into his death? We were therefore buried with him
through
baptism into death in order that, just as Christ was raised from the dead
through the glory of the Father, we too may live a new life. If we have
been
united with him like this in his death we will certainly also be united
with him
in his resurrection. For we know that our old self was crucified with him
so
that the body of sin might be done away with, that we should no longer be
slaves
to sin - because anyone who has died has been freed from sin. >>
1. Contextually speaking, this passage is not about salvation (or how to
be saved), but about sin, and why it should be avoided.
2. With this in mind, it is possible (even likely) that Paul is referring
to baptism figuratively. Paul makes frequent use of figurative language
in his writings. Take as an example the scripture where Paul says we were
once "slaves to sin" and are now "slaves to righteousness" -- the passage
doesn't mean that literal SLAVERY is involved -- the language in the
passage is figuarative.
3. One could conclude the same things about Romans 6's mention of
baptism. Romans 6 never states that baptism is an ACTUAL particpation in
the death, burial & resurrection of Christ.
<< Galatians 3:26-27 You are all sons of God through faith in Christ
Jesus, for all
of you who were baptized into Christ have clothed youselves with Christ.
>>
Any connection between baptism & salvation here is less than clear. Let's
save space for some of the more prominent passages. . .
<< Colossians 2:12 Having been buried with him in baptism and raised with
him
through your faith in the power of God, who raised him from the dead. >>
Note: the previous verse says "you were also circumcised". Just as the
"circumsion" was not a physical one, neither is the "burial" with Christ a
physical event. See comments under the Romans 6 passage about figurative
language.
<< I Peter 3:21 And this water symbolizes baptism that now saves you also
- not the removal of dirt from the body but the pledge of a good
conscience toward God. It
saves you through the resurrection of Jesus Christ. >>
Of course, this is a primary "prooftext" for baptismal regeneration
because one can say "See, the Bible says 'baptism saves you'!" Keep in
mind that the Bible also says "women will be saved through childbearing."
(I Tim 2:15) As I pointed out earlier in this thread, context and common
sense tells us that bearing children is NOT a requirement for salvation.
One can make the same case about baptism, in spite of the literal
appearance of passages like I Peter 3:21.
So in what sense do the flood waters of Noah "symbolize baptism that now
saves you also"? To some readers, the passage even implies that it's not
the WATER that saves us ("the removal of dirt from the body") but the
pledge ("of a good conscience toward God").
<< Matthew 28:19-20 Therefore go and make disciples of all nations,
baptizing them
in the make of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit, and
teaching
them to obey everything I have commanded you.(including this final
command) And
surely I am with you always, to the very end of the age. >>
The Great Comission clearly commanded the apostles to baptize their
followers, and passages like Romans 6, Colossians 2, etc. are strong
evidence that the members of the church were indeed baptized. However,
this alone does not draw a causal connection between baptism and
salvation.
There is no argument here with the *idea* of baptism, only with the
*necessity* of baptism for salvation.
<< Acts 2:38-39 Peter replied, "Repent and be baptized every one of you,
in the
name of Jesus Christ for the forgivness of your sins. And you will receive
the
gift of the Holy Spirit. The promise is for you and your children and for
all
who are far off - for all whom the Lord our God will call. >>
This passage is the "biggie" -- without this verse, we probably wouldn't
"Repent and be baptized every one of you, in the name of Jesus Christ [in
respect to] the forgivness of your sins."
"Repent and be baptized every one of you, in the name of Jesus Christ [in
accordance with] the forgivness of your sins."
"Repent and be baptized every one of you, in the name of Jesus Christ
[because of] the forgivness of your sins."
DAnder9518
Now that the "baptism" scriptures have been adressed by the "faith" side
of the debate, it's time that some "faith" scriptures be adressed by
someone on the "baptism" side. . .
The following scriptures seem to indicate not only that faith is
*necessary* for salvation, but that it is *sufficient*: (please try to
respond to these verses directly -- i.e. without quoting baptism
scriptures)
"Whoever believes in him is not condemned, but whoever does not believe
stands condemned already because of God's one and only Son." John 3:18
"I tell you the truth, whoever hears my words and believes him who sent me
has eternal life and will not be condemned; he has crossed over from death
to life." John 5:24
"For my Father's will is that everyone who looks to the Son and believes
in him shall have eternal life, and I will raise him up at the last day."
John 6:40
"I tell you the truth, he who believes has everlasting life." John 6:47
"He then brought them out and asked, 'Sirs, what must I do to be saved?'
They replied, 'Believe in the Lord Jesus, and you will be saved..." Acts
16:30-31
"This righteousness from God comes through faith to all who believe."
Romans 3:22
"For it is by grace you have been saved, through faith -- and this not
from yourselves, it is the gift of God" Ephesians 2:8
"If anyone acknowleges that Jesus is the Son of God, God lives in him and
him in God." I John 4:15
"Everyone who believes that Jesus is the Christ is born of God. . ." I
John 5:1
karen liu
On 30 Jul 1996, DAnder9518 wrote:
> Now that the "baptism" scriptures have been adressed by the "faith" side
> of the debate, it's time that some "faith" scriptures be adressed by
> someone on the "baptism" side. . .
>
> The following scriptures seem to indicate not only that faith is
> *necessary* for salvation, but that it is *sufficient*: (please try to
> respond to these verses directly -- i.e. without quoting baptism
> scriptures)
>
<snip sorry, my server will not allow me tp post when there is a certyain
amount of text!>
those are scriptures that we do have to take into account, but since jesus
got baptised, and he was the example we are all supposed to follow, don't
you think that we should all get baptised? and what do we do about all the
baptism scriptures (i am sure they have been posted several times so i
won't repeat them) do we just ignore them then? just take the whole bible,
and not just verses from it is all that anyone can say really...
yes when you believe in jesus you are saved...but do you believe in him
enough to get baptised (which is the point where you die to yourself and
live for God only...like a marriage!)
thanks for hearing me out and your patience...i am trying to understand
where you are coming from though...
Laura Ware
In message <4tjal6$4...@newsbf02.news.aol.com> - j...@ingress1.murdoch.edu.au (Je
b) writes:
>>
>>Forrest quoted a number of scriptures to support the view that baptism is
>>necessary for salvation. Some comments on these passages. . .
Hope you don't mind my jumping in here to comment on your comments... :>
>><< Romans 6:3-7 Or don't you know that all of us who were baptized into
>>Christ
>>Jesus were baptized into his death? We were therefore buried with him
>>through
>>baptism into death in order that, just as Christ was raised from the dead
>>through the glory of the Father, we too may live a new life. If we have
>>been
>>united with him like this in his death we will certainly also be united
>>with him
>>in his resurrection. For we know that our old self was crucified with him
>>so
>>that the body of sin might be done away with, that we should no longer be
>>slaves
>>to sin - because anyone who has died has been freed from sin. >>
>>
>>1. Contextually speaking, this passage is not about salvation (or how to
>>be saved), but about sin, and why it should be avoided.
Ok. Why was it to be avoided? Paul explains the reason it needs to be
avoided by taking them back to the point of conversion - because when they
were baptized, they became a part of God's kingdom and therefore dead to the
sin.
>>
>>2. With this in mind, it is possible (even likely) that Paul is referring
>>to baptism figuratively.
Why is it possible?
>>3. One could conclude the same things about Romans 6's mention of
>>baptism. Romans 6 never states that baptism is an ACTUAL particpation in
>>the death, burial & resurrection of Christ.
"We were therefore buried with him
>>through
>>baptism into death in order that, just as Christ was raised from the dead
>>through the glory of the Father, we too may live a new life. If we have
>>been
>>united with him like this in his death we will certainly also be united
>>with him
>>in his resurrection."
This is not participation?
