Faith and Baptism

[Augustine_Was_Calvinist]

After this council, there was not another in which the whole of the Church (Eastern and Western) participated. Therefore, this is the final truly ecumenical council.

Not according to Rome.

Moreover, there is nothing within this proclamation concerning icons which Protestants could meaningfully disagree. Protestants, after all, still use icons--albeit impersonal ones.

Such as?

 

[nobdysfool]

These make up the vast majority of christians around the world.

Which, in and of itself, by itself, proves nothing. Correct doctrine is not arrived at by majority opinion, or confirmed by the statement that "most people believe it". That, without any evidence as to the actual doctrine of scripture, is the logical fallacy of argumentum ad populum.

In essence, what is being said is, "millions of people can't be wrong." I don't think I need to point out the absurdity of such reasoning, in light of the fact that all men are born "wrong". No man is born with a correct understanding (or any understanding at all) of spiritual Truth. It is the Holy Spirit which leads into all truth, not the church, not the pastor, not the councils, although the majority of pastors try to lead their flocks into Truth, as they should, and the purpose of the councils was to establish correct understanding of scripture, which they met with varying degrees of success.

Ultimately, the Christian walk is personal, not corporate or vicarious, and each believer is responsible to seek out Truth, and learn from the Holy Spirit.

 

[edie19]

Which, in and of itself, by itself, proves nothing. Correct doctrine is not arrived at by majority opinion, or confirmed by the statement that "most people believe it". That, without any evidence as to the actual doctrine of scripture, is the logical fallacy of argumentum ad populum.

In essence, what is being said is, "millions of people can't be wrong." I don't think I need to point out the absurdity of such reasoning, in light of the fact that all men are born "wrong". No man is born with a correct understanding (or any understanding at all) of spiritual Truth. It is the Holy Spirit which leads into all truth, not the church, not the pastor, not the councils, although the majority of pastors try to lead their flocks into Truth, as they should, and the purpose of the councils was to establish correct understanding of scripture, which they met with varying degrees of success.

Ultimately, the Christian walk is personal, not corporate or vicarious, and each believer is responsible to seek out Truth, and learn from the Holy Spirit.

​

You must spread some Reputation around before giving it to nobdysfool again.

Sometimes I get tired of this message.

 

[Schroeder]

There seems to be a lot of confusion concerning faith and baptism around here. Many seem to think faith is one thing and baptism another thing and these two are mutually exclusive concepts. They are not.

If you were terminally sick with cancer and a man came to you and said, "There is a great physician who has the cure for your cancer. You can be saved from your disease. Believe the good news. Believe in him to be saved from your disease," what would you expect yourself to do?

On this board people seem to think faith is simply believing the idea to be true. So all you would have to do is believe the message contained in the concept is true and you would be cured of cancer. Absurd. What is expected is that you go to this physician and let him do his work on you and to trust and follow his instructions for renewed health.

And this is how it is with faith and baptism. To believe in Jesus is not simply believing ideas about Jesus to be true. It means going to him for your operation, baptism. And it means trusting his instructions to you to get better from your disease. When Jesus says, "Believe in me," he means the same thing a doctor would mean if he said, "Believe in me." That doctor would mean, "Trust me. When I operate on you it will go well with you. And trust me when I tell you what to do after the operation so you will get better and improve your life." He does not mean "believe the idea that I can cure you and you will be saved." By analogy, the relationship between faith and baptism is exactly the same.

So as you can see, faith and baptism are not two mutually exclusive things. Baptism IS how we go about putting faith in Jesus for salvation.

So when you say "faith not baptism saves" or something to that effect, you are creating a false dilemma.

if you read 1 Peter 3:20 were you mistaken it for water baptism that now saves you, you will see that if read correctly disproves your thinking. for one Noah was not saved by the water. Heb. 11 says by Faith he built the ARK that saved him.(who does the ark represent CHRIST) then it says that water sympolises the baptism that now saves you. you say water baptism, YET. who in noah flood brought the water GOD did, it was his work, not noahs. so the water then now signifies baptism now(GOds work) the Spirit baptism which Gal 3 says is the gift and promise upon belief and FAith in Christ(the Ark) Because as it clearly says it is not the washing of dirt from the Flesh but of the conscience or your heart. which can only be done through the Spirit. So we see that Faith in Christ brings us the Spirit which is his baptism which cleanses us Titus 3:5 and unites us into the body 1 cor 12:13. and as Gal 3 states is given when we have faith in Him at the time of belief. that is what was spoke of by the prophets about the gift or promise to all who have faith in him. his baptism which is Gods GRACE and gift to us, because it is uniting us into the trinity matt 28:19. and or into Christ death and ressurection. rom 6,8.

