Christian Forums

Quote from: marc on Mon Mar 12, 2007 - 20:17:01

Quote from: SammySmile on Mon Mar 12, 2007 - 19:42:16

Quote from: marc on Mon Mar 12, 2007 - 19:34:14
I currently have  lesson plans to do.  To be honest, I find your questions somewhat legalistic.  I don't have time now; I'll get back to this later.

It only becomes legalistic, Marc, if you consider water baptism a work to earn salvation, which you claim you don't believe.

What I'm saying is legalistic are your constant demands.  Those are coming from you, not me.  Your attitude is becoming increasingly offensive.  I am me.  I am not "The Church of Christ" If you don't understand that distinction, I'm not sure how you've been communicating with anyone on this board.

You are asking questions you assume I have some concern with.  This is a false assumption.  Your questions tend toward legalism. 

You talk of contact with the blood; other than references to the Lord's Supper and our continual cleansing (1 John), I can't find that language in the Bible.  You seem to be looking for a "point of salvation" reference concerning this.  To the best of my knowledge, this is an extra-Biblical request.

Here's a list of all the references to blood in the New Testament. 
Keyword search, Blood
  Be my guest.  Go through it and find your answer.

I have no allegiance to any set of teachings other than the ones found in the Bible.  I find my opinions and doctrines change as I grow and learn more about God.  "Church doctrine", which seems to be what you're focusing on here, is a concept I have no truck for.

Marc,

I didn't invent the term.  Your denomination did.  If you don't like it, that's fine.  I consider the concept false as well.  However, I also consider your theology equally false.  The reason why I was asking you questions is because I believe I have yet to find one person who believes in baptismal regeneration (water baptism required for salvation) that is really able to describe what exactly they believe, why they believe it, the implications of this doctrine, or what really saves a person when one is putting water baptism so high up on the scale of things.

There is a reason why there is this confusion among the ranks of COC'ers, Marc, and that is that this theology is not biblically based.  It's tradition-based.  If it were biblically based, instead of the book of Hebrews we would have a book totally describing the finite details of water, water baptism, how the blood and the water work, the exact mechanism, etc.  It's not in the Bible because it's not from God. 

*sigh*

Please at least try to pay attention.

Baptismal regeneration.  Good grief, how stereotypically wrong-headed.

Right now, you're rambling on as if I haven't said a word. If you only knew how foolish you sound, trying to equate what I've said with some traditional Church of Christ teaching.   Stop talking so much and start listening.  Who knows, you just might learn something!


You say you consider my "theology" on this wrong, but you have yet to talk about what I said!  You keep talking about what you imagine you're hearing. Trying to talk to you is like trying to talk to Mike Dugger.

You make up your own, non-standard, definitions of words (baptismal generation really means the belief that baptism literally washes away your sins, btw), and you try to define others by your view of what they believe, you restate what they say in words that change the meaning, and you seem incapable of actually hearing people.  This was precisely MDD's modus operandi.

Sammy, tell us what denomination you belong to.  I'll do some research and find something to attack you with.  Because after all, if you're a member of a particular denomination, you're responsible for everything anyone in that denomination says.

Quote from: marc on Mon Mar 12, 2007 - 21:38:34
*sigh*

The best post yet for this thread.

Don

Quote from: da525382 on Mon Mar 12, 2007 - 22:02:26

Quote from: marc on Mon Mar 12, 2007 - 21:38:34
*sigh*

The best post yet for this thread.

Don

And for most threads, and discussions that deal with this subject.

Quote from: marc on Mon Mar 12, 2007 - 21:38:34
*sigh*

Please at least try to pay attention.

Baptismal regeneration.  Good grief, how stereotypically wrong-headed.

Right now, you're rambling on as if I haven't said a word. If you only knew how foolish you sound, trying to equate what I've said with some traditional Church of Christ teaching.   Stop talking so much and start listening.  Who knows, you just might learn something!


You say you consider my "theology" on this wrong, but you have yet to talk about what I said!  You keep talking about what you imagine you're hearing. Trying to talk to you is like trying to talk to Mike Dugger.

You make up your own, non-standard, definitions of words (baptismal generation really means the belief that baptism literally washes away your sins, btw), and you try to define others by your view of what they believe, you restate what they say in words that change the meaning, and you seem incapable of actually hearing people.  This was precisely MDD's modus operandi.

Marc, what you said is that water baptism is not a work.  Am I not correct?  Perhaps it was someone else that said it.

