baptism

[caspershadow]

Having been raised in a major denomination that baptizes believers by immersion I can give a little insight to how they do not pay much attention to the baptism verses.  Most of the local churches are considered autonomous. And even some of them are independent.  Now I do not mention names because I am not here to run ANYBODY down.  I am just wishing to show their justification for kind of ignoring the verses that say you must be baptized or that baptism washes away your sin and etc.  Here is the most common thing I remember hearing over and over through the years.  "When interrupting the bible you MUST intere pt scripture with scripture.  So if it says hear that baptism saves you in this verse what does it say in John 3:16?  It simply says that whosoever believes in Jesus shall have everlasting life."

So you see what they do?  If something (you pick the topic) does not agree with their theology they simply say what does scripture say elsewhere?  Then they use many verses to prove the point that they are trying to make fit their theology, in this case, baptism does not save.  They will use lots of verses and pound you with them to prove they are right.  So I guess they think if they find 10 verses in the bible back up what they are saying they feel the one or two verses they say otherwise does not take precedence.

This is a false way to look at scripture.  I did not think this back then but I do now.  If the bible says something it is there for us to learn from so we can't simply ignore or overlook the verses that do not fit our theology.  If our theology does not agree with the bible it must be false and it must be either changed or it is time to find a new church as in my case.

[larry2]

Dear Caspershadow, it's good to welcome you to these forums. May God bless you in the time you are herein the name of Jesus.

Another way of looking at it is to believe a verse as stated, and not attempt to change it with other scripture because of a preconceived doctrine.

For instance can the person baptized be saved, and the one who just calls upon the name of the Lord be saved also? Do these verses really modify one another?

John 3:16  For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life.

Is the above verse a promise of everlasting life, or can enough verses in other context change the meaning of this verse to mean conditional or provisional life instead?

[caspershadow]

Thanks for the kind welcome.  Yes I'd say those verses compliment each other.  In some places in the bible it says we can believe and be saved but other places say to repent and be baptised for the remission of sin. 

[Jaime]

I would say one who believes will obey what the rest of the Bible is telling him, hence they will be baptized. One who doesn't believe wont be baptized. Hence the wording in Mark 16:16. If  an unbeliever undergoes baptism for some reason, he just got ceremonially wet to no avail.

[ex cathedra]

 water  has no ability to do any thing  except what God intended for it to do . it  Quench's  thirst, it also can drown people,  


But when God also adds his powerful gospel words and promises to water that already does his intended purpose .it gives a whole new spiritual meaning to the words quenching thirst and downing people .

it   drowns that  old natural rebelious man . and raises up a new born christian creature quenched of his thirst through faith in  Jesus.

 . but we must remember God did  not make his grace in Jesus  irresistable .



John 4:12-14 (King James Version)
12Art thou greater than our father Jacob, which gave us the well, and drank thereof himself, and his children, and his cattle?
13Jesus answered and said unto her, Whosoever drinketh of this water shall thirst again:
14But whosoever drinketh of the water that I shall give him shall never thirst; but the water that I shall give him shall be in him a well of water springing up into everlasting life.


Romans 6:4
We were therefore buried with him through baptism into death in order that, just as Christ was raised from the dead through the glory of the Father, we too may live a new life.




Acts 7:50-52 (King James Version)

 50 Hath not my hand made all these things?

 51Ye stiffnecked and uncircumcised in heart and ears, ye do always resist the Holy Ghost: as your fathers did, so do ye.

 52Which of the prophets have not your fathers persecuted? and they have slain them which shewed before of the coming of the Just One; of whom ye have been now the betrayers and murderers:

[ex cathedra]

I would say one who believes will obey what the rest of the Bible is telling him, hence they will be baptized. One who doesn't believe wont be baptized. Hence the wording in Mark 16:16. If  an unbeliever undergoes baptism for some reason, he just got ceremonially wet to no avail.

Gods word and promises about baptism  remain true even if the recipiant is untrue for christian

baptism remains christian baptism just as gold remain gold weather a virgin or a harlot wears it.

[caspershadow]

I would say one who believes will obey what the rest of the Bible is telling him, hence they will be baptized. One who doesn't believe wont be baptized. Hence the wording in Mark 16:16. If  an unbeliever undergoes baptism for some reason, he just got ceremonially wet to no avail.

Gods word and promises about baptism  remain true even if the recipiant is untrue for christian

baptism remains christian baptism just as gold remain gold weather a virgin or a harlot wears it.

expound on this if you would.

[WileyClarkson]

"When interrupting the bible you MUST interept scripture with scripture. 

That is kissing kin to using CENI hermeneutics, coupled with the "silence of Scripture" argument, to interepret what is being said and, IMO, anyone who goes strictly by this will not have a good understanding of scripture and tend to be very legalistic in views.

Personally, I believe that what other scripture says (not what it is silent about) is necessary but it is just one portion of the interpretive steps.  The historical information must be included in order to really grasp what is being addressed, why it is being addressed, and how we should understand it from a historical perspective first.  Then we can move into how we should understand it in the present.

