As far as obedience, some honestly see baptism as something cultural just as headcoverings for women were deemed cultural.  It is not always about obedience and disobedience.  Sometimes it is about understanding.  Can someone understand and depend on Jesus without being baptized?

Another thing that confuses me sometimes:  Is the cross for the total remission of sins or is baptism?

At what point does one pass from death unto life?  Is it when one first believed or is it when one is baptized.  Is Baptism the final step of salvation or is it the first step of obedience after salvation.

It is my humble opinion that we are saved when we are sealed by the Holy Spirit or in other words when we are indwelled or given the gift of the Holy Spirit.  But at what point does that happen, that is the question.

I think the stronger evidence in the bible would support or suggest that it is after baptism.   I believe that the early church fathers such as Justin Martyr, Irenaeus, etc supported this concept.  However, I will not put God in a box as he can save whoever He chooses, however He chooses, whenever He chooses.  Just because the early church fathers said it doesn't make it so, sometimes we like to quote them when what they said supports our position.  

My concern as a baptist christian is-- have we, as well as other denominations, substituted the sinners prayer for Baptism?  I find no where in the Bible the use or even the concept of the sinners prayer.  It seems to me the crossing over point demonstrated in the new testament is Baptism.

Yes, I know that people change thier behavior ,as I did, before Baptism but is this not under the convicting power and the influence of the Holy Spirit as he draws us to salvation.
I know that some of my Baptist Bretheren would want to stone me for saying what I have just stated.  

I know this, I would not want to stand before God without
having obeyed his command to be baptized.  Maybe this is a moot point as I believe All true believers will want to be baptized without exception.

John,

Thanks for your reply. It was thought provoking. In the continued spirit of discussion the following comments are put forth.

You stated:

[!--QuoteBegin--][/span][table border=\"0\" align=\"center\" width=\"95%\" cellpadding=\"3\" cellspacing=\"1\"][tr][td]Quote [/td][/tr][tr][td id=\"QUOTE\"][!--QuoteEBegin--]"However that does not negate the fact that our salvation is predicated on a hill called the Skull, and the event took place some 2000 years ago."[/quote]

I took it for granted that it was already an established fact that Jesus Christ is "the way, the truth, and the life, and no man comes to the Father but through Him." Since you saw fit to reiterate this 'given', did something that I wrote suggest or insinuate that salvation could occur outside of Christ?

You also said in an earlier post:
 
[!--QuoteBegin--][/span][table border=\"0\" align=\"center\" width=\"95%\" cellpadding=\"3\" cellspacing=\"1\"][tr][td]Quote [/td][/tr][tr][td id=\"QUOTE\"][!--QuoteEBegin--]"Perhaps we need to focus less on process and doctrine and more on the mind of Christ."[/quote]

I find this to be an artificial distinction. Let me explain: Jesus Christ was, by definition, the most 'legal' (process and doctrine oriented) person that ever walked the earth. He was the only one who ever kept the whole Law of Moses perfectly, and did so in front of a group of nitpicking Pharisees who could only bring weak, empty charges such as "He healed on the Sabbath", and, finally, that He claimed to be the Son of God. Furthermore, Jesus Christ bore the burden of systematically fulfilling each and every prophecy concerning the Christ. This combination showed that He carried out the script written by the Father, so to speak - He did the will of the Father, only the will of the Father, and nothing else. "I and the Father are One," He said, and truthfully so. Jesus Christ achieved this by that "mind of Christ" spoken of in Philippians chapter 2; though He was God, He simply submitted perfectly to the will of the Father.

I hope that I have made the point clearly - there is nothing inherently wrong in attempting to follow the letter of God's commands (legalism?!) when one has an attitude of submission to God and compassion toward others.

And you stated:

[!--QuoteBegin--][/span][table border=\"0\" align=\"center\" width=\"95%\" cellpadding=\"3\" cellspacing=\"1\"][tr][td]Quote [/td][/tr][tr][td id=\"QUOTE\"][!--QuoteEBegin--]"Our desire to live a Godly life is not to gain salvation but in response to salvation."[/quote]

1 Corinthians 9
24 Do you not know that those who run in a race all run, but only one receives the prize? Run in such a way that you may win.
25 Everyone who competes in the games exercises self-control in all things. They then do it to receive a perishable wreath, but we an imperishable.
26 Therefore I run in such a way, as not without aim; I box in such a way, as not beating the air;
27 but I discipline my body and make it my slave, so that, after I have preached to others, I myself will not be disqualified.

