If baptism is essential

[FaithAlone]

It is true that faith without works is dead, but salvation is by grace through faith. You will do works after being saved. If someone claimed to be a Christian and had no good fruit in their life it's likely that they did not put their faith in Christ as their Lord and Savior. If baptism is necessary then why do so many passages say that you are saved by faith? Romans 10:9&10 for example. If baptism is so necessary why isn't it stated here? All scripture about salvation deals with faith, only some baptism.

 

[FaithAlone]

Stinker, you really are a Stinker. That's all I have to say to you. You frustrate me but that doesn't mean I don't love you as a brother in Christ : )

 

[- DRA -]

It is true that faith without works is dead, but salvation is by grace through faith. You will do works after being saved. If someone claimed to be a Christian and had no good fruit in their life it's likely that they did not put their faith in Christ as their Lord and Savior. If baptism is necessary then why do so many passages say that you are saved by faith? Romans 10:9&10 for example. If baptism is so necessary why isn't it stated here? All scripture about salvation deals with faith, only some baptism.

Salvation is indeed by grace through faith (see Eph. 2:8-9). However, look at the context of Ephesians chapter 2. Note verse 5. See that part about being dead in sins but made alive together with Christ. Note also the first part of verse 6. God has raised us up together with Christ. Now, go over to Romans chapter 6, and read verses 3-11. What do you see in those verses? Isn't it exactly what was being discussed in Eph. 2:5-6a? Finally, go back to Ephesians chapter 2. Note the expression in parentheses in verse 5. It says we are saved by grace, but we can't help but notice that it is in the context of what occurs in baptism. Interesting thought, isn't it? Baptism is associated with God's grace. Think about it. Baptism is based on faith in the working of God (Col. 2:12).

Look at Acts 2:38. It doesn't say anything about faith. However, faith is implied because some of the Jews were convicted of their sins and asked what they should do about them in verse 37. Think of it this way, how can one repent of their sins and be baptized "for the remission of sins" if they don't have faith -- faith is essential (Heb. 11:6) -- it goes hand in hand with baptism (Mark 16:16a)?

 

[Stinker]

Stinker, you really are a Stinker. That's all I have to say to you. You frustrate me but that doesn't mean I don't love you as a brother in Christ : )

Is it because people who believe 'faith alone' saves (without any further acts of obedience) wish that John 1:12 said; (be) instead of "become" ?

 

[ydouxist]

I really can't understand how some people can deny grace.
There were people in Acts who received the baptism of The Holy Spirit before they were baptised with water.
How can they deny it? It's really sad.

 

[- DRA -]

I really can't understand how some people can deny grace.
There were people in Acts who received the baptism of The Holy Spirit before they were baptised with water.
How can they deny it? It's really sad.

Is this supposed to be a response to post #43 where I discuss grace in the context of Eph. 2:5-6a? If so, why don't you go to the passage and show me where my understanding is wrong? If I am indeed wrong, then I would be very grateful if you would show me what that passage is discussing so I can better understand it. Will you do that?

 

[ydouxist]

According to Acts they received the Holy Spirit before they were baptised. That's my point.
It's all about the condition of the heart. Always has been, always will be.
I am not, not, not, opposed to water baptism.

Acts 10:47 Can any man forbid water, that these should not be baptized, which have received the Holy Ghost as well as we?

 

[Stinker]

According to Acts they received the Holy Spirit before they were baptised. That's my point.
It's all about the condition of the heart. Always has been, always will be.
I am not, not, not, opposed to water baptism.

Acts 10:47 Can any man forbid water, that these should not be baptized, which have received the Holy Ghost as well as we?

Here is a question for you ydouxist: Is it your understanding that Balaam's heart was of the condition as that of a repentant sinner? Numbers 24:2

 

[- DRA -]

According to Acts they received the Holy Spirit before they were baptised. That's my point.
It's all about the condition of the heart. Always has been, always will be.
I am not, not, not, opposed to water baptism.

Acts 10:47 Can any man forbid water, that these should not be baptized, which have received the Holy Ghost as well as we?

Agreed. The Gentiles in Acts chapter 10 received the baptism of the Holy Spirit before they were baptized in the name of the Lord. However, that still doesn't change the purpose of the baptism "in the name of the Lord," which was "for the remission of sins" (see Acts 2:38) -- to take sins away (see Acts 22:16).

What that leaves is determining why God sent the baptism with the Holy Spirit upon these Gentiles before they were baptized into Christ (see Gal. 3:26-27). Could it be that it had something to do with these being the first Gentiles to receive the gospel? Since they received the Holy Spirit just as the apostles did in Acts chapter 2, who could forbid them from being baptized in water?