Quote from: churchmember on Mon Mar 12, 2007 - 20:00:17

QuoteAnd again, why do you single out remission of sins alone and make a valid baptism entirely dependent upon this one thing? Scripture says much more about baptism than the remission of sins. Read Romans chapter 6, for example, where Paul teaches that at baptism we are buried and raised with Christ and die to sin. To be consistent, if one must know about remission for one's baptism to be valid, one must also know and understand everything else scripture attaches to baptism. It's all or nothing. But placing all the emphasis on whether or not one understands remission (or any other doctrine connected with baptism) is to miss the point entirely and turn God's saving grace into an intellectual exercise that is a very thinly-disguised works-salvation and baptismal regeneration.

I don't see a whole lot of difference.  One is entering into the church when one enters into remission of sins.  One is entering into Christ when one is entering into the church.  We put on Christ at the same time we are baptized.  It pretty much means the same thing. 
But when one is under the false impression that he is already a member of the church or that he has already entered into the state of remission of sins, then he is not dying with Christ and arising to walk anew. 

They are all synonymous.  In the church there is remission of sins, pardon.  Putting on Christ is the same thing as becoming part of the bride of Christ. 

Quote
Hebrews 6:2 calls baptism an "elenmentary teaching" one of several the Hebrew Christians were stuck on and should've moved beyond, but hadn't. Has the Church of Christ been like those Hebrews?

Think of what you are really implying.  The we of Heb 6 consists of those that have already obeyed the gospel.  If we are to abandon the true teaching of baptism then we are to abandon the principles of the doctrine of Christ for that is listed as well in the same category.  How could anyone become a christian if we leave those teachings.  No.  The simple fact is that you are taking this verse out of context.   It is also 'baptism's' that is mentioned (plural). 

Peter was given the keys to the kingdom.  He gave out those keys on the day of Pentecost.   The command to be baptized in the name of Jesus unto the remission of sins cannot be obeyed while a person is under the false impression that his sins are already gone or that he is already saved. 

As for a person not really dying with Christ if they're not aware that they're still dead in their sins before baptism, I might be physically dying and not know it. My not knowing I'm dying doesn't in the slightest alter the fact that I am, in fact, dying. Same with baptism. If a person really is still dead in their sins then whether they're consciously aware of it doesn't alter that state in the slightest. My not knowing that I'm still in my sins doesn't change the fact that I am, nor does my erroneously believing my sins were already forgiven stop the Almighty God from forgiving them. To say a person must understand remission of sins, and only that, before baptism is to make it a work. You might as well say that no one gets gifted with the Holy Spirit unless they're aware of that teaching before they're baptized, or that no one is clothed with Christ unless they're consciously aware of that, too. Like I said, with a works-based theology it's all or nothing. Yet no one has a complete baptismal thelogy when they're baptized: they don't have to.

Like I said, the majority consensus among preachers in churches of Christ for nearly 200 years was that a knowledge of remission wasn't necessary in order to be baptized, because to say that makes it a work, and puts all the emphasis on what man must do, rather than what God did 2,000 years ago, and does, when someone submits to him in faith.

As for the Hebrews 6 passage, what that verse is saying and what I'm saying, is not that baptism isn't important, only that we shouldn't be obsessing over something scripture calls an elementary teaching. Baptism is practically all the CoC talks about sometimes. As KC Moser noted in the 1930s, "I have long noticed that most any position is tolerated just so it appears to exalt baptism, even at the expense of faith or the blood of Christ." He was right. Instead, as the majority of preachers in Stone-Campbell churches have taught for nearly 200 years, when a person comes to faith in Christ and is able and willing to make a publioc declaration of that faith, they're fit for baptism whether they understand remission of sins, the gift of the Holy Spirit, dying to sin, or any of the other theological tenets of baptism. We should baptize them and send them on their way rejoicing instead of giving them the theological 3rd degree before we'll consider immersing them.

Pax.

Quote from: SammySmile on Tue Mar 13, 2007 - 06:08:50

Quote from: marc on Mon Mar 12, 2007 - 21:38:34
*sigh*

Please at least try to pay attention.

Baptismal regeneration.  Good grief, how stereotypically wrong-headed.

Right now, you're rambling on as if I haven't said a word. If you only knew how foolish you sound, trying to equate what I've said with some traditional Church of Christ teaching.   Stop talking so much and start listening.  Who knows, you just might learn something!


You say you consider my "theology" on this wrong, but you have yet to talk about what I said!  You keep talking about what you imagine you're hearing. Trying to talk to you is like trying to talk to Mike Dugger.

