Cessationism: Have the gifts ceased?

[SnuP]

Eric, your post made a lot of sense

Now would you be willing to take the challange that I have posted earlier.

Make sure you check out this post also though.

http://www.christianforums.com/showthread.php?postid=292526#post292526 and

http://www.christianforums.com/showthread.php?postid=293835#post293835

 

[Thunderchild]

Tericl2: James made a number of declarations about faith - including this one

Jam 2:14 What [doth it] profit, my brethren, though a man say he hath faith, and have not works? can faith save him?

The section you have cited is a part of the proofs offered by James in support of "no" as an answer.

Rom 3:20 wherefore by works of law shall no flesh be declared righteous

Which works specifically are being referred to?

YLT Titus 1:16 God they profess to know, and in the works they deny [Him], being abominable, and disobedient, and unto every good work disapproved.

In their deeds they deny him, despite claiming to know him, their hearts are not with him.

Ro 11:6
and if by grace, no more of works, otherwise the grace becometh no more grace; and if of works, it is no more grace, otherwise the work is no more work.

OK - that is one that seems reasonably well to support the concept of no works.

John 6:28 They said therefore unto him, `What may we do that we may work the works of God?'
29 Jesus answered and said to them, `This is the work of God, that ye may believe in him whom He did send.'

What must we do that we may work the works of God? Ah now... a VERY interesting response.

Andrew: As I said, that is only the start of an exhaustive search through the Bible for every reference to baptism. The topic for that particular study will be baptism - what else will be covered under relevant headings.

But

TC i went to the website you gave and went thru the verses u used. My first question/impression is what about all the other clear-cut verses that speak about salvation without mentioning anything abt water bap? There are more of these simple straight-to-the-point verses that show clearly that water bap is not necess for salvation. (perhaps you have explained them on another webpage?)

The fact that baptism is not mentioned in some passages regarding salvation is acknowledged. You will note that some of those clear cut passages do not mention faith - does that mean faith is not involved in salvation? Far more than the omission of faith, are the clear cut passages which do not mention grace. Does that mean grace is not involved in salvation? Or could it be that authors simply referred to those aspects of salvation which were under review at the time, never expecting that other passages would be ignored as a basis of establishing doctrine?

BUT - there is not a single verse containing the concept that baptism is not necessary to salvation - for all that it is not mentioned as being a part of the process of salvation except on very rare occasion. However, being baptised DOES wash away sins... not that the water performs the cleansing, but because baptism IS the appeal to God for a clean conscience. It doesn't represent that appeal, it is not a public confession of faith, it is an act of obedience - presenting one's self to God to be cleansed of sins, in the manner that God requires of a person who is repentant.

 

 

[Thunderchild]

Snup>

Here's a question for TC: How do you explain the Christians who are filled with the baptism of the Holy Spirit with the evidence of speakin in tongues and the obvious fruit of the Spirit, that have never been baptized in water?

The answer is readily available in Acts: (oh rats - I thought I had put that one up on the Bible study, and now I find that I didn't. ... I wonder where it went) Oh well, off to the Blue Letter Bible.

Ah yes ... here tis

Act 10:45 - 48

While Peter yet spake these words, the Holy Ghost fell on all them which heard the word. And they of the circumcision which believed were astonished, as many as came with Peter, because that on the Gentiles also was poured out the gift of the Holy Ghost. For they heard them speak with tongues, and magnify God. Then answered Peter, Can any man forbid water, that these should not be baptized, which have received the Holy Ghost as well as we? And he commanded them to be baptized in the name of the Lord.

According to this passage, people had received the Holy Spirit - they had exercised the gifts of the Holy Spirit - and what was Peter's response? Did he say - oh, they have been baptised into the Holy Spirit - there is no need to baptise them into the name of Christ? Or did he COMMAND those people to be baptised into the name of Christ?

 

[Thunderchild]

Snup> The first line of my prior response to you was points at which we are not in accord

I was sort of expecting that you would understand that on the balance of the post that I was addressing, we seem to be in accord.

 

[tericl2]

Originally posted by SnuP
Eric, your post made a lot of sense

Now would you be willing to take the challange that I have posted earlier.

Make sure you check out this post also though.

http://www.christianforums.com/showthread.php?postid=292526#post292526 and

http://www.christianforums.com/showthread.php?postid=293835#post293835

I am not really sure what all the "challenge" is intended to be. I am pretty sure i agree with your dispensation on the three areas of the body and the different "workings" of salvation. I need to study more on that before I commit to that line of thought though.

