Christian Forums and Message Board

Christian Interests => Theology Forum => Topic started by: marip on Tue Jul 15, 2014 - 08:56:01

Title: Dunked in the Water
Post by: marip on Tue Jul 15, 2014 - 08:56:01
 Good Morning everyone!
This last Sunday, our Pastor preached a message on being baptized.  The church was hold baptisms that day, and he was drumming up customers; or that is how it struck me....
You know, Jesus showed us over and over about ritualism. Indeed, as He walked, He took on every sin the devil can possibly conjor up;
He took every single pain and disease upon Himself;
He took emotional suffering and stress; He even took upon Himself homelessness and poverty ( He wasn't born poor, and He also put off all His princely rights as the Son of God, to save us from poverty and lack)
He became the Cornerstone for the Church to rest upon.
He even took upon Himself all the rituals that man used to try to get closer to God.
Including physical water baptism.
His Word says that He is the LIving Water
His Words are Water and Life to our Souls
When He allowed John to baptize Him, He took baptism onto Himself; so we only have to be washed in His Blood; we must be bathed (baptized in His Word)......
Only Jesus. Nothing or no one else has the Kingdom Keys; He is the Door; He is THE WAY; the ONLY WAY
You can dunk yourself in a pool of water every week if you like, but unless you submerge yourself into the Word of God, you will never be able to allow the Holy Spirit to live in your Heart! 
John 3:5
Jesus answered, Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except one be born of water and the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God!
Read these:
Mark 1....
Acts1: 4-6; 19: 3-5
Title: Re: Dunked in the Water
Post by: DaveW on Tue Jul 15, 2014 - 09:06:51
nice try.   ::frown::

But the Risen Lord COMMANDED water baptism in Matt 28 and Mark 16.

And even it He took John's baptism onto Himself - we read in Acts 19 that John's baptism was insufficient.
Title: Re: Dunked in the Water
Post by: DaveW on Tue Jul 15, 2014 - 09:09:21
OY!!!

Another baptism thread?  REALLY??
Title: Re: Dunked in the Water
Post by: Jaime on Tue Jul 15, 2014 - 09:25:48
No matter which side one is on, there appears to be a lot of false teaching about this subject. Probably bears ferreting out the truth.
Title: Re: Dunked in the Water
Post by: Carey on Tue Jul 15, 2014 - 10:25:00
But given opinion on the matter, the truth may continue to elude us.  That said, believe and be baptized, and regardless of God's intent, His wish will be fulfilled.
Title: Re: Dunked in the Water
Post by: chosenone on Tue Jul 15, 2014 - 10:52:52
I do think we should be baptised, but I was saved way before I was baptised.
Title: Re: Dunked in the Water
Post by: notreligus on Tue Jul 15, 2014 - 12:15:57
nice try.   ::frown::

But the Risen Lord COMMANDED water baptism in Matt 28 and Mark 16.

And even it He took John's baptism onto Himself - we read in Acts 19 that John's baptism was insufficient.
As one who believes that the New Covenant is for the Jews, I find it puzzling that you do will not affirm that Christ was telling the disciples to go take the good news of the New Covenant to the Jews.   They needed to repent of the Law, come under New Covenant Grace, and they needed to be placed under the authority of Christ.

Apparently the Disciples/Apostles understood what Christ said.   

Acts 11:19  Now they which were scattered abroad upon the persecution that arose about Stephen travelled as far as Phenice, and Cyprus, and Antioch, preaching the word to none but unto the Jews only.

Were they disobedient to Christ?   
Title: Re: Dunked in the Water
Post by: notreligus on Tue Jul 15, 2014 - 12:28:09
I do think we should be baptised, but I was saved way before I was baptised.

I am with you.   Paul taught the meaning of baptism in Romans Chapter Six.   And Paul also said that he was not sent to baptize as he did not want to be accused of gaining new converts that were coming under his authority.   When we are baptized that is symbolic of our having been placed under the authority of Christ as we are identified with His baptism of death.   

Some will deny the Holy Spirit's direct role in conversion because they say that if the Holy Spirit is involved then God has interfered with our free will.   Likewise some deny the all-sufficiency of Christ's finished work on the cross because that would be an admission that God did all that was necessary for us to be saved, and that would be another example of God interfering with our free will.   We must walk the aisle and submit to water baptism to show that we have done our part in the salvation process.   
Title: Re: Dunked in the Water
Post by: DaveW on Tue Jul 15, 2014 - 12:37:57
Were they disobedient to Christ?

Yes.

Acts 1.8b  you shall be My witnesses both in Jerusalem, and in all Judea and Samaria, and even to the remotest part of the earth.

Acts 8.1 Saul was in hearty agreement with putting him to death. And on that day a great persecution began against the church in Jerusalem, and they were all scattered throughout the regions of Judea and Samaria, except the apostles.

They did not go where the Lord told them to so he sent persecution to give them a "kick start."

And since they STILL did not get it, another persecution arose and God had to give Peter a vivid vision to get him to go to a gentile.  Eventually HE had to go to someone not in the Lord's inner circle to get the gospel to the gentiles: Paul.
Title: Re: Dunked in the Water
Post by: DaveW on Tue Jul 15, 2014 - 12:42:46
Some will deny the Holy Spirit's direct role in conversion because they say that if the Holy Spirit is involved then God has interfered with our free will.   Likewise some deny the all-sufficiency of Christ's finished work on the cross because that would be an admission that God did all that was necessary for us to be saved, and that would be another example of God interfering with our free will.   We must walk the aisle and submit to water baptism to show that we have done our part in the salvation process.

As John Wesley said:  God has His part and we have our part.  God WILL NOT do our part and we CANNOT do God's part.
Title: Re: Dunked in the Water
Post by: e.r.m. on Tue Jul 15, 2014 - 12:43:17
Good Morning everyone!
This last Sunday, our Pastor preached a message on being baptized.  The church was hold baptisms that day, and he was drumming up customers; or that is how it struck me....
You know, Jesus showed us over and over about ritualism. Indeed, as He walked, He took on every sin the devil can possibly conjor up;
He took every single pain and disease upon Himself;
He took emotional suffering and stress; He even took upon Himself homelessness and poverty ( He wasn't born poor, and He also put off all His princely rights as the Son of God, to save us from poverty and lack)
He became the Cornerstone for the Church to rest upon.
He even took upon Himself all the rituals that man used to try to get closer to God.
Including physical water baptism.
His Word says that He is the LIving Water
His Words are Water and Life to our Souls
When He allowed John to baptize Him, He took baptism onto Himself; so we only have to be washed in His Blood; we must be bathed (baptized in His Word)......
Only Jesus. Nothing or no one else has the Kingdom Keys; He is the Door; He is THE WAY; the ONLY WAY
You can dunk yourself in a pool of water every week if you like, but unless you submerge yourself into the Word of God, you will never be able to allow the Holy Spirit to live in your Heart! 
John 3:5
Jesus answered, Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except one be born of water and the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God!
Read these:
Mark 1....
Acts1: 4-6; 19: 3-5
Welcome marip,
Baptized in His word?
This sermon uses a lot of word play.
For example he said Jesus only is the way. Do you pick and choose what about Jesus is the way?
We can and do easily say that since JESUS gave water baptism for Salvation Mark 16:16, then it is of Jesus.
So does your pastor say,  "No not that part of Jesus, but this part of Jesus."?

Lastly Jesus saves when we are water baptized. Another play on words. Your pastor described the water as it is in everyday life, not how, when combined with faith in Jesus, results in forgiveness of sins, as is communicated in Acts 2:38. The water without Jesus, as in swimming, doesn't save. Jesus saves when we are water baptized. This is the teaching, if you wish to address it.
Title: Re: Dunked in the Water
Post by: Jaime on Tue Jul 15, 2014 - 12:44:58
Notreligious, I in no way deny the sufficiency of Christ's finished work on the cross saves us. I also do not deny that the Holy Spirit draws us. It is not however an irresistible tractor beam. Free will is still involved. We express our love for God by choosing to loving Him. He didn't set in motion a system of robotic obedience. He could, but he wants our choice to love him and to trust him. But he does nudge us along with his Spirit. Can we deny that nudging? I would say of course we can.

We earn no part of salvation, and the sufficiency of Christ's finished work should not be in question and isn't for me. It is accused almost daily here though. We don't submit to baptism to do our part, we submit to baptism because God commanded it and he does HIS work in baptism. At least Ananias told Paul that in Acts 22. Baptism is a work of God, not man, anymore than confessing with our lips that Jesus is Lord. There is no more passive thing for man than to drop his resistance and submit himself in baptism, calling on the name of the Lord.
Title: Re: Dunked in the Water
Post by: notreligus on Tue Jul 15, 2014 - 13:48:01
Were they disobedient to Christ?

Yes.

Acts 1.8b  you shall be My witnesses both in Jerusalem, and in all Judea and Samaria, and even to the remotest part of the earth.

Acts 8.1 Saul was in hearty agreement with putting him to death. And on that day a great persecution began against the church in Jerusalem, and they were all scattered throughout the regions of Judea and Samaria, except the apostles.

They did not go where the Lord told them to so he sent persecution to give them a "kick start."

And since they STILL did not get it, another persecution arose and God had to give Peter a vivid vision to get him to go to a gentile.  Eventually HE had to go to someone not in the Lord's inner circle to get the gospel to the gentiles: Paul.

Good answer.  I have a hard time keeping up with you.  One moment you are a Messianic Jew and the next moment you are Gentile.   You're gonna split your britches if you keep walking with one foot on the Messianic sidewalk and the other on the opposite Gentile side of the street.   

Saul = Hebrew

Paul = Latin
Title: Re: Dunked in the Water
Post by: DaveW on Wed Jul 16, 2014 - 06:00:44
Quote
You're gonna split your britches if you keep walking with one foot on the Messianic sidewalk and the other on the opposite Gentile side of the street.

LOL!!!  I was in the gentile church for about 40 years.  So as a gentile adherent to Messianic Judaism, I have the priveledge/burden of walking with one foot in each world. I try to be somewhat relatable to both camps.
Title: Re: Dunked in the Water
Post by: marip on Wed Jul 16, 2014 - 07:29:14
The point is that it is not by our actions that we are saved, but by HIS actions......
We can only be saved by accepting that it is God's Grace and Mercy to allow His only Son to be sacrificed for all mankind; and that we only have to believe in Jesus; it is our Faith alone; which is the "part" that we have to do....
I was back-slidden and had thrown out my back so badly that I was sure I may have cracked it; too sick to move, and with a husband who didn't care, I could only lay flat on the floor; in a cold sweat, in great pain, shaking.... the only thing on TV was Oral Roberts, so I lay there watching and listening and crying..... When he gave the alter call, I said "oK Lord, if that's what you want" and Instantly, His warm Breath of Life flowed through me from the top of my head to my feet, and The Light of the Holy Spirit came into my heart, and I was healed and even delivered from cigarettes! And I know that I know that I know that I am saved by His Grace ever since. I didn't have to take a bath in public; Jesus met me where I was; broken, forgotten, suffering in pain, and flat on the floor!
Jesus came to remove all the rituals and grandstanding because it was turning man away from Him.  The Saducees were famous for displaying their "holiness" in public and Jesus admonished them for that.....
Paul said; "We walk by faith not by sight".... If you think God is  waiting for you to get dunked in some tub to save you; you are wrong; He is waiting, arms opened wide; for you to look HIS way; to turn your eyes to HIM, and as soon as He sees you coming toward HIM He will run towards YOU and wrap you in His arms and keep you there forever!  You congregation isn't going to save you; Jesus already has.  Jesus did not command us in Matthew to submerge people in water; He commanded us to baptize people in the Name of the Father and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit; in other words, He told us to share the WORD with others, so they can be washed in His Living Water of Life.
Title: Re: Dunked in the Water
Post by: DaveW on Wed Jul 16, 2014 - 07:32:27
So if you are unbaptized you still have the corpse of the old man hanging around like some zombie?

Not good.
Title: Re: Dunked in the Water
Post by: soterion on Wed Jul 16, 2014 - 07:44:52
Jesus came to remove all the rituals and grandstanding because it was turning man away from Him.  The Saducees were famous for displaying their "holiness" in public and Jesus admonished them for that.....
Paul said; "We walk by faith not by sight".... If you think God is  waiting for you to get dunked in some tub to save you; you are wrong; He is waiting, arms opened wide; for you to look HIS way; to turn your eyes to HIM, and as soon as He sees you coming toward HIM He will run towards YOU and wrap you in His arms and keep you there forever!  You congregation isn't going to save you; Jesus already has.  Jesus did not command us in Matthew to submerge people in water; He commanded us to baptize people in the Name of the Father and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit; in other words, He told us to share the WORD with others, so they can be washed in His Living Water of Life.

I have two thoughts to share.

First, I thought Jesus came to seek and save the lost. And, I thought He has the right to say what a person needs to do or not need to do to receive the salvation He is offering.

He is the One who commanded baptism in Matthew 28 and Mark 16, and it is not defined as immersion in His word. All throughout Acts you find His command being obeyed as people are being immersed in water. Our part in reading scripture is not to try and change the parameters of what God commands to fit our personal sensibilities, but to fit what He says into our way of thinking and do it.

Second, personal experiences have to be interpreted by the word of God, when those experiences are what we consider to be God working through us and for us in some way. I am not going to tell you that you did not experience something special from God, but I would suggest that nobody was saved in scripture the way you said you were saved. God may have been giving you an experience so as to seek His will in scripture and obey what He actually does say. I had an experience early in my search for God, one which people would try to tell me meant I was saved, but I saw in the word that such was not the case; I still had to obey Him in baptism.
Title: Re: Dunked in the Water
Post by: marip on Wed Jul 16, 2014 - 08:16:00
nice try.   ::frown::

But the Risen Lord COMMANDED water baptism in Matt 28 and Mark 16.

And even it He took John's baptism onto Himself - we read in Acts 19 that John's baptism was insufficient.

Jesus commanded us to go out into the whole world and baptize in the Name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit...Which is the Word of God; The Water of Life..... He didn't tell anyone to go submerge people in water; in fact, He said Only Believe It is the very fact that John's baptism was insufficient, because it was only intended to point the way to Jesus not take the place of Him;
John 3:29-31American Standard Version (ASV)

29 He that hath the bride is the bridegroom: but the friend of the bridegroom, that standeth and heareth him, rejoiceth greatly because of the bridegroom's voice: this my joy therefore is made full.

30 He must increase, but I must decrease.

31 He that cometh from above is above all: he that is of the earth is of the earth, and of the earth he speaketh: he that cometh from heaven is above all.

Do you see, that Jesus took it all upon Himself; so His Children can be freed from all acts and rituals that only got in the way of being as close to God as possible. It is not by our works, lest anyone should boast; it is by Faith only that we are saved.
Title: Re: Dunked in the Water
Post by: DaveW on Wed Jul 16, 2014 - 08:43:48
He is the One who commanded baptism in Matthew 28 and Mark 16, and it is not defined as immersion in His word.

That is not the way it reads in English but in the Greek it is defined that way.  The word "to baptize" baptizo means to dip, plunge, soak, immerse. Rather than properly translate baptizo as "immerse," the KJV translators (under command of the king) created a new word in English; "baptize," that no one knew what it meant.

So the command is to immerse. Unless otherwise specified, all mentions of bapto or baptizo assume in water unless otherwise stated.
Title: Re: Dunked in the Water
Post by: DaveW on Wed Jul 16, 2014 - 08:54:29
Marip - God has nothing against rituals.  He instituted many Himself via Moses. Jesus participated in Synagogue and Temple rituals his entire life. The apostles kept going to the synagogues and Temple even decades after He rose again.

Yes - John's baptism was insufficient.  See Acts 19.  Paul had those men - re-baptized in water.

Elsewhere Paul calls on the image of being immersed and brought up as a physical action that initiated a spiritual transaction of burying the old nature (having been buried with Him in baptism) and coming up out of the water (up with Him) to walk in newness of life.  Colossians 2:12 Romans 6:4

How exactly are we supposed to be "as close to God as possible"  if we are being disobedient?

And what does the bible say about people who teach others to disobey?
Title: Re: Dunked in the Water
Post by: marip on Wed Jul 16, 2014 - 09:09:48
He is the One who commanded baptism in Matthew 28 and Mark 16, and it is not defined as immersion in His word.

That is not the way it reads in English but in the Greek it is defined that way.  The word "to baptize" baptizo means to dip, plunge, soak, immerse. Rather than properly translate baptizo as "immerse," the KJV translators (under command of the king) created a new word in English; "baptize," that no one knew what it meant.

So the command is to immerse. Unless otherwise specified, all mentions of bapto or baptizo assume in water unless otherwise stated.

Yes, Yes DaveW; Immerse! in the Word of God!!!

We are to jump into the LIving Word of God; the Water of LIfe head first!

That is our salvation; to immerse ourselves in Jesus!

Marip - God has nothing against rituals.  He instituted many Himself via Moses. Jesus participated in Synagogue and Temple rituals his entire life. The apostles kept going to the synagogues and Temple even decades after He rose again.

Yes - John's baptism was insufficient.  See Acts 19.  Paul had those men - re-baptized in water.

Elsewhere Paul calls on the image of being immersed and brought up as a physical action that initiated a spiritual transaction of burying the old nature (having been buried with Him in baptism) and coming up out of the water (up with Him) to walk in newness of life.  Colossians 2:12 Romans 6:4

How exactly are we supposed to be "as close to God as possible"  if we are being disobedient?

And what does the bible say about people who teach others to disobey?

What exactly are you obeying? Jesus or Man's demand to display themselves?  the Bible sys that Man blows (himself up like a (bay laurel is one translation) native tree) or, Man likes to swell himself up with vanity and ego!

God allowed the ritual, and in fact demanded it because Man would not just live for Him; would not obey Him, would not turn his life over to Him without it.
Jesus came to "set the captive free"  He is the only thing we need; what good is dunking in water if your heart is not filled with the Holy Spirit?  So, do you think that people who live in places where water is so scarce they don't waste it can't be saved?  The Water of the Living God is His Truth; His Word. We are to be baptized; immersed in His Word, and washed by His Blood, and filled by His Spirit only to be saved. Holding on to ritual doesn't bring one closer to God; it keeps him farther away. Letting go of all human desire; all human acts and turning everything over to God through Jesus our Christ makes us one with Him.
Title: Re: Dunked in the Water
Post by: DaveW on Wed Jul 16, 2014 - 09:18:35
Oy! Marip, you are adding to the Word.  There are plenty of immersions in the NT, but "in the Word" is NOT one of them.

I will recant if you can show me one place where it says to immerse ourselves in the Word.
Title: Re: Dunked in the Water
Post by: Carey on Wed Jul 16, 2014 - 10:05:19

Jesus came to remove all the rituals and grandstanding because it was turning man away from Him.  The Saducees were famous for displaying their "holiness" in public and Jesus admonished them for that.....


God looks to the heart, if one is baptized to show off  his/her holiness, God will know. Baptism in our church is preceded by testimony, and in my experience, what we reveal about our wretched lives before we accepted Christ is certainly not the stuff to boast about, quite the opposite.

The question then becomes....

What does God have to gain by us publicly dunking ourselves, or any ceremonial actions of our part?  God does not need them,  but for the Body of Christ they give nourishment, build faith, and give us the opportunity to see God working in the lives of others. 









Title: Re: Dunked in the Water
Post by: notreligus on Wed Jul 16, 2014 - 10:34:36
So if you are unbaptized you still have the corpse of the old man hanging around like some zombie?

Not good.

A dry unsaved sinner goes into the water and comes out a wet unsaved sinner.

There are many folk who are not saved because they believed the water gospel but never opened their hearts to the Holy Spirit.   
Title: Re: Dunked in the Water
Post by: notreligus on Wed Jul 16, 2014 - 10:36:10
Jerry Falwell once said that if baptism saved people he'd drive a fire truck around and stop and hose down everyone he saw.   
Title: Re: Dunked in the Water
Post by: MeMyself on Wed Jul 16, 2014 - 10:40:36
Quote

Jesus came to remove all the rituals and grandstanding because it was turning man away from Him.  The Saducees were famous for displaying their "holiness" in public and Jesus admonished them for that.....


I did a study by Beth Moore that was on the Temple and the rituals God required.  How beautiful they were! I was left feeling like Christianity would be so much deeper and meaningful if we were at least taught about those rituals and WHY they are done.  God is such a beautiful author of order and love.



Title: Re: Dunked in the Water
Post by: e.r.m. on Wed Jul 16, 2014 - 12:05:07
nice try.   ::frown::

But the Risen Lord COMMANDED water baptism in Matt 28 and Mark 16.

And even it He took John's baptism onto Himself - we read in Acts 19 that John's baptism was insufficient.

Jesus commanded us to go out into the whole world and baptize in the Name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit...Which is the Word of God; The Water of Life..... He didn't tell anyone to go submerge people in water; in fact, He said Only Believe It is the very fact that John's baptism was insufficient, because it was only intended to point the way to Jesus not take the place of Him;
John 3:29-31American Standard Version (ASV)

29 He that hath the bride is the bridegroom: but the friend of the bridegroom, that standeth and heareth him, rejoiceth greatly because of the bridegroom's voice: this my joy therefore is made full.

30 He must increase, but I must decrease.

31 He that cometh from above is above all: he that is of the earth is of the earth, and of the earth he speaketh: he that cometh from heaven is above all.

Do you see, that Jesus took it all upon Himself; so His Children can be freed from all acts and rituals that only got in the way of being as close to God as possible. It is not by our works, lest anyone should boast; it is by Faith only that we are saved.
Baptism in the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit is baptism in water Acts 10:47-48. Being that the command was given to the apostles to do to the disciples made, and commanded these disciples to do to others Matt. 28:19, One person cannot baptize another person in the name as you are suggesting.
What does that even look like? Does someone one just recite the phrase "I baptize you in the name..." and they're done?

marip, the mikveh was the backdrop for baptism.
Immersing people in water was the only possibility conveyed in Matt. 28:19.

If instead it was what you suggested, Peter would not have ordered that they be baptized in water in Acts 10:47-48 and the Eunuch would not have said, "Look, there's Water. Why shouldn't I be Baptized?"

marip, these inconsistencies are the norm with a person believing in an experience type salvation, and only then trying to back up that experience with scripture. You're 'conversion' should have first have been scriptural, then experiential.
Romans 10:17 Consequently, faith comes from hearing the message, and the message is heard through the word about Christ.

I fear you are so deep in the emotional/experiential type of christianity it may be hard for you to be objective.
It's not one or the other, it's both, but scripture takes precedence.
Title: Re: Dunked in the Water
Post by: DaveW on Wed Jul 16, 2014 - 12:12:07
So if you are unbaptized you still have the corpse of the old man hanging around like some zombie?

Not good.
A dry unsaved sinner goes into the water and comes out a wet unsaved sinner.

Huh?  That is a serious non-sequitor.

I completely agree with you on this but it is a mile from what I was talking about.
Title: Re: Dunked in the Water
Post by: e.r.m. on Wed Jul 16, 2014 - 12:20:04
Jerry Falwell once said that if baptism saved people he'd drive a fire truck around and stop and hose down everyone he saw. 
Shows that he did not understand baptism. Baptism isn't getting wet, baptism is full immersion combined with faith in Christ. Any body want to address real baptism, and not antics?
Title: Re: Dunked in the Water
Post by: DaveW on Wed Jul 16, 2014 - 12:33:27
Quote from: notreligus
Jerry Falwell once said that if baptism saved people he'd drive a fire truck around and stop and hose down everyone he saw. 
Shows that he did not understand baptism. Baptism isn't getting wet, baptism is full immersion combined with faith in Christ.

Both biblical faith and repentance are prerequisites to being baptized.
Title: Re: Dunked in the Water
Post by: e.r.m. on Wed Jul 16, 2014 - 12:35:19

Jesus came to remove all the rituals and grandstanding because it was turning man away from Him.  The Saducees were famous for displaying their "holiness" in public and Jesus admonished them for that.....


Quote
God looks to the heart, if one is baptized to show off his/her holiness, God will know.
Baptism was never designed as a show off event.

Quote
Baptism in our church is preceded by testimony, and in my experience, what we reveal about our wretched lives before we accepted Christ is certainly not the stuff to boast about, quite the opposite.
And who said it was for showing off? Baptism doesn't even have to be public. It could be done in private bevause it's for forgiveness of sins, having absolutely nothing to do with the public. Having family and friends and the body join you in this wonderful event is a perk.

Quote
The question then becomes....

What does God have to gain by us publicly dunking ourselves, or any ceremonial actions of our part?  God does not need them,  but for the Body of Christ they give nourishment, build faith, and give us the opportunity to see God working in the lives of others.
Public or private is irrelavent? God gains the joy of saving another soul. I agree that for the Body of Christ they give nourishment, build faith, and gives them the opportunity to see God working in the lives of others. But again, that's a perk, not required.
Title: Re: Dunked in the Water
Post by: e.r.m. on Wed Jul 16, 2014 - 12:41:10
Quote from: notreligus
Jerry Falwell once said that if baptism saved people he'd drive a fire truck around and stop and hose down everyone he saw. 
Shows that he did not understand baptism. Baptism isn't getting wet, baptism is full immersion combined with faith in Christ.

Both biblical faith and repentance are prerequisites to being baptized.
Agreed.
Title: Re: Dunked in the Water
Post by: Jaime on Wed Jul 16, 2014 - 13:02:28
So if you are unbaptized you still have the corpse of the old man hanging around like some zombie?

Not good.

There are many folk who are not saved because they believed the water gospel but never opened their hearts to the Holy Spirit.   

Has a non-effectual water baptism ever taken place? Absolutely! I can name several people that were literally drug to the baptistery kicking and screaming. They just got ceremonially in front of some witnesses for nothing. If people teach that all that is required is to get someone wet, THEY are all wet.

Has anyone ever spoken with their lips that Jesus is Lord and savior and didn't really mean it? I would say certainly, and their actions would be just as ineffectual.
Title: Re: Dunked in the Water
Post by: e.r.m. on Wed Jul 16, 2014 - 13:10:38
So if you are unbaptized you still have the corpse of the old man hanging around like some zombie?

Not good.

There are many folk who are not saved because they believed the water gospel but never opened their hearts to the Holy Spirit.   

Has a non-effectual water baptism ever taken place? Absolutely! I can name several people that were literally drug to the baptistery kicking and screaming. They just got ceremonially in front of some witnesses for nothing. If people teach that all that is required is to get someone wet, THEY are all wet.

Has anyone ever spoken with their lips that Jesus is Lord and savior and didn't really mean it? I would say certainly, and their actions would be just as ineffectual.
Agreed.
I remember this girl coming into work one day around 1990, smiling saying flippantly about this altar call event, throwing her hand from side to side, "She got saved, and I got saved..." like it was a fad. There was nothing in her tone or look that indicated the alleged scale of event this was supposed to be.
Title: Re: Dunked in the Water
Post by: marip on Wed Jul 16, 2014 - 13:26:12
So if you are unbaptized you still have the corpse of the old man hanging around like some zombie?

Not good.

There are many folk who are not saved because they believed the water gospel but never opened their hearts to the Holy Spirit.   

Has a non-effectual water baptism ever taken place? Absolutely! I can name several people that were literally drug to the baptistery kicking and screaming. They just got ceremonially in front of some witnesses for nothing. If people teach that all that is required is to get someone wet, THEY are all wet.

Has anyone ever spoken with their lips that Jesus is Lord and savior and didn't really mean it? I would say certainly, and their actions would be just as ineffectual.
Agreed.
I remember this girl coming into work one day around 1990, smiling saying flippantly and very casually about this altar call event, throwing her hand from side to side, "She got saved, and I got saved..." like it was the in thing to do.

e.r.m.; The Lord meets where we are; so I believe He will use any source to get us to Him; or get us back to Him.... so, water baptism, if it makes someone sincerely come to Christ, then it is just as important and effectual as having to go through a major life trauma, or miracle.
However, it is the very statement you just made, that it left you with the opinion that this young lady was boasting in herself after being baptized, is the reason why Jesus took away all forms of Human rituals as a need to attain Salvation; we only need Jesus; nothing and no one else. The Bible said that the veil was torn the moment that "It is Finished" occurred;  that was the veil of the tabernacle, where we could not come to God but through certain rituals; now We can come "boldly to the throne of Grace" through our Lord and Savior Jesus, and that is the only way we can get there.
Title: Re: Dunked in the Water
Post by: e.r.m. on Wed Jul 16, 2014 - 13:37:40
So if you are unbaptized you still have the corpse of the old man hanging around like some zombie?

Not good.

There are many folk who are not saved because they believed the water gospel but never opened their hearts to the Holy Spirit.   H

Has a non-effectual water baptism ever taken place? Absolutely! I can name several people that were literally drug to the baptistery kicking and screaming. They just got ceremonially in front of some witnesses for nothing. If people teach that all that is required is to get someone wet, THEY are all wet.