 

[Stinker]

DRA: Maybe many here are thinking that since the Cornelius household received the Holy Spirit prior to their being water baptized, that THAT indicated that their souls had been cleansed of sins, thus made ready for a Holy Personal Indwelling of their bodies.

 

[muffler dragon]

Yet another thread certain to go nowhere...

 

[- DRA -]

Perhaps this thread is just like the walls of Jerusalem (see Nehemiah 4:1-3 ) - - some chose to make light of what was being done . . . but the work continued.

 

[western kentucky]

your not harmonizing anything at all read Titus 3:4-8. Acts 19:1-5 hasnt a thing to do with Acts 11:18. You dont harmaonize verse that dont relate to each other. If you repent and are baptized, is this not what John the Baptist told people. This does not save. you believe and then you are baptized in the way Titus 3:4-8 states.

Jay,

Acts 11:16-18 is referring to the baptism of the Holy Spirit. Verse 16 states,"John baptized with water, but you (referring to Peter) will be baptized with the Holy Spirit." The point is, John baptized believers for repentance (Matt. 3:11), but Peter was baptized with the Holy Spirit on this occasion (Acts 10:34-38) to lead the Gentiles to repentance.

I then jumped to Acts 19:1-5 to explain the difference between the baptism of John and the Baptism into Jesus Christ. John's baptism was for repentance, and the baptism into Jesus Christ is for the remission of sins (Acts 2:38). I hope this helps to clarify.

Titus 3:4-8 speaks of God's grace. I agree that one is saved by God's grace (Eph. 2:8). But look closer in the context of Ephesians chapter 2 starting at verse 5.

"even when we were dead in our transgressions, made us alive together with Christ (by grace you have been saved), and raised us up with Him, and seated us with Him in the heavenly places in Christ Jesus (...)"
Paul is describing what happens in baptism. Compare with Col. 2:12: having been buried with Him in baptism, in which you were also raised up with Him through faith in the working of God, who raised Him from the dead.

It's interesting that "baptism" is in association with God's grace.

 

[muffler dragon]

Perhaps this thread is just like the walls of Jerusalem (see Nehemiah 4:1-3 ) - - some chose to make light of what was being done . . . but the work continued.

I've never made light of the fact that you feel strongly about your OPINION on this matter.

I will stand and contend that your interpretation and usage of Scripture is lacking.

How does that differ from the experience of Nehemiah?

So much so that your analogy lacks tremendously.

Reasons for such lack:

1) Nehemiah (and those that were working with him) were Jews.
2) As Jews, baptism was never necessary for salvation.
3) Nehemiah believed that the Torah was inspired over all other truth.

I don't see anywhere in your post that you would hold any of the traits described above. Therefore, your not-so-veiled condemnation of myself is lacking.

Btw, I'm still awaiting a response in the other thread to posts 1635 and 1636. Anyone who is in your camp is welcome to respond.

 

[Andyman_1970]

Reasons for such lack:

1) Nehemiah (and those that were working with him) were Jews.
2) As Jews, baptism was never necessary for salvation.
3) Nehemiah believed that the Torah was inspired over all other truth.

I don't see anywhere in your post that you would hold any of the traits described above.

Oh no, the dreaded "c" word is being alluded to.............



































context.

 

[W Jay Schroeder]

Jay,

Acts 11:16-18 is referring to the baptism of the Holy Spirit. Verse 16 states,"John baptized with water, but you (referring to Peter) will be baptized with the Holy Spirit." The point is, John baptized believers for repentance (Matt. 3:11), but Peter was baptized with the Holy Spirit on this occasion (Acts 10:34-38) to lead the Gentiles to repentance.

I then jumped to Acts 19:1-5 to explain the difference between the baptism of John and the Baptism into Jesus Christ. John's baptism was for repentance, and the baptism into Jesus Christ is for the remission of sins (Acts 2:38). I hope this helps to clarify.

Titus 3:4-8 speaks of God's grace. I agree that one is saved by God's grace (Eph. 2:8). But look closer in the context of Ephesians chapter 2 starting at verse 5.

"even when we were dead in our transgressions, made us alive together with Christ (by grace you have been saved), and raised us up with Him, and seated us with Him in the heavenly places in Christ Jesus (...)"
Paul is describing what happens in baptism. Compare with Col. 2:12: having been buried with Him in baptism, in which you were also raised up with Him through faith in the working of God, who raised Him from the dead.

It's interesting that "baptism" is in association with God's grace.

