If baptism is essential

[muffler dragon]

Of course not. Contrary to the religious thought of the great Agustine, I do not believe infant exorcism is necessary.

I am, however, baptized as are my children and grandchildren. If one is to be raised in the Christian tradition, it is, IMO, essential. Males in this same group of people to whom I refer are also circumcized, for religious reasons. That was not necessary either, but just makes us all feel that we are part of something big.

I love the way you present your ideas. Precise; yet off the cuff.

 

[muffler dragon]

Q:

In viewing your posts to Toney (the last two), it has become evident that you and I may well be upon an impending path of "agreeing to disagree". You seem the sort that would validate such an approach, and who knows when we may or may take it; but I thought I would present it now.

The reason I bring it up is this:

I understand what you are saying when you talk about the assistance of the Holy Spirit throughout the ages. The part that causes me issue with this is that it does not appear that it allows the Spirt of G-d to be unchanging throughout time. It's as though, for some reason, G-d is allowed to change His mind, because some scholar in the last 2000 years has felt like there is a likelihood to his thinking. However, that can and has removed the context of the situation; especially, with pertaining to baptism. Baptism (Mikveh) is a Jewish activity. Therefore, regardless how Mr. 400, Mr. 1000, or Mr. 2005 want to cut it; the context needs to remain the same due to the unchangeable nature of G-d. I view the "New" Testament in light of the Tanakh. There are many who do the exact opposite. You may very well do such, and that is fine. I'm not you and I don't expect you to be me. What I would like to maintain, if you're willing, is the civility to let bygones be bygones. This topic has produced so much disdain that to add to the numbers of angst would be a continuous disservice.

Have a pleasant afternoon.

m.d.

 

[Qoheleth]

In viewing your posts to Toney (the last two), it has become evident that you and I may well be upon an impending path of "agreeing to disagree". You seem the sort that would validate such an approach, and who knows when we may or may take it; but I thought I would present it now.

if you're willing, is the civility to let bygones be bygones

Indeed I agree, you are a gentleman.

God Bless


Q

 

[Toney]

Is this not simply Law and legalism with no real end if grace and forgiveness and salvation are not attached to it??

Q

Good point. I never suggested that grace was not attached. I would die for my belief that it is.

There is an important point that is perhaps being missed here and it involves grace. Throughout scripture (the whole of it), we find grace in the form of a reality check, confirmations of the Hand of God, as it were.

In the birth narratives, Mary "heard these things and treasured them in her heart." With Paul, he finds the person in Damascus (just as Jesus promised) who confirms his experience for him. There are numerous other examples such as Old Issac seeing the finger of God in his blessing of Jacob.

Jesus "sends" Paul just as he "sent" his disciples. Jesus himself also had to be "sent" -- there must be a heavenly sending as well as an earthly sending, the sacred as well as the profane. John, in baptizing Jesus, thus sends him. It also is a reality check.

Each person baptized into the Body of Christ is also sent. This is the grace of baptism, which may or may not lead to salvation. You know, the free will thing.

 

[muffler dragon]

Indeed I agree, you are a gentleman.

God Bless


Q

and you as well.

 

[Toney]

If scholarship has "come a long way", than has the church been in complete error since the beginning? Is it Logic and scholarship that guides the scripture only or is the Holy spirit present to guide also.

Q

Yes, in error. The Holy Spirit guides scholarship.

I have a problem with parts of the Letter to the Hebrews. So do many others. First, since apostalic authorship is uncertain, it probably should not have been included in the canon. The debate in the early church on that point makes interesting reading. Paul did not write Hebrews, of that scholars are certain.

Anyway, it should be read in knowledge of at least to whom it was written and why it was written. That tempers the anti-Semitism, at least. For years the Church taught that Christianity has replaced Judaism as the New Israel. This is the error of Replacement Theology. It is why Gill's sermons are irrelevant today. The Church no longer endorses Replacement Theology, although RT was taught for over 1,800 years.

I won't argue it. But many Christians treat RT as gospel truth and it is not. Would that we were better informed of these changes.