[Norton]

I think baptism is a promise or pronunciation that your sins have been washed away by the death, burial, and resurrection of Christ. What if you believe your sins are washed away without personally receiving that symbolic promise? God bless you for your eager faith, but don't resist receiving His promise.

[DCR]

"When interrupting the bible you MUST interept scripture with scripture. 

That is kissing kin to using CENI hermeneutics, coupled with the "silence of Scripture" argument, to interepret what is being said and, IMO, anyone who goes strictly by this will not have a good understanding of scripture and tend to be very legalistic in views.

Personally, I believe that what other scripture says (not what it is silent about) is necessary but it is just one portion of the interpretive steps.  The historical information must be included in order to really grasp what is being addressed, why it is being addressed, and how we should understand it from a historical perspective first.  Then we can move into how we should understand it in the present.

Amusing if ironic misstatement/Freudian slip there... "when interrupting the Bible, you must interept [sic] scripture with scripture."

[blituri]

There is never any remission of sins until one has obeyed that FORM of teaching: a tupos is "a pattern capable of being imitated."  The promise in Isaiah is identical to Mark 16:15-16. Those who do not obey will be damned says Christ in the Prophets and Jesus in several places.

If you have to explain away the prophecy and teaching Mark 16 marks you as APISTOS.  Believeth Not means in the Greek text "I will not comply." Believeth or trust also includes "to comply."  Baptism is the picture of pure Grace.

[blituri]

That is kissing kin to using CENI hermeneutics, coupled with the "silence of Scripture" argument, to interepret what is being said and, IMO, anyone who goes strictly by this will not have a good understanding of scripture and tend to be very legalistic in views.

The CENI appears from the garden of Eden to Revelation, it was supported by all historic scholars and all founders of denominations. The Disciples have roots in the Methodist-Anglican-Catholic church and claim the HIGH CHURCH right to "ammend" or "enhance" the Word of God.  Unfortunate for them, the Church of England failed to ratify their rights to go beyond what is written.

The "silence" argument is also well refuted in Scripture and church history. The Disciples/Christian church OWNS the "silence" argument. It goes "if God hath not said thou shalt not then we can do it and YOU must comply."

The "silence" argument means that YOU cannot impose something on ME that is not commanded and not required to carry out the ROLE of the assembly which is to PREACH by READING the Word and preach the Death of Jesus in the Lord's Supper.

Since the Campbells agreed with Christ the Rock Who ordained the qahal, synagogue or Church of Christ in the Wilderness, the historic practice of the Jews, the approved example of Jesus, the restriction defined by the word ekklesia, Paul's use of the "synagogue" word defined inclusively and exclusively, and the historic church of Christ which was not invaded and pervaded by sermonizers and singing as an ACT after 373, they said:

Church is A School of Christ
Worship is Reading and musing the Word of God

If you do not HONOR that minimalist demand on people and ADD your own songs and sermons, Christ defines you as a blasphemer.

Jer 23:16 Thus saith the Lord of hosts,
        Hearken not unto the words of the prophets that prophesy unto you;
        they make you vain:
        they speak a vision of their own heart,
        and not out of the mouth of the Lord.

Jer 23:17 They say still unto them that despise me,
        The Lord hath said, Ye shall have peace;
        and they say unto every one that walketh
        after the imagination of his own heart,
        No evil shall come upon you.

    Despise tthe Word of God:
    Blasphēmo , āre,
    I.  v.a., = blasphēmeō (eccl. Lat.), to revile, reproach, Vulg. 1 Par. 20, 7; God and divine things, to blaspheme: “Christum,

[larry2]

Dear Brother blituri, you mention being baptised in the name of Jesus Christ - Does that mean that being baptised in the name of the Father, Son, and the Holy Spirit has no validity?

Those who fight baptism reject grace. There is one baptism; is that spiritual baptism as at the day of Pentecost?

Thanks.

[blituri]

Dear Brother blituri, you mention being baptised in the name of Jesus Christ - Does that mean that being baptised in the name of the Father, Son, and the Holy Spirit has no validity?

Those who fight baptism reject grace. There is one baptism; is that spiritual baptism as at the day of Pentecost?

I'm not sure that this is a formula.  If you look at the Great Commission:

Jesus claims all of the authority of "father, son and spirit."
Name as many have noted is singular.
Peter who was present commanded baptism in the NAME of Jesus Christ. All others in Scripture give only the ONE NAME.

Father, Son and Spirit are not names but functions. 

When the early church thought in terms of baptizing in the nameS of Father, Son and Spirit they dipped or later sprinkled three times.

Only the Apostles were baptized with a HOLY WIND so the word means.

Acts 2:1 And when the day of Pentecost was fully come, they were all with one accord in one place.
Acts 2:2 And suddenly there came a sound from heaven as of a rushing mighty wind,
        and it filled all the house where they were sitting.
Acts 2:3 And there appeared unto them cloven tongues like as of fire,
       and it sat upon each of them.

