Do we need water baptism? [Archive] - Theology Forum

God_Is_Truth

April 28th, 2005, 01:31 AM

c.moore

April 28th, 2005, 01:38 AM

Again water baptism is not a requirement to get saved.
we are righteous alone through Christ.
Water is an outside example of what happen in the inside of us.

God_Is_Truth

April 28th, 2005, 01:42 AM

Again water baptism is not a requirement to get saved.
we are righteous alone through Christ.
Water is an outside example of what happen in the inside of us.

i am not asking if it's necessary to be saved, but if it should be done after one is saved.

c.moore

April 28th, 2005, 02:10 AM

i am not asking if it's necessary to be saved, but if it should be done after one is saved.

Yes, i think it shoiuld just like we shoul read the bible go to a church . pray , fast and etc.

Servo

April 28th, 2005, 09:03 AM

Yes, i think it shoiuld just like we shoul read the bible go to a church . pray , fast and etc.

Would you consider baptism a "work" then?

philosophizer

April 28th, 2005, 09:46 AM

i am not asking if it's necessary to be saved, but if it should be done after one is saved.

Sure, I baptise myself every morning. And then I anoint myself with Head & Shoulders. :D

Caledvwlch

April 28th, 2005, 09:49 AM

How about the Great Commission? A direct order from Jesus to his disciples telling them to Baptize... Or maybe he was talking about the Holy Spirit, and not water. I don't know. I'm not a doctor.

God_Is_Truth

April 28th, 2005, 12:20 PM

How about the Great Commission? A direct order from Jesus to his disciples telling them to Baptize... Or maybe he was talking about the Holy Spirit, and not water. I don't know. I'm not a doctor.

but Paul wasn't given the great commission. Peter definately understood the great commission to include water baptism, as the book of Acts shows clearly.

Caledvwlch

April 28th, 2005, 12:22 PM

but Paul wasn't given the great commission. Peter definately understood the great commission to include water baptism, as the book of Acts shows clearly.
Paul wasn't given a lot of things. And even if he wasn't present for the Great Commission pep-rally, does it not apply to all Christians?

Crow

April 28th, 2005, 12:37 PM

Paul wasn't given a lot of things. And even if he wasn't present for the Great Commission pep-rally, does it not apply to all Christians?

Caledvwich, if you look at when the great commission was given, it was given to Jews. God was still working through Jews to bring His message to the world.

When the majority of Jews rejected Christ as Messiah, God turned to the gentiles to work through. Christ revealed His message of the Dispensation of Grace to Paul on the Damascus Road.

The Jews and the Christians are two separate groups. Not all that applies to the Jews will apply to the Christians. Dietary laws and circumcising one's boys for religious reasons are a couple of examples.

Nineveh

April 28th, 2005, 12:50 PM

i am not asking if it's necessary to be saved, but if it should be done after one is saved.

For what purpose?

God_Is_Truth

April 28th, 2005, 01:55 PM

For what purpose?

that's what i want to know. why would it need to be done? we have baptism of the holy spirit, do we need the baptism by water also?

c.moore

April 28th, 2005, 02:08 PM

Would you consider baptism a "work" then?

yes , a religious ritual work.

Nineveh

April 28th, 2005, 02:33 PM

that's what i want to know. why would it need to be done? we have baptism of the holy spirit, do we need the baptism by water also?

Ok, I'll take a seat next to you then and see what comes up in an answer to that question :)

Freak

April 28th, 2005, 09:17 PM

Again water baptism is not a requirement to get saved.
we are righteous alone through Christ.
Water is an outside example of what happen in the inside of us.
:first:

Lighthouse

April 28th, 2005, 11:41 PM

Sure, I baptise myself every morning. And then I anoint myself with Head & Shoulders. :D
:ha:

Sold Out

April 29th, 2005, 08:56 AM

Caledvwlch

April 29th, 2005, 08:59 AM

Hmmm... Chicago, huh?

God_Is_Truth

April 30th, 2005, 02:35 AM

perhaps this will get this thread going. what do you guys think the original purpose of water baptism as introduced by John the Baptist for Israel was?

Rafael Almeida

May 1st, 2005, 12:03 PM

Jesus was baptize. So we need too.

Lighthouse

May 1st, 2005, 02:54 PM

So? Did Jesus need to be baptized? Or did He do it because He wanted to?

Ya'nar#1

May 1st, 2005, 04:47 PM

Do we need water baptism now that we have the baptism of the holy spirit?

Mark 1:8
"I baptized you with water; but He will baptize you with the Holy Spirit."

Acts 1:5
for John baptized with water, but you will be baptized with the Holy Spirit not many days from now."

1 Corinthians 12:13
For by one Spirit we were all baptized into one body, whether Jews or Greeks, whether slaves or free, and we were all made to drink of one Spirit

some things that should be considered:

--the original purpose of water baptism for both John the baptist and the 12 apostles

--the church for the past 2000 years in general has proclaimed water baptism as a sacrament

--not once in Paul's letters are we ever commanded or even exhorted to be water baptized

--the original purpose of the baptism of the holy spirit

what do you guys think? was water baptism just supposed to prepare Israel for the kingdom of God as priests? or was it a sign of being associated with Christ? how much weight does the church proclaiming water baptism as a part of the christian life hold? should we conclude anything given that Paul doesn't evern command or exhort us to be water baptized?

interested in hearing all your thoughts :)

GIT,

"Do we need water baptism?"

I would answer water baptism is not necessary for salvation. However, water baptism is an excellent testimony for those upon whom the Holy Spirit's influence is working. The unconvicted need to arrive at a point in their lives when they wish to express their love and gratitude publically to God. Add to this the need on the behalf of all other brethren, both convicted and unconvicted, to be reminded of their committment--or their (as yet) lack of public committment. Whichever. Don't you think?

Further, in terms of scriptural understanding, what about Acts 19:3-7? Isn't this a clear example of water baptism on the part of Paul? When he encountered the disciples at Ephesus he asked if they had received the Holy Spirit. When they replied they hadn't even heard of the H.S., Paul inquired, What baptism did you receive? They answered, John's baptism. "On hearing this," scripture says, "they were baptized into the name of the Lord Jesus." Scripture clearly infers Paul insists they be rebaptised, since they had not received the Holy Spirit. After their water baptism, "Paul laid his hands on them, and the H.S. came on them and they spoke in tongues and prophesied."

To say at this point they had not received water baptism would be a stretch, since it would be a departure from Christ's own testimony: Christ instructed His disciples to baptize (Mt 28: 18, 19; Mk 16: 15, 16), and to teach new converts to observe all things commanded by Him (Mt 28:20). The apostles taught the necessity of baptism (Acts 2: 38; 10: 48; 22:16), and practiced the rite (chs 8:12; 16: 14, 15, 33; 19: 5). Among the prerequisites to baptism noted in the Scriptures are belief in Jesus Christ as the Son of God (ch 8: 36, 37; 18: 8), and repentance (ch 2: 37, 38)

It seems a popular notion of late by dispensationalists to reject the idea of water baptism as belonging especially to the Jewish dispensation, and not to Paul's gospel. I find it curious that this has become such a big deal on their radar, that they would find it necessary to tear down a symbol which Christ himself established. Are they so intent on dividing Paul's gospel from Jesus' own, that they would reach this far into Christ's gospel? What's worse most definitely by far is their absolute NEED to separate themselves from Christ's gospel. Does it not trouble these people in the least that they are so intent on pulling away from Christ, and replacing Him (not that such a thing could actually be done) --with Paul?

I'll tell you that if I were a member of this group, it would terrify me.

God Bless,

--Ya'nar :Princess:

Crow

May 1st, 2005, 06:46 PM

Jesus was baptize. So we need too.
Do you believe that we should also keep the dietary laws and circumcise any uncircumcised Christian male?

SOTK

May 1st, 2005, 07:55 PM

Crow

May 1st, 2005, 08:00 PM

I don't really care whether adults get baptized or not. Hopefully they will realize that they are not saved by baptism, but that's a lot to hope for considering how poor the teaching is in some churches.

I was baptized as an infant--a practice that seems kinda foolish to me. I won't bother with being baptized as an adult. It's just not necessary.

SOTK

May 1st, 2005, 09:27 PM

So? Did Jesus need to be baptized? Or did He do it because He wanted to?

He did it, because He wanted too. It's the same for us. It is not necessary or required for salvation. As I wrote, I did, because I wanted to. I don't think there is any scripture in the New Testament which would say that it is required. I've certainly never found it.

God_Is_Truth

May 2nd, 2005, 05:06 AM

He did it, because He wanted too. It's the same for us. It is not necessary or required for salvation. As I wrote, I did, because I wanted to. I don't think there is any scripture in the New Testament which would say that it is required. I've certainly never found it.

well, it says in the NT that it was "to fulfill all righteousness", which suggest to me that it was required for something. what exactly it was fulfilling is unclear to me, but i don't really think it was optional.

Lighthouse

May 2nd, 2005, 06:53 PM

He did it, because He wanted too. It's the same for us. It is not necessary or required for salvation. As I wrote, I did, because I wanted to. I don't think there is any scripture in the New Testament which would say that it is required. I've certainly never found it.
Actually, I was adressing that question to Rafael. I already knew the answer.;)

SOTK

May 2nd, 2005, 07:01 PM

Actually, I was adressing that question to Rafael. I already knew the answer.;)

Yeah, I know. I just used your question to reinforce my stance so that all could read. :)

Lighthouse

May 3rd, 2005, 12:15 AM

Okay.

c.moore

May 4th, 2005, 12:27 AM

Water baptism is commanded by Jesus, but not as a means of obtaining salvation. We are identifying with the death, burial, and resurrection of Christ at baptism. In a way, it is the new Christian's first witness of the Gospel.

Abraham, Isaiah, Moses and all the OT saints were saved by faith in Christ, yet none of them were ever baptized.

Consider this analogy:
A man buys a ticket (gets saved) and sits down (baptized) on a train headed for Chicago (heaven). If the man does not buy a ticket (gets saved), then he will not reach his destination, Chicago (heaven).

Buying the ticket (getting saved) has nothing to do with sitting down (baptized). Sitting down just makes the ride more comfortable. The man would still reach his destination (heaven) even if he didn't sit down (get baptized).

I show another person you post and they said this:

Water baptism is commanded by Jesus, but not as a means of obtaining salvation. We are identifying with the death, burial, and resurrection of Christ at baptism. In a way, it is the new Christian's first witness of the Gospel.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

You aren't identifying, the NT never even makes this suggestion. It speaks in reality.