 

[- DRA -]

DRA - I will be more than happy to address your post however I have one question for you before I address your post point by point.

Are you implying that somehow I have not been obedient to the Lord? And are you implying that such "disobedience" renders me "unsaved"?

I am implying no more than Jesus did when he said what He said in Luke 6:46 and in Mark 16:16. Have you discussed this with Him?

Do you disagree with Him? If so, what is the nature of the disagreement? Is it that we don't have to do what He says, or is about the necessity of belief and baptism to be saved?

The implication is no different than in Acts 2:38,41,47. Those that repented of their sins and were baptized received the "remission of sins." What is the implication about those that did NOT do these things? Were they also saved? Or, were they "unsaved"?

 

[Andyman_1970]

I am implying no more than Jesus did when he said what He said in Luke 6:46 and in Mark 16:16. Have you discussed this with Him?

Do you disagree with Him? If so, what is the nature of the disagreement? Is it that we don't have to do what He says, or is about the necessity of belief and baptism to be saved?

The implication is no different than in Acts 2:38,41,47. Those that repented of their sins and were baptized received the "remission of sins." What is the implication about those that did NOT do these things? Were they also saved? Or, were they "unsaved"?

Yes I have "discussed" this with Him.

My question was not what Jesus thought about my baptism, my question was what is your implication you are making.

This can be answered with a simple yes or no from your point of view:

Are you implying that somehow I have not been obedient to the Lord? And are you implying that such "disobedience" renders me "unsaved"?

Now should your answer violate the CF rules, feel free to PM me, I sure don't want this to be viewed as "baiting" you into getting into trouble by asserting someone in the "Christians Only" section of CF is not a Christian. My desire is not to get you into trouble on here, before I answer the body of you post I think you can do me the service of answering the question I posed above.

Peace be with you brother...............

 

[- DRA -]

Nehemiah 6:1-3. And, as Regis would say, that is my final answer.

You didn't answer the last part of Post #87. Why not?

 

[Jim Woodell]

THIS ARTICLE IS WELL WORTH THE READING!

OBJECTIONS TO GOD’S PLAN
OF SALVATION CONSIDERED

by

Bert Thompson, Ph.D.

When the topic of salvation is discussed, it is not unusual to hear certain objections to God’s designated plan. At times, such objections result from a misunderstanding of the steps involved in the salvation process, or the reason(s) for those steps. On occasion, however, the objections result from a stubborn refusal to acquiesce to God’s commands regarding what constitutes salvation. I would like to consider three such objections here.

IS SALVATION THE RESULT OF
“BAPTISMAL REGENERATION”?

Is the forgiveness of sins that results from being baptized due to some special power within the water? No. “Baptismal regeneration” is the idea that there is a miraculous power in the water that produces salvation (i.e., regeneration). As Wayne Jackson has noted: “…the notion that baptism is a ‘sacrament’ which has a sort of mysterious, innate power to remove the contamination of sin—independent of personal faith and a volitional submission to God’s plan of redemption”—is plainly at odds with biblical teaching (1997, 32:45). An examination of the Old Testament (which serves as our “tutor” [Galatians 3:24), and which contains things “for our learning” [Romans 15:4]) provides important instruction regarding this principle. When Naaman the leper was told by Elisha to dip seven times in the Jordan River, at first he refused, but eventually obeyed—and was healed. However, there was no meritorious power in the muddy waters of the Jordan. Naaman was healed because He did exactly what God commanded him to do, in exactly the way God commanded him to do it.

This was true of the Israelites’ salvation as well. On one occasion when they sinned, and God began to slay them for their unrighteousness, those who wished to repent and be spared were commanded to look upon a brass serpent on a pole in the midst of the camp (Numbers 21:1-9). There was no meritorious power in the serpent. Rather, the Israelites were saved from destruction because they did exactly what God commanded them to do, in exactly the way God commanded them to do it.