As for baptism, I am sure you can probably deduct from my previous post that I am a "by grace thru faith" believer and in that only. Any works, including baptism, are (or should be) acts of obedience.

One verse often cited to support baptism as integral to salvation is the conversation Jesus had with Nicodemus.

(CSB) John 3:5 Jesus answered, "I assure you: Unless someone is born of water and the Spirit, he cannot enter the kingdom of God.

I am sure you have seen or heard this someplace concerning this argument. we need to read the verse above and below verse 5.

(CSB) John 3:4 "But how can anyone be born when he is old?" Nicodemus asked Him. "Can he enter his mother's womb a second time and be born?" 5 Jesus answered, "I assure you: Unless someone is born of water and the Spirit, he cannot enter the kingdom of God. 6 Whatever is born of the flesh is flesh, and whatever is born of the Spirit is spirit.

Now, Nicodemas question is concerning the womb. This of course is his misunderstanding "born again". Verse 6, though, is key to understanding this passage and its meaning. Jesus expounds on his own statement. Basically He just restates it in different terms.

Born of water - born of the flesh is flesh - amniotic fluid. I am sure we all have heard of an expectant mother's "water" breaking.

And the Spirit - born of the Spirit is spirit - salvation. This is what 2 Cor 5:17 is referring to - "if anyone is in Christ.....the new has come".

This is the simplest and most direct explanation. The simplest and most direct is usually the best when the passage lends itself such interpretation.

I don't have the time at this moment to go into an in-depth expose' on baptism and its place. I hope this will suffice to state my position.

 

[tericl2]

TC,

Were you agreeing with my first post? I didn't quite understand you post in regard to mine. Clarification? Thanks

 

[Thunderchild]

Andrew>

Water is used as a type. It is not the substance that saves.

What are the antitypes in that passage? - the salvation of a few as opposed to the salvation of many: the salvation by preservation from water as opposed to salvation by immersion in water. The waters of the flood as opposed to the water of baptism.

The clause "of the baptism which now saves us" states that baptism now saves us. That is not in the least difficult to understand.

The passage states quite simply - What saved Noah and family is the antitype of what saves us. We could go on with a few extra antitypes arising from that passage if we so chose: physical salvation as opposed to spiritual. Works (building the ark) as opposed to grace even.

 

[Thunderchild]

Tericl2> That explanation of the conversation between Jesus and Nicodemus is incorrect. Jesus did not say "man that is born of water must be born of the spirit (or born from above, as some would have it.)" Jesus said - to be born again one must be born of the water and of the Spirit. It was expository of the single statement, you must be born again.
Given that baptism in water is that action by which (according to the Bible, anyway) our sins are washed away. This is the death, burial and resurrection of THE BODY to a new life, free of slavery to sin.

 

[Thunderchild]

The in depth exposition of baptism does not take long to explain. " baptism now saves us," is the Bible's exposition.

 

[Thunderchild]

Andrew> You are correct - plenty of places baptism can be discussed without derailing this thread. I'll just give you one point to consider.... Can a person be saved if he is not baptised into the name of Christ Jesus?

 

[tericl2]

Originally posted by Thunderchild
Tericl2> That explanation of the conversation between Jesus and Nicodemus is incorrect. Jesus did not say "man that is born of water must be born of the spirit (or born from above, as some would have it.)" Jesus said - to be born again one must be born of the water and of the Spirit. It was expository of the single statement, you must be born again.
Given that baptism in water is that action by which (according to the Bible, anyway) our sins are washed away. This is the death, burial and resurrection of THE BODY to a new life, free of slavery to sin.

Unless one be born of the water (flesh) he cannot be born of the spirit. Verse six is its own exposition, I think. The baptism is symbolic of what happens when we are saved. John baptized unto repentance, but Jesus came to baptize into salvation. How has Jesus baptized you? In the spirit or in the water?

 

[Thunderchild]

Tericl2: Even as written, the explanation is not tenable. When the final statement on the subject is taken into account, it is shown to be spurious: Jesus said, for those who are born of the water and the Spirit are as the Spirit. IF there was ANY possibility that the passage meant man being born of the water must be born of the spirit - and nothing like that wording exists in the passage - then the final statement would simply say that those who are born of the Spirit are as the Spirit. I will ask again - is a person saved, being not baptised into the name of the Christ?

