Can remission of sins come before baptism?

[Andyman_1970]

No, water baptism is how we die with Christ. Bible 101.

I thought I would stick my nose in your conversation.

I posted this on the "Liberal Theology" board regarding the issue of if baptism saves.

Check out Isaiah 1:10-17, the Lord is saying how he hates the sacrafices of Judah. It’s interesting because they were observing all the “requirements” to give the sacrafice, washing included, but God still says He hates the sacrafice, why? He hate their sacrafice because their hearts are not right, they don’t have their faith in Him, their faith is in their religious actions. So the larger issue here is; is your heart right with God. Evedently in this passage in Isaiah you can “go through the motions” offer all the right sacrafices, observe all the right feasts and festivals (essentially being obeiendient) and God still hate it if you heart it not right. What does Jesus say the most important commandment is? “Love the LORD your God with ALL your heart, ALL your mind, and ALL your strength” (from Deut. 6:5 BTW). So the essence here is that if you don’t love God will all your life and your whole being, all the religious actions you do are meaningless to Him. If all those reliegous actions actually “did” something (like washing actually caused repentance) then it wouldn’t matter what the condition of your heart was, you could just go “do” something and you would be right with God. “Man looks at the outside, God looks at the heart.”

How does this relate to baptism? My point is, if your heart is not right if you have first not surrendered your whole life to the Messiah Jesus, then baptism is meaningless. If baptism can be rendered “useless” by an unrepenant heart, then how does baptism save, where is it's regenerational power?

I have a question for you JMW, what is the Biblical (not just NT mind you) "mechanism" for repentance? Is it a cerimonial washing, or a sacrafice or something like that???

 

[Andyman_1970]

Where did this whole idea of Baptism come from? Was this something John the Baptist thought up and decided to implement and then was continued by the early followers of Jesus?

Some background

Baptism actually originated in the Old Testament times. In Leviticus 8 the sons of Aaron are ceremonially “washed” before they can become priests. Some of the rabbinical writings of the Talmud (Oral Torah) indicate that Adam may have “washed” in a stream after being evicted from the Garden as a sign that he was renewing his faith towards God.

Our Christian Baptism comes from a Jewish ceremony called Mikveh. This was/is the ritual washing that a woman would perform after she had her monthly cycle. This was also one of the three ceremonies a Gentile had to perform before he was converted to Judaism. First he was circumcised, then he would perform the mikvah then he would offer a sacrifice.

The ritual bath water could not be in a “tub” or something that could be disconnected from the building or ground and had to contain at least 200 gallons of rainwater that has not touched anything “unclean”.

This was the baptism John the Baptist preached. Why did the Jews have such a hard time with what he preached? Because that was and act that only Gentiles had to do. John though is telling them that the meaning behind the mikvah, repentance, is necessary.

So my question to the “Baptism saves” crowd is:

If the act of being immersed saves, then it would stand to reason that there is something “special” about the baptismal waters, correct?

Most would say “no there is nothing special about the water”, ok fine. If there is nothing special about the water then how can it save?

Next question: how many “baptism saves” people were baptized in a modern baptismal?

According to how John the Baptist baptized and the early church (who were mostly Jews), and how Jesus was baptized your baptism (if you believe it saves) is actually not Biblical and in effect “didn’t count”. Was it in a ritual mikvah like the Scriptures tell us John did and Jesus did?

Through the Blood of Jesus we have been set free from the bondage from the Law. IMO those who advocate that baptism saves are actually going back to the Law, but they are not actually adhering to it (ironically).

Just like for the Gentile in the ancient near east who wanted to worship the God of the Jews, baptism is a symbolic act of putting our old pagan idols and actions behind us and being reborn to live with the Creator of the Universe.

 

[Jesus My Wisdom]

Where did this whole idea of Baptism come from? Was this something John the Baptist thought up and decided to implement and then was continued by the early followers of Jesus?

Some background

Baptism actually originated in the Old Testament times. In Leviticus 8 the sons of Aaron are ceremonially “washed” before they can become priests. Some of the rabbinical writings of the Talmud (Oral Torah) indicate that Adam may have “washed” in a stream after being evicted from the Garden as a sign that he was renewing his faith towards God.

Our Christian Baptism comes from a Jewish ceremony called Mikveh. This was/is the ritual washing that a woman would perform after she had her monthly cycle. This was also one of the three ceremonies a Gentile had to perform before he was converted to Judaism. First he was circumcised, then he would perform the mikvah then he would offer a sacrifice.

Actually, the MAIN concept of Mikvah is purification before marriage consummation. That is why John was baptizing the bride.

The first concept of mikvah is found at Genesis 1:9-10. Paul alludes to this in Ephesians in a bride of Christ theme.

Mikvah was also required before Moses ratified the covenant of the Law with the people.

The ritual bath water could not be in a “tub” or something that could be disconnected from the building or ground and had to contain at least 200 gallons of rainwater that has not touched anything “unclean”.


This was the baptism John the Baptist preached. Why did the Jews have such a hard time with what he preached? Because that was and act that only Gentiles had to do.

That's not what my Bible says. I think you may have just made that up.

John though is telling them that the meaning behind the mikvah, repentance, is necessary.

It was a baptism OF repentance not a baptism BECAUSE of repentance.

So my question to the “Baptism saves” crowd is:

If the act of being immersed saves, then it would stand to reason that there is something “special” about the baptismal waters, correct?

Incorrect.

Most would say “no there is nothing special about the water”, ok fine. If there is nothing special about the water then how can it save?

It doesn't. God saves by means of water baptism.

Next question: how many “baptism saves” people were baptized in a modern baptismal?

Don''t confuse the issues. The mode of baptism is one issue. The meaning and signficance of baptism is another issue.

According to how John the Baptist baptized and the early church (who were mostly Jews), and how Jesus was baptized your baptism (if you believe it saves) is actually not Biblical and in effect “didn’t count”.

I can see you are quite misinformed or you have been talking to people who are misinformed.

Was it in a ritual mikvah like the Scriptures tell us John did and Jesus did?


