What about Baptism?

[Ben johnson]

I don't think there really is such a thing as the "baptism of the Holy Spirit". At least, not in the way it is understood today. If you understand the word itself, "baptize", simply means, "immerse". Thus, the expression, "baptized in the Holy Spirit", is equivalent to salvation---that is, receiving the Holy Spirit. I also equate the concepts of "baptized-in/received the Holy Spirit", with "being FILLED WITH the Holy Spirit". This brings us to Paul's admonishment in Eph5:18, "Do not get drunk with wine ...but be filled with the Holy Spirit"---which very clearly presents it as a choice, even a continual, or daily choice.

Because I accept salvation as belief, as "abiding in Christ", as "receiving/walking in Him"---I believe the instructions in Rom8 are valid. The "walking in the Spirit" vs "walking in the flesh".

When you accept Christ, you receive the Holy Spirit---THIS is the "baptism" of which John spoke. It is not a separate event from salvation---it is the same.

When we are saved, we are "immersed into His death", we are "immersed into the Spirit", we are "immersed into Him"---and THEN we are immersed into water. Again, consequence, not cause.

You see here in Jn 3:5 that we are to be born of WATER and of the Spirit.

How can I convince you that Jesus was "double-narrating" The twice-told-tale---Unless you are born of water AND the Spirit... that which is born of flesh is flesh, that which is born of spirit is spirit. The same thing said twice:

WATER ("hudor"---fundamental element), is the same as FLESH

And, SPIRIT, is the same as SPIRIT.

TWO VERSES, both say the same---repetitively

There is no way you can deny that this was water baptism that Peter commanded because they were already HS baptized. HS baptism was a limited thing and was fullfilled and completed with the House of Cornelus. So the one baptism Eph 4:5 that was left was the water baptism as was to be carried out through out time Mat28:19.

I disagree. We have the same Holy Spirit baptism now as they did then---I just equate it with RECEIVING the Holy Spirit, not a separate event from salvation...

I still say they were saved before they hit the water...

"Baptism now saves you, not as a removal of dirt from the body but as an appeal to God for a clear conscience"---this gets back to the question of, "what washes away sins?"

"Arise and be baptized, calling on His name." Acts 22:16 Is it the WATER that washes away sins, or is it the CALLING ON HIS NAME? Clearly, it is the NAME of Jesus that is forgiveness for sins.

I try to convince you with words, with passages of Scripture. I wish I could convey the conviction of my spirit---that the nature of salvation is belief, receiving Jesus, walking in the Spirit and in Christ. One who walks so, will be baptized. But it is the WALK that is salvation, not the substance one trods upon---whether it be on sand, on stone, or in water. How can I convey the conviction in my heart? I do not know.

I do know how to contend with words. So until the Spirit teaches me a better way to speak from my heart, to convey HIS words THROUGH me, this is the best I can do...

 

[Ben johnson]

OH---and back to Rom6, combine this with Gal2:20---"I have been crucified with Christ, it is no longer I who lives, but He who lives in me; and the life I now live in the flesh I live in faith in the Son of God, who loved me, and delivered Himself up for me."

I am buried with Him---not buried into water, but buried into His TOMB!

My old self is dead!

"And we know that as He was raised from the dead, so too shall we walk in newness of life!"

I am a NEW CREATION!!! When He walked out of the tomb on that third day, I WAS RIGHT BEHIND HIM!!!!! I was raised too!

Just as the license tag on the car in front of me tonight in traffic said, "2COR517"!!!

 

[cougan]

Originally posted by Reformationist
Well cougan, unlike my counterparts that are posting in this thread, I believe obedience to be a mark of salvation, not a means of obtaining it.  I believe that the obedient, symbolic act of public proclamation of discipleship to Christ is a result of our already being saved.  Please, before anyone attacks, take note that I said, "obedient, symbolic act..."  Just being dunked in water doesn't mean someone is already saved.  However, if that proclamation is spawned from a motive to be obedient to God's Word, then it is righteous.  Only those who are, or who have been made, righteous can do something righteous.  Therefore, to perform the righteous act of obedience one must already have been made righteous, i.e., saved/regenerated.

God bless

 

Are you saying that we are commanded to be water baptized but its just not part of salvation?

 

[cougan]

Originally posted by edpobre
Nice post cougan! However, I would like to add that apostle Paul was ADDED to the ONE and ONLY church during his time. And members of that church were called "churches of Christ" by apistle Paul (Rom. 16:16).

The situation today is, however, very much different.  The Catholic Church hs many denominations or sects and the Protestant Churches have as many as 20,000 denominations or sects, not counting the JWs and the Mormons.

The question is, to which of these churches should one be BAPTIZED and ADDED?

Ed

 

Ed thanks for the comment. I will refrain from answer you questions at this time. Not because I can't , its because everytime I start answering that question which I have in other threads the thread gets shut down. I will point you to a thread where I answered that question if you want me to. I am trying my best to keep this thread alive.

 

[cougan]

Originally posted by Ben johnson
I don't think there really is such a thing as the "baptism of the Holy Spirit". At least, not in the way it is understood today. If you understand the word itself, "baptize", simply means, "immerse". Thus, the expression, "baptized in the Holy Spirit", is equivalent to salvation---that is, receiving the Holy Spirit. I also equate the concepts of "baptized-in/received the Holy Spirit", with "being FILLED WITH the Holy Spirit". This brings us to Paul's admonishment in Eph5:18, "Do not get drunk with wine ...but be filled with the Holy Spirit"---which very clearly presents it as a choice, even a continual, or daily choice. 
  