Romans 6:2 Certainly not! How shall we who died to sin live any longer in it? 3 Or do you not know that as many of us as were baptized into Christ Jesus were basptized into His death.Therefore we were buried with Him through baptism into death, that just as Christ was raised from the dead by the glory of the Father, even so we shall walk in the newness of life.

There is no identifying here going on. Paul never even makes that insinuation. You are reading your own thoughts and feelings into the text. Read also what Christ says to Nicodemus. I'v already posted it on this thread, go back and read it, Paul agrees with Christ.

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Abraham, Isaiah, Moses and all the OT saints were saved by faith in Christ, yet none of them were ever baptized.

Consider this analogy:
A man buys a ticket (gets saved) and sits down (baptized) on a train headed for Chicago (heaven). If the man does not buy a ticket (gets saved), then he will not reach his destination, Chicago (heaven).

Buying the ticket (getting saved) has nothing to do with sitting down (baptized). Sitting down just makes the ride more comfortable. The man would still reach his destination (heaven) even if he didn't sit down (get baptized).
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Would that be because the Christian baptism that Christ initiated wasn't instituted yet? You confuse baptism of desire with baptism. Do you think any of the prophets would have ignored Christs command to be baptized and said my faith is going to save me alone? Or would they have been like Abraham and carried out the command?

Your analogy of the train ride is the same application. So they should just get on the train and get off later and not really worry about being baptizd? Or does this fall under baptism of desire? Paul differs with your point of view again in Romans. To use your analogy: The train crashes (his refusal to obey Christs commands i.e. in this case baptism) before he reaches his Chicago (heaven) does he still get to chicago (heaven)?

Christ said whoever hears and obeys his commands, not just hears, will have eternal life.

Now only Christ knows the heart of the man on the train, if he desired baptism but was unable to fulfil Christs commads, then he is covered. However if he willfully does not obey Christs command, he is giong to have a problem. So now, the question becomes, do you Evan teach him that it is OK to willfully disobey Christs command, or do you teach him to get baptized, and by doing so instill in him the baptism of desire which can be efficatious (sp) to his soul?

God_Is_Truth

May 4th, 2005, 12:58 AM

perhaps this will get this thread going. what do you guys think the original purpose of water baptism as introduced by John the Baptist for Israel was?

apparently nobody knows....

Lighthouse

May 4th, 2005, 01:06 PM

It was for the remission of sins.

God_Is_Truth

May 4th, 2005, 01:16 PM

It was for the remission of sins.

why baptism though? why wasn't it ever done before for the remission of sins?

Lighthouse

May 4th, 2005, 03:06 PM

Good question. Maybe it was related to the cleansing rituals of the Mosaic Law?:think:

God_Is_Truth

May 5th, 2005, 01:55 AM

Good question. Maybe it was related to the cleansing rituals of the Mosaic Law?:think:

i don't know of any place in the OT where anything like what John did was recorded.

Lighthouse

May 5th, 2005, 01:59 AM

That's why I said "related."

God_Is_Truth

May 5th, 2005, 02:11 AM

That's why I said "related."

it would also have to relate to John's purpose of preparing the way for Christ.

Inquisitor

May 5th, 2005, 02:12 AM

Do we need water baptism now that we have the baptism of the holy spirit?

Fr. Leonard Feeney, back in the '50s, was the champion of the necessity of water baptism. (http://www.catholicism.org/BoL/chapter7.htm)

c.moore

May 5th, 2005, 11:10 AM

Fr. Leonard Feeney, back in the '50s, was the champion of the necessity of water baptism. (http://www.catholicism.org/BoL/chapter7.htm)

Getting wet doesn`t make us righteous it is Jesus Christ alone.

Do you believe in the blood of Jesus baptism??

Does the blood of Jesus baptism need to be washed down by H20?

Jerry Shugart

May 5th, 2005, 12:00 PM

what do you guys think the original purpose of water baptism as introduced by John the Baptist for Israel was?
The original purpose of the rite of water baptism was "to make ready a people prepared for the Lord"(Lk.1:17).

If the Jews were going to serve the Lord then they must "repent" of their past way of living.So when a Jew came to be baptized he was to confess that he had been living a sinful lifestyle (Mt.3:6) and was ready to begin serving the Lord in "holiness and righteousness".

Washing with water always means "practical" cleansing.And that will help us to understand the words of Ananias spoke to Paul:

"And now why tarriest thou? arise, and be baptized, and wash away thy sins, calling on the name of the Lord"(Acts22:16).

Ananias' words are not in regard to actually washing away sins from one's body,but instead he was saying:

"Arise and be baptized,and turn away from your evil courses,calling on the name of the Lord."

So the rite of water baptism was a symbolic rite that symbolized a person's willingness to change their past way of living.And it was the "confessing" of sins that brought about the remission of sins,just as it is today (1Jn.1:9).

In His grace,--Jerry
”Dispensationalism Made Easy”
http://midacts.net/studies/shugart-dispensationalism_made_easy.html

Inquisitor

May 5th, 2005, 02:56 PM

Getting wet doesn`t make us righteous it is Jesus Christ alone.

Do you believe in the blood of Jesus baptism??

Does the blood of Jesus baptism need to be washed down by H20?

Look, don't ask me to explain exactly how it works, but Christ did command baptism.

Inquisitor

May 5th, 2005, 03:00 PM

Again water baptism is not a requirement to get saved.

What is w/you fundies and the phrase "get saved" or "got saved"? I mean, clearly the sentence above would have sounded better if you had said, "...not a requirement for salvation." Instead, you're so brainwashed that you have to regurgitate catch phrases, even when there are better sounding ways of saying the same thing.

c.moore

May 6th, 2005, 03:02 AM

Look, don't ask me to explain exactly how it works, but Christ did command baptism.

But you need to know why and the reason , and to find out Godly principles, and not taken blind commands.
I know there is a purpose and reason for all the commands so what up?.
try to answer my questions and you might see the truth of getting wet for real.

shalom

c.moore

May 6th, 2005, 03:03 AM

What is w/you fundies and the phrase "get saved" or "got saved"? I mean, clearly the sentence above would have sounded better if you had said, "...not a requirement for salvation." Instead, you're so brainwashed that you have to regurgitate catch phrases, even when there are better sounding ways of saying the same thing.

Because saved is a finished salvation work, which Christ did for us on the cross , unless you don`t accept the cross niether.

Freak

May 6th, 2005, 06:20 AM

Because saved is a finished salvation work, which Christ did for us on the cross , unless you don`t accept the cross niether. :first: :up:

cellist

May 9th, 2005, 11:09 AM

posted by c.moore
Getting wet doesn`t make us righteous it is Jesus Christ alone.
Do you believe in the blood of Jesus baptism??
Does the blood of Jesus baptism need to be washed down by H20?

Of course getting wet doesn't make us righteous, but baptism is a means by which God works regeneration and faith, and faith lays hold of what Christ has done for us and rests in that, which alone makes us righteous. In that sense, baptism saves. Baptism is more than a symbol.

Lighthouse

May 9th, 2005, 01:21 PM

No. Baptism is not more than a symbol. And God works regeneration on His own. Apart from works.

Caledvwlch

May 9th, 2005, 01:25 PM

No. Baptism is not more than a symbol. And God works regeneration on His own. Apart from works.
So then why did Christ command his disciples to baptize all nations? Maybe it's not necessary for salvation, but why the command?

cellist

May 9th, 2005, 01:30 PM

No. Baptism is not more than a symbol. And God works regeneration on His own. Apart from works.

God absolutely uses means to work regeneration, at least normally. Proof text:

"For you have been born again, not of perishable seed, but of imperishable, through the living and enduring word of God."

When someone communicated the gospel to you, was that a work that saved you? When you listened to it, was that a work on your part? Or maybe you read a tract or scripture, was that a work? Of course not; those were mearly means that God used for the gospel to come to you. The gospel, in the hands of the Holy Spirit, works regeneration and faith (see also Rom 11:17).

cellist

May 9th, 2005, 01:38 PM

So then why did Christ command his disciples to baptize all nations? Maybe it's not necessary for salvation, but why the command?

Those who hold that baptism doesn't save would probably say that it is for the outward testimony of their faith, so others know they are followers of Christ.

For those who hold that baptism does save, baptism isn't so much to show our faith to others, though it does indeed do this, but to give and strengthen faith. In the sacramental view, God is the primary actor, not us. It is something God does for us, not something we do for God.

Lighthouse

May 9th, 2005, 02:17 PM

So then why did Christ command his disciples to baptize all nations? Maybe it's not necessary for salvation, but why the command?
Because He did.

What do you expect me to say? Baptism is a symbolic gesture. And the disciples were continuing to preach tle law, so baptism was added to that, and they continued it.

then Paul came along, and was sent to the Gentiles, because the Jews weren't getting it, and the law was not applicable to those to whom Paul was sent, and therefore neither was baptism.

Look into the dispensationalism forum. You should find some decent explanations there.

Lighthouse

May 9th, 2005, 02:21 PM

God absolutely uses means to work regeneration, at least normally. Proof text:

"For you have been born again, not of perishable seed, but of imperishable, through the living and enduring word of God."
Q: And the living word of God is? A: Christ!

When someone communicated the gospel to you, was that a work that saved you? When you listened to it, was that a work on your part? Or maybe you read a tract or scripture, was that a work? Of course not; those were mearly means that God used for the gospel to come to you. The gospel, in the hands of the Holy Spirit, works regeneration and faith (see also Rom 11:17).
:bang:

I never said it was a work to hear the gospel. But I was not saved because I heard it, but because I believed, and God saved me!

cellist

May 9th, 2005, 03:55 PM

Q: And the living word of God is? A: Christ!
The verse I quoted to show God uses means, namely the word of God, to save us was 1 Peter 1:23,

"For you have been born again...through the living and enduring word of God."

If you read on, in the next vs he quotes from Isaiah 40,

"...the grass withers and the flowers fall, but the word of the Lord stands forever." (1 Peter 1:24/Is 40)

Go back and read Isaiah 40 and look at the context. The context of this quote is preaching the message of "comfort" and "good tidings" to Jerusalem.

"Comfort, comfort my people, says your God...proclaim to her that her hard service has been completed that her sin has been paid for...(vs1-2)...You who bring good tidings to Zion...you who bring good tidings to Jerusalem...(vs9)

What Peter is saying is that through the preaching of the Gospel (lit "good news" or good tidings"), which is comprised of the death, burial and resurrection of Christ (1 Cor 15), the Holy Spirit works regeneration. The gospel has "power,"

"For I am not ashamed of the gospel, because it is the power of God unto salvation..." (Rom 1:16).