Scripture always speaks of the heart and how this is what counts with God. Ephisians 2:8 speaks of the baptism of the holy spirit by Christ because it is the Spirit of man that needs cleansing as in Titus 3:4-8 and this baptism is discribed in rom 6 as well. you spiritually die with Christ and raise again with him to life. Jesus baptises with the holy spirit and when it speaks of salvation then it is this baptism that is explained. In Col 2:12 it still speaks of the Holy Spirit baptism because it is explaining again this death and ressurection with Christ. Read above when it speaks of circumcision. So if we take it as a physical act in verse 12, then in verse 11 we should be circumcised to putt off the sinfull nature, but if you read further it says its not a physical act, So why is verse 12 a physical act. Read the rest of the passage its figurative for or rebirth and renewal as in Titus 3:4-8

 

[- DRA -]

I've never made light of the fact that you feel strongly about your OPINION on this matter.

I will stand and contend that your interpretation and usage of Scripture is lacking.

Exactly what is it about my interpretation and usage of Scripture that you don't approve of? Could it be that I won't accept that only repentance was required both under the law of Moses (per your use of Isa. 45:22) and for those today under the gospel of Christ? Why is it that you won't evaluate, compare, harmonize or whatever you want to call it your understanding of Isa. 45:22 with passages in the N.T. that deal with salvation under the gospel of Christ e.g. John 8:24, Heb. 11:6, Matt. 10:32-33, Rom. 10:9-10, all the conversions in the book of Acts, Romans 6:3-11, Gal. 3:26-27, and 1 Pet. 3:20-21?

How does that differ from the experience of Nehemiah?

So much so that your analogy lacks tremendously.

Reasons for such lack:

1) Nehemiah (and those that were working with him) were Jews.
2) As Jews, baptism was never necessary for salvation.
3) Nehemiah believed that the Torah was inspired over all other truth.

I don't see anywhere in your post that you would hold any of the traits described above. Therefore, your not-so-veiled condemnation of myself is lacking.

The gospel of Christ is extended to both Jews and Gentiles (Rom. 1:16, Matt. 28:18-20). There is much to learn from the examples of the Old Testament (Rom. 15:4, 1 Cor. 10:11). That is why I referred to the example in Nehemiah.

Yes, Nehemiah and those working with him were Jews. So, what is your point? The point I made is that they were doing God's will, but those who were NOT doing God's will made light of their efforts. Just like you did about this thread. I think it is a correct application of the principle taught there.

Here goes: this is where the rubber meets the road . . . How do you say, "As Jews, baptism was never necessary for salvation" in light of Acts 2:38, 41, and 47? It is necessary under the gospel of Christ. Three thousand Jews obeyed the gospel in Acts 2. If baptism does for us what Romans 6:3-11 says, then how a Jew be saved that is NOT united with Jesus' death, burial, and resurrection to die from sins, be freed from them, and become alive to God? Have you ever heard of a necessary inference? The point? The Scripture clearly describes what occurs in baptism. Therefore, the inference or implication is that the blessings described in Rom. 6:3-11 could not be claimed BEFORE baptism, because they offered in baptism. Frankly, it doesn't matter if the sinner that refuses to submit to baptism is a Jew or Gentile, they have to obey the gospel or be rejected (compare Mark 16:16 with 2 Thess. 1:8 and Matt. 7:21-23). Perhaps I missed something, but aren't we supposed to obey the Lord (James 2:21-24, Heb. 5:9)?

Yes, Nehemiah accepted the writings of the O.T. However, can we be faithful today if we try to blend the old law with the new (see Gal. 5:1-4)? Why do you cling to that which is old and has vanished away (Heb. 8:13)?

Btw, I'm still awaiting a response in the other thread to posts 1635 and 1636. Anyone who is in your camp is welcome to respond.

Lord willing (James 4:15), I will work up a short, concise reply to your posts. I haven't forgotten about them. Just taking my good ole time.

BTW, patience is a fruit of the Spirit (see Gal. 5:22).

 

[- DRA -]

Oh no, the dreaded "c" word is being alluded to............. context.

Are you sure it isn't the dreaded "b" word ................ baptism? You know, like in Acts chapter 2 where the apostle Peter spoke that dreaded word to the Jews, and where 3,000 of them didn't find it so dreadful. In fact, they rejoiced at having their sins taken away. (Acts 2:38,41,47)

 

[muffler dragon]

Exactly what is it about my interpretation and usage of Scripture that you don't approve of?

You and eisegesis get along too well. That's my problem with it. You don't evaluate the context. You only view the Scripture as to how it meets your needs and wants.

Could it be that I won't accept that only repentance was required both under the law of Moses (per your use of Isa. 45:22) and for those today under the gospel of Christ?

Nope. It's your eisegesis and that alone. And for the record, repentance goes before the Mosaic Law. Once again, context seems to be avoided by you.

