USING HIGH SCHOOL GEOMETRY TO CRITIQUE IMMERSION ONLY BAPTISM

[Major1]

Ophs, Sorry Major1 for posting within your quotation. Honest mistake. I WILL REPOST TO MY ACCOUNT.

And yet another thief the cross example of the non-necessity of baptism. Let’s dispel this myth.

Jesus institutes Christian baptism after his death but before his ascension. The first administration of Christian baptism in on Pentecost. How is it possible for the thief to be baptized when the first Christian baptisms would occur 53 days later? Saying “after all the thief on the cross wasn’t baptized” is like saying “after all, Jeremiah, Isaiah, or King David wasn’t baptized either.” Just nonsensical. All true believers in the Old Testament era were saved without baptism.


At least two people were converted when Jesus was on the cross. The thief and the Roman Centurion. Both were converted in the exact same way----the preaching of Jesus, as the Scriptures say, "Faith comes by hearing and hearing by the word of God." But the preaching of Jesus comes from two different sources: (1) Jesus own words on the cross...He did recite a psalm...(2) from the Scribes and the Sadducees....from their accusations against Jesus.


The Roman Centurion said after Christ’s death…”Surely, he was the Son of God.” How does the Roman Centurion who was a gentile come to the conclusion he is the Son of God? Jesus never preached he was the Son of God on the cross. The Roman Centurion hears Jesus being called the Son of God from the Scribes and the Sadducees.


After six hours on the cross, the Roman Centurion hears accusation after accusation by the Scribes and Sadducees. These accusations were statements of fact Jesus himself preached prior to being place on the cross. The Roman Centurion believes he is the Son of God because Matthew records twice his accusers said He was the Son of God. Faith was worked into the Roman Centurion in the oddest of all ways...statements by Christ's accusers. What the Centurion believes are Jesus’ previous preached statements about Himself articulated by the Scribes and the Sadducees. Faith does come by hearing and hearing by the Word of God.

In this way, the thief is saved by faith; he joins the ranks of saved individuals such as Jeremiah, Samuel, Moses, David, and the like. None of these individuals had been baptized and never received the command to be baptized.

You said......
"In this way, the thief is saved by faith; he joins the ranks of saved individuals such as Jeremiah, Samuel, Moses, David, and the like. None of these individuals had been baptized and never received the command to be baptized. "

Yet they were all saved by faith without being baptized. Imagine that!

Ephesians 2:8-9...….
"For by grace have you been saved through faith; and that not of yourselves, it is the gift of God; not of works, that no man should boast".

This is one of the most thrilling statements about salvation, Paul penned these words in his letter to the church at Ephesus.

The passage is one of great beauty and power. How tragic that this text has been so abused by sincere people who are fixated upon a sectarian agenda, rather than interpreting the passage in the larger framework of biblical truth.

Carl Laney, professor of biblical literature at Western Conservative Baptist Seminary in Portland, Oregon, raised this question:
“Did Peter teach that baptism was necessary for salvation in Acts 2:38?

His response:
“The Bible teaches clearly that salvation and the forgiveness of sins is always through faith in Christ (Eph. 2:8-9), not the result of baptism” (1997, 243).
Does the Grace in Ephesians 2:8-9 Exclude Baptism?

According to Greek grammer......…((cf. Titus 3:5; see Thayer on the verb poieo, 526)
Salvation is “not of ek yourselves." The preposition ek (out of) emphasizes that salvation cannot possibly come “out of” any humanly contrived plan or course of action. Rather, salvation is described as a “gift” from God as seen in Rom. 6:23.

It is one of the tragedies of “Christendom” that so many have isolated the Ephesian passage from the larger body of redemptive information. They emphatically declare that this text excludes water baptism as one of the constituents of the plan of salvation.

Does that logic also eliminate the requirement to repent of sins? (Acts 17:30).

I hate to keep saying this but several of you good people are arguing your Denominational Positions instead of Bible Doctrine.

Just the fact that someone has already denied the Last Rites from the Catholic church and also death bed confessions confirm that comment.

How would you feel if the child you have prayed for and witnessed to on his bed of affliction asks you to lead him to Christ and he accepts Christ and dies from his illness without being placed into some water.

Are you going to try and tell all of us that your child was not saved and do it with a straight face to just comply with a denominations position that is not Biblical????

 

[Major1]

So you would also argue that preaching the Gospel, because the preaching is done by a human being, is not effectual? Is that correct?



And it's something that happened two thousand years ago. If you want to say that "baptism with the Holy Spirit" is something that happens to individuals, you'll need to demonstrate that with Scripture.



"How then will they call on Him whom they have not believed? And how are they to believe in Him of whom they have never heard? And how are they to hear without someone preaching? And how are they to preach unless they are sent? As it is written, 'How beautiful are the feet of those who preach the good news!' But they have not all received the Gospel. For Isaiah says, 'Lord, who has believed what he has heard from us?' So faith comes from hearing, and hearing through the word of Christ." - Romans 10:14-17



"Accepting Christ" is a human work, and is impossible for fallen man to do. If you mean if a man hears the Gospel, and he believes, and if he dies the next day before he can receive Baptism if he's saved. The answer is yes. Faith comes from hearing, and hearing by the word.



If someone is in the hospital, sick and close to death, and hears the Gospel and believes, unable to receive Baptism, they are saved. Faith comes from hearing, and hearing by the word.



The Son of God said to him, "You will be with Me in Paradise." The word of Christ is salvation. The thief on the cross was saved by the word of Christ. Faith comes by hearing, and hearing by the word of Christ.