The gospel, the power of God, works regeneration. The Holy Spirit uses the preaching of the message to renew us and to work faith in us.

I never said it was a work to hear the gospel.
Of course you didn't...I was making a parallel between being baptized and hearing the gospel preached. My point was, if we don't have a problem - or at least we shouldn't - with saying that God uses ink and paper (Bible) or the sound of a preacher to bring a person to himself, what is the big deal to say he uses water as means to bring salvation. These are only instruments, means...The glory still goes to God. It is not a works salvation.

But I was not saved because I heard it, but because I believed, and God saved me!
Go back and read 1 Peter again. It doesn't say that at all. It attributes your salvation to the preached word. In fact, after the Isaiah quote it says,

"And this is the word that was preached to you." (vs 25) The word of God not only demands faith, but gives it as well. It not only demands conversion, it converts you. It is the "power of God."

Lighthouse

May 9th, 2005, 04:06 PM

The verse I quoted to show God uses means, namely the word of God, to save us was 1 Peter 1:23,

"For you have been born again...through the living and enduring word of God."

If you read on, in the next vs he quotes from Isaiah 40,

"...the grass withers and the flowers fall, but the word of the Lord stands forever." (1 Peter 1:24/Is 40)

Go back and read Isaiah 40 and look at the context. The context of this quote is preaching the message of "comfort" and "good tidings" to Jerusalem.

"Comfort, comfort my people, says your God...proclaim to her that her hard service has been completed that her sin has been paid for...(vs1-2)...You who bring good tidings to Zion...you who bring good tidings to Jerusalem...(vs9)

What Peter is saying is that through the preaching of the Gospel (lit "good news" or good tidings"), which is comprised of the death, burial and resurrection of Christ (1 Cor 15), the Holy Spirit works regeneration. The gospel has "power,"

"For I am not ashamed of the gospel, because it is the power of God unto salvation..." (Rom 1:16).

The gospel, the power of God, works regeneration. The Holy Spirit uses the preaching of the message to renew us and to work faith in us.

Of course you didn't...I was making a parallel between being baptized and hearing the gospel preached. Baptism is the "visible word" of God. It communicates the Gospel to us visibly, and so has the same power as the preached word. It is simply a means that God uses to work faith and regeneration in us. Baptism saves!

Go back and read 1 Peter again. It doesn't say that at all. It attributes your salvation to the preached word. In fact, after the Isaiah quote it says,

"And this is the word that was preached to you." (vs 25) The word of God not only demands faith, but gives it as well. It not only demands conversion, it converts you. It is the "power of God."
Thou art a fool.

"Baptism is the 'visible word' of God?" Where did you get that?

cellist

May 9th, 2005, 04:23 PM

Thou art a fool.

"Baptism is the 'visible word' of God?" Where did you get that?
That's the best you can come up with, Lighthouse, showing that you don't know that it was Augustine that coined the term, "visible word" for the sacraments?

Lighthouse

May 9th, 2005, 04:31 PM

See. It's not in the Bible. Augustine made it up. You fail, again.

cellist

May 9th, 2005, 04:57 PM

See. It's not in the Bible. Augustine made it up. You fail, again.
Sure, Augustine just made it up out of thin air....He probably, thought, "What can I make up today without any warrant?...I know, I'll call the sacraments the 'visible word.'" And I suppose that Calvin and Luther thought it had a kind of ring to it too, so they just decided to use it as well. While we're at it, let's clean house; let's just throw out the word "Trinity" since its not in the Bible either, oh, and how about the word "inerrancy of scripture" too...that exact phrase isn't in the Bible. Wait...the phrase "justified by faith alone isn't in the Bible either...It only says we are justified by faith...Let's throw out the word "alone."

Sold Out

May 9th, 2005, 05:13 PM

God absolutely uses means to work regeneration, at least normally. Proof text:

"For you have been born again, not of perishable seed, but of imperishable, through the living and enduring word of God."

When someone communicated the gospel to you, was that a work that saved you? When you listened to it, was that a work on your part? Or maybe you read a tract or scripture, was that a work? Of course not; those were mearly means that God used for the gospel to come to you. The gospel, in the hands of the Holy Spirit, works regeneration and faith (see also Rom 11:17).

Let me guess...you are Church of Christ?

Lighthouse

May 9th, 2005, 05:22 PM

Sure, Augustine just made it up out of thin air....He probably, thought, "What can I make up today without any warrant?...I know, I'll call the sacraments the 'visible word.'" And I suppose that Calvin and Luther thought it had a kind of ring to it too, so they just decided to use it as well. While we're at it, let's clean house; let's just throw out the word "Trinity" since its not in the Bible either, oh, and how about the word "inerrancy of scripture" too...that exact phrase isn't in the Bible. Wait...the phrase "justified by faith alone isn't in the Bible either...It only says we are justified by faith...Let's throw out the word "alone."
Augustine trusted Plato, over the very words of the Bible.

And don't get me started on Calvin.

Trinity:
Godhead means the same thing, and is in the Bible.

God's word is inerrant:
"All scripture is given by inspiration of God..,"
-2 Timothy 3:16

Justified by faith:
"Therefore we conclude that a man is justified by faith without the deeds of the law."
-Romans 3:28

"Knowing that a man is not justified by the works of the law, but by the faith of Jesus Christ, even we have believed in Jesus Christ, that we might be justified by the faith of Christ, and not by the works of the law: for by the works of the law shall no flesh be justified."
-Galatians 2:16

You do realize that the doctrine of sacraments is an RCC construct, don't you?

cellist

May 9th, 2005, 09:03 PM

Let me guess...you are Church of Christ?

No, Lutheran...don't get us confused...please!

cellist

May 9th, 2005, 09:24 PM

Trinity:
Godhead means the same thing, and is in the Bible.

God's word is inerrant:
"All scripture is given by inspiration of God..,"

-2 Timothy 3:16

Justified by faith:
"Therefore we conclude that a man is justified by faith without the deeds of the law."

-Romans 3:28

"Knowing that a man is not justified by the works of the law, but by the faith of Jesus Christ, even we have believed in Jesus Christ, that we might be justified by the faith of Christ, and not by the works of the law: for by the works of the law shall no flesh be justified."

-Galatians 2:16
You fail to get my points...I am not arguing that the "Trinity," the phrase "inerrancy of Scripture" or faith "alone" are not scriptural... I am simply arguing that just because a phrase, such as "visible word," is not in the Bible doesn't mean it isn't Biblical. None of the above mentioned phrases are in the Bible, but they are still Biblical. But these are side points. The real question is, does God use "means" to bring us to himself or not? So far you have not at all dealt with 1 Peter. If God does use means (preaching, ink and paper) then why is it so hard to believe that he would also use water, bread, and wine?

You do realize that the doctrine of sacraments is an RCC construct, don't you?
Just because something may be similar to Roman Catholicism, doesn't mean it is false. By this logic we would have to reject the Trinity, the Deity of Christ and a host of other Biblical doctrines.

Lighthouse, you do not argue from the Biblical text...Your only answers so far have been that the phrase "visible word" was "made up" by Augustine, which you haven't proven at all from Scripture, you have only claimed it does. And you haven't dealt at all with the passages I presented. The idea that God, at the very minimum, uses the written and preached word in our conversion is generally accepted protestant/evangelical theology. I actually assumed you would agree with this, and that I could argue from that common ground.

Lighthouse

May 9th, 2005, 11:05 PM

cellist

May 10th, 2005, 10:24 AM

Yes, I agree that God uses the preaching of the gospel as means to bring us to Him. But our salvation is by Him, and of Him, and nothing or no one else. The idea of the "sacraments" bringing salvation is contra-Biblical.

Ok, so we agree that God uses the preaching of the gospel to bring us to him. And I agree that salvation is totally of God. Since the above points are true, it doesn't, therefore, detract from the glory of God that he uses "instruments" or "means" to accomplish this. He uses various ways to communicate the gospel to a fallen and sinful humanity. The primary way is preaching, but it comes in other ways as well; we preach the gospel to one another as the priesthood of believers every sunday in the singing of hymns, we read the gospel in scripture and in books, and if we are deaf, the gospel comes via sign language or if we are blind, through brail. I would even argue that the gospel, in the days when the vast majority of Christians were illiterate during the middle ages, came in the artwork and liturgy of the church. Besides preaching, it especially comes in the sacraments. In other words, wherever the gospel is communicated, there is the "power of God." It is the content of the Gospel that has power.

Coming back to the idea of the baptism and communion being the visible word, one can see that they idea is not complicated..even a child can understand it. Throughout scripture, in the Old and New Testaments, when there were particularly important promises or doctrines, God would attach a visible sign to the promise or doctrine. The visible sign was to bring to mind the promise that is attached to it. Think of the rainbow...God gave a promise that he would never destoy the earth again, but he didn't just give the promise verbally, he gave a rainbow as a pledge of that promise. When a believer sees the rainbow today, it communicates that promise of God. Circumcision was attached to the promise that God would be Abraham's God and the God of his posterity. You could go throughout the Old testament and see how God attaches signs to promises. The idea of the visible word is that these visible signs communicate to us the doctrines and promises that they are attached to. They communicate God's word.

When we come to the new testament, the number of visible signs given by God is greatly decreased, we have only two, but they do not stand on their own, without any reference to doctrine or promise. I would think you would have to admit this. Baptism and communion communicate to us the gospel, visibly. Didn't Paul say,

"For whenever you eat this bread and drink this cup you proclaim (lit. "preach"!) the Lord's death until he comes." 1 Cor 11:26

Christ said, "This is my body, given for you, This is my blood given and shed for the remission of sins."

Those are doctines, promises, communicated to us visibly.

Likewise, baptism communicates the gospel as well. It communicates that we are united to Christ in his death, burial and ressurection (Rom 6). It teaches that we are clothed with Christ "For all of you who were baptized into Christ have clothed yourselves with Christ." (Gal 4:27) It points to the Holy Spirit that is poured out on us, "For John baptized with water, but in a few days you will be baptized with the Holy Spirit" (Acts 1:5).

In Lutheran theology, we recogize that wherever the Gospel is communicated, there is inherent power (Rom 1:16). This doesn't mean that for adults, we do not require faith before baptism. One can come to faith wherever the gospel is communicated, but the sacraments are one place that the gospel is communicated, and so the sacraments do "save" because one can be drawn to Christ through them. They also save those who are already christians because they strengthen our faith in the Gospel, they serve to keep us in the faith.