Has anyone ever spoken with their lips that Jesus is Lord and savior and didn't really mean it? I would say certainly, and their actions would be just as ineffectual.
Agreed.
I remember this girl coming into work one day around 1990, smiling saying flippantly and very casually about this altar call event, throwing her hand from side to side, "She got saved, and I got saved..." like it was the in thing to do.

e.r.m.; The Lord meets where we are; so I believe He will use any source to get us to Him; or get us back to Him.... so, water baptism, if it makes someone sincerely come to Christ, then it is just as important and effectual as having to go through a major life trauma, or miracle.
However, it is the very statement you just made, that it left you with the opinion that this young lady was boasting in herself after being baptized, is the reason why Jesus took away all forms of Human rituals as a need to attain Salvation; we only need Jesus; nothing and no one else. The Bible said that the veil was torn the moment that "It is Finished" occurred;  that was the veil of the tabernacle, where we could not come to God but through certain rituals; now We can come "boldly to the throne of Grace" through our Lord and Savior Jesus, and that is the only way we can get there.
This girl wasn't baptized, she allegedly got saved at a baptist type altar call event. The point is that there are shallow superficial alleged conversions in every type of church.
Title: Re: Dunked in the Water
Post by: marip on Wed Jul 16, 2014 - 13:48:48
I'm sorry, are you of the mind that she couldn't have actually gotten saved because she didn't get dunked in a pool of water? I misunderstood; I thought your comment was that she thought she was saved because of some act that she had performed......

Salvation comes through turning your whole Life, your whole Heart, and every bit of your Soul over to God, and accept Jesus as your Lord and Savior; if you haven't done that, no dunking yourself in liquid is going to change a thing in your life.
 You know the Bible says that only God knows the heart of man; that is why we have no business judging.  If she was truly saved, God knows it; whether you believe it or not; it doesn't matter.
Title: Re: Dunked in the Water
Post by: chosenone on Wed Jul 16, 2014 - 13:58:35
So if you are unbaptized you still have the corpse of the old man hanging around like some zombie?

Not good.

There are many folk who are not saved because they believed the water gospel but never opened their hearts to the Holy Spirit.   

Has a non-effectual water baptism ever taken place? Absolutely! I can name several people that were literally drug to the baptistery kicking and screaming. They just got ceremonially in front of some witnesses for nothing. If people teach that all that is required is to get someone wet, THEY are all wet.

Has anyone ever spoken with their lips that Jesus is Lord and savior and didn't really mean it? I would say certainly, and their actions would be just as ineffectual.
Agreed.
I remember this girl coming into work one day around 1990, smiling saying flippantly about this altar call event, throwing her hand from side to side, "She got saved, and I got saved..." like it was a fad. There was nothing in her tone or look that indicated the alleged scale of event this was supposed to be.


 Only time will tell if it will last or not, you cant say. Not everyone has that sudden dramatic all changing conversion. 
Title: Re: Dunked in the Water
Post by: Jaime on Wed Jul 16, 2014 - 14:55:59

So if you are unbaptized you still have the corpse of the old man hanging around like some zombie?

Not good.

There are many folk who are not saved because they believed the water gospel but never opened their hearts to the Holy Spirit.   

Has a non-effectual water baptism ever taken place? Absolutely! I can name several people that were literally drug to the baptistery kicking and screaming. They just got ceremonially in front of some witnesses for nothing. If people teach that all that is required is to get someone wet, THEY are all wet.

Has anyone ever spoken with their lips that Jesus is Lord and savior and didn't really mean it? I would say certainly, and their actions would be just as ineffectual.
Agreed.
I remember this girl coming into work one day around 1990, smiling saying flippantly about this altar call event, throwing her hand from side to side, "She got saved, and I got saved..." like it was a fad. There was nothing in her tone or look that indicated the alleged scale of event this was supposed to be.


 Only time will tell if it will last or not, you cant say. Not everyone has that sudden dramatic all changing conversion. 

But the point still stands that ineffectual conversions take place whether with water or without, if true sincere belief and trust in the Lord is not present. The people who have insincerely parroted the sinners prayer directive from a TV preacher aren't necessarily saved in that doctrine just by mouthing the words if the sincerity is not there. Some people are looking for a magic potion or chant to do or say. There is no such potion without sincere belief and trust in the Lord. I am not commenting on Erm's example, but just in general.
Title: Re: Dunked in the Water
Post by: Jaime on Wed Jul 16, 2014 - 15:17:52

Salvation comes through turning your whole Life, your whole Heart, and every bit of your Soul over to God, and accept Jesus as your Lord and Savior; if you haven't done that, no dunking yourself in liquid is going to change a thing in your life.
 

Absolutely agree. No one here has implied or said that just a dunking in water does anything without belief, trust and turning every bit of your Soul over to God. If that wasn't the case, Peter would have just had to spray the 3000 with water prior to his sermon and their belief and repentance.
Title: Re: Dunked in the Water
Post by: Charlie24 on Wed Jul 16, 2014 - 16:27:10
When John the Baptist came on the scene baptizing in water for the remission of sins, was his baptism to the saving of the soul? Of course not. He was proclaiming the One who was coming, the One who would save the soul.

When John baptized a person in water, the repentance had already taken place. By being baptized they were confessing that they believed in the Messiah to come.

Only one thing has changed from the days of Johns baptism. Today we are not looking forward to the Messiah, we are looking back.

Baptism is the same now as it was then. We are professing that we believe in the Son of God. We believe when we accept Christ as Saviour we are crucified with Him, and through baptism we are baptized in symbol into His death that as Christ was risen from the dead we also will rise to a newness of life as Christ.

In the book of Acts the Apostles believed in immediate baptism, even to the point of being baptized in the middle of the night. It represented a newness of life, the old man is dead. We proclaim this at baptism.

God help us to see that only through what Christ did at Calvary have we received eternal life.
Title: Re: Dunked in the Water
Post by: e.r.m. on Wed Jul 16, 2014 - 16:47:03
So if you are unbaptized you still have the corpse of the old man hanging around like some zombie?

Not good.

There are many folk who are not saved because they believed the water gospel but never opened their hearts to the Holy Spirit.   

Has a non-effectual water baptism ever taken place? Absolutely! I can name several people that were literally drug to the baptistery kicking and screaming. They just got ceremonially in front of some witnesses for nothing. If people teach that all that is required is to get someone wet, THEY are all wet.

Has anyone ever spoken with their lips that Jesus is Lord and savior and didn't really mean it? I would say certainly, and their actions would be just as ineffectual.
Agreed.
I remember this girl coming into work one day around 1990, smiling saying flippantly about this altar call event, throwing her hand from side to side, "She got saved, and I got saved..." like it was a fad. There was nothing in her tone or look that indicated the alleged scale of event this was supposed to be.


 Only time will tell if it will last or not, you cant say. Not everyone has that sudden dramatic all changing conversion. 
I agree.
Title: Re: Dunked in the Water
Post by: e.r.m. on Wed Jul 16, 2014 - 16:51:53

Salvation comes through turning your whole Life, your whole Heart, and every bit of your Soul over to God, and accept Jesus as your Lord and Savior; if you haven't done that, no dunking yourself in liquid is going to change a thing in your life.
 

Absolutely agree. No one here has implied or said that just a dunking in water does anything without belief, trust and turning every bit of your Soul over to God. If that wasn't the case, Peter would have just had to spray the 3000 with water prior to his sermon and their belief and repentance.
Agreed.
Title: Re: Dunked in the Water
Post by: Jaime on Wed Jul 16, 2014 - 17:01:54
When John the Baptist came on the scene baptizing in water for the remission of sins, was his baptism to the saving of the soul? Of course not. He was proclaiming the One who was coming, the One who would save the soul.

When John baptized a person in water, the repentance had already taken place. By being baptized they were confessing that they believed in the Messiah to come.

Only one thing has changed from the days of Johns baptism. Today we are not looking forward to the Messiah, we are looking back.

Baptism is the same now as it was then. We are professing that we believe in the Son of God. We believe when we accept Christ as Saviour we are crucified with Him, and through baptism we are baptized in symbol into His death that as Christ was risen from the dead we also will rise to a newness of life as Christ.

In the book of Acts the Apostles believed in immediate baptism, even to the point of being baptized in the middle of the night. It represented a newness of life, the old man is dead. We proclaim this at baptism.

God help us to see that only through what Christ did at Calvary have we received eternal life.

The baptism the apostles administered in Acts had the added provision of the indwelling gift of the Holy Spirit that John the Baptist's didn't.
Title: Re: Dunked in the Water
Post by: chosenone on Wed Jul 16, 2014 - 17:13:07

So if you are unbaptized you still have the corpse of the old man hanging around like some zombie?

Not good.

There are many folk who are not saved because they believed the water gospel but never opened their hearts to the Holy Spirit.   

Has a non-effectual water baptism ever taken place? Absolutely! I can name several people that were literally drug to the baptistery kicking and screaming. They just got ceremonially in front of some witnesses for nothing. If people teach that all that is required is to get someone wet, THEY are all wet.

Has anyone ever spoken with their lips that Jesus is Lord and savior and didn't really mean it? I would say certainly, and their actions would be just as ineffectual.
Agreed.
I remember this girl coming into work one day around 1990, smiling saying flippantly about this altar call event, throwing her hand from side to side, "She got saved, and I got saved..." like it was a fad. There was nothing in her tone or look that indicated the alleged scale of event this was supposed to be.


 Only time will tell if it will last or not, you cant say. Not everyone has that sudden dramatic all changing conversion. 

But the point still stands that ineffectual conversions take place whether with water or without, if true sincere belief and trust in the Lord is not present. The people who have insincerely parroted the sinners prayer directive from a TV preacher aren't necessarily saved in that doctrine just by mouthing the words if the sincerity is not there. Some people are looking for a magic potion or chant to do or say. There is no such potion without sincere belief and trust in the Lord. I am not commenting on Erm's example, but just in general.


 I am sure you are right in some cases. Only time will tell though,  but if they said it and real meant it, then they are saved. 
Title: Re: Dunked in the Water
Post by: e.r.m. on Wed Jul 16, 2014 - 17:23:51

So if you are unbaptized you still have the corpse of the old man hanging around like some zombie?

Not good.

There are many folk who are not saved because they believed the water gospel but never opened their hearts to the Holy Spirit.   

Has a non-effectual water baptism ever taken place? Absolutely! I can name several people that were literally drug to the baptistery kicking and screaming. They just got ceremonially in front of some witnesses for nothing. If people teach that all that is required is to get someone wet, THEY are all wet.

Has anyone ever spoken with their lips that Jesus is Lord and savior and didn't really mean it? I would say certainly, and their actions would be just as ineffectual.
Agreed.
I remember this girl coming into work one day around 1990, smiling saying flippantly about this altar call event, throwing her hand from side to side, "She got saved, and I got saved..." like it was a fad. There was nothing in her tone or look that indicated the alleged scale of event this was supposed to be.


 Only time will tell if it will last or not, you cant say. Not everyone has that sudden dramatic all changing conversion. 

But the point still stands that ineffectual conversions take place whether with water or without, if true sincere belief and trust in the Lord is not present. The people who have insincerely parroted the sinners prayer directive from a TV preacher aren't necessarily saved in that doctrine just by mouthing the words if the sincerity is not there. Some people are looking for a magic potion or chant to do or say. There is no such potion without sincere belief and trust in the Lord. I am not commenting on Erm's example, but just in general.


 I am sure you are right in some cases. Only time will tell though,  but if they said it and real meant it, then they are saved. 

That's another issue. But same applies to baptism, one must have the faith and the heart and really mean it.
Title: Re: Dunked in the Water
Post by: e.r.m. on Wed Jul 16, 2014 - 17:49:44
I'm sorry, are you of the mind that she couldn't have actually gotten saved because she didn't get dunked in a pool of water? I misunderstood; I thought your comment was that she thought she was saved because of some act that she had performed......
My comment was that she spoke flippantly about something allegedly huge. My comment was not about baptism.. Being baptized in Jesus's name includes, but is more than being dunked in a pool of water. If you were to ask an accurate question such as  "Are you of the mind that she couldn't have actually gotten saved because she didn't get water baptized in Jesus's name (faith and repentance included)?"  then I can render you an answer.

Quote
Salvation comes through turning your whole Life, your whole Heart, and every bit of your Soul over to God, and accept Jesus as your Lord and Savior; if you haven't done that, no dunking yourself in liquid is going to change a thing in your life.
It's like two wings of a plane. On the one wing, turning your whole Life, your whole Heart, and every bit of your Soul over to God, and accept Jesus as your Lord Colossians 2:6. One the other wing, being water baptized in Jesus's name for the forgiveness of sins and receiving the indwelling of the Holy Spirit Acts 2:38. Without either wing, the other wing does no good. One cannot be missing either wing.

Quote
You know the Bible says that only God knows the heart of man; that is why we have no business judging.  If she was truly saved, God knows it; whether you believe it or not; it doesn't matter.
I'm not saying I knew her heart. Whether or not her particular heart was sincere, I was making an example that heartless alleged altar call conversions exist.
Title: Re: Dunked in the Water
Post by: AnthonyB on Wed Jul 16, 2014 - 18:10:23
Furthermore "alter calls" are usually seen as an action that someone performs for themselves.

The language is usually "I went forward", "I responded", "I decided", all in the active voice, denoting that the person is doing the action, not reciveing the action. It is easy to then to see them as something that is done by the person to receive salvation.

Mirror this to baptism, which in the NT when adressed to an individual new believer is almost always in the passive voice, "be baptised"  (the exception is Ananias to Paul, where it is middle voice). The language is "I was baptised". If you used baptism in the active sense ( I baptised) then we would generally understand that you baptised someone else not that you were commenting on your own baptism. It is clearly something you receive, not something you do.

For me it is clear that, you do works but you receive gifts. Baptism is something you receive not something you do. Baptism is a gift, just like salvation is a gift both to be received. That is why partially why I think God gave us baptism as part of the covenant formation, to remind us that savlation is something that we receive.
Title: Re: Dunked in the Water
Post by: e.r.m. on Wed Jul 16, 2014 - 18:40:21
Furthermore "alter calls" are usually seen as an action that someone performs for themselves.

The language is usually "I went forward", "I responded", "I decided", all in the active voice, denoting that the person is doing the action, not reciveing the action. It is easy to then to see them as something that is done by the person to receive salvation.

Mirror this to baptism, which in the NT when adressed to an individual new believer is almost always in the passive voice, "be baptised"  (the exception is Ananias to Paul, where it is middle voice). The language is "I was baptised". If you used baptism in the active sense ( I baptised) then we would generally understand that you baptised someone else not that you were commenting on your own baptism. It is clearly something you receive, not something you do.

For me it is clear that, you do works but you receive gifts. Baptism is something you receive not something you do. Baptism is a gift, just like salvation is a gift both to be received. That is why partially why I think God gave us baptism as part of the covenant formation, to remind us that savlation is something that we receive.
Good point.
Title: Re: Dunked in the Water
Post by: yogi bear on Wed Jul 16, 2014 - 19:24:27
It is kinda like Jesus said.

He that believeth (is justified) and is baptized (is sanctified) shall be saved; but he that believeth not shall be damned.
Mark 16:16 (KJV)

Upon belief one is justified to be sanctified. Washed clean and set aside from the world to be a servant unto the Lord. See Romans 6:3ff
Title: Re: Dunked in the Water
Post by: soterion on Wed Jul 16, 2014 - 20:22:30
It is kinda like Jesus said.

He that believeth (is justified) and is baptized (is sanctified) shall be saved; but he that believeth not shall be damned.
Mark 16:16 (KJV)

Upon belief one is justified to be sanctified. Washed clean and set aside from the world to be a servant unto the Lord. See Romans 6:3ff

Maybe I ma not understanding you correctly, yogi bear, but when we read Colossians 2:11-13 Paul says the result of this body of the flesh being removed by Christ in baptism is our being made alive together with Him, having all of our transgressions forgiven.

All of our transgressions being forgiven sounds like justification to me.

But then, I believe salvation, justification, sanctification, redemption, reconciliation, and no doubt other -tions, all take place at the same time for the sinner first coming to Christ in faith.
Title: Re: Dunked in the Water
Post by: Charlie24 on Wed Jul 16, 2014 - 20:30:35
When John the Baptist came on the scene baptizing in water for the remission of sins, was his baptism to the saving of the soul? Of course not. He was proclaiming the One who was coming, the One who would save the soul.

When John baptized a person in water, the repentance had already taken place. By being baptized they were confessing that they believed in the Messiah to come.

Only one thing has changed from the days of Johns baptism. Today we are not looking forward to the Messiah, we are looking back.

Baptism is the same now as it was then. We are professing that we believe in the Son of God. We believe when we accept Christ as Saviour we are crucified with Him, and through baptism we are baptized in symbol into His death that as Christ was risen from the dead we also will rise to a newness of life as Christ.

In the book of Acts the Apostles believed in immediate baptism, even to the point of being baptized in the middle of the night. It represented a newness of life, the old man is dead. We proclaim this at baptism.

God help us to see that only through what Christ did at Calvary have we received eternal life.

The baptism the apostles administered in Acts had the added provision of the indwelling gift of the Holy Spirit that John the Baptist's didn't.
Wouldn't that be in direct opposition to Eph. 1:13? Paul said we receive the seal of the Holy Spirit when we believe not at baptism.

No where in scripture does it even hint that we receive the Holy Spirit at baptism.

If you think this because the Holy Spirit came on Jesus when He was baptized, Jesus didn't receive the Holy Spirit to be born into the family of God, He was God.

Title: Re: Dunked in the Water
Post by: e.r.m. on Wed Jul 16, 2014 - 20:31:59
All but sanctification. That is a life long process.
Title: Re: Dunked in the Water
Post by: soterion on Wed Jul 16, 2014 - 20:50:48
All but sanctification. That is a life long process.

Indeed it is.  ::nodding::
Title: Re: Dunked in the Water
Post by: Jaime on Wed Jul 16, 2014 - 20:59:33
Charlie, what did the 3000 receive in Acts 2:38 upon repentance and baptism? Yes, rissiomnof sin and the gidt of the Holy Spirit. This IS a scripture that links the gift of the Holy spirit with repentance and baptism, sorry.
Title: Re: Dunked in the Water
Post by: e.r.m. on Wed Jul 16, 2014 - 21:00:55
When John the Baptist came on the scene baptizing in water for the remission of sins, was his baptism to the saving of the soul? Of course not. He was proclaiming the One who was coming, the One who would save the soul.

When John baptized a person in water, the repentance had already taken place. By being baptized they were confessing that they believed in the Messiah to come.

Only one thing has changed from the days of Johns baptism. Today we are not looking forward to the Messiah, we are looking back.

Baptism is the same now as it was then. We are professing that we believe in the Son of God. We believe when we accept Christ as Saviour we are crucified with Him, and through baptism we are baptized in symbol into His death that as Christ was risen from the dead we also will rise to a newness of life as Christ.

In the book of Acts the Apostles believed in immediate baptism, even to the point of being baptized in the middle of the night. It represented a newness of life, the old man is dead. We proclaim this at baptism.

God help us to see that only through what Christ did at Calvary have we received eternal life.

The baptism the apostles administered in Acts had the added provision of the indwelling gift of the Holy Spirit that John the Baptist's didn't.
Quote
Wouldn't that be in direct opposition to Eph. 1:13? Paul said we receive the seal of the Holy Spirit when we believe not at baptism.
Re: Do we enter Christ by faith, when we first
believe? «Reply #258
Believing, believer is a general term
Acts 2:41, 44 Those who accepted his message were baptized, and about three thousand were added to their number that day. [44] All the believers were together and had everything in common.

Acts 16:33-34 At that hour of the night the jailer took them and washed their wounds; then immediately he and all his household were baptized. [34] The jailer brought them into his house and set a meal before them; he was filled with joy because he had come to believe in God---he and his whole household.

Acts 19:2-5 and asked them, “Did you receive the Holy Spirit when you believed?” They answered, “No, we have not even heard that there is a Holy Spirit.” [3] So Paul asked, “Then what baptism did you receive?” “John’s baptism,” they replied. [4] Paul said, “John’s baptism was a baptism of repentance. He told the people to believe in the one coming after him, that is, in Jesus.” [5] On hearing this, they were baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus.

Galatians 3:26-27 So in Christ Jesus you are all children of God through faith, [27] for all of you who were baptized into Christ have clothed yourselves with Christ.


In Ephesus, when Paul asked these men if they had received the Holy Spirit when they believed, and then asked "what baptism did you receive?",  By asking "when you believed", Paul assumed they had been already baptized. In Paul's mind having believed meant also having been baptized. This was the same city about whom he wrote Ephesians 1:13. It very easily leaves room for Paul having meant the same for the Ephesians. When they believed, including their baptism.  Btw, Paul also saw the receipt of the Holy Spirit as dependent on the right baptism, "then what baptism did you receive?").

Luke and Paul referred a number of times of those have believed/had faith as those who already been baptized as mentioned above. When you believed, they believed, etc. is a general term.

Ephesians 1:13 does not say When you first believed.

You don't have enough evidence to show that baptism.comes at the moment of first belief.

And once again Paul's own story shows that he did had not received the Holy Spirit when HE first believed on the road Acts 9:17.

Quote
No where in scripture does it even hint that we receive the Holy Spirit at baptism.
Acts 2:38 Peter replied, “Repent and be baptized, every one of you, in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins. And you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit.

Quote
If you think this because the Holy Spirit came on Jesus when He was baptized, Jesus didn't receive the Holy Spirit to be born into the family of God, He was God.
We don't think that, so irrelevant.
Title: Re: Dunked in the Water
Post by: yogi bear on Wed Jul 16, 2014 - 21:03:17
All but sanctification. That is a life long process.

Indeed it is.  ::nodding::
Yes I agree it is a life long process but it has its starting point somewhere. The definition that I had read on sanctification was the washing and setting aside by God to make one holy which defines baptism in Christ name which also covers one for life.

I admit I am not the smartest when it comes to the doctrine of justification and sanctification but what I have come to understand is that justification is God declaring one has come to the right state of mind to enter into the covenant relationship and is sanctified using the definition above for sanctifying by God and one walks in that covenant relationship until one is home in heaven with God.   
Title: Re: Dunked in the Water
Post by: Charlie24 on Wed Jul 16, 2014 - 21:08:41
Charlie, what did the 3000 receive in Acts 2:38 upon repentance and baptism? Yes, rissiomnof sin and the gidt of the Holy Spirit. This IS a scripture that links the gift of the Holy spirit with repentance and baptism, sorry.
No Jaime, they received it upon repentance and then were baptized.

vs. 41 Then they that gladly received his word were baptized.

Title: Re: Dunked in the Water
Post by: Charlie24 on Wed Jul 16, 2014 - 21:24:34
Baptism is connected to repentance because repentance comes from within.

Salvation comes from within the heart. Baptism is connected because it is the outward profession of your faith. You are publicly calling on Christ as you just did on the inside.
Title: Re: Dunked in the Water
Post by: yogi bear on Wed Jul 16, 2014 - 21:34:28
All but sanctification. That is a life long process.

Indeed it is.  ::nodding::
Yes I agree it is a life long process but it has its starting point somewhere. The definition that I had read on sanctification was the washing and setting aside by God to make one holy which defines baptism in Christ name which also covers one for life.

I admit I am not the smartest when it comes to the doctrine of justification and sanctification but what I have come to understand is that justification is God declaring one has come to the right state of mind to enter into the covenant relationship and is sanctified using the definition above for sanctifying by God and one walks in that covenant relationship until one is home in heaven with God.   
Sorry this is some what off topic and should have it own thread so ignore this and carry on with topic at hand. I am not that sure just where I stand on this to be broadcasting it here.
Title: Re: Dunked in the Water
Post by: soterion on Wed Jul 16, 2014 - 21:36:34
Wouldn't that be in direct opposition to Eph. 1:13? Paul said we receive the seal of the Holy Spirit when we believe not at baptism.

No where in scripture does it even hint that we receive the Holy Spirit at baptism.

If you think this because the Holy Spirit came on Jesus when He was baptized, Jesus didn't receive the Holy Spirit to be born into the family of God, He was God.

Looking at passages that only mention "believe" and leaving out what is found in other passages results in a buffet style doctrine.  For example, if I look only to Titus 3:4-7 I could claim that I do not have to have faith in Christ to be saved, since faith is not specifically mentioned.  If I look only to James 2:14-26 concerning justification, then I could conclude that Jesus has nothing to do with my being justified, since His name is not specifically mentioned in that context.

All of those would be false conclusions, just as looking at only passages that mention "believe" and do not mention what is found in other passages would result in false conclusions. This is particularly true if you read the word "believe" as meaning an initial nonactive mental acknowledgement to God from the heart. However, scripture does not define it this way in every context.

Keep in mind that the Ephesian passage does not say, "...when you initially believed before doing anything else," or, "...without baptism," or anything else like that. It just says, "...having also believed..." So, what does it mean that they believed? Looking at Ephesians 1:13-14 along with other passages tells me that I was considered a believer when I repented and confessed the name of Jesus as my Lord and Savior, as well as received baptism.  Believing includes doing what God says to do unto salvation, in all the various passages He says these things to us.

Here is another passage to consider: Acts 5:32.
"And we are witnesses of these things; and so is the Holy Spirit, whom God hath given to them that obey him."

Who is the Spirit given to?  Those who do what?

Apply Acts 2:38 and 5:32 to Ephesians 1:13. The Ephesians believed how? It was this kind of believing that resulted in their receiving the Spirit as the seal of their inheritance in Christ.

Quote
No Jaime, they received it upon repentance and then were baptized.

By the way, Peter preached in Acts 2 that the people were to repent and be immersed in the name of Jesus Christ unto the forgiveness of their sins, and they would receive the gift of the Holy Spirit. You have a problem with the word "and" in these particular contexts, but it still connects the two mentioned requirements to be observed prior to receiving the promised blessing stated afterwards. Changing the order of what is said is simply a gross mishandling of the scripture.
Title: Re: Dunked in the Water
Post by: Jaime on Wed Jul 16, 2014 - 21:36:52
No Charlie, its one of those sentence structure AND  things that the smart translator and linguist translated. Just like believe and be baptized shall be saved. Sentence ateucrure means something or we are in trouble. Peter could have easily told them to repent an re eive the holyspirit and THEN be baptized. But alas he didn't.
Title: Re: Dunked in the Water
Post by: Jaime on Wed Jul 16, 2014 - 21:46:30
Charlie, what did the 3000 receive in Acts 2:38 upon repentance and baptism? Yes, rissiomnof sin and the gidt of the Holy Spirit. This IS a scripture that links the gift of the Holy spirit with repentance and baptism, sorry.
No Jaime, they received it upon repentance and then were baptized.

vs. 41 Then they that gladly received his word were baptized.



Charlie, for Pete's sake, verse 41 doesn't nullify or negate vs 38. Vs 41 doesn't re-mention repentance either but does it mean vs 38 was a farce. No.
Title: Re: Dunked in the Water
Post by: kensington on Wed Jul 16, 2014 - 21:53:19
I agree with everyone who said this... in so many words...

Salvation happens in a moment, at the moment you repent of your sins, and receive Jesus as Savior and his blood covering for our sins. That moment is Salvation.

And then, Baptism is an act of obedience after the moment of Salvation, we are saved and then after, we are baptized.  Our first chosen act after receiving Christ, is to be baptized.

 ::tippinghat::

Title: Re: Dunked in the Water
Post by: yogi bear on Wed Jul 16, 2014 - 21:58:01
I agree with everyone who said this... in so many words...

Salvation happens in a moment, at the moment you repent of your sins, and receive Jesus as Savior and his blood covering for our sins. That moment is Salvation.

And then, Baptism is an act of obedience after the moment of Salvation, we are saved and then after, we are baptized.  Our first chosen act after receiving Christ, is to be baptized.

 ::tippinghat::
Yes I can understand why you see it that way being many teach that but I think if you really seek out the message on this subject it does not really teach it quite that way from the word. To arrive at that conclusion you have to read that thought into what it does say.

But I truly do understand why you see it that way.
Title: Re: Dunked in the Water
Post by: Charlie24 on Wed Jul 16, 2014 - 21:58:52
Wouldn't that be in direct opposition to Eph. 1:13? Paul said we receive the seal of the Holy Spirit when we believe not at baptism.

No where in scripture does it even hint that we receive the Holy Spirit at baptism.

If you think this because the Holy Spirit came on Jesus when He was baptized, Jesus didn't receive the Holy Spirit to be born into the family of God, He was God.

Looking at passages that only mention "believe" and leaving out what is found in other passages results in a buffet style doctrine.  For example, if I look only to Titus 3:4-7 I could claim that I do not have to have faith in Christ to be saved, since faith is not specifically mentioned.  If I look only to James 2:14-26 concerning justification, then I could conclude that Jesus has nothing to do with my being justified, since His name is not specifically mentioned in that context.

All of those would be false conclusions, just as looking at only passages that mention "believe" and do not mention what is found in other passages would result in false conclusions. This is particularly true if you read the word "believe" as meaning an initial nonactive mental acknowledgement to God from the heart. However, scripture does not define it this way in every context.

Keep in mind that the Ephesian passage does not say, "...when you initially believed before doing anything else," or, "...without baptism," or anything else like that. It just says, "...having also believed..." So, what does it mean that they believed? Looking at Ephesians 1:13-14 along with other passages tells me that I was considered a believer when I repented and confessed the name of Jesus as my Lord and Savior, as well as received baptism.  Believing includes doing what God says to do unto salvation, in all the various passages He says these things to us.

Here is another passage to consider: Acts 5:32.
"And we are witnesses of these things; and so is the Holy Spirit, whom God hath given to them that obey him."

Who is the Spirit given to?  Those who do what?

Apply Acts 2:38 and 5:32 to Ephesians 1:13. The Ephesians believed how? It was this kind of believing that resulted in their receiving the Spirit as the seal of their inheritance in Christ.

Quote
No Jaime, they received it upon repentance and then were baptized.