That you do not understand, and refuse to understand, what the Church has always taught about Baptism, and what Scripture says, then you will continually make bad arguments against historic biblical, Christian teaching.

-CryptoLutheran

Please read this carefully and then print it as place it over your computer screen as what I am going to say is the key to our disagreement on this subject.

Ready???????

I do not care one little iotto about what the church taught or teaches on this subject!!!!!

Yes, I respect all that is said but I do not accept radical, erroneous teaching that come from Denominations of men whether they are 1 day in existence or 2000 years ago.

I can read very well. I understand what I read. I understand what the Scriptures actually say! I just as all other born again believers have the Holy Spirit to teach and give me understanding and that has happened now for almost 50 years.

The Bible, as God’s word, must harmonize with itself. To force theological theories of men onto clear passages, thus making an inspired writer contradict himself or other sacred writers, is reprehensible and must be rejected.

Conscientious students of the Book are repelled by such tactics and that would be me.

 

[Major1]

So you would also argue that preaching the Gospel, because the preaching is done by a human being, is not effectual? Is that correct?



And it's something that happened two thousand years ago. If you want to say that "baptism with the Holy Spirit" is something that happens to individuals, you'll need to demonstrate that with Scripture.



"How then will they call on Him whom they have not believed? And how are they to believe in Him of whom they have never heard? And how are they to hear without someone preaching? And how are they to preach unless they are sent? As it is written, 'How beautiful are the feet of those who preach the good news!' But they have not all received the Gospel. For Isaiah says, 'Lord, who has believed what he has heard from us?' So faith comes from hearing, and hearing through the word of Christ." - Romans 10:14-17



"Accepting Christ" is a human work, and is impossible for fallen man to do. If you mean if a man hears the Gospel, and he believes, and if he dies the next day before he can receive Baptism if he's saved. The answer is yes. Faith comes from hearing, and hearing by the word.



If someone is in the hospital, sick and close to death, and hears the Gospel and believes, unable to receive Baptism, they are saved. Faith comes from hearing, and hearing by the word.



The Son of God said to him, "You will be with Me in Paradise." The word of Christ is salvation. The thief on the cross was saved by the word of Christ. Faith comes by hearing, and hearing by the word of Christ.



That you do not understand, and refuse to understand, what the Church has always taught about Baptism, and what Scripture says, then you will continually make bad arguments against historic biblical, Christian teaching.

-CryptoLutheran

INCORRECT. YOU are saying something I did not say.

Romans 10:17....
"Faith comes by hearing and hearing by the Word of God".

Jesus speaking to the 11 MEN said to them in Mark 16:15...……..
"And he said unto them, Go ye into all the world, and preach the gospel to every creature."

You said...……..

And it's something that happened two thousand years ago. If you want to say that "baptism with the Holy Spirit" is something that happens to individuals, you'll need to demonstrate that with Scripture.​

​

REALLY????​

​

Actually I do not know why I am doing this as it is sure to not be received, however...​

​

Acts 1:5 …….​

" For John truly baptized with water; but ye shall be baptized with the Holy Ghost not many days hence".​

​

1 Corth 12:13....​

For in one Spirit we were all baptized into one body—Jews or Greeks, slaves or free—and all were made to drink of one Spirit.​

​

John 3:5 ……..​

"Jesus answered, Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except a man be born of water and [of] the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God."​

​

Acts 2:4...….. ​

"And they were all filled with the Holy Spirit and began to speak with other tongues, as the Spirit was giving them utterance."

Acts 11:16 …...
And I remembered the word of the Lord, how He used to say, ‘John baptized with water, but you will be baptized with the Holy Spirit.’

You said...…….​

'If someone is in the hospital, sick and close to death, and hears the Gospel and believes, unable to receive Baptism, they are saved. Faith comes from hearing, and hearing by the word.'​

​

Wait. You have been saying that baptism must be done in order to be saved and now you just said...…"unable to receive Baptism, they are saved".​

​

It does not work that way friend. You can not have it both ways just because you can not answer correctly a question asked of you.​

​

You have said repeatedly that water baptism MUST be done to be save. NOW you just changed your position. According to what has been said by YOU and others here, the sick person who accepts Christ and dies without being water baptized is NOT SAVED.​

​

Look at post #35 where another member says …..​

"Water baptism is necessary for salvation because God demands it.​

​

That is NOT WHAT YOU JUST SAID IS IT????​

​

Water baptism has no part of the salvation event.​

​

​

​

​

 

[Major1]

Ophs, Sorry Major1 for posting within your quotation. Honest mistake. I WILL REPOST TO MY ACCOUNT.

And yet another thief the cross example of the non-necessity of baptism. Let’s dispel this myth.

Jesus institutes Christian baptism after his death but before his ascension. The first administration of Christian baptism in on Pentecost. How is it possible for the thief to be baptized when the first Christian baptisms would occur 53 days later? Saying “after all the thief on the cross wasn’t baptized” is like saying “after all, Jeremiah, Isaiah, or King David wasn’t baptized either.” Just nonsensical. All true believers in the Old Testament era were saved without baptism.


At least two people were converted when Jesus was on the cross. The thief and the Roman Centurion. Both were converted in the exact same way----the preaching of Jesus, as the Scriptures say, "Faith comes by hearing and hearing by the word of God." But the preaching of Jesus comes from two different sources: (1) Jesus own words on the cross...He did recite a psalm...(2) from the Scribes and the Sadducees....from their accusations against Jesus.