In my own opinion, this is an artificial distinction. When I look back to my own conversion / salvation, I think that such a statement would have simply confused me. Who among us does not wish to "gain" salvation? One cannot "gain" it without the intercession of Christ, but, to me, "responding" to salvation would suggest that salvation comes and seeks us out, and one might passively reply with a yes or a no. Paul suggests in 1 Corinthians that one must not simply bask in salvation, but one must actively work with the Holy Spirit, which dwells in us.

I hope that I was plain; these concepts can get very deep in a hurry. I'll be happy to try to explain things that I may have stated in an ambiguous or unclear way.

Larry Skipper

Remembered having seen the following on another forum, so searched and found it. Might be handy thing to have, to check the scriptures.

 OK guys & gals here is every reference to Baptism in the New Testament:
References to John's baptism;
Mt. 3:1-16 Mt.21:25 Mk. 1:4-11
Lk. 3:3-21 Lk. 7:29,30 Lk. 20:4
Jn. 1:26 Jn.3.22,23 Acts 1:5,22 Acts 10:37
Acts 13:24 Acts 18:25 Acts 19:3,4

References to water baptism;
Mk. 16.16 Jn.4:2 Acts 2:38-41 Acts 8:12-16
Acts 9:18 Acts 10:47,48 Acts 16:15,33
Acts 18:8 Acts 19:5 Acts 22:16
1 Cor. 1:13-17 Heb. 6:2 1 Pet. 3:21

References to spiritual baptism;
Mt. 3:11 Mk. 1:8 Lk. 3:16 Jn. 1:26,33
Acts 2:38,39 Acts 8:16 Rom. 6:3,4
1 Cor. 10:2 ! Cor. 12:13 Gal. 3:27
Eph. 4:5 Col. 2:12 1 Pet. 3:21

I'm gonna apologize up front for the length of this posting, but I just felt that I needed to get it all in.

SKIP, I’ve been perusing your reply and just had to stop with “there is no account in which one who is not an apostle is said to have passed on the gifts of the HS (HS immersion).”   To me, the fact that Ananias appeared to Saul for that express purpose. (Acts 9:17), is sufficient for me. I wish it could be for you also.

I had asked you “What did Simon SEE?”  in order for him to even THINK that that’s what the apostles Peter and John had done to the Samaritans: baptize them in the HS. I mainatain that he "HEARD” something: they spoke in tongues. Else, why would Peter have told him that he had no part or lot in that Word (Grk:matter). It wasn’t that he saw with his eyes, something; he perceived or understand; but, still, what make him think that that’s what happened?

You said, “We might deduce that the HS is consistent and predictable (as are both Jesus and God), and that the HS was manifested visibly, such as in Acts 2, 10, and 19.”

I reply: Read verses 46 and 47 again (Acts 10). The only visible demonstration was their speaking in tongues, like the 120 (12) did in the beginning. And in 19:6 they  both spoke in tongues AND prophesied.

SKIP, you said, “My final statement on this point, as before, is that that the 'one baptism' is water immersion, and that any belief system or doctrine that accepts two or more baptisms is in contradiction with Paul's words in Ephesians 4.”

Jesus said he had a baptism to be baptized with…..Is that water baptism?
Acts 1:4 Jesus charged them not to depart from Jerusalem, but to wait for the promise of the Father, which, he said, you heard from me. For John baptized with water, but before many days you shall be baptized with the Holy Spirit. (John with water; Jesus with HS, NOT water).

It’s the incorruptible seed of the word of God by which we are begotten of God; The Holy Spirit renews our spirits as He immerses us into the one body (I Cor.12:13). We are washed clean through the Word, and our belief in what it says. This is the washing of regeneration, the washing of water by the word, that Titus 3:5 and Eph.5:26 are speaking of. Being born of the flesh is just flesh, so we must be born again (from above) by the Spirit, to become spiritual (Jn.3:6). And it is by the grace of God (through our faith in the written word) that we are saved, and it is not something we do, but something the Holy Spirit does.