By the way, Peter preached in Acts 2 that the people were to repent and be immersed in the name of Jesus Christ unto the forgiveness of their sins, and they would receive the gift of the Holy Spirit. You have a problem with the word "and" in these particular contexts, but it still connects the two mentioned requirements to be observed prior to receiving the promised blessing stated afterwards. Changing the order of what is said is simply a gross mishandling of the scripture.
By your own words you are working for your salvation.

You said: Who is the Spirit given to?  Those who do what?

Salvation comes from within a man, it's a free gift, not anything he can do on the outside. How many times does Paul tell us this?

Baptism is not from within. It has been misunderstood and results in man working for his salvation.

Title: Re: Dunked in the Water
Post by: Jaime on Wed Jul 16, 2014 - 22:01:29
Kensington, Jesus thought salvation was after belief and baptism. Your bible may say he that believes and is saved shall ne baptized, mine says he that believes AND is bapttized shall be saved. Once again men and women a lot smarter than me teanslated the original text into a certain sentence structure to be understood as anyone would read any other AND statement.
Title: Re: Dunked in the Water
Post by: Charlie24 on Wed Jul 16, 2014 - 22:02:24
I agree with everyone who said this... in so many words...

Salvation happens in a moment, at the moment you repent of your sins, and receive Jesus as Savior and his blood covering for our sins. That moment is Salvation.

And then, Baptism is an act of obedience after the moment of Salvation, we are saved and then after, we are baptized.  Our first chosen act after receiving Christ, is to be baptized.

 ::tippinghat::
Amen Kensington. This knowledge didn't come from man. It came from God Himself.
Title: Re: Dunked in the Water
Post by: Charlie24 on Wed Jul 16, 2014 - 22:14:34
Charlie, what did the 3000 receive in Acts 2:38 upon repentance and baptism? Yes, rissiomnof sin and the gidt of the Holy Spirit. This IS a scripture that links the gift of the Holy spirit with repentance and baptism, sorry.
No Jaime, they received it upon repentance and then were baptized.

vs. 41 Then they that gladly received his word were baptized.



Charlie, for Pete's sake, verse 41 doesn't nullify or negate vs 38. Vs 41 doesn't re-mention repentance either but does it mean vs 38 was a farce. No.

It's amazing how two men can read the same scriptures and see two versions of what is being said. Not just this scripture but throughout the entire Bible.

I can't help but believe the Holy Spirit knew this in advance and allowed it.

I think it boils down to precisely, exactly where our faith is placed. I believe this will separate the sheep from the goats, so to speak.
Title: Re: Dunked in the Water
Post by: soterion on Wed Jul 16, 2014 - 22:15:06
I agree with everyone who said this... in so many words...

Salvation happens in a moment, at the moment you repent of your sins, and receive Jesus as Savior and his blood covering for our sins. That moment is Salvation.

And then, Baptism is an act of obedience after the moment of Salvation, we are saved and then after, we are baptized.  Our first chosen act after receiving Christ, is to be baptized.

 ::tippinghat::

kensington,

Yep,
We are saved...and then we are baptized to have the old self crucified together with Christ.
We are saved but still dead in sin...and then we are baptized so as to die with Christ so that we can live together with Him.
We are saved but still bearing the body of sin...and then we are baptized to be set free from slavery to sin.
We are saved but not yet alive to God in Christ Jesus...then we are baptized so that Christ will raise us up to begin walking in newness of life.

Romans 6:3-11.

On the other hand, nope. It doesn't make sense to say we are saved and then baptized.
Title: Re: Dunked in the Water
Post by: soterion on Wed Jul 16, 2014 - 22:30:52
By your own words you are working for your salvation.

You said: Who is the Spirit given to?  Those who do what?

Salvation comes from within a man, it's a free gift, not anything he can do on the outside. How many times does Paul tell us this?

Baptism is not from within. It has been misunderstood and results in man working for his salvation.


Not my words, God's word. The word "obey" is hard to deal with, isn't it?

Salvation does not come from within a man, it comes from God and God can command whatever response of faith He wants from man. You can argue and twist scripture all you want, but it does not change what they say.

As for salvation being a free gift, I wholeheartedly agree. No doubt you are thinking of Ephesians 2:8-9. Sorry, that passage cannot be used to negate what God says elsewhere about baptism:

http://www.gracecentered.com/christian_forums/theology/grace-and-works-in-ephesians-21-10/msg1054914807/#msg1054914807 (http://www.gracecentered.com/christian_forums/theology/grace-and-works-in-ephesians-21-10/msg1054914807/#msg1054914807)
Title: Re: Dunked in the Water
Post by: Charlie24 on Wed Jul 16, 2014 - 22:49:20
By your own words you are working for your salvation.

You said: Who is the Spirit given to?  Those who do what?

Salvation comes from within a man, it's a free gift, not anything he can do on the outside. How many times does Paul tell us this?

Baptism is not from within. It has been misunderstood and results in man working for his salvation.



Not my words, God's word. The word "obey" is hard to deal with, isn't it?

Salvation does not come from within a man, it comes from God and God can command whatever response of faith He wants from man. You can argue and twist scripture all you want, but it does not change what they say.

As for salvation being a free gift, I wholeheartedly agree. No doubt you are thinking of Ephesians 2:8-9. Sorry, that passage cannot be used to negate what God says elsewhere about baptism:

[url]http://www.gracecentered.com/christian_forums/theology/grace-and-works-in-ephesians-21-10/msg1054914807/#msg1054914807[/url] ([url]http://www.gracecentered.com/christian_forums/theology/grace-and-works-in-ephesians-21-10/msg1054914807/#msg1054914807[/url])

You plainly said salvation does not come from within a man.

If you declare with your mouth, “Jesus is Lord,” and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved. For it is with your heart that you believe and are justified, and it is with your mouth that you profess your faith and are saved. Rom 10:9-10

The word "obey" is not hard to deal with when properly placed to it's correct intent.
We are commanded by God to believe in His Son.
Neither is there salvation in any other: for there is none other name under heaven given among men, whereby we must be saved. Acts 4:12
The word "obey" comes after salvation and baptism is the first act in obeying. Prior to this it is impossible to obey God.

Title: Re: Dunked in the Water
Post by: e.r.m. on Thu Jul 17, 2014 - 05:00:04
Charlie, what did the 3000 receive in Acts 2:38 upon repentance and baptism? Yes, rissiomnof sin and the gidt of the Holy Spirit. This IS a scripture that links the gift of the Holy spirit with repentance and baptism, sorry.
No Jaime, they received it upon repentance and then were baptized.

vs. 41 Then they that gladly received his word were baptized.
It says they received his word/message and then were baptized.  It doesn't say they received his salvation and then were baptized.
Title: Re: Dunked in the Water
Post by: Red Baker on Thu Jul 17, 2014 - 05:03:20
Matthew 3:13-17

Mark 1:9-11

Luke 3:21-23


13. Then cometh Jesus from Galilee to Jordan to John, that he might be baptized by him. 14. But John forbade him, saying, I have need to be baptized by thee, and dost thou come to me? 15. And Jesus answering said to him, Suffer it now: for thus it becometh us to fulfil all righteousness. Then he suffers him. 16. And Jesus, having been baptized, went up immediately from the water: and, lo, the heavens were opened to him, and he saw the Spirit of God descending as a dove, and coming upon him. 17. And, lo, a voice from heaven, saying, This is my be loved Son, in whom I am well pleased.

9. And it happened in those days, Jesus came from Nazareth of Galilee, and was baptized by John in Jordan. 10. And immediately, when he was going up out of the water, he saw the heavens cleft assunder, and the Spirit descending as a dove, upon him. 11. And a voice came from heaven, Thou art my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased.

21. And it happened, that, while all the people were being baptized,  when Jesus had been baptized and was praying, the heaven was opened, 22. And that the Holy Spirit descended in a bodily appearance, as a dove, upon him, and a voice came from heaven, saying, Thou art my beloved Son: in thee I am well pleased. 23. And Jesus himself began to be about thirty years of age.


Let me ask some this question: "Why was Jesus Baptized"?  Please do not just say~for thus it became him to fulfill all righteousness. It is much more extensive, than to leave it with those words, for one has not really explained the purpose of Jesus' baptism by only saying those words.  Was Jesus' baptism for a different purpose than ours?  Or, the same? Waiting for some answers.
Title: Re: Dunked in the Water
Post by: e.r.m. on Thu Jul 17, 2014 - 05:10:20
I agree with everyone who said this... in so many words...

Salvation happens in a moment, at the moment you repent of your sins, and receive Jesus as Savior and his blood covering for our sins. That moment is Salvation.

And then, Baptism is an act of obedience after the moment of Salvation, we are saved and then after, we are baptized.  Our first chosen act after receiving Christ, is to be baptized.

 ::tippinghat::
The method of receiving Christ as Savior is not written in the Bible.
Title: Re: Dunked in the Water
Post by: DaveW on Thu Jul 17, 2014 - 05:17:13
Mirror this to baptism, which in the NT when adressed to an individual new believer is almost always in the passive voice, "be baptised"  (the exception is Ananias to Paul, where it is middle voice). The language is "I was baptised". If you used baptism in the active sense ( I baptised) then we would generally understand that you baptised someone else not that you were commenting on your own baptism. It is clearly something you receive, not something you do.

Thank you.  As I have been posting here for months - the COMMAND to baptize is NOT incumbant on the new believer. Rather it is on the one who brings the gospel.
Title: Re: Dunked in the Water
Post by: DaveW on Thu Jul 17, 2014 - 05:20:09
Wouldn't that be in direct opposition to Eph. 1:13? Paul said we receive the seal of the Holy Spirit when we believe not at baptism.

No where in scripture does it even hint that we receive the Holy Spirit at baptism.

If you think this because the Holy Spirit came on Jesus when He was baptized, Jesus didn't receive the Holy Spirit to be born into the family of God, He was God.

Scripture assumes that belief and baptism are pretty much simultaneous. It is the modern church that has seperated the 2, thus leading to this dichotomy of opinion on what does what.
Title: Re: Dunked in the Water
Post by: e.r.m. on Thu Jul 17, 2014 - 05:21:37
Baptism is connected to repentance because repentance comes from within.
Correct, because repentance & baptism are for forgiveness of sins - Acts 2:38.

Quote
Salvation comes from within the heart. Baptism is connected because it is the outward profession of your faith. You are publicly calling on Christ as you just did on the inside.
Baptism is nothing of the kind. There is no scripture for this.  When this is revealed as non-Biblical, no one ever seems to continue.
Title: Re: Dunked in the Water
Post by: e.r.m. on Thu Jul 17, 2014 - 05:24:41
Wouldn't that be in direct opposition to Eph. 1:13? Paul said we receive the seal of the Holy Spirit when we believe not at baptism.

No where in scripture does it even hint that we receive the Holy Spirit at baptism.

If you think this because the Holy Spirit came on Jesus when He was baptized, Jesus didn't receive the Holy Spirit to be born into the family of God, He was God.

Scripture assumes that belief and baptism are pretty much simultaneous. It is the modern church that has seperated the 2, thus leading to this dichotomy of opinion on what does what.
Agreed.
Title: Re: Dunked in the Water
Post by: grams on Thu Jul 17, 2014 - 05:54:34
     I do pray you can understand this !

 Eph.3:

 1
 For this cause I Paul, the prisoner of Jesus Christ for you Gentiles,
 2
 If ye have heard of the dispensation of the grace of God which is given me to you-ward:


 3
 How that by revelation he made known unto me the mystery; (as I wrote afore in few words,
 4
 Whereby, when ye read, ye may understand my knowledge in the mystery of Christ)
 5
 Which in other ages was not made known unto the sons of men, as it is now revealed unto his holy apostles and prophets by the Spirit;

 6
 That the Gentiles should be fellowheirs, and of the same body, and partakers of his promise in Christ by the gospel:

 eph. 4

 4
 There is one body, and one Spirit, even as ye are called in one hope of your calling;

 5
 One Lord, one faith, one baptism,

 Col.1:

 26
 Even the mystery which hath been hid from ages and from generations, but now is made manifest to his saints:
 27
 To whom God would make known what is the riches of the glory of this mystery among the Gentiles; which is Christ in you, the hope of glory:

 Col:2
 10
 And ye are complete in him, which is the head of all principality and power:
 11
 In whom also ye are circumcised with the circumcision made without hands, in putting off the body of the sins of the flesh by the circumcision of Christ:
 12
 Buried with him in baptism, wherein also ye are risen with him through the faith of the operation of God, who hath raised him from the dead.


       14

 Blotting out the handwriting of ordinances that was against us, which was contrary to us, and took it out of the way, nailing it to his cross;

 ll 2: Tim.

 15

 Study to shew thyself approved unto God, a workman that needeth not to be ashamed, rightly dividing the word of truth. 

   
[/b]
Title: Re: Dunked in the Water
Post by: Jaime on Thu Jul 17, 2014 - 06:03:56
Wouldn't that be in direct opposition to Eph. 1:13? Paul said we receive the seal of the Holy Spirit when we believe not at baptism.

No where in scripture does it even hint that we receive the Holy Spirit at baptism.

If you think this because the Holy Spirit came on Jesus when He was baptized, Jesus didn't receive the Holy Spirit to be born into the family of God, He was God.

Scripture assumes that belief and baptism are pretty much simultaneous. It is the modern church that has seperated the 2, thus leading to this dichotomy of opinion on what does what.
Agreed.

Absolutely agree. The modern dichotomy would stun the first century folks in my opinion. It would be like trying to separate pain from childbirth. When the folks in the NT accepted Christ in their hearts they pretty much simultaneously put on Christ in baptism. That's the way I looked at it. My entire faith response of belief and acceptance, repentance, confessing with my lips that he is Lord and neing baptized was my salvation experience, not experienceS. It was one continuous seemless event in my mind and in my Spirit, as I understood the salvation examples in the NT.

I'm not sure if it is a sheep and goat thing Charlie. BAAAAAA
Title: Re: Dunked in the Water
Post by: DaveW on Thu Jul 17, 2014 - 06:16:00
Grams - what I understand is you hve been lied to. And you are now trying to spread those same lies to us.
Title: Re: Dunked in the Water
Post by: e.r.m. on Thu Jul 17, 2014 - 06:28:33
Wouldn't that be in direct opposition to Eph. 1:13? Paul said we  the seal of the Holy Spirit when we believe not at baptism.

No where in scripture does it even hint that we receive the Holy Spirit at baptism.

If you think this because the Holy Spirit came on Jesus when He was baptized, Jesus didn't receive the Holy Spirit to be born into the family of God, He was God.

Looking at passages that only mention "believe" and leaving out what is found in other passages results in a buffet style doctrine.  For example, if I look only to Titus 3:4-7 I could claim that I do not have to have faith in Christ to be saved, since faith is not specifically mentioned.  If I look only to James 2:14-26 concerning justification, then I could conclude that Jesus has nothing to do with my being justified, since His name is not specifically mentioned in that context.

All of those would be false conclusions, just as looking at only passages that mention "believe" and do not mention what is found in other passages would result in false conclusions. This is particularly true if you read the word "believe" as meaning an initial nonactive mental acknowledgement to God from the heart. However, scripture does not define it this way in every context.

Keep in mind that the Ephesian passage does not say, "...when you initially believed before doing anything else," or, "...without baptism," or anything else like that. It just says, "...having also believed..." So, what does it mean that they believed? Looking at Ephesians 1:13-14 along with other passages tells me that I was considered a believer when I repented and confessed the name of Jesus as my Lord and Savior, as well as received baptism.  Believing includes doing what God says to do unto salvation, in all the various passages He says these things to us.

Here is another passage to consider: Acts 5:32.
"And we are witnesses of these things; and so is the Holy Spirit, whom God hath given to them that obey him."

Who is the Spirit given to?  Those who do what?

Apply Acts 2:38 and 5:32 to Ephesians 1:13. The Ephesians believed how? It was this kind of believing that resulted in their receiving the Spirit as the seal of their inheritance in Christ.

Quote
No Jaime, they received it upon repentance and then were baptized.

By the way, Peter preached in Acts 2 that the people were to repent and be immersed in the name of Jesus Christ unto the forgiveness of their sins, and they would receive the gift of the Holy Spirit. You have a problem with the word "and" in these particular contexts, but it still connects the two mentioned requirements to be observed prior to receiving the promised blessing stated afterwards. Changing the order of what is said is simply a gross mishandling of the scripture.
Matthew 3:13-17

Mark 1:9-11

Luke 3:21-23


13. Then cometh Jesus from Galilee to Jordan to John, that he might be baptized by him. 14. But John forbade him, saying, I have need to be baptized by thee, and dost thou come to me? 15. And Jesus answering said to him, Suffer it now: for thus it becometh us to fulfil all righteousness. Then he suffers him. 16. And Jesus, having been baptized, went up immediately from the water: and, lo, the heavens were opened to him, and he saw the Spirit of God descending as a dove, and coming upon him. 17. And, lo, a voice from heaven, saying, This is my be loved Son, in whom I am well pleased.

9. And it happened in those days, Jesus came from Nazareth of Galilee, and was baptized by John in Jordan. 10. And immediately, when he was going up out of the water, he saw the heavens cleft assunder, and the Spirit descending as a dove, upon him. 11. And a voice came from heaven, Thou art my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased.

21. And it happened, that, while all the people were being baptized,  when Jesus had been baptized and was praying, the heaven was opened, 22. And that the Holy Spirit descended in a bodily appearance, as a dove, upon him, and a voice came from heaven, saying, Thou art my beloved Son: in thee I am well pleased. 23. And Jesus himself began to be about thirty years of age.


Let me ask some this question: "Why was Jesus Baptized"?  Please do not just say~for thus it became him to fulfill all righteousness. It is much more extensive, than to leave it with those words, for one has not really explained the purpose of Jesus' baptism by only saying those words.  Was Jesus' baptism for a different purpose than ours?  Or, the same? Waiting for some answers.
I can say that much. Jesus's baptism is different in two different respects. Everyone else who was coming to be baptized that day was in relation to their sin. Jesus had no sin. Secondly, John's baptism ended and baptism in Jesus's name later took over Acts 2:38, 19:1-5. Baptism in Jesus's name is what we're under now.
Title: Re: Dunked in the Water
Post by: e.r.m. on Thu Jul 17, 2014 - 06:32:38
Wouldn't that be in direct opposition to Eph. 1:13? Paul said we receive the seal of the Holy Spirit when we believe not at baptism.

No where in scripture does it even hint that we receive the Holy Spirit at baptism.

If you think this because the Holy Spirit came on Jesus when He was baptized, Jesus didn't receive the Holy Spirit to be born into the family of God, He was God.

Scripture assumes that belief and baptism are pretty much simultaneous. It is the modern church that has seperated the 2, thus leading to this dichotomy of opinion on what does what.
Agreed.

Absolutely agree. The modern dichotomy would stun the first century folks in my opinion. It would be like trying to separate pain from childbirth. When the folks in the NT accepted Christ in their hearts they pretty much simultaneously put on Christ in baptism. That's the way I looked at it. My entire faith response of belief and acceptance, repentance, confessing with my lips that he is Lord and neing baptized was my salvation experience, not experienceS. It was one continuous seemless event in my mind and in my Spirit, as I understood the salvation examples in the NT.

I'm not sure if it is a sheep and goat thing Charlie. BAAAAAA
I agree. The seamlessness is reflected in verses like
Galatians 3:26-27 So in Christ Jesus you are all children of God through faith, [27] for all of you who were baptized into Christ have clothed yourselves with Christ.
Title: Re: Dunked in the Water
Post by: soterion on Thu Jul 17, 2014 - 07:14:18
You plainly said salvation does not come from within a man.

If you declare with your mouth, “Jesus is Lord,” and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved. For it is with your heart that you believe and are justified, and it is with your mouth that you profess your faith and are saved. Rom 10:9-10

The word "obey" is not hard to deal with when properly placed to it's correct intent.
We are commanded by God to believe in His Son.
Neither is there salvation in any other: for there is none other name under heaven given among men, whereby we must be saved. Acts 4:12
The word "obey" comes after salvation and baptism is the first act in obeying. Prior to this it is impossible to obey God.

Honestly, if you want to promote the idea that "believed" in Ephesians 1:13 comes before any possible active response, then you just conflicted with Romans 10:9-10. The Ephesians were sealed with the Spirit prior to confessing Jesus with the mouth?

Every time you try to hang your hat on a "believe" passage without understanding what it is saying in light of other scripture, you end up conflicting with other scripture. You do this repeatedly.

You even posted an article by somebody who supported what you believe about baptism, but he at the same time and by the exact same passages and methods, shot down what you believe about confessing Jesus. You can't seem to see the inconsistencies in what you post in these discussions.
Title: Re: Dunked in the Water
Post by: Charlie24 on Thu Jul 17, 2014 - 11:09:11
Wouldn't that be in direct opposition to Eph. 1:13? Paul said we receive the seal of the Holy Spirit when we believe not at baptism.

No where in scripture does it even hint that we receive the Holy Spirit at baptism.

If you think this because the Holy Spirit came on Jesus when He was baptized, Jesus didn't receive the Holy Spirit to be born into the family of God, He was God.

Scripture assumes that belief and baptism are pretty much simultaneous. It is the modern church that has seperated the 2, thus leading to this dichotomy of opinion on what does what.
Agreed.

Absolutely agree. The modern dichotomy would stun the first century folks in my opinion. It would be like trying to separate pain from childbirth. When the folks in the NT accepted Christ in their hearts they pretty much simultaneously put on Christ in baptism. That's the way I looked at it. My entire faith response of belief and acceptance, repentance, confessing with my lips that he is Lord and neing baptized was my salvation experience, not experienceS. It was one continuous seemless event in my mind and in my Spirit, as I understood the salvation examples in the NT.

I'm not sure if it is a sheep and goat thing Charlie. BAAAAAA

All the nations will be gathered before Him; and He will separate them from one another, as the shepherd separates the sheep from the goats; and He will put the sheep on His right, and the goats on the left. "Then the King will say to those on His right, 'Come, you who are blessed of My Father, inherit the kingdom prepared for you from the foundation of the world.… Matt. 25:32-34

I think the bottom line is a sheep and goats thing.
Title: Re: Dunked in the Water
Post by: Charlie24 on Thu Jul 17, 2014 - 11:29:59
You plainly said salvation does not come from within a man.

If you declare with your mouth, “Jesus is Lord,” and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved. For it is with your heart that you believe and are justified, and it is with your mouth that you profess your faith and are saved. Rom 10:9-10

The word "obey" is not hard to deal with when properly placed to it's correct intent.
We are commanded by God to believe in His Son.
Neither is there salvation in any other: for there is none other name under heaven given among men, whereby we must be saved. Acts 4:12
The word "obey" comes after salvation and baptism is the first act in obeying. Prior to this it is impossible to obey God.

Honestly, if you want to promote the idea that "believed" in Ephesians 1:13 comes before any possible active response, then you just conflicted with Romans 10:9-10. The Ephesians were sealed with the Spirit prior to confessing Jesus with the mouth?

Every time you try to hang your hat on a "believe" passage without understanding what it is saying in light of other scripture, you end up conflicting with other scripture. You do this repeatedly.

You even posted an article by somebody who supported what you believe about baptism, but he at the same time and by the exact same passages and methods, shot down what you believe about confessing Jesus. You can't seem to see the inconsistencies in what you post in these discussions.
Soterion you are very confused concerning scripture. You should learn from Jaime, I disagree on some things with him but he knows scripture.
Title: Re: Dunked in the Water
Post by: e.r.m. on Thu Jul 17, 2014 - 11:44:42
You plainly said salvation does not come from within a man.

If you declare with your mouth, “Jesus is Lord,” and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved. For it is with your heart that you believe and are justified, and it is with your mouth that you profess your faith and are saved. Rom 10:9-10

The word "obey" is not hard to deal with when properly placed to it's correct intent.
We are commanded by God to believe in His Son.
Neither is there salvation in any other: for there is none other name under heaven given among men, whereby we must be saved. Acts 4:12
The word "obey" comes after salvation and baptism is the first act in obeying. Prior to this it is impossible to obey God.

Honestly, if you want to promote the idea that "believed" in Ephesians 1:13 comes before any possible active response, then you just conflicted with Romans 10:9-10. The Ephesians were sealed with the Spirit prior to confessing Jesus with the mouth?

Every time you try to hang your hat on a "believe" passage without understanding what it is saying in light of other scripture, you end up conflicting with other scripture. You do this repeatedly.

You even posted an article by somebody who supported what you believe about baptism, but he at the same time and by the exact same passages and methods, shot down what you believe about confessing Jesus. You can't seem to see the inconsistencies in what you post in these discussions.
Maybe Charlie24 believes that "believe" automatically includes confessing Jesus as Lord. If that is the case, I would say it automatically includes baptism as well.
Not to mention that Paul, wrote Romans 10:0-10, had believed and confessed Jesus as Lord -Acts 22:8,10 and yet his sins were still not washed away -Acts 22:16.
Lastly, Paul was writing to the Roman Church, not teaching Christians the whole of how one is saved, but going over a piece of it. Paul's own conversion does not support belief and confession only.
Title: Re: Dunked in the Water
Post by: Charlie24 on Thu Jul 17, 2014 - 11:54:57
You plainly said salvation does not come from within a man.

If you declare with your mouth, “Jesus is Lord,” and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved. For it is with your heart that you believe and are justified, and it is with your mouth that you profess your faith and are saved. Rom 10:9-10

The word "obey" is not hard to deal with when properly placed to it's correct intent.
We are commanded by God to believe in His Son.
Neither is there salvation in any other: for there is none other name under heaven given among men, whereby we must be saved. Acts 4:12
The word "obey" comes after salvation and baptism is the first act in obeying. Prior to this it is impossible to obey God.

Honestly, if you want to promote the idea that "believed" in Ephesians 1:13 comes before any possible active response, then you just conflicted with Romans 10:9-10. The Ephesians were sealed with the Spirit prior to confessing Jesus with the mouth?

Every time you try to hang your hat on a "believe" passage without understanding what it is saying in light of other scripture, you end up conflicting with other scripture. You do this repeatedly.

You even posted an article by somebody who supported what you believe about baptism, but he at the same time and by the exact same passages and methods, shot down what you believe about confessing Jesus. You can't seem to see the inconsistencies in what you post in these discussions.
Maybe Charlie24 believes that "believe" automatically includes confessing Jesus as Lord. If that is the case, I would say it automatically includes baptism as well.
Not to mention that Paul, wrote Romans 10:0-10, had believed and confessed Jesus as Lord -Acts 22:8,10 and yet his sins were still not washed away -Acts 22:16.
Lastly, Paul was writing to the Roman Church, not teaching Christians the whole of how one is saved, but going over a piece of it. Paul's own conversion does not support belief and confession only.
So Paul only preached "a piece of the Gospel." That's amazing erm. Your vast knowledge of scripture is overwhelming. I never realized Paul was only given part of the Gospel.
Title: Re: Dunked in the Water
Post by: Jaime on Thu Jul 17, 2014 - 12:00:52
Wouldn't that be in direct opposition to Eph. 1:13? Paul said we receive the seal of the Holy Spirit when we believe not at baptism.

No where in scripture does it even hint that we receive the Holy Spirit at baptism.

If you think this because the Holy Spirit came on Jesus when He was baptized, Jesus didn't receive the Holy Spirit to be born into the family of God, He was God.

Scripture assumes that belief and baptism are pretty much simultaneous. It is the modern church that has seperated the 2, thus leading to this dichotomy of opinion on what does what.
Agreed.

Absolutely agree. The modern dichotomy would stun the first century folks in my opinion. It would be like trying to separate pain from childbirth. When the folks in the NT accepted Christ in their hearts they pretty much simultaneously put on Christ in baptism. That's the way I looked at it. My entire faith response of belief and acceptance, repentance, confessing with my lips that he is Lord and neing baptized was my salvation experience, not experienceS. It was one continuous seemless event in my mind and in my Spirit, as I understood the salvation examples in the NT.

I'm not sure if it is a sheep and goat thing Charlie. BAAAAAA

All the nations will be gathered before Him; and He will separate them from one another, as the shepherd separates the sheep from the goats; and He will put the sheep on His right, and the goats on the left. "Then the King will say to those on His right, 'Come, you who are blessed of My Father, inherit the kingdom prepared for you from the foundation of the world.… Matt. 25:32-34

I think the bottom line is a sheep and goats thing.

Yes, and we want to be in the right herd. I'm just not so sure the issue we have been debating so long delineates our two positions as sheep and goat. I'm not prepared to say you are a goat because you and I agree on the immediacy of baptism, we just differ on the certainty of the nano-second of the conveyance of salvation. If I lead someone to Christ and you do to, and they both truly believe and repent and confess Jesus is Lord and are immediately baptized, at the end of the day is my convert any less saved because he feels baptism is one of the necessities in our faith response than yours who was taught it has nothing to do with salvation. I would not condemn your convert to a state of damnation. Would you say the same about mine?
Title: Re: Dunked in the Water
Post by: Jaime on Thu Jul 17, 2014 - 12:03:47
You plainly said salvation does not come from within a man.

If you declare with your mouth, “Jesus is Lord,” and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved. For it is with your heart that you believe and are justified, and it is with your mouth that you profess your faith and are saved. Rom 10:9-10

The word "obey" is not hard to deal with when properly placed to it's correct intent.
We are commanded by God to believe in His Son.
Neither is there salvation in any other: for there is none other name under heaven given among men, whereby we must be saved. Acts 4:12
The word "obey" comes after salvation and baptism is the first act in obeying. Prior to this it is impossible to obey God.