Through the Blood of Jesus we have been set free from the bondage from the Law. IMO those who advocate that baptism saves are actually going back to the Law, but they are not actually adhering to it (ironically).

That is because you don't understand. Water baptism is the means by which we die with Christ and his cross. That my friend is how we are saved by the blood of Jesus.

Just like for the Gentile in the ancient near east who wanted to worship the God of the Jews, baptism is a symbolic act of putting our old pagan idols and actions behind us and being reborn to live with the Creator of the Universe.

Unbiblical bunk.

JMW

 

[Ben johnson]

The Bible asserts no such thing. This idea is inferred from the Bible.

Do you reject the idea of a "trinity"?

 

[Jesus My Wisdom]

Do you reject the idea of a "trinity"?

Ben, the fact that one recognizes the fact, along with other informed Trinitarians, that the Bible does NOT explicitly teach the Trinity, does not mean one does not believe in it.

The Trinity was developed from the Scriptures not taught in the Scriptures. Common knowledge.

The dual nature of Christ is not explicitly taught in the Scriptures either.

So it appears you have a double standard. It is okay for you to have inferred doctrines but not anyone else.

JMW

 

[Jesus My Wisdom]

I have a question for you JMW, what is the Biblical (not just NT mind you) "mechanism" for repentance? Is it a cerimonial washing, or a sacrafice or something like that???

Water baptism is the means by which we repent from our old way of life. That is why John preached a baptism OF repentance.

I am aware why you don't understand this. It is a problem of false dilemmas.

JMW

 

[Jesus My Wisdom]

How does this relate to baptism? My point is, if your heart is not right if you have first not surrendered your whole life to the Messiah Jesus, then baptism is meaningless. If baptism can be rendered “useless” by an unrepenant heart, then how does baptism save, where is it's regenerational power? [/I]

Water baptism IS how you surrender your life to Christ. That is why you are baptized into his name. That is why you die with him in water baptism. And that is why you are raised with him in the Spirit having been baptized in water.

How did you surrender to him? The imagination of your mind?

JMW

 

[augustine32]

Are you saying that it is impossible to be baptized and not have your heart in it? Or that if your heart is not in it the baptism is still effectual?

 

[Andyman_1970]

Actually, the MAIN concept of Mikvah is purification before marriage consummation. That is why John was baptizing the bride.

The first concept of mikvah is found at Genesis 1:9-10. Paul alludes to this in Ephesians in a bride of Christ theme.

Mikvah was also required before Moses ratified the covenant of the Law with the people.

Exactly, but we disagree on the "why" John was baptizing. It was also used during the conversion cerimony of a Gentile.

That's not what my Bible says. I think you may have just made that up.

You're right it's not in our Bible, it's in the Talmud, the oral Torah. Jesus and John the Baptist being Jewish rabbi's would have had this memorized, and it sets the context of the "why's" John was Baptizing. Why were the Pharisee's so hacked at him for what he was doing? Because in their eyes, why would a Jew one of God's children need to repent and wash like a Gentile.

It was a baptism OF repentance not a baptism BECAUSE of repentance.

I asked in the post (where I refer to Isa 1) what is the "mechanism" to repentance? Does the water "repent" me? Does the water, "turn" or "return" me as the word is in the orginal language?

Incorrect.

How is it incorrect? It just can't be incorrect because you say so (I'm not trying to be "smart" here). If baptism saves meaning we have to go down into the water and come back up, then what does the water do? How does it "clean" us?

It doesn't. God saves by means of water baptism.

He does? He saves me through some act I do? How were people saved in the OT? My Bible says (Hebrews 11) that "through faith" several times folks like Moses and Abraham and the like were saved. Now, Jesus was the completion of the Law, why would something be added to the "mechanism" of salvation from the OT? Aren't all believers under the Abrahamic covenant now (Gal 3)?

Don''t confuse the issues. The mode of baptism is one issue. The meaning and signficance of baptism is another issue.

I'm not confusing the issue. If the act of being washed saves then wouldn't the method of performing this act be important? I mean if you believe that the people in the first church were saved by being washed, then for us to be saved wouldn't we have to be washed the same way? Those in the first church were washed just like a Jew would wash and using the same "regulations" so if washing saves, shouldn't we today follow those same regulations?

That is because you don't understand. Water baptism is the means by which we die with Christ and his cross. That my friend is how we are saved by the blood of Jesus.

So if I'm suppose to take up my cross daily and die to myself daily, should I be baptized daily?

Unbiblical bunk.

You're right it's not in the Bible, but it's not "bunk". It's Jewish tradition, Jesus would have known about this and so would have John the Baptist and it was the context in which they were teaching (being 1st century Jews and all).

 

[Andyman_1970]

Water baptism IS how you surrender your life to Christ. That is why you are baptized into his name. That is why you die with him in water baptism. And that is why you are raised with him in the Spirit having been baptized in water.

How did you surrender to him? The imagination of your mind?

JMW

You didn't address the issue I bring up with the whole Isa 1 deal.

So in effect from you point of view, I can NOT love the Lord my God will all my heart, soul, and strength then by going down and back up from the water that act changes my state to loving God will all my heart, soul, and strength? So if I don't have a repentant heart, I can go down in the water and come back up and that repents me?

 

[AVBunyan]

Since there is another discussion of water baptism I thought I'd join -

If you want to pick one confusing doctrine today it is water baptism and yet it should be one of the simplest of doctrines. And yet more time has been spend on this subject than there ever should have been (just look at all the posts!!!). There are 2 schools of thought: 1. It is essential to salvation – don’t want to argue this – it is not…period! Seen all the verses, have had then quoted to me out of context for so long I just want to scream!