Acts 2:4 And they were all filled with the Holy Ghost,
       and began to speak with other tongues,  (Breath produces Words)
       as the Spirit gave them utterance.

Spirit literally means only WIND. It is used figuratively of the BREATH of God.

Psa. 33:6 By the (1) word of the (2) LORD were the heavens made;
        and all the host of them by the (2) breath of his mouth.
Psa. 33:7 He gathereth the waters of the sea together as an heap: he layeth up the depth in storehouses.

The baptism of spirit and fire promised to the "viper" generation is in the context of winnowing where the WIND is used to separate the Chaff and it is then burned up with fire. Of those who did not repent at John's preaching:

Matt 3:10 And now also the axe is laid unto the root of the trees:
        therefore every tree which bringeth not forth good fruit is hewn down, and cast into the fire.

Matt 3:11 I indeed baptize you with water unto repentance:
        but he that cometh after me is mightier than I, whose shoes I am not worthy to bear:
        HE shall baptize YOU with the Holy Ghost, [WIND] and with fire:

[Butch5]

Having been raised in a major denomination that baptizes believers by immersion I can give a little insight to how they do not pay much attention to the baptism verses.  Most of the local churches are considered autonomous. And even some of them are independent.  Now I do not mention names because I am not here to run ANYBODY down.  I am just wishing to show their justification for kind of ignoring the verses that say you must be baptized or that baptism washes away your sin and etc.  Here is the most common thing I remember hearing over and over through the years.  "When interrupting the bible you MUST intere pt scripture with scripture.  So if it says hear that baptism saves you in this verse what does it say in John 3:16?  It simply says that whosoever believes in Jesus shall have everlasting life."

So you see what they do?  If something (you pick the topic) does not agree with their theology they simply say what does scripture say elsewhere?  Then they use many verses to prove the point that they are trying to make fit their theology, in this case, baptism does not save.  They will use lots of verses and pound you with them to prove they are right.  So I guess they think if they find 10 verses in the bible back up what they are saying they feel the one or two verses they say otherwise does not take precedence.

This is a false way to look at scripture.  I did not think this back then but I do now.  If the bible says something it is there for us to learn from so we can't simply ignore or overlook the verses that do not fit our theology.  If our theology does not agree with the bible it must be false and it must be either changed or it is time to find a new church as in my case.

You are quite correct. The reason is that most people do not logically reason through an argument. They also proof-text which does nothing but use Scripture out of context. For instance, the example you gave above where one Scripture says baptism is required and then the Christian goes to John 3:16. This is a fallacious argument because they are appealing to a passage of Scripture that is not addressing the issue of baptism. Here is an analogy. Suppose you read a book about how to repair your car. The book says in order to remove the head you must first remove the carburetor. As you read further in the book  it tells you in order to remove the pistons you must first remove the head. Logic tells you that if you want to remove the pistons you must remove the Carburetor first. I think most thinking Christians would agree with this statement. Just because the section on removing the head doesn't explicitly state that you must remove the carburetor doesn't mean you don' have to remove the carburetor. Yet, this is the exact argument those same Christians would make. They say this passage doesn't say baptism so it isn't necessary. This is the same as saying the section on removing the head doesn't say anything about removing the carburetor therefore we don't have to remove it.

The biggest problem is that Christians aren't taught how to understand the Bible, they're taught what to believe. If you look at the Scripture logically you will come to  the conclusion that baptism is necessary. It is through fallacious arguments that Christians attempt to negate the necessity of baptism.

Congratulations on coming to the realization that the other way of approaching the Scriptures is fallacious.

[Gomer]

Having been raised in a major denomination that baptizes believers by immersion I can give a little insight to how they do not pay much attention to the baptism verses.  Most of the local churches are considered autonomous. And even some of them are independent.  Now I do not mention names because I am not here to run ANYBODY down.  I am just wishing to show their justification for kind of ignoring the verses that say you must be baptized or that baptism washes away your sin and etc.  Here is the most common thing I remember hearing over and over through the years.  "When interrupting the bible you MUST intere pt scripture with scripture.  So if it says hear that baptism saves you in this verse what does it say in John 3:16?  It simply says that whosoever believes in Jesus shall have everlasting life."

So you see what they do?  If something (you pick the topic) does not agree with their theology they simply say what does scripture say elsewhere?  Then they use many verses to prove the point that they are trying to make fit their theology, in this case, baptism does not save.  They will use lots of verses and pound you with them to prove they are right.  So I guess they think if they find 10 verses in the bible back up what they are saying they feel the one or two verses they say otherwise does not take precedence.

This is a false way to look at scripture.  I did not think this back then but I do now.  If the bible says something it is there for us to learn from so we can't simply ignore or overlook the verses that do not fit our theology.  If our theology does not agree with the bible it must be false and it must be either changed or it is time to find a new church as in my case.

