What about "baptismal regeneration"

[ellis]

I guess this has been batted around before, but what is the complete issue about. Thanks.

[jmacvols]

NT baptism consists of faith and immersion in water for remission of sins.

[Koushi Shinigami]

NT baptism consists of faith and immersion in water for remission of sins.

Not for everyone.

[cbut1]

I guess this has been batted around before, but what is the complete issue about. Thanks.

What specific questions are you wanting answered?

Is it biblical?

Is it error?

Is it a salvific medium?

[Semi-Sweet]

I guess this has been batted around before, but what is the complete issue about. Thanks.

We receive the renewal in the Holy Spirit in our washing of regeneration. This is done through the outpouring of the Holy Spirit, which pouring out is the same as was fulfilled by the baptism of the Holy Spirit on Pentecost, for the same word used in quoting Joel in Acts 2:17 is used by Paul in the next reference in speaking of his outpouring on us in our washing of regeneration.

This identifies the gift and the baptism of the Spirit as being the same. This is stated by Paul: "He saved us, not because of deeds done by us in righteousness, but in virtue of his own mercy, by the washing of regeneration and renewal in the Holy Spirit, which he poured out upon us richly through Jesus Christ our Savior, so that we might be justified by his grace and become heirs in the hope of eternal life" Titus 3:5.

I cannot understand or explain how the Spirit gives me life, lives in me, and works in me, and I doubt that anyone else can. Nicodemus could not understand the mysteries of the wind but he could see the undeniable effects of it. I have evidence of the working of the indwelling of the Spirit when I see the fruit of the Spirit in the life of the one who claims the promise.

[jmacvols]

Not for everyone.

If it's for one then it is for everyone, God has set the same terms of salvation for everyone.

[Koushi Shinigami]

If it's for one then it is for everyone, God has set the same terms of salvation for everyone.

Nope.


But, then again, I'm not refering to God's terms.

If someone doesn't want to get wet, there are religions that don't force immersion.

[jmacvols]

Nope.


But, then again, I'm not refering to God's terms.

If someone doesn't want to get wet, there are religions that don't force immersion.

God, not religions, has set the terms for salvation. Sure, religions can reject God's terms, but by rejecting God's terms they are rejecting God.

[Koushi Shinigami]

God, not religions, has set the terms for salvation. Sure, religions can reject God's terms, but by rejecting God's terms they are rejecting God.

those terms, like everything else in Da Book, are open to interpretation.

[cbut1]

those terms, like everything else in Da Book, are open to interpretation.

Actually they are not open to interpretation!

[terri910]

Actually they are not open to interpretation!
But they get interpreted anyway.

[Tim]

Actually they are not open to interpretation!

Explain how it is possible for anything written to NOT be open to interpretation by each reader. I don't understand the logic in your statement.

[cbut1]

But they get interpreted anyway.

True

[cbut1]

Explain how it is possible for anything written to NOT be open to interpretation by each reader. I don't understand the logic in your statement.

You don't have to understand my logic I have no power or authority to make you understand anything.

My answer comes from the source itself, accept it or don't that is your free will.


2Pe 1:19 We have also a more sure word of prophecy; whereunto ye do well that ye take heed, as unto a light that shineth in a dark place, until the day dawn, and the day star arise in your hearts:

2Pe 1:20 Knowing this first, that no prophecy of the scripture is of any private interpretation.

[Tim]

You don't have to understand my logic I have no power or authority to make you understand anything.

My answer comes from the source itself, accept it or don't that is your free will.


2Pe 1:19 We have also a more sure word of prophecy; whereunto ye do well that ye take heed, as unto a light that shineth in a dark place, until the day dawn, and the day star arise in your hearts:

2Pe 1:20 Knowing this first, that no prophecy of the scripture is of any private interpretation.

It was a simple question asking for clarification regarding what you said. I know that I'm under no obligation to understand and that you have no obligation to explain.

However, this is a forum and within a forum we all sometimes write things that others don't fully understand. In those instances, we ask for clarification. I was not attacking your assertion or doubting it but rather was merely asking for clarification.

[cbut1]

No sweat I was just sharing. Thats what I do. :D

[Tim]

No sweat I was just sharing. Thats what I do. :D

Sharing what?

I don't mean to appear obtuse but I'm just not following and I want to understand if I can.

I'm aware of the verses you quoted and have heard several different interpretations as to what they mean. If it isn't too much trouble could you try to explain how written words can not be interepreted. Don't we interpret the written words as we read what they say?

[jmacvols]

those terms, like everything else in Da Book, are open to interpretation.

If the bible were open so everyone could interpret it anyway those so choose, then the bible would be a useless book. Instead of the bible speaking for itself, everyone would be making the bible say what they want it to say.

[baysidetrey]

If the bible were open so everyone could interpret it anyway those so choose, then the bible would be a useless book. Instead of the bible speaking for itself, everyone would be making the bible say what they want it to say.

Isn't that why we have so many denominations? As for me, it's Sola Scriptura.

[hben]

If it's for one then it is for everyone, God has set the same terms of salvation for everyone.

Then, why did your sins get washed away by water while mine got washed away by the blood of Christ?

[hben]

Nope.


But, then again, I'm not refering to God's terms.

If someone doesn't want to get wet, there are religions that don't force immersion.

I couldn't "force" immersion if I had to. That is done by God when a person surrenders to Christ. Christ said, "If you love me, keep my commandments."

[Koushi Shinigami]

Actually they are not open to interpretation!

Dunk vs pour
Transubstantiation vs symbolic meal
eternal salvation vs continually striving to grow one's relationship with God.

etc, etc etc.

[baysidetrey]

Then, why did your sins get washed away by water while mine got washed away by the blood of Christ?

For me, I did not come in contact with the blood until the water. That is how I believe one comes into contact with the blood.

[Koushi Shinigami]

Explain how it is possible for anything written to NOT be open to interpretation by each reader.

Especially if the Bible is a living document, as some people claim.

[hben]

For me, I did not come in contact with the blood until the water. That is how I believe one comes into contact with the blood.

That is your opinion or your interpretation, but what scripture says that specifically?

[jmacvols]

Then, why did your sins get washed away by water while mine got washed away by the blood of Christ?

My sins were not washed away by water. Water baptism is the means by which Christ's blood does wash away sins.

[Koushi Shinigami]

If the bible were open so everyone could interpret it anyway those so choose,

29,000 different interpretations so far and counting.



then the bible would be a useless book.

I agree. Although, if I were to make that statement, I would use a different form of the verb 'be'. :think:


Instead of the bible speaking for itself, everyone would be making the bible say what they want it to say.

That's exactly what people do.

[hben]

Especially if the Bible is a living document, as some people claim.

What do you mean by "a living document"?

[jmacvols]

29,000 different interpretations so far and counting.

28,999 are wrong...and counting.





I agree. Although, if I were to make that statement, I would use a different form of the verb 'be'. :think:

be-ing






That's exactly what people do.

And as Baysidetrey said, this is why there are so many conflicting religious groups.

[Koushi Shinigami]

28,999 are wrong...and counting.



Not a surprising response. Hilariously funny, but not surprising.




be-ing


I was thinking "is".





And as Baysidetrey said, this is why there are so many conflicting religious groups.

Maybe, or maybe God speaks differently to different people. I've heard he works in mysterious ways.

[baysidetrey]

That is your opinion or your interpretation, but what scripture says that specifically?

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.

1 Peter 3:20.Which sometime were disobedient , when once the longsuffering of God waited in the days of Noah, while the ark was a preparing , wherein few, that is , eight souls were saved by water.21.The like figure whereunto even baptism doth also now save us (not the putting away of the filth of the flesh, but the answer of a good conscience toward God,) by the resurrection of Jesus Christ:

[Koushi Shinigami]

What do you mean by "a living document"?

What do the people who say it mean?

[hben]

What do the people who say it mean?

I don't know, you brought it up.

[jmacvols]

Maybe, or maybe God speaks differently to different people. I've heard he works in mysterious ways.


God is not the author of confusion, so man is creating the conflicts.

[Koushi Shinigami]

I don't know, you brought it up.

Then I guess we'll have to wait for someone who knows.

[jmacvols]

Hbr 4:12 -For the word of God is quick [living], and powerful, and sharper than any twoedged sword, piercing even to the dividing asunder of soul and spirit, and of the joints and marrow, and is a discerner of the thoughts and intents of the heart.

[Koushi Shinigami]

God is not the author of confusion,

Looking at what he is credited with authoring, he's not the author of clarity either.

[hben]

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.

I believe born "of water" is simply the natural or physical birth, and "of the spirit" is the spiritual birth that happens at the moment of salvation by grace through faith in Christ...or baptism of the Holy Spirit.

1 Peter 3:20.Which sometime were disobedient , when once the longsuffering of God waited in the days of Noah, while the ark was a preparing , wherein few, that is , eight souls were saved by water.21.The like figure whereunto even baptism doth also now save us (not the putting away of the filth of the flesh, but the answer of a good conscience toward God,) by the resurrection of Jesus Christ:

I believe this is also baptism of the Holy Spirit since man receiving God's Holy Spirit is the only thing that will get him into heaven.

[jmacvols]

Looking at what he is credited with authoring, he's not the author of clarity either.

The fogginess is added by man.

[Koushi Shinigami]

I believe born "of water" is simply the natural or physical birth

Interesting. How widespread is this belief that 'born of water' refers to amniotic fluid?

[Koushi Shinigami]

The fogginess is added by man.

And did He not forsee mankind corrupting His word?

[baysidetrey]

I believe born "of water" is simply the natural or physical birth, and "of the spirit" is the spiritual birth that happens at the moment of salvation by grace through faith in Christ...or baptism of the Holy Spirit.



I believe this is also baptism of the Holy Spirit since man receiving God's Holy Spirit is the only thing that will get him into heaven.

O.K. so first, you think that Christ said that a man must be born (natural/physical birth) to go to heaven.
1. I would think that it would go without saying that a person had to be a person to be saved. Would people who never were need to be saved?
2. So, is it your belief that aborted children will not go to heaven because they were never physically born?

Next we go to Peter. Peter says it is water, you say it is spirit. I will go with Peter. Please explain how water means spirit.

[hben]

Interesting. How widespread is this belief that 'born of water' refers to amniotic fluid?

No idea. Some Bible teachers that I respect believe the water is the word of God.

[Koushi Shinigami]

No idea. Some Bible teachers that I respect believe the water is the word of God.

Last time I checked, water had a pretty detrimental effect on a bible.

[hben]

O.K. so first, you think that Christ said that a man must be born (natural/physical birth) to go to heaven.

1. I would think that it would go without saying that a person had to be a person to be saved. Would people who never were need to be saved?
2. So, is it your belief that aborted children will not go to heaven because they were never physically born?

Next we go to Peter. Peter says it is water, you say it is spirit. I will go with Peter. Please explain how water means spirit.

Aborted babies go to heaven. That isn't the question here. Are you trying to play the part of the Pharisee here. For a baby not to be born, he/she would have to remain in the mother's womb forever, and that has never happened in the history of the world. A baby is either born dead or alive, but it comes out of the mother's womb one way or the other, so your Pharisee argument is really silly when you think about it.

As for Peter, you would have to quote the specific scripture for me to comment which you didn't.

[jmacvols]

And did He not forsee mankind corrupting His word?


Sure, but it's not God's fault.

[Koushi Shinigami]

Sure, but it's not God's fault.

He chose his writing style. It is too bad he chose to be so vague or open to interpretation.

[hben]

Last time I checked, water had a pretty detrimental effect on a bible.

First, no one said to pour water on your Bible. :rolleyes:

And second, I didn't say I agreed with the interpretation, so save your sarcasm for someone who does. :whistle:

[Koushi Shinigami]

Aborted babies go to heaven. That isn't the question here. Are you trying to play the part of the Pharisee here. For a baby not to be born, he/she would have to remain in the mother's womb forever, and that has never happened in the history of the world. A baby is either born dead or alive, but it comes out of the mother's womb one way or the other, so your Pharisee argument is really silly when you think about it.


You can call me pharisee if you desire it.

What about the instance when the mother dies with the baby in utero and the baby is never born?

[jmacvols]

Jhn 3:23 And John also was baptizing in Aenon near to Salim, because there was much amniotic fluid there: and they came, and were baptized.


Jhn 4:7 There cometh a woman of Samaria to draw amniotic fluid: Jesus saith unto her, Give me to drink.


Jhn 4:13 Jesus answered and said unto her, Whosoever drinketh of this amniotic fluid shall thirst again:

[Koushi Shinigami]

First, no one said to pour water on your Bible. :rolleyes:

And second, I didn't say I agreed with the interpretation, so save your sarcasm for someone who does. :whistle:

But I have so much to go around.

[cbut1]

Sharing what?

I don't mean to appear obtuse but I'm just not following and I want to understand if I can.

I'm aware of the verses you quoted and have heard several different interpretations as to what they mean. If it isn't too much trouble could you try to explain how written words can not be interepreted. Don't we interpret the written words as we read what they say?

My point is that we are supposed to understand the Words of God from His perspective and will and as such they are not open to our interpretation. many times though we ignore Gods Will for mankind and interpret things for our own benefit.

[Koushi Shinigami]

Jhn 3:23 And John also was baptizing in Aenon near to Salim, because there was much amniotic fluid there: and they came, and were baptized.


Jhn 4:7 There cometh a woman of Samaria to draw amniotic fluid: Jesus saith unto her, Give me to drink.


Jhn 4:13 Jesus answered and said unto her, Whosoever drinketh of this amniotic fluid shall thirst again:

As salty as it is, I have no doubt that one would thirst again.

BTW, that's just gross. :sick:

[baysidetrey]

Aborted babies go to heaven. That isn't the question here. Are you trying to play the part of the Pharisee here. For a baby not to be born, he/she would have to remain in the mother's womb forever, and that has never happened in the history of the world. A baby is either born dead or alive, but it comes out of the mother's womb one way or the other, so your Pharisee argument is really silly when you think about it.

As for Peter, you would have to quote the specific scripture for me to comment which you didn't.

First, I am not the one who said that Christ said one had to be physically born, you were. If your belief is true, it would reason that those who were not born (including aborted children) can not fit the criteria to go to heaven.

Second, I see that when you can not come up with a good argument, you resort to name calling (isn't that against the rules of respect?), is that how you argue your points?

Finally, for the umpteenth time.

1 Peter 3:20.Which sometime were disobedient , when once the longsuffering of God waited in the days of Noah, while the ark was a preparing , wherein few, that is , eight souls were saved by water. 21 The like figure whereunto even baptism doth also now save us (not the putting away of the filth of the flesh, but the answer of a good conscience toward God,) by the resurrection of Jesus Christ:

[jmacvols]

He chose his writing style. It is too bad he chose to be so vague or open to interpretation.


God used words with meaning. When words with meaning are placed in a certain order, they give a particular meaning.

Many try and change the order of those words, many try to add to those words, many try to take away from those words, many try to change the meaning of those words and write this off as "interpretation" but it is actually "mutilation".

[baysidetrey]

God used words with meaning. When words with meaning are placed in a certain order, they give a particular meaning.

Many try and change the order of those words, many try to add to those words, many try to take away from those words, many try to change the meaning of those words and write this off as "interpretation" but it is actually "mutilation".

He also used a language that died so that the words would not take on new meanings IMO.

[jmacvols]

He also used a language that died so that the words would not take on new meanings IMO.

Yes, and I don't think it's a coincidence that Koine Greek has been a dead language for many centuries.

[Tim]

My point is that we are supposed to understand the Words of God from His perspective and will and as such they are not open to our interpretation. many times though we ignore Gods Will for mankind and interpret things for our own benefit.

If I understand correctly, you are saying that the author had only one intent/meaning in what he wrote. Individual readers may or may not ascertain that original meaning.

Websters defines it this way:

in⋅ter⋅pre⋅ta⋅tion

–noun 1.the act of interpreting; elucidation; explication: This writer's work demands interpretation. 2.an explanation of the meaning of another's artistic or creative work; an elucidation: an interpretation of a poem. 3.a conception of another's behavior: a charitable interpretation of his tactlessness. 4.a way of interpreting.5.the rendering of a dramatic part, music, etc., so as to bring out the meaning, or to indicate one's particular conception of it.6.oral translation.


I would think that number 2 relates most to the written word and how a reader receives that word. Working with Webster's definition I would think that there are indeed many different ways in which readers understand the words as written... perhaps only ONE is correct and this is what the verse quoted was referencing??

Of course, the problem is that we don't have the original author (or even "scribe" if you believe God to be the author) available to ask what his intent truly was... therefore we are left to our interpretive devices to try and ascertain his intent as best we can.

Interesting....

[distantshores51]

what the topic here? I am confused.

[Gem]

If the bible were open so everyone could interpret it anyway those so choose, then the bible would be a useless book. Instead of the bible speaking for itself, everyone would be making the bible say what they want it to say.


jmacvols

I think a lot of people put their own interpertation to the word of God no matter to them as to how the bible puts it.

I see a lot of people doing it on here.
But when the time comes Gods word will judge them and they will be without excuess for themselves .

[terri910]

what the topic here? I am confused.
I think it might be whether baptism is an efficacious act, or if it is merely symbolic.

....but I could be wrong.

[Ron Jon]

NT baptism consists of faith and immersion in water for remission of sins.Not one verse in the Bible says that explicitly. That is your own interpretation.

[Ron Jon]

Sharing what?

I don't mean to appear obtuse but I'm just not following and I want to understand if I can.

I'm aware of the verses you quoted and have heard several different interpretations as to what they mean. If it isn't too much trouble could you try to explain how written words can not be interepreted. Don't we interpret the written words as we read what they say?I think what cbut means by "it's not open for interpretation" is that while it may be true that anyone can interpret the written text any way they choose, that doesn't mean all interpretations are equally valid.

[cbut1]

If I understand correctly, you are saying that the author had only one intent/meaning in what he wrote. Individual readers may or may not ascertain that original meaning.

Websters defines it this way:

in⋅ter⋅pre⋅ta⋅tion

–noun 1.the act of interpreting; elucidation; explication: This writer's work demands interpretation. 2.an explanation of the meaning of another's artistic or creative work; an elucidation: an interpretation of a poem. 3.a conception of another's behavior: a charitable interpretation of his tactlessness. 4.a way of interpreting.5.the rendering of a dramatic part, music, etc., so as to bring out the meaning, or to indicate one's particular conception of it.6.oral translation.