Because I accept salvation as belief, as "abiding in Christ", as "receiving/walking in Him"---I believe the instructions in Rom8 are valid. The "walking in the Spirit" vs "walking in the flesh".

When you accept Christ, you receive the Holy Spirit---THIS is the "baptism" of which John spoke. It is not a separate event from salvation---it is the same.

Ahh but their was a baptism of the Holy Ghost that is exactly what John said Jesus would do. Just look at Matthew 3:11 I indeed baptize you with water unto repentance: but he that cometh after me is mightier than I, whose shoes I am not worthy to bear: he shall baptize you with the Holy Ghost, and with fire: See Also Mk 1:8;Lk 3:16;Jn 1:33. Now watch this Ben because Jesus tells us who it is that is going to receive that HS baptism that John had prophecied about.

Acts 1:4 And, being assembled together with <I>them</I>, commanded them that they should not depart from Jerusalem, but wait for the promise of the Father, which, <I>saith he</I>, ye have heard of me.

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

6 When they therefore were come together, they asked of him, saying, Lord, wilt thou at this time restore again the kingdom to Israel?

7 And he said unto them, It is not for you to know the times or the seasons, which the Father hath put in his own power.

8 But ye shall receive power, after that the Holy Ghost is come upon you: and ye shall be witnesses unto me both in Jerusalem, and in all Judaea, and in Samaria, and unto the uttermost part of the earth.

Jesus here limits the HS baptism to the apostles and this happened at Pentacost. This is when they receied there power. Only the apostles has the ability to impart the&nbsp;gift of the HS to&nbsp;people.The manner of being "filled with the Spirit" is explained by the same inspired writer, Paul, as he writes the same instructions to the church at Colossae.&nbsp; There he says, "Let the word of Christ dwell in you richly in all wisdom; teaching and admonishing one another in psalms and hymns and spiritual songs ..." (Col. 3:16).&nbsp; When the Word of the Spirit fills our thinking and governs our lives, we are said to be filled with the Spirit, and through the Word we are "led by the Spirit" (Rom. 8:12-14).&nbsp; This is also made clear in the early verses of Rom. 8, where Paul again writes, "For the law of the Spirit of life in Christ Jesus hath made me free from the law of sin and death" (Rom. 8:2).


Once again notice what Jesus says here:

Matthew 28:19 "Go therefore and make disciples of all the nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit,

Now this is not a limted statement it is still to be done today. Notice very carefully Ben that they or we&nbsp;the disciples are to baptize people. This is something that man does. The HS&nbsp;baptism came directly from&nbsp;heaven without the intervention of man like on the day of Pentacost. Theres a big difference between receiving the gift of HS through the laying on of hands of an apostle and being baptized in the HS directly from Heaven. So this verse is undenable talking about disciples baptizing people in water in the name of Father, son, and HS. What about this verse Ben.

Acts 2:38 Then Peter said unto them, Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins, and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost.

We know for verses in Acts 8 that when someone is baptised in the name of Jesus that they are baptized into water. So here in Acts 2:38 First it is said they are baptized in water for the remmission of sins then they will receive the gift of the Holy Ghost.

Now to prove my point let me quote from Acts 8:12 But when they believed Philip preaching the things concerning the kingdom of God, and the name of Jesus Christ, they were baptized, both men and women.

14 Now when the apostles which were at Jerusalem heard that Samaria had received the word of God, they sent unto them Peter and John:

15 Who, when they were come down, prayed for them, that they might receive the Holy Ghost:

16 (For as yet he was fallen upon none of them: only they were baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus.)

17 Then laid they <I>their </I>hands on them, and they received the Holy Ghost.

38 And he commanded the chariot to stand still: and they went down both into the water, both Philip and the eunuch; and he baptized him.

First of all you see Philip doing exactly what Jesus commanded in Mat 28:19. He was teaching these people the good news and baptising them in water in the name of Jesus. But, you will notice that they did not have the gift of the HS at this time. It was not until the apostles came down and layed hands on them that they received the HS. You see the only baptism that was to last through out time was that of being baptized in water.

&nbsp;

When we are saved, we are "immersed into His death", we are "immersed into the Spirit", we are "immersed into Him"---and THEN we are immersed into water. Again, consequence, not cause.
How can I convince you that Jesus was "double-narrating" The twice-told-tale---Unless you are born of water AND the Spirit... that which is born of flesh is flesh, that which is born of spirit is spirit. The same thing said twice:

WATER ("hudor"---fundamental element), is the same as FLESH

And, SPIRIT, is the same as SPIRIT.

TWO VERSES, both say the same---repetitively

Now wait a min. You have been telling me all this time that the baptism is not in water then you go and say that we are immersed in water. Your going to have to explain this one to me. If your view is correct there is absoultly no reason to water baptize today. If you say that we should still be water baptized today then you would have to admit that the one baptism in Eph 4:5 is talking about water baptism. We can't have 2 there is only one.

I disagree. We have the same Holy Spirit baptism now as they did then---I just equate it with RECEIVING the Holy Spirit, not a separate event from salvation...

I still say they were saved before they hit the water...