2. It is not essential to ones salvation but we are to do it because:

a. It is a picture of the death, burial, and resurrection – sounds good but there is no scripture to support this fine sounding phrase. You say, “It is an outward sign of an inward reality.” Really? Where did you get that? Chapter and verse? Sounds good but you can’t make a doctrine out of a catchy phrase.

b. It is the first step of obedience - sounds good but there is no scripture to support this fine sounding phrase.

c. It proves or demonstrates one’s salvation - sounds good but there is no scripture to support this fine sounding phrase.

d. Many saints in the Bible baptized so we should – sounds good but many saints did things in the Bible that we don’t do anymore. We don’t sacrifice lambs, we don’t raise people from the dead, we don’t take vows, we don’t abstain from pork, etc. Yes, things change and I’m glad they do!!!

e. The Lord Jesus Christ commanded it in Matt. 28:19,20 – yes he did but also told you to observe all things whatsoever He had commanded and one of the things he commanded was to adhere to what the Pharisees taught and they taught the law - Matt. 23:3 – “All therefore whatsoever they bid you observe.” They taught the law and I know you believe you are not to adhere to the Old Testament law (well some of you do). (Similar to “d.)


First summary – all that we have been taught and practice concerning baptism has been based upon tradition and making doctrines out of poor applications. Because of these errors we have people going to hell on Acts 2:38, etc. and others trying to obey the “first step of obedience” and if they don’t they are made to fill like second class citizens by Baptist Churches.

What I am going to present I already know most of you will not believe for a couple of reasons:

1. You want to insist on missing salvation with your water baptism and nothing is going to change that!

2. You just cannot give up your tradition that has been passed down for centuries. You have made a doctrine out of a tradition.

Now this is what I believe baptism was for in the Bible. I will only discuss the word baptism as it relates to water for just because you see the word baptize it doesn’t mean it is associated with water all the time. Now the Church of Christ can’t see that for all they see is water, water and more water every time the word shows up in any form. For example - look at I Cor. 10:2 and Col. 2:12 and try to find water baptism there.

The first time water baptism shows up is with John the Baptist. Now why did John baptize? Let’s let him tell us.

John 1:31 And I knew him not: but that he should be made manifest to Israel, therefore am I come baptizing with water.

Look at “therefore” – why is the “therefore” there? The issue was manifesting Christ to Israel. Christ was being manifesting to Israel for the first time. John the Baptist said (paraphrasing), “Here is your Messiah! Do you believe this” Ok, then get baptized.“ Why get baptized? To show that you believe Christ was Israel’s long awaited for Messiah. And along with that they were to show their repentance in regards to their rejection of God the Father in the Old Testament. Manifestation and repentance - It is that simple. And yet this simple doctrine meant for God’s dealing with Israel has turned into a monster.

Do you know why they continued to baptize during Acts? Because the Jews rejected Christ in the gospels and were getting a second chance in Acts. The Gentiles were in on it because they were getting in on Israel’s blessings at that time. Once Israel finally rejected the message in Acts 28 then there was no need to call everyone’s attention to Jesus being the Messiah for that plan was done away with and Paul was called out by God to reveal the body of Christ.

The issue of showing Christ being the Messiah is a non issue today for we have advanced revelation on the matter due to the New Testament being finally written down – plus God is not dealing with Israel right now (I know, a broken record) – So………..baptism is a non issue today. There is only one baptism and that is the one baptism of Ephesians 4 and that has nothing to do with water!

Again, if you start with Paul you will get it – you can’t start with John the Baptist and carry a practice meant for Israel all the way through the church age! You see how simple the scriptures are? You know, Christianity is full of a lot of “junk” today that has nothing to do with Bible Christianity. We are not Rome – we don’t need all of those outward ceremonies.

Conclusion – If you want to baptize then fine – I don’t panic over people making baptism a picture of salvation, etc. You make it essential to salvation and we will go to war over that. But to use it as a picture then I’m not going to make an issue out of it – that is between your church and God – I believe in local self-governing churches.

Wouldn’t it be so much easier to stick with Ephesians 4? Look at what a stumbling block this doctrine has caused. Look at how much money has been spent on baptismal fountains!!! Could you imagine a Baptist church not being able to count their “baptisms” to be able to send them to the Sword of the Lord! Just kidding. I am a Baptist so I can pick on my own thank you.


May God bless - sorry for the length

 

[Jesus My Wisdom]

Exactly, but we disagree on the "why" John was baptizing. It was also used during the conversion cerimony of a Gentile.

Yes it is used in the conversion of a Gentile now that the Gentiles can come in. That is why John did not baptize Gentiles before the resurrection of Christ. See Acts 10:47 for the first Gentile baptism.

The gospel was for the Jew first.

You're right it's not in our Bible, it's in the Talmud, the oral Torah. Jesus and John the Baptist being Jewish rabbi's would have had this memorized, and it sets the context of the "why's" John was Baptizing. Why were the Pharisee's so hacked at him for what he was doing? Because in their eyes, why would a Jew one of God's children need to repent and wash like a Gentile.

So I take it you don't practice Sola Scriptura but Scripture plus the Jewish traditions?

The Bible tells us why the Pharisees were unhappy with Jesus. You seem to have ignored this for some other idea.

I asked in the post (where I refer to Isa 1) what is the "mechanism" to repentance? Does the water "repent" me? Does the water, "turn" or "return" me as the word is in the orginal language?

No. In John's baptism, water baptism is how one went about repenting.

How is it incorrect? It just can't be incorrect because you say so (I'm not trying to be "smart" here). If baptism saves meaning we have to go down into the water and come back up, then what does the water do? How does it "clean" us?

The water does not cleanse the soul nor does the water save. God saves us through the sacrament of water baptism. The water baptism is the divinely established means by which we die with Christ. How did you die with Christ?

He does? He saves me through some act I do?

No, He saves you by an act done to you by His servants who do these things in his name. That is why they baptize you "in the name of Jesus."

How were people saved in the OT?

Well some were saved through the Red Sea, so says my Bible. The Bible talks about being saved in many ways. Saved from prison, disease, etc.

But it is obvious that you are asking how many people were saved in the same way as Epehsians 2:8 ( new birth conversion event).

The answer is NONE. The OT saints had their sins remitted WHEN Jesus died on the cross. The Bible says so.

My Bible says (Hebrews 11) that "through faith" several times folks like Moses and Abraham and the like were saved.

No it doesn't. You need to read it again. It does say Noah was saved fromthe flood by building an ark. You will also note Peter says this salvation is a typology of salvation in water baptism. (1 Peter 3:21).