I would think that number 2 relates most to the written word and how a reader receives that word. Working with Webster's definition I would think that there are indeed many different ways in which readers understand the words as written... perhaps only ONE is correct and this is what the verse quoted was referencing??

Of course, the problem is that we don't have the original author (or even "scribe" if you believe God to be the author) available to ask what his intent truly was... therefore we are left to our interpretive devices to try and ascertain his intent as best we can.

Interesting....

Perhaps your forgetting one important point we do have God available to answer this for us and He has given the Key to understanding His Will and intent.

The Holy Spirit given to His assembly.

[Semi-Sweet]

Sharing what?

I don't mean to appear obtuse but I'm just not following and I want to understand if I can.

I'm aware of the verses you quoted and have heard several different interpretations as to what they mean. If it isn't too much trouble could you try to explain how written words can not be interepreted. Don't we interpret the written words as we read what they say?

This is my interpretation of interpreting Scripture. . . . :eek:

Every English version of the Bible is an interpretation of God's message delivered originally in the ancient languages of Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek. The translations are interpretations made by uninspired men.

Many speakers have denounced persons who would attempt to interpret the Scriptures. Yet those speakers never confine their activity to the simple reading of the Bible. They always offer comments. This is interpreting the Scriptures.

The aversion to interpreting the Scriptures comes from a misinterpretation of 2 Peter 1:20. . .where the apostle declares, "First of all you must understand this, that no prophecy of scripture is a matter of one's own interpretation, because no prophecy ever came by the impulse of man, but men moved by the Holy Spirit spoke from God."

In this setting Peter is assuring us that we do not follow cleverly devised myths when we accept the account of the eyewitnesses of his majesty or the messages revealed to prophets of the Lord. Those prophets did not depend upon their own interpretation of events which they witnessed or put their own construction on the messages revealed to them. They received revelations of truth from God, being moved by the Holy Spirit. None of us receives such revelations today.

There are two consolations.

First, our salvation is not dependent upon a correct interpretation and understanding of all of God's word.

Second, even though we may profit from the interpretations of persons more schooled in the Scriptures than we are, we are not obligated to accept their interpretations. . . .;)

[cbut1]

I think what cbut means by "it's not open for interpretation" is that while it may be true that anyone can interpret the written text any way they choose, that doesn't mean all interpretations are equally valid.

in part yes.

[Ron Jon]

For me, I did not come in contact with the blood until the water. That is how I believe one comes into contact with the blood.In what way can a literal physical substance (water) cause you to come in contact with a figureative or even spiritual substance (the blood of Christ)?

[Ron Jon]

My sins were not washed away by water. Water baptism is the means by which Christ's blood does wash away sins.And without ANY scriptural support. Just your own private interpretation.

[Ron Jon]

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.The word "of" is not in the original text. A literal translation shows the water and Spirit are referring to the same thing. The word translated "and" is 'eis' and can also mean "even". So the verse could also be translated as "Except a man be born of water, even the Spirit, he cannot enter the kingdom of God." Jesus even said the water He gives (the living water) was the Holy Spirit.
by water[/B].21.The like figure whereunto even baptism doth also now save us (not the putting away of the filth of the flesh, but the answer of a good conscience toward God,) by the resurrection of Jesus Christ:Anyone who knows the story of Noah's ark already knows that the water did not save anyone. Rather, the water was the agent which God used to destroy all flesh except those who were safely in the ark. Technically, it was the ark which saved Noah and his family, not the flood (water).

[Ron Jon]

Interesting. How widespread is this belief that 'born of water' refers to amniotic fluid?I'd say it's a pretty popular belief (at least from the baptists I know). I personally believe Jesus was referring to the Spirit when He mentions the water. There are other examples in the gospel of John where Jesus compares water with the Spirit.

[Ron Jon]

in part yes.Well, so much for my interpretation of your words. :)) I do agree that the Bible can be interpreted many different ways. As evidenced by the many threads in this religion forum. However, I don't think they are all correct (equally valid). I think there is a right way and a wrong way to interpret scripture.

[Tim]

Perhaps your forgetting one important point we do have God available to answer this for us and He has given the Key to understanding His Will and intent.

The Holy Spirit given to His assembly.

To which of his assemblies did he give the correct version?

As you know there are hundreds of different assemblies with varying understanding of his will and intent.

[Ron Jon]

I guess this has been batted around before, but what is the complete issue about. Thanks.To answer the OP's question, "baptismal regeneration" is the belief that a person must be baptized in literal water in order to be "saved." Typically, those who teach/believe in such a doctrine do not believe a person is "saved" in this mortal life and that "salvation" only truly occurs after that person has died and stands before God on Judgment Day. Prior to this, that person must continuously "work out their salvation" or risk losing it. Of course, how can you lose something you don't already possess?

[cbut1]

To which of his assemblies did he give the correct version?

As you know there are hundreds of different assemblies with varying understanding of his will and intent.

Yes there are many that claim Christ as their founder

BUT

Christ did only establish on Faith upon Him and that thy would be resilient through time until His return to gather them. I believe it is the True Baptist faith.

Others believe it is their own faith, and some even believe it is a conglomeration of all Faiths but the reality is that it is what God has established regardless of our interpretations.

[RayMan]

My sins were not washed away by water. Water baptism is the means by which Christ's blood does wash away sins.

I gotta go with RJ on this one.

[RayMan]

29,000 different interpretations so far and counting.


I agree. Although, if I were to make that statement, I would use a different form of the verb 'be'. :think:


That's exactly what people do.

29,001. Don't be leaving my interpretation out homie.

[RayMan]

28,999 are wrong...and counting.


<snip>




Nicely put Jmac. :clap:

[RayMan]

Then I guess we'll have to wait for someone who knows.

I'm right here. What's the question?

[RayMan]

Interesting. How widespread is this belief that 'born of water' refers to amniotic fluid?

I've been known to lean in that direction myself actually. Of course that could be a result of the ten years I spent as a Southern Baptist, but still, I think it could be what Jesus meant.

[RayMan]

Last time I checked, water had a pretty detrimental effect on a bible.

Water IS used as a type for the word of God.

Eph 5:25 Husbands, love your wives, even as Christ also loved the church, and gave himself for it;

Eph 5:26 That he might sanctify and cleanse it with the washing of water by the word,

Eph 5:27 That he might present it to himself a glorious church, not having spot, or wrinkle, or any such thing; but that it should be holy and without blemish.

[terri910]

Then I guess we'll have to wait for someone who knows.
Refer to the guy in my avatar. :cool:

[RayMan]

Refer to the guy in my avatar. :cool:

He's pretty much sold on the need for baptism, eh?

[baysidetrey]

In what way can a literal physical substance (water) cause you to come in contact with a figureative or even spiritual substance (the blood of Christ)?

I have no idea. I would guess though in the same way it cured Naaman.

[baysidetrey]

Anyone who knows the story of Noah's ark already knows that the water did not save anyone. Rather, the water was the agent which God used to destroy all flesh except those who were safely in the ark. Technically, it was the ark which saved Noah and his family, not the flood (water).

The water DID save them just as Peter said. Do you think Peter lied? If the ark saved Noah, why did Peter tell us it was the water? (BTW, if you think of it, the WATER cleansed the earth of the filth and sin).

[Ron Jon]

I have no idea. I would guess though in the same way it cured Naaman.Naaman the leper? If this is who you are referring to then it is a bad example. 2 Kings 5. Naaman's leprosy was very real. So, dipping himself in the river physically produced a physical result (physical healing). This has nothing to do with being physically baptized (immersed) in water and being spiritually cleansed by the blood of Jesus.

[baysidetrey]

Naaman the leper? If this is who you are referring to then it is a bad example. 2 Kings 5. Naaman's leprosy was very real. So, dipping himself in the river physically produced a physical result (physical healing). This has nothing to do with being physically baptized (immersed) in water and being spiritually cleansed by the blood of Jesus.

And our sins are not VERY real? Did the water heal him?

[Ron Jon]

The water DID save them just as Peter said. Do you think Peter lied? If the ark saved Noah, why did Peter tell us it was the water? (BTW, if you think of it, the WATER cleansed the earth of the filth and sin).No, I do not think Peter lied. I just think your interpretation of Peter's words are flat out wrong. Spin it anyway you want, the water didn't save anyone. It was the instrument which caused so many deaths. It was the ark that saved Noah and his family. No special interpretation needed when reading Genesis 7.

[Gem]

Not one verse in the Bible says that explicitly. That is your own interpretation.


Acts 2:

37-

Now when they heard this, they were cut to the heart, and said to Peter and the rest of the Apostles, " Men and brethren, what shall we do ? "

38-

Then Peter said to them, " Repent, and let every one of you be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins; and
---------------------------------------------------------
ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Spirit.

39-
" For the promise is to you and to your children , and to all who are afar off, as many as the Lord our God will call. '

I do not believe that Peter said this for no reason at all.
And I do not believe that Peter and the other Apostle's in other chapters in the book of Acts disobeyed God either in Matthew 28: 19.

I believe Peter did what Jesus said to do in Matthew 28: 19.

[baysidetrey]

No, I do not think Peter lied. I just think your interpretation of Peter's words are flat out wrong. Spin it anyway you want, the water didn't save anyone. It was the instrument which caused so many deaths. It was the ark that saved Noah and his family. No special interpretation needed when reading Genesis 7.

Then by all means, please tell me what he meant. I take him at his word, you find deeper meanings. Please explain what "water" means. Also, please refer back to my previous posts as I really don't want to say things over and over.

[Ron Jon]

And our sins are not VERY real? Did the water heal him?No, the water did not heal him. It was his obedience in following Elisha's instructions which healed him. I never said our sins were not real. However, "sin" is not like dirt which you can wash away with soap and water.

[baysidetrey]

No, the water did not heal him. It was his obedience in following Elisha's instructions which healed him. I never said our sins were not real. However, "sin" is not like dirt which you can wash away with soap and water.

Now you may now see why water washes away sins. OBEDIENCE. Read the earlier verses from Peter again where it says it is not the washing away of the filth of the flesh.

[Ron Jon]

I believe Peter did what Jesus said to do in Matthew 28: 19.Where in Acts 2:37-39 does it explicitly use the word "water"?

[Koushi Shinigami]

jmacvols

I think a lot of people put their own interpertation to the word of God no matter to them as to how the bible puts it.

I see a lot of people doing it on here.
But when the time comes Gods word will judge them and they will be without excuess for themselves .

I don't think God will be delegating that task to His word.

He's going to do the judging himself.

[Koushi Shinigami]

Perhaps your forgetting one important point we do have God available to answer this for us and He has given the Key to understanding His Will and intent.

The Holy Spirit given to His assembly.

And what if the Holy Spirit says different things to different people?

[baysidetrey]

Hey Koushi, how was the Boy Scout meeting? Also, I did not damage Hben as I promised. I will return him to your debate ASAP.

[baysidetrey]

And what if the Holy Spirit says different things to different people?

Yes, and when they do sin, did the Holy Spirit cause them to sin? I mean, if they are just following orders, should they be held responsible?

[Gem]

Where in Acts 2:37-39 does it explicitly use the word "water"?



You show me where it meant any thing else in the baptismal services in the book of Acts.

All the Apostles baptised in water in the book of Acts.

[Koushi Shinigami]

Hey Koushi, how was the Boy Scout meeting? Also, I did not damage Hben as I promised. I will return him to your debate ASAP.

Went well. Didn't get everything done we wanted, but made some progress.

[Koushi Shinigami]

No, I do not think Peter lied. I just think your interpretation of Peter's words are flat out wrong. Spin it anyway you want, the water didn't save anyone. It was the instrument which caused so many deaths. It was the ark that saved Noah and his family. No special interpretation needed when reading Genesis 7.

Well, if you want spin, the water did save Noah and his family from the wickedness of the world by slaughtering all other life on this planet. :shrug:

[Ron Jon]

Now you may now see why water washes away sins. OBEDIENCE. Read the earlier verses from Peter again where it says it is not the washing away of the filth of the flesh.Water does NOT wash away sins. "What can wash away my sins? Nothing but the blood of Jesus." The blood of Jesus was shed almost 2,000 years ago. That is when His blood washed away my sins.

Redemption

"Forasmuch as ye know that ye were not redeemed with corruptible things, as silver and gold, from your vain conversation received by tradition from your fathers, but with the precious blood of Christ, as of a lamb without blemish and without spot:" 1 Pet. 1:18,19

"In whom we have redemption through his blood, the forgiveness of sins according to the riches of his grace." Eph. 1:7

Justification

"Much more then, being now justified by his blood, we shall be saved from wrath through him." Rom. 5:9

Imputation -- God's righteousness is imputed (credited) to us because our sin is imputed (credited) to Christ. 2 Cor. 5:21 (above). God looks at the believer and sees a righteousness equivalent to His own. This is possible because our sins were judged at the Cross and we were given righteousness by Grace.

Propitiation

"Whom God hath set forth to be a propitiation through faith in his blood, to declare his righteousness for the remission of sins that are past, through the forbearance of God:" Rom. 3:25

Cleansing and Restoration to Fellowship

"But if we walk in the light, as he is in the light, we have fellowship with one another, and the blood of Jesus Christ cleanseth us from all sin. If we say that we have no sin, we deceive ourselves, and the truth is not in us. If we confess our sin, he is faithful and just to forgive us our sins, and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness." 1 John 1:7-9

Nowhere does it say that water baptism saves us.

Water baptism does not redeem us, it does not justify us, it does not cleanse us (spiritually).

[Ron Jon]

Well, if you want spin, the water did save Noah and his family from the wickedness of the world by slaughtering all other life on this planet. :shrug:Actually, the water was the agent of death. Without the ark, Noah and his family would have been a part of that judgment/punishment/death.

[baysidetrey]

Water does NOT wash away sins. "What can wash away my sins? Nothing but the blood of Jesus." The blood of Jesus was shed almost 2,000 years ago. That is when His blood washed away my sins.

Redemption

"Forasmuch as ye know that ye were not redeemed with corruptible things, as silver and gold, from your vain conversation received by tradition from your fathers, but with the precious blood of Christ, as of a lamb without blemish and without spot:" 1 Pet. 1:18,19

"In whom we have redemption through his blood, the forgiveness of sins according to the riches of his grace." Eph. 1:7

Justification

"Much more then, being now justified by his blood, we shall be saved from wrath through him." Rom. 5:9

Imputation -- God's righteousness is imputed (credited) to us because our sin is imputed (credited) to Christ. 2 Cor. 5:21 (above). God looks at the believer and sees a righteousness equivalent to His own. This is possible because our sins were judged at the Cross and we were given righteousness by Grace.

Propitiation

"Whom God hath set forth to be a propitiation through faith in his blood, to declare his righteousness for the remission of sins that are past, through the forbearance of God:" Rom. 3:25

Cleansing and Restoration to Fellowship

"But if we walk in the light, as he is in the light, we have fellowship with one another, and the blood of Jesus Christ cleanseth us from all sin. If we say that we have no sin, we deceive ourselves, and the truth is not in us. If we confess our sin, he is faithful and just to forgive us our sins, and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness." 1 John 1:7-9

Nowhere does it say that water baptism saves us.

Water baptism does not redeem us, it does not justify us, it does not cleanse us (spiritually).
Peter says:

Acts 10:48 And he commanded them to be baptized in the name of the Lord. Then prayed they him to tarry certain days.

Paul say it washes away sins.

Acts 22:16 And now why tarriest thou ? arise , and be baptized , and wash away thy sins, calling on the name of the Lord.

Peter also tells us it is for the remission of sins.

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.

Peter also tells us that baptism saves us.

1 Peter 3:21 The like figure whereunto even baptism doth also now save us (not the putting away of the filth of the flesh, but the answer of a good conscience toward God,) by the resurrection of Jesus Christ:

Could you please explain these verse to me as none of the other OSAS belivers have yet?

[baysidetrey]

Actually, the water was the agent of death. Without the ark, Noah and his family would have been a part of that judgment/punishment/death.

Why are you telling us what you think it means and how it fits your theology instead of telling us what it says?

[Semi-Sweet]

I am wondering if those 3000 that were baptized on the day of Pentecost understood exactly what their baptism meant?

Does salvation depend on having a correct understanding of baptism?

[Ron Jon]

You show me where it meant any thing else in the baptismal services in the book of Acts.

All the Apostles baptised in water in the book of Acts.

Acts 1:4-5 "And being assembled together with them, He [Jesus] commanded them not to depart from Jerusalem, but to wait for the Promise of the Father, “which,” He said, “you have heard from Me; for John truly baptized with water, but you shall be baptized with the Holy Spirit not many days from now.”

[baysidetrey]

Ron Jon, nobody has yet explained this passage to me yet. Could you explain your thoughts?

Ezekiel 18:21 But if the wicked turn from all his sins that he hath committed, and keep all my statutes, and do that which is lawful and right, he shall surely live, he shall not die. 22 None of his transgressions that he hath committed shall be remembered against him: in his righteousness that he hath done he shall live. 23 Have I any pleasure in the death of the wicked? saith the Lord Jehovah; and not rather that he should return from his way, and live? 24 But when the righteous turneth away from his righteousness, and committeth iniquity, and doeth according to all the abominations that the wicked man doeth, shall he live? None of his righteous deeds that he hath done shall be remembered: in his trespass that he hath trespassed, and in his sin that he hath sinned, in them shall he die. 25 Yet ye say, The way of the Lord is not equal. Hear now, O house of Israel: Is not my way equal? are not your ways unequal? 26 When the righteous man turneth away from his righteousness, and committeth iniquity, and dieth therein; in his iniquity that he hath done shall he die. 27 Again, when the wicked man turneth away from his wickedness that he hath committed, and doeth that which is lawful and right, he shall save his soul alive. 28 Because he considereth, and turneth away from all his transgressions that he hath committed, he shall surely live, he shall not die. 29 Yet saith the house of Israel, The way of the Lord is not equal. O house of Israel, are not my ways equal? are not your ways unequal?