You make up your own, non-standard, definitions of words (baptismal generation really means the belief that baptism literally washes away your sins, btw), and you try to define others by your view of what they believe, you restate what they say in words that change the meaning, and you seem incapable of actually hearing people.  This was precisely MDD's modus operandi.

Marc, what you said is that water baptism is not a work.  Am I not correct?  Perhaps it was someone else that said it.

That, I said.  The other stuff you're asking me is not me, however.  You're reading in things that aren't there.  Please do not do this any longer.  This causes a conversation to become an nterrogation.

Quote from: marc on Tue Mar 13, 2007 - 11:32:13

Quote from: SammySmile on Tue Mar 13, 2007 - 06:08:50

Quote from: marc on Mon Mar 12, 2007 - 21:38:34
*sigh*

Please at least try to pay attention.

Baptismal regeneration.  Good grief, how stereotypically wrong-headed.

Right now, you're rambling on as if I haven't said a word. If you only knew how foolish you sound, trying to equate what I've said with some traditional Church of Christ teaching.   Stop talking so much and start listening.  Who knows, you just might learn something!


You say you consider my "theology" on this wrong, but you have yet to talk about what I said!  You keep talking about what you imagine you're hearing. Trying to talk to you is like trying to talk to Mike Dugger.

You make up your own, non-standard, definitions of words (baptismal generation really means the belief that baptism literally washes away your sins, btw), and you try to define others by your view of what they believe, you restate what they say in words that change the meaning, and you seem incapable of actually hearing people.  This was precisely MDD's modus operandi.

Marc, what you said is that water baptism is not a work.  Am I not correct?  Perhaps it was someone else that said it.

That, I said.  The other stuff you're asking me is not me, however.  You're reading in things that aren't there.  Please do not do this any longer.  This causes a conversation to become an nterrogation.

Okay, Marc.  Sorry if I upset you.

Lee,

As you may know, you are one of the most brilliant scholars I have ever read, and everyone here should be forever grateful for this board you have created, and this great opportunity for everyone to share.....

In all the things I have read from you, I agree, and in fact, you have enhanced my understanding.
However, with that said, I simply have one area that I simply don't connect with...I don't find a comprehension of what you are saying, and I think I have heard it before....Here it is:

QuoteAs for a person not really dying with Christ if they're not aware that they're still dead in their sins before baptism, I might be physically dying and not know it. My not knowing I'm dying doesn't in the slightest alter the fact that I am, in fact, dying. Same with baptism. If a person really is still dead in their sins then whether they're consciously aware of it doesn't alter that state in the slightest. My not knowing that I'm still in my sins doesn't change the fact that I am, nor does my erroneously believing my sins were already forgiven stop the Almighty God from forgiving them

Here, you account for a scriptural state of "dyingness" when a believer comes to Christ.
It's a hybrid state that I cannot find in scripture.  One is either a believer or a non-believer, a sheep or a goat, there is no third group that is "in process" after coming to faith discussed in scripture, is there?  If there is, please show me, I can't find it anywhere.

Combine this with one's realization that "Jesus is Lord" at the point of faith....this realization manifests itself by and through the Holy Spirit, we know that for Paul tells us that no man comes to this understanding but by the Holy Spirit......then, we have a contradiction under you thinking here, ISTM.  In other words, you scripturally allow for the Holy Spirit to dwell in a man dead in his sins....in other words, God dwells in this man when God has absolutely nothing to do with sin and is as far from us as beings dead in our sins as east is from west.

I basically know, I think, what you are trying to say, in general and do agree with you.
Especially when you say:

QuoteInstead, as the majority of preachers in Stone-Campbell churches have taught for nearly 200 years, when a person comes to faith in Christ and is able and willing to make a publioc declaration of that faith, they're fit for baptism whether they understand remission of sins, the gift of the Holy Spirit, dying to sin, or any of the other theological tenets of baptism. We should baptize them and send them on their way rejoicing instead of giving them the theological 3rd degree before we'll consider immersing them.

That to me, is right on.  I simply wanted to distinguish this point I made above and put it before you, perhaps you already gleaned that from my past posts, I don't know.  But it remains a troubling and unexplained hole, ISTM.

Don

Ok, let's try this one "Repent and be baptized four the remission of sins"  The 'four' could relate to the hear, believe, repent, confess.  Some scholars (mainly only myself) believe this could be another meaning for for.   