>><< Galatians 3:26-27 You are all sons of God through faith in Christ
>>Jesus, for all
>>of you who were baptized into Christ have clothed youselves with Christ.
>>>>
>>
>>Any connection between baptism & salvation here is less than clear. Let's
>>save space for some of the more prominent passages. . .
Hmm...what isn't clear to you? Can you be a Chirstian and not clothed with
Christ?
>><< Colossians 2:12 Having been buried with him in baptism and raised with
>>him
>>through your faith in the power of God, who raised him from the dead. >>
>>
>>Note: the previous verse says "you were also circumcised". Just as the
>>"circumsion" was not a physical one, neither is the "burial" with Christ a
>>physical event. See comments under the Romans 6 passage about figurative
>>language.
It is stated clearly that the circumcism in the previous verse was "without
hands"; no such qualifier is placed on the baptism mentioned here.
>><< I Peter 3:21 And this water symbolizes baptism that now saves you also
>>- not the removal of dirt from the body but the pledge of a good
>>conscience toward God. It
>>saves you through the resurrection of Jesus Christ. >>
>>
>>Of course, this is a primary "prooftext" for baptismal regeneration
>>because one can say "See, the Bible says 'baptism saves you'!" Keep in
>>mind that the Bible also says "women will be saved through childbearing."
>>(I Tim 2:15) As I pointed out earlier in this thread, context and common
>>sense tells us that bearing children is NOT a requirement for salvation.
>>One can make the same case about baptism, in spite of the literal
>>appearance of passages like I Peter 3:21.
Explain to me how I Timothy 2:15 proves beyond all doubt that this passage
should not be taken as it is written. They have nothing to do with each
other, as far as I can see (unless the word "saved" in those passages has
other meanings, as "for" does according to some in Acts 2:38)
>> << Matthew 28:19-20 Therefore go and make disciples of all nations,
>>baptizing them
>>in the make of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit, and
>>teaching
>>them to obey everything I have commanded you.(including this final
>>command) And
>>surely I am with you always, to the very end of the age. >>
>>
>>The Great Comission clearly commanded the apostles to baptize their
>>followers, and passages like Romans 6, Colossians 2, etc. are strong
>>evidence that the members of the church were indeed baptized. However,
>>this alone does not draw a causal connection between baptism and
>>salvation.
>>
>>There is no argument here with the *idea* of baptism, only with the
>>*necessity* of baptism for salvation.
If there is no necessity for baptism, then why do it? Why do all detailed
accounts of conversions in Acts say people were baptized? Tell me, if
baptism is not necessary for salvation, can someone become a Christian and
refuse to be baptized?
>><< Acts 2:38-39 Peter replied, "Repent and be baptized every one of you,
>>in the
>>name of Jesus Christ for the forgivness of your sins. And you will receive
>>the
>>gift of the Holy Spirit. The promise is for you and your children and for
>>all
>>who are far off - for all whom the Lord our God will call. >>
>>
>>This passage is the "biggie" -- without this verse, we probably wouldn't
>>even be *debating* whether baptism is necessary for forgiveness/salvation!
>>
>>The big issue is the Greek word "eis", which is translated "for" in this
>>translation. The NIV translation in English seems to command us to "repent
>>and be baptized" (for the purpose of) the forgiveness of sins.
>>
>>In a previous post on this Newsgroup, the grammar of "eis" was explored at
>>length: {snipped & reposted}
<snip>
>>******************************************************
>>>With this knowledge of the Greek "eis" in mind, it is possible to
>>translate Acts 2:38 in several other ways:
>>
>>"Repent and be baptized every one of you, in the name of Jesus Christ [in
>>respect to] the forgivness of your sins."
>>
>>"Repent and be baptized every one of you, in the name of Jesus Christ [in
>>accordance with] the forgivness of your sins."
>>
>>"Repent and be baptized every one of you, in the name of Jesus Christ
>>[because of] the forgivness of your sins."
>>
>>.. . .So Acts 2:38 by itself does not conclusively make baptism necessary
>>for salvation.
By your argument, we can say Christ's blood was shed BECAUSE OF the remission
of sins, and his sacrifice had nothing to do with it. (Matthew 26:28) Do you
think that is a valid translation of the passage?
karen liu
On 29 Jul 1996, Ovum wrote:
> Here's an analogy about how salvation works:
>
<snip snip snippity snip..once again, i blame my server for making all
these unnecessary snips>
> To be saved, you have to: (1) Believe the note, (2) Get on the right boat,
> and (3) Stay on it until it reaches Hawaii.
>
<snip again!! and again>
'nuff said ovum..in a nutshell
Starr
ov...@aol.com (Ovum) wrote:
<snippage>
>Why can't a spiritual reality take place because of a physical event?
>Happens ALL THE TIME in scripture. You become *one* spiritually because
>you go through a physical marriage ceremony. You commune with Jesus
>spiritually because you physically eat the Lord's supper. Your sinful
>nature is circumcized away spiritually because you physically get
>baptized.
<more snippage>
Ovum, if your sinful nature is circumcized away at baptism (which I
thought was for the "forgiveness of your sins") wouldn't that mean
you'd never sin again? I mean, if your sinful nature is what causes
you to sin, and it's cut away at baptism, then wouldn't that be the
natural conclusion? Just some food for thought...
Starr
dande...@aol.com (DAnder9518) wrote:
Dave, I'm not really arguing with you on some of these quotes, but you
are taking some things out of context....
>Now that the "baptism" scriptures have been adressed by the "faith" side
>of the debate, it's time that some "faith" scriptures be adressed by
>someone on the "baptism" side. . .
>The following scriptures seem to indicate not only that faith is
>*necessary* for salvation, but that it is *sufficient*: (please try to
>respond to these verses directly -- i.e. without quoting baptism
>scriptures)
Michael A. Vickers
>In message <4tjal6$4...@newsbf02.news.aol.com> - j...@ingress1.murdoch.edu.au (Je
>b) writes:
>>>Forrest quoted a number of scriptures to support the view that baptism is
>>>necessary for salvation. Some comments on these passages. . .
>>><< Romans 6:3-7 Or don't you know that all of us who were baptized into
>>>Christ
>>>Jesus were baptized into his death? We were therefore buried with him
>>>through
>>>baptism into death in order that, just as Christ was raised from the dead
>>>through the glory of the Father, we too may live a new life. If we have
>>>been
>>>united with him like this in his death we will certainly also be united
>>>with him
>>>in his resurrection. For we know that our old self was crucified with him
>>>so
>>>that the body of sin might be done away with, that we should no longer be
>>>slaves
>>>to sin - because anyone who has died has been freed from sin. >>
>>>
>>>1. Contextually speaking, this passage is not about salvation (or how to
>>>be saved), but about sin, and why it should be avoided.
>
>Ok. Why was it to be avoided? Paul explains the reason it needs to be
>avoided by taking them back to the point of conversion - because when they
>were baptized, they became a part of God's kingdom and therefore dead to the
>sin.
>>>
>>>2. With this in mind, it is possible (even likely) that Paul is referring
>>>to baptism figuratively.
>
>Why is it possible?
because, there is no actual _physical_ burial WITH christ when we are
baptised. i mean, if i have to ask the question, when you went under did
you see jesus laying next to you?
> >>3. One could conclude the same things about Romans 6's mention of
>>>baptism. Romans 6 never states that baptism is an ACTUAL particpation in
>>>the death, burial & resurrection of Christ.
>"We were therefore buried with him
>>>through
>>>baptism into death in order that, just as Christ was raised from the dead
>>>through the glory of the Father, we too may live a new life. If we have
>>>been
>>>united with him like this in his death we will certainly also be united
>>>with him
>>>in his resurrection."
>This is not participation?
i think he meant 'actual' in the _physical_ sense.