[Gem]

acts 1:4-5 "and being assembled together with them, he [jesus] commanded them not to depart from jerusalem, but to wait for the promise of the father, “which,” he said, “you have heard from me; for john truly baptized with water, but you shall be baptized with the holy spirit not many days from now.”


so.

[cbut1]

And what if the Holy Spirit says different things to different people?

Improbable.



We can what if anything in the world it doesn't change the facts of anything. Gods Word has shown that the Holy Spirit is consistant in its interaction with mankind.

What if the moon fell out of the sky and hit you on the head? :razz:

[Koushi Shinigami]

Actually, the water was the agent of death. Without the ark, Noah and his family would have been a part of that judgment/punishment/death.

I agree, but for sake of the spin, how long would Noah and his family remain just in God's eyes had they remained amongst the evil that was in the world?

[Koushi Shinigami]

Improbable.



We can what if anything in the world it doesn't change the facts of anything. Gods Word has shown that the Holy Spirit is consistant in its interaction with mankind.


The results of the Holy Spirit's work do not bear out your statement.




What if the moon fell out of the sky and hit you on the head? :razz:

Happy day. I won't be married any more.

[Ron Jon]

Peter says:

Acts 10:48 And he commanded them to be baptized in the name of the Lord. Then prayed they him to tarry certain days.Cornelius and his household received the baptism of the Holy Spirit BEFORE being baptized in water. If water washes away sins then how could the Holy Spirit be poured out upon these sinful people prior to their water baptism having taken place?

Paul say it washes away sins.

Acts 22:16 And now why tarriest thou ? arise , and be baptized , and wash away thy sins, calling on the name of the Lord.No mention of water in this verse. "wash away your sins" is a figure of speech and not meant to be taken literally. But, I suppose if you want to take it literally, be my guest. I suppose you also take John 6:53 literally as well?

Peter also tells us it is for the remission of sins.

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.They received the gift of the Holy Ghost when they were baptized with the Holy Ghost. Again, no mention of water in this verse. I'm not saying water is not used, just that you have to read into the verse to come to that conclusion (since the verse doesn't explicitly say 'water').

Peter also tells us that baptism saves us.

1 Peter 3:21 The like figure whereunto even baptism doth also now save us (not the putting away of the filth of the flesh, but the answer of a good conscience toward God,) by the resurrection of Jesus Christ:

Could you please explain these verse to me as none of the other OSAS belivers have yet?I'll submit a post for 1 Peter 3:21 in it's own post as it is longer than my previous replies.

[Meriweather]

Happy day. I won't be married any more.

I thought of you while I was at school today. I was reading essays. One (male) student wrote, "But I decided not to let that worry me. Instead I thought of things that are a lot more important--like someday getting married...."

[Ron Jon]

Let's look at 1 Peter 3:21 in context:

1 Peter 3:18-22
"For Christ also suffered once for sins, the just for the unjust, that He might bring us to God, being put to death in the flesh but made alive by the Spirit, by whom also He went and preached to the spirits in prison, who formerly were disobedient, when once the Divine longsuffering waited in the days of Noah, while the ark was being prepared, in which a few, that is, eight souls, were saved through water. There is also an antitype which now saves us--baptism (not the removal of the filth of the flesh, but the answer of a good conscience toward God), through the resurrection of Jesus Christ, who has gone into heaven and is at the right hand of God, angels and authorities and powers having been made subject to Him.

We see three things discussed here:

Noah's Ark and its role in saving people through the flood
Water baptism
The gospel and the resurrection of Jesus Christ.

This passage relates these three items by showing how they relate.
First, Peter speaks the death of Christ on the cross, setting the focus for the passage. As a result of this passage, we know that the
focus of the verses that follow are regarding the death of Christ on the cross for our sins.

This death for our sins is then compared, to the flood, with the flood discussed as a symbolic “type” or comparison to salvation which come through the cross of Christ. Then we are told that there is an anti-type, baptism. I often hear the argument that an “anti-type” is the opposite of a type, or as one person recently said, an anti-type being the opposite of a type is “reality”. Unfortunately that argument is not “reality” because in Greek and similar languages, “anti-” often does not mean “opposite” as we understand it in English, but rather means a replacement or a contrast. This when we are told about one type, and then we are told that there is an anti-type, what we see here is a contrasting type of the death on the cross.

an·ti·type n.

"One that is foreshadowed by or identified with an earlier symbol or type, such as a figure in the New Testament who has a counterpart in the Old Testament.
An opposite or contrasting type."
Source: The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition Copyright © 2000 by Houghton Mifflin Company. Published by Houghton Mifflin Company. All rights reserved.
This understanding also agrees with what Paul said in Romans 6 where he identifies baptism as a “likeness” or symbolic of the death and resurrection on the cross:
Rom 6:3-7 "Or do you not know that as many of us as were baptized into Christ Jesus were baptized into His death? Therefore we were buried with Him through baptism into death, that just as Christ was raised from the dead by the glory of the Father, even so we also should walk in newness of life. For if we have been united together in the likeness of His death, certainly we also shall be in the likeness of His resurrection, knowing this, that our old
man was crucified with Him, that the body of sin might be done away with, that we should no longer be slaves of sin."

"In discussions with proponents of baptismal regeneration, they will often just read out Romans 6:3 and then stop before you get to the verse which describes baptism as a “likeness” of the death and resurrection of Christ. So we find that Romans 6 and 1 Peter 3 are telling us the same thing – baptism is symbolic.
Now with that in mind, let's look at the verse which is most often quoted by proponents of baptismal regeneration:

1 Peter 3:21
"There is also an antitype which now saves us--baptism (not the removal of the filth of the flesh,"

The contrasting types, the ark, which saved Noah and family through the water, and baptism which saves us in the water - as a type. A "type" simply means symbolic, and thus is symbolic of the death and resurrection of Christ through which we are in fact saved.

Now, let's look at the wider context:
1 Peter 3:18
"For Christ also suffered once for sins, the just for the unjust, that He might bring us to God, being put to death in the flesh but made alive by the Spirit,"

"Salvation came by Christ suffering on the cross for our sins and then we are made alive by the Spirit. Scripture says that there is one baptism, and it is not a baptism that replaces the blood with water, or replaces the spirit with water, but it is the baptism of the Holy Spirit.

Note that by stating that it is water baptism that is essential, what we are in effect being told is that the indwelling of the Holy Spirit is not essential, and that they choose water to replace the baptism of the Holy Spirit. Consider the implications.

1 Peter 3:21 "There is also an antitype which now saves us--baptism (not the removal of the filth of the flesh, but the answer of a good conscience toward God), through the resurrection of Jesus Christ, who has gone into heaven and is at the right hand of God, angels and authorities and powers having been made subject to Him."

"Note that it is water that removes the filth of the flesh, but the water is symbolic of the salvation on the cross. Also note that the substances which cleanses, is the answer of a good conscience towards God. We see a similar reference in Hebrews 9
This passage is very clear regarding the symbolic nature of the various rituals. As pointed out earlier, the reference here to ritual washings is the same word used elsewhere in the New Testament where it is translated as “baptism”.
Heb 9:11-15
"But Christ came as High Priest of the good things to come, with the greater and more perfect tabernacle not made with hands, that is, not of this creation. Not with the blood of goats and calves, but with His own blood He entered the Most Holy Place once for all,
having obtained eternal redemption. For if the blood of bulls and goats and the ashes of a heifer, sprinkling the unclean, sanctifies for the purifying of the flesh, how much more shall the blood of Christ, who through the eternal Spirit offered Himself without spot to
God, cleanse your conscience from dead works to serve the living God? And for this reason He is the Mediator of the new covenant, by means of death, for the redemption of the transgressions under the first covenant, that those who are called may receive the promise
of the eternal inheritance."

We see confirmation here that it is not the water that cleanses, but the blood of Christ sacrificed on the cross.

Scripture taken from the New King James Version. Copyright 1979, 1980, 1982 by Thomas Nelson, Inc. Used by Permission. All rights reserved.
© Tom Smith, smithtj.geo@yahoo.com, 2006. Permission is given to reproduce this document in its entirety, including this copyright notice, for noncommercial purposes and without charge.
http://discern.ca

[Ron Jon]

Why are you telling us what you think it means and how it fits your theology instead of telling us what it says?If you read the story of the flood in Genesis, it's pretty clear that the flood (water) killed the people outside of the ark. Not sure why you have a hard time understanding that.

[Ron Jon]

Ron Jon, nobody has yet explained this passage to me yet. Could you explain your thoughts?

Ezekiel 18:21 But if the wicked turn from all his sins that he hath committed, and keep all my statutes, and do that which is lawful and right, he shall surely live, he shall not die. 22 None of his transgressions that he hath committed shall be remembered against him: in his righteousness that he hath done he shall live. 23 Have I any pleasure in the death of the wicked? saith the Lord Jehovah; and not rather that he should return from his way, and live? 24 But when the righteous turneth away from his righteousness, and committeth iniquity, and doeth according to all the abominations that the wicked man doeth, shall he live? None of his righteous deeds that he hath done shall be remembered: in his trespass that he hath trespassed, and in his sin that he hath sinned, in them shall he die. 25 Yet ye say, The way of the Lord is not equal. Hear now, O house of Israel: Is not my way equal? are not your ways unequal? 26 When the righteous man turneth away from his righteousness, and committeth iniquity, and dieth therein; in his iniquity that he hath done shall he die. 27 Again, when the wicked man turneth away from his wickedness that he hath committed, and doeth that which is lawful and right, he shall save his soul alive. 28 Because he considereth, and turneth away from all his transgressions that he hath committed, he shall surely live, he shall not die. 29 Yet saith the house of Israel, The way of the Lord is not equal. O house of Israel, are not my ways equal? are not your ways unequal?Ezekiel lived during the old covenant and was not under the new covenant (age of grace). I don't see how it applies to our current discussion.

[Ron Jon]

so.So, you asked me to show you where baptism meant any thing else (other than water baptism). So, I did. Surely you are aware of the baptism of the Holy Spirit.

[Ron Jon]

I agree, but for sake of the spin, how long would Noah and his family remain just in God's eyes had they remained amongst the evil that was in the world?
Sorry, but your spinning is making me dizzy. You can speculate if you want to, but I'm getting off this amusement ride.

[Gem]

Matthew 3:

13- Then Jesus came to Galilee to John at the Jordon to be baptized by him.

14- and John tryed to prevent Him, saying, " I need to be baptized by You, and are You coming to me? "

15- But Jesus answered and said to him, " Permit it to be so now, for thus it is fitting for us to fulfill ALL RIGHTEOUSNESS. "


Acts 8:
34-
so the eunuch answered Philip and said, ' I ask you, of whom does the prophet say this, of himself or of some other man ? "

35
Then Philip opened his mouth, and beginning at this scripture, preached Jesus to him.

36
Now as they went down the road, they came to some water. And the eunuch said , " See, here is water, what hinders me from being baptized ? "

37
Then Philip said, " If you believe with all your heart, you may. " And he answered and said, " I believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God . "

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

39
now when they came up out of the water, the Spirit of the Lord caught Philip away, so that the eunuch saw him no more; and he went on his way rejoicing.


Seem Paul was filled with the Holy Spirit and were baptized to .
So he was baptized with the Holy Spirit and with water.


Acts 9;

17- And Ananias went his way and entered the house; and laying his hands on him he said, " Brother Paul, the Lord Jesus who appeared to you on the road as you came , has sent me that you may receive the your sight and be filled with the Holy Spirit, "

18- Immediately there fell from his eyes something like scales , and he received his sight at once; and he arose and was baptized.


Acts 10:

43- " To Him all the prophets witness that, through His name , whoever believes in Him will receive remission of sins. "

44- While Peter was still speaking these words, the Holy Spirit fell upon all those who heard the word.

45- And those of the circumcision who believed were astonished, as many as came with Peter, because the gift of the Holy spirit had been poured out on the Gentiles also.

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

47- " Can anyone forbid water, that these should not be baptized who have received the Holy spirit ? "

48- and he COMMANDED THEM TO BE BAPTIZED IN THE NAME OF THE LORD. Then they asked him to stay a few days.


I could find more scriptures here where they were baptized with water as well as the Holy Spirit.

[Ron Jon]

I could find more scriptures here where they were baptized with water as well as the Holy Spirit.I think you are missing the point. I am not saying that water baptisms were NOT performed. I am simply saying that water baptism (in and of itself) does NOT save! The question is "Does Baptism Save?" And I would reply, WHICH or WHAT TYPE of Baptism?

Does Water Baptism Save? I say NO!

Does the Baptism of the Holy Spirit Save? I say YES!

[Gem]

I think you are missing the point. I am not saying that water baptisms were NOT performed. I am simply saying that water baptism (in and of itself) does NOT save! The question is "Does Baptism Save?" And I would reply, WHICH or WHAT TYPE of Baptism?

Does Water Baptism Save? I say NO!

Does the Baptism of the Holy Spirit Save? I say YES!



I say you have to have both. The Holy Spirit and baptized in water.

Jesus says to do it for to fulfill righteous.

[Ron Jon]

I say you have to have both. The Holy Spirit and baptized in water.

Jesus says to do it for to fulfill righteous.It's really not as complicated as some try to make it. It really all comes down to this.

Jesus said "If you love Me, keep My commandments."

Did Jesus command baptism be performed? Yes. So, if water baptism doesn't save, why do it at all? Answer: Because we love Jesus and show our love for Him by obeying. But ultimately, it was not the H2O that saved my soul, but the precious blood of Jesus.

[Ron Jon]

Why did John want to prevent Jesus from being baptized? Why did John want to be baptized by Jesus? Surely, John must have already been baptized, right?

Matthew 3:

13- Then Jesus came to Galilee to John at the Jordon to be baptized by him.

14- and John tryed to prevent Him, saying, " I need to be baptized by You, and are You coming to me? "

[baysidetrey]

Cornelius and his household received the baptism of the Holy Spirit BEFORE being baptized in water. If water washes away sins then how could the Holy Spirit be poured out upon these sinful people prior to their water baptism having taken place?
No mention of water in this verse. "wash away your sins" is a figure of speech and not meant to be taken literally. But, I suppose if you want to take it literally, be my guest. I suppose you also take John 6:53 literally as well?
They received the gift of the Holy Ghost when they were baptized with the Holy Ghost. Again, no mention of water in this verse. I'm not saying water is not used, just that you have to read into the verse to come to that conclusion (since the verse doesn't explicitly say 'water').
I'll submit a post for 1 Peter 3:21 in it's own post as it is longer than my previous replies.

You've made up your mind. Nevermind.

[baysidetrey]

Ezekiel lived during the old covenant and was not under the new covenant (age of grace). I don't see how it applies to our current discussion.

But, you will justify instrumental music by the OT (correct?). Why the change? Also, does God change? Does He now accept the unrepentent?

[baysidetrey]

It's really not as complicated as some try to make it. It really all comes down to this.

Jesus said "If you love Me, keep My commandments."

Did Jesus command baptism be performed? Yes. So, if water baptism doesn't save, why do it at all? Answer: Because we love Jesus and show our love for Him by obeying. But ultimately, it was not the H2O that saved my soul, but the precious blood of Jesus.

Jeaus commanded baptism. You say it is not needed. Who is right? As I have said before, OBEDIENCE.

[baysidetrey]

Let's look at 1 Peter 3:21 in context:

1 Peter 3:18-22
"For Christ also suffered once for sins, the just for the unjust, that He might bring us to God, being put to death in the flesh but made alive by the Spirit, by whom also He went and preached to the spirits in prison, who formerly were disobedient, when once the Divine longsuffering waited in the days of Noah, while the ark was being prepared, in which a few, that is, eight souls, were saved through water. There is also an antitype which now saves us--baptism (not the removal of the filth of the flesh, but the answer of a good conscience toward God), through the resurrection of Jesus Christ, who has gone into heaven and is at the right hand of God, angels and authorities and powers having been made subject to Him.

We see three things discussed here:

Noah's Ark and its role in saving people through the flood
Water baptism
The gospel and the resurrection of Jesus Christ.

This passage relates these three items by showing how they relate.
First, Peter speaks the death of Christ on the cross, setting the focus for the passage. As a result of this passage, we know that the
focus of the verses that follow are regarding the death of Christ on the cross for our sins.

This death for our sins is then compared, to the flood, with the flood discussed as a symbolic “type” or comparison to salvation which come through the cross of Christ. Then we are told that there is an anti-type, baptism. I often hear the argument that an “anti-type” is the opposite of a type, or as one person recently said, an anti-type being the opposite of a type is “reality”. Unfortunately that argument is not “reality” because in Greek and similar languages, “anti-” often does not mean “opposite” as we understand it in English, but rather means a replacement or a contrast. This when we are told about one type, and then we are told that there is an anti-type, what we see here is a contrasting type of the death on the cross.

an·ti·type n.

"One that is foreshadowed by or identified with an earlier symbol or type, such as a figure in the New Testament who has a counterpart in the Old Testament.
An opposite or contrasting type."
Source: The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition Copyright © 2000 by Houghton Mifflin Company. Published by Houghton Mifflin Company. All rights reserved.
This understanding also agrees with what Paul said in Romans 6 where he identifies baptism as a “likeness” or symbolic of the death and resurrection on the cross:
Rom 6:3-7 "Or do you not know that as many of us as were baptized into Christ Jesus were baptized into His death? Therefore we were buried with Him through baptism into death, that just as Christ was raised from the dead by the glory of the Father, even so we also should walk in newness of life. For if we have been united together in the likeness of His death, certainly we also shall be in the likeness of His resurrection, knowing this, that our old
man was crucified with Him, that the body of sin might be done away with, that we should no longer be slaves of sin."

"In discussions with proponents of baptismal regeneration, they will often just read out Romans 6:3 and then stop before you get to the verse which describes baptism as a “likeness” of the death and resurrection of Christ. So we find that Romans 6 and 1 Peter 3 are telling us the same thing – baptism is symbolic.
Now with that in mind, let's look at the verse which is most often quoted by proponents of baptismal regeneration:

1 Peter 3:21
"There is also an antitype which now saves us--baptism (not the removal of the filth of the flesh,"

The contrasting types, the ark, which saved Noah and family through the water, and baptism which saves us in the water - as a type. A "type" simply means symbolic, and thus is symbolic of the death and resurrection of Christ through which we are in fact saved.