The New Testament presents the same principle. Jesus once encountered a man born blind (John 9). Then Lord spat on the ground, made a spittle/clay potion, and placed it over the man’s eyes. He then instructed the man to “go, wash in the pool of Siloam” (John 9:7). Was there medicinal power in Siloam’s waters? No. It was the man’s obedient faith that produced the end-result, not some miraculous power in the water. What would have happened if the man had refused to obey Christ, or had altered the Lord’s command? Suppose the man had reasoned: “If I wash in Siloam, some may think I am trusting in the water to be healed. Others may think that I am attempting to perform some kind of ‘work’ to ‘merit’ regaining my sight. Therefore I simply will ‘have faith in’ Christ, but I will not dip in the pool of Siloam.” Would the man have been healed? Most certainly not! What if Noah, during the construction of the ark, had followed God’s instructions to the letter, except for the fact that he decided to build the ark out of a material other than the gopher wood that God had commanded? Would Noah and his family have been saved? Most certainly not! Noah would have been guilty of violating God’s commandments, since he had not done exactly as God commanded him. Did not Jesus Himself say: “If ye love me, ye will keep My commandments” (John 14:15, emp. added)?

Peter used the case of Noah to discuss the relationship of baptism to salvation. He stated unequivocally that baptism is involved in salvation when he noted that, just as Noah and his family were transported from a polluted environment of corruption into a realm of deliverance, so in baptism we are moved from the polluted environment of defilement into a realm of redemption. It is by baptism that one enters “into Christ” (Romans 6:4; Galatians 3:27), wherein salvation is found (2 Timothy 2:10). In Ephesians 5:26 and Titus 3:5, Paul described baptism as a “washing of water” or a “washing of regeneration” wherein the sinner is “cleansed” or “saved.” [Baptist theologian A.T. Robertson admitted that both of these passages refer specifically to water baptism (1931, 4:607).] The power of baptism to remove sin lies not in the water, but in the God Who commanded the sinner to be baptized in the first place.

IS BAPTISM A HUMAN WORK?</FONT>

Is baptism a meritorious human work? No. But is it required for a person to be saved? Yes. How is this possible? The Bible clearly teaches that we are not saved by works (Titus 3:4-7; Ephesians 2:9). Yet the Bible clearly teaches we are saved by works (James 2:14-24). Since inspiration guarantees that the Scriptures never will contradict themselves, it is obvious that two different kinds of works are under consideration in these passages.

The New Testament mentions at least four kinds of works: (1) works of the Law of Moses (Galatians 2:16; Romans 3:20); (2) works of the flesh (Galatians 5:19-21); (3) works of merit (Titus 3:4-7); and (4) works resulting from obedience of faith (James 2:14-24). This last category often is referred to as “works of God.” This phrase does not mean works performed by God; rather, the intent is “works required and approved by God” (Thayer, 1958, p. 248; cf. Jackson, 1997, 32:47). Consider the following example from Jesus’ statements in John 6:27-29:

Work not for the food which perisheth, but for the food which abideth unto eternal life.... They said therefore unto him, What must we do, that we may work the works of God? Jesus answered and said unto them, This is the work of God, that ye believe on him whom he hath sent.​

Within this context, Christ made it clear that there are works which humans must do to receive eternal life. Moreover, the passage affirms that believing itself is a work (“This is the work of God, that ye believe on him whom he hath sent.”). It therefore follows that if one is saved without any type of works, then he is saved without faith, because faith is a work. Such a conclusion would throw the Bible into hopeless confusion!

In addition, it should be noted that repentance from sin is a divinely appointed work for man to perform prior to his reception of salvation. The people of ancient Nineveh “repented” at Jonah’s preaching (Matthew 12:41), yet the Old Testament record relates that “God saw their works, that they turned from their evil way” (Jonah 3:10). Thus, if one can be saved without any kind of works, he can be saved without repentance. Yet Jesus Himself declared that without repentance, one will surely perish (Luke 13:3,5).