>>><< Galatians 3:26-27 You are all sons of God through faith in Christ
>>>Jesus, for all
>>>of you who were baptized into Christ have clothed youselves with Christ.
>>>>>
>>>
>>>Any connection between baptism & salvation here is less than clear. Let's
>>>save space for some of the more prominent passages. . .
>
>Hmm...what isn't clear to you? Can you be a Chirstian and not clothed with
>Christ?
if we want to get literal, the verse does not say (not does it imply) that
'those who believe and have not been baptized have NOT clothed themselves
with christ.'
>>><< Colossians 2:12 Having been buried with him in baptism and raised with
>>>him
>>>through your faith in the power of God, who raised him from the dead. >>
>>>
>>>Note: the previous verse says "you were also circumcised". Just as the
>>>"circumsion" was not a physical one, neither is the "burial" with Christ a
>>>physical event. See comments under the Romans 6 passage about figurative
>>>language.
>It is stated clearly that the circumcism in the previous verse was "without
>hands"; no such qualifier is placed on the baptism mentioned here.
this verse doesnt make a clear, direct connection with salvation and
baptism, either.
>>><< I Peter 3:21 And this water symbolizes baptism that now saves you also
>>>- not the removal of dirt from the body but the pledge of a good
>>>conscience toward God. It
>>>saves you through the resurrection of Jesus Christ. >>
>>>Of course, this is a primary "prooftext" for baptismal regeneration
>>>because one can say "See, the Bible says 'baptism saves you'!" Keep in
>>>mind that the Bible also says "women will be saved through childbearing."
>>>(I Tim 2:15) As I pointed out earlier in this thread, context and common
>>>sense tells us that bearing children is NOT a requirement for salvation.
>>>One can make the same case about baptism, in spite of the literal
>>>appearance of passages like I Peter 3:21.
>Explain to me how I Timothy 2:15 proves beyond all doubt that this passage
>should not be taken as it is written. They have nothing to do with each
>other, as far as I can see (unless the word "saved" in those passages has
>other meanings, as "for" does according to some in Acts 2:38)
the word 'saved' in 1pet 3:21 does have a different meaning, imo. saves
you from WHAT? check out my other post in this thread regarding this.
>>> << Matthew 28:19-20 Therefore go and make disciples of all nations,
>>>baptizing them
>>>in the make of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit, and
>>>teaching
>>>them to obey everything I have commanded you.(including this final
>>>command) And
>>>surely I am with you always, to the very end of the age. >>
>>>
>>>The Great Comission clearly commanded the apostles to baptize their
>>>followers, and passages like Romans 6, Colossians 2, etc. are strong
>>>evidence that the members of the church were indeed baptized. However,
>>>this alone does not draw a causal connection between baptism and
>>>salvation.
>>>
>>>There is no argument here with the *idea* of baptism, only with the
>>>*necessity* of baptism for salvation.
>If there is no necessity for baptism, then why do it?
because it was commanded.
>Why do all detailed
>accounts of conversions in Acts say people were baptized?
some detailed accounts show people speaking in tongues BEFORE water
baptism occurred.
but to answer your question, its because the two were closely entwined. i
have heard that it had to do with judean culture. i believe that baptism
SHOULD follow closely with belief. however, because all of those accounts
in acts have belief and baptism closely related is not proof of baptism as
a need for salvation.
>Tell me, if
>baptism is not necessary for salvation, can someone become a Christian and
>refuse to be baptized?
absolutely. however, they would be in disobedience to god. this is like
asking if someone can become a christian and refuse to love their
neighbor, etc.
er, we arent dealing with matt 26:28 here.
however, i dont like any of the alternate translations he provided. as i
said in another thread, i believe peter was covering all bases with his
statement here. we was asked something, and he gave a quick answer. if one
wants to get the low down on how sin is taken from oneself, look to romans
3:22-26.
Scott W. Schreiber
ov...@aol.com (Ovum) wrote:
>To be saved, you have to: (1) Believe the note, (2) Get on the right boat,
>and (3) Stay on it until it reaches Hawaii.
But what if the parents, knowing what is best for their children, put
the child on the boat (accompanying them of course) and sit with them
teaching them about the note, and what a great place Hawaii is, untill
they are old enough to figure it out, and then give the kid the chance
to decide for himself to stay in the believe the note, stay in the
boat, or jump and try to swim on his own?
(infant baptism....what a GREAT idea!)
DJRTX
In the first post of my response to Ovum's questions about baptism,
principles of biblical interpretation were explained. Building upon
this foundation, let us consider the people about whom Paul was
speaking in Galatians who were distorting the Gospel. Who were
they? Some perhaps have heard them referred to as the "Judaizers."
Why were they so called?
The Galatians were Jewish believers who had seen Christ crucified
and believed in Him as the messiah. (Paul addressed them as the
churches in Galatia.) However, despite what they had witnessed,
they demanded Jewish beliefs and rites such as circumcision and
obedience be added as requirements for salvation, hence they were
called Judaizers. In their efforts to be faithful, they added works
to faith in the finished work of Christ.
Paul was grieved because the Galatians added observing the law to
believing what they had heard -- they were trying to attain salvation
by their own works. He told them justification was by faith, not
observance of the Law, and that the Scripture foresaw "God
would justify the Gentiles by faith." (Galatians 3.8).
Even under the old covenant, all whom God counted righteous were
those who had faith in God, apart from their works under the Law.
(Romans 4-5:2, 3:20-30, 2 Corinthians 5:21, Hebrews 11).
The Galatians' error was they demanded any kind of law, even if it
were only one law -- it could have been even a new law. Adding one
law to faith nullified God's grace.
In the new covenant, adding anything to the work completed by Jesus
Christ on the cross negates the sufficiency of His sacrifice for our
salvation.
The book of Galatians is dedicated to emphasizing we are justified
by faith in Jesus Christ alone. What do we know about faith?
The Bible tells us Jesus is the *author* and *perfecter* of our faith
(Hebrews 12:2). We cannot boast of it.
How is our faith shown? Faith does not rest upon the merits of
anything we do. It is the *utter, complete reliance* upon Jesus Christ
for *everything.* When we quit trying to do anything -- give up anything,
confess everything etc. -- to merit our salvation, we then have faith
in God's *grace* and mercy.
To begin to more specifically respond to Ovum's post:
On 18 July 1996, in the thread, "Re: and the Winner is," article
<4smgs4$6...@newsbf02.news.aol.com>,
ov...@aol.com (Ovum) wrote:
<snip>
>The Enemy lies to us the same way today. He starts by casting doubt on
>explicit commands of God. "Did God REALLY say: unless a man is born of
>water and the Spirit, he CANNOT enter the Kingdom?"
>"Did God REALLY say: this water symbolizes baptism, which now SAVES YOU
>also?"
>"Did God REALLY say: he that believes AND IS BAPTISED will be saved?"
>
>"Did God REALLY say: unless I wash you, you have NO part with me?"
<snip>
Yes, most definitely God *really* said all of those things. I believe I/we
should be obedient to *every* single one of God's commands, including
being
baptized, *without* exception!!
Whether or not it is the Law of the Old Testament, or the commands/laws
of Christ in the New Testament, it is still law, it is God's law. The
commands of God in the New Testament (and those which carried over
from the Old) should be obeyed.
Speaking of commands, previously, someone on the newsgroup
(forgive my memory, I do not remember who it was -- perhaps Scott,
Randy, or Chris G.?) reminded us of ". . . the first and greatest
commandment." (Matthew 23:37, NIV)
Once, "an expert in the law stood up to test Jesus. 'Teacher,' he asked,
"'what must I do to inherit eternal life?'
'"What is written in the Law?' he replied. 'How do you read it?'
"He answered: 'Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with
"all your soul and with all your strength and with all your mind, and
"Love your neighbor as yourself.'