 

[SpiritPsalmist]

Originally posted by cougan
 
If you are truely being guided by the HS then all of your answer will be the same.

Step up to the challenge and answer these 2 easy questions. I feel very confindent that I know the answer to these question based off my continual study of Gods word. Yes I would even go as far as to say that I have been lead by the HS via the word of God to the answer to these questions.

1 Cor 13:9 says we only "know in part" and 13:12 says we "see through a glass darkly".  So your theory does not work.

Each of us can be hearing the Holy Spirit, however our hearing is not all the same.  In each of our own imperfections, we hear only a little bit.  Even you.

 

[SnuP]

Originally posted by Thunderchild
Snup> The first line of my prior response to you was points at which we are not in accord

I was sort of expecting that you would understand that on the balance of the post that I was addressing, we seem to be in accord.

IN this way we don't agree.  The lack of water baptism will not keep a person out of Heaven.  In this we agree.  water baptism has a part in salvation.  But for me that part is only in the salvation of the soul, which is not required for a person to get in Heaven, since it is covered by grace and will be redeemed after death.  The lack of water baptism will keep a person from truely experincely the depths of relationship.  In the passage that you listed, in Acts, they had recieved the baptism of the Holy Spirit, but had not recieved the baptism by water.  It's impossible to recieve the baptism of the Holy Spirit without first recieving salvation.  So therefore, they were already saved, but had not yet recieved water baptism.

It could be that I have misinterpreted your post, please let me know.

 

[Thunderchild]

There is actually a baptism thread over at Soteriology http://www.christianforums.com/showthread.php?s=&postid=295943#post295943

I understand your position Snup - just don't accept that a person can be saved without being baptised into the Christ.

Excellent point, Quaffer.

 

[cougan]

Wow you guys really got after it. I guess I opened up a can of worms. I have many comments to make to the post made but I will have to deal with them as I can. Its hard keeping up when you have 4 different threads on different subjects going all at once. Snup I will look over what you prensented and comment on it later. By the way how about that prophecy about me. You had any luck in your request to God to reveal something to me that is soon to take place so that if it does happen then I can proclaim it on here?

I must start with this post.

1 Cor 13:9 says we only "know in part" and 13:12 says we "see through a glass darkly". So your theory does not work.

Each of us can be hearing the Holy Spirit, however our hearing is not all the same. In each of our own imperfections, we hear only a little bit. Even you.

This one cracked me up. Perhaps you don't see the humor in it. Correct me if I am wrong but it sounds like you are saying that people that are being guided by the holy spirit cant hear to well. Some of them here parts of what he is trying to say and others hear something else. This reminds of the commericals on TV about Cell Phones. Wife asks her husband to bring something home but because of the static he brings something different home than what she asked for. Thank you for such a good laugh.

But seriously when they in the 1st century spoke these parts of revealation that was revealed to them it wasnt fuzzy they did not get part of the message given to them they got the whole part not part of the part. Once again let us revisit 1 cor 13.

First off 1Cor 12,13.14 go together. In chapter 12 Paul talks about the different gifts then ends saying he is going to show them a more excelent way. In chapter 13 Paul starts talking about love. The Corith church was lacking greatly in love and Paul basical tell them they better get ready to start relieing on love because the gifts are not always going to be there. Now I think that most people agree that verses 8-10 teach that the miracles will cease. The place where the view changes is when they will cease. People look at verse 10 and see the word perfect and think well there is only one thing that is perfect that is Jesus so this is talking about Jesus second coming. Let us take another look at the context here.

8 Love never fails. But whether there are prophecies, they
will fail; whether there are tongues, they will cease; whether
there is knowledge, it will vanish away.

Isnt this true love never fails. But then you see that prophecies, tongues, and knowledge (not head knowledge but spirtual knowledge provided directly from the HS. SEE 1Cor 12:8) They will fail and they will cease.

9 For we know in part and we prophesy in part.

They received what we now have in the word of God in parts. They we receive new reavlation creating yet another part of the whole word of God.
Lets look at few definations of the in part.
"A part, portion, division, of a whole" (persh)
"Part, in contrast to the whole (BAG)
"One of the constituent parts of a whole" Thayer

So verse 9 is talking about these parts of miraculous knowledge that they were receiving.