Now, Jesus was the completion of the Law, why would something be added to the "mechanism" of salvation from the OT? Aren't all believers under the Abrahamic covenant now (Gal 3)?

Because righteousness does not come through the law but through Christ. Having your sins zeroed out is not righteousness my friend. But that is another matter. And the Abrahamic covenant and the Law are not the came covenant. Apparently you have these two confused. Furthermore, Paul teaches that we become children of Abraham through baptism (Gal 3:26-29). But all that is beside the point here. When Paul said Jesus as the end of the Law he meant the end of that covenant. In case you did not know, you were never uncer the Law the first place. Look at where all your false assumptions have gotten you? You must get your facts straight before you make conclusions upon them.

You will notice that Jesus instituted baptism when he rose from the dead into the name of Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. You ask, why did he ADD this? Because this is the means by which we become united with him; it is our response of faith to him.

I'm not confusing the issue. If the act of being washed saves then wouldn't the method of performing this act be important?

No, it is not important as you think it is. And in fact you are again duped by your own assumptions. I personally believe immersion was the usual method due to early church writings and but you cannot prove that from the Bible (and yes I know you think you can but you can't). You have made an assumption I believe otherwise to your own detriment. Also, the Orthodox church immerses and it not only immerses, it immerses infants. Do you yet see how you are confusing the issues here? There are 3 distinct issues people discuss concerning baptism:

1. Mode
2. Meaning and Significance
3. Wheter infants should be baptised

The first can be discussed without discussing the other two. The 3rd must be discussed by considering the second.

I mean if you believe that the people in the first church were saved by being washed, then for us to be saved wouldn't we have to be washed the same way?

It is quite debatable. The Didache suggest pouring was permissible. I would suggest that if you completely understand baptism, it is likely pouring was also practiced. Indeed, how did Paul baptize the Philippian jailer's household? Are you going to imagine that they paraded out of the jailer's compound and went down to a river? That won't even work for you. That is just one example.

Those in the first church were washed just like a Jew would wash and using the same "regulations" so if washing saves, shouldn't we today follow those same regulations?

That is quite debatable as well. But again this thread is about the remission of sins and whether baptism has ANYTHING to do with that. Discussing mode is another issue. Also, you seem to think "doing it right" makes it effective. That is not how it works. God makes it effective.

So if I'm suppose to take up my cross daily and die to myself daily, should I be baptized daily?

No, because once water baptized you have died with Christ, as Paul teaches, and are transferred into the realm of the Spirit. Being there, you are to "put off the flesh" which is what it means to pick up your cross.

You're right it's not in the Bible, but it's not "bunk". It's Jewish tradition, Jesus would have known about this and so would have John the Baptist and it was the context in which they were teaching (being 1st century Jews and all).

First, you said it was symbolic of putting away pagan idols. That is ridiculous. The Jews of Judea were baptized by John and later also by the apostles inot the Christians faith and they were not pagan idolators.

Second, We are not Jews. The Passover meal which became the Lord's Supper means something different to us than it did to them. In the same way, so does water baptism. For Jews under the Law, it had nothing to do with the Messiah.

Third, you have absolutely NO Scriptural evidence whatsoever to claim it is "symbolic." You have to make that up because you have a false dilemma between faith and baptism not being able to comprehend how baptism is itself how we believe into Christ.

Fourth, It is also interesting how Prots yell Sola Scriptura when anyone else appeals to extra-Biblical evidence but grant themselves a license to do just that when it suits their needs and when they themselves are the ones who are actually supposed to be Practing Sola Scriptura. It is the epitome of hypocrisy.

JMW

 

[Jesus My Wisdom]

You didn't address the issue I bring up with the whole Isa 1 deal.

YOU: "Isaiah 1:10-17, the Lord is saying how he hates the sacrafices of Judah. It’s interesting because they were observing all the “requirements” to give the sacrafice, washing included, but God still says He hates the sacrafice, why? He hate their sacrafice because their hearts are not right, they don’t have their faith in Him, their faith is in their religious actions. So the larger issue here is; is your heart right with God. Evedently in this passage in Isaiah you can “go through the motions” offer all the right sacrafices, observe all the right feasts and festivals (essentially being obeiendient) and God still hate it if you heart it not right."

If a person is baptized and partakes in the Lord's Supper or any other sacraments and does so in the manner you are describing, yes it is useless to them. That is why Catholics and Lutherans and Anglicans believe that if a person is baptized, it does not necessarily mean they are going to heaven. The rite of circumcision did not guarantee you God's favor either. That is Paul's point in Romans 2. Believing the gospel message is true is also useless to you if you sin. Same thing.

Baptism is entry into a functional way of living, not acquiring a permanent status. You see, you are basing many of your conclusions upon your own premises. You compare one idea that is not yours to an idea that IS yours and you do not stop to think if your benchmark idea is true or not.

Now, as to your second question here.

So in effect from you point of view, I can NOT love the Lord my God will all my heart, soul, and strength

You can even do that by not having the Holy Spirit my friend.

then by going down and back up from the water that act changes my state to loving God will all my heart, soul, and strength?

No, water baptism does not change your heart. It is how you die with Christ. When you are immersed, since that is how you want to be baptized, and you go down inthe water you are dying with Christ and his cross and that is why your sins are washed away at that point. When you come up out of the water you are being resurrected with Christ and in a sphere where you may receive the Holy Spirit and live in the Holy Spirit. This is how your conscience is cleansed and your sins are washed away. When you have died you have paid the wages of sin and have shared in Christ's cross. When you arise you are a new creation being filled with the love of God in Christ Jesus.

Jesus was baptrized; Jesus received the Holy Spirit. Same thing. His act of baptism was a preparatin for his death and so he sanctified the sacrament of baptism in this manner for us.
That is why Peter says, "Be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ unto the remission of your sins and you will receive the Holy Spirit."

So if I don't have a repentant heart, I can go down in the water and come back up and that repents me?