Honestly, if you want to promote the idea that "believed" in Ephesians 1:13 comes before any possible active response, then you just conflicted with Romans 10:9-10. The Ephesians were sealed with the Spirit prior to confessing Jesus with the mouth?

Every time you try to hang your hat on a "believe" passage without understanding what it is saying in light of other scripture, you end up conflicting with other scripture. You do this repeatedly.

You even posted an article by somebody who supported what you believe about baptism, but he at the same time and by the exact same passages and methods, shot down what you believe about confessing Jesus. You can't seem to see the inconsistencies in what you post in these discussions.
Maybe Charlie24 believes that "believe" automatically includes confessing Jesus as Lord. If that is the case, I would say it automatically includes baptism as well.
Not to mention that Paul, wrote Romans 10:0-10, had believed and confessed Jesus as Lord -Acts 22:8,10 and yet his sins were still not washed away -Acts 22:16.
Lastly, Paul was writing to the Roman Church, not teaching Christians the whole of how one is saved, but going over a piece of it. Paul's own conversion does not support belief and confession only.
So Paul only preached "a piece of the Gospel." That's amazing erm. Your vast knowledge of scripture is overwhelming. I never realized Paul was only given part of the Gospel.

Why would Paul feel compelled to restate all the elemental steps. It doesn't seem incongruent to me that he spoke a lot about belief, because obviously all else hinges on belief. No need to baptize an unbeliever, or no need to get an unbeliever's confession, etc.
Title: Re: Dunked in the Water
Post by: Charlie24 on Thu Jul 17, 2014 - 12:16:33
Wouldn't that be in direct opposition to Eph. 1:13? Paul said we receive the seal of the Holy Spirit when we believe not at baptism.

No where in scripture does it even hint that we receive the Holy Spirit at baptism.

If you think this because the Holy Spirit came on Jesus when He was baptized, Jesus didn't receive the Holy Spirit to be born into the family of God, He was God.

Scripture assumes that belief and baptism are pretty much simultaneous. It is the modern church that has seperated the 2, thus leading to this dichotomy of opinion on what does what.
Agreed.

Absolutely agree. The modern dichotomy would stun the first century folks in my opinion. It would be like trying to separate pain from childbirth. When the folks in the NT accepted Christ in their hearts they pretty much simultaneously put on Christ in baptism. That's the way I looked at it. My entire faith response of belief and acceptance, repentance, confessing with my lips that he is Lord and neing baptized was my salvation experience, not experienceS. It was one continuous seemless event in my mind and in my Spirit, as I understood the salvation examples in the NT.

I'm not sure if it is a sheep and goat thing Charlie. BAAAAAA

All the nations will be gathered before Him; and He will separate them from one another, as the shepherd separates the sheep from the goats; and He will put the sheep on His right, and the goats on the left. "Then the King will say to those on His right, 'Come, you who are blessed of My Father, inherit the kingdom prepared for you from the foundation of the world.… Matt. 25:32-34

I think the bottom line is a sheep and goats thing.

Yes, and we want to be in the right herd. I'm just not so sure the issue we have been debating so long delineates our two positions as sheep and goat. I'm not prepared to say you are a goat because you and I agree on the immediacy of baptism, we just differ on the certainty of the nano-second of the conveyance of salvation. If I lead someone to Christ and you do to, and they both truly believe and repent and confess Jesus is Lord and are immediately baptized, at the end of the day is my convert any less saved because he feels baptism is one of the necessities in our faith response than yours who was taught it has nothing to do with salvation. I would not condemn your convert to a state of damnation. Would you say the same about mine?
This is where the rubber meets the road, where people are offended, and maybe more than some can endure. But we are two grown men Jaime. We can discuss this without malice. I dare say there are few I could discuss this with.
Bearing my conviction I cannot say the same for your convert. In my humble opinion your convert has received a split faith. No matter how you word it, your convert has faith for salvation in faith and baptism. I do not believe this is the faith that brings eternal life.
Title: Re: Dunked in the Water
Post by: e.r.m. on Thu Jul 17, 2014 - 12:29:46
You plainly said salvation does not come from within a man.

If you declare with your mouth, “Jesus is Lord,” and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved. For it is with your heart that you believe and are justified, and it is with your mouth that you profess your faith and are saved. Rom 10:9-10

The word "obey" is not hard to deal with when properly placed to it's correct intent.
We are commanded by God to believe in His Son.
Neither is there salvation in any other: for there is none other name under heaven given among men, whereby we must be saved. Acts 4:12
The word "obey" comes after salvation and baptism is the first act in obeying. Prior to this it is impossible to obey God.

Honestly, if you want to promote the idea that "believed" in Ephesians 1:13 comes before any possible active response, then you just conflicted with Romans 10:9-10. The Ephesians were sealed with the Spirit prior to confessing Jesus with the mouth?

Every time you try to hang your hat on a "believe" passage without understanding what it is saying in light of other scripture, you end up conflicting with other scripture. You do this repeatedly.

You even posted an article by somebody who supported what you believe about baptism, but he at the same time and by the exact same passages and methods, shot down what you believe about confessing Jesus. You can't seem to see the inconsistencies in what you post in these discussions.
Maybe Charlie24 believes that "believe" automatically includes confessing Jesus as Lord. If that is the case, I would say it automatically includes baptism as well.
Not to mention that Paul, wrote Romans 10:0-10, had believed and confessed Jesus as Lord -Acts 22:8,10 and yet his sins were still not washed away -Acts 22:16.
Lastly, Paul was writing to the Roman Church, not teaching Christians the whole of how one is saved, but going over a piece of it. Paul's own conversion does not support belief and confession only.
So Paul only preached "a piece of the Gospel." That's amazing erm. Your vast knowledge of scripture is overwhelming. I never realized Paul was only given part of the Gospel.
Charlie24,
You said you've been studying scriptures for a long time. So why do you rely mostly on word play?
I didn't say a piece of the gospel, I said a piece of salvation. The gospel includes much more than just the mechanism of how one is saved. Word play is not a good way to make your point.
Title: Re: Dunked in the Water
Post by: notreligus on Thu Jul 17, 2014 - 12:31:17
I used to be a decision counselor at a Christian Church.   This is a distant cousin to the Churches of Christ and I say "distant" because the Christian Church, also a Restoration Movement group, is often considered to be "too evangelical."   Anyway, I very distinctly remember a young couple that had come forward to join the church.   It was my duty to council with them, which I did.  While I was counseling with them I began to describe the meaning of baptism and how it related to all of the things that Christ had done to save her.   She began to bawl and almost uncontrollably.   That greatly affected me too.   You see, she had recognized Who Christ is and What He had done for her.   He became her savior not the impending act of immersion in water.   

A Church of Christ poster here said that it drives him nuts when people say that baptism is not necessary for salvation.   It drives me nuts when people make this a religious issue, a works issue.   They fail to recognize the Savior described in Isaiah 53.  They fail to see that the Scriptures proclaim Him to be All-Sufficient (I did not say Sufficient for All, so don't go there).   They believe that they must not admit that God has done everything needed to save us.   This is the same wrong belief they have about faith.   They deny that the Holy Spirit has a part in salvation as that would interfere with our free will.   They let this same wrong intellectual conclusion interfere with their understanding of the symbolic beauty of baptism and turn it into a "see what I've done" show.   They all need to repent.
Title: Re: Dunked in the Water
Post by: e.r.m. on Thu Jul 17, 2014 - 12:32:23
Wouldn't that be in direct opposition to Eph. 1:13? Paul said we receive the seal of the Holy Spirit when we believe not at baptism.

No where in scripture does it even hint that we receive the Holy Spirit at baptism.

If you think this because the Holy Spirit came on Jesus when He was baptized, Jesus didn't receive the Holy Spirit to be born into the family of God, He was God.

Scripture assumes that belief and baptism are pretty much simultaneous. It is the modern church that has seperated the 2, thus leading to this dichotomy of opinion on what does what.
Agreed.

Absolutely agree. The modern dichotomy would stun the first century folks in my opinion. It would be like trying to separate pain from childbirth. When the folks in the NT accepted Christ in their hearts they pretty much simultaneously put on Christ in baptism. That's the way I looked at it. My entire faith response of belief and acceptance, repentance, confessing with my lips that he is Lord and neing baptized was my salvation experience, not experienceS. It was one continuous seemless event in my mind and in my Spirit, as I understood the salvation examples in the NT.

I'm not sure if it is a sheep and goat thing Charlie. BAAAAAA

All the nations will be gathered before Him; and He will separate them from one another, as the shepherd separates the sheep from the goats; and He will put the sheep on His right, and the goats on the left. "Then the King will say to those on His right, 'Come, you who are blessed of My Father, inherit the kingdom prepared for you from the foundation of the world.… Matt. 25:32-34

I think the bottom line is a sheep and goats thing.

Yes, and we want to be in the right herd. I'm just not so sure the issue we have been debating so long delineates our two positions as sheep and goat. I'm not prepared to say you are a goat because you and I agree on the immediacy of baptism, we just differ on the certainty of the nano-second of the conveyance of salvation. If I lead someone to Christ and you do to, and they both truly believe and repent and confess Jesus is Lord and are immediately baptized, at the end of the day is my convert any less saved because he feels baptism is one of the necessities in our faith response than yours who was taught it has nothing to do with salvation. I would not condemn your convert to a state of damnation. Would you say the same about mine?
This is where the rubber meets the road, where people are offended, and maybe more than some can endure. But we are two grown men Jaime. We can discuss this without malice. I dare say there are few I could discuss this with.
Bearing my conviction I cannot say the same for your convert. In my humble opinion your convert has received a split faith. No matter how you word it, your convert has faith for salvation in faith and baptism. I do not believe this is the faith that brings eternal life.
Rather we have faith in Jesus who prescribed both for Salvation.
Title: Re: Dunked in the Water
Post by: yogi bear on Thu Jul 17, 2014 - 12:33:04
Wouldn't that be in direct opposition to Eph. 1:13? Paul said we receive the seal of the Holy Spirit when we believe not at baptism.

No where in scripture does it even hint that we receive the Holy Spirit at baptism.

If you think this because the Holy Spirit came on Jesus when He was baptized, Jesus didn't receive the Holy Spirit to be born into the family of God, He was God.

Scripture assumes that belief and baptism are pretty much simultaneous. It is the modern church that has seperated the 2, thus leading to this dichotomy of opinion on what does what.
Agreed.

Absolutely agree. The modern dichotomy would stun the first century folks in my opinion. It would be like trying to separate pain from childbirth. When the folks in the NT accepted Christ in their hearts they pretty much simultaneously put on Christ in baptism. That's the way I looked at it. My entire faith response of belief and acceptance, repentance, confessing with my lips that he is Lord and neing baptized was my salvation experience, not experienceS. It was one continuous seemless event in my mind and in my Spirit, as I understood the salvation examples in the NT.

I'm not sure if it is a sheep and goat thing Charlie. BAAAAAA

All the nations will be gathered before Him; and He will separate them from one another, as the shepherd separates the sheep from the goats; and He will put the sheep on His right, and the goats on the left. "Then the King will say to those on His right, 'Come, you who are blessed of My Father, inherit the kingdom prepared for you from the foundation of the world.… Matt. 25:32-34

I think the bottom line is a sheep and goats thing.

Yes, and we want to be in the right herd. I'm just not so sure the issue we have been debating so long delineates our two positions as sheep and goat. I'm not prepared to say you are a goat because you and I agree on the immediacy of baptism, we just differ on the certainty of the nano-second of the conveyance of salvation. If I lead someone to Christ and you do to, and they both truly believe and repent and confess Jesus is Lord and are immediately baptized, at the end of the day is my convert any less saved because he feels baptism is one of the necessities in our faith response than yours who was taught it has nothing to do with salvation. I would not condemn your convert to a state of damnation. Would you say the same about mine?
This is where the rubber meets the road, where people are offended, and maybe more than some can endure. But we are two grown men Jaime. We can discuss this without malice. I dare say there are few I could discuss this with.
Bearing my conviction I cannot say the same for your convert. In my humble opinion your convert has received a split faith. No matter how you word it, your convert has faith for salvation in faith and baptism. I do not believe this is the faith that brings eternal life.
You have to be the first I have heard that says baptism in Christ name condemns one to hell. Just can't wrap my head around that.
Title: Re: Dunked in the Water
Post by: Charlie24 on Thu Jul 17, 2014 - 12:39:52
Wouldn't that be in direct opposition to Eph. 1:13? Paul said we receive the seal of the Holy Spirit when we believe not at baptism.

No where in scripture does it even hint that we receive the Holy Spirit at baptism.

If you think this because the Holy Spirit came on Jesus when He was baptized, Jesus didn't receive the Holy Spirit to be born into the family of God, He was God.

Scripture assumes that belief and baptism are pretty much simultaneous. It is the modern church that has seperated the 2, thus leading to this dichotomy of opinion on what does what.
Agreed.

Absolutely agree. The modern dichotomy would stun the first century folks in my opinion. It would be like trying to separate pain from childbirth. When the folks in the NT accepted Christ in their hearts they pretty much simultaneously put on Christ in baptism. That's the way I looked at it. My entire faith response of belief and acceptance, repentance, confessing with my lips that he is Lord and neing baptized was my salvation experience, not experienceS. It was one continuous seemless event in my mind and in my Spirit, as I understood the salvation examples in the NT.

I'm not sure if it is a sheep and goat thing Charlie. BAAAAAA

All the nations will be gathered before Him; and He will separate them from one another, as the shepherd separates the sheep from the goats; and He will put the sheep on His right, and the goats on the left. "Then the King will say to those on His right, 'Come, you who are blessed of My Father, inherit the kingdom prepared for you from the foundation of the world.… Matt. 25:32-34

I think the bottom line is a sheep and goats thing.

Yes, and we want to be in the right herd. I'm just not so sure the issue we have been debating so long delineates our two positions as sheep and goat. I'm not prepared to say you are a goat because you and I agree on the immediacy of baptism, we just differ on the certainty of the nano-second of the conveyance of salvation. If I lead someone to Christ and you do to, and they both truly believe and repent and confess Jesus is Lord and are immediately baptized, at the end of the day is my convert any less saved because he feels baptism is one of the necessities in our faith response than yours who was taught it has nothing to do with salvation. I would not condemn your convert to a state of damnation. Would you say the same about mine?
This is where the rubber meets the road, where people are offended, and maybe more than some can endure. But we are two grown men Jaime. We can discuss this without malice. I dare say there are few I could discuss this with.
Bearing my conviction I cannot say the same for your convert. In my humble opinion your convert has received a split faith. No matter how you word it, your convert has faith for salvation in faith and baptism. I do not believe this is the faith that brings eternal life.
You have to be the first I have heard that says baptism in Christ name condemns one to hell. Just can't wrap my head around that.
If we don't understand the correct purpose for baptism we do it to ourselves.
Title: Re: Dunked in the Water
Post by: Charlie24 on Thu Jul 17, 2014 - 12:43:37
Colossians 2:11-15 – “In Whom also you are circumcised with the Circumcision made without hands (that which is brought about by the Cross [Rom. 6:3-5]), in putting off the body of the sins of the flesh by the Circumcision of Christ (refers to the old carnal nature that is defeated by the Believer placing his Faith totally in the Cross, which gives the Holy Spirit latitude to work):
     
“Buried with Him in Baptism (does not refer to Water Baptism, but rather to the Believer baptized into the death of Christ, which refers to the Crucifixion and Christ as our substitute [Rom. 6:3-4]), wherein also you are risen with Him through the Faith of the operation of God, Who has raised Him from the dead.  (This does not refer to our future physical Resurrection, but to that spiritual Resurrection from a sinful state into Divine Life.  We died with Him, we are buried with Him, and we rose with Him [Rom. 6:3-5], and herein lies the secret to all Spiritual Victory.)
     
“And you, being dead in your sins and the uncircumcision of your flesh (speaks of spiritual death [i.e., ‘separation from God’], which sin does!), has He quickened together with Him (refers to being made spiritually alive, which is done through being ‘Born-Again’), having forgiven you all trespasses (the Cross made it possible for all manner of sins to be forgiven and taken away);
     
“Blotting out the handwriting of Ordinances that was against us (pertains to the Law of Moses, which was God’s Standard of Righteousness that man could not reach), which was contrary to us (Law is against us, simply because we are unable to keep its precepts, no matter how hard we try), and took it out of the way (refers to the penalty of the Law being removed), nailing it to His Cross (the Law with its decrees was abolished in Christ’s Death, as if Crucified with Him);
     
“And having spoiled principalities and powers (Satan and all of his henchmen were defeated at the Cross by Christ atoning for all sin; sin was the legal right Satan had to hold man in captivity; with all sin atoned, he has no more legal right to hold anyone in bondage), He (Christ) made a show of them openly (what Jesus did at the Cross was in the face of the whole universe), triumphing over them in it.  (The triumph is complete and it was all done for us, meaning we can walk in power and perpetual Victory due to the Cross.)”
Title: Re: Dunked in the Water
Post by: e.r.m. on Thu Jul 17, 2014 - 12:45:50
I used to be a decision counselor at a Christian Church.   This is a distant cousin to the Churches of Christ and I say "distant" because the Christian Church, also a Restoration Movement group, is often considered to be "too evangelical."   Anyway, I very distinctly remember a young couple that had come forward to join the church.   It was my duty to council with them, which I did.  While I was counseling with them I began to describe the meaning of baptism and how it related to all of the things that Christ had done to save her.   She began to bawl and almost uncontrollably.   That greatly affected me too.   You see, she had recognized Who Christ is and What He had done for her.   He became her savior not the impending act of immersion in water.
No, she was simply cut/pricked to the heart as in Acts 2:37. A contrite heart is exactly what one should have before being baptized. It's not the sign that someone has been saved. Otherwise Peter would have declared the crowd saved on the spot and not instructed them to be baptized in Jesus's name for the forgiveness of their sins.

Quote
A Church of Christ poster here said that it drives him nuts when people say that baptism is not necessary for salvation.   It drives me nuts when people make this a religious issue, a works issue.
Baptism Acts 2:38 in and of itself is not a works issue unless a person approaches it without heart and faith.

Quote
They fail to recognize the Savior described in Isaiah 53. They fail to see that the Scriptures proclaim Him to be All-Sufficient (I did not say Sufficient for All, so don't go there).   They believe that they must not admit that God has done everything needed to save us.   This is the same wrong belief they have about faith.   They deny that the Holy Spirit has a part in salvation as that would interfere with our free will.   They let this same wrong intellectual conclusion interfere with their understanding of the symbolic beauty of baptism and turn it into a "see what I've done" show.   They all need to repent.
Neither do I deny the Holy Spirit played a part in a person getting saved, nor have I ever seen baptism as a "see what I've done" show. Baptism is what it is -Acts 2:38. Using the term symbolic beauty of baptism doesn't make it Biblical.
Title: Re: Dunked in the Water
Post by: e.r.m. on Thu Jul 17, 2014 - 12:49:40
Wouldn't that be in direct opposition to Eph. 1:13? Paul said we receive the seal of the Holy Spirit when we believe not at baptism.

No where in scripture does it even hint that we receive the Holy Spirit at baptism.

If you think this because the Holy Spirit came on Jesus when He was baptized, Jesus didn't receive the Holy Spirit to be born into the family of God, He was God.

Scripture assumes that belief and baptism are pretty much simultaneous. It is the modern church that has seperated the 2, thus leading to this dichotomy of opinion on what does what.
Agreed.

Absolutely agree. The modern dichotomy would stun the first century folks in my opinion. It would be like trying to separate pain from childbirth. When the folks in the NT accepted Christ in their hearts they pretty much simultaneously put on Christ in baptism. That's the way I looked at it. My entire faith response of belief and acceptance, repentance, confessing with my lips that he is Lord and neing baptized was my salvation experience, not experienceS. It was one continuous seemless event in my mind and in my Spirit, as I understood the salvation examples in the NT.

I'm not sure if it is a sheep and goat thing Charlie. BAAAAAA

All the nations will be gathered before Him; and He will separate them from one another, as the shepherd separates the sheep from the goats; and He will put the sheep on His right, and the goats on the left. "Then the King will say to those on His right, 'Come, you who are blessed of My Father, inherit the kingdom prepared for you from the foundation of the world.… Matt. 25:32-34

I think the bottom line is a sheep and goats thing.

Yes, and we want to be in the right herd. I'm just not so sure the issue we have been debating so long delineates our two positions as sheep and goat. I'm not prepared to say you are a goat because you and I agree on the immediacy of baptism, we just differ on the certainty of the nano-second of the conveyance of salvation. If I lead someone to Christ and you do to, and they both truly believe and repent and confess Jesus is Lord and are immediately baptized, at the end of the day is my convert any less saved because he feels baptism is one of the necessities in our faith response than yours who was taught it has nothing to do with salvation. I would not condemn your convert to a state of damnation. Would you say the same about mine?
This is where the rubber meets the road, where people are offended, and maybe more than some can endure. But we are two grown men Jaime. We can discuss this without malice. I dare say there are few I could discuss this with.
Bearing my conviction I cannot say the same for your convert. In my humble opinion your convert has received a split faith. No matter how you word it, your convert has faith for salvation in faith and baptism. I do not believe this is the faith that brings eternal life.
You have to be the first I have heard that says baptism in Christ name condemns one to hell. Just can't wrap my head around that.
If we don't understand the correct purpose for baptism we do it to ourselves.
Do you have a direct scripture for the correct purpose for baptism? Acts 2:38 is a direct scripture.
Title: Re: Dunked in the Water
Post by: Charlie24 on Thu Jul 17, 2014 - 12:53:03
Wouldn't that be in direct opposition to Eph. 1:13? Paul said we receive the seal of the Holy Spirit when we believe not at baptism.

No where in scripture does it even hint that we receive the Holy Spirit at baptism.

If you think this because the Holy Spirit came on Jesus when He was baptized, Jesus didn't receive the Holy Spirit to be born into the family of God, He was God.

Scripture assumes that belief and baptism are pretty much simultaneous. It is the modern church that has seperated the 2, thus leading to this dichotomy of opinion on what does what.
Agreed.

Absolutely agree. The modern dichotomy would stun the first century folks in my opinion. It would be like trying to separate pain from childbirth. When the folks in the NT accepted Christ in their hearts they pretty much simultaneously put on Christ in baptism. That's the way I looked at it. My entire faith response of belief and acceptance, repentance, confessing with my lips that he is Lord and neing baptized was my salvation experience, not experienceS. It was one continuous seemless event in my mind and in my Spirit, as I understood the salvation examples in the NT.

I'm not sure if it is a sheep and goat thing Charlie. BAAAAAA

All the nations will be gathered before Him; and He will separate them from one another, as the shepherd separates the sheep from the goats; and He will put the sheep on His right, and the goats on the left. "Then the King will say to those on His right, 'Come, you who are blessed of My Father, inherit the kingdom prepared for you from the foundation of the world.… Matt. 25:32-34

I think the bottom line is a sheep and goats thing.

Yes, and we want to be in the right herd. I'm just not so sure the issue we have been debating so long delineates our two positions as sheep and goat. I'm not prepared to say you are a goat because you and I agree on the immediacy of baptism, we just differ on the certainty of the nano-second of the conveyance of salvation. If I lead someone to Christ and you do to, and they both truly believe and repent and confess Jesus is Lord and are immediately baptized, at the end of the day is my convert any less saved because he feels baptism is one of the necessities in our faith response than yours who was taught it has nothing to do with salvation. I would not condemn your convert to a state of damnation. Would you say the same about mine?
This is where the rubber meets the road, where people are offended, and maybe more than some can endure. But we are two grown men Jaime. We can discuss this without malice. I dare say there are few I could discuss this with.
Bearing my conviction I cannot say the same for your convert. In my humble opinion your convert has received a split faith. No matter how you word it, your convert has faith for salvation in faith and baptism. I do not believe this is the faith that brings eternal life.
You have to be the first I have heard that says baptism in Christ name condemns one to hell. Just can't wrap my head around that.
If we don't understand the correct purpose for baptism we do it to ourselves.
Do you have a direct scripture for the correct purpose for baptism? Acts 2:38 is a direct scripture.
No I don't erm, and you don't either. Understanding the whole Word of God reveals the truth.
Title: Re: Dunked in the Water
Post by: Charlie24 on Thu Jul 17, 2014 - 13:02:21
I used to be a decision counselor at a Christian Church.   This is a distant cousin to the Churches of Christ and I say "distant" because the Christian Church, also a Restoration Movement group, is often considered to be "too evangelical."   Anyway, I very distinctly remember a young couple that had come forward to join the church.   It was my duty to council with them, which I did.  While I was counseling with them I began to describe the meaning of baptism and how it related to all of the things that Christ had done to save her.   She began to bawl and almost uncontrollably.   That greatly affected me too.   You see, she had recognized Who Christ is and What He had done for her.   He became her savior not the impending act of immersion in water.
No, she was simply cut/pricked to the heart as in Acts 2:37. A contrite heart is exactly what one should have before being baptized. It's not the sign that someone has been saved. Otherwise Peter would have declared the crowd saved on the spot and not instructed them to be baptized in Jesus's name for the forgiveness of their sins.

Quote
A Church of Christ poster here said that it drives him nuts when people say that baptism is not necessary for salvation.   It drives me nuts when people make this a religious issue, a works issue.
Baptism Acts 2:38 in and of itself is not a works issue unless a person approaches it without heart and faith.

Quote
They fail to recognize the Savior described in Isaiah 53. They fail to see that the Scriptures proclaim Him to be All-Sufficient (I did not say Sufficient for All, so don't go there).   They believe that they must not admit that God has done everything needed to save us.   This is the same wrong belief they have about faith.   They deny that the Holy Spirit has a part in salvation as that would interfere with our free will.   They let this same wrong intellectual conclusion interfere with their understanding of the symbolic beauty of baptism and turn it into a "see what I've done" show.   They all need to repent.
Neither do I deny the Holy Spirit played a part in a person getting saved, nor have I ever seen baptism as a "see what I've done" show. Baptism is what it is -Acts 2:38. Using the term symbolic beauty of baptism doesn't make it Biblical.
But is a public display of your faith. Only Gods knows from within you what your purpose of baptism is. Eternal life is about faith, more specifically, where that faith is placed.
Title: Re: Dunked in the Water
Post by: DaveW on Thu Jul 17, 2014 - 13:12:25
Do you have a direct scripture for the correct purpose for baptism? Acts 2:38 is a direct scripture.

Better direct scriptures are Romans 6:3-4 and Colossians 2:12.
Title: Re: Dunked in the Water
Post by: Red Baker on Thu Jul 17, 2014 - 13:13:47
Matthew 3:13-17

Mark 1:9-11

Luke 3:21-23


13. Then cometh Jesus from Galilee to Jordan to John, that he might be baptized by him. 14. But John forbade him, saying, I have need to be baptized by thee, and dost thou come to me? 15. And Jesus answering said to him, Suffer it now: for thus it becometh us to fulfil all righteousness. Then he suffers him. 16. And Jesus, having been baptized, went up immediately from the water: and, lo, the heavens were opened to him, and he saw the Spirit of God descending as a dove, and coming upon him. 17. And, lo, a voice from heaven, saying, This is my be loved Son, in whom I am well pleased.

9. And it happened in those days, Jesus came from Nazareth of Galilee, and was baptized by John in Jordan. 10. And immediately, when he was going up out of the water, he saw the heavens cleft assunder, and the Spirit descending as a dove, upon him. 11. And a voice came from heaven, Thou art my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased.

21. And it happened, that, while all the people were being baptized,  when Jesus had been baptized and was praying, the heaven was opened, 22. And that the Holy Spirit descended in a bodily appearance, as a dove, upon him, and a voice came from heaven, saying, Thou art my beloved Son: in thee I am well pleased. 23. And Jesus himself began to be about thirty years of age.


Let me ask some this question: "Why was Jesus Baptized"?  Please do not just say~for thus it became him to fulfill all righteousness. It is much more extensive, than to leave it with those words, for one has not really explained the purpose of Jesus' baptism by only saying those words.  Was Jesus' baptism for a different purpose than ours?  Or, the same? Waiting for some answers.

I am waiting for someone to answer this post.  Are there no takers? I would think that it is very important as to why Jesus was baptized.  Was it to fulfill Acts 2:38? Would it have any connection with Mark 16:16? Would it have any connection with Romans 6:3?

Hint:

I would say that it has more connection with Romans 6:3, and very close to Mark 16:16, not so much with Acts 2:38.  You boys from the coc should be very quick to answer this post.  I cannot believe that you have not even try so far. 
Title: Re: Dunked in the Water
Post by: Red Baker on Thu Jul 17, 2014 - 13:21:49
Do you have a direct scripture for the correct purpose for baptism? Acts 2:38 is a direct scripture.

Better direct scriptures are Romans 6:3-4 and Colossians 2:12.

May I? 1 Peter 3:21~first; Acts 2:38, very close behind if one truly understands regeneration in light of Acts 2:37 question!
Title: Re: Dunked in the Water
Post by: yogi bear on Thu Jul 17, 2014 - 13:25:03
Matthew 3:13-17

Mark 1:9-11

Luke 3:21-23


13. Then cometh Jesus from Galilee to Jordan to John, that he might be baptized by him. 14. But John forbade him, saying, I have need to be baptized by thee, and dost thou come to me? 15. And Jesus answering said to him, Suffer it now: for thus it becometh us to fulfil all righteousness. Then he suffers him. 16. And Jesus, having been baptized, went up immediately from the water: and, lo, the heavens were opened to him, and he saw the Spirit of God descending as a dove, and coming upon him. 17. And, lo, a voice from heaven, saying, This is my be loved Son, in whom I am well pleased.