Ok Ben if you have the same HS Baptism then you should have the same miracelous abilites they had in the 1st Century.&nbsp;Are you claiming this Ben? You can't have one without the other. When you said you disagree are you disagreeing that the baptism that Peter commanded them was water baptism. Surely wont disagree with this because it is clear as day that it was a water baptism the Peter commanded. I still say they were not saved until they were baptized in water. I have proved this over and over.

"Baptism now saves you, not as a removal of dirt from the body but as an appeal to God for a clear conscience"---this gets back to the question of, "what washes away sins?"

"Arise and be baptized, calling on His name." Acts 22:16 Is it the WATER that washes away sins, or is it the CALLING ON HIS NAME? Clearly, it is the NAME of Jesus that is forgiveness for sins.

I try to convince you with words, with passages of Scripture. I wish I could convey the conviction of my spirit---that the nature of salvation is belief, receiving Jesus, walking in the Spirit and in Christ. One who walks so, will be baptized. But it is the WALK that is salvation, not the substance one trods upon---whether it be on sand, on stone, or in water. How can I convey the conviction in my heart? I do not know.

I do know how to contend with words. So until the Spirit teaches me a better way to speak from my heart, to convey HIS words THROUGH me, this is the best I can do...

Have I been with you so long Ben that you dont know my answer? The blood of Jesus washes away or sin. Rev 1:5. We come in contact with the cleansing blood of Christ through our obedince of faith in the watery grave of baptism. It at the point where the blood of Jesus is applied. Calling on the name of Lord involves repentance and and baptism. Let me show you real quick. Notice in

Acts 2:21 And it shall come to pass <I>That </I>whoever calls on the name of the LORD Shall be saved.'

We know this is not just a verbal call because Mat 7:21 says that not everyone who says Lord Lord will enter the kingdom of heaven. In this same speech where Peter makes this statement in Acts 2:21 the people ask the following.

37 Now when they heard <I>this</I>, they were pricked in their heart, and said unto Peter and to the rest of the apostles, Men <I>and </I>brethren, what shall we do?

Now they already heard him say that if you call on the name of the Lord you will be saved. But you see there is more to calling on the name of the Lord as we see in the answer to these Jews question.

38 Then Peter said unto them, Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins, and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost.

You can clearly see that calling on the name of the Lord involves repentance and baptism.

 

[Ben johnson]

The Holy Spirit was not available to those under Law, not as He is to us. Pentecost was the event where "the Spirit was poured onto the world". I don't see the limitation of the Spirit to the Apostles.

Granted that many people who "speak in tongues" today, are uttering nonsensical syllables, loving the euphoria of believing they are lost in a spiritual manifestation (which is really focusing on the feeling, rather than on the giver). Yet there is more than enough testimony that tongues DO exist today---many have heard the Gospel in his/her own language. There was an Iranian person on the 700 Club a couple weeks ago, who attended a Christian revival meeting in India---and though he did NOT speak Indian, he understood every last word!

All I'm saying, is that the "baptism of the Holy Spirit", is "immersion into the Spirit"---which is, to be filled with the Spirit. Being filled with the Spirit and baptized in the Spirit, is not different. And "baptism of the Spirit" is not a separate event from salvation---it is the same.

Acts 2:38 presents three concepts---repenting, being water-baptized, and receiving the Holy Spirit. Is any one required for the other? (Repentance is required prior to receiving the Holy Spirit---but where is baptism?) Can one receive the Holy Spirit PRIOR to being water-baptized? Yes. How then can water-baptism be a part of salvation? Water-baptism is part of having-BEEN-saved. Consequence, not cause.

If one in a communist or islamic country believes, receives Christ into his heart and truly believes---BUT, gestapo-police burst into the room with machine gunes blaring, taking out everyone in the room BEFORE that one is DUNKED, will that one still go to Heaven?

Will he?

 

[Ben johnson]

...a "gune" is something like a "gun", but much more vicious...

 

[Ben johnson]

Maybe it's a SET! If you have a GOON with a GUN, maybe THEN it's a gune!

Brevity IS the soul of wit. (Don't say "dim" or "half"...)

 

[Phoebe]

I believe there is a difference between Baptism into Christ and John's baptism of repentance.
See Acts 19:1-7
See also 1 Peter 3:21

Hello Ben. (this is fallen from the LBMB)

 

[Ben johnson]

Hi, Fallen! Good to see you! Pheobe is a cool name. When guys say "girls should be silent and never hold positions of authority", I refer them to Romans 16:1...

Good post. I think, my opinion, is that the "Baptism of the Holy Spirit" is the same as "being filled with the Holy Spirit". It accompanies salvation. There is a difference between B of the HS, and Baptism of repentance. I think that the Holy Spirit wasn't poured out upon the world until the day of Pentecost. Please read John14:16, and 26. The Holy Spirit is the "helper that God would send".

I just don't see water-baptism as being a part of salvation. It is of course what every saved person will do---but what of those who receive Christ, believe with all their hearts and are filled with the Spirit, but die before they are dipped? Are they Heaven-bound? Of course!

No one has, as far as I know, answered the Acts 10:44-47---they were saved, they were filled with the Holy Spirit (baptized in the Spirit), but they were not yet "dipped". How can the dipped-or-d*mmed belief stand? These were saved apart from water-baptism!

But they were THEN water-baptized. Salvation, then water-baptism. Separate, not the same.

Tell me how the belief stands?