"Jesus then replied, 'You have answered correctly.'Do this and you will
"live.'" (Luke 11:25-27 NIV)
In the Old Testament, God's Law required absolute perfection. In the
New Testament, He requires the same, and Jesus commanded: "Be
perfect, therefore as your heavenly Father is perfect." (Matthew 5:48)
What then is God's standard?
Is God's standard: that we try our best to follow all of His commands;
we believe, confess, repent, are cut to the heart, count the cost,
confess Jesus is Lord, and are baptized; we forsake all and follow Him;
we become his disciples/followers, we are baptized, and we
repent when we sin, and then hope we have not missed anything?
NO. God's standard is even more than all of that. The Bible clearly
tells us GOD's standard is *perfection, . . . perfection in
everything. .*
Then, you might ask, what are you *really* trying to say, and what
about the verses Ovum cited? Due to physical limitations, the
answer *will* be in the next post. Thank you for your understanding.
Sincerely,
Joanne
Ovum
Dave,
I must commend you for being so calm during this discussion! I appreciate
you sticking to the issues, and not lapsing into emotional outbursts or
name-calling, which are certainly easy to fall into. Thanks for being a
good example!
In article <4to49t$3...@newsbf02.news.aol.com>, dande...@aol.com
(DAnder9518) writes:
> I understand what you're saying -- if you take all the Scriptures about
>baptism, you can make a case that baptism is necessary for salvation. I
>used to believe this myself. But before you say it's difficult to
believe
>that faith is sufficient, I would like to see someone address the faith
>scriptures listed elsewhere in this thread.
Dave, "without faith it is impossible to please God." Interesting how the
rest of Hebrews 11 commends the actions of those who believed. Faith
without actions is dead. Unbelief ===> Disobediance. I'm using shorthand
here; the verses themselves are plentiful. If I scream "Fire!" and you
don't believe me, you'll stay in the building. If you believe me, you'll
run. Same difference with the gospel; if you believe God, you WILL obey
Him. You'll repent, confess, get baptized, persevere, and receive the
crown of life.
>Actually, no one in this thread has *mentioned* Rev 3:20, the Thief on
the
>Cross, or I John 1:3-6 (?). I've intentionally avoided these passages
>because their relevance can be disputed. There are plenty of other
>scriptures to use. . .
Call it "preemptive disputing." :-) They usually come up at some point!
> >Why can't a spiritual reality take place because of a physical event?
> >Happens ALL THE TIME in scripture. You become *one* spiritually
because
> >you go through a physical marriage ceremony. You commune with Jesus
> >spiritually because you physically eat the Lord's supper. Your sinful
> >nature is circumcized away spiritually because you physically get
> >baptized.
>
>That's a thoughtful comparison, but is this "spiritual circumcision" a
>*metaphorical* one, or an *actual* one?? It's a legitimate question.
>Unfortunately, none of us can prove one way or the other without moving
on
>to other scriptures. . .
Ummmm.....how bout: the Holy Spirit says Jesus circumcizes away our sinful
nature in baptism. Sounds like an "actual" done deal to me!
> >"An outward sign of inward grace? As a public
> >confirmation of salvation?" Those reasons are nowhere in the Bible.
> >Neither is salvation through "Praying Jesus Into Your Heart" or "Saying
> >the Sinner's Prayer."
>
>You realize, of course, that no one has mentioned any of these ideas in
>this thread! Is this some sort of theological "preemptive strike"? : )
Yup!
> >The verse that says confess and you'll be saved doesn't talk about
>faith,
> >and yet we know that's necessary for salvation. When Jesus says
"unless
> >you repent you too will be condemned," He doesn't mention faith, and
yet
> >we know that's necessary. Thessalonians says those who don't "obey the
> >gospel" will go to hell, yet it doesn't spell out all the ingrediants
> >thereof. How about putting faith, baptism, repentance, confession,
etc.
> >all together? Every command of God is necessary.
>
>But must we obey *every* command of God in order to become a Christian?
I
>certainly hope not, or I could never become one!
We need to obey the commands God tells us to obey in order to become
disciples, have our sins forgiven, receive the Holy Spirit, become clothed
with Christ, become born again, become new creations, become His children,
etc. etc.
>P.S. I notice that you continue to cite Acts 2:38. The issue of the
>Greek word "eis" has been brought up on the NG several times, but I've
>never seen you address it. Do you believe that the flexible nature of
>"eis" allows for differing interpretations of Acts 2:38?
Gotta take into account the WHOLE counsel of God, Dave. It all weaves
together so beautifully.
Michael A. Vickers
>Dave,
>
>Taking the WHOLE counsel of God, it's difficult to come up with the
>conclusion you draw that baptism is not necessary for salvation. The main
>thing to ask yourself is: what is it that keeps a person from being saved?
> The answer is: sin. Sin separates us from God. What is it that takes
>away my sin? Acts 2:38.
how about romans 3:22-26? i think this actually deals with how one's sins
are removed. acts 2:38 really isnt a passage about how the removal of sins
take place. i think the nitty gritty of it is really dealt with in the
romans passage.
peter was asked for a formula, and he gave one that covered all the bases.
in romans, paul talks about how god's righteousness is imputed to us by
'faith in his blood' (v25).
Michael A. Vickers
>Here's an analogy about how salvation works:
>
>You're standing on the beach in L.A., knowing you have to get to Hawaii to
>be saved. You have absolutely no means of getting there at all. The
>Captain of the only boat going from L.A. to Hawaii sees you in this
>predicament, and sends someone to you with a note. The note says for you
>to go to the third boat in the marina, the blue one with "Ekklesia"
>painted on it, and it will take you to Hawaii -- for free!
>
>To be saved, you have to: (1) Believe the note, (2) Get on the right boat,
>and (3) Stay on it until it reaches Hawaii.
>
>The following actions will result in you NOT being saved:
>
>(1) Putting the note in your pocket until you can have the handwriting
>analyzed by the FBI, the CIA and the NSA and have the paper dusted for
>prints and carbon-dated, and research all the books about all the notes
>ever handed to anybody on a beach since the dawn of time.
>
>(2) Deciding that you will be taken to Hawaii no matter WHICH boat you get
>on; after all, they all SAY they're going to Hawaii, and so you get on the
>red boat because it looks so much sleeker.
>
>(3) Getting on the right boat, but jumping overboard halfway to Hawaii
>because the other passengers on board get on your nerves so much.
>
>In this analogy, Hawaii = Heaven. The Captain = Jesus. The Note = the
>Bible. The Boat = the Body of Christ. Getting on the Boat = Baptism.
>Getting on the boat is the result of you believing the note; both are
>essential to you being saved.
i'd rather stick to scripture, as an many analogies can be drummed up as
to why baptism doesnt work. all it takes is an inventive mind.
Michael A. Vickers
In article <4tjal6$4...@newsbf02.news.aol.com>, dande...@aol.com
(DAnder9518) wrote:
><< I Peter 3:21 And this water symbolizes baptism that now saves you also
>- not the removal of dirt from the body but the pledge of a good
>conscience toward God. It saves you through the resurrection of Jesus Christ.
>Of course, this is a primary "prooftext" for baptismal regeneration
>because one can say "See, the Bible says 'baptism saves you'!" Keep in
>mind that the Bible also says "women will be saved through childbearing."
>(I Tim 2:15) As I pointed out earlier in this thread, context and common
>sense tells us that bearing children is NOT a requirement for salvation.
>One can make the same case about baptism, in spite of the literal
>appearance of passages like I Peter 3:21.