Jn 3:16 does not say belief alone saves nor does it say baptism does not save, so they are reading their theology into the verse.  Believeth in Jn 3:16 would be used as a synecdoche where it includes baptism, compare Acts 2:41 with 44.  Those that were baptized in v41 are said to be the ones who believed in v44. In 1 Pet 3:21 Peter said baptism saves, but baptism alone does not save, so baptism here is a synecdoche where it would include belief, for one cannot be scripturally baptized without first believing, Mk 16:16.

[DaveW]

I could not vote as none of the choices actually reflect my position on baptism.

On a side note, I had to laugh when I read this:

"When interrupting the bible..."

I have never been in the habit of interrupting the bible. 

More seriously, baptism is listed in Heb 6.2-3 as one of the FOUNDATIONAL teachings of christianity. Actually the word there is plural - baptisms.

As there are at least 6 different baptisms listed in the NT I will assume we are all talking christian water baptism.

First, it is a command; first to the new convert and secondly to those sharing the gospel. 2 of the 3 versions of the Great Commision instruct those sharing the gospel to baptize (Matt 28, Mark 16)

Secondly, it is a covenantal sign, perhaps analogous to giving and receiving a wedding ring.

Thirdly, it is part of a PROCESS of salvation. It should never be divorced from repentance and faith. Taken as a group, the process is salvic. Individually they are not.

[e.r.m.]

Having been raised in a major denomination that baptizes believers by immersion I can give a little insight to how they do not pay much attention to the baptism verses.  Most of the local churches are considered autonomous. And even some of them are independent.  Now I do not mention names because I am not here to run ANYBODY down.  I am just wishing to show their justification for kind of ignoring the verses that say you must be baptized or that baptism washes away your sin and etc.  Here is the most common thing I remember hearing over and over through the years.  "When interrupting the bible you MUST intere pt scripture with scripture.  So if it says hear that baptism saves you in this verse what does it say in John 3:16?  It simply says that whosoever believes in Jesus shall have everlasting life."

So you see what they do?  If something (you pick the topic) does not agree with their theology they simply say what does scripture say elsewhere?  Then they use many verses to prove the point that they are trying to make fit their theology, in this case, baptism does not save.  They will use lots of verses and pound you with them to prove they are right.  So I guess they think if they find 10 verses in the bible back up what they are saying they feel the one or two verses they say otherwise does not take precedence.

This is a false way to look at scripture.  I did not think this back then but I do now.  If the bible says something it is there for us to learn from so we can't simply ignore or overlook the verses that do not fit our theology.  If our theology does not agree with the bible it must be false and it must be either changed or it is time to find a new church as in my case.

The only way the belief scriptures can modify others is if the belief scriptures say belief only. Since they do not, then they co-exist harmoniously with the baptism scriptures.

[e.r.m.]

I could not vote as none of the choices actually reflect my position on baptism.

On a side note, I had to laugh when I read this:

"When interrupting the bible..."

I have never been in the habit of interrupting the bible. 

More seriously, baptism is listed in Heb 6.2-3 as one of the FOUNDATIONAL teachings of christianity. Actually the word there is plural - baptisms.

As there are at least 6 different baptisms listed in the NT I will assume we are all talking christian water baptism.

First, it is a command; first to the new convert and secondly to those sharing the gospel. 2 of the 3 versions of the Great Commision instruct those sharing the gospel to baptize (Matt 28, Mark 16)

Secondly, it is a covenantal sign, perhaps analogous to giving and receiving a wedding ring.

Thirdly, it is part of a PROCESS of salvation. It should never be divorced from repentance and faith. Taken as a group, the process is salvic. Individually they are not.

I agree with everything, except the part of it being a covenental sign. There is no scripture to support this. But we agree on everything else, which I think is more important.

[Jaime]

Having been raised in a major denomination that baptizes believers by immersion I can give a little insight to how they do not pay much attention to the baptism verses.  Most of the local churches are considered autonomous. And even some of them are independent.  Now I do not mention names because I am not here to run ANYBODY down.  I am just wishing to show their justification for kind of ignoring the verses that say you must be baptized or that baptism washes away your sin and etc.  Here is the most common thing I remember hearing over and over through the years.  "When interrupting the bible you MUST intere pt scripture with scripture.  So if it says hear that baptism saves you in this verse what does it say in John 3:16?  It simply says that whosoever believes in Jesus shall have everlasting life."

So you see what they do?  If something (you pick the topic) does not agree with their theology they simply say what does scripture say elsewhere?  Then they use many verses to prove the point that they are trying to make fit their theology, in this case, baptism does not save.  They will use lots of verses and pound you with them to prove they are right.  So I guess they think if they find 10 verses in the bible back up what they are saying they feel the one or two verses they say otherwise does not take precedence.

This is a false way to look at scripture.  I did not think this back then but I do now.  If the bible says something it is there for us to learn from so we can't simply ignore or overlook the verses that do not fit our theology.  If our theology does not agree with the bible it must be false and it must be either changed or it is time to find a new church as in my case.