Or maybe "Repent and be baptized fore the remission of sins"  Some believe this phrase was really a pause in the middle of a golf game.


I wonder if the 3,000 wrestled with all this when they believed Peter's speech?

Don, fisrt off, thanks for the kind words, though I'm sure I don't desrve them. There are others a lot smarter than I am. Secondly, I see your point. I didn't express myself very well. You're right, you're either a believer or you're not. What I was trying to convey was the idea that just because a person is ignorant of the fact that they're still in they're sins at the time they're baptized doesn't keep God from saving them anyway. I don't have to know the precise moment at which God takes away my sins in order for him to keep his promise. So, even if I erroneously thought I was already dead to sin before I was baptized, I'm actually dead to sin the moment I come up out of the water, and my thinking it was before or after is irrelevant.  Basically, all a person has to do is publicly confess that Jesus Christ is Lord and demonstrate that faith by being baptized. If they can publicly profess Christ then they're ready for baptism. To say they have to meet some litmus test before God can or will save them is to make salvation a work dependent upon the person instead of God.

Pax.

Quote from: Lee Freeman on Tue Mar 13, 2007 - 13:23:53
Don, fisrt off, thanks for the kind words, though I'm sure I don't desrve them. There are others a lot smarter than I am. Secondly, I see your point. I didn't express myself very well. You're right, you're either a believer or you're not. What I was trying to convey was the idea that just because a person is ignorant of the fact that they're still in they're sins at the time they're baptized doesn't keep God from saving them anyway. I don't have to know the precise moment at which God takes away my sins in order for him to keep his promise. So, even if I erroneously thought I was already dead to sin before I was baptized, I'm actually dead to sin the moment I come up out of the water, and my thinking it was before or after is irrelevant.  Basically, all a person has to do is publicly confess that Jesus Christ is Lord and demonstrate that faith by being baptized. If they can publicly profess Christ then they're ready for baptism. To say they have to meet some litmus test before God can or will save them is to make salvation a work dependent upon the person instead of God.

Pax.

Thanks so much Lee, that's great.....

Don

Quote from: zoonance on Tue Mar 13, 2007 - 13:00:14
Ok, let's try this one "Repent and be baptized four the remission of sins"  The 'four' could relate to the hear, believe, repent, confess.  Some scholars (mainly only myself) believe this could be another meaning for for.  

Or maybe "Repent and be baptized fore the remission of sins"  Some believe this phrase was really a pause in the middle of a golf game.


I wonder if the 3,000 wrestled with all this when they believed Peter's speech?

Considering the fact that each heard the message in their own tongue, and that Peter exhorted them with "many other words", they surely had a much better understanding of the matter than we do today... Not to mention, they knew what ritual washing was before Peter ever started speaking.

Quote from: James Rondon on Tue Mar 13, 2007 - 17:17:40

Quote from: zoonance on Tue Mar 13, 2007 - 13:00:14
Ok, let's try this one "Repent and be baptized four the remission of sins"  The 'four' could relate to the hear, believe, repent, confess.  Some scholars (mainly only myself) believe this could be another meaning for for.  

Or maybe "Repent and be baptized fore the remission of sins"  Some believe this phrase was really a pause in the middle of a golf game.


I wonder if the 3,000 wrestled with all this when they believed Peter's speech?

Considering the fact that each heard the message in their own tongue, and that Peter exhorted them with "many other words", they surely had a much better understanding of the matter than we do today... Not to mention, they knew what ritual washing was before Peter ever started speaking.

My point exactly, first learn what it meant to the hearers, then maybe we can get a better understanding.

  FTL

Quote from: zoonance on Tue Mar 13, 2007 - 13:00:14
Ok, let's try this one "Repent and be baptized four the remission of sins"  The 'four' could relate to the hear, believe, repent, confess.  Some scholars (mainly only myself) believe this could be another meaning for for.   

Or maybe "Repent and be baptized fore the remission of sins"  Some believe this phrase was really a pause in the middle of a golf game.


I wonder if the 3,000 wrestled with all this when they believed Peter's speech?

Or how about what was written:

Repent and be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins.

Quote from: Gary on Tue Mar 13, 2007 - 18:02:14

Quote from: zoonance on Tue Mar 13, 2007 - 13:00:14
Ok, let's try this one "Repent and be baptized four the remission of sins"  The 'four' could relate to the hear, believe, repent, confess.  Some scholars (mainly only myself) believe this could be another meaning for for.   

Or maybe "Repent and be baptized fore the remission of sins"  Some believe this phrase was really a pause in the middle of a golf game.