In Lutheran theology, the primary actor is God, not man. God is doing the communicating, God is working in the visible signs and our responce is to be one of faith, believing the promises of God.

Sold Out

May 10th, 2005, 12:50 PM

Ok, so we agree that God uses the preaching of the gospel to bring us to him. And I agree that salvation is totally of God. Since the above points are true, it doesn't, therefore, detract from the glory of God that he uses "instruments" or "means" to accomplish this. He uses various ways to communicate the gospel to a fallen and sinful humanity. The primary way is preaching, but it comes in other ways as well; we preach the gospel to one another as the priesthood of believers every sunday in the singing of hymns, we read the gospel in scripture and in books, and if we are deaf, the gospel comes via sign language or if we are blind, through brail. I would even argue that the gospel, in the days when the vast majority of Christians were illiterate during the middle ages, came in the artwork and liturgy of the church. Besides preaching, it especially comes in the sacraments. In other words, wherever the gospel is communicated, there is the "power of God." It is the content of the Gospel that has power.

Coming back to the idea of the baptism and communion being the visible word, one can see that they idea is not complicated..even a child can understand it. Throughout scripture, in the Old and New Testaments, when there were particularly important promises or doctrines, God would attach a visible sign to the promise or doctrine. The visible sign was to bring to mind the promise that is attached to it. Think of the rainbow...God gave a promise that he would never destoy the earth again, but he didn't just give the promise verbally, he gave a rainbow as a pledge of that promise. When a believer sees the rainbow today, it communicates that promise of God. Circumcision was attached to the promise that God would be Abraham's God and the God of his posterity. You could go throughout the Old testament and see how God attaches signs to promises. The idea of the visible word is that these visible signs communicate to us the doctrines and promises that they are attached to. They communicate God's word.

When we come to the new testament, the number of visible signs given by God is greatly decreased, we have only two, but they do not stand on their own, without any reference to doctrine or promise. I would think you would have to admit this. Baptism and communion communicate to us the gospel, visibly. Didn't Paul say,

"For whenever you eat this bread and drink this cup you proclaim (lit. "preach"!) the Lord's death until he comes." 1 Cor 11:26

Christ said, "This is my body, given for you, This is my blood given and shed for the remission of sins."

Those are doctines, promises, communicated to us visibly.

Likewise, baptism communicates the gospel as well. It communicates that we are united to Christ in his death, burial and ressurection (Rom 6). It teaches that we are clothed with Christ "For all of you who were baptized into Christ have clothed yourselves with Christ." (Gal 4:27) It points to the Holy Spirit that is poured out on us, "For John baptized with water, but in a few days you will be baptized with the Holy Spirit" (Acts 1:5).

In Lutheran theology, we recogize that wherever the Gospel is communicated, there is inherent power (Rom 1:16). This doesn't mean that for adults, we do not require faith before baptism. One can come to faith wherever the gospel is communicated, but the sacraments are one place that the gospel is communicated, and so the sacraments do "save" because one can be drawn to Christ through them. They also save those who are already christians because they strengthen our faith in the Gospel, they serve to keep us in the faith.

In Lutheran theology, the primary actor is God, not man. God is doing the communicating, God is working in the visible signs and our responce is to be one of faith, believing the promises of God.

The fact remains that you are relying on something you have to physically do to merit your salvation. I've asked a ton of baptismal regenerists this same question, and I never get an answer:

If someone accepts Christ on Friday, and plans to get baptized on Sunday, but gets killed on Saturday, does that person still get to go to heaven?

Lighthouse

May 10th, 2005, 12:53 PM

It does not come through the sacraments.

cellist

May 10th, 2005, 04:07 PM

The fact remains that you are relying on something you have to physically do to merit your salvation. I've asked a ton of baptismal regenerists this same question, and I never get an answer

Maybe I am not making my points clear enough. By being baptized we encounter the gospel. Every time we come into contact with the gospel message, there is something "physical" going on. If I hear my pastor preach the gospel at church, I had to get out of bed, get dressed, sit down in a church pew and pay attention, not to mention that the pastor is doing a physical activity when preaching. If I encounter the gospel when I read Scripture I have to open it up and read. If I am blind and I come into contact with the gospel through brail, I have to move my fingertips along the brail, etc, etc, etc....

If anything is true, being baptized is the most passive of any of the ways we encounter the gospel message. When I am baptized I do nothing. In fact, the verb tense in scripture is always in the passive tense,

"Whoever believes and is baptized will be saved" Mk 16:16
"...be baptized and wash away your sins" Ac 22:16
"Those who accepted his message were baptized..." Acts 2:41

Passive tense always indicates that the subject of the sentence is the object of the action or verb. Baptism is something done to us.

Also, Baptism is done in the name of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit. It is not done in the name of the pastor doing the baptizing. He is baptizing in the name of the Triune God. The pastor baptizes in the stead of Christ. We receive baptism as if from the hand of Christ himself.

If someone accepts Christ on Friday, and plans to get baptized on Sunday, but gets killed on Saturday, does that person still get to go to heaven?

I tried to make this clear, but perhaps I didn't. A person can come to faith in Christ any place the gospel is presented. The primary place, in fact, is the preached word. This is where most adults hear and come to faith in Christ. In this case, baptism strengthens faith in Christ; just as hearing the gospel preached would strengthen our faith. If someone claimed to believe but refused baptism, it would place his profession under suspicion. So Lutheran theology actually treats this question much like many evangelicals do. It isn't the absence of baptism that damns, but the despising of it. So, in answer to your question, yes, absolutely, that person would be saved. Again, do not confuse Lutheran with Church of Christ or Roman Catholic.

cellist

May 10th, 2005, 04:12 PM

It does not come through the sacraments.
Lighthouse, you crack me up. Again you didn't deal at all with the texts I brought forward or why you disagree. You simply made a statement, dictum. Ok, I'll argue like Lighthouse now.

It does come through the sacraments.

But I would like a straight answer to this question:

Do the sacraments communcate the gospel? yes or no.

Sold Out, see post above.

Sold Out

May 10th, 2005, 05:27 PM

Maybe I am not making my points clear enough. By being baptized we encounter the gospel. Every time we come into contact with the gospel message, there is something "physical" going on. If I hear my pastor preach the gospel at church, I had to get out of bed, get dressed, sit down in a church pew and pay attention, not to mention that the pastor is doing a physical activity when preaching. If I encounter the gospel when I read Scripture I have to open it up and read. If I am blind and I come into contact with the gospel through brail, I have to move my fingertips along the brail, etc, etc, etc....

If anything is true, being baptized is the most passive of any of the ways we encounter the gospel message. When I am baptized I do nothing. In fact, the verb tense in scripture is always in the passive tense,

"Whoever believes and is baptized will be saved" Mk 16:16
"...be baptized and wash away your sins" Ac 22:16
"Those who accepted his message were baptized..." Acts 2:41

Passive tense always indicates that the subject of the sentence is the object of the action or verb. Baptism is something done to us.

Also, Baptism is done in the name of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit. It is not done in the name of the pastor doing the baptizing. He is baptizing in the name of the Triune God. The pastor baptizes in the stead of Christ. We receive baptism as if from the hand of Christ himself.

I tried to make this clear, but perhaps I didn't. A person can come to faith in Christ any place the gospel is presented. The primary place, in fact, is the preached word. This is where most adults hear and come to faith in Christ. In this case, baptism strengthens faith in Christ; just as hearing the gospel preached would strengthen our faith. If someone claimed to believe but refused baptism, it would place his profession under suspicion. So Lutheran theology actually treats this question much like many evangelicals do. It isn't the absence of baptism that damns, but the despising of it. So, in answer to your question, yes, absolutely, that person would be saved. Again, do not confuse Lutheran with Church of Christ or Roman Catholic.

Good enough...

MartianManhuntr

May 10th, 2005, 06:45 PM

Do we need water baptism now that we have the baptism of the holy spirit?

(1) Do you have the baptism in the Holy Ghost? The Scriptures record only two incidents of this baptism, in Acts 2 and Acts 10. In both, it was accompanied by the sign of speaking in tongues (actual languages in context, not babbling). Certainly this baptism has ceased, seeing this phenomina takes place no longer, and that there is "one baptism" according to Ephesians 4:5. Seeing then, that this manner of speaking in tongues is gone, certainly the "one baptism" of Ephesians 4:5 is not baptism in the Holy Ghost but is what is disdainfully refered to as "water baptism." The baptism in the Holy Ghost has ceased.

(2) Peter commanded those who had recieved the baptism in the Holy Ghost to be baptized in water, in Acts 10:47-48. Also we find in Acts 22:16 that Paul's sins were not washed away until he was baptized in water. Again, Peter commanded water baptism in Acts 2:38, and Peter says in 1 Peter 3:20-21 says, speaking of the flood, "...in which a few, that is, 8 souls were saved through water. And that baptism which is of the same form now saves us, not in that it washed dirt off our flesh, but in that it is our appeal to God for a good conscience, by the resurrection of Jesus Christ, who is gone into heaven, and is on the right hand of God, angels and authorities and powers being made subject to him." So then, water baptism is the place in which sins are washed away by God. Again in Colossians 2:11-12 we find that the believer is spiritually resurrected in water baptism and that the Holy Ghost there cuts off their sins.

Lighthouse

May 11th, 2005, 12:43 AM

Lighthouse, you crack me up. Again you didn't deal at all with the texts I brought forward or why you disagree. You simply made a statement, dictum. Ok, I'll argue like Lighthouse now.

It does come through the sacraments.

But I would like a straight answer to this question:

Do the sacraments communcate the gospel? yes or no.

Sold Out, see post above.
You want a yes or no answer? The answer is, "No." The gospel comes by hearing, and hearing by the word. Salvation is by grace, through faith. Nothing else. The sacraments do not save.

Lighthouse

May 11th, 2005, 12:54 AM

c.moore

May 11th, 2005, 08:41 AM

You want a yes or no answer? The answer is, "No." The gospel comes by hearing, and hearing by the word. Salvation is by grace, through faith. Nothing else. The sacraments do not save.

AMEN!

cellist

May 11th, 2005, 09:52 AM

You want a yes or no answer? The answer is, "No." The gospel comes by hearing, and hearing by the word. Salvation is by grace, through faith. Nothing else. The sacraments do not save.

Well, then I guess we have to agree to disagree. But I submit that you did not deal with the texts I brought forward that show that the gospel is presented through the sacraments.

c. moore - If you would like to go back and read my posts, I invite you to do so. If I am wrong show that I am. Persons like Lighthouse feel I am denying justification by faith alone. My argument is that, of course we are justified by faith alone, but the sacraments are a means that God gives and strengthens faith, so in that sence they save.