 

[cougan]

Originally posted by Phoebe
I believe there is a difference between Baptism into Christ and John's baptism of repentance.
See Acts 19:1-7
See also 1 Peter 3:21

Hello Ben. (this is fallen from the LBMB)

Yeah, so whats your point. Of course theres a difference between baptism for repentence and baptism for forgiveness of sin. I'm really not sure why your pointing out this obvious point.

 

[cougan]

Originally posted by Ben johnson
Hi, Fallen! Good to see you! Pheobe is a cool name. When guys say "girls should be silent and never hold positions of authority", I refer them to Romans 16:1...

Good post. I think, my opinion, is that the "Baptism of the Holy Spirit" is the same as "being filled with the Holy Spirit". It accompanies salvation. There is a difference between B of the HS, and Baptism of repentance. I think that the Holy Spirit wasn't poured out upon the world until the day of Pentecost. Please read John14:16, and 26. The Holy Spirit is the "helper that God would send".

You sound unassure of yourself Ben. Here a few instances of people being filled with the HS before we even get anywhere close to the day of Pentacost. luke 1:15 luke 1:41 luke 1:67. Now I just want you to answer this Ben. Why to you keep avoiding my questions? I want to know do you beleive&nbsp; Eph 4:5 when it says there is one baptism at that time it was written?

I just don't see water-baptism as being a part of salvation. It is of course what every saved person will do---but what of those who receive Christ, believe with all their hearts and are filled with the Spirit, but die before they are dipped? Are they Heaven-bound? Of course!

You seemed to be very confused Ben. You say on one hand that it is the Baptism of the HS that is refered to through out the NT. Then you turn around and say water baptism is something someone will do when the are saved. Do you see the dilema you put yourself into? If water baptism is something we should do when we are saved you are stateing that water baptism is a command for us to do today. You need to make up your mind my friend. Is it water Baptism or HS baptism?&nbsp;Ben you can bring up as many what if questions as you want, but what does that have to do with you. Are you on your way to be baptized? I could give you a what if&nbsp;statement. What if a man that would accept Jesus and become a christian died on the way to his door where a preacher was knocking to give him the words he needed to hear to be saved. Would he be heaven bound? So don't try and hide behind some very rare instance that has nothing to do with your situation.

No one has, as far as I know, answered the Acts 10:44-47---they were saved, they were filled with the Holy Spirit (baptized in the Spirit), but they were not yet "dipped". How can the dipped-or-d*mmed belief stand? These were saved apart from water-baptism!

But they were THEN water-baptized. Salvation, then water-baptism. Separate, not the same.

Tell me how the belief stands?

44 While Peter yet spake these words, the Holy Ghost fell on all them which heard the word.

45 And they of the circumcision which believed were astonished, as many as came with Peter, because that on the Gentiles also was poured out the gift of the Holy Ghost.

46 For they heard them speak with tongues, and magnify God. Then answered Peter,

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

Ben I have explained these verse to you over and over again. You say no one has answered these verses. Open your eyes Ben because I have answered these verses&nbsp;2 times in that last thread that got shut down and I have answered it previously in this post. I want to know where in these verses it says they were saved before they were baptized in water? I still want you to answer my question Ben. What kind of Baptism was Peter commanding in vrs 47-48? Please answer this question Ben.

I want to know Ben in Acts 8 why was Philip only baptizing people in water if it was HS baptism they needed to be saved?

 

[Ben johnson]

Hi, Cougan!

I want to know do you beleive Eph 4:5 when it says there is one baptism at that time it was written?

This is not speaking of water, but "spiritual baptism". It's referencing "being BORN AGAIN", which is the baptism into Christ spoken of in Romans 6, which also is not speaking of water-baptism.

These speak of "IMMERSION INTO CHRIST" (not immersion in water), the death-of-the-old-self, and birth-of-the-new. "If any man be in Christ, he is a new creation; the old is pass (is passing), new things have come."

I think water-baptism IS a command. Jesus was water-baptized "to fulfil righteousness". Think about that---water baptism certainy did not save Jesus, and it didn't forgive Jesus' sins. If water-baptism was part of salvation, why was Jesus baptized? Jesus had no need for redemption nor for salvation---He was sinless. Don't you think Jesus was invested in the symbolic act? The point of discussions such as these, is to correctly contend for the nature of salvation. And we believe that salvation is BELIEF---qualified belief to be sure, belief that causes humbled-as-a-child (Matt18:3-4), doing God's will (Matt7:21), repentant (Lk13:3), and above all born-again (Jn3:3). It is all grace, through faith (belief).

What if a man that would accept Jesus and become a christian died on the way to his door where a preacher was knocking to give him the words he needed to hear to be saved. Would he be heaven bound? So don't try and hide behind some very rare instance that has nothing to do with your situation.

Actually, repectfully, I think it has everything to do with it. We can't really discuss the Scripturalness of one-who-WOULD-receive-Christ, that is something God will deal with. But because we have Scripture, we have: "But as many as received Christ, to THEM He gave the right to become children of God, even to those who believe in His name". There is nothing that says "unless you are water-baptized you are condemned". So it is valid to propose a situation, where one who BELIEVES and RECEIVES JESUS, but hasn't the CHANCE to be "dipped", will absolutely be welcomed into Heaven! Water just isn't part of salvation. Good deeds are not part of salvation. Sacrifices, sacraments, rituals are not part of salvation.

Ony belief...