The Roman Centurion said after Christ’s death…”Surely, he was the Son of God.” How does the Roman Centurion who was a gentile come to the conclusion he is the Son of God? Jesus never preached he was the Son of God on the cross. The Roman Centurion hears Jesus being called the Son of God from the Scribes and the Sadducees.


After six hours on the cross, the Roman Centurion hears accusation after accusation by the Scribes and Sadducees. These accusations were statements of fact Jesus himself preached prior to being place on the cross. The Roman Centurion believes he is the Son of God because Matthew records twice his accusers said He was the Son of God. Faith was worked into the Roman Centurion in the oddest of all ways...statements by Christ's accusers. What the Centurion believes are Jesus’ previous preached statements about Himself articulated by the Scribes and the Sadducees. Faith does come by hearing and hearing by the Word of God.

In this way, the thief is saved by faith; he joins the ranks of saved individuals such as Jeremiah, Samuel, Moses, David, and the like. None of these individuals had been baptized and never received the command to be baptized.

1 Corinthians 1:17...…….
" For Christ sent me not to baptize, but to preach the gospel: not with wisdom of words, lest the cross of Christ should be made of none effect."

If water baptism was a requirement for salvation Christ would have sent Paul the apostle to baptize. However, Paul was not sent to water baptize but to preach the gospel of which water baptism is not an essential element.

Romans 1:16-17 ......….
"For I am not ashamed of the gospel of Christ: for it is the power of God unto salvation to every one that believeth; to the Jew first, and also to the Greek. For therein is the righteousness of God revealed from faith to faith: as it is written, The just shall live by faith."

Works, including that of water baptism, do not save. We are saved by grace through FAITH in Jesus Christ.

The teaching of water Baptism is denominationally driven and is NOT Biblical.

If anyone, or any church denomination Requires anything in addition to faith in Jesus Christ for salvation is a works-based salvation. To add anything to the gospel is to say that Jesus’ death on the cross was not sufficient to purchase our salvation.

Now you are welcome to argue your opinions all you want to with me but you are in essence saying that what Christ did for me on the cross was NOT ENOUGH so I must be baptized.

To say that baptism is necessary for salvation is to say we must add our own good works and obedience to Christ’s death in order to make it sufficient for salvation. Jesus’ death alone paid for our sins (Romans 5:8; 2 Corinthians 5:21). Jesus’ payment for our sins is appropriated to our “account” by faith alone (John 3:16; Acts 16:31; Ephesians 2:8-9). Therefore, baptism is an important step of obedience after salvation but cannot be a requirement for salvation.
Is baptism necessary for salvation? | GotQuestions.org

 

[ViaCrucis]

INCORRECT. YOU are saying something I did not say.

Romans 10:17....
"Faith comes by hearing and hearing by the Word of God".

Jesus speaking to the 11 MEN said to them in Mark 16:15...……..
"And he said unto them, Go ye into all the world, and preach the gospel to every creature."

You said...……..

And it's something that happened two thousand years ago. If you want to say that "baptism with the Holy Spirit" is something that happens to individuals, you'll need to demonstrate that with Scripture.​

REALLY????

Actually I do not know why I am doing this as it is sure to not be received, however...

Acts 1:5 …….
" For John truly baptized with water; but ye shall be baptized with the Holy Ghost not many days hence".​

That happened on Pentecost. That's why the text says "not many days from now".

1 Corth 12:13....

For in one Spirit we were all baptized into one body—Jews or Greeks, slaves or free—and all were made to drink of one Spirit.

Yes, that's a reference to Baptism. Not "baptism with the Holy Spirit". Did you notice that "baptism with the Holy Spirit" isn't mentioned there, but that "in one Spirit we were all baptized into one body" That's Baptism.

John 3:5 ……..

"Jesus answered, Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except a man be born of water and [of] the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God."

Are you just ignoring the "of water" part? Yes, the new birth which is of water and the Spirit, that's Baptism.

Acts 2:4...…..

​

"And they were all filled with the Holy Spirit and began to speak with other tongues, as the Spirit was giving them utterance."

Yes, this is part of the baptism with the Holy Spirit. This event on Pentecost, and the one that happened at the household of Cornelius in Acts ch. 10 and its ongoing story in Acts ch. 11 are the only places referred to as the baptism with the Holy Spirit in Scripture. Hence what St. Peter says in:

Acts 11:16 …...

And I remembered the word of the Lord, how He used to say, ‘John baptized with water, but you will be baptized with the Holy Spirit.’

Bingo. The outpouring of the Spirit on Pentecost, and this second Pentecost for the Gentiles as God's sign of Gentile acceptance are the only instances in the Bible of "baptism with the Holy Spirit".

You said...…….

​

'If someone is in the hospital, sick and close to death, and hears the Gospel and believes, unable to receive Baptism, they are saved. Faith comes from hearing, and hearing by the word.'

Wait. You have been saying that baptism must be done in order to be saved and now you just said...…"unable to receive Baptism, they are saved".

It does not work that way friend. You can not have it both ways just because you can not answer correctly a question asked of you.
​

The fact that this confuses you is evidence of that you have continued to not understand what I, and other Christians, have said and what we believe about Baptism.

I have never said that if someone isn't baptized then they can't be saved.

You have said repeatedly that water baptism MUST be done to be save. NOW you just changed your position. According to what has been said by YOU and others here, the sick person who accepts Christ and dies without being water baptized is NOT SAVED.

Quote me where I have said that if someone isn't baptized one can't be saved.

Look at post #35 where another member says …..
"Water baptism is necessary for salvation because God demands it.