The only way the belief scriptures can modify others is if the belief scriptures say belief only. Since they do not, then they co-exist harmoniously with the baptism scriptures.

Erm, if I was tasked to find the best post supporting our position on the scores or hundreds of baptism threads here, I would have to pick your post above. It says it all, Thanks!

[Man_Of_Honor]

Having been raised in a major denomination that baptizes believers by immersion I can give a little insight to how they do not pay much attention to the baptism verses.  Most of the local churches are considered autonomous. And even some of them are independent.  Now I do not mention names because I am not here to run ANYBODY down.  I am just wishing to show their justification for kind of ignoring the verses that say you must be baptized or that baptism washes away your sin and etc.  Here is the most common thing I remember hearing over and over through the years.  "When interrupting the bible you MUST intere pt scripture with scripture.  So if it says hear that baptism saves you in this verse what does it say in John 3:16?  It simply says that whosoever believes in Jesus shall have everlasting life."

So you see what they do?  If something (you pick the topic) does not agree with their theology they simply say what does scripture say elsewhere?  Then they use many verses to prove the point that they are trying to make fit their theology, in this case, baptism does not save.  They will use lots of verses and pound you with them to prove they are right.  So I guess they think if they find 10 verses in the bible back up what they are saying they feel the one or two verses they say otherwise does not take precedence.

This is a false way to look at scripture.  I did not think this back then but I do now.  If the bible says something it is there for us to learn from so we can't simply ignore or overlook the verses that do not fit our theology.  If our theology does not agree with the bible it must be false and it must be either changed or it is time to find a new church as in my case.

The only way the belief scriptures can modify others is if the belief scriptures say belief only. Since they do not, then they co-exist harmoniously with the baptism scriptures.

Erm, if I was tasked to find the best post supporting our position on the scores or hundreds of baptism threads here, I would have to pick your post above. It says it all, Thanks!

Yep.

I also miss Gomer's presence in these forums.

[Stucky]

Having been raised in a major denomination that baptizes believers by immersion I can give a little insight to how they do not pay much attention to the baptism verses.  Most of the local churches are considered autonomous. And even some of them are independent.  Now I do not mention names because I am not here to run ANYBODY down.  I am just wishing to show their justification for kind of ignoring the verses that say you must be baptized or that baptism washes away your sin and etc.  Here is the most common thing I remember hearing over and over through the years.  "When interrupting the bible you MUST intere pt scripture with scripture.  So if it says hear that baptism saves you in this verse what does it say in John 3:16?  It simply says that whosoever believes in Jesus shall have everlasting life."

So you see what they do?  If something (you pick the topic) does not agree with their theology they simply say what does scripture say elsewhere?  Then they use many verses to prove the point that they are trying to make fit their theology, in this case, baptism does not save.  They will use lots of verses and pound you with them to prove they are right.  So I guess they think if they find 10 verses in the bible back up what they are saying they feel the one or two verses they say otherwise does not take precedence.

This is a false way to look at scripture.  I did not think this back then but I do now.  If the bible says something it is there for us to learn from so we can't simply ignore or overlook the verses that do not fit our theology.  If our theology does not agree with the bible it must be false and it must be either changed or it is time to find a new church as in my case.

The only way the belief scriptures can modify others is if the belief scriptures say belief only. Since they do not, then they co-exist harmoniously with the baptism scriptures.

Erm, if I was tasked to find the best post supporting our position on the scores or hundreds of baptism threads here, I would have to pick your post above. It says it all, Thanks!

Fortunately, when I asked to be baptised, as a sign of my faith, the Baptist church I belonged to did not tell me that it was necessary for salvation, so this argument is a moot point for me in regards to myself, however, it is not a moot point for my family, nor the billions of other saints that may have not been baptised before they died, for whatever reason.  Again, as I say over and over and over, thank God that it is He that judges and not the people that insist that you be baptised or go to hell.  My God is a God of love, that wants no one to be lost.  Your God is a God of hate, that doesnt give a whit about people being saved or not.

[Jimmy]

My God is a God of love, that wants no one to be lost.  Your God is a God of hate, that doesnt give a whit about people being saved or not.

There is no need for that sort of harangue. A little soap in the mouth from your mother might help here.

But to your point that God is a God of love that wants no one to be lost I would aske why does He not just save everyone so that no one will be lost.  The answer is simple.  There are conditions placed upon those who would be saved.  It just turns out that you are perfectly willing to accept some, but not all, of the conditions that God has placed.  So, yes, fortunately God is a God of love.  And perhaps He will save you in spite of your refusal to accept and comply with all of his conditions.  He has not said He wouldn't.  But then the danger for you and others is that neither has He said that He would.