 

[Sentry]

if you read 1 Peter 3:20 were you mistaken it for water baptism that now saves you, you will see that if read correctly disproves your thinking.

Wanna bet?

for one Noah was not saved by the water.

That's right. He was saved through water. Being saved through water is what Peter is talking about. He is not saying the water does the saving but he IS saying that one is saved by God through the means of water baptism.

Heb. 11 says by Faith he built the ARK that saved him.(who does the ark represent CHRIST)

Very good. Yes, the ark is the risen Christ.

then it says that water sympolises the baptism that now saves you. you say water baptism, YET. who in noah flood brought the water GOD did, it was his work, not noahs. so the water then now signifies baptism now(GOds work) the Spirit baptism

Bunk. You are twisting the text for the sake of your tradition. It is plainly obvious to reasonable people that Peter is paralleling water baptism and the water of the flood.

which Gal 3 says is the gift and promise upon belief and FAith in Christ(the Ark) Because as it clearly says it is not the washing of dirt from the Flesh but of the conscience or your heart.

No, it does not say that the conscience of your heart saves you. Peter says baptism saves you. Baptism IS the appeal to God for a good conscience. We can have a good conscience with God through baptism because in baptism our sins are washed away.

which can only be done through the Spirit. So we see that Faith in Christ brings us the Spirit which is his baptism which cleanses us Titus 3:5 and unites us into the body 1 cor 12:13. and as Gal 3 states is given when we have faith in Him at the time of belief. that is what was spoke of by the prophets about the gift or promise to all who have faith in him. his baptism which is Gods GRACE and gift to us, because it is uniting us into the trinity matt 28:19. and or into Christ death and ressurection. rom 6,8.

The message of Peter is plain.

1. The water of the flood is a parallel to water baptism.

2. Noah was saved through water. We are saved through water baptism.

3. The water of the flood destroyed all flesh. This is the purpose of water baptism. Water baptism is putting the old man of the flesh to death (see Romans 6:3-5). Peter's words are literally, "putting away the filth of the flesh." This is the same idea as Paul's words at Col 2:11 where he is referring to baptism, "putting off the body of flesh in the circumcision of Christ." In water baptism we put off the flesh and all its filth.

4. Baptism is an appeal of a good conscience with God. It is such an appeal because our sins are washed away in water baptism and we can then have a good conscience with God. In water baptism we die with Christ and his cross upon which he died for our sins.

5. However, we are not saved by death, that is, dying with Christ. Death is not our salvation but life. Although we are saved through water baptism, through death, we are not saved when simply by having died in water baptism. Having died, God raises us up by his power in the Spirit into the resurrection life of Jesus Christ and it is here we are saved. The water itself does not save us; God does. And we are saved through water baptism because in it we die with Christ and are then raised up by God in the Spirit to new life and salvation.

Exact same idea as Romans 6:3-5; Col 2:11-12.

To be clear and precise, Peter is not saying "Water baptism saves you... no wait water baptism does not save you." He is saying, "Water baptism saves you, not the death that occurs in water baptism, but the new resurrection life you come to through water baptism in which you die in order for God to raise you up in Spirit baptism."

And therefore, the analogy between Noah and the flood vs. Jesus and water baptism works quite perfectly.

NOah was saved by the ark through the water that destroys the flesh.
We are saved by our ark, Jesus, through the water that destroys the flesh.

 

[Edial]

..... The message of Peter is plain.

1. The water of the flood is a parallel to water baptism.

2. Noah was saved through water. We are saved through water baptism.

3. The water of the flood destroyed all flesh. This is the purpose of water baptism. Water baptism is putting the old man of the flesh to death (see Romans 6:3-5). Peter's words are literally, "putting away the filth of the flesh." This is the same idea as Paul's words at Col 2:11 where he is referring to baptism, "putting off the body of flesh in the circumcision of Christ." In water baptism we put off the flesh and all its filth.