Jerry Shugart

May 11th, 2005, 11:21 AM

Cellist,,

You said:
Likewise, baptism communicates the gospel as well.
The “baptism of repentance” was completely separate from the gospel.Here are the words of the Lord Jesus:

”The time is fulfilled,and the kingdom of God is at hand, repent,and believe the gospel”(Mk.1:15).

The rite of water baptism was indeed a “sacrament”,and a sacrament is merely a sign or symbol to represent some reality. The original purpose of the rite of water baptism was "to make ready a people prepared for the Lord"(Lk.1:17).

If the Jews were going to serve the Lord then they must "repent" of their past way of living.So when a Jew came to be baptized he was to confess that he had been living a sinful lifestyle (Mt.3:6) and was ready to begin serving the Lord in "holiness and righteousness".

Washing with water always means "practical" cleansing.And that will help us to understand the words of Ananias spoke to Paul:

"And now why tarriest thou? arise, and be baptized, and wash away thy sins, calling on the name of the Lord"(Acts22:16).

Ananias' words are not in regard to actually washing away sins from one's body,but instead he was saying:

"Arise and be baptized,and turn away from your evil courses,calling on the name of the Lord."

So the rite of water baptism was a symbolic rite that symbolized a person's willingness to change their past way of living.And it was the "confessing" of sins that brought about the remission of sins,just as it is today (1Jn.1:9).

So the rite of water baptism that was practiced was not for the purpose of communicating the gospel.

In His grace,--Jerry
”Dispensationalism Made Easy”
http://midacts.net/studies/shugart-dispensationalism_made_easy.html

Sold Out

May 11th, 2005, 11:26 AM

(1) Do you have the baptism in the Holy Ghost? The Scriptures record only two incidents of this baptism, in Acts 2 and Acts 10. In both, it was accompanied by the sign of speaking in tongues (actual languages in context, not babbling). Certainly this baptism has ceased, seeing this phenomina takes place no longer, and that there is "one baptism" according to Ephesians 4:5. Seeing then, that this manner of speaking in tongues is gone, certainly the "one baptism" of Ephesians 4:5 is not baptism in the Holy Ghost but is what is disdainfully refered to as "water baptism." The baptism in the Holy Ghost has ceased.

(2) Peter commanded those who had recieved the baptism in the Holy Ghost to be baptized in water, in Acts 10:47-48. Also we find in Acts 22:16 that Paul's sins were not washed away until he was baptized in water. Again, Peter commanded water baptism in Acts 2:38, and Peter says in 1 Peter 3:20-21 says, speaking of the flood, "...in which a few, that is, 8 souls were saved through water. And that baptism which is of the same form now saves us, not in that it washed dirt off our flesh, but in that it is our appeal to God for a good conscience, by the resurrection of Jesus Christ, who is gone into heaven, and is on the right hand of God, angels and authorities and powers being made subject to him." So then, water baptism is the place in which sins are washed away by God. Again in Colossians 2:11-12 we find that the believer is spiritually resurrected in water baptism and that the Holy Ghost there cuts off their sins.

Acts 22:11-16, According to Acts 22:13, Saul (i.e., Paul) was already saved and considered a brother in CHRIST long before he was ever baptized. Acts 9:17,18 confirms this truth. Calling on the name of the LORD JESUS is what washes away sin and saves a person (See - Acts 10:43 & Rom 10:13 & I Cor 6:11), not baptism. Ananias exhorted Paul to be baptized “in token of” the washing away of his sins, not “in order to” wash away his sins. Again, baptism has no saving merit whatsoever. Only the blood (See - Lev 17:11) of CHRIST washes away sin and saves a person (See - Acts 20:28 & Rom 3:25 & Eph 1:7 & Heb 10:19,20 & Rev 1:5)!

Acts 10:44-47 "While Peter was still speaking these words, the Holy Spirit came on all who heard the message. The circumcised believers who had come with Peter were astonished that the gift of the Holy Spirit had been poured out even on the Gentiles. For they heard them speaking in tongues and praising God. Then Peter said, [B]"Can anyone keep these people from being baptized with water? They have received the Holy Spirit just as we have." - If you read the text carefully, you would have seen that Cornelius received the Holy Spirit BEFORE he was baptized, which is PROOF that baptism has nothing to do with salvation.

Colossians 10:11,12 - This scripture states we IDENTIFY with Christ through baptism, not that we are saved by it.

cellist

May 11th, 2005, 01:31 PM

Before we even begin, let's define some terms. I notice that you are a dispensationalist. When reformation types, like myself, talk about the Gospel, we are referring to what Christ has done and continues to do for our salvation. It centers around the death, burial and ressurection of Jesus Christ (1 Cor 15: 2-4). This is in contrast to how we define "law," which is what we do for God. It is comprised of the commands of God and the threats if perfect obedience are not met. Gospel is what God does for us for our salvation; law is what we do for God. According to these definitions, both law and gospel are present in the Old and New Testaments.

I just want to make sure you are clear about my definitions so we do not talk past each other. OK, let's get to the points you raise.

Cellist,,

You said:

The “baptism of repentance” was completely separate from the gospel.

By "baptism of repentance" you are referring to John's baptism. It is amazing you say that it is "completely seperate" from the gospel because the verse you quote shows the content of John's preaching involved believing in the gospel(!). You quoted,

Here are the words of the Lord Jesus:

”The time is fulfilled,and the kingdom of God is at hand, repent,and believe the gospel”(Mk.1:15).

How is it "completely seperate" from the gospel?" Kind of extreme, don't you think? John the baptist also said, "Behold the lamb of God who takes away the sin of the world." Jhn 1:29

John preaches the gospel, pointing people to Christ as the sin bearer. And yet it was completely sereparate from the gospel??? We also see in Mark 1:1 that John’s ministry marked "the beginning of the gospel of Jesus Christ, the Son of God."

The rite of water baptism was indeed a “sacrament”,and a sacrament is merely a sign or symbol to represent some reality.

Any method of communication involves symbols. Words are symbols that "represent some reality." When we preach the gospel, it is the reality that the words represent, namely the gospel, that has power. The gospel is the "power of God" (Rom1:16). The content of the gospel, the simple message that Christ has done all for our salvation in his death, burial and resurrection, that has the power to convert a soul. That same gospel is communicated in the sacraments today, and it has the same power as preaching. See my above posts for a more detailed explanation.

The original purpose of the rite of water baptism was "to make ready a people prepared for the Lord"(Lk.1:17).

Are you assuming that John's basptism is exactly the same as christian baptism? Even if it is, it doesn't effect my position. John did require fruits of repentence for baptism, as it should be today, but the word "unto" always signifies direction, as in the phrase, "baptism unto repentance." Baptism is a pledge of God's kindness (grace) towards us, and "God's kindness leads you towards repentance..." (Rom 2:4) Remembering our baptisms should be a cause of our continued repentance. As Luther said, we "daily drown the old Adam."

Washing with water always means "practical" cleansing.

By practical cleaning I assume you mean forgiveness of sins?

And that will help us to understand the words of Ananias spoke to Paul:

"And now why tarriest thou? arise, and be baptized, and wash away thy sins, calling on the name of the Lord"(Acts22:16).

Ananias' words are not in regard to actually washing away sins from one's body,but instead he was saying:

"Arise and be baptized,and turn away from your evil courses,calling on the name of the Lord."

So the rite of water baptism was a symbolic rite that symbolized a person's willingness to change their past way of living.And it was the "confessing" of sins that brought about the remission of sins,just as it is today (1Jn.1:9).

This verse can be read and understood as baptism cleansing from sin.

I'd like you to answer a question:What if I substituted the words "have faith in Christ" for "be baptized?" Would you see any need to do your interpretive gymnastics or would you understand "faith in Christ" as leading to the forgiveness of sins? Here is how it would read,

..."arise, and have faith in Christ, and wash away your sins, calling on the name of the Lord."

So the rite of water baptism that was practiced was not for the purpose of communicating the gospel.

The whole description of John's ministry in scripture is against you on this point! Again, I suggest reading my previous posts on the sacraments as the visible word of God where my arguments are more fully developed. Let me know what you think.

Jerry Shugart

May 11th, 2005, 01:44 PM

cellist

May 11th, 2005, 03:05 PM

cellist,

The baptism was for "service"--to make ready a people prepared for the Lord".One cannot serve the Lord while they are defiled and living a life that causes defilement.Therefore,they were to "repent" (have a change of mind) in regard to the way that they had been living.

The "gospel" at that time was in regard to revealing that it is Jesus Who is the promised Messiah,the Son of the Living God.Those who believed this were "born of God" and were eternally saved.

So the rite of water baptism was in regard to "service" and the gospel is in regard to "salvation".

To use Lutheran terms, you would say that John's baptism was "law" (something we do for God) and not Gospel (something God does for us). I'm not totally convinced of this, yet it may be. What better way to prepare God's people than through the Gospel? What caused my reaction was your statement that John's baptism was completely separate from the Gospel, a point that I can't agree with. John's whole ministry was to point to Jesus as savior. Anyway, in my "theological tradition" John's baptism is not seen as being the same thing as the baptism Jesus commanded, despite the many similarities. One difference being that John's baptism was not the mark of the new covenant. We see baptism as replacing circumcision as the mark of God's covenant people. John's baptism was not the new mark of the covenant since God's people already had that sign on them, namely, circumcision. The new mark of the covenant, baptism, took affect after the ascension. Also, in our definition, a sacrament must be instituted by Christ himself.

So using John's baptism as proof that christian baptism doesn't comuncate the gospel presupposes two things; that John's baptism is the same as Christian baptism, a point that you would need to prove, and that John's baptism in no way communicated the gospel message, a point you also have to prove.

Jerry Shugart

May 11th, 2005, 07:04 PM

Anyway, in my "theological tradition" John's baptism is not seen as being the same thing as the baptism Jesus commanded, despite the many similarities.
cellist,

I cannot see any difference between the two baptisms.The purpose of John's baptism with water was the same baptism with water performed on the day of Pentecost.

John was to prepare a people to serve the Lord,and so was the water baptism preached on the day of Pentecost.

First,we see Peter using the facts of the death and resurrection of Jesus Christ to prove that Jesus is the Christ,the Son of the Living God (Acts2:24-36).Then those who believed what Peter said were "born of God" when they believed those facts (1Jn.5:1-5).And it was those saved and born again Jews who asked,"Men and brethren,what should we do?"(Acts2:37).