>
>So in what sense do the flood waters of Noah "symbolize baptism that now
>saves you also"? To some readers, the passage even implies that it's not
>the WATER that saves us ("the removal of dirt from the body") but the
>pledge ("of a good conscience toward God").
i'd like to cast my two cents in on this verse.
i think another thing that should be asked in this passage is 'saves you
from WHAT?' if one were to read chapter 3 in its entirety, it speaks of
suffering for the cause of christ (starting around verse 8). since the
author is speaking to a christian crowd, the crowd is already saved. so,
saves you from what? well, if baptism is regarded as a public testimony of
faith, then how likely is one to go against a testimony they made in
public when they are being persecuted? could not this public testimony
'save' the person from going back on their faith in times of suffering? i
think so, especially (as pointed out, above) considering that baptism
'saves' you in _this_ situation ('this' is emphasized because the verse
says 'NOW saves you') because you have pledged 'a good conscience toward
god'.
DAnder9518
In article <4tjtgh$d...@newsbf02.news.aol.com>, ov...@aol.com (Ovum) writes:
>Taking the WHOLE counsel of God, it's difficult to come up with the
>conclusion you draw that baptism is not necessary for salvation.
baptism, you can make a case that baptism is necessary for salvation. I
used to believe this myself. But before you say it's difficult to believe
that faith is sufficient, I would like to see someone address the faith
scriptures listed elsewhere in this thread.
>thing to ask yourself is: what is it that keeps a person from being
saved?
> The answer is: sin. Sin separates us from God. What is it that takes
>away my sin? Acts 2:38.
verse *itself* takes away sin ;-)
>Acts 2:38 was spoken to those still separated from God. Other passages
in
>the epistles, such as 1John1:3-6 and Revelation 3 are written to those
who
>have been baptised and already have their sins removed. Statements made
>to those in the Gospels, like to the Thief on the Cross, were written to
>people still a different covenant than the one we live under.
Cross, or I John 1:3-6 (?). I've intentionally avoided these passages
because their relevance can be disputed. There are plenty of other
scriptures to use. . .
>>Galatians 3:26-27
>>Any connection between baptism & salvation here is less than clear.
>Let's
>>save space for some of the more prominent passages. . .
>"Less than clear" to whom? Pretty clear to me!
I *know* it's clear to *you*! : ) But I'll expand on why the passage
doesn't say anything definite about baptism/salvation:
1. The passage makes no mention of salvation or conversion. Therefore, a
connection between baptism & salvation can only be established through
*inference* (e.g. clothing yourself with Christ = being saved, therefore
one is saved at baptism). There is no need to draw inferences about how
to be saved when other verses address the subject directly.
2. The entire rest of this chapter (Galatians 3) is about faith and how
faith is "credited as righteousness"! The rest of the chapter would seem
to disprove that something in *addition* to faith is necessary to be
saved.
3. When it's read as a whole, Galatians 3:26-29 has an INCLUSIVE
emphasis, i.e. it reassures Jews & Gentiles, slaves & free, male & female
that "if you belong to Christ, then you are Abraham's seed." I'm
surprised then that you would use this scripture for an EXCLUSIVE purpose:
to delineate who's *not* saved!
>><< Colossians 2:12 Having been buried with him in baptism and raised
with
>>him through your faith in the power of God, who raised him from the
dead.
>Why can't a spiritual reality take place because of a physical event?
>Happens ALL THE TIME in scripture. You become *one* spiritually because
>you go through a physical marriage ceremony. You commune with Jesus
>spiritually because you physically eat the Lord's supper. Your sinful
>nature is circumcized away spiritually because you physically get
>baptized.
That's a thoughtful comparison, but is this "spiritual circumcision" a
*metaphorical* one, or an *actual* one?? It's a legitimate question.
Unfortunately, none of us can prove one way or the other without moving on
to other scriptures. . .
>><< I Peter 3:21 And this water symbolizes baptism that now saves you
also
>>- not the removal of dirt from the body but the pledge of a good
>>conscience toward God. It saves you through the resurrection of Jesus
>Christ. >>
>Context and common sense of this passage says baptism saves you. Just
as
>with the flood, the "sinners" were "washed away" by the flood, so in
>baptism, our sins are washed away.
Are you saying that other interpretations are impossible, or invalid?
>You left out Mark 16:16.
I left out Mark 16:16 because Forrest left it out -- I was responding to
his post. But I'm glad you brought it up! This verse says "Whoever
believes and is baptized will be saved, but whoever does not believe will
be condemned."
There are a total of four possibilities in this scripture:
1.) a person can believe & be baptized,
2.) they can believe & *not* be baptized,
3.) they can *not* believe & be baptized, or
4.) they can *not* believe & *not* be baptized.
Mark 16:16 says people who believe & are baptized (GROUP #1) will be
saved. It also says people who don't believe (GROUPS 3 & 4) will not be
saved. But Mark 16:16 says NOTHING about people who believe but are not
baptized! (Group 2)
Therefore, it is logically unsound to declare from Mark 16:16 that baptism
is necessary for salvation.
>Why do you think folks in the Bible were baptized?
Because Jesus & the apostles said they should be! (I think we're all in
agreement on that!) But just because the Bible says we should do
something, does not make it the moment of salvation.
>"An outward sign of inward grace? As a public
>confirmation of salvation?" Those reasons are nowhere in the Bible.
>Neither is salvation through "Praying Jesus Into Your Heart" or "Saying
>the Sinner's Prayer."
You realize, of course, that no one has mentioned any of these ideas in
this thread! Is this some sort of theological "preemptive strike"? : )
>The verse that says confess and you'll be saved doesn't talk about
faith,
>and yet we know that's necessary for salvation. When Jesus says "unless
>you repent you too will be condemned," He doesn't mention faith, and yet
>we know that's necessary. Thessalonians says those who don't "obey the
>gospel" will go to hell, yet it doesn't spell out all the ingrediants
>thereof. How about putting faith, baptism, repentance, confession, etc.
>all together? Every command of God is necessary.
But must we obey *every* command of God in order to become a Christian? I
certainly hope not, or I could never become one!
---->Dave
Laura Ware
>>The Galatians' error was they demanded any kind of law, even if it
>>were only one law -- it could have been even a new law. Adding one
>>law to faith nullified God's grace.
>>
>>In the new covenant, adding anything to the work completed by Jesus
>>Christ on the cross negates the sufficiency of His sacrifice for our
>>salvation.
>>The book of Galatians is dedicated to emphasizing we are justified
>>by faith in Jesus Christ alone.
I wanted to comment on this, because I heavily studied the book of Galatians
and taught it in a ladie's class over a year ago. Some comments.
--The "Law" under discussion in Galatians is, in context, the Law of Moses,
which false brothers were trying to bind on Gentile Galatians. This is not
saying there is NO law - but proving the invalidity of Moses' Law.
--To say that we are bound by NO law makes what Paul says later in Galatians
strange:
Galatians 6:2 "Bear ye one another's burdens,
and so fulfil the law of Christ."
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
We ARE bound to Christ's law, but NOT to the law of Moses.
--I won't argue the fact we are saved by faith, or that Galatians deals with
faith. But where is the term, "Faith alone" found in Galatians? As a
matter of fact, there is only ONE verse in the New Testament that has the
term "faith only" or "faith alone" that I can think uf. I invite you to find
it. (If you don't want to have to look for it, I'll tell you.)
DAnder9518
>>>><< Romans 6:3-7
>>>>2. With this in mind, it is possible (even likely) that Paul is
referring
>>>>to baptism figuratively.
>>Why is it possible?
Paul uses metaphors constantly in his writing! We must consider whether
Paul's words are intended *literally* or *metaphorically* before we build
doctrines upon them!
>>>>mind that the Bible also says "women will be saved through
childbearing."
>>>>(I Tim 2:15) As I pointed out earlier in this thread, context and
common
>>>>sense tells us that bearing children is NOT a requirement for
salvation.