Why is it that you won't evaluate, compare, harmonize or whatever you want to call it your understanding of Isa. 45:22 with passages in the N.T. that deal with salvation under the gospel of Christ e.g. John 8:24, Heb. 11:6, Matt. 10:32-33, Rom. 10:9-10, all the conversions in the book of Acts, Romans 6:3-11, Gal. 3:26-27, and 1 Pet. 3:20-21?

It's not my job to harmonize the former with the latter. It's the other way around. The "New" Testament must get into agreement with the Tanakh. Even according to your Timothy passage, the Scripture FROM TIMOTHY'S CHILDBIRTH is the Tanakh.

The gospel of Christ is extended to both Jews and Gentiles (Rom. 1:16, Matt. 28:18-20).

Salvation is offered to Gentiles in the Tanakh. See the Exodus and Isaiah 56 and before Moshe.

Yes, Nehemiah and those working with him were Jews. So, what is your point?

Apparently, the three points taken together is above the realm of reason. I wasn't making it a race issue. Once again, I WAS PROVIDING CONTEXT.

The point I made is that they were doing God's will, but those who were NOT doing God's will made light of their efforts. Just like you did about this thread. I think it is a correct application of the principle taught there.

I know exactly what your point was. It was a not-so-veiled threat and condemnation of me. Your thought process would proceed as such:

"I'm doing the work of G-d as Nehemiah did, and m.d. is just like Sanballat." And as v. 5 presents, I'm sure you feel the same way:

Nehemiah 4
5Do not forgive their iniquity and let not their sin be blotted out before You, for they have demoralized the builders.

That insinuation is absolutely ridiculous and derogatory. Unfortunately, that's what has become your modus operandi.

Here goes: this is where the rubber meets the road . . . How do you say, "As Jews, baptism was never necessary for salvation" in light of Acts 2:38, 41, and 47? It is necessary under the gospel of Christ. Three thousand Jews obeyed the gospel in Acts 2. If baptism does for us what Romans 6:3-11 says, then how a Jew be saved that is NOT united with Jesus' death, burial, and resurrection to die from sins, be freed from them, and become alive to God? Have you ever heard of a necessary inference? The point? The Scripture clearly describes what occurs in baptism. Therefore, the inference or implication is that the blessings described in Rom. 6:3-11 could not be claimed BEFORE baptism, because they offered in baptism. Frankly, it doesn't matter if the sinner that refuses to submit to baptism is a Jew or Gentile, they have to obey the gospel or be rejected (compare Mark 16:16 with 2 Thess. 1:8 and Matt. 7:21-23). Perhaps I missed something, but aren't we supposed to obey the Lord (James 2:21-24, Heb. 5:9)?

I've addressed this mantra of yours over and over again. You refuse to acknowledge what I say. Therefore, I'll leave the vain repetitions to you: questions after questions after questions ALL WITHOUT CONTEXT AND UNDERSTANDING.

Address my posts, 1635 and 1636, and let's see where that takes us. You base you whole 'baptism' ideology off of a few scant Scripture verses. Whereas, I'm trying to present you with the picture that the entire Word of G-d presents. Have I condemned you as a sinner who can't be saved? Not once, and I won't. Yet, that's all I, and the other people who don't believe as you do, get.

Yes, Nehemiah accepted the writings of the O.T. However, can we be faithful today if we try to blend the old law with the new (see Gal. 5:1-4)? Why do you cling to that which is old and has vanished away (Heb. 8:13)?

Because my eyes see things from the Judaic perspective: as Y'shua, Sha'ul, the Apostles, and first century believers would view it. Not from how things become manicured in the last 1800 years.

Lord willing (James 4:15), I will work up a short, concise reply to your posts. I haven't forgotten about them. Just taking my good ole time.

BTW, patience is a fruit of the Spirit (see Gal. 5:22).

Yeah, this is mantra no. 2.

 

[Andyman_1970]

Are you sure it isn't the dreaded "b" word ................ baptism? You know, like in Acts chapter 2 where the apostle Peter spoke that dreaded word to the Jews, and where 3,000 of them didn't find it so dreadful. In fact, they rejoiced at having their sins taken away. (Acts 2:38,41,47)

It's not a dreaded word, I love that word, I loved it so much I chose to be immersed just like those in the 1st century - just like Jesus, Paul, etc.

Your dreaded word seems to be context - again, Scripture taken out of context creates a hermenutical gap in which Jesus and Christianity can be remade into whatever idea of point of view man choses.

I chose to view Baptism as those who wrote the Scriptures (ie those Jewish authors living in the 1st century) not how some men in the 1500's decided it should mean.

"The Council of Trent (1545-63) stated that while Christ "merited for us justification by His most holy passion ... the instrumental cause [of justification/regeneration] is the sacrament of baptism .... If anyone says that baptism is ... not necessary for salvation, let him be anathema."

I seems history is also lost on you in addition to context.