4. Baptism is an appeal of a good conscience with God. It is such an appeal because our sins are washed away in water baptism and we can then have a good conscience with God. In water baptism we die with Christ and his cross upon which he died for our sins.

5. However, we are not saved by death, that is, dying with Christ. Death is not our salvation but life. Although we are saved through water baptism, through death, we are not saved when simply by having died in water baptism. Having died, God raises us up by his power in the Spirit into the resurrection life of Jesus Christ and it is here we are saved. The water itself does not save us; God does. And we are saved through water baptism because in it we die with Christ and are then raised up by God in the Spirit to new life and salvation.

Exact same idea as Romans 6:3-5; Col 2:11-12.

To be clear and precise, Peter is not saying "Water baptism saves you... no wait water baptism does not save you." He is saying, "Water baptism saves you, not the death that occurs in water baptism, but the new resurrection life you come to through water baptism in which you die in order for God to raise you up in Spirit baptism."

And therefore, the analogy between Noah and the flood vs. Jesus and water baptism works quite perfectly.

NOah was saved by the ark through the water that destroys the flesh.
We are saved by our ark, Jesus, through the water that destroys the flesh.

20 who disobeyed long ago when God waited patiently in the days of Noah while the ark was being built. In it only a few people, eight in all, were saved through water, 21 and this water (Noah's 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 by the resurrection of Jesus Christ,

There is something I do not grasp.

Noah's water symbolizes baptism.
One of the definitions (and there are several) of symbolizing something is to represent something that is not visible by an image, a symbol.

Dictionary.com
v 1: express indirectly by an image, form, or model; be a symbol; "What does the Statue of Liberty symbolize?" [syn: typify, symbolise, stand for, represent] 2: represent or identify by using a symbol; use symbols; "The poet symbolizes love in this poem"; "These painters believed that artists should symbolize"

How do we know that Noah's water is not a symbol of a baptism of the Holy Spirit that is invisible and which does not necessarily take place (although it could) during the water baptism of today?

It was clearly stated that Christ will come to baptize us with the Holy Spirit as compared to John's water, as an example.

Thanks,
Ed

 

[Schroeder]

Wanna bet?



That's right. He was saved through water. Being saved through water is what Peter is talking about. He is not saying the water does the saving but he IS saying that one is saved by God through the means of water baptism.



Very good. Yes, the ark is the risen Christ.



Bunk. You are twisting the text for the sake of your tradition. It is plainly obvious to reasonable people that Peter is paralleling water baptism and the water of the flood.



No, it does not say that the conscience of your heart saves you. Peter says baptism saves you. Baptism IS the appeal to God for a good conscience. We can have a good conscience with God through baptism because in baptism our sins are washed away.



The message of Peter is plain.

1. The water of the flood is a parallel to water baptism.

2. Noah was saved through water. We are saved through water baptism.

3. The water of the flood destroyed all flesh. This is the purpose of water baptism. Water baptism is putting the old man of the flesh to death (see Romans 6:3-5). Peter's words are literally, "putting away the filth of the flesh." This is the same idea as Paul's words at Col 2:11 where he is referring to baptism, "putting off the body of flesh in the circumcision of Christ." In water baptism we put off the flesh and all its filth.

4. Baptism is an appeal of a good conscience with God. It is such an appeal because our sins are washed away in water baptism and we can then have a good conscience with God. In water baptism we die with Christ and his cross upon which he died for our sins.

5. However, we are not saved by death, that is, dying with Christ. Death is not our salvation but life. Although we are saved through water baptism, through death, we are not saved when simply by having died in water baptism. Having died, God raises us up by his power in the Spirit into the resurrection life of Jesus Christ and it is here we are saved. The water itself does not save us; God does. And we are saved through water baptism because in it we die with Christ and are then raised up by God in the Spirit to new life and salvation.

Exact same idea as Romans 6:3-5; Col 2:11-12.