Open your eyes Ben because I have answered these verses 2 times in that last thread that got shut down and I have answered it previously in this post. I want to know where in these verses it says they were saved before they were baptized in water? I still want you to answer my question Ben. What kind of Baptism was Peter commanding in vrs 47-48? Please answer this question Ben.

I'm sorry, Cougan. I musta missed it. I was referring to verse 45, & 46, &47---they had received the Holy Spirit, they were speaking with tongues, they were undeniably believers. Do you really contend that they weren't SAVED until they HIT THE WATER? Obviously, as saved people they would WANT to be "dipped", but suppose some catastrophe had happened---oh, meteor, heart-attack, stampeding heard of berserk buffalo---do you really believe these who-had-not-yet-been-water-baptized would have been turned away from Heaven?

I want to know Ben in Acts 8 why was Philip only baptizing people in water if it was HS baptism they needed to be saved?

For the same reason that Jesus was baptized---the water certainly did not save Jesus, for He needed no saving. But "dipping" was part of Jewish ritual---it was highly symbolic, of cleansing. Water "now saves you, not as a removal of dirt from the body but as an appeal to God for a clear conscience"---it is not the water that saves, it is not the water that washes away sins---it is "calling on the name of Jesus", "it is the repentance & forgiveness & clear conscience throgh His name".

One can be saved and not baptized. One can be baptized and not saved. But one cannot be saved apart from "Calling on Jesus' name, and repentance"...

 

[RoachTron]

All I know and I really don't have the time to get my bible out for the exact verse is that the thief that knew Jesus was Lord didn't have time to be baptized and Jesus told him that he would be with Him in paradise because of his belief in Him.

 

[cougan]

Originally posted by RoachTron
All I know and I really don't have the time to get my bible out for the exact verse is that the thief that knew Jesus was Lord didn't have time to be baptized and Jesus told him that he would be with Him in paradise because of his belief in Him.

Welcome to Christians forums RoachTron. Perhaps you should make more time to get out your bible then you would'nt use this argument because it has no strength to it. You have to remember that Jesus had the power to forgive sins while he was on the earth. While he was alive that is exactly what he did for the theif. It would be impossible for the theif to be baptized into christ death consisdering Jesus was not dead yet. You see the theif was under the Mosiac system and not the christian system. The new covenant was not in effect yet and was not revealed until the day of Petacost when the church was born. THere was John Baptism of repentence going on while Jesus was on the earth and it is possible that this thief had been baptized. The bible doesnt say one way or the other. So you see this arguement just does'nt hold water. Pardon the Pun.

Cougan.

 

[cougan]

Originally posted by Ben johnson
Hi, Cougan! This is not speaking of water, but "spiritual baptism". It's referencing "being BORN AGAIN", which is the baptism into Christ spoken of in Romans 6, which also is not speaking of water-baptism.

These speak of "IMMERSION INTO CHRIST" (not immersion in water), the death-of-the-old-self, and birth-of-the-new. "If any man be in Christ, he is a new creation; the old is pass (is passing), new things have come."

Ben you did not answer my question. I asked you if you beleive that there was just 1 baptism at the time Eph 4:5 was written like the verse clearly states?&nbsp; You keep proclaiming 2 baptisms one being an imersion into christ/HS&nbsp;and water baptism. Only one of these can be true Ben which is it. By the way I belive the bible teaches very clearly that when you are being baptized in water that you are being baptized into Christ death. Rom 6:3

I think water-baptism IS a command. Jesus was water-baptized "to fulfil righteousness". Think about that---water baptism certainy did not save Jesus, and it didn't forgive Jesus' sins. If water-baptism was part of salvation, why was Jesus baptized? Jesus had no need for redemption nor for salvation---He was sinless. Don't you think Jesus was invested in the symbolic act? The point of discussions such as these, is to correctly contend for the nature of salvation. And we believe that salvation is BELIEF---qualified belief to be sure, belief that causes humbled-as-a-child (Matt18:3-4), doing God's will (Matt7:21), repentant (Lk13:3), and above all born-again (Jn3:3). It is all grace, through faith (belief).

I want to know what verses do you see as a commandment for water baptism? Jesus here&nbsp;was showing his obeidence was'nt he, even though he had no sin. He was also fulfilling the word of God. In Jn 1:32-33 you learn that God told John how he would know the one the one that was to come after him. He also at this point began his ministry.

Actually, repectfully, I think it has everything to do with it. We can't really discuss the Scripturalness of one-who-WOULD-receive-Christ, that is something God will deal with. But because we have Scripture, we have: "But as many as received Christ, to THEM He gave the right to become children of God, even to those who believe in His name". There is nothing that says "unless you are water-baptized you are condemned". So it is valid to propose a situation, where one who BELIEVES and RECEIVES JESUS, but hasn't the CHANCE to be "dipped", will absolutely be welcomed into Heaven! Water just isn't part of salvation. Good deeds are not part of salvation. Sacrifices, sacraments, rituals are not part of salvation.

Ony belief...

I have already answered this question Ben. If the bible says baptism saves you and you dont get baptized is it not logical to say that you are not saved without baptism?