There are at least four baptisms that are mentioned in scripture, that I can think of:
Water baptism – we all know what that is: immersion in water
The baptism that christ was to undergo by going to the cross: immersion in suffering
Baptism in/with the Holy Ghost, which Jesus does (Mk.1:8):Immersion in the Holy Spirit/Ghost
Baptism with fire: you tell ME.

I’m NOT saying that two or more baptisms are the “ONE” baptism. Remember that just because the word “baptism” is used, it does not mean immersion IN WATER. It just means totally submerged in SOMETHING. The word itself does not say what element one is baptized INTO. The one baptism takes place when the Spirit immerses us into the body of Christ upon our belief in Him. Acts 16:30-31 says, “What must I do to be saved?” and Paul and Silas told the jailer “Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ, and thou shalt be saved…” Also compare with Rom.10:9-10.

Yes, we receive the Spirit when we believe (not specifically when we are water immersed), as does the WHOLE  Godhead come to dwell within us.  Acts 2:38 says, ‘Ye SHALL receive the Holy Ghost…it does not say when – just that it is future. It COULD be immediately and it COULD be later – the latter being evidenced in Acts 8, the former being immediately, as in Acts 19.

Man doesn’t immerse us in the Holy Ghost; Jesus does.
Man doesn’t immerse us into the body of Christ, the Spirit does.
Man immerses us in water.

I hope someone out there in Poster Land is reading this and can believe.

At the first of your reply you SAID: “And one can show the presence of the HS by walking by the Spirit - Galatians 5:16, 22-23, 25. (I’ll leave it at that – to expand this point would open a new topic).”

I just wanted to say yes, that is true.  But Jesus said, ‘You shall receive POWER after the Holy Ghost HAS COME UPON you (not “in” you). And the POWER is evidenced through the gifts that are mentioned in I Cor. 12.

You SAID, “ Peter and John were sent. Based on those three points – Philip’s inability, Simon's observation, and the fact that Peter and John were sent - I conclude that only apostles could perform this.”

I reply that it wasn’t that Philip could NOT do it, it was just that he had been sent to baptize (like Jesus had NOT sent Paul to baptize, but to preach).  He was an evangelist and he performed signs and great miracles, which Simon saw, BTW, so what was so great about “SEEING” the apostles lay hands on those people. What was greater than signs and miracles, I ask you?  COULD IT HAVE BEEN THAT THEY SPOKE IN LANGUAGES NOT KNOWN TO  THEM?  COULD that have been it, Skip?

I kinda think that Peter and John were SENT down from Jerusalem because Samaria was a new brand of believers. Remember, they were called “dogs.” They weren’t Jew, and they weren’t even as good as Gentiles (Cornelius’ household). I think the apostles wanted expressly to show their sanction toward the Samaritans coming into the body of believers, that’s all.

You SAID, “While noting your objections based on the account of Ananias and Saul (discussed below) there is no account in which one who is not an apostle is said to have passed on the gifts of the HS (HS immersion).”

First of all, when one is immersed in the Holy Spirit, he receives the Holy Spirit – not the gifts. There is confusion in this area, I think. No one receives the gifts – maybe one or two, but not all……only Jesus had all of them (without measure, the scripture says).

Ananias was not an apostle and he laid hands on Saul, for him to receive his sight and be filled with the Holy Spirit. Just take it for truth, Skip.

Oh, I guess you are on of those members of the cofC that believes miracles, signs, etc., etc, have ceased, huh?…..Do you actually think God would take His Holy Spirit AWAY from the body of Christ. Do you actually believe that believers to not need that same POWER in this day and age? I sincerely have a strong concern for you if you do.

Acts 22:12-16 does not say that Ananias laid hands on Paul for him to be filled with the spirit. Does that mean that he did not do it, just because it is not mentioned in that passage?  Take Luke 11:13 and Mt.7:11. One says give the HG to those who ask Him, and the other says give good things to those who ask him. Is one of them wrong just because they are not worded exactly?

Can one read Acts 22:17 and come up with the conclusion that Paul had not received the power associated with having been baptized in the HG? He received a word of wisdom or knowledge when he was in the trance and heard the Lord speaking to him. COULD HE POSSIBLY HAVEN’T GOTTEN THAT POWER WHEN ANANIAS LAID HANDS ON HIM TO BE FILLED WITH THE HOLY GHOST? And since he spoke in tongues more than all of them, I’m taking it that this is the point in time when he received, although it does not explicitly say.  When DID he received POWER, if not THEN?  If you know, please tell me.