9. And it happened in those days, Jesus came from Nazareth of Galilee, and was baptized by John in Jordan. 10. And immediately, when he was going up out of the water, he saw the heavens cleft assunder, and the Spirit descending as a dove, upon him. 11. And a voice came from heaven, Thou art my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased.

21. And it happened, that, while all the people were being baptized,  when Jesus had been baptized and was praying, the heaven was opened, 22. And that the Holy Spirit descended in a bodily appearance, as a dove, upon him, and a voice came from heaven, saying, Thou art my beloved Son: in thee I am well pleased. 23. And Jesus himself began to be about thirty years of age.


Let me ask some this question: "Why was Jesus Baptized"?  Please do not just say~for thus it became him to fulfill all righteousness. It is much more extensive, than to leave it with those words, for one has not really explained the purpose of Jesus' baptism by only saying those words.  Was Jesus' baptism for a different purpose than ours?  Or, the same? Waiting for some answers.

I am waiting for someone to answer this post.  Are there no takers? I would think that it is very important as to why Jesus was baptized.  Was it to fulfill Acts 2:38? Would it have any connection with Mark 16:16? Would it have any connection with Romans 6:3?

Hint:

I would say that it has more connection with Romans 6:3, and very close to Mark 16:16, not so much with Acts 2:38.  You boys from the coc should be very quick to answer this post.  I cannot believe that you have not even try so far.
Red it does not matter what we coc will say it will be wrong in your eyes so I for one have chose not to waste my time for you have your own mind made up and just want to pit it against us so please by all means just say what is on your mind.
Title: Re: Dunked in the Water
Post by: e.r.m. on Thu Jul 17, 2014 - 13:44:55
Wouldn't that be in direct opposition to Eph. 1:13? Paul said we receive the seal of the Holy Spirit when we believe not at baptism.

No where in scripture does it even hint that we receive the Holy Spirit at baptism.

If you think this because the Holy Spirit came on Jesus when He was baptized, Jesus didn't receive the Holy Spirit to be born into the family of God, He was God.

Scripture assumes that belief and baptism are pretty much simultaneous. It is the modern church that has seperated the 2, thus leading to this dichotomy of opinion on what does what.
Agreed.

Absolutely agree. The modern dichotomy would stun the first century folks in my opinion. It would be like trying to separate pain from childbirth. When the folks in the NT accepted Christ in their hearts they pretty much simultaneously put on Christ in baptism. That's the way I looked at it. My entire faith response of belief and acceptance, repentance, confessing with my lips that he is Lord and neing baptized was my salvation experience, not experienceS. It was one continuous seemless event in my mind and in my Spirit, as I understood the salvation examples in the NT.

I'm not sure if it is a sheep and goat thing Charlie. BAAAAAA

All the nations will be gathered before Him; and He will separate them from one another, as the shepherd separates the sheep from the goats; and He will put the sheep on His right, and the goats on the left. "Then the King will say to those on His right, 'Come, you who are blessed of My Father, inherit the kingdom prepared for you from the foundation of the world.… Matt. 25:32-34

I think the bottom line is a sheep and goats thing.

Yes, and we want to be in the right herd. I'm just not so sure the issue we have been debating so long delineates our two positions as sheep and goat. I'm not prepared to say you are a goat because you and I agree on the immediacy of baptism, we just differ on the certainty of the nano-second of the conveyance of salvation. If I lead someone to Christ and you do to, and they both truly believe and repent and confess Jesus is Lord and are immediately baptized, at the end of the day is my convert any less saved because he feels baptism is one of the necessities in our faith response than yours who was taught it has nothing to do with salvation. I would not condemn your convert to a state of damnation. Would you say the same about mine?
This is where the rubber meets the road, where people are offended, and maybe more than some can endure. But we are two grown men Jaime. We can discuss this without malice. I dare say there are few I could discuss this with.
Bearing my conviction I cannot say the same for your convert. In my humble opinion your convert has received a split faith. No matter how you word it, your convert has faith for salvation in faith and baptism. I do not believe this is the faith that brings eternal life.
You have to be the first I have heard that says baptism in Christ name condemns one to hell. Just can't wrap my head around that.
If we don't understand the correct purpose for baptism we do it to ourselves.
Do you have a direct scripture for the correct purpose for baptism? Acts 2:38 is a direct scripture.
No I don't erm, and you don't either. Understanding the whole Word of God reveals the truth.
Amazing.  The Bible authors would have written down, and did write down explicitly what baptism is for -Mark 16:16, Acts 2:38. They wouldn't make us concatenate a purpose.
Title: Re: Dunked in the Water
Post by: Charlie24 on Thu Jul 17, 2014 - 13:53:14
It's not hard to see what you're doing erm. You have openly discounted the epistles of Paul to push your belief in water baptism. No one can read the epistles of Paul and come away with any idea that baptism is part of salvation.

So you deny the writings of Paul, very dangerous erm.
Title: Re: Dunked in the Water
Post by: e.r.m. on Thu Jul 17, 2014 - 13:56:18
I used to be a decision counselor at a Christian Church.   This is a distant cousin to the Churches of Christ and I say "distant" because the Christian Church, also a Restoration Movement group, is often considered to be "too evangelical."   Anyway, I very distinctly remember a young couple that had come forward to join the church.   It was my duty to council with them, which I did.  While I was counseling with them I began to describe the meaning of baptism and how it related to all of the things that Christ had done to save her.   She began to bawl and almost uncontrollably.   That greatly affected me too.   You see, she had recognized Who Christ is and What He had done for her.   He became her savior not the impending act of immersion in water.
No, she was simply cut/pricked to the heart as in Acts 2:37. A contrite heart is exactly what one should have before being baptized. It's not the sign that someone has been saved. Otherwise Peter would have declared the crowd saved on the spot and not instructed them to be baptized in Jesus's name for the forgiveness of their sins.

Quote
A Church of Christ poster here said that it drives him nuts when people say that baptism is not necessary for salvation.   It drives me nuts when people make this a religious issue, a works issue.
Baptism Acts 2:38 in and of itself is not a works issue unless a person approaches it without heart and faith.

Quote
They fail to recognize the Savior described in Isaiah 53. They fail to see that the Scriptures proclaim Him to be All-Sufficient (I did not say Sufficient for All, so don't go there).   They believe that they must not admit that God has done everything needed to save us.   This is the same wrong belief they have about faith.   They deny that the Holy Spirit has a part in salvation as that would interfere with our free will.   They let this same wrong intellectual conclusion interfere with their understanding of the symbolic beauty of baptism and turn it into a "see what I've done" show.   They all need to repent.
Neither do I deny the Holy Spirit played a part in a person getting saved, nor have I ever seen baptism as a "see what I've done" show. Baptism is what it is -Acts 2:38. Using the term symbolic beauty of baptism doesn't make it Biblical.
But is a public display of your faith. Only Gods knows from within you what your purpose of baptism is. Eternal life is about faith, more specifically, where that faith is placed.
For the purpose of baptism to have been a public display of faith, the Bible would have had to have said so. If you're not following the Word of God on this matter, then what are you following?
Title: Re: Dunked in the Water
Post by: e.r.m. on Thu Jul 17, 2014 - 14:01:22
It's not hard to see what you're doing erm. You have openly discounted the epistles of Paul to push your belief in water baptism. No one can read the epistles of Paul and come away with any idea that baptism is part of salvation.

So you deny the writings of Paul, very dangerous erm.
If you feel that it's coming from me and not from scripture, then show a passage that gives the correct purpose of baptism. That's the standard. Show me a passage that says what you say.
Title: Re: Dunked in the Water
Post by: Charlie24 on Thu Jul 17, 2014 - 14:04:20
I used to be a decision counselor at a Christian Church.   This is a distant cousin to the Churches of Christ and I say "distant" because the Christian Church, also a Restoration Movement group, is often considered to be "too evangelical."   Anyway, I very distinctly remember a young couple that had come forward to join the church.   It was my duty to council with them, which I did.  While I was counseling with them I began to describe the meaning of baptism and how it related to all of the things that Christ had done to save her.   She began to bawl and almost uncontrollably.   That greatly affected me too.   You see, she had recognized Who Christ is and What He had done for her.   He became her savior not the impending act of immersion in water.
No, she was simply cut/pricked to the heart as in Acts 2:37. A contrite heart is exactly what one should have before being baptized. It's not the sign that someone has been saved. Otherwise Peter would have declared the crowd saved on the spot and not instructed them to be baptized in Jesus's name for the forgiveness of their sins.

Quote
A Church of Christ poster here said that it drives him nuts when people say that baptism is not necessary for salvation.   It drives me nuts when people make this a religious issue, a works issue.
Baptism Acts 2:38 in and of itself is not a works issue unless a person approaches it without heart and faith.

Quote
They fail to recognize the Savior described in Isaiah 53. They fail to see that the Scriptures proclaim Him to be All-Sufficient (I did not say Sufficient for All, so don't go there).   They believe that they must not admit that God has done everything needed to save us.   This is the same wrong belief they have about faith.   They deny that the Holy Spirit has a part in salvation as that would interfere with our free will.   They let this same wrong intellectual conclusion interfere with their understanding of the symbolic beauty of baptism and turn it into a "see what I've done" show.   They all need to repent.
Neither do I deny the Holy Spirit played a part in a person getting saved, nor have I ever seen baptism as a "see what I've done" show. Baptism is what it is -Acts 2:38. Using the term symbolic beauty of baptism doesn't make it Biblical.
But is a public display of your faith. Only Gods knows from within you what your purpose of baptism is. Eternal life is about faith, more specifically, where that faith is placed.
For the purpose of baptism to have been a public display of faith, the Bible would have had to have said so. If you're not following the Word of God on this matter, then what are you following?
I'm following the one who wrote almost 1/3 or the NT, the one who was given the revelation of the NT, the one who says we are saved by grace through faith. The one who said we are sealed with the Holy Spirit when we believe, the one who gave up everything the world had to offer and willingly became a slave of Jesus Christ that "I might know HIm."
Title: Re: Dunked in the Water
Post by: Jaime on Thu Jul 17, 2014 - 14:07:28
Paul's writings were not included to nullify the other parts of the NT. His writings are perfectly congruent with the rest in my view.
Title: Re: Dunked in the Water
Post by: Charlie24 on Thu Jul 17, 2014 - 14:13:40
Paul's writings were not included to nullify the other parts of the NT. His writings are perfectly congruent with the rest in my view.
From day one on this site I have never denied any scripture you guys present for baptism. From day one I have said you have misunderstood these scriptures. I believe I have proven that through the epistles of Paul.
I've seen this throughout my life, the denying of Pauls writings to bear false witness of salvation.
Title: Re: Dunked in the Water
Post by: e.r.m. on Thu Jul 17, 2014 - 14:14:55
I used to be a decision counselor at a Christian Church.   This is a distant cousin to the Churches of Christ and I say "distant" because the Christian Church, also a Restoration Movement group, is often considered to be "too evangelical."   Anyway, I very distinctly remember a young couple that had come forward to join the church.   It was my duty to council with them, which I did.  While I was counseling with them I began to describe the meaning of baptism and how it related to all of the things that Christ had done to save her.   She began to bawl and almost uncontrollably.   That greatly affected me too.   You see, she had recognized Who Christ is and What He had done for her.   He became her savior not the impending act of immersion in water.
No, she was simply cut/pricked to the heart as in Acts 2:37. A contrite heart is exactly what one should have before being baptized. It's not the sign that someone has been saved. Otherwise Peter would have declared the crowd saved on the spot and not instructed them to be baptized in Jesus's name for the forgiveness of their sins.

Quote
A Church of Christ poster here said that it drives him nuts when people say that baptism is not necessary for salvation.   It drives me nuts when people make this a religious issue, a works issue.
Baptism Acts 2:38 in and of itself is not a works issue unless a person approaches it without heart and faith.

Quote
They fail to recognize the Savior described in Isaiah 53. They fail to see that the Scriptures proclaim Him to be All-Sufficient (I did not say Sufficient for All, so don't go there).   They believe that they must not admit that God has done everything needed to save us.   This is the same wrong belief they have about faith.   They deny that the Holy Spirit has a part in salvation as that would interfere with our free will.   They let this same wrong intellectual conclusion interfere with their understanding of the symbolic beauty of baptism and turn it into a "see what I've done" show.   They all need to repent.
Neither do I deny the Holy Spirit played a part in a person getting saved, nor have I ever seen baptism as a "see what I've done" show. Baptism is what it is -Acts 2:38. Using the term symbolic beauty of baptism doesn't make it Biblical.
But is a public display of your faith. Only Gods knows from within you what your purpose of baptism is. Eternal life is about faith, more specifically, where that faith is placed.
For the purpose of baptism to have been a public display of faith, the Bible would have had to have said so. If you're not following the Word of God on this matter, then what are you following?
I'm following the one who wrote almost 1/3 or the NT, the one who was given the revelation of the NT, the one who says we are saved by grace through faith. The one who said we are sealed with the Holy Spirit when we believe, the one who gave up everything the world had to offer and willingly became a slave of Jesus Christ that "I might know HIm."
I agree with Jaime.

And the one who was given the revelation of the NT, the one who says we are saved by grace through faith. The one who said we are sealed with the Holy Spirit when we believe, the one who gave up everything the world had to offer and willingly became a slave of Jesus Christ that "I might know HIm,     Never said baptism's purpose is a public display of faith. So again what are you following when you say baptism's purpose is a public display of faith?
Title: Re: Dunked in the Water
Post by: Jaime on Thu Jul 17, 2014 - 14:15:09
Matthew 3:13-17

Mark 1:9-11

Luke 3:21-23


13. Then cometh Jesus from Galilee to Jordan to John, that he might be baptized by him. 14. But John forbade him, saying, I have need to be baptized by thee, and dost thou come to me? 15. And Jesus answering said to him, Suffer it now: for thus it becometh us to fulfil all righteousness. Then he suffers him. 16. And Jesus, having been baptized, went up immediately from the water: and, lo, the heavens were opened to him, and he saw the Spirit of God descending as a dove, and coming upon him. 17. And, lo, a voice from heaven, saying, This is my be loved Son, in whom I am well pleased.

9. And it happened in those days, Jesus came from Nazareth of Galilee, and was baptized by John in Jordan. 10. And immediately, when he was going up out of the water, he saw the heavens cleft assunder, and the Spirit descending as a dove, upon him. 11. And a voice came from heaven, Thou art my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased.

21. And it happened, that, while all the people were being baptized,  when Jesus had been baptized and was praying, the heaven was opened, 22. And that the Holy Spirit descended in a bodily appearance, as a dove, upon him, and a voice came from heaven, saying, Thou art my beloved Son: in thee I am well pleased. 23. And Jesus himself began to be about thirty years of age.


Let me ask some this question: "Why was Jesus Baptized"?  Please do not just say~for thus it became him to fulfill all righteousness. It is much more extensive, than to leave it with those words, for one has not really explained the purpose of Jesus' baptism by only saying those words.  Was Jesus' baptism for a different purpose than ours?  Or, the same? Waiting for some answers.

I am waiting for someone to answer this post.  Are there no takers? I would think that it is very important as to why Jesus was baptized.  Was it to fulfill Acts 2:38? Would it have any connection with Mark 16:16? Would it have any connection with Romans 6:3?

Hint:

I would say that it has more connection with Romans 6:3, and very close to Mark 16:16, not so much with Acts 2:38.  You boys from the coc should be very quick to answer this post.  I cannot believe that you have not even try so far. 

Red,

Jesus' baptism to me has nothing to do with why we get baptized per se', but I have found it interesting that Jesus did no miracles prior to the Spirit lighting on him as a dove at his baptism. He later scolded the Pharisees for accusing him of doing miracles by the power of Beelzebub, telling them basically that blaspheming the son is one thing, but Blaspheming the Holy Spirit is another. Clearly indicating that he did his miracles by the power of the Holy Spirit. Patterning for us the power that lies available to us if we only allowed it and trusted in it.
Title: Re: Dunked in the Water
Post by: Charlie24 on Thu Jul 17, 2014 - 14:22:56
I used to be a decision counselor at a Christian Church.   This is a distant cousin to the Churches of Christ and I say "distant" because the Christian Church, also a Restoration Movement group, is often considered to be "too evangelical."   Anyway, I very distinctly remember a young couple that had come forward to join the church.   It was my duty to council with them, which I did.  While I was counseling with them I began to describe the meaning of baptism and how it related to all of the things that Christ had done to save her.   She began to bawl and almost uncontrollably.   That greatly affected me too.   You see, she had recognized Who Christ is and What He had done for her.   He became her savior not the impending act of immersion in water.
No, she was simply cut/pricked to the heart as in Acts 2:37. A contrite heart is exactly what one should have before being baptized. It's not the sign that someone has been saved. Otherwise Peter would have declared the crowd saved on the spot and not instructed them to be baptized in Jesus's name for the forgiveness of their sins.

Quote
A Church of Christ poster here said that it drives him nuts when people say that baptism is not necessary for salvation.   It drives me nuts when people make this a religious issue, a works issue.
Baptism Acts 2:38 in and of itself is not a works issue unless a person approaches it without heart and faith.

Quote
They fail to recognize the Savior described in Isaiah 53. They fail to see that the Scriptures proclaim Him to be All-Sufficient (I did not say Sufficient for All, so don't go there).   They believe that they must not admit that God has done everything needed to save us.   This is the same wrong belief they have about faith.   They deny that the Holy Spirit has a part in salvation as that would interfere with our free will.   They let this same wrong intellectual conclusion interfere with their understanding of the symbolic beauty of baptism and turn it into a "see what I've done" show.   They all need to repent.
Neither do I deny the Holy Spirit played a part in a person getting saved, nor have I ever seen baptism as a "see what I've done" show. Baptism is what it is -Acts 2:38. Using the term symbolic beauty of baptism doesn't make it Biblical.
But is a public display of your faith. Only Gods knows from within you what your purpose of baptism is. Eternal life is about faith, more specifically, where that faith is placed.
For the purpose of baptism to have been a public display of faith, the Bible would have had to have said so. If you're not following the Word of God on this matter, then what are you following?
I'm following the one who wrote almost 1/3 or the NT, the one who was given the revelation of the NT, the one who says we are saved by grace through faith. The one who said we are sealed with the Holy Spirit when we believe, the one who gave up everything the world had to offer and willingly became a slave of Jesus Christ that "I might know HIm."
I agree with Jaime.

And the one who was given the revelation of the NT, the one who says we are saved by grace through faith. The one who said we are sealed with the Holy Spirit when we believe, the one who gave up everything the world had to offer and willingly became a slave of Jesus Christ that "I might know HIm,     Never said baptism's purpose is a public display of faith. So again dhat are you following when you say baptism's purpose is a public display of faith?
If you can't see the ceremony of baptism as a public display of faith erm, then no explanation by man can reveal it to you.
Title: Re: Dunked in the Water
Post by: Jaime on Thu Jul 17, 2014 - 14:41:19
Paul's writings were not included to nullify the other parts of the NT. His writings are perfectly congruent with the rest in my view.
From day one on this site I have never denied any scripture you guys present for baptism. From day one I have said you have misunderstood these scriptures. I believe I have proven that through the epistles of Paul.
I've seen this throughout my life, the denying of Pauls writings to bear false witness of salvation.

Except I don't deny Paul's writings. I am saying they are perfectly congruent with the rest of the NT.
Title: Re: Dunked in the Water
Post by: Charlie24 on Thu Jul 17, 2014 - 14:48:44
Paul's writings were not included to nullify the other parts of the NT. His writings are perfectly congruent with the rest in my view.
From day one on this site I have never denied any scripture you guys present for baptism. From day one I have said you have misunderstood these scriptures. I believe I have proven that through the epistles of Paul.
I've seen this throughout my life, the denying of Pauls writings to bear false witness of salvation.

Except I don't deny Paul's writings. I am saying they are perfectly congruent with the rest of the NT.
It is impossible to agree with the Gospel that Paul preached and place other imposed salvation scriptures in precedence over it, or combine these scriptures with Pauls which clearly oppose one another.
Title: Re: Dunked in the Water
Post by: Jaime on Thu Jul 17, 2014 - 14:51:53
Paul's writings were not included to nullify the other parts of the NT. His writings are perfectly congruent with the rest in my view.
From day one on this site I have never denied any scripture you guys present for baptism. From day one I have said you have misunderstood these scriptures. I believe I have proven that through the epistles of Paul.
I've seen this throughout my life, the denying of Pauls writings to bear false witness of salvation.

Except I don't deny Paul's writings. I am saying they are perfectly congruent with the rest of the NT.
It is impossible to agree with the Gospel that Paul preached and place other imposed salvation scriptures in precedence over it, or combine these scriptures with Pauls which clearly oppose one another.

Unless you demand that Paul's writings are in contradiction of other NT writings. I do not. It IS impossible unless you take the NT cumulatively, one precept upon another. If you only take what Paul said to the exclusion of other NT scripture, you do run into problems. I do not believe the NT is divided up into 2 different gospels.
Title: Re: Dunked in the Water
Post by: yogi bear on Thu Jul 17, 2014 - 14:58:50
Paul's writings were not included to nullify the other parts of the NT. His writings are perfectly congruent with the rest in my view.
From day one on this site I have never denied any scripture you guys present for baptism. From day one I have said you have misunderstood these scriptures. I believe I have proven that through the epistles of Paul.
I've seen this throughout my life, the denying of Pauls writings to bear false witness of salvation.

Except I don't deny Paul's writings. I am saying they are perfectly congruent with the rest of the NT.
It is impossible to agree with the Gospel that Paul preached and place other imposed salvation scriptures in precedence over it, or combine these scriptures with Pauls which clearly oppose one another.

Unless you demand that Paul's writings are in contradiction of other NT writings. I do not. It IS impossible unless you take the NT cumulatively, one precept upon another. If you only take what Paul said to the exclusion of other NT scripture, you do run into problems. I do not believe the NT is divided up into 2 different gospels.
::amen!:: Brother we have to use all scripture and harmonize them together not pit them against the other. Paul, Peter, Jesus, and all the rest taught the same thing.
Title: Re: Dunked in the Water
Post by: yogi bear on Thu Jul 17, 2014 - 15:00:36
Charlie with all due respect not to be mean but in hopes to get you to see I think you are reading your thoughts into what Paul teaches rather than actually hearing what Paul is saying.
Title: Re: Dunked in the Water
Post by: Charlie24 on Thu Jul 17, 2014 - 15:03:24
Paul's writings were not included to nullify the other parts of the NT. His writings are perfectly congruent with the rest in my view.
From day one on this site I have never denied any scripture you guys present for baptism. From day one I have said you have misunderstood these scriptures. I believe I have proven that through the epistles of Paul.
I've seen this throughout my life, the denying of Pauls writings to bear false witness of salvation.

Except I don't deny Paul's writings. I am saying they are perfectly congruent with the rest of the NT.
It is impossible to agree with the Gospel that Paul preached and place other imposed salvation scriptures in precedence over it, or combine these scriptures with Pauls which clearly oppose one another.

Unless you demand that Paul's writings are in contradiction of other NT writings. I do not. It IS impossible unless you take the NT cumulatively, one precept upon another. If you only take what Paul said to the exclusion of other NT scripture, you do run into problems. I do not believe the NT is divided up into 2 different gospels.
This is where I disagree. I believe Paul preached the whole Gospel, he explained it very well whereas no one else did.
I cannot and will not combine scripture well knowing this is not what the Revelator taught.
Title: Re: Dunked in the Water
Post by: Charlie24 on Thu Jul 17, 2014 - 15:05:11
Charlie with all due respect not to be mean but in hopes to get you to see I think you are reading your thoughts into what Paul teaches rather than actually hearing what Paul is saying.
Explain your reasoning Yogi.
Title: Re: Dunked in the Water
Post by: Jaime on Thu Jul 17, 2014 - 15:09:05
Charlie, Paul either was contradicting earlier scripture or he was building upon earlier scripture. I choose the latter. Otherwise he was preaching a different gospel. If he was preaching a different gospel, I think that would have been abundantly clear in the text that everything prior to Paul was a mistake. I don't think the Holy Spirit made a mistake or intended to stealthily correct any earlier scripture but to perfectly harmonize with earlier scripture.

But I agree we disagree.
Title: Re: Dunked in the Water
Post by: yogi bear on Thu Jul 17, 2014 - 15:14:39
Charlie with all due respect not to be mean but in hopes to get you to see I think you are reading your thoughts into what Paul teaches rather than actually hearing what Paul is saying.
Explain your reasoning Yogi.
Charlie it will take a long time to rehash all we have been showing you but for starters we will look ate Romans 6:3ff

Here we see Paul teaching what the baptism in Christ name is about and does for mankind. It is in direct connection to that of Acts 2:38 It is a water and spirit baptism and Paul explains how.

You say it is not that of Acts 2 and not of water but you have not proven that that is what Paul says. Therefore it is my opinion you are misunderstanding just what Paul is trying to tell you because you have been trained to see it in a different way and will not even give any thought that you may have been mislead.

That is just a touching of what I feel you are not seeing eye to eye with Paul on we could go on but I have to go to the doctors office right now so if need be will get back with you on this.
Title: Re: Dunked in the Water
Post by: Charlie24 on Thu Jul 17, 2014 - 15:17:32
He either was contradicting earlier scripture or he was building upon earlier scripture. I choose the latter. Otherwise he was preaching a different gospel. If he was preaching a different gospel, I think that would have been abundantly clear in the text that everything prior to Paul was a mistake. I don't think the Holy Spirit made a mistake or intended to stealthily correct any earlier scripture but to perfectly harmonize with earlier scripture.

But I agree we disagree.
Paul was not building on earlier scripture. He said himself he received the revelation directly from Christ. Therefore he built his Gospel on the direct words from Christ.

It was Paul that set the church straight at Jerusalem. He confronted Peter and James, correcting them through the revelation given to him by Christ. They saw the error of their way and accepted the truth from Paul. Peter praises Paul for the wisdom given him by Christ through his epistles.
Title: Re: Dunked in the Water
Post by: Charlie24 on Thu Jul 17, 2014 - 15:36:07
Charlie with all due respect not to be mean but in hopes to get you to see I think you are reading your thoughts into what Paul teaches rather than actually hearing what Paul is saying.
Explain your reasoning Yogi.
Charlie it will take a long time to rehash all we have been showing you but for starters we will look ate Romans 6:3ff

Here we see Paul teaching what the baptism in Christ name is about and does for mankind. It is in direct connection to that of Acts 2:38 It is a water and spirit baptism and Paul explains how.

You say it is not that of Acts 2 and not of water but you have not proven that that is what Paul says. Therefore it is my opinion you are misunderstanding just what Paul is trying to tell you because you have been trained to see it in a different way and will not even give any thought that you may have been mislead.

That is just a touching of what I feel you are not seeing eye to eye with Paul on we could go on but I have to go to the doctors office right now so if need be will get back with you on this.
Yogi I understand why you believe this. But whether or not Paul is speaking of water in Rom. 6, let's drop that right now.
Paul tells us exactly what salvation means, exactly how to obtain it, and the glory of it. Never one time in all this does he say baptism is part of our salvation, but continuously tells us salvation is by grace through faith. He even tells us the exact moment of salvation, when we believe, and baptism is never mentioned. Do you honestly believe Paul expects us combine what he says with previous scripture, and never even mention it to us?
Title: Re: Dunked in the Water
Post by: e.r.m. on Thu Jul 17, 2014 - 15:37:49
Paul's writings were not included to nullify the other parts of the NT. His writings are perfectly congruent with the rest in my view.
From day one on this site I have never denied any scripture you guys present for baptism. From day one I have said you have misunderstood these scriptures. I believe I have proven that through the epistles of Paul.
I've seen this throughout my life, the denying of Pauls writings to bear false witness of salvation.

Except I don't deny Paul's writings. I am saying they are perfectly congruent with the rest of the NT.
It is impossible to agree with the Gospel that Paul preached and place other imposed salvation scriptures in precedence over it, or combine these scriptures with Pauls which clearly oppose one another.

Unless you demand that Paul's writings are in contradiction of other NT writings. I do not. It IS impossible unless you take the NT cumulatively, one precept upon another. If you only take what Paul said to the exclusion of other NT scripture, you do run into problems. I do not believe the NT is divided up into 2 different gospels.
::amen!:: Brother we have to use all scripture and harmonize them together not pit them against the other. Paul, Peter, Jesus, and all the rest taught the same thing.
Well said.
Title: Re: Dunked in the Water
Post by: e.r.m. on Thu Jul 17, 2014 - 15:40:36
Charlie with all due respect not to be mean but in hopes to get you to see I think you are reading your thoughts into what Paul teaches rather than actually hearing what Paul is saying.
Explain your reasoning Yogi.
Charlie it will take a long time to rehash all we have been showing you but for starters we will look ate Romans 6:3ff

Here we see Paul teaching what the baptism in Christ name is about and does for mankind. It is in direct connection to that of Acts 2:38 It is a water and spirit baptism and Paul explains how.

You say it is not that of Acts 2 and not of water but you have not proven that that is what Paul says. Therefore it is my opinion you are misunderstanding just what Paul is trying to tell you because you have been trained to see it in a different way and will not even give any thought that you may have been mislead.