10 But when that which is perfect has come, then that which
is in part will be done away.

Now the word perfect her simply means that of complete or mature. Lets take a look at some definitions
"Completeness" (Thayer)
"Complete, entire, as opposed to what is partial or limited" (Bagster)
"Complete in all parts" (Berry)
"Complete contrasted to in part or incomplete" (Young)

So you can see very clearly that the parts spoken of in verse 9 are all put together and made complete or made whole this is what verse 10 is talking about. It the fully revealed word. Verse 9 and verse 10 are connected to one another and are not talking about 2 entirely different things that just would'nt make sense. Let me give you some examples to make this even clearer. If I have all the pieces of an apple and I put them together I get the whole apple or the complete apple. Same thing with a pie. I put all the pieces together I get the whole pie. Now I think you would agree that if I put all the pieces of an apple together that I dont get an orange not I get an apple. It seems very very clear that the perfect/complete in verse 10 is all those parts put together in verse 9.
Jesus nor his second comming can be found anywhere in these verses. The word perfect here is NEVER used to describe Jesus 2nd comming.

verses 11-12 basical restates verse 9 and 10 by showing that while they are still getting these parts they are imature but when the parts all come together then the church becomes mature. I will finish up this post with the folloing article on the last verses of 1cort 13. AN ILLUSTRATION FROM PAUL'S LIFE

In 1 Cor. 13:11 Paul utilizes an analogy (the only illustration in this context) to emphasize the contrast between infancy and maturity. Sometimes proponents of current charismatic activity claim that having spiritual gifts is a mark of Christian maturity. Nothing could be further from the truth. The church in Corinth had more in the way of spiritual gifts than any other as far as we have record. Yet, it was a church plagued by factions, lawsuits, fornication, skepticism and drunkenness at the Lord's table! Paul said they were not spiritual but carnal (1 Cor. 3:1) and told them to quit being "children in mind" (1 Cor. 14:20), a condition aggravated by their inordinate use of tongue-speaking!

Paul's illustration is to point out that just as he left behind childish ways when he grew from infancy to manhood, so also the infant church would discard spiritual gifts when revelation is complete. When Jesus "gave gifts unto men" (Eph. 4:8), it was so that part by part the Word might be correctly set forth through the apostles and other divinely aided teachers (Eph. 4:11) to build up the body (Eph. 4:12) until it arrived at "the unity" (wholeness) of "the faith" (the New Testament content) and the wholeness of the (full) "knowledge" ([@epignosis]) of the Son of God, "unto a full-grown ([@teleios]) man" (Eph. 4:13). Thus, when the revelation became "perfect" ([@teleios] -- 1 Cor. 13:10), the body of Christ also became "full-grown" because Christians were protected from doctrinal "error" (Eph. 4:14) and able to speak "the truth" (Eph. 4:15). When the full revelation was given, the church could then "grow up" (Eph. 4:15) and reach the status of "man" (Eph. 4:13). Being "no longer children" (Eph. 4:14), the body of Christ put away "the things of the child" (literal reading of 1 Cor. 13:11). The formerly infant church discarded the spiritual gifts.


MIRROR DARKLY -- FACE TO FACE

Many have misunderstood the meaning of "that which is perfect" because of misunderstanding the "mirror darkly" -- "face to face" contrast of 1 Cor. 13:12. It is not a new illustration,<19> but rather Paul's explanation (in figurative terms) of the illustration he just gave (notice the "for"). So many see the afterlife in this verse, but it is not here. The "then" (when we shall see face to face) is not "at the final end" or "evidently in heaven," as two brethren (and others) have suggested.<20>

To see in a mirror was a figurative expression which meant "to receive revelation from God." "Mirror" in Hebrew is the same word as "vision." In contrast to other prophets who had to depend on the "dark speeches" of a vision or a dream, Moses experienced a mouth-to-mouth (clear) understanding of God's will (Num. 12:6-8). The rabbis of the Midrash said the prophets saw God in clouded mirrors whereas Moses saw him in a clear one. So also Paul says that while revelation is still incomplete "we see in a mirror darkly." The mirror is clouded or obscure -- literally, "in an enigma." But later, when all spiritual knowledge and prophecy were to be finished, the image would be "face to face." It is not necessarily the mirror that is done away but the obscurity.