That is NOT WHAT YOU JUST SAID IS IT????

Baptism is necessary. Because it is the means by which God objectively unites us with Jesus Christ and His all-sufficient saving work. That Baptism is necessary doesn't mean that someone can't be saved without receiving Baptism. This might sound like a contradiction if you have a view that salvation is some kind of mechanism, that one must do X, Y, and Z in order to be saved. But that's not how I view salvation.

Salvation isn't about what we do, since our works add nothing to our salvation. Salvation is entirely and purely the work of God, apart from ourselves. It is by grace ALONE through faith.

Baptism is necessary because it is the means, instituted by Jesus Christ Himself, through which God has attached His grace, word, and promise. Namely this: That whoever is baptized into Christ has been baptized into His death, and has been clothed with Jesus Christ, and born again--and all else which Scripture explicitly says about Baptism.

Baptism is not necessary as though should someone be deprived of it by the harsh circumstances of life and death, that if someone is not baptized they will be rejected by God. Because that's not who God is, that's not how salvation works. For the same reason we can't say that if someone never heard of Christ that they can't be saved. Even though the Gospel is the very power of God to save, through which God's Justice is revealed from faith to faith, for through the Gospel man receives his justification from God as pure grace. So we know that the preaching of the Gospel creates and gives us the gift of faith (Romans 10:17, Ephesians 2:8), and yet there have been countless billions of human beings who never heard the Gospel. Do we consign the great mass of humans to damnation because of the mere happenstance of their life? Or do we instead put our faith in the living God who made heaven and earth, who sent His only-begotten and beloved Son, who suffered once for the sins of the world, having been crucified, buried, dead, descended into hell, and on the third day rising from the dead, who ascended and is seated at the right hand of the Father, coming again at the end of history with His everlasting kingdom, where God makes all things new.

I put my faith in Jesus Christ and His Gospel. Not in any work of man. I confess the word of Christ, that He gave His Church the command to preach the Gospel to all nations, to make disciples of all nations baptizing them in the name of the Father, Son, and the Holy Spirit; and that the giving of the Spirit on Pentecost empowers the Church to go and do this mission in the world--to preach the Gospel, to baptize, and that it is the Spirit who works through these God-given means to deliver us to Christ our Lord.

-CryptoLutheran​

 

[ViaCrucis]

I do not care one little iotto about what the church taught or teaches on this subject!!!!!

Because all believers in Jesus were wrong right up until the founder of your denomination came along and said otherwise, and you believe your denomination over what Jesus, the Apostles, the Scriptures, and two thousand years of unanimous teaching on the subject?

Which should I believe Major1? Should I believe Jesus and His Apostles, or should I instead believe you and your denomination?

Because I have to be honest. I think I'll stick with what the Bible says over what the teachers of your denomination say.

-CryptoLutheran

 

[prodromos]

Using X & Y axis where the X axis is either the ground level or water level, we find out that Jesus was buried in a tomb, and therefore He was buried on a positive Y axis rather than a negative Y axis. The women in the morning didn’t go to the tomb of Jesus with shovels, picks, and a wheel barrow to dig up Jesus.

How a Baptist can actually believe that Jesus was buried in and/or under the ground (negative Y axis) is besides me. Jesus was NOT buried in the ground. Jesus was buried in a tomb. THIS IS NOT A “PICTURE” OF IMMERSION BAPTISM. THIS IS NOT A “PICTURE” OF GOING UNDER THE WATER.

Jesus was buried in a tomb which had been hewn out of the rock. It was not something that had been constructed above the ground.

 

[Ain't Zwinglian]

1 Corinthians 1:17...…….
" For Christ sent me not to baptize, but to preach the gospel: not with wisdom of words, lest the cross of Christ should be made of none effect."

If water baptism was a requirement for salvation Christ would have sent Paul the apostle to baptize. However, Paul was not sent to water baptize but to preach the gospel of which water baptism is not an essential element.

-------------------

The division in the church in Corinth was over which teacher to follow. It is clear that some in the church were feeling superior to others because of who taught them the gospel and had baptized them. In fact, some were even claiming they were baptized in the name of their teacher. That's why Paul said he was glad that he baptized none of them, "so that no one would say you were baptized in my name" (1 Corinthians 1:15)

If Jesus did not send Paul to baptize, then why did he baptize Crispus, Gaius and the household of Stephanas? Was Paul sinning when he baptized them? Was Paul lying when he told the Corinthians Jesus told him not to baptize and he did anyway? Or is something else is going here that will explain this difficulty.

Wherever Paul went, he taught people to be baptized. (Acts 16:13-15 Lydia, 31-34 Philippian jailer (Silas), 18:8, 19:1-6.) He chose not to baptize because he didn’t want the Corinthians to abuse the administrative side of baptism. Paul and Peter had huge statures in the early church. For example, if Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg where to perform a marriage ceremony of one of my nephews I would have bragging rights all day long and perhaps decades long. This is what was happened in the Corinthian Church.

When Paul is speaking about “preaching” the gospel, he is speaking about his apostolic office.

Just for giggles lets do a word substitution. Substitute “preach” for “write” 17 For Christ did not send me to baptize, but to write the gospel. Can you see the difference?

Paul’s preaching and writing is authoritative source of belief for the Christian church. Paul could & did hand over the administration of Baptism an associate, but not his specific the preaching and writing of the gospel. This is what Paul was called to do.

Paul preached original content. Paul received his teaching directly from Christ and Paul in the preaching and his writing is communicating that which was unknown before. PAUL’S PREACHING IS NOT EXACTLY LIKE OURS. We are not called to preach original content. We are called to preach Paul’s content of his preaching and writing.