>>>>One can make the same case about baptism, in spite of the literal
>>>>appearance of passages like I Peter 3:21.
>>Explain to me how I Timothy 2:15 proves beyond all doubt that this
passage
>>should not be taken as it is written.
I never said it proves anything "beyond all doubt"! The scripture was
given as an example.
>>They have nothing to do with each
>>other, as far as I can see (unless the word "saved" in those passages
has
>>other meanings, as "for" does according to some in Acts 2:38)
I drew the comparison because both scriptures use the word "saves" in a
way that may, or may not figurative.
>>Why do all detailed
>>accounts of conversions in Acts say people were baptized?
Because, apparently all converts were baptized as soon as they believed!
Acts shows that baptism accompanied conversion. But it doesn't show that
baptism *is* conversion -- there's a difference.
>>>>.. . .So Acts 2:38 by itself does not conclusively make baptism
necessary
>>>>for salvation.
>>By your argument, we can say Christ's blood was shed BECAUSE OF the
>remission
>>of sins, and his sacrifice had nothing to do with it. (Matthew 26:28) Do
you
>>think that is a valid translation of the passage?
Not at all! Christ's death has *everything* to do with the forgiveness of
our sins!
---->Dave
DAnder9518
In the thread "And the Winner Is...", Ovum mentioned a few other
scriptures that should be addressed:
>"Did God REALLY say: unless a man is born of water and the Spirit, he
CANNOT enter the Kingdom?"
that when Jesus says "water" he means "baptism"! There are 68 New
Testament references to "water", and most are not speaking of baptismal
"water."
As you're probably aware, many believe that the "water & Spirit" in vs. 5
is trying to draw a dichotomy between the physical and spiritual person.
In fact, the very next verse (Jn 3:6) says "Flesh gives birth to flesh,
but the Spirit gives birth to Spirit." Since Nichodemus was thinking only
of PHYSICAL birth, and did not understand what Jesus meant by being "born
again" (vs. 4), this would have been a most-appropriate metaphor to help
him understand.
Notice that in the *very next chapter* of John, Jesus promises the woman
at the well "living water" (Jn 4:7-26). (Note: no baptism of the
Samaritan woman is mentioned.) Once again, the woman is confused because
she doesn't realize Jesus is talking about water metaphorically! (How
ironic that we sit here 2000 years later, debating the importance of
*physical* water!)
>"Did God REALLY say: unless I wash you, you have NO part with me?"
Jesus "you shall never WASH MY FEET"! Is Christ talking about baptism
when he says "Unless I wash you, you have no part with me"? Doubtful --
in verse 10, Jesus says "A person who has had a bath needs only to wash
his feet" -- hardly sounds like a full immersion to me!
>belief is something even demons do...
Ovum points out that even demons believe (James 2:19). First of all,
James 2:19 was written not to motivate people to get *baptized*, but to do
good deeds! (vs. 14-16) Secondly, the fact that demons believe and
aren't "saved" is irrelevant. Demons are not human beings, and they're
apparently destined for destruction no matter what they do (Mt 8:29).
Even if demons 1. Heard the word, 2. Believed, 3. Repented, 4. Confessed,
5. made the decision to be a disciple, 6. Got baptized, they would STILL
not be saved, would they?
Therefore, the "salvation" of demons has no relevance to a discussion
about the necessity of baptism.
-------->Dave Anderson
DAnder9518
>I must commend you for being so calm during this discussion! I
appreciate
>you sticking to the issues, and not lapsing into emotional outbursts or
>name-calling, which are certainly easy to fall into. Thanks for being a
>good example!
<blushing> Thanks -- it's difficult, because as you know, baptismal
regeneration is kind of a "soap box" for me. . .
>>But before you say it's difficult to
>believe
>>that faith is sufficient, I would like to see someone address the faith
>>scriptures listed elsewhere in this thread.
>Dave, "without faith it is impossible to please God." {snip}
It's interesting you would bring up this verse. To *me*, this verse
points out the essential nature of faith. I've always thought, if a
certain method of baptism were necessary for salvation, that the Bible
would have given us a *similar* warning -- something like "without
*baptism* it is impossible to please God!"
Thanks for stating your view of faith. But nobody has yet refuted even
one of the "faith" scriptures I've listed! It's taken several hours to
address all the baptism scriptures, and show contextually and
grammatically how each scripture doesn't mandate baptism for salvation.
Now, it's time for someone to do the same with the "faith" scriptures,
showing how each verse doesn't prove the sufficiency of faith:
( John 3:18, 5:24, 6:40, Acts 16:30-31, Romans 3:22, Eph 2:8, I John 4:15,
5:1)
You may find that it can't be done. . .
>>That's a thoughtful comparison, but is this "spiritual circumcision" a
>>*metaphorical* one, or an *actual* one?? It's a legitimate question.
>>Unfortunately, none of us can prove one way or the other without moving
>on
>>to other scriptures. . .
>Ummmm.....how bout: the Holy Spirit says Jesus circumcizes away our
sinful
>nature in baptism. Sounds like an "actual" done deal to me!
It's sounds like a "done deal" because you are "begging the question" --
you are arguing the conclusion as a premise: 1. The "spiritual
circumcision" of Colossians 2 is not figurative because it's not. 2.
Therefore the "spiritual circumcision" is an actual one, not a
metaphorical one.
It's a circular argument.
>> >"An outward sign of inward grace? As a public
>> >confirmation of salvation?" Those reasons are nowhere in the Bible.
>> >Neither is salvation through "Praying Jesus Into Your Heart" or
"Saying
>> >the Sinner's Prayer."
>>
>>You realize, of course, that no one has mentioned any of these ideas in
>>this thread! Is this some sort of theological "preemptive strike"? : )
>
>Yup!
For the record, one can believe "faith saves" *without* believing in "The
Sinner's Prayer", etc.
Such issues generate more heat than light anyway: One side says "baptism
is an outward side of an inward grace." The other side says "The Bible
never says that -- Baptism is the point of salvation." The other side
says "The Bible never says that *either*!" And so on. . .
>We need to obey the commands God tells us to obey in order to become
>disciples, {snip}
That's the problem -- the Bible never tells us "obey this command in order
to become a disciple." Using the minds God gave us, we're supposed to
figure out which commands *make* us a Christian, and which commands are
just stuff that Christians *do*!
>>P.S. I notice that you continue to cite Acts 2:38. The issue of the
>>Greek word "eis" has been brought up on the NG several times, but I've
>>never seen you address it. Do you believe that the flexible nature of
>>"eis" allows for differing interpretations of Acts 2:38?
>Gotta take into account the WHOLE counsel of God, Dave. It all weaves
>together so beautifully.
Well, if you wanna take the "whole counsel" of God, then you'll need to
address some more scriptures, not just the baptism ones. The scriptures
listed above, IMO, still need to be dealt with. . .
>It all weaves together so beautifully.
Yes it does, either way you slice it! Even for the advocate of
"believer's baptism", passages like Romans 6 and Colossians 2 fit
wonderfully into the Biblical whole: baptism beautifully symbolizes our
rebirth with Christ.
---->Dave
DAnder9518
In article <Pine.SUN.3.94.960730...@tuzo.erin>, karen liu
<e0fk...@credit.erin.utoronto.ca> writes:
>> The following scriptures seem to indicate not only that faith is
>> *necessary* for salvation, but that it is *sufficient*: (please try
to
>> respond to these verses directly -- i.e. without quoting baptism
>> scriptures)
jesus
>got baptised, and he was the example we are all supposed to follow,
don't
>you think that we should all get baptised?
can
see that's not the issue! The issue is whether baptism is the "moment of
salvation." This in itself would be a trivial issue. But many people
use
the doctrine of baptismal regeneration to "prove" that they are the only
people with "the truth" and that everyone else is needs to join their
group. This, IMO is wrong.