"Face to face" expresses the clarity of our understanding. Jacob (Gen. 32:20), Moses (Exo. 33:11; Deut. 34:10) and the Israelites (Deut. 5:4-5) were said to have encountered God "face to face." It was not meant literally, for God said, "My face shall not be seen" (Deut. 34:23). So also Paul (1 Cor. 13:12) refers not to seeing the face of God or Jesus in heaven (1 John 3:2; Rev. 22:4), but rather to the here and now as "with unveiled face" we behold "as in a mirror the glory of the Lord" (2 Cor. 3:18). God has revealed himself "to give the knowledge of the glory of God in the face of Jesus Christ" (2 Cor. 4:6). And we "receive with meekness the implanted word" (James 1:21) when we look into the "mirror" (James 1:23) of "the perfect law of liberty" (James 1:25). That mirror reflects "face to face" now that God's Word is finished.


KNOW FULLY AS FULLY KNOWN

The second part of 1 Cor. 13:12 is also a commonly misunderstood statement. Here again, some think "then" points to eternity as the time when spiritual gifts will no longer be needed. Others who deny current charismatic activity still see heaven in the statement because they conceive of this as "merely another illustration" that Paul is using.<21> This supposed contrast between earth and heaven has been promoted in response to the Greek construction and to translations later than the King James which insert a word such as "fully" into the statement. So, for example, the American Standard Version reads: "Now I know in part; but then shall I know fully even as also I was fully known." The argument is that this must point to heaven since we can never know fully in this life.

The argument is wrong, but the ASV rendering is valid. Paul used two different Greek words for knowing. The reference to the present uses the ordinary word [@ginosko], whereas the "I shall know" uses the intensified word [@epiginosko]. This latter word means to know "thoroughly ... accurately ... well" or "exactly" or "completely."<22> The word speaks of thorough knowledge but does not imply flawless understanding. There is no warrant to picture here a scene when this world shall have drawn to a close and the faithful are all in heaven receiving full and satisfying answers to all perplexing questions.<23>

Let us notice how the word [@epiginosko] is used in the New Testament for the here and now: We can "know fully" false prophets (Matt. 7:16), the certainty of Bible teaching (Luke 1:3-4), the ordinance of God (Rom. 1:32), the things Paul wrote (1 Cor. 14:37), the grace of God (Col. 1:6), the truth (1 Tim. 4:3), and the way of righteousness (2 Pet. 2:21). And with the noun form of the word we are told that we can have a thorough knowledge of both God and Jesus (2 Pet. 1:2). All of these passages tell us that Christians are able to "know fully" right now in this life!

But someone might say that Paul seems to be saying, "I shall know perfectly as God knows me," or, "I shall recognize God as he knows me." These renderings, by Williams and Knox respectively, are unwarranted translations. Paul said nothing about knowing anything as well as God knew him, much less that he was going to know God that well. Such an idea was the Devil's lie to Eve (Gen. 3:5) but nowhere promised by God!

Paul made no allusion to some greater knowledge to be gained in heaven. He simply wrote in contrast to the era of spiritual gifts when revelation was still incomplete and he only knew "in part." Yet, he looked forward to the day (if he should live that long) when he would know all of God's revealed truth. He would then be able to know it "fully" or "well" just as Paul already was "fully known" or "well known" (same word, [@epiginosko]) by others (1 Cor. 13:12; 2 Cor. 1:14; 6:9). The claim that one cannot "know fully" in this life is without scriptural basis and out of harmony with the usage of that word in the New Testament.


FAITH, HOPE AND LOVE REMAIN

When Paul reaches his concluding statement in 1 Cor. 13:13, he draws a contrast between the temporary and the permanent as far as this life is concerned. Whereas spiritual gifts such as prophecies, tongues and knowledge would be done away (1 Cor. 13:8), inner Christian qualities such as faith, hope and love would "abide" (1 Cor. 13:13). Paul does not say how long they will remain. Something might "abide" ([@meno]) an hour (Matt. 26:38,40), a day (Acts 21:7), or perhaps two years (Acts 28:30) or many more. It might be just for a little while (Rev. 17:10) or until Christ returns (John 21:22-23). Paul was going to abide for some time (Phil. 1:25) but later "depart and be with Christ" (Phil. 1:23).

Paul does not say that faith, hope and love will all be eternal, and neither should we. The New English Bible presumes too much when it introduces the verse, "There are three things that last forever." Faith looks forward to fulfillment. It is "the assurance of things hoped for, a conviction of things not seen" (Heb. 11:11. While we live in this world, "we walk by faith, not by sight" (2 Cor. 5:7). Faith is a characteristic of this age. It is "unto the saving of the soul" (Heb. 10:39). Likewise, hope is limited to earthly existence. It involves steadfastness (Rom. 15:4), waiting (Gal. 5:5), expectation (Phil. 1:20), looking (Titus 2:13) and laying hold (Heb. 6:18) "unto the end" (Heb. 3:6; 6:11). But it will not exist in heaven because "hope that is seen is not hope" (Rom. 8:24). So now "we hope for that which we see not" (Rom. 8:25).