[notreligus]

Jimmy, what you and some others in this Restoration Movement forum do is distort the beliefs of others.  I, for example, believe that water baptism should be practised and have never stated otherwise.  When you state it is necessary for salvation that is when you are promoting a false doctrine and I have seen this create a false conversion and a false confidence in the salvation of others.  Water baptism is a ritual. It does not save, it does not regenerate one's spirit, and it does not place someone in contact with the Blood of Jesus as MANY Church of Christ folk say happens by Necessary Inference.  Nowhere....NOWHERE is it stated in the Bible that anyone contacts the Blood of Christ in water, but the hard-line Church of Christ folk say that it happens.  That is a a myth propogated by your group and my telling you this is my right as a Christian (actually, it is my obligation) to tell you that you should stop telling others such and giving them a false sense of security.

The "restoration of the ancient gospel with baptism for the remission of sins" is a creation of Walter Scott which was further promoted by Alexander Campbell.  This is documented in your group's own writings.  I'm not making this up.   You folk need to study Chrsitianity 101 and learn exactly what the Gospel is, first of all - it does not include obedience to water baptism, but includes the obedience of Christ to His baptism on the cross - and to learn how a new man in Christ was created, and this is the Body of Christ. 

[grain of salt]

The "restoration of the ancient gospel with baptism for the remission of sins" is a creation of Walter Scott which was further promoted by Alexander Campbell.  This is documented in your group's own writings.  I'm not making this up.   You folk need to study Chrsitianity 101 and learn exactly what the Gospel is, first of all - it does not include obedience to water baptism, but includes the obedience of Christ to His baptism on the cross - and to learn how a new man in Christ was created, and this is the Body of Christ.

The teachings of the Christian faith held consistently for the first 1500 years that water baptism was significant as the point of entry into the Body of Christ.  It wasn't until some Protestant groups began teaching that it was merely a ritual with no role in salvation that some believed otherwise.  Even the first generation of the Reformation, the Lutherans, still hold this understanding of baptism that it is sacramental or salvific.  Just search for their take on baptism on their own websites, and they'll quote Acts 2:38 and the other usual baptism passages, and you'll read many of the same thoughts as you'll hear from Churches of Christ (in terms of the function and purpose of baptism).  The Churches of Christ merely went back to the consensus understanding of the purpose of baptism, which is still held today by Orthodox, Catholics, and Lutherans (and even others).  They merely rolled back the teachings of their Protestant forebears on this issue, teachings that had only been around for less than 300 years, really only since Zwingli in the 1500s.  Walter Scott's influence on that issue in the Stone-Campbell Movement is neither here nor there.  Besides, anyone who has done the most basic study of the Stone-Campbell or Restoration Movement knows about his influence with the "five finger exercise" which included baptism.  The three biggest names in the 19th Century movement were Stone, Campbell, and Scott.  So, you reveal no shocking or earthshattering news there.

Where Churches of Christ and Orthodox/Catholics/Lutherans differ on baptism is the question of who should receive it (and also mode- sprinkling vs. immersion, but I'll set that aside for the moment).  The Orthodox/Catholics/Lutherans practice infant baptism (paedobaptism).  Churches of Christ practice believers' baptism (credobaptism).  But, they share the salvific (or sacramental, if you prefer) understanding in common with the oldest longevity Christian churches.  Read the writings of the early Christian writers (or "early Church fathers" if you prefer), and it is clear what was believed about baptism in the first couple of centuries A.D.  And, that's Christianity 101.

Of course, all Christians believe they have solid Scriptural backing of their understanding of baptism.  It's just unfortunate that we come away with differing conclusions from the study of Scriptures.

[apostle]

I guess our doctrinal alignments are merely selections of particular commonalities we want to claim as valid.  Baptism in the RCC is because of original sin, thus, infant baptism.  The CoC rejects this doctrine entirely, replacing original sin with personal sin via the agency of the "age of accountability".  But here, for sake of propping up the argument for salvific baptism, GOS is willing to set aside this fundamental difference for as long as it takes to make the argument.  The reaon for baptism is apparently of less consequence than the need to send people to hell without it.

We seem willing to claim support from whoever agrees with us on a singular point, even if the rest of the time we question even their spiritual identity.  This seems hypocritical to me.  I like how some hold up the Orthodox in this way to support their argument for acapella music in worship.  These same anti-IM'ers would not set foot in an Orthodox service on Sunday, and could give a dozen reasons why they are too wrong to fellowship, but use them when it is rhetorically convenient.

[grain of salt]

I guess our doctrinal alignments are merely selections of particular commonalities we want to claim as valid.  Baptism in the RCC is because of original sin, thus, infant baptism.  The CoC rejects this doctrine entirely, replacing original sin with personal sin via the agency of the "age of accountability".  But here, for sake of propping up the argument for salvific baptism, GOS is willing to set aside this fundamental difference for as long as it takes to make the argument.  The reaon for baptism is apparently of less consequence than the need to send people to hell without it.

The whole point of my post was to respond to the idea that seemed to be projected that Walter Scott came up with the idea of water baptism for the remission of sins, almost as if to imply that the man invented the idea.  I'm just saying, historically, he didn't invent the idea.  I wasn't trying to "prop up" anything.  And, there is no "need to send people to hell." 