Now, let's look at the wider context:
1 Peter 3:18
"For Christ also suffered once for sins, the just for the unjust, that He might bring us to God, being put to death in the flesh but made alive by the Spirit,"

"Salvation came by Christ suffering on the cross for our sins and then we are made alive by the Spirit. Scripture says that there is one baptism, and it is not a baptism that replaces the blood with water, or replaces the spirit with water, but it is the baptism of the Holy Spirit.

Note that by stating that it is water baptism that is essential, what we are in effect being told is that the indwelling of the Holy Spirit is not essential, and that they choose water to replace the baptism of the Holy Spirit. Consider the implications.

1 Peter 3:21 "There is also an antitype which now saves us--baptism (not the removal of the filth of the flesh, but the answer of a good conscience toward God), through the resurrection of Jesus Christ, who has gone into heaven and is at the right hand of God, angels and authorities and powers having been made subject to Him."

"Note that it is water that removes the filth of the flesh, but the water is symbolic of the salvation on the cross. Also note that the substances which cleanses, is the answer of a good conscience towards God. We see a similar reference in Hebrews 9
This passage is very clear regarding the symbolic nature of the various rituals. As pointed out earlier, the reference here to ritual washings is the same word used elsewhere in the New Testament where it is translated as “baptism”.
Heb 9:11-15
"But Christ came as High Priest of the good things to come, with the greater and more perfect tabernacle not made with hands, that is, not of this creation. Not with the blood of goats and calves, but with His own blood He entered the Most Holy Place once for all,
having obtained eternal redemption. For if the blood of bulls and goats and the ashes of a heifer, sprinkling the unclean, sanctifies for the purifying of the flesh, how much more shall the blood of Christ, who through the eternal Spirit offered Himself without spot to
God, cleanse your conscience from dead works to serve the living God? And for this reason He is the Mediator of the new covenant, by means of death, for the redemption of the transgressions under the first covenant, that those who are called may receive the promise
of the eternal inheritance."

We see confirmation here that it is not the water that cleanses, but the blood of Christ sacrificed on the cross.

Scripture taken from the New King James Version. Copyright 1979, 1980, 1982 by Thomas Nelson, Inc. Used by Permission. All rights reserved.
© Tom Smith, smithtj.geo@yahoo.com, 2006. Permission is given to reproduce this document in its entirety, including this copyright notice, for noncommercial purposes and without charge.
http://discern.ca

So many words when Peter said "water saved". Why do you have to explain so much? Should it not be easier to take Peter at his word?

[baysidetrey]

Why did John want to prevent Jesus from being baptized? Why did John want to be baptized by Jesus? Surely, John must have already been baptized, right?

Matthew 3:

13- Then Jesus came to Galilee to John at the Jordon to be baptized by him.

14- and John tryed to prevent Him, saying, " I need to be baptized by You, and are You coming to me? "

1. Because John was inferior to Christ.
2. See above.
3. John was told by God to baptize. Can you show scripture to prove John was baptized?

[Ron Jon]

But, you will justify instrumental music by the OT (correct?). Why the change? Also, does God change? Does He now accept the unrepentent?What does instrumental music have to do with baptismal regeneration? :confused:

[Ron Jon]

Jeaus commanded baptism. You say it is not needed. Who is right? As I have said before, OBEDIENCE.Jesus never said water baptism saves. Neither do I. I never said it is not needed. Clearly, it's important as the first step in our Christian walk (or race as Paul puts it). But my salvation is based on the blood of Jesus not on the water in a baptismal font.

[Ron Jon]

So many words when Peter said "water saved". Why do you have to explain so much? Should it not be easier to take Peter at his word?You want to replace the Spirit with water? Be my guest. But the only thing water will get you is wet.

[Ron Jon]

1. Because John was inferior to Christ.
2. See above.
3. John was told by God to baptize. Can you show scripture to prove John was baptized?You are right that John was inferior to Jesus Christ. He even recognized that. The Bible doesn't say whether or not John was baptized. Do you think he was?

[jmacvols]

Not one verse in the Bible says that explicitly. That is your own interpretation.

He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved, Mk 16:16.

Here is faith and immersion in water that brings salvation.

[jmacvols]

And without ANY scriptural support. Just your own private interpretation.
In Rev 1 John said Christ washed away our sins with His own blood. When Jesus died, His side was pierced and water and blood came forth, so Jesus shed His blood in His death. From Rom 6 we are told that one is baptized into Christ's death where He shed His blood. So baptism is the means one is immersed into Christ's death where His shed blood washes away sins.

[jmacvols]

The word "of" is not in the original text. A literal translation shows the water and Spirit are referring to the same thing. The word translated "and" is 'eis' and can also mean "even". So the verse could also be translated as "Except a man be born of water, even the Spirit, he cannot enter the kingdom of God." Jesus even said the water He gives (the living water) was the Holy Spirit.

The bible is its own best commentary.

Jn3:5--------------spirit++++++++++++++water>>>>>>>>>enter kingdom
1Cor12:13--------spirit++++++++++++++baptized>>>>>>>>in body


Being in the kingdom or in the body are equivalent, both are a saved position. Since there is but only one way to be saved (in the kingdom/body) then both verses MUST be saying the same thing. So it takes the Spirit and water baptism to be in the kingdom/body(saved).

Eph 2:8-----faith>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>saves
1Pet3:21---baptism>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>saves

Again, there is but only one way to be saved so both verses must be equivalent, so faith MUST include baptism.

[jmacvols]

Naaman the leper? If this is who you are referring to then it is a bad example. 2 Kings 5. Naaman's leprosy was very real. So, dipping himself in the river physically produced a physical result (physical healing). This has nothing to do with being physically baptized (immersed) in water and being spiritually cleansed by the blood of Jesus.

It was not water that cleansed Naaman or washes away sin, it is the act of obedience to God that cleanses. From Col 2, at the point of baptism does God do the work of cutting away the body of sin, at no other point does God do this work.

You say "spiritually cleansed by the blood of Christ". Can you explain the how, when and where Christ's blood washes away sins?

[jmacvols]

Water does NOT wash away sins. "What can wash away my sins? Nothing but the blood of Jesus." The blood of Jesus was shed almost 2,000 years ago. That is when His blood washed away my sins.

Redemption

"Forasmuch as ye know that ye were not redeemed with corruptible things, as silver and gold, from your vain conversation received by tradition from your fathers, but with the precious blood of Christ, as of a lamb without blemish and without spot:" 1 Pet. 1:18,19

"In whom we have redemption through his blood, the forgiveness of sins according to the riches of his grace." Eph. 1:7

Justification

"Much more then, being now justified by his blood, we shall be saved from wrath through him." Rom. 5:9

Imputation -- God's righteousness is imputed (credited) to us because our sin is imputed (credited) to Christ. 2 Cor. 5:21 (above). God looks at the believer and sees a righteousness equivalent to His own. This is possible because our sins were judged at the Cross and we were given righteousness by Grace.

Propitiation

"Whom God hath set forth to be a propitiation through faith in his blood, to declare his righteousness for the remission of sins that are past, through the forbearance of God:" Rom. 3:25

Cleansing and Restoration to Fellowship

"But if we walk in the light, as he is in the light, we have fellowship with one another, and the blood of Jesus Christ cleanseth us from all sin. If we say that we have no sin, we deceive ourselves, and the truth is not in us. If we confess our sin, he is faithful and just to forgive us our sins, and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness." 1 John 1:7-9

Nowhere does it say that water baptism saves us.

Water baptism does not redeem us, it does not justify us, it does not cleanse us (spiritually).

Note Eph 1:7 begins with "in Whom", so only those "in Christ" have redemption and the only way to be "in Christ" is baptism, Gal 3:27.

Rom 3:25 says 'faith in His blood". I just showed in post #134 that faith MUST include baptism cf Eph 2:8 and 1 Pet 3:21.

1 JN 1:7 John was writing to Christians, i.e., those already baptized

Rom 5:9 justified by His blood. We read in Rom 6 that the Romans obeyed from the heart that form of doctrine then being made free from sin (justified). So their obedience to that form of doctrine (baptism) is what justified the Romans.

Righteousness is something one does, John said he that DOETH righteousness is righteous. Being baptized is working righteousness, cf Acts 10:35 those that work righteousness are accepted with God.

How could Christ's blood wash away your sins 2000 years ago when you did not exist, had no sins 2000 years ago? Were you born a sinner as Calvinism says or were you born with all your sins already washed away?

[hben]

But I have so much to go around.

You think I don't have??? I try to save my best sarcasm for very special people. :cool:

[jmacvols]

Cornelius and his household received the baptism of the Holy Spirit BEFORE being baptized in water. If water washes away sins then how could the Holy Spirit be poured out upon these sinful people prior to their water baptism having taken place?

Being baptized with the HG had nothing to do with Cornelius' personal salvation. Not a single verse says baptism with the HG saves or remits sins, In Acts 11 we are told Cornelius would be saved by words (gospel) Peter would tell Cornelius. The HG came upon Cornelius before he heard the saving words. Furthermore in Acts 15 Peter says Jews and Gentiles would be saved in like manner. The Jews Peter preached to in Acts 2 and the Gentiles in Acts 10 were both COMMANDED to be water baptized in the name of the Lord for the remission of sins. This is the like manner way Jews and Gentiles are saved. Only the apostles in Acts 2 were baptized with the HS, not Peter's Jewish listeners, so again, water baptism was the like thing to Jew and Gentile in their salvation.

[hben]

First, I am not the one who said that Christ said one had to be physically born, you were. If your belief is true, it would reason that those who were not born (including aborted children) can not fit the criteria to go to heaven.

Second, I see that when you can not come up with a good argument, you resort to name calling (isn't that against the rules of respect?), is that how you argue your points?

I apologize for comparing your argument to a Pharisee's, but you seemed to be straining a gnat and swallowing a camel. It just sort of slipped out...my bad. :shifty:

Finally, for the umpteenth time.

1 Peter 3:20.Which sometime were disobedient , when once the longsuffering of God waited in the days of Noah, while the ark was a preparing , wherein few, that is , eight souls were saved by water. 21 The like figure whereunto even baptism doth also now save us (not the putting away of the filth of the flesh, but the answer of a good conscience toward God,) by the resurrection of Jesus Christ:

I have already given you the interpretation that I agree with on this passage. I believe the baptism mentioned is the baptism that saves which has to be the baptism of the Holy Spirit. It was water that lifted Noah's family above the death below, and it is the Spirit of God that lifts us above the death below in this age of grace.

[jmacvols]

No mention of water in this verse.
Those baptized in Acts 2 and Paul in Acts 22, along with the eunuch, Simon, the Samaritans and others were all baptized with the baptism of the great commission. In the great commission the disciples were commanded to go, teach and baptize, so the baptism of the great commission is a human administered baptism and humans can only administer water baptism not any kind of "spirit baptism".

[jmacvols]

If you read the story of the flood in Genesis, it's pretty clear that the flood (water) killed the people outside of the ark. Not sure why you have a hard time understanding that.

Peter very plainly, obviously, clearly said they were 'saved by water'. This kills your personal, private interpretation of this verse.

[jmacvols]

I think you are missing the point. I am not saying that water baptisms were NOT performed. I am simply saying that water baptism (in and of itself) does NOT save! The question is "Does Baptism Save?" And I would reply, WHICH or WHAT TYPE of Baptism?

Does Water Baptism Save? I say NO!

Does the Baptism of the Holy Spirit Save? I say YES!

By the time Paul penned the Ephesian epistle there was "one baptism" in effect, Eph 4:5. Baptism with the HS was a prophecy of Joel that Christ fulfilled making that baptism obsolete. Furthermore, baptism with the HS was only promised to the apostles, Acts 1:1-4, not you nor me. The baptism of the great commission which is human administered water baptism lasts till the end of the world, remits sins Acts 2:38, Mt 28:19,20, so it MUST be the one baptism of Eph 4:5.

Not a single verse says baptism with the HS saves (remits sins) or lasts till the end of the world.

[jmacvols]

It's really not as complicated as some try to make it. It really all comes down to this.

Jesus said "If you love Me, keep My commandments."

Did Jesus command baptism be performed? Yes. So, if water baptism doesn't save, why do it at all? Answer: Because we love Jesus and show our love for Him by obeying. But ultimately, it was not the H2O that saved my soul, but the precious blood of Jesus.
Jesus commanding water baptism in and of itself would make it necessary. Disobedience to Jesus' commands is sin, hence not being water baptized is sin.

[cbut1]

Peter very plainly, obviously, clearly said they were 'saved by water'. This kills your personal, private interpretation of this verse.

Your also forgetting to place the proper context of the story.


Remember Noah had to build the ARK (symbolic of Christ) then they had to get in the ARK. After they were in the ARK the waters came and the ARK saved them from certain death outside of the ARK. Then that same water clensed the land and delivered Noah to a new land new begining.

The ARK SAVED them from death, then delivered (another word used for saved) to a new life.


Gen 7:5 And Noah did according unto all that the LORD commanded him.

Gen 7:6 And Noah was six hundred years old when the flood of waters was upon the earth.

Gen 7:7 And Noah went in, and his sons, and his wife, and his sons' wives with him, into the ark, because of the waters of the flood.

Gen 7:8 Of clean beasts, and of beasts that are not clean, and of fowls, and of every thing that creepeth upon the earth,

Gen 7:9 There went in two and two unto Noah into the ark, the male and the female, as God had commanded Noah.

Gen 7:10 And it came to pass after seven days, that the waters of the flood were upon the earth.

Gen 7:11 In the six hundredth year of Noah's life, in the second month, the seventeenth day of the month, the same day were all the fountains of the great deep broken up, and the windows of heaven were opened.

Gen 7:12 And the rain was upon the earth forty days and forty nights.

Gen 7:13 In the selfsame day entered Noah, and Shem, and Ham, and Japheth, the sons of Noah, and Noah's wife, and the three wives of his sons with them, into the ark;

Gen 7:14 They, and every beast after his kind, and all the cattle after their kind, and every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth after his kind, and every fowl after his kind, every bird of every sort.

Gen 7:15 And they went in unto Noah into the ark, two and two of all flesh, wherein is the breath of life.

Gen 7:16 And they that went in, went in male and female of all flesh, as God had commanded him: and the LORD shut him in.

Gen 7:17 And the flood was forty days upon the earth; and the waters increased, and bare up the ark, and it was lift up above the earth.

Gen 7:18 And the waters prevailed, and were increased greatly upon the earth; and the ark went upon the face of the waters.

Gen 7:19 And the waters prevailed exceedingly upon the earth; and all the high hills, that were under the whole heaven, were covered.

Gen 7:20 Fifteen cubits upward did the waters prevail; and the mountains were covered.

Gen 7:21 And all flesh died that moved upon the earth, both of fowl, and of cattle, and of beast, and of every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth, and every man:

Gen 7:22 All in whose nostrils was the breath of life, of all that was in the dry land, died.

Gen 7:23 And every living substance was destroyed which was upon the face of the ground, both man, and cattle, and the creeping things, and the fowl of the heaven; and they were destroyed from the earth: and Noah only remained alive, and they that were with him in the ark.


Use the verse in Peter but be sure to use them in proper context which is not seperated from that which he referenced, the Flood Story.

[Koushi Shinigami]

I thought of you while I was at school today. I was reading essays. One (male) student wrote, "But I decided not to let that worry me. Instead I thought of things that are a lot more important--like someday getting married...."


Oh

Noooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo!!!!

[Koushi Shinigami]

The ARK SAVED them from death, then delivered (another word used for saved) to a new life.



A new life that was made possible by the water.

The ark saved them from death.

The water saved them from damnation.

[hben]

A new life that was made possible by the water.

The ark saved them from death.

The wate saved them from damnation.

Actually, the water was the damnation. It is what destroyed every life on earth which failed to get inside the ark. I have yet to have one single person drown in our baptistry, because God was trying to destroy all the sinners in our church or the world for that matter. There must be a difference beween the water that destroyed the world and the water in a church baptistry. I wonder if it could have anything to do with symbolism? Hmmmmm...:think:

[Koushi Shinigami]

damnation, evil, whatever. :rolleyes:

[Tim]

damnation, evil, whatever. :rolleyes:

Are we talking about marriage again? :))

[hben]

Are we talking about marriage again? :))

Tim, don't you think Koushi would make a good marriage counselor?

[Koushi Shinigami]

Tim, don't you think Koushi would make a good marriage counselor?

I could eliminate ALL divorce with my special, premarital counciling program.

[baysidetrey]

I apologize for comparing your argument to a Pharisee's, but you seemed to be straining a gnat and swallowing a camel. It just sort of slipped out...my bad. :shifty:



I have already given you the interpretation that I agree with on this passage. I believe the baptism mentioned is the baptism that saves which has to be the baptism of the Holy Spirit. It was water that lifted Noah's family above the death below, and it is the Spirit of God that lifts us above the death below in this age of grace.

Hben, I have thick skin. To be fair though, you called me a Pharisee not my argument. Had it been the argument there would have been no foul. No biggie though, just wanted to keep the debate on higher ground.
As to your thoughts about Peters comments, he said water but you say Spirit. Who am I to believe? Can you show non biased commentators to support your view? Or is it just your thought of how to keep scripture from contadicting itself in your opinions?

[Tim]

Tim, don't you think Koushi would make a good marriage counselor?

I feel pretty certain that if all couples had to go through a few sessions with Koushi, there would be far fewer divorces....

due to far fewer marriages! :))

[baysidetrey]

Actually, the water was the damnation. It is what destroyed every life on earth which failed to get inside the ark. I have yet to have one single person drown in our baptistry, because God was trying to destroy all the sinners in our church or the world for that matter. There must be a difference beween the water that destroyed the world and the water in a church baptistry. I wonder if it could have anything to do with symbolism? Hmmmmm...:think:

There is also a saving power in the water as there was in the water of the flood. Just refer back to Peter, he said it, not me.