This is not a disclaimer of importance of baptism.
Paul is not demoting baptism to the ranks of insignificant duties or even optional acts.
Paul is not separating baptism from the preached gospel.

Where does Paul get this idea leave the administration of baptism to others? In all probability he gets it from Peter (Acts 10:48) where Peter preaches and orders others to baptize. Peter may have had the same problem as Paul did. They were pillars of the newly formed church. Where does Peter get the idea to leave the administration of baptism to others? He gets it from Jesus (John 4:1). Jesus never baptized but authorizes his disciples to baptize. You have to interpret Paul’s statement of “preaching” in the larger context of the historical administration of baptism as it develops within in the NT.

 

[Major1]

Because all believers in Jesus were wrong right up until the founder of your denomination came along and said otherwise, and you believe your denomination over what Jesus, the Apostles, the Scriptures, and two thousand years of unanimous teaching on the subject?

Which should I believe Major1? Should I believe Jesus and His Apostles, or should I instead believe you and your denomination?

Because I have to be honest. I think I'll stick with what the Bible says over what the teachers of your denomination say.

-CryptoLutheran

LOL!

YOU are doing nothing but expousing your denominational teaching.

You have not said one Scriptures which demands water baptism for salvation yet your claim is that the apostles said so.

There’s no place in Acts 1 for a water baptism to occur. The disciples were to told to wait, not to go be water baptized. And it’s hard to imagine that Jesus told them to all be baptized and yet Luke found that event too trivial to record.

Believe as your church instructs you to believe. I will believe what the Scriptures actually do say and NOT what someone tells me what they say.

Blessings to you and stay safe in these strange times.

 

[Major1]

That happened on Pentecost. That's why the text says "not many days from now".



Yes, that's a reference to Baptism. Not "baptism with the Holy Spirit". Did you notice that "baptism with the Holy Spirit" isn't mentioned there, but that "in one Spirit we were all baptized into one body" That's Baptism.



Are you just ignoring the "of water" part? Yes, the new birth which is of water and the Spirit, that's Baptism.

​

Yes, this is part of the baptism with the Holy Spirit. This event on Pentecost, and the one that happened at the household of Cornelius in Acts ch. 10 and its ongoing story in Acts ch. 11 are the only places referred to as the baptism with the Holy Spirit in Scripture. Hence what St. Peter says in:



Bingo. The outpouring of the Spirit on Pentecost, and this second Pentecost for the Gentiles as God's sign of Gentile acceptance are the only instances in the Bible of "baptism with the Holy Spirit".

The fact that this confuses you is evidence of that you have continued to not understand what I, and other Christians, have said and what we believe about Baptism.

I have never said that if someone isn't baptized then they can't be saved.



Quote me where I have said that if someone isn't baptized one can't be saved.



Baptism is necessary. Because it is the means by which God objectively unites us with Jesus Christ and His all-sufficient saving work. That Baptism is necessary doesn't mean that someone can't be saved without receiving Baptism. This might sound like a contradiction if you have a view that salvation is some kind of mechanism, that one must do X, Y, and Z in order to be saved. But that's not how I view salvation.

Salvation isn't about what we do, since our works add nothing to our salvation. Salvation is entirely and purely the work of God, apart from ourselves. It is by grace ALONE through faith.

Baptism is necessary because it is the means, instituted by Jesus Christ Himself, through which God has attached His grace, word, and promise. Namely this: That whoever is baptized into Christ has been baptized into His death, and has been clothed with Jesus Christ, and born again--and all else which Scripture explicitly says about Baptism.

Baptism is not necessary as though should someone be deprived of it by the harsh circumstances of life and death, that if someone is not baptized they will be rejected by God. Because that's not who God is, that's not how salvation works. For the same reason we can't say that if someone never heard of Christ that they can't be saved. Even though the Gospel is the very power of God to save, through which God's Justice is revealed from faith to faith, for through the Gospel man receives his justification from God as pure grace. So we know that the preaching of the Gospel creates and gives us the gift of faith (Romans 10:17, Ephesians 2:8), and yet there have been countless billions of human beings who never heard the Gospel. Do we consign the great mass of humans to damnation because of the mere happenstance of their life? Or do we instead put our faith in the living God who made heaven and earth, who sent His only-begotten and beloved Son, who suffered once for the sins of the world, having been crucified, buried, dead, descended into hell, and on the third day rising from the dead, who ascended and is seated at the right hand of the Father, coming again at the end of history with His everlasting kingdom, where God makes all things new.

I put my faith in Jesus Christ and His Gospel. Not in any work of man. I confess the word of Christ, that He gave His Church the command to preach the Gospel to all nations, to make disciples of all nations baptizing them in the name of the Father, Son, and the Holy Spirit; and that the giving of the Spirit on Pentecost empowers the Church to go and do this mission in the world--to preach the Gospel, to baptize, and that it is the Spirit who works through these God-given means to deliver us to Christ our Lord.

-CryptoLutheran​

You have been shown to be in error when confronted with deathbed confessions and the Last Rites given by the RCC. Those examples prove without a shadow of a doubt that WATER BAPTISM IS NOT NECESSARY for salvation.

That being said, now you change your opinion to …...
" Baptism is not necessary as though should someone be deprived of it by the harsh circumstances of life and death, that if someone is not baptized they will be rejected by God. Because that's not who God is, that's not how salvation works. For the same reason we can't say that if someone never heard of Christ that they can't be saved."