I wonder if the 3,000 wrestled with all this when they believed Peter's speech?

Or how about what was written:

Repent and be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins.

Water was symbolic and the Jews knew this.  The term "for the remission of sins" means "on account of" or "because of" the remission of sins.  God doesn't need water to wash away sins because the blood of Christ was shed for sins already. 

To attempt to add to God's redemptive plan is a very dangerous thing.

Quote from: da525382 on Tue Mar 13, 2007 - 12:55:01
Lee,

As you may know, you are one of the most brilliant scholars I have ever read, and everyone here should be forever grateful for this board you have created, and this great opportunity for everyone to share.....

Don

I think you are confusing the two Lees.  Admin is Lee Wilson.  This is Lee Freeman.  My father is also named Lee, that's why I can keep these two straight.

Quote from: Nevertheless on Tue Mar 13, 2007 - 21:07:49

Quote from: da525382 on Tue Mar 13, 2007 - 12:55:01
Lee,

As you may know, you are one of the most brilliant scholars I have ever read, and everyone here should be forever grateful for this board you have created, and this great opportunity for everyone to share.....

Don

I think you are confusing the two Lees.  Admin is Lee Wilson.  This is Lee Freeman.  My father is also named Lee, that's why I can keep these two straight.

Thanks for straightening me out!   My thanks then to Lee Wilson for this great board! 

Don

Quote from: SammySmile on Tue Mar 13, 2007 - 18:19:13

Quote from: Gary on Tue Mar 13, 2007 - 18:02:14

Quote from: zoonance on Tue Mar 13, 2007 - 13:00:14
Ok, let's try this one "Repent and be baptized four the remission of sins"  The 'four' could relate to the hear, believe, repent, confess.  Some scholars (mainly only myself) believe this could be another meaning for for.   

Or maybe "Repent and be baptized fore the remission of sins"  Some believe this phrase was really a pause in the middle of a golf game.


I wonder if the 3,000 wrestled with all this when they believed Peter's speech?

Or how about what was written:

Repent and be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins.

Water was symbolic and the Jews knew this.  The term "for the remission of sins" means "on account of" or "because of" the remission of sins.  God doesn't need water to wash away sins because the blood of Christ was shed for sins already. 

To attempt to add to God's redemptive plan is a very dangerous thing.

SammySmile,

The Greek does not allow "for the remission of sins" to mean "on account of" or "because of", as if remission of sins had already occurred.

Also, nobody is saying God needs water.  What is being said is what does God command.  Since Jesus commanded it, it is not in the least an addition to His redemptive plan.

Quote from: soterion on Wed Mar 14, 2007 - 07:41:05

Quote from: SammySmile on Tue Mar 13, 2007 - 18:19:13

Quote from: Gary on Tue Mar 13, 2007 - 18:02:14

Quote from: zoonance on Tue Mar 13, 2007 - 13:00:14
Ok, let's try this one "Repent and be baptized four the remission of sins"  The 'four' could relate to the hear, believe, repent, confess.  Some scholars (mainly only myself) believe this could be another meaning for for.   

Or maybe "Repent and be baptized fore the remission of sins"  Some believe this phrase was really a pause in the middle of a golf game.


I wonder if the 3,000 wrestled with all this when they believed Peter's speech?

Or how about what was written:

Repent and be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins.

Water was symbolic and the Jews knew this.  The term "for the remission of sins" means "on account of" or "because of" the remission of sins.  God doesn't need water to wash away sins because the blood of Christ was shed for sins already. 

To attempt to add to God's redemptive plan is a very dangerous thing.

SammySmile,

The Greek does not allow "for the remission of sins" to mean "on account of" or "because of", as if remission of sins had already occurred.

Also, nobody is saying God needs water.  What is being said is what does God command.  Since Jesus commanded it, it is not in the least an addition to His redemptive plan.

Soterion,

Let's look at this a little, shall we?  You state that the Greek does not allow the word "for" to mean "on account of" or "because."   

The phrase is "for (eis) the remission of sins."

Now, let's look at another verse of the Bible:

"For where two or three are gathered together in my name, there am I in the midst of them."  Matt. 18:20

Notice the phrase gathered together in my name?

The word "in" is the same Greek word as "for."  Why are the two or three gathered?  Is it to accomplish His name?  To bring about His name?  To create His name? 

No.  It is because of or on account of his name. 

As I've stated previously, the term can have multiple meanings depending on the context.  Your opinion I consider flawed because it's not based on the preponderance of scripture. 