No, it completes your repentance. You have not truly repented until you have acted. If I say, "look out a rock is going to fall on your head" and you did not move did you really believe me? No. You don't have true belief until you act. If I say to you, "I know a doctor who can heal you. Believe the good news." What are you going to do? Simply believe the message I said is true? That is ridiculous. No, you go to the operation and get your healing. That is HOW you believe. Same with baptism. In baptism, you circumcise the flesh and are raised anew in the Spirit. That is what the Bible says. But of course, you don't want to accept that.

JMW

 

[Jesus My Wisdom]

Since there is another discussion of water baptism I thought I'd join -

Welcome.

If you want to pick one confusing doctrine today it is water baptism and yet it should be one of the simplest of doctrines. And yet more time has been spend on this subject than there ever should have been (just look at all the posts!!!). There are 2 schools of thought: 1. It is essential to salvation – don’t want to argue this – it is not…period! Seen all the verses, have had then quoted to me out of context for so long I just want to scream!

Then you are still misinformed.

2. It is not essential to ones salvation but we are to do it because:

It is a bit of a distortion to say it is "essential" to salvation. Baptism is the means by which we are saved, not one of the things we must do to be saved.

a. It is a picture of the death, burial, and resurrection – sounds good but there is no scripture to support this fine sounding phrase.

Correct. The symbolic "picture" is an invention of men designed to nullify the word of God for the sake of human traditions.

You say, “It is an outward sign of an inward reality.” Really? Where did you get that? Chapter and verse? Sounds good but you can’t make a doctrine out of a catchy phrase.

I don't know. I don't say that. That would be more of a Presbyterian viewpoint.

b. It is the first step of obedience - sounds good but there is no scripture to support this fine sounding phrase.

Not quite right. It is true that baptism is an act of obedience. This is an obvious truism. But that's not that relevant here.

c. It proves or demonstrates one’s salvation - sounds good but there is no scripture to support this fine sounding phrase.

Correct.

d. Many saints in the Bible baptized so we should – sounds good but many saints did things in the Bible that we don’t do anymore. We don’t sacrifice lambs, we don’t raise people from the dead, we don’t take vows, we don’t abstain from pork, etc. Yes, things change and I’m glad they do!!!

False dilemma. We do not do those things because we are not under the Law. Christ commanded us to be baptized.

e. The Lord Jesus Christ commanded it in Matt. 28:19,20 – yes he did but also told you to observe all things whatsoever He had commanded and one of the things he commanded was to adhere to what the Pharisees taught and they taught the law - Matt. 23:3 – “All therefore whatsoever they bid you observe.” They taught the law and I know you believe you are not to adhere to the Old Testament law (well some of you do). (Similar to “d.)

Before Jesus died and rose again, Jesus told his disciples to obey the rulers of the Law becasue they were still under the Law. You will notice that after Pentecost, Peter did NOT obey the Pharisees.

It appears you are looking for reason to grant yourself a license to nullify the command of Christ?

First summary – all that we have been taught and practice concerning baptism has been based upon tradition and making doctrines out of poor applications.

False. It is based on the Bible.

[qutoe]
Because of these errors we have people going to hell on Acts 2:38, etc. and others trying to obey the “first step of obedience” and if they don’t they are made to fill like second class citizens by Baptist Churches.
[/quote]

People going to hell eh? Do you believe God send people to hell for having mistaken ideas?

What I am going to present I already know most of you will not believe for a couple of reasons:

1. You want to insist on missing salvation with your water baptism and nothing is going to change that!

I am not sure what you are talking about there.

2. You just cannot give up your tradition that has been passed down for centuries. You have made a doctrine out of a tradition.

Actually, before I studed the word of God carefully, I was one of those people who believed that water baptism was a symbolic picture of our previous savlation event. I was sooooooo wrong.

Water baptism is not a tradition. It is the command of Christ. And the Bible also tells us what it means.

Now this is what I believe baptism was for in the Bible. I will only discuss the word baptism as it relates to water for just because you see the word baptize it doesn’t mean it is associated with water all the time.

That is quite true. But here is the problem. You are going to decide by an act of your own will which occurrences of baptism refer to water and which do not based entirely on what better suits your fancies. Not a good idea my friend. It is not a sign of a good heart. You need to ask yourself what the author really intended, not what you want it to be.

Now the Church of Christ can’t see that for all they see is water, water and more water every time the word shows up in any form. For example - look at I Cor. 10:2 and Col. 2:12 and try to find water baptism there.

Well I am not Church of Christ but I dare say you are misrepresenting them based on your misguided notions. They correctly believe that there is ONE baptism. And in that one baptism event, you die with Christ in water and are raised up anew with Christ in the Spirit. Same event.

The first time water baptism shows up is with John the Baptist. Now why did John baptize? Let’s let him tell us.

John 1:31 And I knew him not: but that he should be made manifest to Israel, therefore am I come baptizing with water.

Good answer.

Look at “therefore” – why is the “therefore” there? The issue was manifesting Christ to Israel. Christ was being manifesting to Israel for the first time.

Yes, and you will note it was by water baptism Christ was revealed to them.

John the Baptist said (paraphrasing), “Here is your Messiah! Do you believe this” Ok, then get baptized.“

Um, no. Jesus was not even there the majority of the time. You have totally misinterpreted John's words.

Why get baptized? To show
[/quote}

To show? Show who and for what purpose?

that you believe Christ was Israel’s long awaited for Messiah. And along with that they were to show their repentance in regards to their rejection of God the Father in the Old Testament. Manifestation and repentance - It is that simple. And yet this simple doctrine meant for God’s dealing with Israel has turned into a monster.

No, it isn't that simple. There are a large number of other passages to consider that foil this attempt of yours.

Do you know why they continued to baptize during Acts?

Yes I do.

Because the Jews rejected Christ in the gospels and were getting a second chance in Acts.

Bunk. A pure invention not found anywhere in Scripture.

They baptized in Acts because Christ commanded his disciples to baptise. They did not do so until Pentecost because the Spirit had not yet been poured out. But as soon as the Spirit came, people were baptized to receive the Spirit (Acts 2:38-39).

God did this here at Pentecost for several reasons but one reasons is that Jews from all over the world gathered on that day in Jerusalem. They had never even heard of Jesus yet because the good news was previously confined to Palestine. Jesus commanded that. But now it was for all who were far off, including the Gentiles.