You have JUST AGREED WITH ME my dear friend. All along this conversation I have insisted that the Scriptures tell us that no will be rejected from being saved because they are not water baptized.

I gave you 3 examples that you had to answer to prove your opinion and you have just said that , "that if someone is not baptized they will be rejected by God. Because that's not who God is, that's not how salvation works."

Of course that is true. God saves men through grace by faith plus NOTHING! That is exactly what Ephesians 2:8-9 says which you have just accepted.

Now just to demonstrate how much your Church denomination has failed to teach you, consider what you just said...........
"For the same reason we can't say that if someone never heard of Christ that they can't be saved."

But what does the Word of God say in John 14:6..........
"Jesus said to them, I AM THE WAY THE TRUTH AND THE LIFE AND NO ONE COMES TO THE FATHER EXCEPT BY ME".

The ONLY way to be saved from hell is to accept the Lord Jesus Christ. That is what He said. If anyone has not heard of Christ then they are not saved my friend but they are already convicted by nature that there is a Creator. Have you read Romans 1:20...….
"For his invisible attributes, namely, his eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly perceived, ever since the creation of the world, in the things that have been made. So they are without excuse."

That tells us that Creation clearly reveals that there is a God.

Why don't we discuss that for awhile. Why not start a thread.
Now then.....is your church teachings correct or is the Lord Jesus correct???

 

[Major1]

-------------------

The division in the church in Corinth was over which teacher to follow. It is clear that some in the church were feeling superior to others because of who taught them the gospel and had baptized them. In fact, some were even claiming they were baptized in the name of their teacher. That's why Paul said he was glad that he baptized none of them, "so that no one would say you were baptized in my name" (1 Corinthians 1:15)

If Jesus did not send Paul to baptize, then why did he baptize Crispus, Gaius and the household of Stephanas? Was Paul sinning when he baptized them? Was Paul lying when he told the Corinthians Jesus told him not to baptize and he did anyway? Or is something else is going here that will explain this difficulty.

Wherever Paul went, he taught people to be baptized. (Acts 16:13-15 Lydia, 31-34 Philippian jailer (Silas), 18:8, 19:1-6.) He chose not to baptize because he didn’t want the Corinthians to abuse the administrative side of baptism. Paul and Peter had huge statures in the early church. For example, if Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg where to perform a marriage ceremony of one of my nephews I would have bragging rights all day long and perhaps decades long. This is what was happened in the Corinthian Church.

When Paul is speaking about “preaching” the gospel, he is speaking about his apostolic office.

Just for giggles lets do a word substitution. Substitute “preach” for “write” 17 For Christ did not send me to baptize, but to write the gospel. Can you see the difference?

Paul’s preaching and writing is authoritative source of belief for the Christian church. Paul could & did hand over the administration of Baptism an associate, but not his specific the preaching and writing of the gospel. This is what Paul was called to do.

Paul preached original content. Paul received his teaching directly from Christ and Paul in the preaching and his writing is communicating that which was unknown before. PAUL’S PREACHING IS NOT EXACTLY LIKE OURS. We are not called to preach original content. We are called to preach Paul’s content of his preaching and writing.

This is not a disclaimer of importance of baptism.
Paul is not demoting baptism to the ranks of insignificant duties or even optional acts.
Paul is not separating baptism from the preached gospel.

Where does Paul get this idea leave the administration of baptism to others? In all probability he gets it from Peter (Acts 10:48) where Peter preaches and orders others to baptize. Peter may have had the same problem as Paul did. They were pillars of the newly formed church. Where does Peter get the idea to leave the administration of baptism to others? He gets it from Jesus (John 4:1). Jesus never baptized but authorizes his disciples to baptize. You have to interpret Paul’s statement of “preaching” in the larger context of the historical administration of baptism as it develops within in the NT.

Read the book my friend.

You said...….
"If Jesus did not send Paul to baptize, then why did he baptize Crispus, Gaius and the household of Stephanas? "

1 Corth 1:17........
"For Christ did not send me to baptize, but to preach the gospel-not with wisdom and eloquence, lest the cross of Christ be emptied of its power."

From Ellicott's Commentary for English Readers
"The mention of Stephanas and his household was, from the words preceding, evidently a subsequent correction by the Apostle. He had forgotten them, and was reminded of it possibly by Sosthenes...……".

Paul water baptizing (and performing miracles) provoked the Jews to jealousy (Romans 11:11). Eventually, water baptism became divisive within the Corinthian church, AND STILL IS TODAY, and so Paul quit water baptizing.

 

[ncjac]

Why was Paul baptized?

 

[The Liturgist]

Ultimately, math is irrelevant here; what matters is history and context. Our baptism with Christ isn’t just about His burial, but also His baptism in the Jordan by John the Baptist. And what did John the Baptist do with Christ in the Jordan if not immerse him?

This is not to say by the way that affusion or aspersion are invalid, but rather simply to stress that this thread misses the point: when we baptize in the name of the Father, Son and Holy Ghost, we participate in both the baptism of our Lord and his death and resurrection, and it is via this sacrament and the vital sacrament of Holy Communion that our sins are washed away and we receive life everlasting.

 

[ViaCrucis]

You have been shown to be in error when confronted with deathbed confessions and the Last Rites given by the RCC. Those examples prove without a shadow of a doubt that WATER BAPTISM IS NOT NECESSARY for salvation.