> and what do we do about all the
>baptism scriptures (i am sure they have been posted several times so i
>won't repeat them) do we just ignore them then?
e-mailed
you my post about the baptism scriptures from last week (I think you
missed it).
>just take the whole bible,
>and not just verses from it is all that anyone can say really...
I realized that, literally speaking, some of the scriptures (e.g. Acts
16:30-31) seemed to contradict other scriptures (Acts 2:38). In trying
to
resolve these (apparent) contradictions, I came to believe that a "belief
saves" position provides the solution most consistent with the
scriptures.
---->Dave
Forrest
Personally I can not refute the faith passages any more than any others. I
believe and accept them all. Yes I believe that baptism is essential, but I also
believe that all the rest is essential as well. The arguments I have seen on this
thread (or discussions if you prefer) have still seemed to be "this verse says
this, BUT this verse says this." "Your verse is invalid because of these points,
BUT my verse is perfectly understandable." Again, we must take the whole
picture into account, and not strain out a gnat just to swallow a camel.
I would be the first to admit that getting wet is no indicator of being in a right
relationship with God. Even Jesus blasted the Pharisees regarding ceremonial
washing (not a proof text for baptism, just an example) stating that they were
white-washed tombs, clean on the outside, but filled with dead men's bones on
the inside. This wasn't only due to the ceremonial washing, but to the general
attitude of their hearts. They had gotten to the point of stating that in
ceremonial washing, one must have at least one half an eggshell full of water
poured down both hands and the water must run off the elbows to be valid
(according to either Josephus or Eusubius).
Personally I don't want to ever reach that level of legalism. I know too many
people who have gone that route and forgotten God's grace.
Bryan Forrest
--
The coldest depth of Hell is reserved
for people who abandon kittens.
Robert A. Heinlein, _Friday_
Scott W. Schreiber
dj...@aol.com (DJRTX) wrote:
>In the new covenant, adding anything to the work completed by Jesus
>Christ on the cross negates the sufficiency of His sacrifice for our
>salvation.
Well said! OUTSTANDING!!! HOORAY!!!!
You must be a Lutheran! :)
Luther wrote a commentary on Galatians. It's very good, and it also
conveys the point you just made....which is excellent, BTW.
Scott W. Schreiber
sco...@nhr.com (Scott W. Schreiber) wrote:
>You must be a Lutheran! :)
Keep in mind, Lutherans do not preach "license," but we also don't
preach legalism.
g...@mars.superlink.net
In <4tja7n$4...@newsbf02.news.aol.com>, dande...@aol.com (DAnder9518) writes:
>Forrest quoted a number of scriptures to support the view that baptism is
>necessary for salvation. Some comments on these passages. . .
>
>
><< Acts 2:38-39 Peter replied, "Repent and be baptized every one of you,
>in the
>name of Jesus Christ for the forgivness of your sins. And you will receive
>the
>gift of the Holy Spirit. The promise is for you and your children and for
>all
>who are far off - for all whom the Lord our God will call. >>
>
>This passage is the "biggie" -- without this verse, we probably wouldn't
>even be *debating* whether baptism is necessary for forgiveness/salvation!
>
>The big issue is the Greek word "eis", which is translated "for" in this
>translation. The NIV translation in English seems to command us to "repent
>and be baptized" (for the purpose of) the forgiveness of sins.
For your consideration:
A somewhat parallel verse is found in Math 3:11:
"11 I indeed baptize you with water unto repentance:
but he that cometh after me is mightier than I,
whose shoes I am not worthy to bear: he shall baptize you
with the Holy Ghost, and with fire:"
In the above verse the "unto repentance" is eis repentance.
Obviously, from the context, John did not baptize in order
to confer "repentance" but required repentance before
he would baptize. The parallel, in Acts 2:38 is that baptism
is in relation to the sins forgiven because the person had
previously believed in Jesus Christ to the saving of his soul.
Over and over again in the scriptures we have the fact stated
that when the person believes, he is justified.
Gary
>
>
>.. . .So Acts 2:38 by itself does not conclusively make baptism necessary
>for salvation.
Agreed!
Gary
g...@mars.superlink.net
In <4ts2ni$n...@newsbf02.news.aol.com>, dande...@aol.com (DAnder9518) writes:
>In the thread "And the Winner Is...", Ovum mentioned a few other
>scriptures that should be addressed:
>
>CANNOT enter the Kingdom?"
>
>that when Jesus says "water" he means "baptism"! There are 68 New
>Testament references to "water", and most are not speaking of baptismal
>"water."
>
>
> -------->Dave Anderson
Dave:
Another important consideration which lends credance to the
interpretation that the "water" is referring to phyiscal birth is
the following:
3 Jesus answered and said unto him, Verily, verily, I say unto thee,
Except a man be born again, he cannot see the kingdom of God.
4 Nicodemus saith unto him, How can a man be born when he is old?
can he enter the second time into his mother's womb, and be born?
5 Jesus answered, Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except a man be born
^^^^^^
NOT born again
^^^^^^^^^^^^^
of water and of the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God.
Jesus says one must be born (of water, natural birth) and of spirit (second birth).
Had he wanted to say what is put forward by those who claim this is baptism,
would be "Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except a man be born again of
water and of the spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God."
Gary
nancy
On Aug 04, 1996 02:13:37 in article <Re: Be all, end all, baptism thread>,
nancy
Scott W. Schreiber
n1...@usa.pipeline.com(nancy) wrote:
>Isn't Lutheran the same as Roman Catholic?
Negative.
I am wondering...is this humor?
Martin Luther was one of the best known reformers....
nancy
On Aug 05, 1996 09:22:23 in article <Re: Be all, end all, baptism thread>,
Do Lutherans believe in the trinity? The Virgin birth?
nancy
DJRTX
On 3 August 1996, in article <4u0ndq$n...@madrid.visi.net>, sco...@nhr.com
(Scott W. Schreiber) writes:
>dj...@aol.com (DJRTX) wrote:
>
>>In the new covenant, adding anything to the work completed by Jesus
>>Christ on the cross negates the sufficiency of His sacrifice for our
>>salvation.
>
>Well said! OUTSTANDING!!! HOORAY!!!!
>
>You must be a Lutheran! :)
>Luther wrote a commentary on Galatians. It's very good, and it also
>conveys the point you just made....which is excellent, BTW.
Sorry it has taken so long to respond to your post -- besides the things I
have mentioned previously, I have had a major project/seminar to prepare
and deliver. I have just began reading the last 11 or so posts on this
thread tonight.
Thanks. Actually, I am not a Lutheran. I claim no denominational
affiliation, and even if I did, I would prefer just to be called a
Christian. [no offense intended :-)] I strongly believe in the sufficiency
of the finished work of Christ on the cross.
Someday, I would like to read Luther's commentary on Galatians.
Joanne
DAnder9518
In article <4u692k$v...@news1.t1.usa.pipeline.com>,
n1...@usa.pipeline.com(nancy) writes:
>>>Isn't Lutheran the same as Roman Catholic?
>What I mean is...their beliefs are similar, like communion?
I'm not sure about communion (i.e. transubstantiation). . .
>Do Lutherans believe in the trinity?
Yes.
>The Virgin birth?
Yes -- but not *twelve* of them! ; )
The Lutheran church may be Protestant, but it retained some elements of
Catholicism, and got rid of others. (e.g. the Apostles Creed in some
Lutheran churches still says "I believe in... the Holy Catholic church.")
---->Dave
Chris Garland
They mean 'catholic' with a small 'c' -- which means "universal."
They're not referring to Rome.
Scott W. Schreiber
Chris Garland <chr...@village.ios.com> wrote:
>They mean 'catholic' with a small 'c' -- which means "universal."
>They're not referring to Rome.
