It is evident from reading the replies here that some people (like Peter calling me a liar) cannot commit to a simple discussion without feeling threatened. When a person lacks something wise to say, they resort to name-calling. I have been very careful not to behave in an ill manner, and the fact that you must resort to such indicates that you prefer operating to your own agenda. I don't really mind you calling me a "liar." The Jews hated Jesus and I am quite content to be hated as well. You can be "right" for now if it makes you feel valid, but keep in mind that you or I will have no part in judgement. God will do what is right regardless of what we think, feel, or like.

That is simply denominational doctrine and not Bible. Clarify, please.

I'm not sure what you mean by denominational doctrine and not Bible, Peter . . . it is Bible. David had numerous wives, in fact, David had a man killed when he got his wife pregnant. Of course he sacrificed animals, would you feel the need to do the same? He also danced and exposed himself while doing so (II Samuel 6:14-1820).

It is quite clear to me that some people will argue every point. I can back up everything I have said in the Bible. The church of Christ is not a denomination. The word "denominate" in itself means to take away a name . . . you do so by having any name other than the name of christ in your church. Denominations honor man-made ideas and creeds and the dictates of man-appointed 'councils' to determine their worship. The church of Christ uses only the Bible. That was the purpose of the Restoration movement . . . to restore the church back to the New Testament church.

Jeremiah 6:16--

Thus says the Lord, "Stand in the ways and see, And aks for the old paths, where the good way is, And walk in it; Then you will find rest for your souls.

But they said, 'We will not walk in it.'

All you have to do, Jim, is look at how you try to twist the passages of baptism into spirit baptism. I shouldn't have to point it out for you.

It was the Baptist church I left. It is the one I am most familiar with. I attended the Methodist church in the past, but am not as familiar with their entire doctrine.

"He who believes and is baptized will be saved; but he who does not believe will be condemned."

Jesus told us that two things must be done to be saved . . . belief and baptism. This is the great commission as recorded by Mark, and comparing it to the great commission of Matthew 28:19 shows that Jesus made the following statements:

1) Go make disciples.
2) Baptize them.
3) Teach them to observe all I have commanded (including baptism).
4) The baptized believers will be saved.
5) The unbelievers will be condemned.

A true believer is baptized as commanded . . . always. They also do not complain about it or try to look for a way out of doing it. Christians believe on the Lord, which is to be willing to deny himself and do whatever God has asked him to. They are glad to to it.

Jesus told us what must be done to be saved, and he told us what must be done to be condemned. If a person does not believe, he would not be baptized. He might get wet, but it does no good. Unbelief is sufficient for condemnation. Believers are always baptized.

Did Jesus really need to point out other signs of rebellion other than unbelief? Give Him some credit . . . He gave us a clear command.

If you are on the tenth floor of a burning building, it is to be said, "He who goes down the stairs and exits the building will be saved; he who does not go down the stairs will die."

You must not only go down the stairs, but you must also exit the building to be saved. If you do not go down the stairs, it is not necessary to point out that a person will not leave the building. It is obvious that the person is still in the building due to his failure to go down the stairs.

If a person does leave the building without going down the stairs, it would be through the window. Don't count on him surviving.

If Jesus had said, "He who believes and is baptized shall be saved; but he who does not believe and is not baptized shall be condemned," then what about the person who only believes? or only is baptized?

Jesus would have had to say, "He who believes and is baptized shall be saved; but he who does not believe and is not baptized shall be condemned; he who only believes is condemned; and he who only is baptized is condemned."

He gave the same message in two words: belief and baptism are the minimum for salvation; and unbelief is all that's needed to condemn.

I can't believe I haven't seen this thread! This should be enlightening. I have a lot to say about kmd406's exegesis of Scripture. I just hope I am not criticized if I use the GNT . I will apologize in advance for the long post about to come.

Interesting, this nice papragraph followed by it's complete contradiction by your own merit, speaks volumes!


I love the bible, it's its own commentary. You said:

If you understood context, you would see that this simply means the physical act of immerising new believers in water as a representation of newness in life with Jesus CHrist. It was an outward sign to all believers that they were now asociated with the church. You know, Paul preached faith, and James preached works as a sign of faith?