That is just a touching of what I feel you are not seeing eye to eye with Paul on we could go on but I have to go to the doctors office right now so if need be will get back with you on this.
Hope you feel better.
Title: Re: Dunked in the Water
Post by: e.r.m. on Thu Jul 17, 2014 - 15:45:02
Paul's writings were not included to nullify the other parts of the NT. His writings are perfectly congruent with the rest in my view.
From day one on this site I have never denied any scripture you guys present for baptism. From day one I have said you have misunderstood these scriptures. I believe I have proven that through the epistles of Paul.
I've seen this throughout my life, the denying of Pauls writings to bear false witness of salvation.

Except I don't deny Paul's writings. I am saying they are perfectly congruent with the rest of the NT.
It is impossible to agree with the Gospel that Paul preached and place other imposed salvation scriptures in precedence over it, or combine these scriptures with Pauls which clearly oppose one another.

Unless you demand that Paul's writings are in contradiction of other NT writings. I do not. It IS impossible unless you take the NT cumulatively, one precept upon another. If you only take what Paul said to the exclusion of other NT scripture, you do run into problems. I do not believe the NT is divided up into 2 different gospels.
This is where I disagree. I believe Paul preached the whole Gospel, he explained it very well whereas no one else did.
I cannot and will not combine scripture well knowing this is not what the Revelator taught.
Charlie with all due respect not to be mean but in hopes to get you to see I think you are reading your thoughts into what Paul teaches rather than actually hearing what Paul is saying.
Explain your reasoning Yogi.
Charlie it will take a long time to rehash all we have been showing you but for starters we will look ate Romans 6:3ff

Here we see Paul teaching what the baptism in Christ name is about and does for mankind. It is in direct connection to that of Acts 2:38 It is a water and spirit baptism and Paul explains how.

You say it is not that of Acts 2 and not of water but you have not proven that that is what Paul says. Therefore it is my opinion you are misunderstanding just what Paul is trying to tell you because you have been trained to see it in a different way and will not even give any thought that you may have been mislead.

That is just a touching of what I feel you are not seeing eye to eye with Paul on we could go on but I have to go to the doctors office right now so if need be will get back with you on this.
Hope you feel better.
Title: Re: Dunked in the Water
Post by: e.r.m. on Thu Jul 17, 2014 - 15:49:43
Paul's writings were not included to nullify the other parts of the NT. His writings are perfectly congruent with the rest in my view.
From day one on this site I have never denied any scripture you guys present for baptism. From day one I have said you have misunderstood these scriptures. I believe I have proven that through the epistles of Paul.
I've seen this throughout my life, the denying of Pauls writings to bear false witness of salvation.

Except I don't deny Paul's writings. I am saying they are perfectly congruent with the rest of the NT.
It is impossible to agree with the Gospel that Paul preached and place other imposed salvation scriptures in precedence over it, or combine these scriptures with Pauls which clearly oppose one another.

Unless you demand that Paul's writings are in contradiction of other NT writings. I do not. It IS impossible unless you take the NT cumulatively, one precept upon another. If you only take what Paul said to the exclusion of other NT scripture, you do run into problems. I do not believe the NT is divided up into 2 different gospels.
This is where I disagree. I believe Paul preached the whole Gospel, he explained it very well whereas no one else did.
I cannot and will not combine scripture well knowing this is not what the Revelator taught.
Isn't this what Paul spoke about?
1 Corinthians 1:12 What I mean is this: One of you says, “I follow Paul”; another, “I follow Apollos”; another, “I follow Cephas ”; still another, “I follow Christ.”
Title: Re: Dunked in the Water
Post by: Charlie24 on Thu Jul 17, 2014 - 16:02:05
Yes it is. But who did Christ give the revelation to?

Having the revelation from Christ, Paul said in 1Cor. 11:1,

Be ye followers of me, even as I also am of Christ.
Title: Re: Dunked in the Water
Post by: Jaime on Thu Jul 17, 2014 - 16:21:47
He either was contradicting earlier scripture or he was building upon earlier scripture. I choose the latter. Otherwise he was preaching a different gospel. If he was preaching a different gospel, I think that would have been abundantly clear in the text that everything prior to Paul was a mistake. I don't think the Holy Spirit made a mistake or intended to stealthily correct any earlier scripture but to perfectly harmonize with earlier scripture.

But I agree we disagree.
Paul was not building on earlier scripture. He said himself he received the revelation directly from Christ. Therefore he built his Gospel on the direct words from Christ.

It was Paul that set the church straight at Jerusalem. He confronted Peter and James, correcting them through the revelation given to him by Christ. They saw the error of their way and accepted the truth from Paul. Peter praises Paul for the wisdom given him by Christ through his epistles.

"His gospel" implies there was another. There isn't two gospels. Yes, he set Peter and James straight on the circumcision issue and the mystery of the gentile inclusion, but there was never any further refutation of anything else. He didn't by any stretch undo everything Peter taught. I wouldn't expect the Holy Spirit to have given Peter and others faulty information on the entire salvation issue. Apparently Peter and James and others made their own leap on the circumcision issue, and had to be corrected by the Spirit in Peter's vision and the Cornelius incident.

I consider myself a New Testament Christian (inclusive of Paul's teachings), and not JUST a Pauline Christian.
Title: Re: Dunked in the Water
Post by: Charlie24 on Thu Jul 17, 2014 - 16:30:17
He either was contradicting earlier scripture or he was building upon earlier scripture. I choose the latter. Otherwise he was preaching a different gospel. If he was preaching a different gospel, I think that would have been abundantly clear in the text that everything prior to Paul was a mistake. I don't think the Holy Spirit made a mistake or intended to stealthily correct any earlier scripture but to perfectly harmonize with earlier scripture.

But I agree we disagree.
Paul was not building on earlier scripture. He said himself he received the revelation directly from Christ. Therefore he built his Gospel on the direct words from Christ.

It was Paul that set the church straight at Jerusalem. He confronted Peter and James, correcting them through the revelation given to him by Christ. They saw the error of their way and accepted the truth from Paul. Peter praises Paul for the wisdom given him by Christ through his epistles.

"His gospel" implies there was another. There isn't two gospels. Yes, he set Peter and James straight on the circumcision issue and the mystery of the gentile inclusion, but there was never any further refutation of anything else. He didn't by any stretch undo everything Peter taught. I wouldn't expect the Holy Spirit to have given Peter and others faulty information on the entire salvation issue. Apparently Peter and James and others made their own leap on the circumcision issue, and had to be corrected by the Spirit in Peter's vision and the Cornelius incident.

I consider myself a New Testament Christian (inclusive of Paul's teachings), and not JUST a Pauline Christian.
There was no problem with baptism in their day. The problem with baptism came some 300-400 years later when the RCC declared baptism necessary for salvation. It began with infant baptism (which is not scriptural) and later resulted in what they teach today. It has spread through the ranks of Christianity and now we face a problem Paul never encountered.
Title: Re: Dunked in the Water
Post by: Jaime on Thu Jul 17, 2014 - 17:00:51
No I think the problem came with the Reformers. I agree with very little of Catholic teaching, especially infant baptism.
Title: Re: Dunked in the Water
Post by: Charlie24 on Thu Jul 17, 2014 - 17:05:01
No I think the problem came with the Reformers. I agree with very little of Catholic teaching, especially infant baptism.
Six of one, half a dozen of the other, I see no difference.
Title: Re: Dunked in the Water
Post by: soterion on Thu Jul 17, 2014 - 17:09:16
Charlie24,

On and on you go saying that Paul never once said that baptism is part of our salvation, but you continue to be mistaken. He did say it. The passages have been provided and explained. Just because you refuse to believe it doesn't mean they are not there or that they don't say what they say.

I pointed out earlier about your self contradictions, and this you also fail to see. You did it again here:

Quote
He even tells us the exact moment of salvation, when we believe, and baptism is never mentioned.

If you've changed your mind about confession of Jesus with the mouth being required for salvation, as stated by Paul in Romans 10, and are now saying "no" to that, then maybe you're not as inconsistent with yourself as I am claiming. However, if Romans 10:9-10 is still something you believe is necessary for salvation, then you contradict yourself and you pit Paul against himself. Paul would not say "only believe" or "at the exact moment of belief" in one place, and then in another combine belief and confession and say that confession is for salvation. As it is, Paul never says "only believe" or "at the exact moment of belief" or anything else like those, in his writings.

This focus on Paul is somewhat troubling, but only because you seem to lift him up above the other writers. All scripture should be given equal importance. Your desire to have Paul trump other writers and their scriptures has gone to the point that you are not getting the whole picture of salvation. Your claim that Paul says, "all you have to do is believe" (although he never says that) is proof of this. All scripture on any issue should be given equal weight and studied so as to gain a more proper perspective.

In addition, your constant requirement for some passages to be worded a certain way, or else you cannot accept a certain truth, is particularly troubling. For example, you said in the quote above that baptism is not mentioned in certain passages that do mention belief, and therefore baptism is not necessary. This is why others here have been haranguing you about looking at all scripture, not just certain ones that say what you want and leave out the things you don't want to accept.

Remember the point about Titus 3:4-7? It doesn't mention faith. If I was to use your method of biblical interpretation, I could say that faith is not a requirement for salvation. Your proper response would have to be that I look at other scriptures to see the necessity of faith, right? That is what you need to do regarding baptism.

Another example is your need to have Mark 16:16 be worded a certain way, because the way it is worded is not good enough for you to accept what it simply says. You may not believe it, but Paul agrees completely with Jesus there. Paul explains and emphasizes what Jesus said. Paul gives the how and why that baptism is for salvation from sin.

My point, simply put, is that you are too inconsistent with the scriptures and with your own arguments. These inconsistencies make you appear unable to provide valid points for others to seriously consider. If you keep posting the same arguments that have been repeatedly shown to be scripturally incorrect, then I and others will keep posting the scriptural reasons why those arguments fail to prove your point.

And round and round we will go  ::rolling:: , for as long as you want.
Title: Re: Dunked in the Water
Post by: Jaime on Thu Jul 17, 2014 - 17:12:10
No I think the problem came with the Reformers. I agree with very little of Catholic teaching, especially infant baptism.
Six of one, half a dozen of the other, I see no difference.

No, the reformers like Zwingli were the first to try and repudiate baptism as a means of grace and claim it is only a sign of grace. Their repudiation of infant baptism and other Catholic teachings was correct. The Catholic church to my understanding taught that the act of baptism alone saves as well they claimed the sacrament of the Eucharist did. I certainly don't.
Title: Re: Dunked in the Water
Post by: Charlie24 on Thu Jul 17, 2014 - 17:21:51
Charlie24,

On and on you go saying that Paul never once said that baptism is part of our salvation, but you continue to be mistaken. He did say it. The passages have been provided and explained. Just because you refuse to believe it doesn't mean they are not there or that they don't say what they say.

I pointed out earlier about your self contradictions, and this you also fail to see. You did it again here:

Quote
He even tells us the exact moment of salvation, when we believe, and baptism is never mentioned.

If you've changed your mind about confession of Jesus with the mouth being required for salvation, as stated by Paul in Romans 10, and are now saying "no" to that, then maybe you're not as inconsistent with yourself as I am claiming. However, if Romans 10:9-10 is still something you believe is necessary for salvation, then you contradict yourself and you pit Paul against himself. Paul would not say "only believe" or "at the exact moment of belief" in one place, and then in another combine belief and confession and say that confession is for salvation. As it is, Paul never says "only believe" or "at the exact moment of belief" or anything else like those, in his writings.

This focus on Paul is somewhat troubling, but only because you seem to lift him up above the other writers. All scripture should be given equal importance. Your desire to have Paul trump other writers and their scriptures has gone to the point that you are not getting the whole picture of salvation. Your claim that Paul says, "all you have to do is believe" (although he never says that) is proof of this. All scripture on any issue should be given equal weight and studied so as to gain a more proper perspective.

In addition, your constant requirement for some passages to be worded a certain way, or else you cannot accept a certain truth, is particularly troubling. For example, you said in the quote above that baptism is not mentioned in certain passages that do mention belief, and therefore baptism is not necessary. This is why others here have been haranguing you about looking at all scripture, not just certain ones that say what you want and leave out the things you don't want to accept.

Remember the point about Titus 3:4-7? It doesn't mention faith. If I was to use your method of biblical interpretation, I could say that faith is not a requirement for salvation. Your proper response would have to be that I look at other scriptures to see the necessity of faith, right? That is what you need to do regarding baptism.

Another example is your need to have Mark 16:16 be worded a certain way, because the way it is worded is not good enough for you to accept what it simply says. You may not believe it, but Paul agrees completely with Jesus there. Paul explains and emphasizes what Jesus said. Paul gives the how and why that baptism is for salvation from sin.

My point, simply put, is that you are too inconsistent with the scriptures and with your own arguments. These inconsistencies make you appear unable to provide valid points for others to seriously consider. If you keep posting the same arguments that have been repeatedly shown to be scripturally incorrect, then I and others will keep posting the scriptural reasons why those arguments fail to prove your point.

And round and round we will go  ::rolling:: , for as long as you want.
It will always be round and round we go, no doubt about that.

It's not only a matter of scripture interpretation, it's also a matter of where our faith is placed. This is the most important part for me.

If the Lord returns or I go through the grave, either way the Lord will find no slack in my faith. It's all at Calvary where I was freed from sin, became a child of God, and received the promise. I can give no credit to anything else.
Title: Re: Dunked in the Water
Post by: e.r.m. on Thu Jul 17, 2014 - 17:46:53
Yes it is. But who did Christ give the revelation to?

Having the revelation from Christ, Paul said in 1Cor. 11:1,

Be ye followers of me, even as I also am of Christ.
But Paul didn't say to the exclusion of others.
Title: Re: Dunked in the Water
Post by: e.r.m. on Thu Jul 17, 2014 - 17:54:59
No I think the problem came with the Reformers. I agree with very little of Catholic teaching, especially infant baptism.
Six of one, half a dozen of the other, I see no difference.

No, the reformers like Zwingli were the first to try and repudiate baptism as a means of grace and claim it is only a sign of grace. Their repudiation of infant baptism and other Catholic teachings was correct. The Catholic church to my understanding taught that the act of baptism alone saves as well they claimed the sacrament of the Eucharist did. I certainly don't.
Zwingli defended infant baptism against the anabaptists who advocated for believer's baptism. He and Calvin were the first human beings ever recorded to try to divorce baptism from salvation. It started out as faith and baptism. The catholics removed faith, Zwingli and Calvin restored faith and removed baptism.
Title: Re: Dunked in the Water
Post by: e.r.m. on Thu Jul 17, 2014 - 18:02:30
He either was contradicting earlier scripture or he was building upon earlier scripture. I choose the latter. Otherwise he was preaching a different gospel. If he was preaching a different gospel, I think that would have been abundantly clear in the text that everything prior to Paul was a mistake. I don't think the Holy Spirit made a mistake or intended to stealthily correct any earlier scripture but to perfectly harmonize with earlier scripture.

But I agree we disagree.
Paul was not building on earlier scripture. He said himself he received the revelation directly from Christ. Therefore he built his Gospel on the direct words from Christ.

It was Paul that set the church straight at Jerusalem. He confronted Peter and James, correcting them through the revelation given to him by Christ. They saw the error of their way and accepted the truth from Paul. Peter praises Paul for the wisdom given him by Christ through his epistles.

"His gospel" implies there was another. There isn't two gospels. Yes, he set Peter and James straight on the circumcision issue and the mystery of the gentile inclusion, but there was never any further refutation of anything else. He didn't by any stretch undo everything Peter taught. I wouldn't expect the Holy Spirit to have given Peter and others faulty information on the entire salvation issue. Apparently Peter and James and others made their own leap on the circumcision issue, and had to be corrected by the Spirit in Peter's vision and the Cornelius incident.

I consider myself a New Testament Christian (inclusive of Paul's teachings), and not JUST a Pauline Christian.
There was no problem with baptism in their day. The problem with baptism came some 300-400 years later when the RCC declared baptism necessary for salvation. It began with infant baptism (which is not scriptural) and later resulted in what they teach today. It has spread through the ranks of Christianity and now we face a problem Paul never encountered.
This is wrong Justin Martyr in 155 A.D. confirmed salvific water baptism for sins previously committed, not infant baptism.
And for [water baptism] we have learned from
the apostles this reason. Since at our birth we
were born without our own knowledge or
choice, by our parents coming together, and
were brought up in bad habits and wicked
training; in order that we may not remain the
children of necessity and of ignorance, but
may become the children of choice and
knowledge, and may obtain in the water the
remission of sins formerly committed.
(Justin,
First Apology 61)

Justin was born around 100 AD and was
converted around age 30 AD, which makes
this belief as early as 30 years after John died.
Since he said he learned this from the
Apostles, then this is what the Apostles
taught.

And then of course, there's Acts 2:38 and Galatians 3:26-27.
Title: Re: Dunked in the Water
Post by: yogi bear on Thu Jul 17, 2014 - 18:03:22
Charlie with all due respect not to be mean but in hopes to get you to see I think you are reading your thoughts into what Paul teaches rather than actually hearing what Paul is saying.
Explain your reasoning Yogi.
Charlie it will take a long time to rehash all we have been showing you but for starters we will look ate Romans 6:3ff

Here we see Paul teaching what the baptism in Christ name is about and does for mankind. It is in direct connection to that of Acts 2:38 It is a water and spirit baptism and Paul explains how.

You say it is not that of Acts 2 and not of water but you have not proven that that is what Paul says. Therefore it is my opinion you are misunderstanding just what Paul is trying to tell you because you have been trained to see it in a different way and will not even give any thought that you may have been mislead.

That is just a touching of what I feel you are not seeing eye to eye with Paul on we could go on but I have to go to the doctors office right now so if need be will get back with you on this.
Yogi I understand why you believe this. But whether or not Paul is speaking of water in Rom. 6, let's drop that right now.
Paul tells us exactly what salvation means, exactly how to obtain it, and the glory of it. Never one time in all this does he say baptism is part of our salvation, but continuously tells us salvation is by grace through faith. He even tells us the exact moment of salvation, when we believe, and baptism is never mentioned. Do you honestly believe Paul expects us combine what he says with previous scripture, and never even mention it to us?
Charlie this is a prime example that you do not hear Paul but only hear yourself.

You said:" Never one time in all this does he say baptism is part of our salvation"

But what Paul said was;"Know ye not, that so many of us as were baptized into Jesus Christ were baptized into his death? 4 Therefore we are buried with him by baptism into death: that like as Christ was raised up from the dead by the glory of the Father, even so we also should walk in newness of life." Romans 6:3-4 (KJV)

Just what do you think he said?

He is talking to the church at Rome. The saved. He told them that their baptism in Christ name (Acts 2:38) was into Christ death (the work on the cross).

He made it abundantly clear that in the baptism in Christ name is where the old man of sin is done away and the new spiritual life begins. He made it clear that is why we are baptized in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sin and the receiving of the indwelling spirit.

It is very Clear he teaches baptism in Christ name and what it does. If this is not the baptism of Acts 2:38 then what is it?
Title: Re: Dunked in the Water
Post by: e.r.m. on Thu Jul 17, 2014 - 18:12:18
Paul's writings were not included to nullify the other parts of the NT. His writings are perfectly congruent with the rest in my view.
From day one on this site I have never denied any scripture you guys present for baptism. From day one I have said you have misunderstood these scriptures. I believe I have proven that through the epistles of Paul.
I've seen this throughout my life, the denying of Pauls writings to bear false witness of salvation.

Except I don't deny Paul's writings. I am saying they are perfectly congruent with the rest of the NT.
It is impossible to agree with the Gospel that Paul preached and place other imposed salvation scriptures in precedence over it, or combine these scriptures with Pauls which clearly oppose one another.

Unless you demand that Paul's writings are in contradiction of other NT writings. I do not. It IS impossible unless you take the NT cumulatively, one precept upon another. If you only take what Paul said to the exclusion of other NT scripture, you do run into problems. I do not believe the NT is divided up into 2 different gospels.
This is where I disagree. I believe Paul preached the whole Gospel, he explained it very well whereas no one else did.
I cannot and will not combine scripture well knowing this is not what the Revelator taught.
Do others from Charlie24's group agree with this statement?
Title: Re: Dunked in the Water
Post by: opie on Thu Jul 17, 2014 - 18:44:10
It was Paul that set the church straight at Jerusalem. He confronted Peter and James, correcting them through the revelation given to him by Christ. They saw the error of their way and accepted the truth from Paul. Peter praises Paul for the wisdom given him by Christ through his epistles.

Paul "set the church straight at Jerusalem"?  That's not remotely true.  Paul isn't even quoted during the council at Jerusalem (Acts 15), only Peter and James are quoted by name.  Nothing in what they had to say needed to be "set straight", nor did the church as a whole require such correction.  The passage plainly states that the false teachers had acted on their own - "to whom we gave no such commandment" (Acts 15:24).

This was not about one man setting the rest of them straight - it was about the apostles and elders working together, under the guidance of the Holy Spirit, in addressing an important matter.

And yes, Paul did correct Peter (for his hypocrisy (Gal. 2:13), not his doctrine), but there is no such record of him ever correcting James.  Why would you make up stuff like this?
Title: Re: Dunked in the Water
Post by: TruthScientist on Thu Jul 17, 2014 - 19:17:26
Mark 16:16 (KJV)
16  He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved; but he that believeth not shall be damned.

  A body has to believe before he can even be considered as a candidate for baptism.  Believing expresses faith in the gospel.  Which is the power that saves.  It was the events of the gospel by which salvation came to man.  Believing hits the target for us.  Baptism is an act of obedience that gives deeper expression to our faith before the Body and the world.  Water does not wash your sins away.  The blood of Jesus does that, the baptism is symbolic of that...

there is a reason you hardly ever add the "b" portion of Mk 16:16...  what do you think that reason might be? 

I was baptized and am proud of it and tell everyone I witness to who believes in the Gospel that they ought to be baptized.  But I explain that it is not to be saved but because you are saved...
Title: Re: Dunked in the Water
Post by: yogi bear on Thu Jul 17, 2014 - 19:38:30
Know ye not, that so many of us as were baptized into Jesus Christ were baptized into his death?
Romans 6:3 (KJV)

So the many that was baptized into Christ. when did this happen?

Was it in water?

Was it the baptism of Acts 2:38?

According to Paul here just what did it accomplish?


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? 17 But God be thanked, that ye were the servants of sin, but ye have obeyed from the heart that form of doctrine which was delivered you. 18 Being then made free from sin, ye became the servants of righteousness.
Romans 6:16-18 (KJV)

Does this not drive home that baptism in Christ name done away with sin and gave the spirit as Acts 2:38 said it would?

How can one read these passages and still stand firm that baptism in Christ name has nothing do with salvation?

Is not being freed from sin and given a new spiritual life part of salvation?
Title: Re: Dunked in the Water
Post by: Jaime on Thu Jul 17, 2014 - 19:42:32
TS for the 753 rd time, Mark 16:16 describes two things: 1) what comprises salvation and 2) what comprises condemnation. Baptism would not have to be mentioned in part B of the verse since everyone agrees belief is a prerequisite to baptism.

Jesus DID NOT say, no matter how you WANT it read, he that believes and is saved shall then be baptized. Not even remotely, if sentence structure of the translators means anything at all, and of course it does.
Title: Re: Dunked in the Water
Post by: TruthScientist on Thu Jul 17, 2014 - 19:47:18
Jesus did not take water to the heaven after resurrection to present to the Father for the remission of sin.  It was His blood.  It was His death in our stead (the wages of sin is death) that freed us from the penalty of sin not baptism.  Baptism has its place for sure but it does not save...  it did not pay for sin, the death of Christ did.  Being baptised into His death comes after believing... 
Title: Re: Dunked in the Water
Post by: yogi bear on Thu Jul 17, 2014 - 19:49:11
TS for the 753 rd time, Mark 16:16 describes two things: 1) what comprises salvation and 2) what comprises condemnation. Baptism would not have to be mentioned in part B of the verse since everyone agrees belief is a prerequisite to baptism.

Jesus DID NOT say, no matter how you WANT it read, he that believes and is saved shall then be baptized. Not even remotely, if sentence structure of the translators means anything at all, and of course it does.
Amen  One can not change the wording to fit their doctrine but must take it as it is recorded and apply it to your understanding.
Title: Re: Dunked in the Water
Post by: yogi bear on Thu Jul 17, 2014 - 19:52:15
Jesus did not take water to the heaven after resurrection to present to the Father for the remission of sin.  It was His blood.  It was His death in our stead (the wages of sin is death) that freed us from the penalty of sin not baptism.  Baptism has its place for sure but it does not save...  it did not pay for sin, the death of Christ did.  Being baptised into His death comes after believing...
Yes baptism in Christ name follows belief but read what Paul and Peter says it accomplishes. You have to decide if Romans 6 defines Acts 2 and if it means as it says that it is when the old man of sin is destroyed and the new man in spirit arrives.
Title: Re: Dunked in the Water
Post by: TruthScientist on Thu Jul 17, 2014 - 19:53:31
TS for the 753 rd time, Mark 16:16 describes two things: 1) what comprises salvation and 2) what comprises condemnation. Baptism would not have to be mentioned in part B of the verse since everyone agrees belief is a prerequisite to baptism.

Jesus DID NOT say, no matter how you WANT it read, he that believes and is saved shall then be baptized. Not even remotely, if sentence structure of the translators means anything at all, and of course it does.

pretty clear to me Jaime...  for the 754th time...  Baptism does not save...

he that believeth not is condemned already...  that is the state of men who do not believe for ignorance or on purpose...  nothing to be done... so the emphasis in the portion really does give a clear view of what it takes to not be condemned...believe and then you can be baptised...  755

Title: Re: Dunked in the Water
Post by: TruthScientist on Thu Jul 17, 2014 - 19:56:21
Jesus did not take water to the heaven after resurrection to present to the Father for the remission of sin.  It was His blood.  It was His death in our stead (the wages of sin is death) that freed us from the penalty of sin not baptism.  Baptism has its place for sure but it does not save...  it did not pay for sin, the death of Christ did.  Being baptised into His death comes after believing...
Yes baptism in Christ name follows belief but read what Paul and Peter says it accomplishes. You have to decide if Romans 6 defines Acts 2 and if it means as it says that it is when the old man of sin is destroyed and the new man in spirit arrives.

the old man of sin is not destroyed when we are saved yogi...  you have to deal with him till you die or are raptured...  ask Paul?  the penalty of sin is destroyed but satan is trying a tempting you till the grave and he wins often in one way or another...
Title: Re: Dunked in the Water
Post by: e.r.m. on Thu Jul 17, 2014 - 19:57:12
Mark 16:16 (KJV)
16  He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved; but he that believeth not shall be damned.

A body has to believe before he can even be considered as a candidate for baptism.
Agreed.

Quote
Believing expresses faith in the gospel.  Which is the power that saves.
This is the belief that is being argued for, not the evidence for it.

Quote
It was the events of the gospel by which salvation came to man.  Believing hits the target for us.  Baptism is an act of obedience that gives deeper expression to our faith before the Body and the world.
Scripture for this?

Quote
Water does not wash your sins away.  The blood of Jesus does that, the baptism is symbolic of that...
Direct scripture for this description of baptism?

Quote
there is a reason you hardly ever add the "b" portion of Mk 16:16...  what do you think that reason might be?
The other side leaves out part a. The verse as a whole supports salvific baptism. What is the purpose of baptism being in the verse at all if it's not a part of getting saved?

Quote
I was baptized and am proud of it and tell everyone I witness to who believes in the Gospel that they ought to be baptized.  But I explain that it is not to be saved but because you are saved...
I teach those I witness the gospel to scriptural baptism described in Mark 16:16. Acts 2:38 and more. There are no scriptures regarding baptism is not to be saved.
Title: Re: Dunked in the Water
Post by: yogi bear on Thu Jul 17, 2014 - 20:01:57
he that believeth not is condemned already..

True but that does deny what baptism in Christ name accomplishes Read Romans 6 to see what the baptism in Christ name accomplishes. It is only good for those that believe the gospel. There is nothing else matters if you do not believe in Christ work. You will not repent or confess or submit to baptism if you do not believe that is a given and an elementary fact only those that are trying to justify their misunderstanding has to lower themselves to that sort of reasoning.
Title: Re: Dunked in the Water
Post by: e.r.m. on Thu Jul 17, 2014 - 20:04:05
Jesus did not take water to the heaven after resurrection to present to the Father for the remission of sin.  It was His blood.  It was His death in our stead (the wages of sin is death) that freed us from the penalty of sin not baptism.  Baptism has its place for sure but it does not save...  it did not pay for sin, the death of Christ did.  Being baptised into His death comes after believing...
It comes after believing, but it does not come after being saved. Very colorful description though.
Title: Re: Dunked in the Water
Post by: yogi bear on Thu Jul 17, 2014 - 20:08:24
Jesus did not take water to the heaven after resurrection to present to the Father for the remission of sin.  It was His blood.  It was His death in our stead (the wages of sin is death) that freed us from the penalty of sin not baptism.  Baptism has its place for sure but it does not save...  it did not pay for sin, the death of Christ did.  Being baptised into His death comes after believing...
Yes baptism in Christ name follows belief but read what Paul and Peter says it accomplishes. You have to decide if Romans 6 defines Acts 2 and if it means as it says that it is when the old man of sin is destroyed and the new man in spirit arrives.

the old man of sin is not destroyed when we are saved yogi...  you have to deal with him till you die or are raptured...  ask Paul?  the penalty of sin is destroyed but satan is trying a tempting you till the grave and he wins often in one way or another...
Okay a play on words

I was thinking alone the line as Paul addressed here.