I'm sorry, Cougan. I musta missed it. I was referring to verse 45, &amp; 46, &amp;47---they had received the Holy Spirit, they were speaking with tongues, they were undeniably believers. Do you really contend that they weren't SAVED until they HIT THE WATER? Obviously, as saved people they would WANT to be "dipped", but suppose some catastrophe had happened---oh, meteor, heart-attack, stampeding heard of berserk buffalo---do you really believe these who-had-not-yet-been-water-baptized would have been turned away from Heaven?
For the same reason that Jesus was baptized---the water certainly did not save Jesus, for He needed no saving. But "dipping" was part of Jewish ritual---it was highly symbolic, of cleansing. Water "now saves you, not as a removal of dirt from the body but as an appeal to God for a clear conscience"---it is not the water that saves, it is not the water that washes away sins---it is "calling on the name of Jesus", "it is the repentance &amp; forgiveness &amp; clear conscience throgh His name".

One can be saved and not baptized. One can be baptized and not saved. But one cannot be saved apart from "Calling on Jesus' name, and repentance"...

How could you possible miss it Ben out of 3 different Post. I beginning to think your not even reading my post. If you were you would see the clarity in them and would see that you need&nbsp;to be water baptized to have your sins washed away. I answer you question in my previous post the one you didnt see so go back a read it and you will see that they were not saved until they were water baptized. Reread acts 10 and 11. You will see that Peter was to go and tell them the words to&nbsp;be saved by. Then you will see in 11 that he had just began to speak did'nt get a chance to tell them what they needed to know but the HS fell on them directly from Heaven just like it did on the apostles at the day of Pentacost. It was sign from God to show that we Gentiles could be christians to. Why dont you answer my question this time Ben. Why was the 1st thought of Peter after seeing these people baptized with the HS was who can forbid water? He Commanded them to be water Baptized? Whe did he command it if it was just some Jewis ritual? Do you agree that he was commanding water baptism here?

Of course Baptism is symbolic, I have never said otherwize. The water is not magical I already said that to. I swear your not reading my post. It is your faith in the operation of God that when you submit yourself to baptism through your obedinece of faith that you know you are comming in contact with the cleasing power of Jesus Blood having your sins washed away being united with him in death being raised a new creature. Repentence and Baptism are part of calling on the name of Jesus. I showed you that in acts 2. But, of course you probably missed that to.

Finally you proclaim that you get HS baptism first then after your saved you become water baptized. Look at Acts 8 and you order of things are undone by scripture. Philip preached to the Samarians and baptised them in water before they receive the HS. Same thing with the Eunch. So if something would of happend to these people before the Apostles laid their hands on them so the could receive the HS I guess they would of been lost since Water Baptism is just a Jewish ritual, right? Then I guess Acts 2:38 was wrong when it tells them to water baptized first then they will receive the gift of the HS? Ben you really need to take a serious look at this topic again. I can understand how people can misunderstand certain topic in the bible, but baptism in water I just don't see how people miss the obivious. I can show from early history in 100 to 200 where people were baptizing people in water for the remission of sins. As time progressed then things like sprinkling and Infant baptism began to emerge. Ben I love you a lot and I want you to seriously look at what I have presented in these post.

God Bless

Cougan

 

[Ben johnson]

"i" before "e" except after "c"...

Ben you did not answer my question. I asked you if you beleive that there was just 1 baptism at the time Eph 4:5

Yes. And no. John spoke of two baptisms which DIFFERED from water baptism. Thus, right there are THREE baptisms. Water, fire, Spirit (Matt3). However, the baptism addressed in Eph4, is part of the one subject in that passage. Specifically, the SUBJECT of that passage, is SALVATION.

Verse one speaks of "the CALLING with which you have been called". Verse 4 is still speaking of THAT CALLING (that salvation). One body (of believers), one Spirit (Holy Spirit uniting the believers), one Lord (Jesus), one faith (the CALLING, the SALVATION), one baptism (the SALVATION---there is NOTHING to do with water here! This is the one immersion into Christ.)

Do you understand? The word, "baptism", means "to immerse", It can mean "immerse into fire", "immerse into the Holy Spirit", "immerse into water", and it can mean "immerse into Christ". Where in Romans 6:3ff is water even mentioned? "Do you not know that everyone who has been immersed into Christ, is immersed (united in) His death?"

If water-baptism was critical to salvation, there would be a verse proclaiming it so. Follow the logic---"he who has believed and has been baptized shall be saved (the "baptism" here is anecdotal); he who has disblieved shall be condemned." If the baptism was critical, this would absolutely read, "he who has disbelieved AND NOT BEEN BAPTIZED shall be condemned". Is there any possibility that something so critical would be willingly left out? Would it? The baptism is anecdotal, the belief causes salvation. He simply remarks, "belief & baptism" knowing that belief causes salvation, and everyone in the new paradigm was being baptized---thus his inclusion. But the only thing Mark commented on as causing condemnation, is unbelief. Again, if he had believed water-was-part-of-salvation, is there any chance he would NOT have said "disbelieved and NOT been baptized, condemned"?

If the bible says baptism saves you and you dont get baptized is it not logical to say that you are not saved without baptism?

What actually forgives sin? Di-hydrogen-oxide, or Jesus? I submit that "calling on His Name" is what accomplishes the forgiveness & the salvation.

Besides, the only place that says anything like "water-baptism saves you", it first compares Noah were saved in spite of the water, and says "water-baptism now saves you as an appeal to God for a clear conscience"---think about that for a moment---we agree that water-baptism is symbolic. Do we also agree on what CAUSES forgiveness, IE Jesus blood and our repentance? So here, the water is symbolic of our repentance; symbolic of washing our dirty sinfulness away, but the TRUE washing is forgiveness through His blood. Do we agree?

If you were you would see the clarity in them and would see that you need to be water baptized to have your sins washed away.