KMD,

You are simply on my allowance on this site until I decide to ban you, but I am going to humor GreekTim for a little while, and this is going to give you a very short chance to present your argument. Like I have said many times on this site, this site is to glorify God, not contest scripture for man's pleasure.

In Christ,

Jim

Baptism is indeed a picture of the death, burial, and resurrection of Christ. We are slaves of sin until we take part in that (Romans 6:17-1 through our obedience. Only those who are baptized into Christ have "put on Christ" (Galatians 3:27).

It seems like apostle would have said at some point, "You don't have to be baptized to be saved." Just because Paul did not baptize the Corinthians is not such a statement. They were being boastful about who had physically baptized them. So, using that passage is not only a waste of time, but that argument is discussed by the 'early church fathers.' Its almost as old as Christianity itself.

It also seems like there would be at least one example of an unbaptized 'Christian' or 'praying Jesus into your heart' in the Bible, but we all know there is not.

The practices of the Catholic church are of no importance to me. I don't believe or practice anything based on what the Pope or any other man dictates. The Catholic church also did away with the "wine" in their eucharist. Who authorized that? Who authorized infant baptism? God did not, but I guess that they must be accepted as valid because God did not say not to do those things.

As for teens screaming at a concert which was not worship to begin with . . . you can't hold one person accountable for another's poor judgement. "They are not all Israel who are of Israel . . ." They are also 'not all the church who are of the church.' Calling yourself a Christian doesn't make you one. Fortunately, God knows who His people are. I'll leave it up to Him to decide. Any person who would reject His will for us to be baptized is not saved. People don't "get saved" before the plane crashes or on their death bed. They don't believe . . . they're just scared of the unknown.

I think it is important that we list off the numerous Scriptural support of salvation requiring NO works. Isaiah 64:6, Romans 3:20-21, Galatians 2:16, Ephesians 2:8-9, and Titus 3:5 are just a few. In fact, Titus 3:5 is probably one of the strongest passages against baptismal regeneration.

My advice is not to read 1 Peter 3:21 w/o reading the context.

There is much to say about 1 Pet. 3:21. The context leading up to verse 21 has a big impact as to the interpretation of 21. The idea is persecution. Vs. 13 begins this paragraph w/ that in mind. Vs. 14 speaks of suffering. Vs. 16 speaks of being slandered & reviled. Vs. 17 again speaks of suffering for good. Vs. 20 mentions Noah b/c of his similar experience of persecution during the construction of the ark. The ark was a means for their physical salvation. The water was a means of cleansing of the sinful world.

Vs. 21 then leads into the anti-type of this situation. The water had nothing to do with salvation of Noah. In fact, Noah was saved from the water. That is the type. The anti-type then would be that water here does not save either.

Even if we left the type/anti-type aspect of baptism alone, the context of the rest of the verse explains the salvation of this baptism. Peter quickly qualifies that this baptism referred to is NOT the removal of dirt from the flesh. The plain language of the text would limit a wooden interpretation. Peter often uses physical examples of spiritual truths (cf. 1 Pet. 2:24 “you were healed”). The dirt must mean uncleanness or sin. That is not removed from the heart with baptism as Peter says. What is saved is a request for a good conscience before God. This phrase becomes more significant in light of the previous context (vs. 16). There we are commanded to keep or have a good conscience in the midst of persecution. This baptism here gives us an appeal to God to have a good conscience in the midst of persecution.

This kind of Scripture matching exegesis is spurious at best. You can make the Scripture say whatever it is that you want with that kind of process. Funny, if Paul was trying to emphasize baptism in Romans 6:17, why he didn’t mention it? Your idea of obedience does not have to be construed as baptism. If we are commanded to believe, then believing is obedience. The idea with obedience here is that when we were slaves to sin, we obeyed sin. When we are slaves of righteousness, we obey righteousness.

Also, the word that you define as “looks like” or “likeness” seems better to be understood in the context as “pattern” (cf. BDAG pg. 1020). That would negate your matching to Col. 2:12.