The Gentiles were in on it because they were getting in on Israel’s blessings at that time.

You might say Christ died King of the Jews and was raised King of the Universe. That is why my friend that jesus said to his disciples they should not preach the message to the Gentiles. The time had not yet come for that.

Once Israel finally rejected the message in Acts 28 then there was no need to call everyone’s attention to Jesus being the Messiah for that plan was done away with and Paul was called out by God to reveal the body of Christ.

Oh, my. That is so ridiculous it does not deserve comment.

Do you come up with these ideas with one eye on your denominational creed?

The issue of showing Christ being the Messiah is a non issue today for we have advanced revelation on the matter due to the New Testament being finally written down – plus God is not dealing with Israel right now (I know, a broken record) – So………..baptism is a non issue today. There is only one baptism and that is the one baptism of Ephesians 4 and that has nothing to do with water!

Because you say so? Where is your evidence?

Again, if you start with Paul you will get it – you can’t start with John the Baptist and carry a practice meant for Israel all the way through the church age! You see how simple the scriptures are? You know, Christianity is full of a lot of “junk” today that has nothing to do with Bible Christianity. We are not Rome – we don’t need all of those outward ceremonies.

Well unfortunately, the disciples were water baptizing Gentiles into the church. Seems you have a problem here.

Conclusion – If you want to baptize then fine – I don’t panic over people making baptism a picture of salvation, etc. You make it essential to salvation and we will go to war over that. But to use it as a picture then I’m not going to make an issue out of it – that is between your church and God – I believe in local self-governing churches.

I see how you do it. It is kind of like that Matthew 16:18 thingy right? You really don't care which interpretation anyone has there as long as it is not the "Peter the rock" one right? It is quite clear that you do not search for truth which such a disposition but want to simply serve a belief system of your choosing as if it were your god.

You need to drop everything and follow Jesus.

Wouldn’t it be so much easier to stick with Ephesians 4?

yeah okay. Let's forget about all those other baptism verses. We just don't like those ones. Yuck. This one here in Ephesians... mmmmm... yes we like that one. Come on! Let's get serious here. You are appealing to serve your own fleshly passions.

Look at what a stumbling block this doctrine has caused.

YOu know. Jesus was a stumbling block too. Let's forget about him.

Look at how much money has been spent on baptismal fountains!!! Could you imagine a Baptist church not being able to count their “baptisms” to be able to send them to the Sword of the Lord! Just kidding. I am a Baptist so I can pick on my own thank you.

YOu know I never thought of that. Its a money issue. yes, I think we should forget about baptism altogether and use the money for new and softer pews. I am sure Jesus will understand why we ignored his command to baptize.

JMW

 

[Ben johnson]

Water baptism is the means by which we repent from our old way of life. That is why John preached a baptism OF repentance.

I think you miss the meaning of Matt3. "As for me, I baptize you with water for repentance, but He who is coming after me is mightier than I, and I am not fit to remove his sandals; He will baptize you with the Holy Spirit and with fire. His winnowing fork is in His hand, and He will gather His wheat into the barn, but He will burn up the chaff with unquenchable fire."

John baptized with WATER.

John stated that Jesus brings a DIFFERENT baptism, OTHER than with water, baptism of the SPIRIT.

John also says that He brings fire, "He will burn the chaff with unquenchable fire".

John very plainly states that there is a DIFFERENCE in what he brings, and what Jesus brings; Jesus' baptism is SPIRITUAL. Not water.

Water baptism is the means by which we repent from our old way of life. That is why John preached a baptism OF repentance.

Do you have a concordance? Look up "repent". How many entries? 60-70. Now --- how many of them include in the same sentence --- BE BAPTIZED? One. If waterbaptism is so tied to "repentance", then why does "repentance" occur so often, but so seldom WITH the word "waterbaptize"?

John baptized with WATER, but Jesus baptized with the Holy Spirit. THAT is the "repentance", the indwelling Spirit --- not water.

Indwelt by the Holy Spirit, is simultaneous to being indwelt by Jesus --- "IMMERSED/BURIED/UNITED/DIED/CRUCIFIED with Him and UNITED ALSO IN HIS RESURRECTION". In other words, BORN AGAIN!

 

[Andyman_1970]

Yes it is used in the conversion of a Gentile now that the Gentiles can come in. That is why John did not baptize Gentiles before the resurrection of Christ. See Acts 10:47 for the first Gentile baptism.

The gospel was for the Jew first.

So in Luke 3 when the soldiers ask John the Baptist what this whole "Jesus movement" is about, those could have been temple police (Jews) or Roman soldiers (Gentiles). Were they not asking John in the same passage were John is baptising? Now the Scriptures do not say John baptized them, but I don't think it's entirely accurate to assume he did not.

So I take it you don't practice Sola Scriptura but Scripture plus the Jewish traditions?

That is an inaccurate assumption you make about me (and has a hint of being arguementative). I use things like the Hebrew Torah and the Talmud just as you use modern commentaries on the Scriptures. How can we fully know and understand the Scriptures unless we look at them in their historical and cultural contexts (rhetorical question).

The Bible tells us why the Pharisees were unhappy with Jesus. You seem to have ignored this for some other idea.

I was not referring to the Pharisees being unhappy with Jesus, I was referring to the Pharisees being unhappy with John the Baptist. No I didn't ignore it, you misunderstood what I was saying, if I communicated that poorly I apologize.

No. In John's baptism, water baptism is how one went about repenting.

Not according to the Jewish tradition, the washing is a symbol or repententace not the vehicle for it.

No, He saves you by an act done to you by His servants who do these things in his name. That is why they baptize you "in the name of Jesus."

Done to us by His servants..........so my salvation is a work done for me (or assisted in this case) by others? That certainly does not line up with the doctrine of grace through faith (Eph 2) and not works.

But it is obvious that you are asking how many people were saved in the same way as Epehsians 2:8 ( new birth conversion event).

The answer is NONE. The OT saints had their sins remitted WHEN Jesus died on the cross. The Bible says so.