But what about baptism? The New Testament specifically excludes baptism from the class of human meritorious works unrelated to redemption. The context of Titus 3:4-7 reveals the following information. (1) We are not saved by works of righteousness that we do by ourselves (i.e., according to any plan or course of action that we devised—see Thayer, p. 526). (2) We are saved by the “washing of regeneration” (i.e., baptism), exactly as 1 Peter 3:21 states. (3) Thus, baptism is excluded from all works of human righteousness that men contrive, but is itself a “work of God” (i.e., required and approved by God) necessary for salvation. When one is raised from the watery grave of baptism, it is according to the “working of God” (Colossians 2:12), and not any man-made plan. No one can suggest (justifiably) that baptism is a meritorious work of human design. When we are baptized, we are completely passive, and thus hardly can have performed any kind of “work.” Instead, we have obeyed God through saving faith. Our “works of God” were belief, repentance, confession, and baptism—all commanded by the Scriptures of one who would receive salvation as the free gift of God (Romans 6:23).

IS THE BAPTISM ASSOCIATED WITH
SALVATION HOLY SPIRIT BAPTISM?</FONT>

To circumvent the connection between water baptism and salvation, some have suggested that the baptism discussed in passages such as Acts 2:38, Acts 22:16, and 1 Peter 3:21 is Holy Spirit baptism. But such a position cannot be correct. Christ commanded His followers—after His death and ascension—to go into all the world and “make disciples of all the nations, baptizing them into the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit” (Matthew 28:18-20). That same command applies no less to Christians today.

During the early parts of the first century, we know there was more than one baptism in existence (e.g., John’s baptism, Holy Spirit baptism, Christ’s baptism, etc.). But by the time Paul wrote his epistle to the Christians in Ephesus, only one of those baptisms remained. He stated specifically in Ephesians 4:4-5: “There is one body, and one Spirit, even as also ye were called in one hope of your calling; one Lord, one faith, one baptism.” Which one baptism remained? One thing we know for certain: Christ never would give His disciples a command that they could not carry out.

The Scriptures, however, teach that Jesus administers baptism of the Holy Spirit (Matthew 3:11; Luke 3:15-17). Yet Christians were commanded to baptize those whom they taught, and who believed (John 3:16), repented of their sins (Luke 13:3), and confessed Christ as the Son of God (Matthew 10:32). It is clear, then, that the baptism commanded by Christ was not Holy Spirit baptism. If it were, Christ would be put in the untenable position of having commanded His disciples to do something they could not do—baptize in the Holy Spirit. However, they could baptize in water, which is exactly what they did. And that is exactly what we still are doing today. Baptism in the Holy Spirit no longer is available; only water baptism remains, and is the one true baptism commanded by Christ for salvation (Ephesians 4:4-5; Mark 16:16; Acts 2:38).

When a person does precisely what the Lord has commanded, he has not “merited” or “earned” salvation. Rather, his obedience is evidence of his faith (James 2:18). Are we saved by God’s grace? Indeed we are (Ephesians 2:8-9). But the fact that we are saved by grace does not negate human responsibility in obeying God’s commands. Every person who wishes to be saved must exhibit the “obedience of faith” commanded within God’s Word (Romans 1:5; 16:26). A part of that obedience is adhering to God’s command to be baptized.

REFERENCES

Jackson, Wayne (1997), “The Matter of ‘Baptismal Regeneration,’ ” Christian Courier, 32:45-46, April.

Jackson, Wayne (1997), “The Role of ‘Works’ in the Plan of Salvation,” Christian Courier, 32:47, April.

Robertson, A.T. (1931), Word Pictures in the New Testament (Nashville, TN: Broadman). Thayer, J.H. (1958 reprint), A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament (Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark).

This article is worthy of reading and considering. It is well done and any truth seeker will find it compelling.

 

[muffler dragon]

THIS ARTICLE IS WELL WORTH THE READING!

This article is worthy of reading and considering. It is well done and any truth seeker will find it compelling.

"any truth seeker" = anyone who agrees with "baptism is essential".

As I recall a post of yours on the other thread:

Scripture is clear: If you are going to speak in tongues you must have an interpreter. I responded to the part of your post that was in an understandable language.