If you would like to question me further for clarification rather than make insinuations and accusations, I would prefer that.

[Norton]

I think you are correct, grain of salt. The belief that baptism is not salvific got a foothold only about 500 years ago during the Reformation, with Zwingli being its main proponent. Neither Luther nor Calvin completely agreed with him on that. If we are looking for someone who brought in a totally unorthodox teaching on baptism, Ulrich Zwingli is our man

Walter Scott and Alexander Campbell did adopt Zwingli's unorthodox (for that time) teaching that baptism was only for believers, not infants. But they believed that it was salvific as Luther and Calvin held. As far as I know Campbell did not teach that all who were not baptized were going to Hell. He rejected that idea as his famous/infamous "Luenburgh Letters" indicate. That idea was a later developement within his movement.

[e.r.m.]

Having been raised in a major denomination that baptizes believers by immersion I can give a little insight to how they do not pay much attention to the baptism verses.  Most of the local churches are considered autonomous. And even some of them are independent.  Now I do not mention names because I am not here to run ANYBODY down.  I am just wishing to show their justification for kind of ignoring the verses that say you must be baptized or that baptism washes away your sin and etc.  Here is the most common thing I remember hearing over and over through the years.  "When interrupting the bible you MUST intere pt scripture with scripture.  So if it says hear that baptism saves you in this verse what does it say in John 3:16?  It simply says that whosoever believes in Jesus shall have everlasting life."

So you see what they do?  If something (you pick the topic) does not agree with their theology they simply say what does scripture say elsewhere?  Then they use many verses to prove the point that they are trying to make fit their theology, in this case, baptism does not save.  They will use lots of verses and pound you with them to prove they are right.  So I guess they think if they find 10 verses in the bible back up what they are saying they feel the one or two verses they say otherwise does not take precedence.

This is a false way to look at scripture.  I did not think this back then but I do now.  If the bible says something it is there for us to learn from so we can't simply ignore or overlook the verses that do not fit our theology.  If our theology does not agree with the bible it must be false and it must be either changed or it is time to find a new church as in my case.

The only way the belief scriptures can modify others is if the belief scriptures say belief only. Since they do not, then they co-exist harmoniously with the baptism scriptures.

Erm, if I was tasked to find the best post supporting our position on the scores or hundreds of baptism threads here, I would have to pick your post above. It says it all, Thanks!

Thank you, that's very kind. I'm appalled at my last response, - "Yep."

[e.r.m.]

I think you are correct, grain of salt. The belief that baptism is not salvific got a foothold only about 500 years ago during the Reformation, with Zwingli being its main proponent. Neither Luther nor Calvin completely agreed with him on that. If we are looking for someone who brought in a totally unorthodox teaching on baptism, Ulrich Zwingli is our man

Walter Scott and Alexander Campbell did adopt Zwingli's unorthodox (for that time) teaching that baptism was only for believers, not infants. But they believed that it was salvific as Luther and Calvin held. As far as I know Campbell did not teach that all who were not baptized were going to Hell. He rejected that idea as his famous/infamous "Luenburgh Letters" indicate. That idea was a later developement within his movement.

I agree, Zwingli started it, although it was Zwingli's  followers, who became the anabaptists, that started teaching baptism is for believers only. Really glad someone else sees Zwingli's role in everything.

[e.r.m.]

Having been raised in a major denomination that baptizes believers by immersion I can give a little insight to how they do not pay much attention to the baptism verses.  Most of the local churches are considered autonomous. And even some of them are independent.  Now I do not mention names because I am not here to run ANYBODY down.  I am just wishing to show their justification for kind of ignoring the verses that say you must be baptized or that baptism washes away your sin and etc.  Here is the most common thing I remember hearing over and over through the years.  "When interrupting the bible you MUST intere pt scripture with scripture.  So if it says hear that baptism saves you in this verse what does it say in John 3:16?  It simply says that whosoever believes in Jesus shall have everlasting life."

So you see what they do?  If something (you pick the topic) does not agree with their theology they simply say what does scripture say elsewhere?  Then they use many verses to prove the point that they are trying to make fit their theology, in this case, baptism does not save.  They will use lots of verses and pound you with them to prove they are right.  So I guess they think if they find 10 verses in the bible back up what they are saying they feel the one or two verses they say otherwise does not take precedence.

This is a false way to look at scripture.  I did not think this back then but I do now.  If the bible says something it is there for us to learn from so we can't simply ignore or overlook the verses that do not fit our theology.  If our theology does not agree with the bible it must be false and it must be either changed or it is time to find a new church as in my case.

Dear Caspershadow, it's good to welcome you to these forums. May God bless you in the time you are herein the name of Jesus.

Another way of looking at it is to believe a verse as stated, and not attempt to change it with other scripture because of a preconceived doctrine.