To be clear and precise, Peter is not saying "Water baptism saves you... no wait water baptism does not save you." He is saying, "Water baptism saves you, not the death that occurs in water baptism, but the new resurrection life you come to through water baptism in which you die in order for God to raise you up in Spirit baptism."

And therefore, the analogy between Noah and the flood vs. Jesus and water baptism works quite perfectly.

NOah was saved by the ark through the water that destroys the flesh.
We are saved by our ark, Jesus, through the water that destroys the flesh.

So you teach two baptism not one which scripture clearly says there is only ONE baptism, which would you rather have water baptism which you says unites us into his death or Spirit baptism which you say gives us life, some what like christ said inJohn 4,7 that streams of Living water will come from within you, menaing his Spriit.

 

[Sentry]

20 who disobeyed long ago when God waited patiently in the days of Noah while the ark was being built. In it only a few people, eight in all, were saved through water, 21 and this water (Noah's 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 by the resurrection of Jesus Christ,

There is something I do not grasp.

Noah's water symbolizes baptism.
One of the definitions (and there are several) of symbolizing something is to represent something that is not visible by an image, a symbol.

Dictionary.com
v 1: express indirectly by an image, form, or model; be a symbol; "What does the Statue of Liberty symbolize?" [syn: typify, symbolise, stand for, represent] 2: represent or identify by using a symbol; use symbols; "The poet symbolizes love in this poem"; "These painters believed that artists should symbolize"

How do we know that Noah's water is not a symbol of a baptism of the Holy Spirit that is invisible and which does not necessarily take place (although it could) during the water baptism of today?

It was clearly stated that Christ will come to baptize us with the Holy Spirit as compared to John's water, as an example.

Thanks,
Ed

We know because the water of the flood destroyed all flesh. Water meant death. The same is true of water baptism. It is not true of Spirit baptism.

We also know that is refers to water baptism because Peter makes a point of saying 8 were saved through water.

 

[Sentry]

So you teach two baptism not one which scripture clearly says there is only ONE baptism, which would you rather have water baptism which you says unites us into his death or Spirit baptism which you say gives us life, some what like christ said inJohn 4,7 that streams of Living water will come from within you, menaing his Spriit.

I think you had better rethink your argument more carefully. It is founded on the idea that Christianity does not have something called water baptism.

 

[frumanchu]

We know because the water of the flood destroyed all flesh. Water meant death. The same is true of water baptism. It is not true of Spirit baptism.

Might want to rethink that one, chief.

[BIBLE]Romans 6:3-4[/BIBLE]

We also know that is refers to water baptism because Peter makes a point of saying 8 were saved through water.

Were they saved spiritually or temporally by the water?

IOW, did it signify salvation, or did it symbolize salvation?

 

[Sentry]

Might want to rethink that one, chief.

Nothing to rethink.

Romans 6:3-43 Know ye not, that so many of us as were baptized into Jesus Christ were baptized into his death? 4 Therefore we are buried with him by baptism into death: that like as Christ was raised up from the dead by the glory of the Father, even so we also should walk in newness of life.



Were they saved spiritually or temporally by the water?

WHO?

IOW, did it signify salvation, or did it symbolize salvation?

1 Peter does not say anything either signified or symbolized salvation. Try again.

 

[Schroeder]

I think you had better rethink your argument more carefully. It is founded on the idea that Christianity does not have something called water baptism.

rethink my idea that Christ was speaking the COMPLETE truth when he said whosoever believes on me will have eternal life.. I dont imagine you think he was not speaking the COMPLETE truth. YET that is what you are clearly saying. That his sacrifice, his one act of righteousness and one act of obediance done for us was not enough to please God. even though he clearly said in john 6 that that was the ONLY act reguired of us to BELIVE ON HIS SON. I do not say that christianity does NOT have water baptism i say it has nothing to do with our salvation. that would not be GRACE. Show me scripture that says we get the Spirit baptism ONLY AFTER we are water baptised. IF YOU CAN DO THIS THEN YOU ARE CORRECT. be sure it is not Acts 2:38 because this passage if it is water goes against many that say otherwise.

 

[Schroeder]

We know because the water of the flood destroyed all flesh. Water meant death. The same is true of water baptism. It is not true of Spirit baptism.