Now, I really don't understand your stating "nobody is saying God needs water."  I would say that is exactly what is being stated by you and others here; namely, that Christ needs water to wash away sins.

Or do you allow one's sins to be washed without water, Soterion??   

SammySmile,

Have you looked at the Greek definition of the proposition eis? 

You are saying the term has multiple meanings depending on the context.  That is true for many words that already have multiple meanings, but it is not true with words that have more restricted meanings.  That Greek proposition has a very specific meaning that does not include "because of". 

Our interpretation of a passage cannot conflict with the given meaning(s) of a word in that passage.  We have to agree with the meaning of the word and then base our understanding of the passage to meet that meaning.  Of course, word meanings is not the only tool by which we come to a better understanding of any particular passage, but it is one of them and we have to respect it.

Again, it is not a matter of what God needs, but rather what He says.  It is not up to me to allow anything; it is my place only to obey.

Of course, there are words in Greek that do indisputably mean "because of".  For some reason, Peter chose not to use them that day. 

Soterion,

Was the purpose of John the Baptist's baptism to wash away sins, yes or no?

The second part of Acts 2:38 and Acts 2:39 no longer apply, so the first part must also.

QuoteAnd be baptized every one of you (kai baptisthētō hekastos hūmōn). Rather, “And let each one of you be baptized.” Change of number from plural to singular and of person from second to third. This change marks a break in the thought here that the English translation does not preserve. The first thing to do is make a radical and complete change of heart and life. Then let each one be baptized after this change has taken place, and the act of baptism be performed “in the name of Jesus Christ” (en tōi onomati Iēsou Christou).

Robertson's Word Pictures

A break down of Acts 2:38 It matches up perfectly with the Jewish ritual baptism. And so does every mention of baptism in the NT.

FTL

Quote from: Gary on Wed Mar 14, 2007 - 09:03:01
The second part of Acts 2:38 and Acts 2:39 no longer apply, so the first part must also.

What is your basis for this belief?

Quote from: soterion on Wed Mar 14, 2007 - 16:55:24

Quote from: Gary on Wed Mar 14, 2007 - 09:03:01
The second part of Acts 2:38 and Acts 2:39 no longer apply, so the first part must also.

What is your basis for this belief?

I don't believe that, I was illustrating absurdity by being absurd.

Quote from: Gary on Wed Mar 14, 2007 - 16:56:25

Quote from: soterion on Wed Mar 14, 2007 - 16:55:24

Quote from: Gary on Wed Mar 14, 2007 - 09:03:01
The second part of Acts 2:38 and Acts 2:39 no longer apply, so the first part must also.

What is your basis for this belief?

I don't believe that, I was illustrating absurdity by being absurd.

Oops, my bad.  Thanks for explaining.

I'd like an answer to my question, please, Soterion and Gary.  Was the purpose of John the Baptist's baptism to wash away sins?  Thanks for your answer.

Sammy
I don't know if they are going to answer but I would like to hear what you are getting at. I will say in accordance to biblical writing that it is what is said in the gospels so what are you going to jump on now that someone has given an affirmative answer to your question.

Quote from: bvaug on Wed Mar 14, 2007 - 20:55:25
Sammy
I don't know if they are going to answer but I would like to hear what you are getting at. I will say in accordance to biblical writing that it is what is said in the gospels so what are you going to jump on now that someone has given an affirmative answer to your question.

Well, I believe it's in accordance to the Gospels as well.  It's what the Gospels and Acts teach that's in dispute.

So are you telling me that John's baptism washed their sins away? 

THis horse was ridden a while back until she was too tired to run anymore.  For more details about that discussion click here:

http://www.gracecentered.com/christian_forums/index.php?topic=16795.0

Sorry Kevin I will go back to the thread you gave and go over it. Did not mean to add to the frustration.

In the previous thread, James Rondon wrote: 

Here is how I understand it, from the Greek, from the context, and from the passages underview: Noah and his family were saved in the ark. The persecuted believer is saved / rescued in / from his or her suffering (baptism / immersion / overwhelming) for the sake of Christ, which is the answer of a good conscience toward God, by the resurrection of Jesus Christ (one can kill the body, but because of the resurrection of Jesus, a glorified body awaits the persecuted believer). As far as "not the putting away of the filth of the flesh" is concerned, Peter clarified this to demonstrate that his use of the word "baptism" did not mean "water baptism".

Very interesting and very viable interpretation.