Ok.........then who was on the Mt. of Transfiguration? Moses and Elijah were there, now if everyone that was "saved" in the OT got their sins remitted when Jesus died, how did Moses and Elijah make it to heaven, or can you get into heaven without your sins being remitted? Or were they in a "holding area" until Jesus died?

No it doesn't. You need to read it again. It does say Noah was saved fromthe flood by building an ark. You will also note Peter says this salvation is a typology of salvation in water baptism. (1 Peter 3:21).

Gen 6:8-9 says Noah found favor and was blameless and righteous before the Lord, this was before he built the ark. Building the ark did not earn him salvation, he found grace in God's eyes. Noah was saved from the water, not by the water.

Because righteousness does not come through the law but through Christ. Having your sins zeroed out is not righteousness my friend. But that is another matter. And the Abrahamic covenant and the Law are not the came covenant. Apparently you have these two confused. Furthermore, Paul teaches that we become children of Abraham through baptism (Gal 3:26-29). But all that is beside the point here. When Paul said Jesus as the end of the Law he meant the end of that covenant. In case you did not know, you were never uncer the Law the first place. Look at where all your false assumptions have gotten you? You must get your facts straight before you make conclusions upon them.

I did not make that point very well, I'll conceed.

You will notice that Jesus instituted baptism when he rose from the dead into the name of Father, Son, and Holy Spirit.

I thought you said earlier we had to be baptised "in Jesus Name".

No, it is not important as you think it is. And in fact you are again duped by your own assumptions. I personally believe immersion was the usual method due to early church writings and but you cannot prove that from the Bible (and yes I know you think you can but you can't). You have made an assumption I believe otherwise to your own detriment. Also, the Orthodox church immerses and it not only immerses, it immerses infants. Do you yet see how you are confusing the issues here? There are 3 distinct issues people discuss concerning baptism:

1. Mode
2. Meaning and Significance
3. Wheter infants should be baptised

The first can be discussed without discussing the other two. The 3rd must be discussed by considering the second.

I'm not confusing the issue here. If in fact baptism regenerates as you assert then 1 and 2 are tied together. Our God is the same God of the OT and He gave them specific ways to do things, esspecially regarding sacrafices and such. It's an assumption on your part to conclude that suddenly God changed how to do things and we can perform all these sacraments anyway we want (that is assuming Baptism actually "does" something, that would be your position if I understand it).

If it was so important to observe the OT sacraments in a specific way, why can we now perform a sacrament "any way we want" (pour, sprinkle, immerse, etc)? From my beleifs, baptism is a picture a symbol, so the mode is irrelevant. But, if baptism "does" something as you assert, shouldn't certain regulations be adhered to accomplish that "something"? If Baptism "does" something, then shouldn't it be performed as it was in the Scriptures?

It is quite debatable. The Didache suggest pouring was permissible. I would suggest that if you completely understand baptism, it is likely pouring was also practiced. Indeed, how did Paul baptize the Philippian jailer's household? Are you going to imagine that they paraded out of the jailer's compound and went down to a river? That won't even work for you. That is just one example.

Pouring as far as I can tell was used typically for the OT preists, the cerimonial washing done when a Gentile converted (which is the example I'm using) was immersion, 3 times in succession. Again, this was a picture of the Gentile turning from his pagan ways and idols to the One True God.

That is quite debatable as well. But again this thread is about the remission of sins and whether baptism has ANYTHING to do with that. Discussing mode is another issue. Also, you seem to think "doing it right" makes it effective. That is not how it works. God makes it effective.

If baptism "does" something, then why wouldn't the mode be important? (As I stated above) Is the "mode" important to how the Lord's Supper is executed? Assuming you answer "yes", then why is the "mode" for baptism not important in relation to baptism "doing" something?

First, you said it was symbolic of putting away pagan idols. That is ridiculous. The Jews of Judea were baptized by John and later also by the apostles inot the Christians faith and they were not pagan idolators.

First, because you don't understand something does not make it ridiculous, that is disrespectful.

Second, if you study the Jewish tradition esspecially relating to the conversion of Gentiles, it was a picture.

No they were not pagan idolaters, they idolized the Law, and thats why the Pharisee's were mad at John the Baptist (as I stated above) - from the Pharisee's point of view they or any other Jew did not need to repent and be washed, that was for those dirty Gentiles. But they did need to repent, and (just like the Gentile convert) symbolically (by washing) turn from their old way and turn to God.

Third, you have absolutely NO Scriptural evidence whatsoever to claim it is "symbolic." You have to make that up because you have a false dilemma between faith and baptism not being able to comprehend how baptism is itself how we believe into Christ.

So are you calling me a liar or something? Your tone has steadily degraded through this post.

I have a little newsflash, neither you nor myself, nor anyone else here has all the answers. To post on here like you do, is pride, and that is a sin. I come on here to read and share ideas and explore different points of view, which in turn reinforce what I already believe, not with the intention of proving people wrong.

Now back to the thread - Just as you say I have no Scriptural evidence to support my claims, neither do you. The verses you cite can be taken out of context and the grammer is suspect as to asserting Baptism is essential to repentance.

Fourth, It is also interesting how Prots yell Sola Scriptura when anyone else appeals to extra-Biblical evidence but grant themselves a license to do just that when it suits their needs and when they themselves are the ones who are actually supposed to be Practing Sola Scriptura. It is the epitome of hypocrisy.

I have a "off topic" question: If as your title describes Jesus is your wisdom, then why would you make such a divisive comment as that? Newsflash, neither Catholics nor Protestants have a corner on the "getting to heaven" market, there will be both up there. To say otherwise is unBiblical.

 

[Jesus My Wisdom]

So in Luke 3 when the soldiers ask John the Baptist what this whole "Jesus movement" is about, those could have been temple police (Jews) or Roman soldiers (Gentiles). Were they not asking John in the same passage were John is baptising? Now the Scriptures do not say John baptized them, but I don't think it's entirely accurate to assume he did not.

Safe to assume? Or you desire to assume? They "could have been" therefore it is so? You are going to base your theology upon such a speculation that you have imagined into the Scripture? That is very unwise.

"I only came for the lost house of Israel" (Mt 15:24).