Ahhh. Thank you. I was just gonna write that when I saw your post!
:)
I'm waiting for email about how I worship the Catholic Church.... :)
DJRTX
On 7 August 1996, in article <4u9jtl$7...@newsbf02.news.aol.com>,
dande...@aol.com (DAnder9518) writes:
>In article <4u692k$v...@news1.t1.usa.pipeline.com>,
>n1...@usa.pipeline.com(nancy) writes:
>
>>>>Isn't Lutheran the same as Roman Catholic?
>
>>What I mean is...their beliefs are similar, like communion?
>
>I'm not sure about communion (i.e. transubstantiation). . .
[Scott, since I am not Lutheran, *please* correct me if I am
wrong. :-)]
Lutherans do not affirm transubstantiation. The Lutheran
understanding of the Lord's Supper/Communion/Lord's Table
is called consubstantiation. Unlike transubstantiation, in
consubstantiation, the elements do not change into Christ's
body and blood. However, Christ is considered present in,
with, and under the elements.
I believe the smaller cathecism would be an appropriate
source to read about the Lutherans' beliefs about communion.
Provided the recipient has faith, Lutheran's believe forgiveness
of sins is received through Communion. Unlike in Catholicism,
the Communion cup is not withheld from the laity. Only
professed believers may participate in the Lord's Supper.
<snip>
Since this thread is on baptism, the Lutherans believe in
baptism by sprinkling or immersion. Saving (true) faith is
necessary for baptism to be effectual.
Joanne
ROBBIN VUGRNICK
>
>
I believe that the bible does teach that baptism is for the forgiveness
of sins and all people who want to be disciples of Christ should be
baptized. The scriptures I offer are the books of Matthew thru
Revelation (especially the book of ACTS). You will never find truth
just by selecting some scriptures out of context. Do not just read
select passages, read books so you get the real context of truth. How
can you not understand baptism when you read the whole book of ACTS and
see the command as well as the examples.
Can the grace of God through Jesus lead to forgiveness for someone who
is not immersed or even baptized, yet the person thinks they are doing
the right thing and they try to follow Jesus? God's mercy has always
been greater than mans. My sins have been so great and I have had such
a need for God's mercy, I will never limit God's grace and I know he is
just. In Christ - Rob Vugrnick
Scott W. Schreiber
dj...@aol.com (DJRTX) wrote:
>Christ is considered present in, with, and under the elements.
Yes.
>Lutheran's believe forgiveness of sins is received through Communion.
Well, Lutherans believe the forgiveness of sins is recieved through a
lot of things, but yes, in teh Sacrament of Communion, there is
forgiveness, life, and salvation.
>Only professed believers may participate in the Lord's Supper.
I think this depends on the church you go to. In my congregation,
adults need only come to the table, in others, the pastor likes it if
you talk with him/her a moment before service.
>Since this thread is on baptism, the Lutherans believe in
>baptism by sprinkling or immersion. Saving (true) faith is
>necessary for baptism to be effectual.
Pretty much.
Sounds like you've studied this before!
DAnder9518
As a "closing argument", I'd like to repost something I posted last
winter: (edited slightly)
I believe the "faith saves" position to be the stronger one for the
following reasons:
1. NECESSITY AND SUFFICIENCY
The "faith" texts listed in this thread not only outline the *necessity*
of belief / faith for salvation, but the *sufficiency* of it. While the
necessity of baptism for salvation is never stated directly in the Bible
(i.e. It never says, "You must be baptized in order to be saved"), the
necessity of belief for salvation is stated in numerous scriptures, and
the *sufficiency* of faith is strongly implied.
None of the baptismal prooftexts will say that baptism is sufficient.
You can draw *inferences* from some that it is necessary, but on the
whole, inferences must be drawn to support this view. The "faith"
passages are much more direct, and need no interpretation. One simply
assumes that when the Bible says "faith saves", it means "faith".
It is important to see the distinction between drawing an inference, and
taking the literal meaning of a passage. The adherent to the "baptism"
position may be making more inferences than they realize, all the while
believing that they are merely taking the passage literally.
2. PREPONDERANCE OF EVIDENCE
In this age of highly-publicized trials, let's introduce a legal term
(while, of course, trying not to be "legalists"!) -- "preponderance of
evidence".
For either the "faith" or "baptism" position, there are "problem
scriptures", scriptures which could be used to support the opposite view.
There are a greater number of passages that support the *sufficiency* of
faith, than there are passages which could be used to support the
*necessity* of baptism. Therefore, the "preponderance of evidence" is on
the side of the faith position.
3. PARSIMONY
The faith position actually needs less interpretation to support it. In
order to defend the baptism position, one must conclude that, when the
Bible says "faith saves", it really means "faith plus something saves"
(one can create some real theological catastrophies by saying "when the
Bible says X, it really means X + Y"). Therefore, the faith view is more
parsimonious.
4. RELATIONSHIPS BETWEEN BELIEVERS
Since there is no way to absolutely *prove* either position, we should
consider the different outcomes of each perspective. The faith position
allows the believer to associate with a greater number of potential
"brothers and sisters in Christ." The baptism position creates a problem
for a Christian seeking fellowship, since others who profess to be
believers can be suspected of not having a proper baptism, being
"unsaved", etc.
The adherant to the faith position, if their belief is incorrect, runs the
risk of errantly being in fellowship with some who are not Christians. If
the person in the baptism camp is wrong, they could make the mistake of
spurning the fellowship of actual Christians.
Judging from the New Testament's portrayal of Jesus, who was often
criticized for being in the company of "sinners", it seems that the
withholding of fellowship would be the greater error for a Christian to
make.
------->Dave Anderson
DAnder9518
In case anyone's still *reading* this thread, here's one last long-winded
post! : )
It's been enjoyable discussing baptism and it's relationship to
salvation. I'm thankful that many people participated, and that things
stayed civil (to Ovum's surprise!). I especially appreciate the calm
discussion by those who believe in baptism as the moment of conversion --
because to you, baptism is not merely a theological issue, but a
*salvation* issue!
I find it interesting that ICC members generally didn't participate in
this thread. I guess it's either because: 1.) The ICC has ingrained the
necessity of baptism so deeply that any debate would seem silly, like
debating the existence of the sun, or 2.) ICC members saw that the issue
was a little more complicated than they had realized, and didn't want to
debate. Isn't it interesting how baptism becomes a much more
*complicated* issue outside the black-and-white environment of the ICC
Bible Studies???
The importance of this thread is underscored by something that happened
to me last week. An ICC member approached me in a Pizza Hut outside
Madison Sq. Garden last week and asked me if I was a member. When I said
no, he started asking me questions, and the *biggest* thing on his mind
was "is baptism necessary for salvation, in the way that the ICC teaches
it"? He had been studying the issue out, but he still had concerns about
a couple of passages. After hearing alternative interpretations of those
passages, he started to look visibly relieved, as if a weight was being
lifted off his shoulders. He knew there was *something* wrong with the
ICC, and a part of him wanted to leave, but the ICC's teaching on baptism
was one of the things keeping him in the group. As a good-hearted person,
he wanted to make sure ICC teachings were incorrect before he opposed
them.
So much of the meaning of baptism seems to be lost on the ICC, which
makes baptism the crux of it's exclusivism. It's appalling that some
would use a ceremony of *unity* to *divide* us.
I hope that some people gained a deeper understanding of the issue. Even
if the debate didn't change anyone's minds, I hope that it encouraged some
*tolerance* for other viewpoints. I hope that people on either side of
the debate have realized that people have *reasons* for believing as they
do, and that many people have studied out their viewpoint and can defend
them scripturally. Most of all, I hope the discussion helped us to
*understand* one another, so that we can share fellowship together and
discuss other issues, without worrying about each other having been
"deceived" about baptism.