For instance can the person baptized be saved, and the one who just calls upon the name of the Lord be saved also? Do these verses really modify one another?

John 3:16  For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life.

Is the above verse a promise of everlasting life, or can enough verses in other context change the meaning of this verse to mean conditional or provisional life instead?

The meaning is not belief only because the words are not bellief only.

[e.r.m.]

Having been raised in a major denomination that baptizes believers by immersion I can give a little insight to how they do not pay much attention to the baptism verses.  Most of the local churches are considered autonomous. And even some of them are independent.  Now I do not mention names because I am not here to run ANYBODY down.  I am just wishing to show their justification for kind of ignoring the verses that say you must be baptized or that baptism washes away your sin and etc.  Here is the most common thing I remember hearing over and over through the years.  "When interrupting the bible you MUST intere pt scripture with scripture.  So if it says hear that baptism saves you in this verse what does it say in John 3:16?  It simply says that whosoever believes in Jesus shall have everlasting life."

So you see what they do?  If something (you pick the topic) does not agree with their theology they simply say what does scripture say elsewhere?  Then they use many verses to prove the point that they are trying to make fit their theology, in this case, baptism does not save.  They will use lots of verses and pound you with them to prove they are right.  So I guess they think if they find 10 verses in the bible back up what they are saying they feel the one or two verses they say otherwise does not take precedence.

This is a false way to look at scripture.  I did not think this back then but I do now.  If the bible says something it is there for us to learn from so we can't simply ignore or overlook the verses that do not fit our theology.  If our theology does not agree with the bible it must be false and it must be either changed or it is time to find a new church as in my case.

I agree with you. I think two major contributung factors to this are:
1. The insertion of belief only within the belief scriptures. The belief only concept is so thoroughly indoctrinated that it's adherents consider the belief only concept as indistinguishable from the scriptures themselves. It is the same process that convinces the general christian population that Jesus was born as they were arriving at Bethlehem. The traditional nativity story overcomes in people's minds what the verse actually says. Luke 2:4-6Joseph also went up from Galilee, from the city of Nazareth, to Judea, to the city of David which is called Bethlehem, because he was of the house and family of David, [5] in order to register along with Mary, who was engaged to him, and was with child. [6] While they were there, the days were completed for her to give birth.

A second contributing factor is that they violate 2 Peter 1:20-21 with the brazen belief:
A given belief doesn't have to be written in the Bible as long as the concept is there.
Every belief only Church leader I've spoken to has acknowledged their support for this particular standard.
In other words, they are given permission, allegedly, to decide what the Bibles "means" instead of letting the Bible speak for itself. "Oh, the Bible doesn't actually say belief only? Well that's what it means." "The Bible doesn't say that baptism was commanded as a public declaration of faith? Well, that's what it means."  The standard, (As long as the concept is "there") is a central component to many of their beliefs on salvation and baptism. It is not only central, it is a necessary foundation in order to support beliefs that are not written in the Bible. (As long as the concept is there) violates 2 Peter 1:20-21 that no prophecy of scripture came about by the prophets' own interpretation. We don't get to decide what the scriptures "mean" UNTIL the scriptures have first said so explicitly for themselves.

[MIZ83]

"Blessed are they who, placing their trust in the cross, have gone down into the water.... We, indeed, descend into the water full of sins and defilement.  However, we come up bearing fruit in our heart having the fear [of God] and the trust of Jesus in our spirit." - Barnabas c. 70-130, 1.144

"Before a man bears the name of the Son of God, he is dead.  But when he receives the seal, he lays aside his deadness and obtains life.  The seal, then, is the water.  They descend into the water dead, and they arise alive." - Hermas c. 150, 2.49

"In order that we may not remain the children of necessity and ignorance, but may become the children of choice and knowledge, and may obtain in the water the remission of sins formerly committed, there is pronounced over him who chooses to be born again, and has repented of his sins, the name of God the Father and Lord of the universe.... And in the name of Jesus Christ...and in the name of the Holy Spirit."  - Justin Martyr c. 160, 1.183

One could go on and on. 

[Pastor Jack]

Re:  Baptism.  Read the commentaries, good thoughts.  Here is another verse that speaks for itself.  Luke 23:43 (Fenton).  Jesus spoke to one of the criminals on the cross "I tell you truly, To-day you will be with me in Paradise."  Does anyone have thoughts on how a condemned criminal hanging on a cross can be received into Paradise (A Heaven) without being baptised?

[Catholica]

Re:  Baptism.  Read the commentaries, good thoughts.  Here is another verse that speaks for itself.  Luke 23:43 (Fenton).  Jesus spoke to one of the criminals on the cross "I tell you truly, To-day you will be with me in Paradise."  Does anyone have thoughts on how a condemned criminal hanging on a cross can be received into Paradise (A Heaven) without being baptised?

Good question.  The answer is that though God has bound himself to the sacraments, including baptism, He is not bound by the sacraments, which means that He is capable of working outside of them.  But the way we are given nominally to be saved is through baptism.