[Koushi Shinigami]

I feel pretty certain that if all couples had to go through a few sessions with Koushi, there would be far fewer divorces....

due to far fewer marriages! :))

*rubs hands together* They're onto me! :evil: :twisted:

[hben]

Hben, I have thick skin. To be fair though, you called me a Pharisee not my argument. Had it been the argument there would have been no foul. No biggie though, just wanted to keep the debate on higher ground.
As to your thoughts about Peters comments, he said water but you say Spirit. Who am I to believe? Can you show non biased commentators to support your view? Or is it just your thought of how to keep scripture from contadicting itself in your opinions?

I can get one good source in just a minute, but I'll have to come back and get others later. I just happen to have one on my desk that I use quite often, and I would trust it above most.

Here is a quote from Thru The Bible Commentary by Dr. J. Vernon McGee. He is not a Baptist, but I agree with his views most of the the time.

"The like figure whereunto even baptism doth also now save us." To what baptism does this refer? It is not water baptism but the baptism of the Holy Spirit. The baptism of the Holy Spirit is real baptism, and water baptism is ritual baptism. Now I believe in water baptism, and I believe immersion is the proper mode. However, the important thing here is to see that it is the baptism of the Holy Spirit which puts you into the body of believers.

"Not the putting away of the filth of the flesh"---it is not just by water, for that will not put away the filth of the flesh. "But the answer of a good conscience toward God, by the resurrection of Jesus Christ"---that is, a faith in the resurrection of Jesus Christ which brought the work of the Holy Spirit into your life and regenerated you.

[jmacvols]

Your also forgetting to place the proper context of the story.


Remember Noah had to build the ARK (symbolic of Christ) then they had to get in the ARK. After they were in the ARK the waters came and the ARK saved them from certain death outside of the ARK. Then that same water clensed the land and delivered Noah to a new land new begining.

The ARK SAVED them from death, then delivered (another word used for saved) to a new life.

Use the verse in Peter but be sure to use them in proper context which is not seperated from that which he referenced, the Flood Story.

But the context does not change the fact that Peter plainly said Noah was "saved by water".
Peter was making a type to anti-type connection. The type is Noah being saved by water; the anti-type is us being saved by water baptism.
It was water that separated Noah from that wicked generation, it is water baptism that separates the saved from the disobedient.
Water is what washed away the "filth of the flesh" i.e., that wicked generation, and it is in water baptism that the filth of sin is washed away.

[cbut1]

But the context does not change the fact that Peter plainly said Noah was "saved by water".
Peter was making a type to anti-type connection. The type is Noah being saved by water; the anti-type is us being saved by water baptism.
It was water that separated Noah from that wicked generation, it is water baptism that separates the saved from the disobedient.
Water is what washed away the "filth of the flesh" i.e., that wicked generation, and it is in water baptism that the filth of sin is washed away.

He was first secure in the ARK. The Ark in the story is symbolic of Christ.

If Noah would not have gotten in the ARK the water would not have saved him it would have killed him. If Noah would have tried to get out of the ARK before it was time for him to then he would have died but the fact that he was in the ARK and REMAINED there is what allowed the water to deliver him to the new life.

It is the same with remaining in Christ once we accept Him as the son of God, to get to the Kingdom we must remain in Him. That is part of what John 14 - 16 is dealing with.

[jmacvols]

He was first secure in the ARK. The Ark in the story is symbolic of Christ.

If Noah would not have gotten in the ARK the water would not have saved him it would have killed him. If Noah would have tried to get out of the ARK before it was time for him to then he would have died but the fact that he was in the ARK and REMAINED there is what allowed the water to deliver him to the new life.

It is the same with remaining in Christ once we accept Him as the son of God, to get to the Kingdom we must remain in Him. That is part of what John 14 - 16 is dealing with.

I understand what you are saying about the ark, but the ark has nothing to do with the point Peter is making:

1Pe 3:20- Which sometime were disobedient, when once the longsuffering of God waited in the days of Noah, while the ark was a preparing, wherein few, that is, eight souls were saved by water. (Type)


1Pe 3:21 The like figure (Anti-type) whereunto even baptism doth also now save us (not the putting away of the filth of the flesh, but the answer of a good conscience toward God,) by the resurrection of Jesus Christ:

The ark does not fit in to the type to anti-type comparison Peter is making.

[cbut1]

I understand what you are saying about the ark, but the ark has nothing to do with the point Peter is making:

1Pe 3:20- Which sometime were disobedient, when once the longsuffering of God waited in the days of Noah, while the ark was a preparing, wherein few, that is, eight souls were saved by water. (Type)


1Pe 3:21 The like figure (Anti-type) whereunto even baptism doth also now save us (not the putting away of the filth of the flesh, but the answer of a good conscience toward God,) by the resurrection of Jesus Christ:

The ark does not fit in to the type to anti-type comparison Peter is making.

The Ark is right there at the end of the comparison, "by the resurrection of Jesus Christ".

[hben]

The Ark is right there at the end of the comparison, "by the resurrection of Jesus Christ".

Amen. It absolutely is.

[baysidetrey]

Amen. It absolutely is.

Here is another example of what baptism does IMO.

Matthew 22:11 And when the king came in to see the guests , he saw there a man which had not on a wedding garment:12 And he saith unto him, Friend, how camest thou in hither not having a wedding garment? And he was speechless 13 Then said the king to the servants, Bind him hand and foot, and take him away , and cast him into outer darkness; there shall be weeping and gnashing of teeth.

Could baptisim be the garment?

[hben]

Here is another example of what baptism does IMO.

Matthew 22:11 And when the king came in to see the guests , he saw there a man which had not on a wedding garment:12 And he saith unto him, Friend, how camest thou in hither not having a wedding garment? And he was speechless 13 Then said the king to the servants, Bind him hand and foot, and take him away , and cast him into outer darkness; there shall be weeping and gnashing of teeth.

Could baptisim be the garment?

The garment is the righteousness of the saints which is actually the righteousness of God given to the saints by His grace through their faith in Jesus Christ.

Rv:19:8: And to her was granted that she should be arrayed in fine linen, clean and white: for the fine linen is the righteousness of saints.

Rom:3:22: Even the righteousness of God which is by faith of Jesus Christ unto all and upon all them that believe: for there is no difference:

Rom:4:5: But to him that worketh not, but believeth on him that justifieth the ungodly, his faith is counted for righteousness.

[jmacvols]

The Ark is right there at the end of the comparison, "by the resurrection of Jesus Christ".

Again, you are making a comparison that is not found in the context. Peter does not say the ark is the 'type' and the resurrection of Jesus is the 'anti-type'.

Peter says Noah being saved by water is a mirror reflection of us being saved by water baptism. Peter says baptism doth also now save us...by the resurrection of Jesus Christ. So the reason baptism saves is because Christ was resurrected.

[hben]

Again, you are making a comparison that is not found in the context. Peter does not say the ark is the 'type' and the resurrection of Jesus is the 'anti-type'.

He doesn't have to say it since it was understood by believers in Peter's day that it was and is by grace through faith in Christ that saves...not faith in any water.

Eph:2:8: For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God:

No water can do what only the blood of Jesus can do. Otherwise, the Hebrews would have used water over their doorposts rather than blood.

Ex:12:13: And the blood shall be to you for a token upon the houses where ye are: and when I see the blood, I will pass over you, and the plague shall not be upon you to destroy you, when I smite the land of Egypt.

Peter says Noah being saved by water is a mirror reflection of us being saved by water baptism. Peter says baptism doth also now save us...by the resurrection of Jesus Christ. So the reason baptism saves is because Christ was resurrected.

As much as I love the King James Version of the Bible, I have to say that this particular passage is much clearer and less confusing in the New American Standard.

1 Peter:3:20: who once were disobedient, when the patience of God kept waiting in the days of Noah, during the construction of the ark, in which a few, that is, eight persons, were brought safely through the water.

[jmacvols]

He doesn't have to say it since it was understood by believers in Peter's day that it was and is by grace through faith in Christ that saves...not faith in any water.

Eph:2:8: For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God:

Peter does not say what you wished he had said in 1 Pet 3:20,21 so you have to try and change the verse. The phrase "baptism doth also now saves us" bothers you immensely doesn't it?
"Water" is what connects verse 20 to verse 21. Peter says Noah was saved by water and the figure like unto that is us being saved by water baptism. This is the type to anti-type connection Peter is making. Again, Peter is NOT making a comparison of the ark to Christ in this verse and you cannot force something into the verse that is not there. Noah was saved by water, we are saved by water baptism. Again, the point Peter is making here is that Noah was saved by water, we are saved by water baptism, again, Noah was saved by water, we are saved by water baptism. :)

EPh 2:8 says we are saved by faith, so;

Eph 2:8------faith>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>saves
1Pet3:21----baptism>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>saves

So a saving faith includes baptism, and since there is but only one way to be saved, then Eph 2:8 and 1 Pet 3:21 teach the same thing.

No water can do what only the blood of Jesus can do. Otherwise, the Hebrews would have used water over their doorposts rather than blood.

Ex:12:13: And the blood shall be to you for a token upon the houses where ye are: and when I see the blood, I will pass over you, and the plague shall not be upon you to destroy you, when I smite the land of Egypt.

I have not said that water washes away sins.
Jesus' blood washes away sins, so how does His blood wash away sins? By "faith only"? No. By saying a "sinner's prayer"? No. By water baptism? Yes, 1 Pet 3:21.



As much as I love the King James Version of the Bible, I have to say that this particular passage is much clearer and less confusing in the New American Standard.

1 Peter:3:20: who once were disobedient, when the patience of God kept waiting in the days of Noah, during the construction of the ark, in which a few, that is, eight persons, were brought safely through the water.

"Brought safely through water" or "saved by/through water" is the same thing.

[Gem]

I don't think God will be delegating that task to His word.

He's going to do the judging himself.

I think He will.

Revelations 19:

11- Now I saw heaven opened and behold a White horse. And He who sat on him was called Faithful and True,
and in righteousness He judges and makes war.


12- His eyes were like a flame of fire,and on His head were many crowns. He had a name written that no one knew except Himself.

13- He was clothed with a robe dipped in blood, and His name is called The Word of God.

[hben]

Peter does not say what you wished he had said in 1 Pet 3:20,21 so you have to try and change the verse.

Thanks, I appreciate the vote of confidence, but I can't take credit for translating the New American Standard Bible. Now that you know that I wasn't responsible for the NASB translation, does this mean you will recognize it as one of the best translations today including the KJV?

The phrase "baptism doth also now saves us" bothers you immensely doesn't it?

It only bothers me that the KJV wording of this passage is not as clear as some other translations.

"Water" is what connects verse 20 to verse 21. Peter says Noah was saved by water and the figure like unto that is us being saved by water baptism. This is the type to anti-type connection Peter is making. Again, Peter is NOT making a comparison of the ark to Christ in this verse and you cannot force something into the verse that is not there. Noah was saved by water, we are saved by water baptism. Again, the point Peter is making here is that Noah was saved by water, we are saved by water baptism, again, Noah was saved by water, we are saved by water baptism. :)

Noah's family that is "were brought safely through the water" by the ark.

We are saved "by grace through faith". We are not saved "by water through baptism".

EPh 2:8 says we are saved by faith, so;

By grace...not by faith. Through faith...not baptism.

Eph 2:8------faith>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>saves
1Pet3:21----baptism>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>saves

:doh: :wall:

So a saving faith includes baptism, and since there is but only one way to be saved, then Eph 2:8 and 1 Pet 3:21 teach the same thing.

I've never said that a believer in Christ should not be baptized...only that he was saved by the blood before ever getting the tip of his toe wet. :)

I have not said that water washes away sins.
Jesus' blood washes away sins, so how does His blood wash away sins? By "faith only"? No. By saying a "sinner's prayer"? No. By water baptism? Yes, 1 Pet 3:21.

What baptism represents does save you...which is your belief in the death, burial and resurrection of Jesus Christ.

"Brought safely through water" or "saved by/through water" is the same thing.

The water represents death...not life. Coming up for air represents the new life which is eternal. :D

[jmacvols]

Thanks, I appreciate the vote of confidence, but I can't take credit for translating the New American Standard Bible. Now that you know that I wasn't responsible for the NASB translation, does this mean you will recognize it as one of the best translations today including the KJV?

THe NASB and the KJV say the same thing in 1 Pet 3:20,21.

KJV:
1Pe 3:21 The like figure whereunto [even] baptism doth also now save us (not the putting away of the filth of the flesh, but the answer of a good conscience toward God,) by the resurrection of Jesus Christ:
1Pe 3:22 Who is gone into heaven, and is on the right hand of God; angels and authorities and powers being made subject unto him.

NASB :
1Pet3:20-who once were disobedient, when the patience of God kept waiting in the days of Noah, during the construction of the ark, in which a few, that is, eight persons, were brought safely through {the} water.
1Pet 3:21-Corresponding to that, baptism now saves you--not the removal of dirt from the flesh, but an appeal to God for a good conscience--through the resurrection of Jesus Christ.

Peter is making the exact same type to anti-type comparison in both versions, note that in neither Peter is comparing the ark to Christ.


It only bothers me that the KJV wording of this passage is not as clear as some other translations.

The KJV is clear...and accurate here in 1 Pet 3:20,21.



Noah's family that is "were brought safely through the water" by the ark.

Noah was saved/safely brought through water...you added "by the ark".

We are saved "by grace through faith".
..and a saving faith includes baptism...

We are not saved "by water through baptism".

hben says - baptism doth also not save us
Peter says - baptism doth also now save us

I'll go with what Peter said while hben changes the "w" to a "t".



By grace...not by faith. Through faith...not baptism.
:doh: :wall:

Again, a saving faith includes baptism.
Eph 2:8-----faith>>>>>>>>>>>>saves
1Pet3:21---baptism>>>>>>>>>>saves



I've never said that a believer in Christ should not be baptized...only that he was saved by the blood before ever getting the tip of his toe wet. :)

HOW was he saved by Christ's blood before ever getting wet?



What baptism represents does save you...which is your belief in the death, burial and resurrection of Jesus Christ.

Baptism represents the death, burial and resurrection of Christ, but baptism is more than just representation, it is the point at which sins are remitted, Acts 2:38.
One cannot walk in "newness of life" [Rom 6:4] unless they first go thru the "death, burial and resurrection" i.e., be baptized.



The water represents death...not life. Coming up for air represents the new life which is eternal. :D

If this is true, then how does one come "up for air" which "represents the new (eternal) life" if he does not go down into the water first?

[hben]

THe NASB and the KJV say the same thing in 1 Pet 3:20,21.

KJV:
1Pe 3:21 The like figure whereunto [even] baptism doth also now save us (not the putting away of the filth of the flesh, but the answer of a good conscience toward God,) by the resurrection of Jesus Christ:
1Pe 3:22 Who is gone into heaven, and is on the right hand of God; angels and authorities and powers being made subject unto him.

NASB :
1Pet3:20-who once were disobedient, when the patience of God kept waiting in the days of Noah, during the construction of the ark, in which a few, that is, eight persons, were brought safely through {the} water.
1Pet 3:21-Corresponding to that, baptism now saves you--not the removal of dirt from the flesh, but an appeal to God for a good conscience--through the resurrection of Jesus Christ.

Peter is making the exact same type to anti-type comparison in both versions, note that in neither Peter is comparing the ark to Christ.

Peter doesn't have to, even most children know where Noah and his family were kept safe from the water which destroyed all life on earth outside of the ark.

The KJV is clear...and accurate here in 1 Pet 3:20,21.

Noah was saved/safely brought through water...you added "by the ark".

I did so to show that Noah's family was brought safely through the water, and it was the ark that brought them safely through the water which is a type of Christ.


..and a saving faith includes baptism...

I wouldn't argue that. A saving faith also includes love for God and others, but like baptism, love comes after salvation has already taken place. It is a fruit of salvation...not the root of salvation. Neither love nor water saves anyone. They are what comes after salvation.

hben says - baptism doth also not save us
Peter says - baptism doth also now save us

I'll go with what Peter said while hben changes the "w" to a "t".

Again, a saving faith includes baptism.
Eph 2:8-----faith>>>>>>>>>>>>saves
1Pet3:21---baptism>>>>>>>>>>saves

Again, I would question whether a person was genuinely saved if he doesn't follow up with baptism, but if he was sincerely in his belief in Christ, then he will have no problem being obedient and being baptized.

HOW was he saved by Christ's blood before ever getting wet?

By grace through faith in Christ. It is all through the New Testament.

Baptism represents the death, burial and resurrection of Christ, but baptism is more than just representation, it is the point at which sins are remitted, Acts 2:38.
One cannot walk in "newness of life" [Rom 6:4] unless they first go thru the "death, burial and resurrection" i.e., be baptized.

The thief on the cross never got a drop of water on him, and Christ told him he would be with him that day in Paradise. I know, you think it was because he was under the Old Covenant, but I disagree. It was because, he accepted Christ as his Savior, and if he could have, he would have been baptized as a testimony of his faith, but lack of water didn't keep him out of heaven anymore than it would someone today who accepted Christ but died of a heart attack on the way to the church, river or lake to be baptized. Just the idea of a person accepting Christ as Savior but dies before getting baptized and going to hell is nothing more than works based salvation, and it leaves grace completely out of the picture.

If this is true, then how does one come "up for air" which "represents the new (eternal) life" if he does not go down into the water first?

You said it yourself. It "represents the new (eternal) life", but it doesn't give "the new life", because that free gift was given the moment the person trusted Christ as Savior.

[ellis]

hben>>>"""The thief on the cross never got a drop of water on him, and Christ told him he would be with him that day in Paradise. I know, you think it was because he was under the Old Covenant, but I disagree. It was because, he accepted Christ as his Savior, and if he could have, he would have been baptized as a testimony of his faith, but lack of water didn't keep him out of heaven anymore than it would someone today who accepted Christ but died of a heart attack on the way to the church, river or lake to be baptized. Just the idea of a person accepting Christ as Savior but dies before getting baptized and going to hell is nothing more than works based salvation, and it leaves grace completely out of the picture.""""

Thanks hben, how remarkably simple you make this and this reminds me about how some tithing naysayers say that when Jesus spoke in favor of tithing it was before his death and does not count for for people of today. Would that thinking apply to any or all the other things He said before his death; I don't think so.