 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? 17 But God be thanked, that ye were the servants of sin, but ye have obeyed from the heart that form of doctrine which was delivered you. 18 Being then made free from sin, ye became the servants of righteousness. Romans 6:16-18 (KJV)

There he is referring to the baptism that they were baptized with. Just what from scripture is that baptism? I think he is pointing to the same one as Acts 2:38 what say you?
Title: Re: Dunked in the Water
Post by: DaveW on Thu Jul 17, 2014 - 20:31:11
It was Paul that set the church straight at Jerusalem.

Really? Where does it say that?

Quote
He confronted Peter and James, correcting them through the revelation given to him by Christ. They saw the error of their way and accepted the truth from Paul.

No where did Paul correct James (at least as recorded in scripture) but Peter was corrected in Antioch (not Jerusalem) for duplicity.
Title: Re: Dunked in the Water
Post by: DaveW on Thu Jul 17, 2014 - 20:35:13
Paul "set the church straight at Jerusalem"?  That's not remotely true.  Paul isn't even quoted during the council at Jerusalem (Acts 15), only Peter and James are quoted by name.  Nothing in what they had to say needed to be "set straight", nor did the church as a whole require such correction.  The passage plainly states that the false teachers had acted on their own - "to whom we gave no such commandment" (Acts 15:24).

This was not about one man setting the rest of them straight - it was about the apostles and elders working together, under the guidance of the Holy Spirit, in addressing an important matter.

And yes, Paul did correct Peter (for his hypocrisy (Gal. 2:13), not his doctrine), but there is no such record of him ever correcting James.  Why would you make up stuff like this?
They make that stuff up (including Paul's so-called name change) because it fits a certain doctrinal slant. Never mine that there is no support in scripture for it, or if there is, it is convoluted and stretched.

Charlie - I would really like to see you try to support these statements.  But since it is not specific about getting "dunked," perhaps in another thread.
Title: Re: Dunked in the Water
Post by: e.r.m. on Thu Jul 17, 2014 - 20:41:51
Paul "set the church straight at Jerusalem"?  That's not remotely true.  Paul isn't even quoted during the council at Jerusalem (Acts 15), only Peter and James are quoted by name.  Nothing in what they had to say needed to be "set straight", nor did the church as a whole require such correction.  The passage plainly states that the false teachers had acted on their own - "to whom we gave no such commandment" (Acts 15:24).

This was not about one man setting the rest of them straight - it was about the apostles and elders working together, under the guidance of the Holy Spirit, in addressing an important matter.

And yes, Paul did correct Peter (for his hypocrisy (Gal. 2:13), not his doctrine), but there is no such record of him ever correcting James.  Why would you make up stuff like this?
They make that stuff up (including Paul's so-called name change) because it fits a certain doctrinal slant. Never mine that there is no support in scripture for it, or if there is, it is convoluted and stretched.
I wonder why some make Paul the preaching center of the Gospel. Maybe because he is the one who limited himself to Jesus Christ and Him crucified, while he was in Corinth.
Title: Re: Dunked in the Water
Post by: Jaime on Thu Jul 17, 2014 - 21:35:53
TS for the 753 rd time, Mark 16:16 describes two things: 1) what comprises salvation and 2) what comprises condemnation. Baptism would not have to be mentioned in part B of the verse since everyone agrees belief is a prerequisite to baptism.

Jesus DID NOT say, no matter how you WANT it read, he that believes and is saved shall then be baptized. Not even remotely, if sentence structure of the translators means anything at all, and of course it does.

pretty clear to me Jaime...  for the 754th time...  Baptism does not save...

he that believeth not is condemned already...  that is the state of men who do not believe for ignorance or on purpose...  nothing to be done... so the emphasis in the portion really does give a clear view of what it takes to not be condemned...believe and then you can be baptised...  755



Jesus nor I said baptism saves, but I concur with HIS statement that belief AND baptism do. He could have stated lime you want, but he didn't he DID NOT say he that nelieves and is saved anall be baptized. Followed by he that believes not is condemned already. The text AS written Is 100% congruant with other scriptur and itself. Not really a surprise unless one reads what isn't their to linebup with their mislead theology. Please drop the ridiculous claim thatthe verse doesn't say "he that believes AND is baptized shall be saved. I realize you and Charlie think Paul explained things better than Jesus himself. I call horse hockey.
Title: Re: Dunked in the Water
Post by: AnthonyB on Thu Jul 17, 2014 - 21:44:34
If you drive to the shops and buy some food you can have dinner, if you don't drive to the shops you can't have dinner.

Action A "drive to the shops" preceeds action B "buys some food" but both actions need to be completed to get dinner.
In the second clause only Action A is listed because if you don't do A you can't do B.

Please keep in mind that even if there are exceptions to the being saved through baptism, they would in and of themselves not disconnect baptism from being saved, only that baptism isn't indespensably linked to salvation not that it isn't normally linked.

For example, part of normal way of becoming the US President is to win the vote in the electoral college. However Gerald Ford never won the electoral college vote and was never elected to be President or  VP but did indeed end up US President. Somebody who wanted to be President but then cited Gerald Ford's exceptional circumstance as the reason he didn't need to get elected by the electoral college would by most people be judged to simply not have really understood how it is you normally become US President. Just because exceptional circumstance can exist doesn't impact the normal process to do something.

Believe, be baptised and be saved is the what Jesus said. Even if there are examples of people being saved without baptism, it wouldn't negate that Jesus linked baptism following belief as part of how people are to be saved.
Title: Re: Dunked in the Water
Post by: e.r.m. on Thu Jul 17, 2014 - 22:32:38
I agree.
Title: Re: Dunked in the Water
Post by: Red Baker on Fri Jul 18, 2014 - 03:49:09
No I think the problem came with the Reformers. I agree with very little of Catholic teaching, especially infant baptism.

Good morning Jamie~where do you believe the Reformers came from?  Most, if not all, came from Catholicism.  That's where they were taught infant baptism.  Once a person are taught a certain doctrine, it is almost impossible for them to overcome those teachings and to rid themselves of all that they were taught.  Some escape unharmed, but very few. The good thing about myself, is that I was never brought up in a religion/faith~exposed yes, taught and practiced? No.
Title: Re: Dunked in the Water
Post by: Red Baker on Fri Jul 18, 2014 - 04:09:09
Red,
Jesus' baptism to me has nothing to do with why we get baptized per se', but I have found it interesting that Jesus did no miracles prior to the Spirit lighting on him as a dove at his baptism. He later scolded the Pharisees for accusing him of doing miracles by the power of Beelzebub, telling them basically that blaspheming the son is one thing, but Blaspheming the Holy Spirit is another. Clearly indicating that he did his miracles by the power of the Holy Spirit. Patterning for us the power that lies available to us if we only allowed it and trusted in it.

Thank you Jaime for your post concerning my question, even though you never addressed the question.  I would desire for other coc to at least give me their opinion as to "why Jesus was baptized" before I give my understanding.  Surely, this question has been addressed a few times within the coc meetings in the last two hundred years since starting out.

I agree that Jesus did no miracles until he was baptized, and begin his journey to Calvary, and from there, to David's throne at the right hand of the Majesty on high.   

Quote
Patterning for us the power that lies available to us if we only allowed it and trusted in it.

It is by faith in the scriptures that we come to understand/know what we have available for us, under the new covenant provided for us by a gift from Jesus' Father, as one of the promises of the new covenant, which was sealed by the blood of the Son of God. 
Title: Re: Dunked in the Water
Post by: grams on Fri Jul 18, 2014 - 04:41:38

I do pray you can understand this !

 Eph.3:

 1
 For this cause I Paul, the prisoner of Jesus Christ for you Gentiles,
 2
 If ye have heard of the dispensation of the grace of God which is given me to you-ward:


 3
 How that by revelation he made known unto me the mystery; (as I wrote afore in few words,
 4
 Whereby, when ye read, ye may understand my knowledge in the mystery of Christ)
 5
 Which in other ages was not made known unto the sons of men, as it is now revealed unto his holy apostles and prophets by the Spirit;

 6
 That the Gentiles should be fellowheirs, and of the same body, and partakers of his promise in Christ by the gospel:

 eph. 4

 4
 There is one body, and one Spirit, even as ye are called in one hope of your calling;

 5
 One Lord, one faith, one baptism,

 Col.1:

 26
 Even the mystery which hath been hid from ages and from generations, but now is made manifest to his saints:
 27
 To whom God would make known what is the riches of the glory of this mystery among the Gentiles; which is Christ in you, the hope of glory:

 Col:2
 10
 And ye are complete in him, which is the head of all principality and power:
 11
 In whom also ye are circumcised with the circumcision made without hands, in putting off the body of the sins of the flesh by the circumcision of Christ:
 12
 Buried with him in baptism, wherein also ye are risen with him through the faith of the operation of God, who hath raised him from the dead.


       14

 Blotting out the handwriting of ordinances that was against us, which was contrary to us, and took it out of the way, nailing it to his cross;

 ll 2: Tim.

 15

 Study to shew thyself approved unto God, a workman that needeth not to be ashamed, rightly dividing the word of truth. 

    [/b]
Quote
       



Offline DaveW
Tikkun International
Lee's Inner Circle Member
*******
 
Posts: 11305
Manna: 154
[+manna] 
Gender: Male
View Profile
 Personal Message (Offline)
 




 

Re: Dunked in the Water

« Reply #81 on: Yesterday at 05:16:00 AM »


Reply

 
Quote

 

Grams - what I understand is you hve been lied to. And you are now trying to spread those same lies to us.     

Davew,
So you think the bible is  all a lie ?    My .............  Do you really read ?

All that I posted  is from the  bible !   Were is your mind at ?
Title: Re: Dunked in the Water
Post by: grams on Fri Jul 18, 2014 - 05:00:18


All saved persons have been made members of the Body of Christ by One divine baptism (this is baptism into the Body of Christ by the Holy Spirit). By that ONE BAPTISM, every member of the Body of Christ is identified with Christ in His death, burial and resurrection. In light of the statement concerning the "ONE BAPTISM" in Ephesians 4:5 and the statement in I Corinthians 1:17 that "Christ sent me not to baptize but to preach the gospel", we affirm that water baptism has no place in God's spiritual program for the Body of Christ in this day of grace.
 
Title: Re: Dunked in the Water
Post by: AnthonyB on Fri Jul 18, 2014 - 05:59:31
grams,

Paul affirms that he had baptised some people amongst the Corinthians in the verse before the one you listed, if water baptism has no part in the spiritual program in this day of grace, why was Paul still baptising anybody?
Title: Re: Dunked in the Water
Post by: Jaime on Fri Jul 18, 2014 - 06:19:19
No I think the problem came with the Reformers. I agree with very little of Catholic teaching, especially infant baptism.

Good morning Jamie~where do you believe the Reformers came from?  Most, if not all, came from Catholicism.  That's where they were taught infant baptism.  Once a person are taught a certain doctrine, it is almost impossible for them to overcome those teachings and to rid themselves of all that they were taught.  Some escape unharmed, but very few. The good thing about myself, is that I was never brought up in a religion/faith~exposed yes, taught and practiced? No.

Yes they did come from Catholicism and their battle against Rome on the infant baptism issue was correct. But especially Zwingli's position on baptism as only a symbol wa not in my opinion. Luther and some others believed as the
 apostles believed and practiced according to what I have read, but their followers were later influenced by Calvin in he pendumlum overswing on the sovereignty of man vs free will.
Title: Re: Dunked in the Water
Post by: DaveW on Fri Jul 18, 2014 - 06:22:07
Davew,
So you think the bible is  all a lie ?    My .............  Do you really read ?

All that I posted  is from the  bible !   Were is your mind at ?

No, the bible is not a lie at all.  Where the "lie" is, is in what you think it is saying. You have been taught a faulty intrepretation that actually goes opposite of what the text is saying.  I know to you it may seem obvious, but it is not.

First off, until you accurately understand the Law and who it was given to and why, you cannot understand the Grace that Paul says is being dispensed. Hint: if you are a gentile the Law was NEVER given to you EVER.

"It is a sign between ME and the Israelites forever..."

Gentiles are fellow heirs with the Jews in the New Covenant by being grafted in (see Romans 11).

I could go on but I fear I could totally overload you with another viewpoint. Suffice it now to give you small pieces.
Title: Re: Dunked in the Water
Post by: e.r.m. on Fri Jul 18, 2014 - 08:13:26
grams,

Paul affirms that he had baptised some people amongst the Corinthians in the verse before the one you listed, if water baptism has no part in the spiritual program in this day of grace, why was Paul still baptising anybody?
Paul also baptized in Acts 19:1-5.
Title: Re: Dunked in the Water
Post by: yogi bear on Fri Jul 18, 2014 - 09:01:05
grams,

Paul affirms that he had baptised some people amongst the Corinthians in the verse before the one you listed, if water baptism has no part in the spiritual program in this day of grace, why was Paul still baptising anybody?
Paul also baptized in Acts 19:1-5.
And that was to straighten out a faulty baptism so I guess in Paul's mind baptism is more than you give him credit as to thinking. Think about that if baptism in Christ name was not for remission of sin and giving the spirit then why did Paul bother with making sure those were baptized in the name of Jesus Christ.
Title: Re: Dunked in the Water
Post by: e.r.m. on Fri Jul 18, 2014 - 09:28:20
grams,

Paul affirms that he had baptised some people amongst the Corinthians in the verse before the one you listed, if water baptism has no part in the spiritual program in this day of grace, why was Paul still baptising anybody?
Paul also baptized in Acts 19:1-5.
And that was to straighten out a faulty baptism so I guess in Paul's mind baptism is more than you give him credit as to thinking. Think about that if baptism in Christ name was not for remission of sin and giving the spirit then why did Paul bother with making sure those were baptized in the name of Jesus Christ.
Yes, and it just occurred to me. This goes against getting baptized just because God says to do it. Otherwise their baptism may have been sufficient.
Title: Re: Dunked in the Water
Post by: DaveW on Fri Jul 18, 2014 - 09:39:15
Paul also baptized in Acts 19:1-5.
And that was to straighten out a faulty baptism so I guess in Paul's mind baptism is more than you give him credit as to thinking. Think about that if baptism in Christ name was not for remission of sin and giving the spirit then why did Paul bother with making sure those were baptized in the name of Jesus Christ.

The Acts 19 case is interesting in that it is the ONLY case of people who were believers but not properly baptized where it says what was to be done with that situation.  the only other case is that of Apollos which we are told that Priscilla and Aquilla gave him further instruction.  No mention of rebaptizing him.

First off - it calls these men "disciples" which means "under discipline" literally but was used to indiate born again believers. You can debate back and forth whether they were saved or not.  That is speculation as the text is silent on that point.

Paul asks them about the Holy Spirit and they indicate they never even heard of such a thing.  So  he asks about their baptism.  Why?  Because "baptism in Jesus' name" was a shorthand for "In the Name of the Father Son and Holy Spirit." and there they should have heard of the Holy Spirit.

They say they have had John's baptism (probably linking them to be early converts from Apollos who also only knew of John's baptism)

Paul orders an IMMEDIATE re-baptism for these men.

Clearly Paul understood how important a proper water baptism was for him to go to such great lengths.

5 When they heard this, they were baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus.
6 And when Paul had laid his hands upon them, the Holy Spirit came on them, and they began speaking with tongues and prophesying.

Not the next day or next year.  WHEN they heard it.

And then - AFTER being water baptized - Paul lays hands on them for the baptism in the Spirit and they speak in tongues and prophesy.   Clearly 2 different baptisms here.
Title: Re: Dunked in the Water
Post by: yogi bear on Fri Jul 18, 2014 - 10:55:30
Quote
And then - AFTER being water baptized - Paul lays hands on them for the baptism in the Spirit and they speak in tongues and prophesy.   Clearly 2 different baptisms here.

I think you may be reading into this a little. I see where the baptism in Christ name was mentioned but the baptism in the holy spirit as you seem to be inferring is not said to be here. Paul laid hands on them to transfer the power for witness so they could plant a new church. The way most teach the baptism of the holy spirit is not done by the laying on of hands so I do not see where there is two baptisms other than Johns and In Jesus name for the giving of the spirit talked about here.

The holy spirit baptism as called when the spirit was poured out on the Jews at Pentecost and the Gentiles at Cornelius house was not by laying on of hands and neither is the laying on of hands the giving of the holy spirit baptism as some call it.
Title: Re: Dunked in the Water
Post by: grams on Fri Jul 18, 2014 - 11:01:04

I am hoping and praying those of you who do not believe what I have been saying will take a look at this !
I had not understood this myself at first and then it became clear.
A time past !  But Now !   And ages to come.   How different  ! 
Jesus death changed things.   And then again after the calling away things will change.    Big changes in all.

http://enjoythebible.org/timeline.html (http://enjoythebible.org/timeline.html)
Title: Re: Dunked in the Water
Post by: DaveW on Fri Jul 18, 2014 - 11:32:30
I think you may be reading into this a little. I see where the baptism in Christ name was mentioned but the baptism in the holy spirit as you seem to be inferring is not said to be here. Paul laid hands on them to transfer the power for witness so they could plant a new church. The way most teach the baptism of the holy spirit is not done by the laying on of hands so I do not see where there is two baptisms other than Johns and In Jesus name for the giving of the spirit talked about here.

NO it is not called baptism in the Holy Spirit but if you research what that is (Spirit Upon) you will find this fits the bill.  This is what the Risen Lord told the 11 in Acts 1:

"...but you will be baptized with the Holy Spirit not many days from now.” v5b

And here is how He described that baptism:

"you will receive power when the Holy Spirit has come upon you; and you shall be My witnesses both in Jerusalem, and in all Judea and Samaria, and even to the remotest part of the earth.” v8

Did not the Holy Spirit come in power on those men in Acts 19?  Were not the outward signs the same? 
Title: Re: Dunked in the Water
Post by: e.r.m. on Fri Jul 18, 2014 - 11:32:52

I am hoping and praying those of you who do not believe what I have been saying will take a look at this !
I had not understood this myself at first and then it became clear.
A time past !  But Now !   And ages to come.   How different  ! 
Jesus death changed things.   And then again after the calling away things will change.    Big changes in all.

[url]http://enjoythebible.org/timeline.html[/url] ([url]http://enjoythebible.org/timeline.html[/url])
I believe if the Bible authors believed what you have been saying, they would have said it themselves. You would not be forced to "see" it.
Title: Re: Dunked in the Water
Post by: soterion on Fri Jul 18, 2014 - 11:39:16
NO it is not called baptism in the Holy Spirit but if you research what that is (Spirit Upon) you will find this fits the bill.  This is what the Risen Lord told the 11 in Acts 1:

"...but you will be baptized with the Holy Spirit not many days from now.” v5b

And here is how He described that baptism:

"you will receive power when the Holy Spirit has come upon you; and you shall be My witnesses both in Jerusalem, and in all Judea and Samaria, and even to the remotest part of the earth.” v8

Did not the Holy Spirit come in power on those men in Acts 19?  Were not the outward signs the same? 

DaveW,

Jesus spoke those words to the eleven (add the new one to make it twelve) and it was fulfilled in chapter 2 exactly as He said it. The Spirit fell on them and they began their ministry as witnesses. Jesus spoke these things concerning those particular men and their particular ministry. I wouldn't apply it to any others.
Title: Re: Dunked in the Water
Post by: DaveW on Fri Jul 18, 2014 - 12:01:48
Quote
Jesus spoke these things concerning those particular men and their particular ministry. I wouldn't apply it to any others.
That was not how Peter took it that day.  Our Lord told them this:

Acts 1:4  Gathering them together, He commanded them not to leave Jerusalem, but to wait for what the Father had promised, “Which,” He said, “you heard of from Me;

and on that day Peter said this to the crowd:

Acts 2:39  For the promise is for you and your children and for all who are far off, as many as the Lord our God will call to Himself.”
Title: Re: Dunked in the Water
Post by: yogi bear on Fri Jul 18, 2014 - 12:02:11
I think you may be reading into this a little. I see where the baptism in Christ name was mentioned but the baptism in the holy spirit as you seem to be inferring is not said to be here. Paul laid hands on them to transfer the power for witness so they could plant a new church. The way most teach the baptism of the holy spirit is not done by the laying on of hands so I do not see where there is two baptisms other than Johns and In Jesus name for the giving of the spirit talked about here.

NO it is not called baptism in the Holy Spirit but if you research what that is (Spirit Upon) you will find this fits the bill.  This is what the Risen Lord told the 11 in Acts 1:

"...but you will be baptized with the Holy Spirit not many days from now.” v5b

And here is how He described that baptism:

"you will receive power when the Holy Spirit has come upon you; and you shall be My witnesses both in Jerusalem, and in all Judea and Samaria, and even to the remotest part of the earth.” v8

Did not the Holy Spirit come in power on those men in Acts 19?  Were not the outward signs the same?
No it is reading into it your thoughts just as you have admitted.

It does not match that well as far as I can tell.
As in the Apostles as you point to no one laid hands on them or in the case of Cornelius but it came direct from heaven as promised and was called the pouring out of the spirit with a two fold event. Some would get power of witness but all would get the indwelling.

John said that Jesus would baptize with the holy ghost and from scripture it meant would give the indwelling spirit and that was promised to all see Acts 2:39 That baptism did not give the power. From Scripture the power of witness was only transferred to other by laying on of hands and was not considered to be what happened to the Apostles for in Acts 10 we see when the same happened to Cornelius as did the Apostles Peter had to point all the way back to Pentecost and there were others that had the laying on of hands for the power to witness to plant churches but was not considered the same as the event at Pentecost.
Title: Re: Dunked in the Water
Post by: yogi bear on Fri Jul 18, 2014 - 12:05:26
Quote
Jesus spoke these things concerning those particular men and their particular ministry. I wouldn't apply it to any others.
That was not how Peter took it that day.  Our Lord told them this:

Acts 1:4  Gathering them together, He commanded them not to leave Jerusalem, but to wait for what the Father had promised, “Which,” He said, “you heard of from Me;

and on that day Peter said this to the crowd:

Acts 2:39  For the promise is for you and your children and for all who are far off, as many as the Lord our God will call to Himself.”
Again reading into it your own thoughts. Proof; we all know that the power of witness is not promised to all as the indwelling spirit is so Acts 2:39 is in reference to the indwelling spirit that John foretold and not the power of witness.
Title: Re: Dunked in the Water
Post by: DaveW on Fri Jul 18, 2014 - 12:30:26
Yogi - you are confusing the indwelling Spirit with the Spirit Upon. 

Baptism in the Holy Spirit is Spirit Upon and happened to the apostles in Acts 2. 
The indwelling Spirit had already occured in John 20.

Part of the "Promise" Peter referenced was in his quote of Joel 2: "I will pour out of my Spirit on all flesh ... your sons and daughters shall prophesy ..."

And Our Lord called that "baptism in the Holy Spirit."
Title: Re: Dunked in the Water
Post by: opie on Fri Jul 18, 2014 - 12:50:23
Not wanting to distract from the current conversation, just hoping this will be of value to some, and to have opportunity to receive correction if in error.

1 Cor. 1:17 “For Christ did not send me to baptize, but to preach the gospel, not with wisdom of words, lest the cross of Christ should be made of no effect.”

It is often claimed that this verse proves that baptism is not part of the gospel.  I believe that such a view fails to properly account for the grammar, context (both local and historical), and logic of the passage.

Grammar:
The claim that Paul is contrasting baptism with the gospel is false.  The verse makes no mention of the noun “baptism”, rather it uses the verb “to baptize”.  Paul does not compare the verb “baptize” with the noun “gospel”; instead the comparison is between “baptize” and “preach”.  Nor does this verse indicate that Paul was forbidden to baptize.  The “not … but …” construction employed here is commonly found throughout the Scriptures, and it would be a mistake to insist that such a construction is intended to totally restrict the first part of the sentence.  This construction is frequently used to demonstrate the greater importance of the second part of the sentence.  A few  examples:

John 6:27 “Do not labor for the food which perishes, but for the food which endures to everlasting life …"
Jesus does not mean that we should cease all physical labor.

Acts 5:4 “… You have not lied to men but to God."
Peter was not saying that Ananias had been truthful with him.

1 John 4:18 “My little children, let us not love in word, neither in tongue; but in deed and in truth.”
This is not a prohibition against loving speech.

Local context:
Read 1 Corinthians 1:10-17 for yourself.  The issue being dealt with here is division in the church at Corinth.  Paul uses three rhetorical questions in verse 13 to remind them that they are to be united in Christ.  The first serves to point out that Christ is not divided.  Then he asks “Was Paul crucified for you? Or were you baptized in the name of Paul?” - these questions were clearly intended to remind them that it was Christ (not Paul, or any other person) who had been crucified for them, and in whose name they had been baptized.  Implicit in such a reminder is Paul's assumption that the Corinthians had been baptized; otherwise, his effort to correct their division would only have served to give them something else to divide over.  Paul goes on to express thanks that he “baptized none of you except Crispus and Gaius” (v. 14).  Notice that he does not express any regret at having baptized these (or the household of Stephanas, v. 16), nor is there any indication that Paul had sinned in so doing.  He plainly tells us the reason for his gratitude at having baptized only a few –  that they were given no further occasion for division: “lest anyone should say that I had baptized in my own name” (v. 15).

Historical context:
As has already been pointed out, the text does not make a comparison between baptism and the gospel, but between the act of baptizing and the act of preaching.  So the question is not whether Paul himself baptized the Corinthians, but whether he included baptism when he preached the gospel to the Corinthians.  Acts 18:8: “Then Crispus, the ruler of the synagogue, believed on the Lord with all his household. And many of the Corinthians, hearing, believed and were baptized.”  In response to Paul’s preaching the Corinthians “believed and were baptized”.  This implies that Paul did not consider including baptism in his preaching to be contrary to the message of the cross.  Otherwise, he would have refrained from preaching it, “lest the cross of Christ should be made of no effect” (v. 17).

Logic:
In spite of all of this, some will cling to some variation on the notion that Paul would not have made such a statement if baptism were important.  This is a straw man argument, which only serves to distract from the truth.  No special significance is attached to the individual who performs the rite, no claim is made that you are saved by the one who baptizes you.  Indeed, if Paul’s aim were to diminish the significance of baptism, then he weakens his own argument.  After all, he appeals to their unity in Christ on two points – the crucifixion and their baptism (v. 13).  If baptism is of little importance, then Paul has here made a most uneven pairing, uncharacteristic of a writer of his skill.  I would argue that Paul has made no such blunder, but would instead appeal to the elegant symmetry that he employs – by emphasizing the crucifixion and their baptism, he reminds the Corinthians of the singular and undivided nature of Christ’s sacrifice on their behalf, and of their common connection to that sacrifice through their baptism.  To deny the importance of baptism here is to destroy Paul’s argument.

Finally, by leaving the baptizing up to others (it required no special skill), Paul could spend more time preaching, which would actually result in more baptisms than if Paul had stopped preaching in order to personally administer the rite.  It seems silly to claim that Paul deemphasized the importance of baptism by virtue of pursuing a course of action that would have resulted in more baptisms, not fewer.
Title: Re: Dunked in the Water
Post by: e.r.m. on Fri Jul 18, 2014 - 13:01:12
Not wanting to distract from the current conversation, just hoping this will be of value to some, and to have opportunity to receive correction if in error.

1 Cor. 1:17 “For Christ did not send me to baptize, but to preach the gospel, not with wisdom of words, lest the cross of Christ should be made of no effect.”

It is often claimed that this verse proves that baptism is not part of the gospel.  I believe that such a view fails to properly account for the grammar, context (both local and historical), and logic of the passage.

Grammar:
The claim that Paul is contrasting baptism with the gospel is false.  The verse makes no mention of the noun “baptism”, rather it uses the verb “to baptize”.  Paul does not compare the verb “baptize” with the noun “gospel”; instead the comparison is between “baptize” and “preach”.  Nor does this verse indicate that Paul was forbidden to baptize.  The “not … but …” construction employed here is commonly found throughout the Scriptures, and it would be a mistake to insist that such a construction is intended to totally restrict the first part of the sentence.  This construction is frequently used to demonstrate the greater importance of the second part of the sentence.  A few  examples:

John 6:27 “Do not labor for the food which perishes, but for the food which endures to everlasting life …"
Jesus does not mean that we should cease all physical labor.

Acts 5:4 “… You have not lied to men but to God."
Peter was not saying that Ananias had been truthful with him.

1 John 4:18 “My little children, let us not love in word, neither in tongue; but in deed and in truth.”
This is not a prohibition against loving speech.

Local context:
Read 1 Corinthians 1:10-17 for yourself.  The issue being dealt with here is division in the church at Corinth.  Paul uses three rhetorical questions in verse 13 to remind them that they are to be united in Christ.  The first serves to point out that Christ is not divided.  Then he asks “Was Paul crucified for you? Or were you baptized in the name of Paul?” - these questions were clearly intended to remind them that it was Christ (not Paul, or any other person) who had been crucified for them, and in whose name they had been baptized.  Implicit in such a reminder is Paul's assumption that the Corinthians had been baptized; otherwise, his effort to correct their division would only have served to give them something else to divide over.  Paul goes on to express thanks that he “baptized none of you except Crispus and Gaius” (v. 14).  Notice that he does not express any regret at having baptized these (or the household of Stephanas, v. 16), nor is there any indication that Paul had sinned in so doing.  He plainly tells us the reason for his gratitude at having baptized only a few –  that they were given no further occasion for division: “lest anyone should say that I had baptized in my own name” (v. 15).