Acts 26:14 says “And when WE had all fallen to the ground,” while Acts 9:4 says, “HE fell to the ground,” and verse  8 says, “Saul arose from the ground.” There seems to be a discrepancy in who all fell to the ground, right?  Does that make these statements untrue?
Acts 9:12 says, “he has seen a man named Ananias come in and lay his hands on him so that he might regain his sight.” Does that negate what Anania himself said, “lay hands on you so that you might receive your sight AND BE FILLED WITH THE HG? (Acts 9:17)

You SAID, “What did Simon see? He saw disciples receiving the HS!”

MY REPLY: How did he KNOW that THAT was what they were receiving? If you saw someone today lay their hands on someone, how do you know it was for them to receive the Holy Spirit? Maybe it was just for them to recover from something. Mark 16:17 says, “Believers shall lay hands on the sick and they shall recover.” What did Ananias SEE, SEE, SEE, I keep asking you, and you have not told me. It does not say, does it? But because the other examples of baptism in/with the HG say that they spoke in tongues, it might be logical and biblically sound to believe that they spoke with tongues.

You SAID: “The HS was obvious to Simon - there was visible evidence of it, and he wanted it.”      My reply: What was the visible evidence that he wanted?  As stated above, it cannot be just the laying on of hands. That could’ve been done for any number of other reasons.  ……Now, when you mention Peter and Cornelius’ household and that Peter knew the Holy Ghost had been poured out upon them (they had been immersed in the HG) (Acts 10:47), how was it that he knew (How did Simon Know)? Read verse 46, “For they heard them speaking in tongues and extolling God,

I dislike having to make this post so long, but I might as well get it all said at the same time. You SAID, “One can show the presence of the HS by walking by the Spirit - Galatians 5:16, 22-23, 25)

My REPLY: I totally agree with that. But that is the FRUIT of the Spirit IN you, NOT the power of the HG ON you. After conversion, the fruit of the Spirit should begin to manifest as one’s mind is transformed through the Word; it’s IN you;  you just have to live it out.

But the Power is manifested only after one is baptized in/with the Holy Spirit, and the nine gifts of the Spirit are mentioned in I Cor. 12:8-10.

SKIP, YOU SAID: “The CofC, and the Bible, both teach that when one is baptized, they receive the HS - Acts 2:38, John 3:3-5, Titus 2:5 [and did you mean “3:5” here?—Shumby.

 MY REPLY is this: Acts 2:38 (as I noted previously) says that “ye SHALL (future tense) receive the gift of the Holy Ghost.”   John 3:3-5 does not say that one receives the HS when they are immersed in water.  Titus 3:5 does not say that when one is baptized he receives the HS.  You are reading into those passages something that they do not say.

YOU SAID: “The lack of signs of the HS when the disciple Ananias laid his hands on Paul, the command of the Lord in Acts 8:13 that the purpose of laying on of hands in this case was to heal Paul, and the fact that Paul was still in his sins after Ananias laid his hands on him (Acts 9:17-18, Acts 22:13,16), all lead me to conclude that Ananias did not immerse Paul in the HS when he laid his hands upon him.”

MY REPLY: (1) the signs (except for tongues which is implied later) weren’t immediate, but there were signs, as I think I posted previously.
(2) the purpose of the laying on of Ananias’ hands was for Saul to receive his sight AND BE FILLED WITH THE HOLY SPIRIT.
(3)What makes you say he was still in his sins? (even though I know full well why you say it). Is it just because he had not been water baptized? Well, what about Cornelius’ household? They received the Holy Spirit and then were baptized afterwards. I reiterate that God is not gonna give his Holy Spirit to an unbeliever. In both instances (Paul and C’s house) were saved before they received the HS  AND water baptism. They were believers, and that means they were born again or “saved” as most of us use that expression, although “salvation” is worked out in our lives until we leave this world.
And (4) believe what the word says, Skip: Ananias laid hands on Saul so he would receive his sight and be filled with the Holy Spirit.  If Saul/Paul was not filled with the Holy Spirit then, just what was he filled with. He received his sight; why was he not filled with the Holy Spirit?