Acts 19 is more theological than exegetical. It was not that their baptism was “incorrect” as you say. It was that they were baptized under John the baptizer. John would only have baptized believers. Let’s be honest, these men were called “disciples” in vs. 1 & Paul claimed that they had already believed in vs. 2. These men I would consider OT saints. They had believed in the Messiah as the Savior for Israel to set up the Kingdom. When that was prophetically postponed due to Israel’s rejection, a new program called the Church began. These men were unaware of this new program.

The question of receiving the Spirit is a Dispensational distinctive type question. They had not heard Christ’s teachings of the Holy Spirit for the Church. They had only focused on the coming Jewish Kingdom. After all, John and Christ preached the same message early in their ministry (Matt. 3:2 & 4:17). Once these men were confronted with the truth of the new program, they received Church baptism and Spirit baptism. A similar occurrence happened in Acts 18:23-28 just before.

I reject the view of belief or faith in Christ as a work. I wish we could hear how Christ said that statement in John 6:26. I bet there would be a touch of sarcasm in His voice. He was playing on their words and their mindset. The crowd had a works based salvation mindset (much like yourself). They wanted to know what work would save them. That was the wrong question altogether since works cannot save. Christ answered them that it is faith. I bet Christ qualified “work” in a similar way that we would use our hands as quotation marks. He was saying that the only “work” that needs to be done is that you believe (ironically not a work). The very fact that the rest of Scripture places works as the antitheses to faith would argue that faith is not a work.

Since faith comes by hearing, then it seems that man has the capacity to believe within himself. That is part of being created in God's image and likeness.

This is a whole other matter, but Rev. 2:10 says nothing about spiritual salvation. The crown of life is hardly seen as synonymous with salvation as a whole. The fact that it is called the crown “of life” would argue its physical aspect in light of persecution (persecution being the context). If one endures to the end of persecution in their death, then they will receive this crown of life.

Heb. 6:4 neither says what you would like it to say. All the participles in vss. 4-6 deal with maturity of a believer. So too is the case with enlightened. Falling away in vs. 6 is not qualifed as to what it means specifically, so the unclear passage must be cleared up by another teaching in Scripture which is more clear.

If that is the case, then the order of events that take place contradicts your own with water baptism first and then receiving the Spirit. The only way you can conclude water baptism in John 3:5 is to have a preset supposition of baptismal regeneration and use John 3:5 as a prooftext. Truly, baptism does not clearly rise from the text just by the mention of water, otherwise this rule would have to be used throughout the rest of the gospel of John (John 7:38-39 speak of water as the Holy Spirit).

I think you should study your Greek more in Acts 2:38. You mentioned one prepositional phrase, but ignored the 2 commands. It should be first noted that repentance & faith are 2 sides of the same coin (cf. Acts 20:21 for the Granville Sharp rule; also compare Jonah 3:5 “faith” w/ Matt. 12:41 “repent”). Therefore the command to repent is similar to believe. “Repentance” was probably used due to the Jewish audience and their knowledge of faith. If you parse the command to repent (μετανοήσατε) you have a 2nd person plural, aorist active imperative roughly translated “repent” or “you repent!” The next command to be baptized is very different. If you parse the command to be baptized (βαπτισθητω) you have a 3rd person singular, aorist passive imperative.

Why go from 2nd person plural to 3rd person singular? If both commands were to be obeyed by the same people, then Peter would have left it both 2nd person plural. It is likely that the significance here is that the command to repent was for all listening. But the 2nd command to be baptized was only for those who had already believed and repented. The 2nd command was for the ones who obeyed the first command. Thus the translation could be, “repent and each one who repented be baptized.” This forces the interpretation of the preposition eis in the resultant sense – “repent and each one who repented be baptized…because the forgiveness of your sins.” This fits the best with the 2 different commands.

This goes against the plain meaning of the word ἐπικαλέομαι. You have also ignored the 3 separate commands in the verse – “arise,” “be baptized,” & “wash away your sins.” First of all, the only 2 commands that are active and the subject has control over is “arise” & “wash.” Be baptized is passive and is something that is done to the subject.

The verse continues on to answer the question as to “how” these commands can be fulfilled – “by calling on the name of the Lord.” The participle is a participle of means indicating how the action is accomplished. It is probably more closely related to “wash away your sins” due to its close proximity making it the antecedent of the participle. But the command to be baptized is totally separate and distinct from the command to wash away sin. That would argue against baptismal regeneration since they are unrelated.