Then Peter tells these believers what they must do to serve the Lord:

"Then Peter said unto them, Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins, and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost"(Acts2:38).

They were to be baptized as a symbol of the fact that they repented (had a change of mind) in regard to the sinful way in which they had been living.In return the Lord would take away their sins because sins defile and one cannot serve the Lord in that condition.Today when we sin we are to confess that sin and the Lord will cleanse us from the defilement which sin causes (1Jn.1:9,10).

After being baptized with water the Lord Jesus baptized them with the Holy Spirit for "power"(Acts1:8).The "power" was in regard to receiving the sign gifts in order to "confirm the gospel" (Mk.16:20) that they were to preach while they served the Lord.

So everything in regard to this water baptism was for the same purpose as John's baptism (to the exclusion of the baptism performed by the Lord Jesus) and that purpose was to prepare a people made ready for the Lord so that they might "serve Him in holiness and righteousness"(Lk.1:74,75).

On the Cross the Lord Jesus had asked the Father to forgive those who crucified Him,and therefore we see Peter telling the nation of Israel that if she will repent and turn to the Lord then the Father would send back the Lord Jesus Christ:

"Repent ye therefore, and return, that your sins may be blotted out, that the times of refreshing shall come from the presence of the Lord. And He shall send Jesus Christ, which before was preached unto you"(Acts3:19).

So the water baptism which John preached had the same exact purpose as did the water baptism that was preached on the day of Pentecost.

In His grace,--Jerry
”Dispensationalism Made Easy”
http://midacts.net/studies/shugart-dispensationalism_made_easy.html

MartianManhuntr

May 11th, 2005, 08:49 PM

BUZZ!

Wrong. Baptism of the Holy Spirit does still take place. All who are saved are indwelt with the Holy Spirit.

Apparently you did not read my post carefully. I did NOT say that the baptism OF the Holy Ghost has ceased. In fact, this is your problem--you do not realize that there are TWO baptisms OF the Holy Ghost. There are TWO different ones. Notice:

Matthew 3:11 "...he shall baptize you IN the Holy Ghost..."
1 Cor 12:13 "...For BY one Spirit are we all baptized into one body..."

Now, the baptism IN the Holy Ghost only happened twice, in Acts 2 and Acts 10 and was accompanied by tongues (real tongues). This baptism has ceased.

The baptism BY the Holy Ghost is part of water baptism, as Jesus said "Except a man be born of water and of the Spirit..." Also we find at the end of Acts 2 that those who were baptized in water were "added to the church." That is the same language used of the baptism BY the Holy Spirit where Paul says (as quoted above) "...For BY one Spirit are we all baptized into one body..." So, while the minister baptizes a believer into water, the Holy Ghost at the same time baptizes them into the church. Without the water, though, the Spirit does not so baptized, for Jesus says "Except a man be born of water and of the Spirit..." (John 3:5) which indicates that the Holy Spirit does not baptize those who refuse to be immersed in the water.

Lighthouse

May 11th, 2005, 10:11 PM

Well, then I guess we have to agree to disagree. But I submit that you did not deal with the texts I brought forward that show that the gospel is presented through the sacraments.
They did no such thing. There's no point addressing something that does not exist.

Lighthouse

May 11th, 2005, 10:16 PM

MartianManhuntr

May 12th, 2005, 12:12 AM

You're still wrong.

I just love your constructive criticism.

Lighthouse

May 12th, 2005, 12:41 AM

So, why is it that I speak in tongues?

God_Is_Truth

May 12th, 2005, 12:42 AM

So, why is it that I speak in tongues?

what tongue do you speak?

Lighthouse

May 12th, 2005, 01:26 AM

what tongue do you speak?
I don't know.

Dude, I'm baiting him.

Sold Out

May 12th, 2005, 09:25 AM

Apparently you did not read my post carefully. I did NOT say that the baptism OF the Holy Ghost has ceased. In fact, this is your problem--you do not realize that there are TWO baptisms OF the Holy Ghost. There are TWO different ones. Notice:

Matthew 3:11 "...he shall baptize you IN the Holy Ghost..."
1 Cor 12:13 "...For BY one Spirit are we all baptized into one body..."

Now, the baptism IN the Holy Ghost only happened twice, in Acts 2 and Acts 10 and was accompanied by tongues (real tongues). This baptism has ceased.

The baptism BY the Holy Ghost is part of water baptism, as Jesus said "Except a man be born of water and of the Spirit..." Also we find at the end of Acts 2 that those who were baptized in water were "added to the church." That is the same language used of the baptism BY the Holy Spirit where Paul says (as quoted above) "...For BY one Spirit are we all baptized into one body..." So, while the minister baptizes a believer into water, the Holy Ghost at the same time baptizes them into the church. Without the water, though, the Spirit does not so baptized, for Jesus says "Except a man be born of water and of the Spirit..." (John 3:5) which indicates that the Holy Spirit does not baptize those who refuse to be immersed in the water.

John 3 is not speaking of water baptism. Here are the reasons why:

1. Jesus is speaking to Nicodemus, an OLD TESTAMENT Pharisee. Jesus tells him he must be born again. There was no baptism in the Old Testament, so Jesus can't be referring to water baptism.
2. Jesus says to Nicodemus "art thou not a master of Israel, and know not these things?"
Jesus expected Nicodemus to understand what the new birth was. Since there was no baptism in the Old Testament, and being 'born again' was not a NEW doctrine, baptism cannot be necessary for the new birth.
3. The 'water' is referring to the Word of God, not baptism. Eph 5:26 says, "to make her holy, cleansing her by the washing with water through the word
4. According to Ezekiel 37:1-10, it takes a combination of the Word and the Wind (Holy Spirit) to bring about new birth in a person.

Jerry Shugart

May 12th, 2005, 11:46 AM

John 3 is not speaking of water baptism. Here are the reasons why:

1. Jesus is speaking to Nicodemus, an OLD TESTAMENT Pharisee. Jesus tells him he must be born again. There was no baptism in the Old Testament, so Jesus can't be referring to water baptism.
2. Jesus says to Nicodemus "art thou not a master of Israel, and know not these things?"
Jesus expected Nicodemus to understand what the new birth was. Since there was no baptism in the Old Testament, and being 'born again' was not a NEW doctrine, baptism cannot be necessary for the new birth.
3. The 'water' is referring to the Word of God, not baptism. Eph 5:26 says, "to make her holy, cleansing her by the washing with water through the word
4. According to Ezekiel 37:1-10, it takes a combination of the Word and the Wind (Holy Spirit) to bring about new birth in a person.
Sold Out,

Excellent reply in regard to the Nicodemus sermon!

In His grace,--Jerry
”Dispensationalism Made Easy”
http://midacts.net/studies/shugart-dispensationalism_made_easy.html

cellist

May 12th, 2005, 01:50 PM

They did no such thing. There's no point addressing something that does not exist.

Then show me how it doesn't exist. Put your money where your mouth is and show how I arrived at conclusions that were not warranted by the text. You deny that God communicates his promises through visible means. I say He does. This is a forum for debate; if you do not intend to debate every time you disagree then maybe you should save everyone's time and go somewhere else to declare your "dicta." Personally, I think you do not know how to answer my arguments. You method of arguing is to make broad sweeping statements, and we are just supposed to take your word for it.

cellist

May 12th, 2005, 04:14 PM

I cannot see any difference between the two baptisms.The purpose of John's baptism with water was the same baptism with water performed on the day of Pentecost.

John was to prepare a people to serve the Lord,and so was the water baptism preached on the day of Pentecost.

First,we see Peter using the facts of the death and resurrection of Jesus Christ to prove that Jesus is the Christ,the Son of the Living God (Acts2:24-36).Then those who believed what Peter said were "born of God" when they believed those facts (1Jn.5:1-5).And it was those saved and born again Jews who asked,"Men and brethren,what should we do?"(Acts2:37).

Then Peter tells these believers what they must do to serve the Lord:

"Then Peter said unto them, Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins, and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost"(Acts2:38).

They were to be baptized as a symbol of the fact that they repented (had a change of mind) in regard to the sinful way in which they had been living.In return the Lord would take away their sins because sins defile and one cannot serve the Lord in that condition.Today when we sin we are to confess that sin and the Lord will cleanse us from the defilement which sin causes (1Jn.1:9,10).

After being baptized with water the Lord Jesus baptized them with the Holy Spirit for "power"(Acts1:8).The "power" was in regard to receiving the sign gifts in order to "confirm the gospel" (Mk.16:20) that they were to preach while they served the Lord.

So everything in regard to this water baptism was for the same purpose as John's baptism (to the exclusion of the baptism performed by the Lord Jesus) and that purpose was to prepare a people made ready for the Lord so that they might "serve Him in holiness and righteousness"(Lk.1:74,75).

Ok, I sense overtones that you are of the dispensationalist camp that says one can be a believer in Christ without repentance or without being a follower of Christ. Repentance, following Christ, and baptism, represent a higher plane of Christian living, a different "caste," so to speak, of Christians. Those who do not turn from sin, be baptized and follow Christ are still Christians, but are carnal; a lower caste. The receiving of the Holy Spirit that Peter refers to would be part of that higher plan of Christian living; it gets you into the higher "caste." These presuppositions, I believe, are coloring your view of baptism and the text at hand.

First, it does not say that they "believed." It only says they were "cut to the heart." In other words, they saw their predicament; they were guilty before a Holy God of crucifying Jesus, the one Peter proved was the Christ. The question, "What shall we do?" was to ask, "How can we escape the judgment of God for doing this?" They wanted to know how to be forgiven. Of course they had to believe certain facts to be cut to the heart; that they understood how the facts related to their condemnation is obvious, but how the facts related to their salvation wasn't clear. This is exactly why they asked, "What must we do?" Peter needed to show that the very facts that condemned them were the very facts that save them; Christ's death, burial and resurrection. This is why he framed the answer in relation to their forgiveness of sins; "...for the forgiveness of sins." They crowd needed to know how to be forgiven, that is the question Peter answered. They didn't retort back; "No, no, Peter, we already know how to be forgiven; you already told us that! We want to know how to serve Christ better!"

I notice your emphasis on believing certain facts to be saved. This is true, but in dispensational theology, trust is the forgotten element in saving faith. One must place his or her confidence not just in facts, but in a person, Christ. This is how faith is presented in Scripture. We "believe in [lit. into] Christ."