[hben]

hben>>>"""The thief on the cross never got a drop of water on him, and Christ told him he would be with him that day in Paradise. I know, you think it was because he was under the Old Covenant, but I disagree. It was because, he accepted Christ as his Savior, and if he could have, he would have been baptized as a testimony of his faith, but lack of water didn't keep him out of heaven anymore than it would someone today who accepted Christ but died of a heart attack on the way to the church, river or lake to be baptized. Just the idea of a person accepting Christ as Savior but dies before getting baptized and going to hell is nothing more than works based salvation, and it leaves grace completely out of the picture.""""

Thanks hben, how remarkably simple you make this and this reminds me about how some tithing naysayers say that when Jesus spoke in favor of tithing it was before his death and does not count for for people of today. Would that thinking apply to any or all the other things He said before his death; I don't think so.

I am not real big on laws just for the sake of following a bunch of rules in order to somehow attain holiness or righteousness, because I think they practically mock what Christ did on the cross, but I do believe that God's principles remain constant, and tithing is a principle in my opinion which I consider to be a privilege rather than an obligation. To be able to give AT LEAST 10% of what God has provided and blessed me and my family with is such an honor and a privilege that I can't understand anyone not wanting to give as much as he or she can possibly give to further the same gospel that kept each and every believer out of hell.

Now, I will get back on topic. No one will ever convince me that God showed grace and mercy to the thief on the cross in regard to water baptism that He would not show someone today just because of circumstances beyond such a person's control. Either His grace is sufficient, or it isn't. If it isn't, then I'd say we need to call our message by a different name, but somehow, I really don't think "Bad News" has the same sweet sound as "Good News". ;)

[HardHammer]

Regeneration comes from the indwelling of the Holy Spirit, IMHO. One Bath of Regeneration (Baptism of the Spirit) and many washing there after (Filling of the Spirit), for it is impossible to walk in the filth of the world and not get dirty.

I have yet to be baptised, for some reason I just don't feel worthy of the act as a result of the sin on my life. I believe it better for me to walk upright in my sin and confess it to God, pleading for His Helping Hand in prayer, than be baptised in hypocrisy and hang my head in shame.

ETA: I am the thief on the Cross.

[Koushi Shinigami]

I have yet to be baptised, for some reason I just don't feel worthy of the act as a result of the sin on my life.

Since when has what you 'feel' been important in God's eyes?


You are missing the point of baptism.

[HardHammer]

Since when has what you 'feel' been important in God's eyes?


You are missing the point of baptism.

Again, your assumption that I'm missing anything is incorrect, the outward expressions of baptism is to show the public of my dedication and submission to His Will.

Until, I, of myself I can represent His Will, His Way, I will not be baptised in hypocrisy.

Of course there are some that exist in their 'own' concept of what His Will is for us, which indeed many times leads down the wide path of destruction, IMHO.

The one correct thing you stated is Gods perception of 'my' feelings. Feelings, much like intentions, are nothing but more filthy rags, again IMHO.

[hben]

Again, your assumption that I'm missing anything is incorrect, the outward expressions of baptism is to show the public of my dedication and submission to His Will.

Until, I, of myself I can represent His Will, His Way, I will not be baptised in hypocrisy.

Of course there are some that exist in their 'own' concept of what His Will is for us, which indeed many times leads down the wide path of destruction, IMHO.

The one correct thing you stated is Gods perception of 'my' feelings. Feelings, much like intentions, are nothing but more filthy rags, again IMHO.

HH, I would say that I agree with you on most topics the majority of the time, so I feel that you will take this with the love that it is intended coming from a brother in Christ. Being the sinner that the Lord and I know that I am, I don't ever feel truly worthy of what He did for me, and I don't think I ever will. The thing is that the few times in my life whenever I started feeling the least bit worthy is when I fell flat on my face, and I it brought me back down to earth where I know that I will never be sinless this side of heaven. The most humbling thing about grace is that nobody is worthy of what Jesus did for us as sinners. He didn't have to do it, but He did it anyway simply because He so loved the world which is nothing but a bunch of sinners like me. Anyway, with all due respect, if I had waited until I felt worthy to be baptized, I think I would still be waiting. Now, you have to understand that I surrendered to Jesus as my Savior when I was only 12 years old, and today I am 55. I still don't feel that I am deserving of the gift of eternal life which cost the Son of God His very life. I don't expect you to go out and get baptized because of anything I say, but I just wanted you to know that I was baptized many many years ago, and I don't believe I am any more or less a hypocrite than any other sinner who has surrendered to Christ. Just keep in mind that Jesus knows whether you have accepted Him as Savior or not, and baptism is simply a testimony to the world that He has saved you. If He has done that, then I recommend that you reconsider being baptized as a testimony of His love for you and your love for Him. God bless you, brother. :hug:

I believe we live in totally different parts of the U.S., but if it was possible, I would consider it an honor to baptize you if you ever decided to do so. Of course, it would have to be whenever you were in the general area of Dallas, TX. My budget and time would limit me flying across country for a baptism. :D

[ellis]

hben>>""HH, I would say that I agree with you on most topics the majority of the time, so I feel that you will take this with the love that it is intended coming from a brother in Christ. Being the sinner that the Lord and I know that I am, I don't ever feel truly worthy of what He did for me, and I don't think I ever will. The thing is that the few times in my life whenever I started feeling the least bit worthy is when I fell flat on my face, and I it brought me back down to earth where I know that I will never be sinless this side of heaven. The most humbling thing about grace is that nobody is worthy of what Jesus did for us as sinners. He didn't have to do it, but He did it anyway simply because He so loved the world which is nothing but a bunch of sinners like me. Anyway, with all due respect, if I had waited until I felt worthy to be baptized, I think I would still be waiting. Now, you have to understand that I surrendered to Jesus as my Savior when I was only 12 years old, and today I am 55. I still don't feel that I am deserving of the gift of eternal life which cost the Son of God His very life. I don't expect you to go out and get baptized because of anything I say, but I just wanted you to know that I was baptized many many years ago, and I don't believe I am any more or less a hypocrite than any other sinner who has surrendered to Christ. Just keep in mind that Jesus knows whether you have accepted Him as Savior or not, and baptism is simply a testimony to the world that He has saved you. If He has done that, then I recommend that you reconsider being baptized as a testimony of His love for you and your love for Him. God bless you, brother. :hug:

I believe we live in totally different parts of the U.S., but if it was possible, I would consider it an honor to baptize you if you ever decided to do so. Of course, it would have to be whenever you were in the general area of Dallas, TX. My budget and time would limit me flying across country for a baptism.""

AMEN BROTHER BEN, a truly great answer. And you are totally correct, there is no amount "work" an earthly person can do to deserve the love of God or salvation. Both are free gifts to anyone that will accept them. And there is no such thing as a "little bitty" sin, sin is sin. If I fudge on my income tax it is stealing.
No one goes to heaven simply and only because he is a "good" person and no one goes to hell because he happens to be a sinner.

[Koushi Shinigami]

Again, your assumption that I'm missing anything is incorrect, the outward expressions of baptism is to show the public of my dedication and submission to His Will.

Until, I, of myself I can represent His Will, His Way, I will not be baptised in hypocrisy.

Of course there are some that exist in their 'own' concept of what His Will is for us, which indeed many times leads down the wide path of destruction, IMHO.

The one correct thing you stated is Gods perception of 'my' feelings. Feelings, much like intentions, are nothing but more filthy rags, again IMHO.


:shrug: If you wish to hold onto your feelings of unworthiness in the face of what Christ has done for you, that's your choice. IMO, you're wasting time needlessly, but that's your choice.

Does holding on to those feelings make you feel that you are better than those who have let go of them and let God take their burden in what you consider a hypocritical manner?

[hben]

AMEN BROTHER BEN, a truly great answer. And you are totally correct, there is no amount "work" an earthly person can do to deserve the love of God or salvation. Both are free gifts to anyone that will accept them. And there is no such thing as a "little bitty" sin, sin is sin. If I fudge on my income tax it is stealing.
No one goes to heaven simply and only because he is a "good" person and no one goes to hell because he happens to be a sinner.

Only Hollywood separates people into the categories known as "the good, the bad and the ugly". Jesus only had two categories, and they were "believers" and "unbelievers". There are no grey areas or categories in between these two.

[baysidetrey]

The thief on the cross never got a drop of water on him, and Christ told him he would be with him that day in Paradise. I know, you think it was because he was under the Old Covenant, but I disagree. It was because, he accepted Christ as his Savior, and if he could have, he would have been baptized as a testimony of his faith, but lack of water didn't keep him out of heaven anymore than it would someone today who accepted Christ but died of a heart attack on the way to the church, river or lake to be baptized. Just the idea of a person accepting Christ as Savior but dies before getting baptized and going to hell is nothing more than works based salvation, and it leaves grace completely out of the picture.

It is this type of argument that I find amazing. Can you give the scripture that supports your claim the the theif on the cross was "NEVER" baptized? Could he have been baptized by John or by John's baptism? Your argument bases salvation on an unknown instead of the known IMO. As for the argument that what happens to a person who has a heart attack before they are baptized, what about the person who has a heart attack right before they accept Jesus as their personal savior? It goes against scripture and is a very dangerous doctrine IMO. As I have stated before, if OSAS is a true doctrine (which I think it is not), then we are both fine. If OSAS is a false doctrine, one of us will have to answer for teaching and believing a false doctrine IMO.

[hben]

It is this type of argument that I find amazing. Can you give the scripture that supports your claim the the theif on the cross was "NEVER" baptized? Could he have been baptized by John or by John's baptism? Your argument bases salvation on an unknown instead of the known IMO. As for the argument that what happens to a person who has a heart attack before they are baptized, what about the person who has a heart attack right before they accept Jesus as their personal savior? It goes against scripture and is a very dangerous doctrine IMO. As I have stated before, if OSAS is a true doctrine (which I think it is not), then we are both fine. If OSAS is a false doctrine, one of us will have to answer for teaching and believing a false doctrine IMO.

If the thief on the cross had previously been saved and baptized, then it definitely proves that Christ taught eternal security. Otherwise, the man would have already lost his salvation due to his lawless lifestyle which had to be paid for by his own crucifiction. Of course, there is no evidence that he had ever become a believer until he was placed on the cross next to the Savior.

For the record, I don't teach OSMOSIS, ISIS or OSAS, I teach the doctrine of the "eternal security of the believer". OSAS is what is used by those who don't understand or believe in the eternal security of the believer...not those who teach it. It is simply a term of disrespect by brethren who choose to reject it. Anyone who teaches eternal security does so out of heartfelt conviction, so giving an answer for it or even receiving rewards for it is not normally what drives one to teach it or stop teaching it as you seem to hope for. I see it throughout the New Testament and so do most everyone I know who teaches it.

[baysidetrey]

If the thief on the cross had previously been saved and baptized, then it definitely proves that Christ taught eternal security. Otherwise, the man would have already lost his salvation due to his lawless lifestyle which had to be paid for by his own crucifiction. Of course, there is no evidence that he had ever become a believer until he was placed on the cross next to the Savior.

For the record, I don't teach OSMOSIS, ISIS or OSAS, I teach the doctrine of the "eternal security of the believer". OSAS is what is used by those who don't understand or believe in the eternal security of the believer...not those who teach it. It is simply a term of disrespect by brethren who choose to reject it. Anyone who teaches eternal security does so out of heartfelt conviction, so giving an answer for it or even receiving rewards for it is not normally what drives one to teach it or stop teaching it as you seem to hope for. I see it throughout the New Testament and so do most everyone I know who teaches it.

As to OSAS being a term of disrespect, please refer to Ellis who started another thread along these same lines and named it OSAS, so you might want to talk to those or seperate from those who believe in OSAS. Next, Paul tells us to run the race:

1 Corinthians 9:24 Know ye not that they which run in a race run all , but one receiveth the prize? So run , that ye may obtain.25 And every man that striveth for the mastery is temperate in all things. Now they do it to obtain a corruptible crown; but we an incorruptible. 26 I therefore so run , not as uncertainly; so fight I , not as one that beateth the air:27 But I keep under my body, and bring it into subjection : lest that by any means , when I have preached to others, I myself should be a castaway.

How could Paul feel this way IF he had already obtained salvation? Now, I will agree that a christian can and should have security IF they don't fall away but this is a far cry from teaching that a person can NEVER fall away. BTW, as I have asked before, do you believe that early christians believed OSAS (eternal security in which they could NEVER fall away no matter what?)

[hben]

As to OSAS being a term of disrespect, please refer to Ellis who started another thread along these same lines and named it OSAS, so you might want to talk to those or seperate from those who believe in OSAS. Next, Paul tells us to run the race:

1 Corinthians 9:24 Know ye not that they which run in a race run all , but one receiveth the prize? So run , that ye may obtain.25 And every man that striveth for the mastery is temperate in all things. Now they do it to obtain a corruptible crown; but we an incorruptible. 26 I therefore so run , not as uncertainly; so fight I , not as one that beateth the air:27 But I keep under my body, and bring it into subjection : lest that by any means , when I have preached to others, I myself should be a castaway.

How could Paul feel this way IF he had already obtained salvation? Now, I will agree that a christian can and should have security IF they don't fall away but this is a far cry from teaching that a person can NEVER fall away. BTW, as I have asked before, do you believe that early christians believed OSAS (eternal security in which they could NEVER fall away no matter what?)

I believe it was no different from today, because there were those who believed in this and those who didn't. That is why Paul had to write all those epistles. There were all sorts of beliefs creeping into the early churches, and it kept Paul pretty busy trying to keep everyone straight. I bet he spent some time praying that someone would hurry up and invent the computer not to mention the internet and email service. :razz:

[FoxGranadaChuck]

I believe it was no different from today, because there were those who believed in this and those who didn't. That is why Paul had to write all those epistles. There were all sorts of beliefs creeping into the early churches, and it kept Paul pretty busy trying to keep everyone straight. I bet he spent some time praying that someone would hurry up and invent the computer not to mention the internet and email service. :razz:


On the other hand Hben, just think of how much damage Alexander the coppersmith (as but one example) could have done with the Internet and E-Mail!

[hben]

On the other hand Hben, just think of how much damage Alexander the coppersmith (as but one example) could have done with the Internet and E-Mail!

No doubt, Chuck. And the Romans who were famous for building those ancient interstate highways...what if they had ancient super internet highways? We might still be speaking Greek or Latin or whatever they were speaking at the time. :doh: :cool:

[FoxGranadaChuck]

No doubt, Chuck. And the Romans who were famous for building those ancient interstate highways...what if they had ancient super internet highways? We might still be speaking Greek or Latin or whatever they were speaking at the time. :doh: :cool:


Greek and Latin are still spoken today, just in different forms (this is especially true of Latin).

[hben]

Greek and Latin are still spoken today, just in different forms (this is especially true of Latin).

But they aren't the common language in central Texas, and if the Romans had been setup with computers and the internet, we might be speaking their language even in central Texas. Instead, we are only having to learn Spanish, so we can communicate with our illegal brothers and sisters. :eek:

[FoxGranadaChuck]

But they aren't the common language in central Texas, and if the Romans had been setup with computers and the internet, we might be speaking their language even in central Texas. Instead, we are only having to learn Spanish, so we can communicate with our illegal brothers and sisters. :eek:


:naughty: :naughty: :naughty:

Spanish is heavily derived from Latin, so yes, Latin is in a sense spoken in Texas.

[hben]

:naughty: :naughty: :naughty:

Spanish is heavily derived from Latin, so yes, Latin is in a sense spoken in Texas.

See...er...I mean si...I think. :doh:

[baysidetrey]

I believe it was no different from today, because there were those who believed in this and those who didn't. That is why Paul had to write all those epistles. There were all sorts of beliefs creeping into the early churches, and it kept Paul pretty busy trying to keep everyone straight. I bet he spent some time praying that someone would hurry up and invent the computer not to mention the internet and email service. :razz:

IMO, you did not answer the question. Is this because you wish not to or because you can not? I do not understand why there are those on the boards who wish to defend their thoughts but when asked serious questions, try to steer in another direction. Just an observation though. It reminds me of a verse:

Acts 7:57 Then they cried out with a loud voice, and stopped their ears, and ran upon him with one accord,

[hben]

As to OSAS being a term of disrespect, please refer to Ellis who started another thread along these same lines and named it OSAS, so you might want to talk to those or seperate from those who believe in OSAS. Next, Paul tells us to run the race:

1 Corinthians 9:24 Know ye not that they which run in a race run all , but one receiveth the prize? So run , that ye may obtain.25 And every man that striveth for the mastery is temperate in all things. Now they do it to obtain a corruptible crown; but we an incorruptible. 26 I therefore so run , not as uncertainly; so fight I , not as one that beateth the air:27 But I keep under my body, and bring it into subjection : lest that by any means , when I have preached to others, I myself should be a castaway.

How could Paul feel this way IF he had already obtained salvation? Now, I will agree that a christian can and should have security IF they don't fall away but this is a far cry from teaching that a person can NEVER fall away. BTW, as I have asked before, do you believe that early christians believed OSAS (eternal security in which they could NEVER fall away no matter what?)

Is this what question you are referring to? Sorry, I didn't purposely not answer the question. Let's go over it once more.

Paul had obtained salvation by grace through faith in Christ which is how we all obtain salvation. Then, after salvation comes our good works which Paul, me, you or any other child of God continues to strive to do as long as we are in this world. Why, because we love the Lord who first loved us. Also, we strive to do good works or "run the race" knowing that when we come before the judgement seat of Christ we may obtain rewards for our good works. Rewards only can be obtained after salvation has already been freely given by God's grace. Salvation is a free gift of God's grace, but rewards are given according to the believer's good works. And I think I answered the last question already. I believe some believed in salvation by works in the early church and Paul had to correct this more than once.

[Koushi Shinigami]

I do not understand why there are those on the boards who wish to defend their thoughts but when asked serious questions, try to steer in another direction. Just an observation though. It reminds me of a verse:

Acts 7:57 Then they cried out with a loud voice, and stopped their ears, and ran upon him with one accord,

I've noticed that as well. Rather annoying, isn't it.

[hben]

I've noticed that as well. Rather annoying, isn't it.

It certainly is a good exercise for building up one's patience.