Here is another example of your misuse of Greek. Christ didn’t command to baptize in a grammatical sense. The only command is to make disciples. The process for making disciples is answered with the participles “going,” “baptizing,” & “teaching.”

Also, there is a difference between a believer and a disciple. A disciple is a believer, but a believer is not always a disciple. Christ didn’t want the Church to make a bunch of baby Christians, He wants true followers of Christ. I agree and say that this passage is not about spirit baptism. But water baptism is seen here as a commitment to a life of discipleship in Christ. New believers should only be baptized if they are ready to commit to a life of discipleship. Baptism is commitment.

I am very careful and specific when I refer to Spirit baptism. I would say that it is only a result of salvation in this Church age and not a means of salvation. Otherwise, saints in the OT would have to have Spirit baptism. But Acts 2 was the beginning of Spirit baptism. It was prophesied in the gospels (Matt. 3:11, Mark 1:8, Luke 3:16, & John 1:33). Christ even mentioned it just before His ascension in Acts 1:4-5. Notice He says not many days from now which is left out in Acts 11:15-16.

That brings us to the question of what is Spirit baptism. According to 1 Cor. 12:13, Spirit baptism places the believer into the Body of Christ (also cf. 1 Cor. 12:27). The Body of Christ is obviously the Church therefore Spirit baptism is a Church truth. It is a result of salvation in the Church age. It happens immediately at salvation. But there is a lot of Scriptural reason to believe in Spirit baptism.

I think you are missing the point in Peter mentioning Spirit baptism in Acts 11. There were numerous unrecorded instances of Spirit baptism. Peter only mentions it here to show that it happens to Gentiles as well as Jews (another aspect of the Church where Jews and Gentiles are on an equal playing field Eph. 2-3).

This is not true since it was prophesied in the gospels to more than just the disciples. Plus the 12th disciple could not be included in receiving Spirit baptism since he wasn’t decided to be the 12th til after the ascension and thus after the promise. So your logic is already thrown off from the get go.

Thanks for the opportunity and humoring me Jim. I hope this helps everybody.

This post was last modified: Tue Apr 08, 2008 11:07 AM by Greektim.

Greektim, I am familiar with every one of your rebuttals. You're forgetting that I came out of denominationalism . . . nothing you've said here is anything that has not been said before--by me, included. It would take more time than I am willing to give to you to refute everything you've just said. My purpose in posting at all is to encourage others who come across this post to do their own studying and decide for themselves.

Denominationalists cannot stand to be disagreed with, but I will say, in closing, that I Peter 3:21 says that Noah was saved "by water." It was the water that separated Noah and his family from the sinful world. And as far as "dirt from the flesh," that means, 'you're not taking a bath,' and a person who comes to be baptized does so out of a 'good conscience' but having a 'good conscience' does not save you nor does it indicate that you are already saved.

By faith, Abraham was always obedient and never complained or argued with God, even when he was asked to sacrifice his only promised son.

As far as Romans 6:17-18, it is definitely water baptism. Even the commentary in my NKJV (written by Baptists and other premillenialists) says that this is referring to the "likeness" of the death, burial, and resurrection. They stop short of admitting what that truly is and dig up some way of showing that to obey the likeness of the death, burial, and resurrection is the command to "believe." Well, if believe is a command, then it is definitely a work.

I'm sorry you reject that belief is a work. The Bible clearly says that it is. Anyone who truly believes in this day and age knows how difficult it is to do so. Satan works really hard to win people to his army.

The water in John 3:5 is also water baptism. It is not the womb, it is not the reproductive matter of men, it is not another way of referring to the spirit. One must be born of water and then the spirit. When we are baptized 'eis aphesin hamartion' for the remission of sins, we will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit (Acts 2:38). In that order.