On the Cross the Lord Jesus had asked the Father to forgive those who crucified Him,and therefore we see Peter telling the nation of Israel that if she will repent and turn to the Lord then the Father would send back the Lord Jesus Christ:

"Repent ye therefore, and return, that your sins may be blotted out, that the times of refreshing shall come from the presence of the Lord. And He shall send Jesus Christ, which before was preached unto you"(Acts3:19).

Christ said, "My kingdom is not of this world." The sending of Christ is for the final judgment and the separating of the sheep and the goats.

Sold Out

May 12th, 2005, 04:21 PM

I think you guys are splitting hairs here. Cellist has already stated that he does not believe baptism saves, but rather proves the genuineness of the believer by his/her willingness to be baptized.

MartianManhuntr

May 12th, 2005, 04:36 PM

John 3 is not speaking of water baptism. Here are the reasons why:

1. Jesus is speaking to Nicodemus, an OLD TESTAMENT Pharisee. Jesus tells him he must be born again. There was no baptism in the Old Testament, so Jesus can't be referring to water baptism.

"There was no baptism in the Old Testament"--that is true. HOWEVER, Jesus is refering to John's baptism, which was going on that that exact time. AND we also note that in this very chapter right after this discussion with Nicodemus, Jesus begins HIS OWN baptismal ministry, and we find John's disciples complaining about it, questioning whether Jesus has the authority to baptize as John does. The context of the chapter is baptism and that cannot be denied.

2. Jesus says to Nicodemus "art thou not a master of Israel, and know not these things?"
Jesus expected Nicodemus to understand what the new birth was. Since there was no baptism in the Old Testament, and being 'born again' was not a NEW doctrine, baptism cannot be necessary for the new birth.

He is saying "How can you, being a teacher in Israel, not understand that John's baptism is from God and that you must submit to it?"

3. The 'water' is referring to the Word of God, not baptism. Eph 5:26 says, "to make her holy, cleansing her by the washing with water through the word

You are twisting Ephesians 5:26. "That he might sanctify and cleanse it with the washing of water according to the word," i.e. "that he might sanctify and cleanse it with that washing of water that is commanded in the word."

4. According to Ezekiel 37:1-10, it takes a combination of the Word and the Wind (Holy Spirit) to bring about new birth in a person.

WHAT!!?!!?!!!?!?!!! That passage is about resurrecting dead bones, not about rebirth. A passage that IS about rebirth is 1st Peter 1:3 which says that God "hath begotten us again unto a lively hope by the resurrection of Jesus Christ from the dead," -- So, we are reborn by the resurrection of Jesus Christ. Does that mean that as soon as Jesus was resurrected we were reborn???? Certainly not, seeing we were not even naturally born 2000 years ago!!! So, there must be something in this life connected to Jesus' resurrection which affects our rebirth and in which our rebirth takes place. What is so connected to His resurrection in such a manner? According to 1st Peter 3:21 baptism saves by the resurrection of Jesus Christ, and according to Colossians 2:12 we are spiritually resurrected in baptism, and according to Romans 6:5 if we are planted into the likeness of Jesus' death (baptism in context) then we will also be in the likeness of his resurrection (newness of life in context). So, the only thing in this life so connected to the resurrection as to be able to be used by God as an instrument through which to "beget us again by the resurrection of Christ" (1 Peter 1:3) is baptism, which Peter also says "saves us...by the resurrection of Jesus Christ." This is undeniable.

cellist

May 12th, 2005, 04:48 PM

I think you guys are splitting hairs here. Cellist has already stated that he does not believe baptism saves, but rather proves the genuineness of the believer by his/her willingness to be baptized.

oops, actually I do believe that baptism saves, but not in the same way as the Church of Christ or Roman Catholic. It saves by virtue of the word of God that is communicated in baptism. Baptism is another way God communicates the gospel to us. It is the "visible word" of God, so to speak. One can come to saving faith apart from baptism; but baptism saves in the same way preaching does.

Sold Out

May 12th, 2005, 05:14 PM

"There was no baptism in the Old Testament"--that is true. HOWEVER, Jesus is refering to John's baptism, which was going on that that exact time. AND we also note that in this very chapter right after this discussion with Nicodemus, Jesus begins HIS OWN baptismal ministry, and we find John's disciples complaining about it, questioning whether Jesus has the authority to baptize as John does. The context of the chapter is baptism and that cannot be denied..
If he was referring to John's baptism (as you claim/suppose), then why didn't he just say so?

"He is saying "How can you, being a teacher in Israel, not understand that John's baptism is from God and that you must submit to it?".

That is not what the scripture says!! Jesus told Nicodemus that he should know what being born again meant!

You are twisting Ephesians 5:26. "That he might sanctify and cleanse it with the washing of water according to the word," i.e. "that he might sanctify and cleanse it with that washing of water that is commanded in the word."

I'm not twisting anything...this verse in the King James says, "washing of water by the word'.

WHAT!!?!!?!!!?!?!!! That passage is about resurrecting dead bones, not about rebirth.

Sure it is!
By the Word: Eze 37:4, " Then he said to me, "Prophesy to these bones and say to them, 'Dry bones, hear the word of the LORD!
By the Holy Spirit: Eze 37:7-10, " So I prophesied as I was commanded. And as I was prophesying, there was a noise, a rattling sound, and the bones came together, bone to bone. 8 I looked, and tendons and flesh appeared on them and skin covered them, but there was no breath in them. Then he said to me, "Prophesy to the breath; prophesy, son of man, and say to it, 'This is what the Sovereign LORD says: Come from the four winds, O breath, and breathe into these slain, that they may live.' " So I prophesied as he commanded me, and breath entered them; they came to life and stood up on their feet—a vast army.

A passage that IS about rebirth is 1st Peter 1:3 which says that God "hath begotten us again unto a lively hope by the resurrection of Jesus Christ from the dead," -- So, we are reborn by the resurrection of Jesus Christ. Does that mean that as soon as Jesus was resurrected we were reborn???? Certainly not, seeing we were not even naturally born 2000 years ago!!! So, there must be something in this life connected to Jesus' resurrection which affects our rebirth and in which our rebirth takes place. What is so connected to His resurrection in such a manner? According to 1st Peter 3:21 baptism saves by the resurrection of Jesus Christ, and according to Colossians 2:12 we are spiritually resurrected in baptism, and according to Romans 6:5 if we are planted into the likeness of Jesus' death (baptism in context) then we will also be in the likeness of his resurrection (newness of life in context). So, the only thing in this life so connected to the resurrection as to be able to be used by God as an instrument through which to "beget us again by the resurrection of Christ" (1 Peter 1:3) is baptism, which Peter also says "saves us...by the resurrection of Jesus Christ." This is undeniable.

I Peter 3:21, "and this water symbolizes baptism that now saves you also—not the removal of dirt from the body but the pledgeof a good conscience toward God. It saves you by the resurrection of Jesus Christ

The greek word for 'symbolize' is antitupon, which means a 'like figure' or 'representation'. Baptism SYMBOLIZES what saves us - the death, burial and resurrection of Jesus Christ. Question: Was Noah and his family saved by getting IN the water, or by getting OUT of the water?

MartianManhuntr

May 12th, 2005, 05:58 PM

I Peter 3:21, "and this water symbolizes baptism that now saves you also—not the removal of dirt from the body but the pledgeof a good conscience toward God. It saves you by the resurrection of Jesus Christ

The greek word for 'symbolize' is antitupon, which means a 'like figure' or 'representation'. Baptism SYMBOLIZES what saves us - the death, burial and resurrection of Jesus Christ. Question: Was Noah and his family saved by getting IN the water, or by getting OUT of the water?

You can think whatever you want on the rest, but on this verse you must be corrected, because you are reversing what the text says. Look at these translations:

New Revised Standard "And baptism, which this prefigured, now saves you--not as a removal of dirt from the body, but as an appeal to God for a good conscience, through the resurrection of Jesus Christ,"

"This" in the underlines refers back to the flood in the previous verse.

New American Standard "Corresponding to that, baptism now saves you--not the removal of dirt from the flesh, but an appeal to God for a good conscience--through the resurrection of Jesus Christ,"

"That" in the underlined refers back to the flood in the last verse.

In verse 20, Peter speaks of the flood of Noah's time, "in which few, namely 8, souls were saved through water" and the most literaly translation of verse 21 is "and the fulfillment of this, namely baptism, now saves us...."

So, the NIV says, "this water [the water of the flood] symbolizes baptism"--it isn't saying that baptism is a symbol of salvation, but that the flood is a symbol of baptism. The same with the NRSV which says that the flood "prefigured" baptism, and the NAS which says baptism "corresponds" to the flood. The flood was a type of prophecy concerning baptism, and baptism is the fulfillment of that.

MartianManhuntr

May 12th, 2005, 06:12 PM

oops, actually I do believe that baptism saves, but not in the same way as the Church of Christ or Roman Catholic. It saves by virtue of the word of God that is communicated in baptism. Baptism is another way God communicates the gospel to us. It is the "visible word" of God, so to speak. One can come to saving faith apart from baptism; but baptism saves in the same way preaching does.

Hi Cellist!

I'm a member of the church of Christ. The Lutheran understanding that baptism puts the word into people is nonsensical. You get the word from preaching! Baptism is the place in which the Holy Ghost cuts off our sins (Col 2:11-12) and is the place where the Holy Ghost washes away our sins (Acts 22:16) and where we become sons of God by faith in Christ Jesus because as many as are baptized have put on Christ (Gal 3:26-27). It has completely to do with the Holy Ghost, as Jesus said "except a man be born of water and of the Spirit." When a believer is being baptized into water by the minister, the Holy Ghost is performing an operation in the baptizee (Col 2:12) and that operation is Him cutting off their sins and washing them away (Acts 22:16). That's what baptism is about. Now, Luther misunderstood Ephesians 5:26 about the "the washing of water according to the word" and took it to mean that baptism puts the word into people rather than that baptism is commanded by the word. So, he also contradicted himself. He said in his larger catechism that the most important thing in baptism is faith and without faith baptism is worthless. Then he turned right around and said that faith isn't necessary to baptism because baptism puts the word in you. What is more ridiculous and nonsensical than that? Did not Philip tell the ethiopian "If you believe, it is lawful" when he asked what kept him from baptism, in Acts 8:37? Did not Paul in Colossians 2:12 say that we are raised with Christ in baptism IF we believe that the Holy Ghost will perform the operation of God in it? If we don't believe that, then He performs no operation. Therefore, faith is necessary, and the word PRECEDES baptism, for Paul says "and how shall they believe in him of whom they have not heard? and how shall they hear without a preacher?" The word comes by preaching, and once that preaching has occurred, and belief follows, then is a person to be baptized, so that the Holy Ghost can cut their sins off and wash their sins away. That's what the church of Christ teaches, and as the heavens are higher than the earth, so it makes infinitely more sense than the Lutheran teaching.