Why would you present such a document as this, Jim? Is this not the same English that I used in my post? Hmmm... what could be the difference? Oh, the substance, the considerations, the arguments, and the context. That's right. I nearly forgot about that.

Bert Thompson is a recognized figure in the world of "creationism", but I don't think that necessarily transcends to the world of Biblical history.

http://www.christiananswers.net/creation/people/thompson-b.html

Does it give you a great deal of satisfaction to use an article like this that parrots your statements; yet still doesn't resolve the whole issue of context?

 

[muffler dragon]

Nehemiah 6:1-3. And, as Regis would say, that is my final answer.

Nehemiah 6
1Now when it was reported to Sanballat, Tobiah, to Geshem the Arab and to the rest of our enemies that I had rebuilt the wall, and that no breach remained in it, although at that time I had not set up the doors in the gates,

2then Sanballat and Geshem sent a message to me, saying, "Come, let us meet together at Chephirim in the plain of Ono." But they were planning to harm me.


3So I sent messengers to them, saying, "I am doing a great work and I cannot come down. Why should the work stop while I leave it and come down to you?"

*slap the floor laughing*

This is almost the best example of con---descension I've ever seen.

 

[Andyman_1970]

DRA / Stinker / Jim / Wes..........etc.

Would you guys do me a favor and list out all the verse you use to substantiate the doctrine of Baptismal regeneration (ie Baptism saves).

Thanks.

 

[- DRA -]

Originally Posted by: - DRA -

Nehemiah 6:1-3. And, as Regis would say, that is my final answer.

Nehemiah 6
1Now when it was reported to Sanballat, Tobiah, to Geshem the Arab and to the rest of our enemies that I had rebuilt the wall, and that no breach remained in it, although at that time I had not set up the doors in the gates,

2then Sanballat and Geshem sent a message to me, saying, "Come, let us meet together at Chephirim in the plain of Ono." But they were planning to harm me.

3So I sent messengers to them, saying, "I am doing a great work and I cannot come down. Why should the work stop while I leave it and come down to you?"

*slap the floor laughing*

This is almost the best example of con---descension I've ever seen.

Thank you. I am glad to know that I brought a little humor into your life.

You left off part of my post. Why did you only respond to part of it? Why not spend just a few minutes -- that is, if you can stop laughing long enough to gain your composure -- and address Rom. 6:3-11 -- which is what the last part of Post #87 was dealing with? Andyman don't do it. Are you willing?

This was my COMPLETE post:

Originally Posted by: - DRA -

Nehemiah 6:1-3. And, as Regis would say, that is my final answer.

You didn't answer the last part of Post #87. Why not?

Oh, BTW, I'm working on the long-awaited response to posts #1635 and #1636. It is about time to address those posts. I really wasn't in any big hurry, but I am afraid if I don't get to them shortly you may blow a gasket or something.

 

[- DRA -]

DRA / Stinker / Jim / Wes..........etc.

Would you guys do me a favor and list out all the verse you use to substantiate the doctrine of Baptismal regeneration (ie Baptism saves).

Thanks.

This seems to be an odd request from someone that has been involved in the discussion as long as you have been. Have we not posted passages before that support what we accept and teach about baptism?

Romans 6:3-11 is a good starting point.

 

[Andyman_1970]

This seems to be an odd request from someone that has been involved in the discussion as long as you have been. Have we not posted passages before that support what we accept and teach about baptism?

Romans 6:3-11 is a good starting point.

Thank you. I was wanting to make sure I had fully reviewed all the proof texts.

Are there any other verses, a list would be nice.

Thanks in advance.

 

[Toney]

As a public service, here is a list of all (to my knowledge) possible proof texts that can be used to argue an assertion that baptism is necessary for salvation. All can be refuted.

Matthew 28:19-20; Mark 16:16; Luke 7:30; John 3:5; John 19:34; Acts 2:38; Acts 8:35-38; Acts 10:48; Acts 22:16; Romans 6:3-4; I Corinthians 12:13; Ephesians 5:25-26; Colossians 2:12; Titus 3:5; Hebrews 10:22 and I Peter 3:19-21.