Further note that in Titus 3:5, the 'washing of regeneration' is separated from 'works of righteousness' which shows that baptism is not a work. The water is not regenerating in itself, but the act of obedience from a pure heart is what is regenerating. Denominationalists assert that the church of Christ claims to have mystical water, but that is unequivocally false. After this regenation comes the renewing of the Holy Spirit, in the same order as John 3:5 and Acts 2:38. According to Acts 5:32, the Holy Spirit is given to "them that obey Him." Further, the Greek term for 'washing of regeneration' is loutron palingenesias, loutron meaning 'washing.' According to Strong's dictionary, this can be either the basin or the act of washing itself. The same word is used in Ephesians 5:26, indicating that the word is used to indicate the act of washing and not the receptacle. God saved us through one process with two aspects, the washing of regeneration and the renewing of the Holy Spirit. I laugh every time I read the Baptist commentary at the bottom of the page. They bothered to put Strong's excerpt in, and then attempted to refute it in their commentary!

One other point of interest is this: water immersion has its roots in Judaism, and it was always performed for the remission of sins. The 'mikveh' is the baptistery, and the 'tevillah' was the act of immersion. The 'mikveh' was (and is) referred to as the 'womb of the world' and a person who comes out of it is referred to as a 'new little child just born.' My purpose in pointing this out is that many try to say that Jesus's reference to water in John 3:5 is the womb of birth. He was speaking to a rabbi, Nicodemus, who asked how a man could be born again when he was old. The answer is to be born of water and the spirit. He is then a new creation. Jesus and Nicodemus would have both known this. It would have been a waste of breath for Jesus to say a person had to be physically born of his mother to be saved. If that is the case, then babies who die in utero are lost. The question was how to be born again, not born.

This is something that I have studied into significantly before I made my decision to leave the Baptist church and never to return. We're going to have to agree to disagree and be content knowing that we will be judged upon whether we are on God's side or Satan's. I am happy to wait and see.

I would not be at all surprised to see my posts deleted. If they are, I will take that as a sign that you are threatened by the truth that is found in the Word of God. That said, I have nothing else to say. I feel confident that the posts I have made thus far will encourage a person who is on a quest for truth to look for it themselves.

I didn't say I was giving you new truths. The facts that I stated (and remained uncontested by you) have been in the text all along.

It seems you missed everything I said about 1 Peter 3:21. You completely avoid the context as well as the typology used. Even the linkage to verse 16 argues not for spiritual salvation but physical deliverance.

Truly Abe was a man of faith, but "always" and "never" are not words I would used to describe him. Especially when he lied about his wife in fear for his life (which would be a lack of faith in God).

Well since your BIble study notes say so, I give up. I would actually give much more credence to BDAG than some short BIble study notes. BDAG is probably the best lexicon you can use.

The problem is the use of "do" and other words that communicate works. But if faith is a work, then you believe in a works-based salvation. Are you a calvinist? Because the BIble says that there is no work that we can do that is considered righteous (Isa. 64:6).

The water in John 3:5 is also water baptism. It is not the womb, it is not the reproductive matter of men, it is not another way of referring to the spirit. One must be born of water and then the spirit. When we are baptized 'eis aphesin hamartion' for the remission of sins, we will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit (Acts 2:3. In that order.

You left out a possible and probable interpretation of John 3:5 - the water referring to the Word of God (Eph. 5:26). This makes a lot of sense since it is the HOly Spirit who convicts of sin when the Word of God is preached. The HOly Spirit works hand in han with His Word.

I am not sure how you can come to that conclusion. Seperating regeneration and works would not nullify baptism form the equation. Since righteous works (like baptism and in your case faith) don't save us, it is only by God's mercy of regeneration. There is no logic for you to deduce what you have about baptism in Titus 3:5.

Actualy, water baptism goes back farther to paganism. It was adopted by Judaism for Gentile proselytes.

Since you are not going to refute my claims, then I guess you are not ready always to give an answer for the hope (of baptism) that lies in you, kmd. You have thrown around Greek phrases, but I have not seen you put it to work yet.

This post was last modified: Tue Apr 08, 2008 12:29 PM by Greektim.

I am glad that I don't have to "wait and see". I believe and know!

Brother Tim, good verse to quote. Nowhere is baptism in the equation there (or a lot of verses for that matter). All you see is faith then regeneration in John 20:31.

(this is kinda fun being on the same side as you guys for a change)