[Semi-Sweet]

IMO, you did not answer the question. Is this because you wish not to or because you can not? I do not understand why there are those on the boards who wish to defend their thoughts but when asked serious questions, try to steer in another direction. Just an observation though. It reminds me of a verse:

Acts 7:57 Then they cried out with a loud voice, and stopped their ears, and ran upon him with one accord,


You could "order and direct that the witness answer the question." :mrgreen:

[hben]

You could "order and direct that the witness answer the question." :mrgreen:

I don't know what came over me...I didn't mean to be so disrespectful of the court. I will just have to plead for mercy from the honorable Bayside. But for the record, maybe he should go ahead and double my fine since I will probably do it again at some point in the future. :whistle: :lol:

[jmacvols]

Peter doesn't have to, even most children know where Noah and his family were kept safe from the water which destroyed all life on earth outside of the ark.

Yet Peter did not make the ark the type and Christ the anti-type in 1 Pet 3:20,21, it is you trying to do this, not Peter.
What Peter did do is make Noah being saved by water the type and our being saved by water baptism the anti-type. No getting around the plain words "baptism doth also now save us" so the idea that one can be saved prior to being baptized contradicts scripture.



I did so to show that Noah's family was brought safely through the water, and it was the ark that brought them safely through the water which is a type of Christ.

Again, you continue to avoid the type to anti-type Peter is making in 1 Pet 3:20,21 and try to substitute your own. Where in 1 Pet 3:20,21 did Peter make the ark the type and Christ the anti-type? He didn't, Peter made Noah being saved by water the type and our being saved by water baptism the anti-type, this is the type to anti-type under consideration in 1 Pet 3:20,21 and as hard as you try you cannot change this.




I wouldn't argue that. A saving faith also includes love for God and others, but like baptism, love comes after salvation has already taken place. It is a fruit of salvation...not the root of salvation. Neither love nor water saves anyone. They are what comes after salvation.

So you're saying now one can be saved while living in a state where they do not love God? You're creating an impossibility.



Again, I would question whether a person was genuinely saved if he doesn't follow up with baptism, but if he was sincerely in his belief in Christ, then he will have no problem being obedient and being baptized.

A person cannot be saved until they are baptized.Baptism is the point where sins are remitted, so you create another impossibility by having people "saved" before their sins are remitted.



By grace through faith in Christ. It is all through the New Testament.

I have no problem with this..a combination of God's grace and our faith is what saves, and our faith must include baptism.



The thief on the cross never got a drop of water on him, and Christ told him he would be with him that day in Paradise. I know, you think it was because he was under the Old Covenant, but I disagree. It was because, he accepted Christ as his Savior, and if he could have, he would have been baptized as a testimony of his faith, but lack of water didn't keep him out of heaven anymore than it would someone today who accepted Christ but died of a heart attack on the way to the church, river or lake to be baptized. Just the idea of a person accepting Christ as Savior but dies before getting baptized and going to hell is nothing more than works based salvation, and it leaves grace completely out of the picture.

The thief lived under the OT law so he is not an example of NT salvation.
Christ promised the thief he would be in paradise, that promise was made while both were alive and living under the OT law, Christ's NT would not come into effect until a point AFTER He died, Heb 9:17 - For a testament [is] of force after men are dead: otherwise it is of no strength at all while the testator liveth. Therefore the baptism of the great commission (Acts 2:38) did not come into effect until weeks/months AFTER the thief had died, so the thief could not obey nor be held accountable to a command that came into effect after he had already died.

Receiving God's grace is conditional upon our obedience to His will.



You said it yourself. It "represents the new (eternal) life", but it doesn't give "the new life", because that free gift was given the moment the person trusted Christ as Savior.

Your analogy made baptism essential. You said coming up for air represented eternal life so it is essential that one go down into the water in order for them to "come up for air" (eternal life).

Rom 6 shows one can only walk in newness of life AFTER they have first been baptized.

[hben]

You could "order and direct that the witness answer the question." :mrgreen:

Actually on second thought, knowing this witness as I do, I think it would probably be wise just to cuff him, lock him up and throw away all keys. :cool:

[jmacvols]

I am not real big on laws just for the sake of following a bunch of rules in order to somehow attain holiness or righteousness, because I think they practically mock what Christ did on the cross, but I do believe that God's principles remain constant, and tithing is a principle in my opinion which I consider to be a privilege rather than an obligation. To be able to give AT LEAST 10% of what God has provided and blessed me and my family with is such an honor and a privilege that I can't understand anyone not wanting to give as much as he or she can possibly give to further the same gospel that kept each and every believer out of hell.

One can only attain righteousness by keeping God's rules (commands), doing nothing does not make one righteous. John said he that DOETH righteousness is righteous and Peter said he that worketh righteousness is accepted with God. Our working righteouness therefore is part of what Christ did on the cross.

Now, I will get back on topic. No one will ever convince me that God showed grace and mercy to the thief on the cross in regard to water baptism that He would not show someone today just because of circumstances beyond such a person's control. Either His grace is sufficient, or it isn't. If it isn't, then I'd say we need to call our message by a different name, but somehow, I really don't think "Bad News" has the same sweet sound as "Good News". ;)

It is evident that the thief was living under the OT law and therefore could not, will not be held accountable to the NT command to be baptized which had not yet come into effect...you believe only what you want to believe?

[Semi-Sweet]

I don't know what came over me...I didn't mean to be so disrespectful of the court. I will just have to plead for mercy from the honorable Bayside. But for the record, maybe he should go ahead and double my fine since I will probably do it again at some point in the future. :whistle: :lol:

You could be "held in contempt". . . :eek: :silenced: :lol:

[hben]

You could be "held in contempt". . . :eek: :silenced: :lol:

It is truly hard to remain humble and be so contemptable at the same time. I do sometimes show contempt for "religiousity", but I really don't mean for it to spill over onto the people. My bad. :doh:

[hben]

Yet Peter did not make the ark the type and Christ the anti-type in 1 Pet 3:20,21, it is you trying to do this, not Peter.
What Peter did do is make Noah being saved by water the type and our being saved by water baptism the anti-type. No getting around the plain words "baptism doth also now save us" so the idea that one can be saved prior to being baptized contradicts scripture.

Blah...blah...blah...yada...yada...yada.

Again, you continue to avoid the type to anti-type Peter is making in 1 Pet 3:20,21 and try to substitute your own. Where in 1 Pet 3:20,21 did Peter make the ark the type and Christ the anti-type? He didn't, Peter made Noah being saved by water the type and our being saved by water baptism the anti-type, this is the type to anti-type under consideration in 1 Pet 3:20,21 and as hard as you try you cannot change this.

Blah...blah...blah...yada...yada...yada.

So you're saying now one can be saved while living in a state where they do not love God? You're creating an impossibility.

Blah...blah...blah...yada...yada...yada.

A person cannot be saved until they are baptized.Baptism is the point where sins are remitted, so you create another impossibility by having people "saved" before their sins are remitted.

Blah...blah...blah...yada...yada...yada.

I have no problem with this..a combination of God's grace and our faith is what saves, and our faith must include baptism.

Blah...blah...blah...yada...yada...yada.

The thief lived under the OT law so he is not an example of NT salvation.
Christ promised the thief he would be in paradise, that promise was made while both were alive and living under the OT law, Christ's NT would not come into effect until a point AFTER He died, Heb 9:17 - For a testament [is] of force after men are dead: otherwise it is of no strength at all while the testator liveth. Therefore the baptism of the great commission (Acts 2:38) did not come into effect until weeks/months AFTER the thief had died, so the thief could not obey nor be held accountable to a command that came into effect after he had already died.

Receiving God's grace is conditional upon our obedience to His will.

Blah...blah...blah...yada...yada...yada.

Your analogy made baptism essential. You said coming up for air represented eternal life so it is essential that one go down into the water in order for them to "come up for air" (eternal life).

Rom 6 shows one can only walk in newness of life AFTER they have first been baptized.

Blah...blah...blah...yada...yada...yada.

:)) :)) :)) I am sorry, jmac, but this all suddenly struck me as being outrageously funny. I have been spending a lot of extra time that I really don't have and putting a lot of thought and effort into answering your questions point by point. Then, when it is all said and done, what you are actually hearing me say would look more like the way it looks in my responses above. And it just hit me that ironically while you are trying to hopelessly make an official "Church of Christ" believer out of me, and I am hopelessly trying to make an official "Baptist" out of you that millions of people all over the world are lost and headed for hell without knowing Jesus. That part is not so funny, but what is funny is how either of us can know the Bible as well as we do, and still spend so much time beating our heads against the wall. :wall: :wall: :)) :)) :))

It makes you wonder whether we actually do this for the purpose of enlightenment or entertainment.

[Semi-Sweet]

It is truly hard to remain humble and be so contemptable at the same time. I do sometimes show contempt for "religiousity", but I really don't mean for it to spill over onto the people. My bad. :doh:

I meant "held in contempt of court". It seemed to me that you were being unfairly interrogated as a witness would be in a court.

Carry on humbleness, and excuse my interruption.

[hben]

One can only attain righteousness by keeping God's rules (commands), doing nothing does not make one righteous. John said he that DOETH righteousness is righteous and Peter said he that worketh righteousness is accepted with God. Our working righteouness therefore is part of what Christ did on the cross.

I object, your honor.

It is evident that the thief was living under the OT law and therefore could not, will not be held accountable to the NT command to be baptized which had not yet come into effect...you believe only what you want to believe?

Again, I object.

If my objections are overruled...so be it, but I really need to go. Have a nice day, Jmac, and God bless you for your dedication to your convictions even if they are very different from my own.

[hben]

I meant "held in contempt of court". It seemed to me that you were being unfairly interrogated as a witness would be in a court.

I knew what you meant...I know you all too well. You have a warped sense of humor, too...which I appreciate very much. :shifty: :dance:

Carry on humbleness, and excuse my interruption.

Feel free to interrupt anytime. Your rudeness is always appreciated. It keeps me humble...yeah, right...as if that was possible. :rolleyes: :)) :)) :))

[baysidetrey]

Is this what question you are referring to? Sorry, I didn't purposely not answer the question. Let's go over it once more.

Paul had obtained salvation by grace through faith in Christ which is how we all obtain salvation. Then, after salvation comes our good works which Paul, me, you or any other child of God continues to strive to do as long as we are in this world. Why, because we love the Lord who first loved us. Also, we strive to do good works or "run the race" knowing that when we come before the judgement seat of Christ we may obtain rewards for our good works. Rewards only can be obtained after salvation has already been freely given by God's grace. Salvation is a free gift of God's grace, but rewards are given according to the believer's good works. And I think I answered the last question already. I believe some believed in salvation by works in the early church and Paul had to correct this more than once.

The question was , "Do you believe that the early christians believed in OSAS or the eternal security as you teach?"

[hben]

The question was , "Do you believe that the early christians believed in OSAS or the eternal security as you teach?"

And my answer was that not everyone agreed. Otherwise, Paul wouldn't have had to write so many letters trying to correct some of the churches.

[RayMan]

And my answer was that not everyone agreed. Otherwise, Paul wouldn't have had to write so many letters trying to correct some of the churches.

Paul wrote his letters to correct people's thinking on Eternal Security?


Johnny Carson voice: "I did not know that."

[hben]

Paul wrote his letters to correct people's thinking on Eternal Security?


Johnny Carson voice: "I did not know that."

Maybe not directly but indirectly. He dealt with faith and works, and for those who believe in eternal security, these two issues are usually inseparable. Johnny Carson didn't know it either, but I think Ed McMahon did. :razz:

[baysidetrey]

And my answer was that not everyone agreed. Otherwise, Paul wouldn't have had to write so many letters trying to correct some of the churches.

How about the ones who were tortured along with their families unless they denied Christ? Did they beileve that no matter what they did they would be saved because they once "believed" Christ?

[hben]

How about the ones who were tortured along with their families unless they denied Christ? Did they beileve that no matter what they did they would be saved because they once "believed" Christ?

If they truly once believed, then they always believed. Today, it would be called "OBAB" by those who don't believe it. Otherwise, "OSAS" couldn't be true since salvation comes through believing in Christ.

[RayMan]

Maybe not directly but indirectly. He dealt with faith and works, and for those who believe in eternal security, these two issues are usually inseparable. Johnny Carson didn't know it either, but I think Ed McMahon did. :razz:


Ed is still alive although ailing so I don't think we should put him in the "did know" category yet, but since he is a member of a Pentecostal Church, Crenshaw Christian Center in So. Cal., I don't think we can assume he is an Eternal Security kind of guy.

[baysidetrey]

Once they believed that always believed. Today, it would be called "OBAB" by those who don't believe it. Otherwise, "OSAS" couldn't be true since salvation comes through believing in Christ.

My point is if OSAS is true, WHAT FOOLS!!!! (IMO). They could deny Christ, save themselves and their families AND STILL BE SAVED. Did some slip in a time of weakness but REPENT and come back to Christ? Why repent, if they were saved, there was no need to go through all they did IMO. Please explain.

[jmacvols]

:)) :)) :)) I am sorry, jmac, but this all suddenly struck me as being outrageously funny. I have been spending a lot of extra time that I really don't have and putting a lot of thought and effort into answering your questions point by point. Then, when it is all said and done, what you are actually hearing me say would look more like the way it looks in my responses above. And it just hit me that ironically while you are trying to hopelessly make an official "Church of Christ" believer out of me, and I am hopelessly trying to make an official "Baptist" out of you that millions of people all over the world are lost and headed for hell without knowing Jesus. That part is not so funny, but what is funny is how either of us can know the Bible as well as we do, and still spend so much time beating our heads against the wall. :wall: :wall: :)) :)) :))

It makes you wonder whether we actually do this for the purpose of enlightenment or entertainment.

Myself, I am gaining enlightenment. I am not trying to make you believe anything, if I tried to "make" others believe something I would fail. I am just trying to nudge them in the right direction.

[Koushi Shinigami]

My point is if OSAS is true, WHAT FOOLS!!!! (IMO). They could deny Christ, save themselves and their families AND STILL BE SAVED. Did some slip in a time of weakness but REPENT and come back to Christ? Why repent, if they were saved, there was no need to go through all they did IMO. Please explain.

You make a good point..... :think:

Perhaps the idea of a 'lukewarm believer' and being spit out applies here.

[khigh]

Once they believed that always believed. Today, it would be called "OBAB" by those who don't believe it. Otherwise, "OSAS" couldn't be true since salvation comes through believing in Christ.

I just have one question for you. What do you think about babies who are baptized in the Catholic church and in high school went though confirmation and then later in life denied God? Or just young children being baptized in a church when they are not fully capable of understanding what their beliefs are. Are they still "saved"?

That is what happened to me and why I will not have my daughter brought into any religion (baptized, initiated- she does learn and pray with me every morning and every evening) until she is old enough to decide on her own what she believes. I do not believe in any of the Christian teachings (other than the moral codes-do unto others, etc.) and yet, I was baptized in the Catholic Church when I was maybe 6 or 7 weeks old. Am I still considered "saved" to some people or does OSAS not work that way?

[hben]

My point is if OSAS is true, WHAT FOOLS!!!! (IMO). They could deny Christ, save themselves and their families AND STILL BE SAVED. Did some slip in a time of weakness but REPENT and come back to Christ? Why repent, if they were saved, there was no need to go through all they did IMO. Please explain.

You just don't get it, do you? When belong to Christ, you don't repent because you're afraid you'll lose your salvation. You repent because of your love for the Lord and the conviction of the Holy Spirit inside your heart. If fear of going to hell was the only thing that caused me to repent, then I would doubt my salvation anyway.

[baysidetrey]

You just don't get it, do you? When belong to Christ, you don't repent because you're afraid you'll lose your salvation. You repent because of your love for the Lord and the conviction of the Holy Spirit inside your heart. If fear of going to hell was the only thing that caused me to repent, then I would doubt my salvation anyway.

Again, you avoided the question. If you do not wish to debate, please do not respond or please say that you do not wish to answer.

I believe Solomon is to credit for Ecclesiastes. He says:

Ecclesiastes 12:13.Let us hear the conclusion of the whole matter: Fear God, and keep his commandments: for this is the whole duty of man.14.For God shall bring every work into judgment, with every secret thing , whether it be good, or whether it be evil.

Hben says you should not fear. I will go with the one who was considered the wisest man (Solomon IMO if you did not already know).

[hben]

My point is if OSAS is true, WHAT <snip>!!!! (IMO).

Isn't there something in the forum rules about calling people names?

They could deny Christ, save themselves and their families AND STILL BE SAVED.

How in the world could a truly saved person do that? Jesus said, "But whosoever shall deny me before men, him will I also deny before my Father which is in heaven." Besides, He told us not to worry about what we will say during such times, "And when they bring you unto the synagogues, and unto magistrates, and powers, take ye no thought how or what thing ye shall answer, or what ye shall say. For the Holy Ghost shall teach you in the same hour what ye ought to say." To be afraid of how you will answer in such times that it might cost you your life, is not true saving faith, and I would question mine or anyone's faith in Christ who would spend much time worrying about how they might respond.

Did some slip in a time of weakness but REPENT and come back to Christ? Why repent, if they were saved, there was no need to go through all they did IMO. Please explain.

I don't believe a saved person will slip during times when their life depends on it. Afterall, Jesus did say that He who endures to the end shall be saved. Common sense tells me that he who is not saved, does not have the Spirit of Christ living with him and in him, therefore, he does not have the faith or the power to endure to the end. I have no doubt that I would raise the white flag if my life depended on my own strength to keep me until the end, but I also have no doubt that Christ will give me the strength and the peace to endure to the end, because He gave His word that He would, and He's never broken His word yet.

[Semi-Sweet]

Quoting the offense is an offense as well.

[hben]

Myself, I am gaining enlightenment. I am not trying to make you believe anything, if I tried to "make" others believe something I would fail. I am just trying to nudge them in the right direction.

Well, save the nudging for someone else. After being saved for 43 years and being in the ministry for 25 years, I don't think your nudging is going to change my direction, but thanks for the thought. If it is all the same to you, I will keep trusting Jesus to show me the right direction. I am confident that He won't let me down. ;)

[baysidetrey]

Isn't there something in the forum rules about calling people names?