Jerry Shugart

May 12th, 2005, 06:24 PM

Christ said, "My kingdom is not of this world." The sending of Christ is for the final judgment and the separating of the sheep and the goats.
cellist,

Yes,the Lord said that,but you left out what He said next:

"Jesus answered, My kingdom is not of this world: if my kingdom were of this world, then would my servants fight, that I should not be delivered to the Jews: but now is my kingdom not from hence"(Jn.18:36).

Peter sure thought that the kingdom would be an earthly one,asking the Lord Jesus:

"Lord, wilt thou at this time restore again the kingdom to Israel?"(Jn.1:6).

The Lord did not tell him that he was wrong for asking that question,but instead told him that he was not to know when that would happen.But there are those who say that Peter was mistaken for expecting such a thing.

However,Peter was with the Lord after His resurrection when He spoke of the things concerning the kingdom (Acts1:3).Also there are numerous Scriptual references to the kingdom in the OT,and the Lord opened His Apostle's understanding of the meaning of those Scriptures:

"Then opened he their understanding, that they might understand the scriptures"(Lk.24:45).

There are many living today who think that they know more about the kingdom than Peter did.But I will ask them,"Were you with the Lord while He opened the Scriptures to your understanding,and were you with the resurrected Lord when He spoke of the things concerning the kingdom?"

Sorry,but I believe that Peter knew more about the kingdom than those who say that the kingdom will not be set up on the earth.
These presuppositions, I believe, are coloring your view of baptism and the text at hand.
It is you who is full of "presuppositions" and not me.
First, it does not say that they "believed." It only says they were "cut to the heart." In other words, they saw their predicament; they were guilty before a Holy God of crucifying Jesus, the one Peter proved was the Christ. The question, "What shall we do?" was to ask, "How can we escape the judgment of God for doing this?"
The Scriptures say that it was those who "gladly received the word" who were baptized (Acts3:41).I guess that "gladly receiving the word" has nothing to do with "believing" in your way of thinking.

They believed that Jesus is the Christ,the Son of God.And by believing they were saved:

"Whosoever believeth that Jesus is the Christ is born of God: and every one that loveth him that begat loveth him also that is begotten of him....For whatsoever is born of God overcometh the world: and this is the victory that overcometh the world, even our faith. Who is he that overcometh the world, but he that believeth that Jesus is the Son of God?"(1Jn.5:1,4,5).

So they were already saved before a drop of water even touched them.
I notice your emphasis on believing certain facts to be saved. This is true, but in dispensational theology, trust is the forgotten element in saving faith. One must place his or her confidence not just in facts, but in a person, Christ. This is how faith is presented in Scripture. We "believe in [lit. into] Christ."
Is not the "gospel" in regard to certain facts?

So you also believe that believing the "gospel" that brings salvation?:

"For I am not ashamed of the gospel of Christ: for it is the power of God unto salvation to every one that believeth"(Ro.1:16).

The gospel of Christ does not just come to one in word only,but in power and in the Holy Spirit (1Thess.1:5).So when the Jews "gladly received the word" they were saved.

And you obviously know nothing about what dispensationalists teach concerning saving faith.

Again,the Jews who believed the facts of which Peter spoke about were "born again" and saved the second that they believed.And all of this happened before a drop of water touched any of them.

But you say:
oops, actually I do believe that baptism saves, but not in the same way as the Church of Christ or Roman Catholic. It saves by virtue of the word of God that is communicated in baptism. Baptism is another way God communicates the gospel to us.
Peter was sent to the household of Cornelius to tell them the words by which they would all be saved ["to hear the word of the gospel and believe"--Acts15:7](Acts11:14).And again,before a drop of water touched a single one of them they were saved.

But you say that the word of the gospel is not enough because the rite of water baptism saves--"the word of God is communicated in baptism--that baptism is another way God communicates the gospel to us".

Does it not seem strange to you that the gospel which Peter preached was sufficient for salvation?If the water baptism was essential for salvation then why was Cornelius and his household saved before a drop of water touched them?

In His grace,--Jerry
”Dispensationalism Made Easy”
http://midacts.net/studies/shugart-dispensationalism_made_easy.html

MartianManhuntr

May 12th, 2005, 07:03 PM

Does it not seem strange to you that the gospel which Peter preached was sufficient for salvation? If the water baptism was essential for salvation then why was Cornelius and his household saved before a drop of water touched them?

Water baptism was part of the Gospel that Peter preached, and he did command Cornelius' house to be baptized in water too. And nowhere does Peter or anyone else in the Bible say Cornelius was saved prior to water baptism. But look at the story of the ethiopian eunuch. As he was riding along in his chariot Philip preaches Jesus to him from Isaiah 53. That's all! That's it! Philip "preached Jesus to him." All the man preached was "Jesus." Not one word more than "Jesus." Just JESUS JESUS JESUS JESUS. Then they happen to pass by some water and the ethiopian says "What's holding me back fom being baptized?" You see!!! You can't preach Jesus without preaching baptism. All the man preached was Jesus, and the guy he preached to then knew about baptism! He preached Jesus--that's all--just Jesus. But you can't preach Jesus without preaching baptism--it's not possible. "He preached to him Jesus." You can go read that in Acts chapter 8.

Jerry Shugart

May 12th, 2005, 07:22 PM

Water baptism was part of the Gospel that Peter preached, and he did command Cornelius' house to be baptized in water too.
MartianManhuntr,

Submitting to the rite of water baptism is something one "does" in the flesh.The "gospel" is in regard to "believing".Two different things.

The hearts of Cornelius and his household were purified by "faith":

"that the Gentiles by my mouth should hear the word of the gospel, and believe. And God, which knoweth the hearts, bare them witness, giving them the Holy Ghost, even as he did unto us; And put no difference between us and them, purifying their hearts by faith"(Acts15:7-8).
And nowhere does Peter or anyone else in the Bible say Cornelius was saved prior to water baptism.
Are you saying that even though the Holy Spirit fell on them that they remained in a state of being unsaved?

And their hearts were purified by faith before they even believed,so it is unimaginable that they were not saved.It was the "words" of the gospel that saved them:

"Who shall tell thee words, whereby thou and all thy house shall be saved. And as I began to speak, the Holy Ghost fell on them, as on us at the beginning"(Acts11:14,15).

It was the words of the gospel that purified their hearts and after they believed the Holy Spirit fell on them.And all this happened before they were baptized in water.

In His grace,--Jerry
”Dispensationalism Made Easy”
http://midacts.net/studies/shugart-dispensationalism_made_easy.html

MartianManhuntr

May 12th, 2005, 07:57 PM

MartianManhuntr,

Submitting to the rite of water baptism is something one "does" in the flesh.The "gospel" is in regard to "believing".Two different things.

Wrong. In baptism you do nothing but believe. Do you dunk yourself in the water? No. Do you say the words "I now baptize you in the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost"? No. Do you do anything other than believe? No. The minister lowers you into the water, and the Holy Ghost performs an inward operation removing your sins. All you do is believe.

Are you saying that even though the Holy Spirit fell on them that they remained in a state of being unsaved?

Yes. The Holy Ghost falling on them was a sign to Peter that the Gentiles are an acceptable harvest to the Lord and that he should stop hesitating to preach to Gentiles. Peter himself so interpreted it.

And their hearts were purified by faith before they even believed,so it is unimaginable that they were not saved.

Their hearts couldn't be purified by faith before they had faith. Besides you contradict this statement of yours below.

It was the words of the gospel that purified their hearts and after they believed the Holy Spirit fell on them.And all this happened before they were baptized in water.

Above, you said that their hears were purified by faith before they believed, but now you say after they believed. I will have you to know why you contradict yourself. You misread the passage. Peter had not even finished speaking when the Holy Ghost fell on them. The Holy Ghost did fall on them before they believed, but their hearts were not purified until after they believed. The Holy Ghost fell on them not to purify them but to teach Peter a lesson.

Acts 15:9 "And put no difference between us and them, purifying their hearts by faith."

It was not the Holy Ghost falling on them that purified their hearts. The Holy Ghost fell on them before they even had faith. The Holy Ghost preempted Peter's sermon and fell on them before he could even finish, in order to teach Peter a lesson. So, after the Holy Ghost fell on them, after the Holy Ghost taught Peter that lesson that He intended him to learn, then Peter finished the sermon and they believed. And then, as always, seeing it is part of the Gospel, seeing it is necessary to preach Jesus and is our necessary response to the Gospel, Peter commanded them to be baptized in water, and they did so, and their hearts were purified by a living faith which motivates to obedience, not a dead faith.

It was the words of the gospel that purified their hearts....

Then Hitler is pure, and Stalin, and all the worst men of modern history, right? They must have heard the Gospel at least once! If just hearing the words of the gospel purifies hearts, then they are all pure! BUT NAY, James says "But be ye doers of the word, and not hearers only, deceiving your own selves." (James 1:22)

Jerry Shugart

May 12th, 2005, 09:20 PM

Wrong. In baptism you do nothing but believe.
Is believing all that the Ethopian did?

"And he commanded the chariot to stand still: and they went down both into the water, both Philip and the eunuch; and he baptized him"(Acts8:37).

The act of submitting to the rite of water baptism requires the will of the flesh.Believing something does not.
Their hearts couldn't be purified by faith before they had faith. Besides you contradict this statement of yours below.
I meant to say:

"And their hearts were purified by faith before they were baptized with water,so it is unimaginable that they were not saved.
Peter had not even finished speaking when the Holy Ghost fell on them. The Holy Ghost did fall on them before they believed, but their hearts were not purified until after they believed. The Holy Ghost fell on them not to purify them but to teach Peter a lesson.
Peter said that the gift of the Holy Spirit was given to those who believed in the Lord Jesus:

"Therefore if God gave to them the same gift as (He gave) to us also after believing in the Lord Jesus Christ, who was I that I could stand in God's way?"(Acts11:17).

The gift was given after they believed in the Lord Jesus,not before.They were saved when they believed in Jesus Christ.

When the Philippian jailer asked what he must do to be saved,the answer was not "Believe in the Lord Jesus Christ and be baptized".

Instead,the answer given to that man was:

"And they said, Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ, and thou shalt be saved, and thy house"(Acts16:31).

In His grace,--Jerry
”Dispensationalism Made Easy”
http://midacts.net/studies/shugart-dispensationalism_made_easy.html