Historical context:
As has already been pointed out, the text does not make a comparison between baptism and the gospel, but between the act of baptizing and the act of preaching.  So the question is not whether Paul himself baptized the Corinthians, but whether he included baptism when he preached the gospel to the Corinthians.  Acts 18:8: “Then Crispus, the ruler of the synagogue, believed on the Lord with all his household. And many of the Corinthians, hearing, believed and were baptized.”  In response to Paul’s preaching the Corinthians “believed and were baptized”.  This implies that Paul did not consider including baptism in his preaching to be contrary to the message of the cross.  Otherwise, he would have refrained from preaching it, “lest the cross of Christ should be made of no effect” (v. 17).

Logic:
In spite of all of this, some will cling to some variation on the notion that Paul would not have made such a statement if baptism were important.  This is a straw man argument, which only serves to distract from the truth.  No special significance is attached to the individual who performs the rite, no claim is made that you are saved by the one who baptizes you.  Indeed, if Paul’s aim were to diminish the significance of baptism, then he weakens his own argument.  After all, he appeals to their unity in Christ on two points – the crucifixion and their baptism (v. 13).  If baptism is of little importance, then Paul has here made a most uneven pairing, uncharacteristic of a writer of his skill.  I would argue that Paul has made no such blunder, but would instead appeal to the elegant symmetry that he employs – by emphasizing the crucifixion and their baptism, he reminds the Corinthians of the singular and undivided nature of Christ’s sacrifice on their behalf, and of their common connection to that sacrifice through their baptism.  To deny the importance of baptism here is to destroy Paul’s argument.

Finally, by leaving the baptizing up to others (it required no special skill), Paul could spend more time preaching, which would actually result in more baptisms than if Paul had stopped preaching in order to personally administer the rite.  It seems silly to claim that Paul deemphasized the importance of baptism by virtue of pursuing a course of action that would have resulted in more baptisms, not fewer.
Very clear. Thank you.
Title: Re: Dunked in the Water
Post by: DaveW on Fri Jul 18, 2014 - 13:07:23
Well said Opie!
Title: Re: Dunked in the Water
Post by: soterion on Fri Jul 18, 2014 - 13:39:40
Quote
Jesus spoke these things concerning those particular men and their particular ministry. I wouldn't apply it to any others.
That was not how Peter took it that day.  Our Lord told them this:

Acts 1:4  Gathering them together, He commanded them not to leave Jerusalem, but to wait for what the Father had promised, “Which,” He said, “you heard of from Me;

and on that day Peter said this to the crowd:

Acts 2:39  For the promise is for you and your children and for all who are far off, as many as the Lord our God will call to Himself.”

I see it differently.  ::smile::

In Acts 1:4 the promise is that which the Father made to the apostles earlier through Jesus about them being baptized with the Holy Spirit soon (Acts 2).

In Acts 2:39, the promise is the fulfillment of the prophecies concerning salvation through the Messiah, which Peter had just preached (as a witness according to the fulfillment of the Acts 1:4 promise).

Two different promises.
Title: Re: Dunked in the Water
Post by: DaveW on Fri Jul 18, 2014 - 13:59:10
Quote
Two different promises.

But what promise was conveyed to the crowd in Peter's sermon?
Title: Re: Dunked in the Water
Post by: grams on Fri Jul 18, 2014 - 15:45:06
 
14

I thank God that I baptized none of you, but Crispus and Gaius;
 

15

Lest any should say that I had baptized in mine own name.
 

16

And I baptized also the household of Stephanas: besides, I know not whether I baptized any other.
 

17

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

18

For the preaching of the cross is to them that perish foolishness; but unto us which are saved it is the power of God.
 
 
Title: Re: Dunked in the Water
Post by: soterion on Fri Jul 18, 2014 - 16:08:39
opie,

Good post there in reply #183.  ::smile::

+1
Title: Re: Dunked in the Water
Post by: soterion on Fri Jul 18, 2014 - 16:34:47
 
14
I thank God that I baptized none of you, but Crispus and Gaius;
 
15
Lest any should say that I had baptized in mine own name.
 
16
And I baptized also the household of Stephanas: besides, I know not whether I baptized any other.
 
17
For Christ sent me not to baptize, but to preach the gospel: not with wisdom of words, lest the cross of Christ should be made of none effect.
 
18
For the preaching of the cross is to them that perish foolishness; but unto us which are saved it is the power of God.
 


grams,

I'll include this comment by you from another thread:

Quote from: grams
It is in the bible all you need to do is read it !  I have given you  verses from the  bible and still , you think I am wrong.   How can a verse from the bible  be wrong?

Of course scripture is always correct. It is not as simple as just posting scripture. Scripture on certain topics are subject to various viewpoints and interpretations. Everybody will agree with the scripture you post, but not everybody agree with how you interpret it according to the particular doctrine you are promoting here.

You can quote passages all you want but that, in and of itself, does not make your doctrine right. Anybody can make a claim about some doctrine, post a few passages, and then claim to have proven their case. If that was the all-in-all of what it takes to be proven correct by anybody about anything, many debates on this site would have dried up a long time ago.

If you want to get your point across about what you are saying, so as to make yourself understood, you need to provide some explanation as to why those passages mean your view is accurate and that of those who disagree with you is wrong. It helps also to show why the passages and explanations of those who disagree with you are wrong.

By the way, posting with large fonts and increased spacing will not get your points across any better. Those kinds of posts just take up space.  ::smile::

As for the passage you quoted above from 1 Corinthians 1, opie gave a very good explanation of it in Reply #183. Check it out.  ::reading::
Title: Re: Dunked in the Water
Post by: soterion on Fri Jul 18, 2014 - 16:37:59
Quote
Two different promises.

But what promise was conveyed to the crowd in Peter's sermon?

I thought I answered that already. The promise of salvation in Christ.  ::smile::

If apologize if I am misunderstanding what you are asking.
Title: Re: Dunked in the Water
Post by: TruthScientist on Fri Jul 18, 2014 - 23:10:43
Yogi - you are confusing the indwelling Spirit with the Spirit Upon. 

Baptism in the Holy Spirit is Spirit Upon and happened to the apostles in Acts 2. 
The indwelling Spirit had already occured in John 20.

Part of the "Promise" Peter referenced was in his quote of Joel 2: "I will pour out of my Spirit on all flesh ... your sons and daughters shall prophesy ..."

And Our Lord called that "baptism in the Holy Spirit."

What difference did you feel in these two events DaveW...  what difference in your life can you express to us that happened with you
Title: Re: Dunked in the Water
Post by: Red Baker on Sat Jul 19, 2014 - 04:35:58
No I think the problem came with the Reformers. I agree with very little of Catholic teaching, especially infant baptism.

Good morning Jamie~where do you believe the Reformers came from?  Most, if not all, came from Catholicism.  That's where they were taught infant baptism.  Once a person are taught a certain doctrine, it is almost impossible for them to overcome those teachings and to rid themselves of all that they were taught.  Some escape unharmed, but very few. The good thing about myself, is that I was never brought up in a religion/faith~exposed yes, taught and practiced? No.

Yes they did come from Catholicism and their battle against Rome on the infant baptism issue was correct. But especially Zwingli's position on baptism as only a symbol wa not in my opinion. Luther and some others believed as the
 apostles believed and practiced according to what I have read, but their followers were later influenced by Calvin in he pendumlum overswing on the sovereignty of man vs free will.

Brother, You have not read very much on what Luther and Calvin believed, which I can tell by reading your post.  All of the Reformers and many afterwards never departed  form Rome of infant baptism.  Even the powerful and spiritual mind of Jonathan Edwards taught it as well. 

Quote
but their followers were later influenced by Calvin in he pendumlum overswing on the sovereignty of man vs free will.

Again brother you are wrong.  Luther who was just before Calvin and many before him taught God's sovereignty, and man's bondage of his will to sin and the devil.  Luther has a book devoted to that very subject, and spoken with so much more force than Calvin ever did.  Luther was very bold and forthwith in his speech~he never minced his words, but was much like John the Baptist, and did not mind calling  a man what he was.  Calvin was much more polished, but straight forward nevertheless.   But before these men, there was Augustine just after the apostle, whom both Luther and Calvin learned from and respected, and deserving so.  Yet these men, just like us, had error mixed with truth!  There are many men and women that the world has never heard of, yet I believed were more taught of God than these men.  Ever heard of Samuel Richardson? He lived shorty after Calvin.  He has an article on "Justification by faith" so much more light than either Calvin or Luther had. 
Title: Re: Dunked in the Water
Post by: Red Baker on Sat Jul 19, 2014 - 05:09:41
As has already been pointed out, the text does not make a comparison between baptism and the gospel, but between the act of baptizing and the act of preaching. 

I will spend some time tomorrow answering this post, a post that deserves to be answer.

What I highlighted, would, I believe fall under what is known as Doublespeak~language that deliberately disguises, distorts, or reverses the meaning of words.  Doublespeak is most closely associated with political language, used by politicians.

What is really important in the world of doublespeak is the ability to lie, whether knowingly or unconsciously, (here I believe unconsciously) and to get away with it; and the ability to use lies and choose and shape facts selectively, blocking out those that don’t fit an agenda or program.

In our time, political speech and writing are largely the defence of the indefensible… Thus political language has to consist largely of euphemism, question-begging and sheer cloudy vagueness… the great enemy of clear language is insincerity. Where there is a gap between one's real and one's declared aims, one turns as it were instinctively to long words and exhausted idioms!

Tomorrow.....
Title: Re: Dunked in the Water
Post by: Red Baker on Sat Jul 19, 2014 - 05:19:21
Red,
Jesus' baptism to me has nothing to do with why we get baptized per se', but I have found it interesting that Jesus did no miracles prior to the Spirit lighting on him as a dove at his baptism. He later scolded the Pharisees for accusing him of doing miracles by the power of Beelzebub, telling them basically that blaspheming the son is one thing, but Blaspheming the Holy Spirit is another. Clearly indicating that he did his miracles by the power of the Holy Spirit. Patterning for us the power that lies available to us if we only allowed it and trusted in it.

Thank you Jaime for your post concerning my question, even though you never addressed the question.  I would desire for other coc to at least give me their opinion as to "why Jesus was baptized" before I give my understanding.  Surely, this question has been addressed a few times within the coc meetings in the last two hundred years since starting out.

I agree that Jesus did no miracles until he was baptized, and begin his journey to Calvary, and from there, to David's throne at the right hand of the Majesty on high.   

Quote
Patterning for us the power that lies available to us if we only allowed it and trusted in it.

It is by faith in the scriptures that we come to understand/know what we have available for us, under the new covenant provided for us by a gift from Jesus' Father, as one of the promises of the new covenant, which was sealed by the blood of the Son of God.
 

I am still waiting for someone from the coc to answer my question: "Why was Jesus Baptized?"   I am beginning to know how Jesus felt when he ask the Pharisees if John's baptism were of men or from heaven.  They thought and knew if they gave an answer either way it would not serve their interest to answer it, so they refused to answer Christ.  Truth does not run and hide.   If you have an answer you would be quick to answer~ this I know
Title: Re: Dunked in the Water
Post by: opie on Sat Jul 19, 2014 - 07:57:55
As has already been pointed out, the text does not make a comparison between baptism and the gospel, but between the act of baptizing and the act of preaching. 

I will spend some time tomorrow answering this post, a post that deserves to be answer.

What I highlighted, would, I believe fall under what is known as Doublespeak~language that deliberately disguises, distorts, or reverses the meaning of words.  Doublespeak is most closely associated with political language, used by politicians.

What is really important in the world of doublespeak is the ability to lie, whether knowingly or unconsciously, (here I believe unconsciously) and to get away with it; and the ability to use lies and choose and shape facts selectively, blocking out those that don’t fit an agenda or program.

In our time, political speech and writing are largely the defence of the indefensible… Thus political language has to consist largely of euphemism, question-begging and sheer cloudy vagueness… the great enemy of clear language is insincerity. Where there is a gap between one's real and one's declared aims, one turns as it were instinctively to long words and exhausted idioms!

Tomorrow.....

Oh, the irony of it all. 
Title: Re: Dunked in the Water
Post by: yogi bear on Sat Jul 19, 2014 - 09:27:00
Red,
Jesus' baptism to me has nothing to do with why we get baptized per se', but I have found it interesting that Jesus did no miracles prior to the Spirit lighting on him as a dove at his baptism. He later scolded the Pharisees for accusing him of doing miracles by the power of Beelzebub, telling them basically that blaspheming the son is one thing, but Blaspheming the Holy Spirit is another. Clearly indicating that he did his miracles by the power of the Holy Spirit. Patterning for us the power that lies available to us if we only allowed it and trusted in it.

Thank you Jaime for your post concerning my question, even though you never addressed the question.  I would desire for other coc to at least give me their opinion as to "why Jesus was baptized" before I give my understanding.  Surely, this question has been addressed a few times within the coc meetings in the last two hundred years since starting out.

I agree that Jesus did no miracles until he was baptized, and begin his journey to Calvary, and from there, to David's throne at the right hand of the Majesty on high.   

Quote
Patterning for us the power that lies available to us if we only allowed it and trusted in it.

It is by faith in the scriptures that we come to understand/know what we have available for us, under the new covenant provided for us by a gift from Jesus' Father, as one of the promises of the new covenant, which was sealed by the blood of the Son of God.
 

I am still waiting for someone from the coc to answer my question: "Why was Jesus Baptized?"   I am beginning to know how Jesus felt when he ask the Pharisees if John's baptism were of men or from heaven.  They thought and knew if they gave an answer either way it would not serve their interest to answer it, so they refused to answer Christ.  Truth does not run and hide.   If you have an answer you would be quick to answer~ this I know!
Red as I told you before we are selective at these discussions and we feel that your request is just an attempt to belittle the coc and puff yourself up so please if you have an opinion just state it. We have answered as did Jesus which was to fulfill all righteousness if that is not what you want then just go ahead and state your opinion. We know you have it all figured out and in your eyes you are the only one that does so Please just let us have it.
Title: Re: Dunked in the Water
Post by: opie on Sat Jul 19, 2014 - 09:54:37
As has already been pointed out, the text does not make a comparison between baptism and the gospel, but between the act of baptizing and the act of preaching. 

I will spend some time tomorrow answering this post, a post that deserves to be answer.

What I highlighted, would, I believe fall under what is known as Doublespeak~language that deliberately disguises, distorts, or reverses the meaning of words.  Doublespeak is most closely associated with political language, used by politicians.

What is really important in the world of doublespeak is the ability to lie, whether knowingly or unconsciously, (here I believe unconsciously) and to get away with it; and the ability to use lies and choose and shape facts selectively, blocking out those that don’t fit an agenda or program.

In our time, political speech and writing are largely the defence of the indefensible… Thus political language has to consist largely of euphemism, question-begging and sheer cloudy vagueness… the great enemy of clear language is insincerity. Where there is a gap between one's real and one's declared aims, one turns as it were instinctively to long words and exhausted idioms!

Tomorrow.....

And will you be plagiarizing more of George Orwell's work tomorrow?
Title: Re: Dunked in the Water
Post by: Red Baker on Sat Jul 19, 2014 - 15:33:54
As has already been pointed out, the text does not make a comparison between baptism and the gospel, but between the act of baptizing and the act of preaching. 

I will spend some time tomorrow answering this post, a post that deserves to be answer.

What I highlighted, would, I believe fall under what is known as Doublespeak~language that deliberately disguises, distorts, or reverses the meaning of words.  Doublespeak is most closely associated with political language, used by politicians.

What is really important in the world of doublespeak is the ability to lie, whether knowingly or unconsciously, (here I believe unconsciously) and to get away with it; and the ability to use lies and choose and shape facts selectively, blocking out those that don’t fit an agenda or program.

In our time, political speech and writing are largely the defence of the indefensible… Thus political language has to consist largely of euphemism, question-begging and sheer cloudy vagueness… the great enemy of clear language is insincerity. Where there is a gap between one's real and one's declared aims, one turns as it were instinctively to long words and exhausted idioms!

Tomorrow.....

And will you be plagiarizing more of George Orwell's work tomorrow?

Good, you know whom I have read behind and used, to exposed people like you.  No, tomorrow I will use the scriptures to show you cunning craftiness.
Title: Re: Dunked in the Water
Post by: Red Baker on Sat Jul 19, 2014 - 15:50:05
Red,
Jesus' baptism to me has nothing to do with why we get baptized per se', but I have found it interesting that Jesus did no miracles prior to the Spirit lighting on him as a dove at his baptism. He later scolded the Pharisees for accusing him of doing miracles by the power of Beelzebub, telling them basically that blaspheming the son is one thing, but Blaspheming the Holy Spirit is another. Clearly indicating that he did his miracles by the power of the Holy Spirit. Patterning for us the power that lies available to us if we only allowed it and trusted in it.

Thank you Jaime for your post concerning my question, even though you never addressed the question.  I would desire for other coc to at least give me their opinion as to "why Jesus was baptized" before I give my understanding.  Surely, this question has been addressed a few times within the coc meetings in the last two hundred years since starting out.

I agree that Jesus did no miracles until he was baptized, and begin his journey to Calvary, and from there, to David's throne at the right hand of the Majesty on high.   

Quote
Patterning for us the power that lies available to us if we only allowed it and trusted in it.

It is by faith in the scriptures that we come to understand/know what we have available for us, under the new covenant provided for us by a gift from Jesus' Father, as one of the promises of the new covenant, which was sealed by the blood of the Son of God.
 

I am still waiting for someone from the coc to answer my question: "Why was Jesus Baptized?"   I am beginning to know how Jesus felt when he ask the Pharisees if John's baptism were of men or from heaven.  They thought and knew if they gave an answer either way it would not serve their interest to answer it, so they refused to answer Christ.  Truth does not run and hide.   If you have an answer you would be quick to answer~ this I know!
Red as I told you before we are selective at these discussions and we feel that your request is just an attempt to belittle the coc and puff yourself up so please if you have an opinion just state it. We have answered as did Jesus which was to fulfill all righteousness if that is not what you want then just go ahead and state your opinion. We know you have it all figured out and in your eyes you are the only one that does so Please just let us have it.

But in what sense was Jesus talking of?  The purpose of his baptism you men are running from, and for a good reason.

Quote
Red as I told you before we are selective at these discussions

Oh, I know that to be true!  You men go after the weaker sheep, to convert to your religion, but so do others.  Why not just defend the truth against all men who you believe are holding to errors?

Quote
we feel that your request is just an attempt to belittle the coc and puff yourself up

Yogi, that's not so.  God is my witness.  I truly have a lot of respect for many people of the coc, much more than the Baptist, from whom I came from~  At least many coc people know their bibles better and are willing to defend what they believe much more than most.  Nevertheless, when you are backed into the corner, you stop fighting, and run for cover.  I like Jamie and you, even though we have never met.  Nothing personal Yogi, nor is it for pride, as you surmised, but for God's truth~ again, God is my witness, between you and me. 
Title: Re: Dunked in the Water
Post by: DaveW on Mon Jul 21, 2014 - 06:05:26
Quote
Two different promises.
But what promise was conveyed to the crowd in Peter's sermon?
I thought I answered that already. The promise of salvation in Christ.  ::smile::
If apologize if I am misunderstanding what you are asking.

Peter was an observant Jew talking to other observant Jews.  "Salvation in Christ" was not anything an observant Jew would be looking for or even understand if it was outright stated. Peter was using the events of the day, the day itself to explain what was going on.

Let me set the scene.  It was Shavuot (pentecost) which was a celebration of First Fruits of the Wheat harvest.  It was also considered the anniversary of God giving the 10 commandments from atop Sinai.  God came down, fire and smoke covered the mountain.  God speaks the words of the Covenant (according to legend in 70 languages due to the "mixed multitude") and the nation of Israel is formed.   

So these observant Jews had just heard that story and they see flames coming down on top of the Temple Mount (only place big enough to hold all those people) and land on about 120 of the worshippers there in the Temple of the Lord. (commonly called "the House") they start talking in all kinds of languages. 

They ask so Peter explains from Joel:  "I will pour out my Spirit on all mankind - your sons and daughters shall prophesy..." So to that mindset and set of events - what would you think was understood as a "Promise?"

The outpouring of the Spirit.
Title: Re: Dunked in the Water
Post by: DaveW on Mon Jul 21, 2014 - 06:11:15
Yogi - you are confusing the indwelling Spirit with the Spirit Upon. 

Baptism in the Holy Spirit is Spirit Upon and happened to the apostles in Acts 2. 
The indwelling Spirit had already occured in John 20.

Part of the "Promise" Peter referenced was in his quote of Joel 2: "I will pour out of my Spirit on all flesh ... your sons and daughters shall prophesy ..."

And Our Lord called that "baptism in the Holy Spirit."

What difference did you feel in these two events DaveW...  what difference in your life can you express to us that happened with you

The difference between Spirit Within and Spirit Upon is clear both in scripture and in peoples' lives if you properly understand and see the difference.

"Within" is for growing in godly character - fruit - wisdom - love - etc.  while "upon" is for acts of supernatural power.  Visions, prophesy, healing and deliverances from demonic attanchments. 
Title: Re: Dunked in the Water
Post by: grams on Tue Jul 22, 2014 - 05:39:02
Gala.
23 But before faith came, we were kept under the law, shut up unto the faith which should afterwards be revealed.
 

24
Wherefore the law was our schoolmaster to bring us unto Christ, that we might be justified by faith.
 25 But after that faith is come, we are no longer under a schoolmaster.
 26 For ye are all the children of God by faith in Christ Jesus.
 27 For as many of you as have been baptized into Christ have put on Christ.
 28 There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither bond nor free, there is neither male nor female: for ye are all one in Christ Jesus.
 29 And if ye be Christ's, then are ye Abraham's seed, and heirs according to the promise.
 
Eph. 1:
13

In whom ye also trusted, after that ye heard the word of truth, the gospel of your salvation: in whom also after that ye believed, ye were sealed with that holy Spirit of promise,
 
Title: Re: Dunked in the Water
Post by: yogi bear on Tue Jul 22, 2014 - 12:36:16
Gala.
23 But before faith came, we were kept under the law, shut up unto the faith which should afterwards be revealed.
 

24
Wherefore the law was our schoolmaster to bring us unto Christ, that we might be justified by faith.
 25 But after that faith is come, we are no longer under a schoolmaster.
 26 For ye are all the children of God by faith in Christ Jesus.
 27 For as many of you as have been baptized into Christ have put on Christ.
 28 There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither bond nor free, there is neither male nor female: for ye are all one in Christ Jesus.
 29 And if ye be Christ's, then are ye Abraham's seed, and heirs according to the promise.
 
Eph. 1:
13

In whom ye also trusted, after that ye heard the word of truth, the gospel of your salvation: in whom also after that ye believed, ye were sealed with that holy Spirit of promise,
Grams I took this from your post you can see it yourself I am not adding but highlighting what you over look.

Quote
For as many of you as have been baptized into Christ have put on Christ.

Now ask your self when, how,and where were they baptized into Christ?? For this according to Paul from the passage you chose is how they put on Christ.

Do not pass over this statement by Paul and dismiss it as nothing but tell me whenm howm and why was this baptism done. Is it drym waterm spiritualm or water and spirit, the one baptism of Eph 4, the one of Acts 2:38, just what is Paul talking about when he said "for as many of you as have been baptized into Christ have put on Christ."
Title: Re: Dunked in the Water
Post by: Red Baker on Tue Jul 22, 2014 - 14:03:23
Grams I took this from your post you can see it yourself I am not adding but highlighting what you over look.

Quote
For as many of you as have been baptized into Christ have put on Christ.

Now ask your self when, how,and where were they baptized into Christ?? For this according to Paul from the passage you chose is how they put on Christ.

Do not pass over this statement by Paul and dismiss it as nothing but tell me whenm howm and why was this baptism done. Is it drym waterm spiritualm or water and spirit, the one baptism of Eph 4, the one of Acts 2:38, just what is Paul talking about when he said "for as many of you as have been baptized into Christ have put on Christ."

It is:
Quote
water and spirit, the one baptism of Eph 4, the one of Acts 2:38"

But, Yogi, only those whose conscience has been made pure and good, are ones that are fit subjects for water baptism, even as John the Baptist said:

Matthew 3:8

"Bring forth therefore fruits meet for repentance:"

And we know from Paul's testimony that John's baptism differ from his in name only, not with, or for a different purpose. Acts 19:4 And we will add, that only those whom God has given another heart, can and would bring forth fruits worthy of repentance. Men still under the power of their natural flesh cannot please God, impossible. Romans 8:8

Title: Re: Dunked in the Water
Post by: yogi bear on Tue Jul 22, 2014 - 14:24:24
 Then said Paul, John verily baptized with the baptism of repentance, saying unto the people, that they should believe on him which should come after him, that is, on Christ Jesus. Acts 19:4 (KJV)

 When they heard this, they were baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus.(in reference to Acts 2:38) Acts 19:5 (KJV)

Now ask yourself what is the difference in Johns baptism and that that Jesus baptized with (the one in His name)? Scripture will reveal that Johns did not and could not give the spirit because Jesus had not been glorified as of yet while as the one Jesus baptized with (Acts:28) did give the spirit. That is why Paul did baptism them in the baptism in Christ name (the baptism that Jesus baptized with giving the spirit) for the one of John was obsolete and replaced with the one in Christ name.

So now the baptism in Christ name(Acts 2:38 is both water and spirit for it is where the spirit does the transforming work of changing the old man of sin into the new life with Christ see Romans 6

Yes faith comes first no doubt but according to scripture it is in the baptism in Christ name that sin is remitted and the spirit of promise given see Acts 2:38 Romans 6:3ff Colossians 2 and the list goes on even in this part of Acts 19 you referenced.
Title: Re: Dunked in the Water
Post by: yogi bear on Tue Jul 22, 2014 - 14:27:45
P.S.  You failed to answer this question.

Now ask your self when, how,and where were they baptized into Christ??

The text Grams gave said that they were baptized into Christ so please deal with this just how did this come about? Just what does it mean?

If you are saying that this baptized into Christ is by belief with out water (dry as some say) then you need to prove it. the follow does not follow scriptural teaching on baptism

 only those whose conscience has been made pure and good, are ones that are fit subjects for water baptism,

Scripture states that it is for the remission of sin and giving of the spirit Acts 2:38 and Romans 6:3ff plus others so you have a conflict with that view don't you?
Title: Re: Dunked in the Water
Post by: AnthonyB on Tue Jul 22, 2014 - 14:34:51
Red Baker,

Here is my answer to why Jesus was baptised but I think even if I handed you a blue piece of paper you would respond that it was red.

My thoughts on this is to some degree influenced by NT Wright's analysis in his recent series of books on Jesus and Paul.

Jesus was brought up with the Jewish stories that echoed within the community, that retold through the religious ceremonies and festivals. A community that, although returned from exile in some sense, still longed for fulfilment of the promises of God and the great themes of redemption, kingdom establishment, a gathering of the people of God into all of his promises.

Jesus personalized those themes to himself, redemption was found in him, he would suffer for the redeemed people, he was the new law giver. In his ministry he uses the themes from the great Jewish stories to highlight his personification of Israel's redemption within himself. The sermon on the mount is his giving of the law, his death is the destruction of temple, he multiplies bread and fish to a multitude like the provision of manna and quail. He went ahead of his people, and in following Him was the Way to redemption.

His baptism could then be seen as him passing through the Red Sea like Moses, but in Jesus case ahead of his people. It was His inauguration of the new exodus of the people of God. It is after that inauguration that he calls his first disciples. Whereas our baptism is our identification of joining the people of God, and Jesus becoming our mediator. I clearly see this the beginning of our being part of the redeemed people that Jesus was calling out. But like Moses hadn't lived in physical captivity, Jesus was not in spiritual captivity. However like the Israelites lived in physical captivity, we live in spiritual captivity. In passing through the waters we leave spiritual captivity and identify with Jesus as the new people of God that he is calling to follow Himself.
Title: Re: Dunked in the Water
Post by: grams on Wed Jul 23, 2014 - 04:42:18
YB  says......

Grams I took this from your post you can see it yourself I am not adding but highlighting what you over look.



Quote

For as many of you as have been baptized into Christ  have put on Christ.

*************************

What it means is we did  nothing !    It was given to us upon belief !

We have it all !

No more works ..
That was then !
This is now !
Upon belief we have it all !
As long as we do understand what God is telling us !  And have faith and believe
Title: Re: Dunked in the Water
Post by: e.r.m. on Wed Jul 23, 2014 - 20:30:23
P.S.  You failed to answer this question.

Now ask your self when, how,and where were they baptized into Christ??

The text Grams gave said that they were baptized into Christ so please deal with this just how did this come about? Just what does it mean?

If you are saying that this baptized into Christ is by belief with out water (dry as some say) then you need to prove it. the follow does not follow scriptural teaching on baptism

 only those whose conscience has been made pure and good, are ones that are fit subjects for water baptism,

Scripture states that it is for the remission of sin and giving of the spirit Acts 2:38 and Romans 6:3ff plus others so you have a conflict with that view don't you?
Not to mention that everything about Paul's conversion supported baptism for forgiveness of sins, and that faith alone was not enough, as demonstrated by Acts 22: 8, 10, 16.  Therefore, anything that Paul writes about salvation will have this as it's base.