We also know that is refers to water baptism because Peter makes a point of saying 8 were saved through water.

The flood was not meant to destroy or kill FLESH but to cleanse the earth of SIN. It just happened to be that that was the only way. It would have made the earth be BORN AGAIN would it not. Through water is through GOD WORKING NOT OURS. they were saved by GOD bringing the water. You dont see that the water had nothing to do with noah and what he was asked to do. God told him what he must do in Faith. he did the rest. you cant see this for some reason. He tells us what we must do know in John 6:29. He then does the rest. just as 1 peter 3:20 says. water represents GOD work of baptism CHRSIT HOLY SPIRIT BAPTISM HIS GRACE HIS GIFT HIS PROMISE.

 

[Sentry]

rethink my idea that Christ was speaking the COMPLETE truth when he said whosoever believes on me will have eternal life..

Yes he was. The way you go about putting your faith in him is to be baptized into his death and resurrection.

I dont imagine you think he was not speaking the COMPLETE truth. YET that is what you are clearly saying. That his sacrifice, his one act of righteousness and one act of obediance done for us was not enough to please God. even though he clearly said in john 6 that that was the ONLY act reguired of us to BELIVE ON HIS SON.

Which means what? Agreeing with some ideas about Jesus?

I do not say that christianity does NOT have water baptism i say it has nothing to do with our salvation.

Um no. You seem to be insisting Christianity only has one baptism and that one baptism does not include water baptism.

that would not be GRACE.

The way you receive that grace is through water baptism.

Show me scripture that says we get the Spirit baptism ONLY AFTER we are water baptised. IF YOU CAN DO THIS THEN YOU ARE CORRECT. be sure it is not Acts 2:38 because this passage if it is water goes against many that say otherwise.

Sure.

Acts 2:38 is quite clear isn't it?

Maybe you didn't like that verse.

And there are no verses which say otherwise.

 

[frumanchu]

Nothing to rethink.

You seem to be implying that spiritual baptism has nothing to do with death. I gave you Rom 6:3-4, which says that we are baptized into His death.

WHO?

Noah (or the Israelites with Moses).

1 Peter does not say anything either signified or symbolized salvation. Try again.

There is a parallel given between Noah/Israel and baptism. I'm asking you if Noah's being saved from the flood symbolized salvation (typified baptism) or if it signified salvation (pointed to Noah's salvation).

 

[Schroeder]

Yes he was. The way you go about putting your faith in him is to be baptized into his death and resurrection.

Scripture does NOT say that does it. You assume this, sgive scripture to back up your assumptions. read gal 3:22, nothing about faith in doing anything but to believe. again God ask noah in faith to build the ark, that was his work God reguired of him to be saved. Now in john 6:29 it tells us what work we must do.

Which means what? Agreeing with some ideas about Jesus?

i do agree with all his teachings, this idea of yours is not one of them.

Um no. You seem to be insisting Christianity only has one baptism and that one baptism does not include water baptism.

Yes i am insisting that. that is what 1 cor 12:13 says. Does it not say that. there is water baptism indeed, i do not agree that it was commanded or even needed, BUT it is done.

The way you receive that grace is through water baptism.

AGAIN, you do not understand GRACE. Grace is FREE. if you do a act to get something for doing it it is a work. HOW IS IT NOT. read rom 4:4. its rather clear.

Sure.

Acts 2:38 is quite clear isn't it?

Maybe you didn't like that verse.

And there are no verses which say otherwise.

of course this passage is your only one. completly against many others if you translate it to being water. funny you use one passage to interprete all the others. I like it fine, just needs to be understood from other passages that say the same thing. if it is water it contradicts many others as i have shown you and which you have not yet shown how im wrong. Peter himself says other wise in Acts 10:43 and 11:17. rather clear he speaks of forgiveness of sins and receiving the Spirit when we believe. Your idea that we must ASSUME something else into these passages is WRONG. The Spirit does not speak in riddle or half truths.

 

[Edial]

.....


The way you receive that grace is through water baptism..

Sentry, you are presenting that one receives salvation through Water Baptism, since he receives grace.
I do not think it is a fair definition, although you are correct to some degree in what you are saying.