That being said, now you change your opinion to …...
" Baptism is not necessary as though should someone be deprived of it by the harsh circumstances of life and death, that if someone is not baptized they will be rejected by God. Because that's not who God is, that's not how salvation works. For the same reason we can't say that if someone never heard of Christ that they can't be saved."

You have JUST AGREED WITH ME my dear friend. All along this conversation I have insisted that the Scriptures tell us that no will be rejected from being saved because they are not water baptized.

I gave you 3 examples that you had to answer to prove your opinion and you have just said that , "that if someone is not baptized they will be rejected by God. Because that's not who God is, that's not how salvation works."

Of course that is true. God saves men through grace by faith plus NOTHING! That is exactly what Ephesians 2:8-9 says which you have just accepted.

Now just to demonstrate how much your Church denomination has failed to teach you, consider what you just said...........
"For the same reason we can't say that if someone never heard of Christ that they can't be saved."

But what does the Word of God say in John 14:6..........
"Jesus said to them, I AM THE WAY THE TRUTH AND THE LIFE AND NO ONE COMES TO THE FATHER EXCEPT BY ME".

The ONLY way to be saved from hell is to accept the Lord Jesus Christ. That is what He said. If anyone has not heard of Christ then they are not saved my friend but they are already convicted by nature that there is a Creator. Have you read Romans 1:20...….
"For his invisible attributes, namely, his eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly perceived, ever since the creation of the world, in the things that have been made. So they are without excuse."

That tells us that Creation clearly reveals that there is a God.

Why don't we discuss that for awhile. Why not start a thread.
Now then.....is your church teachings correct or is the Lord Jesus correct???

So you believe that nature is sufficient to teach a man that God so loved the world that He gave His only-begotten Son, that whosoever trusts in Him shall not perish but have everlasting life?

That by looking at the stars, the mountains, the trees, the canyons, etc, I can know that there is one God, the Father Almighty maker of heaven and earth, and one Lord Jesus Christ, the only-begotten Son of God, who suffered under Pontius Pilate, was crucified, dead, and buried, and who rose on the third day, ascended into the heavens, is seated at the right hand of the Father, and will come again in glory to judge the living and the dead.

That when Paul says, "How can they call on Him they have not heard? How can they hear unless one is sent" Isn't true?

If nature were sufficient to teach us these things, the Great Commission would be pointless.

Romans 1 does not teach that we can know the Gospel through nature, or be saved by generic natural revelation; what Romans 1 does teach is that men are inherently sinful and would rather worship things that are not God as divine. It is part of the general condemnation against all men. Both Jew and Gentile stand condemned under the Law. Thus even Gentiles, who never heard the Law, are condemned as sinners.

This general condemnation upon all men is part of St. Paul's teaching in Romans, the counterpart to the universality of the Gospel and our salvation--the salvation of both Jew and Gentile. This is what the Apostle means when, in Romans 11:32 he says that God consigned all to disobedience in order that He might have mercy on all. The universal condemnation of all men, as fallen human beings, is the starting point for God's gracious work of salvation to those very sinners.

You keep accusing me of believing what my denomination teaches and not what the Bible teaches. But time and againyou dismiss what the Scriptures say, you reject their meaning, and then substitute the written word of God with the doctrines and traditions of your own denomination, or else simply add whatever you want so as to suit your tastes.

The irony in this is palpable.

-CryptoLutheran

 

[prodromos]

YOU are doing nothing but expousing your denominational teaching.

The irony in this is palpable.

That was my thought exactly when I read Major1's post. I don't think he is capable of recognising this though.

 

[Ain't Zwinglian]

That was my thought exactly when I read Major1's post. I don't think he is capable of recognising this though.

Major1 tends to argue with his frontal lobe rather than coherently. Certainly in the three unique scenarios he brings forth, they can easily be solved via emergency baptism. ALL CHRISTIANS HAVE THE AUTHORITY TO BAPTIZE.

When Christ gave His disciples this baptismal commission to baptize, He gave it by extension to all of His followers. In other words, Christ gave this commission to all Christians. Christ Himself commits to all believers the keys of the kingdom of heaven, Matt. 16:13–19, 18:17–20, John 20:22, 23, and commissions all believers to preach the Gospel and to administer the Sacraments, Matt. 28:19, 20; 1 Cor. 11:23–25.

Ordinarily, the church has selected someone from its midst to carry out Baptisms on behalf of all and, by extension, on behalf of Christ. This is because God has established a particular office to preach and administer the Sacraments publicly within the congregation. So when the pastor administers the Baptism, he does so on behalf of the congregation, namely, the priesthood of all believers. Nevertheless, all Christians, as members of the of all believers, have been given the mandate and authority to baptize, meaning that they have the authority to baptize in an emergency or an extraordinary situation such as when there is an imminent danger of death To be baptized in God’s name is to be baptized not by human beings but by God himself. Although it is performed by human hands, it is nevertheless truly God’s own act

 

[ncjac]

If you go solely by what the bible says we are commanded to go and baptize. But the reason for baptism is remission of sins. No where does it say it is for membership in the church or a showing of our faith. When baptism is preformed in the bible there are only two places where a reason is given Acts 2:38 and Acts 22:16.

 

[Major1]

So you believe that nature is sufficient to teach a man that God so loved the world that He gave His only-begotten Son, that whosoever trusts in Him shall not perish but have everlasting life?

That by looking at the stars, the mountains, the trees, the canyons, etc, I can know that there is one God, the Father Almighty maker of heaven and earth, and one Lord Jesus Christ, the only-begotten Son of God, who suffered under Pontius Pilate, was crucified, dead, and buried, and who rose on the third day, ascended into the heavens, is seated at the right hand of the Father, and will come again in glory to judge the living and the dead.