I have worked on this off and on all day long (in fact, I started last night), but I lost most of one page somehow or other and had to think it all up again. Therefore, I am totally bushed.  This may or may not prove to be answers for you, SKIP, but I hope someone else may have read it and come to an understanding of the “one” baptism, even though there are more than that mentioned in the scriptures.

Bill W

While I agree with you that baptism is not a work, I must disagree with you on the faith works issue.

Eph 2:10 says we are created unto good works and I believe that every born again believer will produce good works as a natural outflow of their salvation some 20, some 30 and some 60 fold.  People that after thier baptism or salvation experience do not produce good works probably should examine themselvers to see if in fact they are truely saved

Gods grace does not end at baptism.  It continues on in the sanctifying work of the Holy Spirit.  If we are saved by our faith/works then I would fall in and out of salvation every other day.  

Every christian is capable of any and all types of sin and some fall into the most deplorable sin.  The difference between a believer and a non believer is that a believer is going to be miserable in his sin and at some point will repent and come back to the Lord, while a non believer will not be bothered by his sin.

Finally, every true believer is kept by the power of God not by our good works.  Good works is the outward  evidence of our salvation or faith.

A good book on this subject is "faith works" by John Macarthur Jr.

May God bless you.

Bill

SKIP, I'm gonna have to get back with you tomorrow or the next day. I had just typed 3 pages to post, and was checking a bunch of other stuff that I had going; and, unfortunately for me, I lost all of it somehow. Sometimes this p.c. really aggravates me. It had double printed (I mean kept repeating) paragraph after paragraph, and I was about to go bonkers and then it just disappeared. Oh well, I've done all the research; now if I can just remember what it was. Talk at ya later.

I’ve read the posts prior to mine and would like to comment on Jan3 to today as follows:

Jerry Brooke: God said, “If you love me, you will keep my commandments” in answer to “what” commands must we keep to keep our salvation. The only way we could lose our salvation is to deny Jesus, isn’t it? Or to blaspheme the Holy Spirit?

Jerry: You spoke of the “saving nature” of baptism. There is nothing about baptism (I’m assuming you are referring to that done in “water”) that saves a person. Salvation is through faith in Jesus Christ alone (“for by grace are you saved, and that not of yourselves, it is the gift of God, not of works, lest any man should boast). When one gets water baptized, he is merely obeying one of God’s commands, like in Acts 10:48 where they were COMMANDED to be baptized in the name of the Lord.

Crischar: You made the statement that Christ was never buried. What do you mean by that statement? Not buried in the tomb, not buried in water…..just what do you mean?

As far as many in the CofC thinking that baptism is the final step in obeying the gospel, the reason for that is that they have been taught that that is what the Word teaches – which, of course, it does not.  It is merely obedience to one of God’s command, as I mentioned above.

Why do some speak in tongues before being water baptized, you asked. Well, it’s because once one believes, then that opens the door for God to do whatever he pleases to do with the person. Proof of salvation BEFORE baptism is clearly found in Acts 10, with verse 43-44 showing preaching of the word and their believing because the Holy Ghost fell on those who heard the word (and believed, because without faith it is impossible to please God, and God will not give his Holy Spirit to an unbeliever). Then, since that had happened to them, they said what they did in verses 47-48.

No one could’ve been baptized in Jesus’ name until after the resurrection, but those who believed in Jesus as the Messiah that was promised, and then followed him, were called disciples, learners or taught ones.

Richard: I don’t believe that it is our works that keep our faith alive but, rather, our keeping our minds renewed through the Word, and focusing on Jesus. You said that once we become believers, our sins are covered by the blood of Jesus. I know the word says that without blood there is no remission of sins, and I understand that in the Old Testament there were bloody sacrifices of animals offered, and that this “covered” their sins for one year, until the next Day of Atonement when the High Priest went before God and offered sacrifice for the sins of the people for another year. JESUS’ BLOOD WAS FOR THE REMISSION OF SINS, NOT THE COVERING OVER OF THEM, as I understand it.

I don’t understand what you meant when you said that there is still the problem of sins committed prior to conversion, or saving faith in Jesus. Water baptism is not for the remission of sins; Jesus blood is for the remission of sins, and we access that forgiveness through our faith in God’s word.