Acts 22:16 says, "arise & be baptized, and wash away your sins, calling on His name." According to you, this reads: "be baptized and wash away your sins. And call on His name."

According to me, it reads: "Arise & be baptized. And wash away your sins, calling on His name." See the difference? The water is symbolic of the true baptism---it is the calling on His name that actually washes away sins. His sacrifice, not oxygen dihydride.

Of course Baptism is symbolic, I have never said otherwise. The water is not magical I already said that to. I swear your not reading my post. It is your faith in the operation of God that when you submit yourself to baptism through your obedinece of faith that you know you are coming in contact with the cleasing power of Jesus Blood having your sins washed away being united with him in death being raised a new creature. Repentence and Baptism are part of calling on the name of Jesus. I showed you that in Acts 2. But, of course you probably missed that too.

Then where is our disagreement? We agree that water-baptism is symbolic, that it is the cleansing power of Jesus' blood operating through our faith that forgives our sins & saves us. We agree on us "being united with Him in death". Where is our disagreement?

Oh yeah---you believe these things only happen underwater. Well, I just don't find that to be Scriptural. Yes there are verses that present water-baptism in sequence accompanying salvation, but example doth not set policy. I can show you many verses that say, "and they were filled with the Holy Spirit and spoke with other tongues as the Spirit gave them utterance". Are we all to speak in tongues? No. 1Cor12:30 & 14:2 make that very clear. Do you understand, example doth not set policy?

This is what I'm askin' for--- show me the Scripture, that says "and he who is NOT WATER BAPTIZED IS CONDEMNED". Show me the policy. You can't, 'cause it's not there.

If water-baptism is what causes salvation, then why was Jesus baptized? Jesus didn't NEED to be saved. I submit that water baptism does the exact same thing for us as it did for Jesus. Symbolic, not effective. Commandment, but not saving.

Clear as mud???

 

[Reformationist]

Originally posted by cougan
Are you saying that we are commanded to be water baptized but its just not part of salvation?

There you go.&nbsp; Now you got it.

God bless

 

[Auntie]

Originally posted by cougan
Are you saying that we are commanded to be water baptized but its just not part of salvation?

Originally posted by Reformationist
There you go.&nbsp; Now you got it.

God bless

YEEESSSS!! It's as simple as that, Cougan.


We all know the actor, Christopher Reeves, is not a Christian. But what if one day he decides to accept Jesus as his Savior? It is not possible for Reeves to be water baptized because of his total paralysis. Baptism, immersion, would probably kill Reeves, I don't think he could survive baptism. And there are other examples of people with disabilities who, for physical reasons only, are unable to be immersed in water.

Cougan, I'll let you be the one to tell them they cannot receive Jesus as Savior, due to their physical disabilities.

 

[cougan]

Originally posted by Ben johnson
"i" before "e" except after "c"...
Yes. And no. John spoke of two baptisms which DIFFERED from water baptism. Thus, right there are THREE baptisms. Water, fire, Spirit (Matt3). However, the baptism addressed in Eph4, is part of the one subject in that passage. Specifically, the SUBJECT of that passage, is SALVATION.

Verse one speaks of "the CALLING with which you have been called". Verse 4 is still speaking of THAT CALLING (that salvation). One body (of believers), one Spirit (Holy Spirit uniting the believers), one Lord (Jesus), one faith (the CALLING, the SALVATION), one baptism (the SALVATION---there is NOTHING to do with water here! This is the one immersion into Christ.)

Ben, Ben, Ben. Are you a politician? You say Yes and No. You are so confused Ben. In the first paragraph you say there are 3 baptism Water, fire, and Spirit. Then in your 2nd paragraph you nail down to be talking about that baptism that saves you. You say it is immersion into Christ. So now you have introduced a 4th baptism. You have just taken a very simple and easy to understand passage and made it into a complicated mess. Let me try to ask the question again. Is this one baptism in Eph 4:5 saying that there was just one baptism (which is involved in the calling) at the time Eph was written? I am not asking if there are more than one kind of&nbsp;baptism. There are all kinds of baptisms but I want to know about the one and only spoken of here that is part of the calling. Now I am not sure from post above but it seems to me you think this one baptism is imersion into Christ. I want to know how exactly is that done?

Do you understand? The word, "baptism", means "to immerse", It can mean "immerse into fire", "immerse into the Holy Spirit", "immerse into water", and it can mean "immerse into Christ". Where in Romans 6:3ff is water even mentioned? "Do you not know that everyone who has been immersed into Christ, is immersed (united in) His death?"

Yeah I know exactly what the word baptism means. Yes it does means to immerse to plunge to dip to be completely immersed. I just dont see how you cant read Rom 6 and not see that it is talking about water baptism. Look at the language. being BURIED and being RAISED. Water has been used many many times through out the bible and you just want to dismiss the whole concept. Baptism in water was such a fundamental concept that they did'nt have to say that it was water ever single time it say baptism into Christ. It should be simple enough to grasp that the baptism in&nbsp; water was just like they were going around and doing all the time. I asked why oh why were they always in such a hurry to water baptize someone once they heard the word of God? Now use that logical brain of yours. The answer should be simple it was because water baptism in the name of Jesus is what saves you. You already know from my other post that I proclaim that you have have your faith in God that your sins are being washed away when you are being water baptized. If I would of left&nbsp;that sentence out you would of known that I proclaim that by reading it my other post. Of course you want the apostles to say their whole bit the whole thing each and ever time. You know thats not the case. You reason and go by all of the word of God. When you do you will realized that the baptism that saves you is water baptism which immerses you into christ.