How in the world could a truly saved person do that? Jesus said, "But whosoever shall deny me before men, him will I also deny before my Father which is in heaven." Besides, He told us not to worry about what we will say during such times, "And when they bring you unto the synagogues, and unto magistrates, and powers, take ye no thought how or what thing ye shall answer, or what ye shall say. For the Holy Ghost shall teach you in the same hour what ye ought to say." To be afraid of how you will answer in such times that it might cost you your life, is not true saving faith, and I would question mine or anyone's faith in Christ who would spend much time worrying about how they might respond.



I don't believe a saved person will slip during times when their life depends on it. Afterall, Jesus did say that He who endures to the end shall be saved. Common sense tells me that he who is not saved, does not have the Spirit of Christ living with him and in him, therefore, he does not have the faith or the power to endure to the end. I have no doubt that I would raise the white flag if my life depended on my own strength to keep me until the end, but I also have no doubt that Christ will give me the strength and the peace to endure to the end, because He gave His word that He would, and He's never broken His word yet.

1. I was speaking of the early christians (as my post shows) and if they are offended, I will appologize. If you are accusing me of misconduct, we can stop the debate here as I feel you will only further try to falsly accuse me of things I have not said. Also, if you still have an issue with my post, please report it to the Mods for their ruling instead of threatening me. I feel you have broken the rules by misrepresenting what I have said and by name calling before. However, I do not feel it worthy of reporting as I feel you will see your error and correct it on your own.

2. You said we are pardoned from ALL sin, past present and future. Are you retracting your statement? Would not denying Christ to save your life be considered a pardonable sin if the person is saved? remember once they are saved they can never be lost.

3. Now you admit that we must endure until the end. Now we may be getting somewhere. Is not a sin a sin is a sin?

[hben]

I just have one question for you. What do you think about babies who are baptized in the Catholic church and in high school went though confirmation and then later in life denied God? Or just young children being baptized in a church when they are not fully capable of understanding what their beliefs are. Are they still "saved"?

I have yet to meet a baby who understood the gospel, so I think baby baptism is totally unbiblical...especially if the child trusts in that ritual for salvation after he gets old enough to choose or reject Christ as his Savior. I don't believe baptism saves anyone at any age, so to me, that is irrelevant anyway. If such a person denied God later in life, my belief is that he never truly trusted Christ to begin with, because he obviously doesn't have the Holy Spirit, since the Holy Spirit would never deny Himself.

That is what happened to me and why I will not have my daughter brought into any religion (baptized, initiated- she does learn and pray with me every morning and every evening) until she is old enough to decide on her own what she believes. I do not believe in any of the Christian teachings (other than the moral codes-do unto others, etc.) and yet, I was baptized in the Catholic Church when I was maybe 6 or 7 weeks old. Am I still considered "saved" to some people or does OSAS not work that way?

If you don't believe in Christ, you are not saved and never have been according to what I believe and teach. Don't take that as a personal attack, please. I am simply answering your question.

[khigh]

I have yet to meet a baby who understood the gospel, so I think baby baptism is totally unbiblical...especially if the child trusts in that ritual for salvation after he gets old enough to choose or reject Christ as his Savior. I don't believe baptism saves anyone at any age, so to me, that is irrelevant anyway. If such a person denied God later in life, my belief is that he never truly trusted Christ to begin with, because he obviously doesn't have the Holy Spirit, since the Holy Spirit would never deny Himself.



If you don't believe in Christ, you are not saved and never have been according to what I believe and teach. Don't take that as a personal attack, please. I am simply answering your question.

Thank you for your answer. I just wanted to know what others thought, and I do not take offense to it. :hug: I don't believe in baptizing babies, either. Everyone should have a chance in life to figure out what they believe and not have someone force it on them at such an early stage of life.

[hben]

Again, you avoided the question. If you do not wish to debate, please do not respond or please say that you do not wish to answer.

No matter how I answer you, it is never the answer you like, so why try? I thought I answered it pretty well, but then I am not used to answering questions in everyday life as if I was being questioned by a lawyer in a courtroom.

I believe Solomon is to credit for Ecclesiastes. He says:

Ecclesiastes 12:13.Let us hear the conclusion of the whole matter: Fear God, and keep his commandments: for this is the whole duty of man.14.For God shall bring every work into judgment, with every secret thing , whether it be good, or whether it be evil.

Hben says you should not fear. I will go with the one who was considered the wisest man (Solomon IMO if you did not already know).

And I will go with John, who walked and talked with Jesus in person...John, who understood the commandments Jesus gave us to love as well as any New Testament writer...John, who was an eye witness to the empty tomb of the Lord...John, the one whom Jesus trusted to take care of His own mother after He was gone...John, the other disciple whom Jesus loved...John, the one God gave the Revelation of Jesus Christ to.

This is what John said about fear:

1Jn:4:18: There is no fear in love; but perfect love casteth out fear: because fear hath torment. He that feareth is not made perfect in love.

[hben]

Quoting the offense is an offense as well.

By the Forum Rules...or the Rules of the Courtroom? :razz:

Either way, I will go back and do my duty as a good witness in this case. I will get rid of the evidence with my "Delete Button". :whistle:

[hben]

1. I was speaking of the early christians (as my post shows) and if they are offended, I will appologize. If you are accusing me of misconduct, we can stop the debate here as I feel you will only further try to falsly accuse me of things I have not said. Also, if you still have an issue with my post, please report it to the Mods for their ruling instead of threatening me. I feel you have broken the rules by misrepresenting what I have said and by name calling before. However, I do not feel it worthy of reporting as I feel you will see your error and correct it on your own.

Reporting people to the mods has never been in my job description as a minister, and your name didn't offend me in the least. I just made a simple comment...no more and no less.

2. You said we are pardoned from ALL sin, past present and future. Are you retracting your statement? Would not denying Christ to save your life be considered a pardonable sin if the person is saved? remember once they are saved they can never be lost.

Why would I retract what I believe? That would make me a hypocrite. I never said that I would deny Christ to save my life. I believe that would be the ultimate test of a person's faith, and I don't believe a saved person could deny Christ if his life depended on it...PERIOD. The only unforgivable sin is unbelief at the point of death, and the person who doesn't believe in Christ with last breath has never truly believed in Christ...EVER!!! You are right when you say, "once they are saved, they can never be lost."

3. Now you admit that we must endure until the end. Now we may be getting somewhere. Is not a sin a sin is a sin?

Where are we getting? I don't remember saying that any saved person would not endure to the end. Is not a sin a sin is a sin??? What??? You lost me on that last statement. :confused:

[hben]

Thank you for your answer. I just wanted to know what others thought, and I do not take offense to it. :hug: I don't believe in baptizing babies, either. Everyone should have a chance in life to figure out what they believe and not have someone force it on them at such an early stage of life.

Good. I like agreeing better than disagreeing. :hug:

[baysidetrey]

And I will go with John, who walked and talked with Jesus in person...John, who understood the commandments Jesus gave us to love as well as any New Testament writer...John, who was an eye witness to the empty tomb of the Lord...John, the one whom Jesus trusted to take care of His own mother after He was gone...John, the other disciple whom Jesus loved...John, the one God gave the Revelation of Jesus Christ to.

This is what John said about fear:

1Jn:4:18: There is no fear in love; but perfect love casteth out fear: because fear hath torment. He that feareth is not made perfect in love.

And this is what Christ said about fear:

Mt 10:28 And fear not them which kill the body, but are not able to kill the soul: but rather fear him which is able to destroy both soul and body in hell.

So, obviously the bible contradicts itself (which I do not believe) or, there are different meanings of fear. There is a repectful, loving fear and a dreadful fear IMO. The latter is what I believe John to refer to.

[baysidetrey]

Why would I retract what I believe? That would make me a hypocrite. I never said that I would deny Christ to save my life. I believe that would be the ultimate test of a person's faith, and I don't believe a saved person could deny Christ if his life depended on it...PERIOD. The only unforgivable sin is unbelief at the point of death, and the person who doesn't believe in Christ with last breath has never truly believed in Christ...EVER!!! You are right when you say, "once they are saved, they can never be lost."



Where are we getting? I don't remember saying that any saved person would not endure to the end. Is not a sin a sin is a sin??? What??? You lost me on that last statement. :confused:

1. You would not be a hypocrite for retracting a statement IMO if you have been shown to err. I have been shown my error many times on the boards and appreciate each one who has shown me my errors.

2. We are getting to a place where you finally believe that a sin can not be pardoned unless repented of. Your defense is that if a person denied Christ to save his life, he was never really saved. I say, if a person KNOWS he has eternal security and can not lose his salvation, it would be foolish (IMO) to die a painful death when you would go to heaven either way.
When I say a sin is a sin is a sin, I mean that all sin is equal. One sin is not worse than another for the believer so it would reason that a person could justify their sin to save their life by denying Christ the same as someone who stole a loaf of bread to feed his family (IMO).

[Koushi Shinigami]

Well, save the nudging for someone else. After being saved for 43 years and being in the ministry for 25 years, I don't think your nudging is going to change my direction, but thanks for the thought. If it is all the same to you, I will keep trusting Jesus to show me the right direction. I am confident that He won't let me down. ;)

Maybe Jesus is trying to do just that...... By using jmacvols....... :think:

[HardHammer]

For me, I did not come in contact with the blood until the water. That is how I believe one comes into contact with the blood.

For me, the blood preceeds the water, for without knowing of the redemption through the shedding of the blood, the water is pointless. Why would one get baptised without already knowing of the salvation that has been provided?

The baptism of the water does not save one, but the Baptism of the Spirit does, IMHO.

[baysidetrey]

For me, the blood preceeds the water, for without knowing of the redemption through the shedding of the blood, the water is pointless. Why would one get baptised without already knowing of the salvation that has been provided?

The baptism of the water does not save one, but the Baptism of the Spirit does, IMHO.

I agree that we must know and believe the gospel before we are baptized or the water is pointless. However, one may believe and not be baptized and be just as lost as one who does not believe and is baptized IMO.

Mr 16:16 He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved; but he that disbelieveth shall be condemned.

As to the water being the agent:

1 Peter 3:20 Which sometime were disobedient, when once the longsuffering of God waited in the days of Noah, while the ark was a preparing, wherein few, that is, eight souls were saved by water.21 The like figure whereunto even baptism doth also now save us (not the putting away of the filth of the flesh, but the answer of a good conscience toward God,) by the resurrection of Jesus Christ:

IMO, John showed the example of baptism and he used water. These are examples of scripture that have led me to believe what I believe.

[ellis]

I agree that we must know and believe the gospel before we are baptized or the water is pointless. However, one may believe and not be baptized and be just as lost as one who does not believe and is baptized IMO.

Mr 16:16 He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved; but he that disbelieveth shall be condemned.

As to the water being the agent:

1 Peter 3:20 Which sometime were disobedient, when once the longsuffering of God waited in the days of Noah, while the ark was a preparing, wherein few, that is, eight souls were saved by water.21 The like figure whereunto even baptism doth also now save us (not the putting away of the filth of the flesh, but the answer of a good conscience toward God,) by the resurrection of Jesus Christ:

IMO, John showed the example of baptism and he used water. These are examples of scripture that have led me to believe what I believe.
IMO, there is no reason or need for a person to be baptized until after or during the urging/prompting of The Holy Spirit, the person confesses sin and accepts the free gift of salvation by Jesus Christ. Then and only then he SHOULD be baptized as a testimony to others of his acceptance of salvation.
It is agreed by many, much more learned than I, that there are very many that are baptized and have never felt the presence of The Holy Spirit.
And from my personal experiences, the bigger and finer the facility, the less likely I am to feel His presence. More and more there is a tendency toward "facility" worship.

[baysidetrey]

IMO, there is no reason or need for a person to be baptized until after or during the urging/prompting of The Holy Spirit, the person confesses sin and accepts the free gift of salvation by Jesus Christ. Then and only then he SHOULD be baptized as a testimony to others of his acceptance of salvation.
It is agreed by many, much more learned than I, that there are very many that are baptized and have never felt the presence of The Holy Spirit.
And from my personal experiences, the bigger and finer the facility, the less likely I am to feel His presence. More and more there is a tendency toward "facility" worship.

You would be refering to the direct operation of the Holy Spirit which is another subject altogether. A good debate on that is the Moffit/Deaver debate or the Campbell/Rice debate. There are others, these are just the first to pop into my mind. BTW, I do not agree with the direct operation of the Holy Spirit, I believe in an indirect operation that works through the Word.

[hben]

And this is what Christ said about fear:

Mt 10:28 And fear not them which kill the body, but are not able to kill the soul: but rather fear him which is able to destroy both soul and body in hell.

So, obviously the bible contradicts itself (which I do not believe) or, there are different meanings of fear. There is a repectful, loving fear and a dreadful fear IMO. The latter is what I believe John to refer to.

Actually, all of God's children should have a respect or reverence for our Heavenly Father which more in line with how we should fear God. That simpley means that we should fear disappointing Him or letting Him down. We should fear that we aren't using the gifts and talents that He has blessed us with to accomplish His will and purpose. But my original point was that God's children should not be constantly worrying about the possibility of losing his salvation. That was settled at the cross for whosoever believeth in Jesus Christ as Lord and Savior.

[hben]

Maybe Jesus is trying to do just that...... By using jmacvols....... :think:

:)) :)) :)) And maybe I will persuade the Pope to become a Baptist if I send him enough emails. :cool:

[RayMan]

:)) :)) :)) And maybe I will persuade the Pope to become a Baptist if I send him enough emails. :cool:

Nah. I'm stickin' with Pentecostalism. Always nice to hear from you though.

[hben]

For me, I did not come in contact with the blood until the water. That is how I believe one comes into contact with the blood.

I have heard this before from some of you, but I have not seen any scriptures which say this. What passage says anything close to this?

[hben]

My sins were not washed away by water. Water baptism is the means by which Christ's blood does wash away sins.

I still want to see where the Bible says that. Why would the blood of Christ need any help? There is power in the blood to cleanse all sin, and I don't see how watering it down could possibly give it any more power.

[hben]

28,999 are wrong...and counting.

be-ing

And as Baysidetrey said, this is why there are so many conflicting religious groups.

So you mean if I ever get enlightened enough to interpret the Bible perfectly like you and bayside, then I will only be in conflict with 28,999 others? Well, at least I won't be in conflict with you two. :whistle:

[hben]

Nah. I'm stickin' with Pentecostalism. Always nice to hear from you though.

Oh pardon me for not being more specific. I meant the other Pope...the Catholic one. I never held onto the false hope that the Pentecostal Pope would ever backslide back down to being a lowly Baptist again. :lol:

On that same note, that is what seems funny about jmac and bayside trying to get me to follow the CoC path. If I was going to change directions, I would probably fall back into my old Pentecostal or Charismatic ways both of which I am more familiar with than the CoC ways with which I have never agreed. :lol:

[RayMan]

Oh pardon me for not being more specific. I meant the other Pope...the Catholic one. I never held onto the false hope that the Pentecostal Pope would ever backslide back down to being a lowly Baptist again. :lol:

Nope. Not gonna happen. I am in line with you on your current discussion in this thread however.

[RayMan]

Oh pardon me for not being more specific. I meant the other Pope...the Catholic one. I never held onto the false hope that the Pentecostal Pope would ever backslide back down to being a lowly Baptist again. :lol:

You won't get anywhere with the one in Rome either. I hear that he has been grouchy ever since cbut1 proved to him that the Baptist Church has been around longer than the Roman Catholic Church.

[hben]

You won't get anywhere with the one in Rome either. I hear that he has been grouchy ever since cbut1 proved to him that the Baptist Church has been around longer than the Roman Catholic Church.

:)) :)) :)) I guess that news would have to fall into the category of "I have some good news and some bad news". :cool:

[RayMan]

:)) :)) :)) I guess that news would have to fall into the category of "I have some good news and some bad news". :cool:

Reminds me of the Cardinal who told the Pope:

"I have some good news and some bad news."

Pope says, "Tell me the good news first."

"Jesus is coming back next week."

"That's wonderful! What's the bad news?"















"He will coming in to Salt Lake City."

[baysidetrey]

I have heard this before from some of you, but I have not seen any scriptures which say this. What passage says anything close to this?

Ac 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.

Mt 26:28 For this is my blood of the new testament, which is shed for many for the remission of sins.

Repent AND be baptized for what? Remission of sins.
What remits our sins? Christs blood.

Therefore, when we repent AND we are baptized we recieve remission of sins through Christs blood.

[Koushi Shinigami]

Ac 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.


Looks to me like that passage says that baptism in the name of Jesus removes sin.

[baysidetrey]

Actually, all of God's children should have a respect or reverence for our Heavenly Father which more in line with how we should fear God. That simpley means that we should fear disappointing Him or letting Him down. We should fear that we aren't using the gifts and talents that He has blessed us with to accomplish His will and purpose. But my original point was that God's children should not be constantly worrying about the possibility of losing his salvation. That was settled at the cross for whosoever believeth in Jesus Christ as Lord and Savior.

Ro 6:16 Know ye not, that to whom ye yield yourselves servants to obey, his servants ye are to whom ye obey; whether of sin unto death, or of obedience unto righteousness?

Col 3:22 Servants, obey in all things your masters according to the flesh; not with eyeservice, as menpleasers; but in singleness of heart, fearing God:

Heb 5:9 And being made perfect, he became the author of eternal salvation unto all them that obey him;

[hben]

Ac 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.

Mt 26:28 For this is my blood of the new testament, which is shed for many for the remission of sins.

Repent AND be baptized for what? Remission of sins.
What remits our sins? Christs blood.

Therefore, when we repent AND we are baptized we recieve remission of sins through Christs blood.

So there is no scripture that specifically states your doctrine. Like the doctrine of eternal security, you have to interpret several passages in order to come to the conclusion that you believe and teach? Hmmmmm...interesting... :think:

Well, God bless you for finally admitting that you are as imperfect as we Baptists and others for that matter.

[baysidetrey]

Looks to me like that passage says that baptism in the name of Jesus removes sin.

You know Koushi, you and I disagee on many things but isn't it nice when something is so clearly spelled out (IMO) that we can agree on it? I am probably one of the few protestants you know that believe baptism is essential. Do you know of any others?