Again, sorry to but into your thread. Since I really have no interest in this argument, I will leave. God bless you all.

 

[Andyman_1970]

As a public service, here is a list of all (to my knowledge) possible proof texts that can be used to argue an assertion that baptism is necessary for salvation. All can be refuted.

Matthew 28:19-20; Mark 16:16; Luke 7:30; John 3:5; John 19:34; Acts 2:38; Acts 8:35-38; Acts 10:48; Acts 22:16; Romans 6:3-4; I Corinthians 12:13; Ephesians 5:25-26; Colossians 2:12; Titus 3:5; Hebrews 10:22 and I Peter 3:19-21.

Again, sorry to but into your thread. Since I really have no interest in this argument, I will leave. God bless you all.

Thank you for your time Toney - feel free to but in all you like.

Shalom..............

 

[muffler dragon]

You left off part of my post. Why did you only respond to part of it? Why not spend just a few minutes -- that is, if you can stop laughing long enough to gain your composure -- and address Rom. 6:3-11 -- which is what the last part of Post #87 was dealing with? Andyman don't do it. Are you willing?

I didn't respond to that part, because you didn't ask me. You asked Andyman. I'll check it out and let you know.

Oh, BTW, I'm working on the long-awaited response to posts #1635 and #1636. It is about time to address those posts. I really wasn't in any big hurry, but I am afraid if I don't get to them shortly you may blow a gasket or something.

Actually, DRA, I've turned over a new leaf today. I shouldn't expect anything from you or your cohorts. I speak in a completely different 'tongue' according to Jim, and maybe I should really evaluate that consideration. Besides, I have a rather general idea as to how you'll respond anyways. Feel free to respond if you want. I don't care anymore.

 

[muffler dragon]

I am implying no more than Jesus did when he said what He said in Luke 6:46 and in Mark 16:16. Have you discussed this with Him?

Do you disagree with Him? If so, what is the nature of the disagreement? Is it that we don't have to do what He says, or is about the necessity of belief and baptism to be saved?

How do I agree with what Y'shua said? I think a passage (that I've come to rather like much) will suffice:

Matthew 7
21"(R)Not everyone who says to Me, 'Lord, Lord,' will enter the kingdom of heaven, but he who does the will of My Father who is in heaven will enter.


22"(S)Many will say to Me on (T)that day, 'Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in Your name, and in Your name cast out demons, and in Your name perform many miracles?'


23"And then I will declare to them, 'I never knew you; (U)DEPART FROM ME, YOU WHO PRACTICE LAWLESSNESS.'

According to this passage with Y'shua speaking, he clearly states that the goal of every human being is to do the will of the Father. Those who practice lawlessness do not do the will of the Father. Therefore, my goal is to practice the Law established by G-d.

Sure, DRA, you can "interpret" this passage however you would like. I care not. My heart is inclined toward it, and I believe that is the work of G-d.

In regards to Y'shua and baptism and what he says: well... it's difficult to say, because it appears that you don't see Y'shua as a Jewish rabbi. Therefore, our understanding of what he said would be rather different.

And, yes, you can come back and say, "Why don't you inform us of what you think he is saying?" But I have to wonder. That's not what you want. What you want is a perpetual fight. It's evident. You don't care about what is presented to you. You don't care about the evidence from everything else that the Bible presents. You don't care about the evidence of extra-biblical sources that give coherence to the picture of first century Judaism. You feel completely at peace and appeased to see it how you and your "restoration" movement want to see it. And to be honest with you - I think that's great. Wanna know why I think it's great? Because I am not you. That's the beauty of 'free will'.

The implication is no different than in Acts 2:38,41,47. Those that repented of their sins and were baptized received the "remission of sins." What is the implication about those that did NOT do these things? Were they also saved? Or, were they "unsaved"?

I believe that people are saved when G-d saves them. Are you able to peer into the spiritual world to decipher what only G-d knows? Neither am I.

Have an absolutely fantabulous weekend!!!!