"Jesus sent out after instructing them: "Do not go in the way of the Gentiles." (matthew 10:4).

Jesus came to save HIS people from their sins. First for the Jew. It is a basic Biblical concept that the Gentiles were excluded until Jesus rose from the dead.

That is an inaccurate assumption you make about me (and has a hint of being arguementative). I use things like the Hebrew Torah and the Talmud just as you use modern commentaries on the Scriptures. How can we fully know and understand the Scriptures unless we look at them in their historical and cultural contexts (rhetorical question).

No, you are not doing as you say and it is not the same as reading a commentary to understand Scripture. You have went to the extreme of appealing to these extra-Biblical sources on matters which the Bible does not discuss. That is Bible + Tradition.

I was not referring to the Pharisees being unhappy with Jesus, I was referring to the Pharisees being unhappy with John the Baptist. No I didn't ignore it, you misunderstood what I was saying, if I communicated that poorly I apologize.

The Pharisees were not exactly unhappy with John.

Not according to the Jewish tradition, the washing is a symbol or repententace not the vehicle for it.

No, that is a misrepresentation of the facts. Mikvah is not a mere demonstrating "symbol" but a necessary act of repentance in Judaism.

Done to us by His servants..........so my salvation is a work done for me (or assisted in this case) by others? That certainly does not line up with the doctrine of grace through faith (Eph 2) and not works.

God distributes his grace through his servants. It fits perfectly with Ephesians 2:8.

Ok.........then who was on the Mt. of Transfiguration? Moses and Elijah were there, now if everyone that was "saved" in the OT got their sins remitted when Jesus died, how did Moses and Elijah make it to heaven, or can you get into heaven without your sins being remitted? Or were they in a "holding area" until Jesus died?

The Bible does not say Elijah "went to heaven." It says he went up in the heavens.

"No one has ascended into heaven" (John 3:13. )

Gen 6:8-9 says Noah found favor and was blameless and righteous before the Lord, this was before he built the ark. Building the ark did not earn him salvation, he found grace in God's eyes. Noah was saved from the water, not by the water.

By faith Noah, being warned by God concerning events as yet unseen, took heed and constructed an ark for the saving of his household

Being blameless and righteous does not mean Noah was "saved."

Moreover, you try to Nullify the Hebrews passage which DOES say Noah was saved.

Furthermore, Peter says 8 people were saved through water.

Also, Noah was saved from the water by the water.

I thought you said earlier we had to be baptised "in Jesus Name".

Same thing. See Bible.

I'm not confusing the issue here. If in fact baptism regenerates as you assert then 1 and 2 are tied together.

Sure they are tied together. But whether baptism saves and how it saves are 2 different questions. perhaps baptism saves whether you pour OR immerse. You don't seem to be catching on to that.

Our God is the same God of the OT and He gave them specific ways to do things, esspecially regarding sacrafices and such.

Maybe the specific instruction is to "be washed by water." If that is so, then whether you have a bath or shower is not too important is it?

It's an assumption on your part to conclude that suddenly God changed how to do things

Whooaa there. I did not say God "changed" anything. Indeed, the washing of Jewish hands was a "baptism."

and we can perform all these sacraments anyway we want (that is assuming Baptism actually "does" something, that would be your position if I understand it).

Why do you keep making all these assumptions. Nobody said "anyway you want." There is large support for pouring in Scripture and early church history. YOU are the one ASSUMING that God said "You must immerse in 200 gallons of water or it won't work."

200 gallon tank in the Philippian jailor's house? I don't think so friend.

If it was so important to observe the OT sacraments in a specific way, why can we now perform a sacrament "any way we want" (pour, sprinkle, immerse, etc)?

If God was so worried about it, as you ASSUME He is, then why did he not lay out the details in the Bible? He didn't.

From my beleifs, baptism is a picture a symbol,

That is quite unBiblical as well.

so the mode is irrelevant. But, if baptism "does" something as you assert, shouldn't certain regulations be adhered to accomplish that "something"? If Baptism "does" something, then shouldn't it be performed as it was in the Scriptures?

Unfortunately for you, the Bible does NOT say baptism is an immersion. Indeed, the Bible refers to baptisms which CANNOT be immersion. I suspect you do not realize this.

But as I said before, you are on a tangent here. I think immersion is the way to go. You just cannot prove it from Scripture. Therefore, it is no more than an opinion. Moreover, the Catholic church DOES immerse. I would suggest you didn't realize that either.

Pouring as far as I can tell was used typically for the OT preists, the cerimonial washing done when a Gentile converted (which is the example I'm using) was immersion, 3 times in succession. Again, this was a picture of the Gentile turning from his pagan ways and idols to the One True God.

It was more than a picture and a symbol friend. It was a necessary act of his repentance and entrance into the Law.

If baptism "does" something, then why wouldn't the mode be important? (As I stated above) Is the "mode" important to how the Lord's Supper is executed?

To a point. We have to use water and baptism is a washing. That is about all we know from the Bible.

God did not detail how to exactly do the Lord's Supper either. Should we all sit in pews and drink from different cups? Or should we drink from one cup at the altar? Tell me please. Provide Scriptural proof.

Obsessing on the mode of baptism, is a common characteristic of those who are delving into what baptism means for the first time and confusing the issues.

Assuming you answer "yes", then why is the "mode" for baptism not important in relation to baptism "doing" something?

I didn't say it was not important. I am saying you have no evidence to say it is important. I am also saying the mode of baptism is a separate issue than discussing whether or not baptism "does something." You don't need to know the mode to discuss that and the mode issue only convolutes the discussion.

Now back to the thread - Just as you say I have no Scriptural evidence to support my claims, neither do you. The verses you cite can be taken out of context and the grammer is suspect as to asserting Baptism is essential to repentance.

No. Water baptism is not essential to repentance; it is HOW one repents.

It is a baptism OF repentance, not a baptism because of repentance. (Luke 3:3).

"I baptize you in water unto repentance" (Mt 3:11).

I understand why you can't see the truth of the matter. I have been there.


To make the discussion easier concerning the significance of water baptism and its intent, assume immersion is the proper mode.

JMW