That when Paul says, "How can they call on Him they have not heard? How can they hear unless one is sent" Isn't true?

If nature were sufficient to teach us these things, the Great Commission would be pointless.

Romans 1 does not teach that we can know the Gospel through nature, or be saved by generic natural revelation; what Romans 1 does teach is that men are inherently sinful and would rather worship things that are not God as divine. It is part of the general condemnation against all men. Both Jew and Gentile stand condemned under the Law. Thus even Gentiles, who never heard the Law, are condemned as sinners.

This general condemnation upon all men is part of St. Paul's teaching in Romans, the counterpart to the universality of the Gospel and our salvation--the salvation of both Jew and Gentile. This is what the Apostle means when, in Romans 11:32 he says that God consigned all to disobedience in order that He might have mercy on all. The universal condemnation of all men, as fallen human beings, is the starting point for God's gracious work of salvation to those very sinners.

You keep accusing me of believing what my denomination teaches and not what the Bible teaches. But time and againyou dismiss what the Scriptures say, you reject their meaning, and then substitute the written word of God with the doctrines and traditions of your own denomination, or else simply add whatever you want so as to suit your tastes.

The irony in this is palpable.

-CryptoLutheran

You actually have placed words into my mouth. I DID NOT say...……….
" believe that nature is sufficient to teach a man that God so loved the world that He gave His only-begotten Son, that whosoever trusts in Him shall not perish but have everlasting life?"

God said in Romans 1:18-20...….
"For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who hold the truth in unrighteousness; 19Because that which may be known of God is manifest in them; for God hath shewed it unto them. 20For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse"

You are welcome to accept or reject anything that I say but please know that it was GOD who said it and not me.

Psalms 19:1...…...
"To the chief Musician, A Psalm of David. The heavens declare the glory of God; and the firmament sheweth his handywork."

The Scriptures say that Creation itself so clearly reveals God as the Creator that man is without excuse. God has left a witness of Himself for everyone. No one has any excuse.

What I am saying and what the Word of God says is that Creation is a clear light of God's revelation to man.

 

[ViaCrucis]

You actually have placed words into my mouth. I DID NOT say...……….
" believe that nature is sufficient to teach a man that God so loved the world that He gave His only-begotten Son, that whosoever trusts in Him shall not perish but have everlasting life?"

God said in Romans 1:18-20...….
"For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who hold the truth in unrighteousness; 19Because that which may be known of God is manifest in them; for God hath shewed it unto them. 20For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse"

You are welcome to accept or reject anything that I say but please know that it was GOD who said it and not me.

Psalms 19:1...…...
"To the chief Musician, A Psalm of David. The heavens declare the glory of God; and the firmament sheweth his handywork."

The Scriptures say that Creation itself so clearly reveals God as the Creator that man is without excuse. God has left a witness of Himself for everyone. No one has any excuse.

What I am saying and what the Word of God says is that Creation is a clear light of God's revelation to man.

In nature are revealed the invisible things of God. Read the passage. From nature we can ascertain God's glory, power, wisdom, etc.

What is not revealed in nature are the VISIBLE things of God, the things which are for our salvation. The VISIBLE things of God are what save us: The Word became flesh and dwelt among us and we beheld His glory, the glory of the only-begotten of the Father; for no one has seen God at any time, but God the only-begotten Son has made Him known. At the fullness of time God sent for His Son in human likeness, born of a woman, born under the Law. He was conceived by the power of the Holy Spirit, born of the Virgin Mary, suffered under Pontius Pilate, was crucified, dead, and buried; He rose on the third day, ascended into heaven, sits at the right hand of the Father, and will come again as judge of the living and the dead and His kingdom shall haven no end.

Our salvation is the Gospel. Which pertains to the VISIBLE things of God. The Incarnation, life, death, resurrection, and coming again of Christ Jesus our Lord.

-CryptoLutheran

 

[Major1]

In nature are revealed the invisible things of God. Read the passage. From nature we can ascertain God's glory, power, wisdom, etc.

What is not revealed in nature are the VISIBLE things of God, the things which are for our salvation. The VISIBLE things of God are what save us: The Word became flesh and dwelt among us and we beheld His glory, the glory of the only-begotten of the Father; for no one has seen God at any time, but God the only-begotten Son has made Him known. At the fullness of time God sent for His Son in human likeness, born of a woman, born under the Law. He was conceived by the power of the Holy Spirit, born of the Virgin Mary, suffered under Pontius Pilate, was crucified, dead, and buried; He rose on the third day, ascended into heaven, sits at the right hand of the Father, and will come again as judge of the living and the dead and His kingdom shall haven no end.

Our salvation is the Gospel. Which pertains to the VISIBLE things of God. The Incarnation, life, death, resurrection, and coming again of Christ Jesus our Lord.

-CryptoLutheran

You are arguing the obvious and you have missed the whole point of the Scriptures in Romans 1:18 that I used.

NO one is saying that there is another way to be saved outside of Jesus Christ.

When I read Romans 1:18 I see these words...."The wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness..."

To be saved one first has to know how bad sin is.

"Ungodliness = That which is against God.

Romans 1:20...…...
"For his invisible attributes, namely, his eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly perceived, ever since the creation of the world, in the things that have been made. So they are without excuse."

Creation is the clear revelation of God so that ALL men will know that there was a Creator therefore when they worship an idol or refuse God...."They are without an excuse".

That was the point. People who refuse God are guilty in the light of the Creation revelation.