If water-baptism was critical to salvation, there would be a verse proclaiming it so. Follow the logic---"he who has believed and has been baptized shall be saved (the "baptism" here is anecdotal); he who has disblieved shall be condemned." If the baptism was critical, this would absolutely read, "he who has disbelieved AND NOT BEEN BAPTIZED shall be condemned". Is there any possibility that something so critical would be willingly left out? Would it? The baptism is anecdotal, the belief causes salvation. He simply remarks, "belief &amp; baptism" knowing that belief causes salvation, and everyone in the new paradigm was being baptized---thus his inclusion. But the only thing Mark commented on as causing condemnation, is unbelief. Again, if he had believed water-was-part-of-salvation, is there any chance he would NOT have said "disbelieved and NOT been baptized, condemned"?
What actually forgives sin? Di-hydrogen-oxide, or Jesus? I submit that "calling on His Name" is what accomplishes the forgiveness &amp; the salvation.

Once again you have not been reading my post. I have already answered these questions.

Besides, the only place that says anything like "water-baptism saves you", it first compares Noah were saved in spite of the water, and says "water-baptism now saves you as an appeal to God for a clear conscience"---think about that for a moment---we agree that water-baptism is symbolic. Do we also agree on what CAUSES forgiveness, IE Jesus blood and our repentance? So here, the water is symbolic of our repentance; symbolic of washing our dirty sinfulness away, but the TRUE washing is forgiveness through His blood. Do we agree?
Acts 22:16 says, "arise &amp; be baptized, and wash away your sins, calling on His name." According to you, this reads: "be baptized and wash away your sins. And call on His name."

According to me, it reads: "Arise &amp; be baptized. And wash away your sins, calling on His name." See the difference? The water is symbolic of the true baptism---it is the calling on His name that actually washes away sins. His sacrifice, not oxygen dihydride.
Then where is our disagreement? We agree that water-baptism is symbolic, that it is the cleansing power of Jesus' blood operating through our faith that forgives our sins &amp; saves us. We agree on us "being united with Him in death". Where is our disagreement?

I sure wish you would make up your mind how many baptism there are. Baptism is symbolic if Christ death, burial and resurection. Baptism is also an act of obedience. I have said it time and time again. Through out the bible you see this order of events. Faith, obedience then the blessing. The same is true here with water baptism. We belive that Jesus is the son of God, We are obedeient as we repent and confess Jesus as Lord. We are obedient by submitting ourselves to water baptism. It is through our obedince of faith in the working of God that we know that we are being united with Christ in baptism. We are dieing with him being crucified sheding our old man haveing our sins washed away by the blood of Jesus. You see we do not receive the blessing of forgiveness of sin utill we have submitted our selfs to baptism. That why you see the idea of Jesus washing us with his blood in Rev 1:5 and in act 22:16. By the way you completly butcher the verse by the way you render it. When you look at the gramatical structure of the sentence there is absoultly no way to make read they way you would like it to read to support your view. His sins were washed away by being baptized in water just I have described above. Calling on the name of the Lord includes both repentance and baptism. Remember how I already covered this in another post. I sure wish you would start reading my post.

Oh yeah---you believe these things only happen underwater. Well, I just don't find that to be Scriptural. Yes there are verses that present water-baptism in sequence accompanying salvation, but example doth not set policy. I can show you many verses that say, "and they were filled with the Holy Spirit and spoke with other tongues as the Spirit gave them utterance". Are we all to speak in tongues? No. 1Cor12:30 &amp; 14:2 make that very clear. Do you understand, example doth not set policy?

I am happy you finally admit that the bible teaches that water baptism is what gets you into salvation. Your example doth not set policy is a very very weak arguement. Your example that you gave is weak as well. Where does it say that everyone that is filled with the HS will speak in tounges. Now granted this was the usally occurence that happened but this does not prove anyting in your favor. I would like you to try and use that example arguement with other topic in the bible. We might say well just because they partook of the LS doesnt mean that we are to do that today. Jesus was our example and we are told to follow after Pauls example. But since example doesnt set policy we can just completly ignore all thoses examples set by Christ and Paul and just do what we want to do. You see how weak your arguement is.

This is what I'm askin' for--- show me the Scripture, that says "and he who is NOT WATER BAPTIZED IS CONDEMNED". Show me the policy. You can't, 'cause it's not there.

If water-baptism is what causes salvation, then why was Jesus baptized? Jesus didn't NEED to be saved. I submit that water baptism does the exact same thing for us as it did for Jesus. Symbolic, not effective. Commandment, but not saving.

Clear as mud???

You summed up your post well. Clear as mud! I have already answered Both of these Remeber if something is said to save you then the oppoisite means you will be lost.&nbsp; How can Baptism be a commandment yet not be effective? If you know that baptism is a commandment and you do not do it is a sin.

James 4:17 Therefore to him that knoweth to do good, and doeth <I>it </I>not, to him it is sin. There are may verses that show that we are to obey the word of God if we do not it is sin. How can you say that you can be saved with baptism if you know it is a commandment and choose not to do it even though you know it is commanded. You would be living in sin would you not? Whats the difference between the commandent of not committing adultry and you just keep doing it anyway are you still saved living in sin?