Since faith and hope have a "temporary character" and are "ascribed by Paul to this present era,"<24> there is no contrast here between earth and heaven. The contrast has to do with the temporary and the permanent during the Christian age. Spiritual gifts were to be abolished, whereas faith, hope and love continue on to the end. Finally, love alone of these three qualities goes on into eternity, for "God is love" (1 John 4:16) and "love never faileth" (1 Cor. 13:8). Nothing, including death, "shall be able to separate us from the love of God which is in Christ Jesus our Lord" (Rom. 8:39).

 

[cougan]

CONCLUSION

The purpose of miracles was to dispense God's revelation to man and to confirm it as genuine (Heb. 2:3-4). As certain men "spake from God, being moved by the Holy Spirit" (2 Pet. 1:21), they were also "clothed with power from on high" (Luke 24:49). Therefore, they went forth and preached, "the Lord working with them and confirming the word by the signs that followed" (Mark 16:20). As long as inspiration continued, so did the "signs and wonders" (Acts 14:3). But when one was finished, so was the other. If spiritual gifts are still with us, revelation is not yet complete. But it was foretold that as a result of the cross (the fountain opened for sin -- Zech. 13:1), both prophets and demons would pass away (Zech. 13:2). However, false miracles would still be performed as "lies" designed "to deceive" (Zech. 13:3-4), causing Christians to be led astray (Matt. 24:24).

Let us therefore understand that once miracles were performed and attested by credible witnesses (John 21:24; 1 John 1:1-4; 2 Pet. 1:16-21), they stand as evidence for all time. They are "written that ye may believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God, and that believing ye may have life in his name". (John 20:31). Since the passing away of the age of miracles was foretold by Paul (1 Cor. 13:8) and fulfilled by the completion of the written record (1 Cor. 13:9-10), it is up to us to accept that record "once for all delivered to the saints" (Jude 1:3). So let us not look for the things of childhood but the things of manhood, not the dark but the clear, not the partial but the total, not the temporary but the permanent, not spiritual gifts but faith, hope and love.

 

[SnuP]

Originally posted by Thunderchild
There is actually a baptism thread over at Soteriology http://www.christianforums.com/showthread.php?s=&amp;postid=295943#post295943

I understand your position Snup - just don't accept that a person can be saved without being baptised into the Christ.

Excellent point, Quaffer.

then how do tou reconcil this?

Originally posted by SnuP

&nbsp;In the passage that you listed, in Acts, they had recieved the baptism of the Holy Spirit, but had not recieved the baptism&nbsp;by water.&nbsp; It's impossible to recieve the baptism of the Holy Spirit without first recieving salvation.&nbsp; So therefore, they were already saved, but had not yet recieved water baptism.

 

[SnuP]

Joel 2:28-32

28 "And afterward, I will pour out my Spirit on all people.&nbsp; Your sons and daughters will prophesy, your old men will dream dreams, your young men will see visions.&nbsp; 29 Even on my servants, both men and women, I will pour out my Spirit in those days.&nbsp; 30 I wll show wonders in the heavens and on the earth, blood and fire and billows of smoke.&nbsp; 31 The sun will be turned to darkness and the moon to blood before the coming of the great and dreadful day of the Lord.&nbsp; 32 And everyone who calls on the name of the Lord will be saved; for on Mount Zion and in Jerusalem there will be deliverance, as the Lord has said, among the survivors whom the Lord calls."

this scriptures says that in the last days, which we all know that we live in, there will be an out pouring that yields prophesies, dreams, and visions.

It also says that anyone who calls on the man of the Lord will be saved.&nbsp; This promise does not mention baptism.&nbsp; God has this tendency of mentioning all requirements for His promises in the old testiment, but the only requirement here is to call on the name of the Lord.

 

[Andrew]

Rom10:9 That if thou shalt confess with thy mouth the Lord Jesus, and shalt believe in thine heart that God hath raised him from the dead, thou shalt be saved.10 For with the heart man believeth unto righteousness; and with the mouth confession is made unto salvation.

Salvation has to do with believing (faith) and confession (faith with works ie real faith). Notice nothing is said about water baptism.