We receive grace of God in many ways outside of salvation. All men do.
Yet it does not mean that all men get saved because we all have grace of God (even in such mundane things as rain).

Not one believer that I know of would disagree that justification point is a point of saving grace. And what God justifies, no man can "un"-justify.

There is a grace of God in every act of worship that we do, since the very breathe of ours is by grace.

We are partaking in the Water Baptism (even Infant Baptism) by the grace of God, but since many believe that sich grace can be lost once the infant grows up and rejects God, that grace simply cannot be salvation of God in the context of a justification.

We are baptized in a water by grace - Yes. But it does not mean that such grace saves.

Acts 2:38 is quite clear isn't it?

Maybe you didn't like that verse.

AC 2:38 Peter replied, "Repent and be baptized, every one of you, in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins. And you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit. 39 The promise is for you and your children and for all who are far off--for all whom the Lord our God will call."

There is a misunderstanding of this verse.

In Greek -
"Repent" is addressed to ALL.
"Be baptized" is addressed to SOME.
"Every one of you" - to ALL
"Your sins" is addressed to ALL.

So, Repent (all of you) and be baptized (some of you), every one of you (all of you), in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins. And you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit.

So, ALL needed to repent to receive the Holy Spirit.
SOME needed to be baptized to receive the Holy Spirit.

Why not ALL needed to be baptized to receive the Holy Spirit?

Because water baptism is not a necessity to receive the Holy Spirit.

OK. Why then some were told to receive a water baptism and only then the Holy Spirit will come upon them?

Because, when they were being baptized at these times they were being immersed while proclaiming the name of Jesus. A confession. A verbal confession of faith.

So, ALL need to repent to receive the Holy Spirit.
ALL do not need to be water baptised to receive the Holy Spirit.
And the seeming contradiction of SOME needing to be water baptised to receive the Holy Spirit could be resolved by various possibilities.

1. It could have been a small group of mute, or deaf, or deaf people that needed a special attention in confessing.
2. The act of being immersed was often accompanied by proclamation of the name of Jesus by the baptised. A confession? A public proclamation?

The fact remains. There were 2 groups and one thing in common was that all needed to repent to receive the Holy Spirit.

And personally speaking - of course it is possible to be saved while being water baptized, but one cannot teach that water baptism is necessary for salvation.

Thanks,
Ed



And there are no verses which say otherwise.[/QUOTE]

 

[KEPLER]

Kepler sits around watching the fireworks...

So far, the Lutherans are heretics (Kepler is sad; he is a heretic )

At least one Reformed person (nobodysfool) has denied Covenant Theology

We had a Campbellite, but he disappeared...

DepthDeception continues to live up to his name (both are obscure)


Schroeder, the little piano-playing Peanut has proven himself to be 'nuts' by suggesting that Christians should no longer continue the practice of Water Baptism.

frumanchu seems to think that Romans 6:3-4 is NOT talking about water baptism...? Calvin certainly thought it was!

Edial is Baptutheran, or a Lutherptist...? whatever, it makes an strange looking child.

But what to think of Sentry...??? Sentry is a conundrum. Sentry never answered this question in post #20.

 

[Sentry]

Can somebody have true saving faith and be saved without being baptized?

If you are referring to the Ephesians 2:8 salvation event the answer is:

NO.

Your question contains a false presumption wherein you define faith as something that is an attitude or disposition of your mind.

 

[nobdysfool]

Kepler sits around watching the fireworks...

So far, the Lutherans are heretics (Kepler is sad; he is a heretic )

At least one Reformed person (nobodysfool) has denied Covenant Theology

We had a Campbellite, but he disappeared...
DepthDeception continues to live up to his name

Schroeder, the little piano-playing Peanut has proven himself to be 'nuts' by denying that Christians should no longer continue the practice of Water Baptism.

frumanchu seems to think that Romans 6:3-4 is NOT talking about water baptism...? Calvin certainly thought it was!

Edial is Baptotheran, or a Lutherptist...? whatever, it makes an ugly child.

But what to think of Sentry...??? Sentry is a conundrum. Sentry never answered this question in post #20.

Interesting comments, or should I say, "judgments". Care to back them up with quotes? And where have I denied Covenant Theology?