Posted on 05/28/2017 2:44:16 PM PDT by metmom
Is the baptism which doesn’t save you the same as the baptism which 1 Pt 3:21 says very clearly does save you?
Peter is specifically saying that water baptism does NOT save you.
If there were no water being used in baptism, his quote would be just as meaningless as if he had written “Baptism, which corresponds to this, now saves you, not as an application of makeup to the body...” Of course this is an incoherent statement, because baptism has nothing to do with makeup being applied to the body. So if there were no dirt being removed from the body during baptism, why would he mention it? Of course he wouldn’t.
And of course he compares it to the flood, which dealt with - uh a lot of water.
So then he goes on to clarify HOW baptism saves you. It’s not because dirt is washed off, it’s through the resurrection of Jesus Christ.
This is of course completely consistent with all of the other passages on baptism, where it is said that baptism:
Cleanses you from iniquity, gives you a heart of flesh rather that of stone. Ezekiel 36:25-33
Makes you a disciple of Jesus. Matthew 28:19 (with teaching)
Forgives your sins. Acts 2:38 (With repentance)
Gives you the Holy Spirit. John 3:5, Acts 2:38.
Joins you with the death and resurrection of Jesus. Romans 6:2-5, Colossians 2:12.
Washes the Church and makes her holy. Ephesians 5:25-26
Clothes you in Christ. Galatians 3:27.
Regenerates you. Titus 3:5.
And you’re absolutely right about there’s no meriting one’s salvation. At least - not by our own merits. Only by Jesus’s merits. But none of that has anything to do with baptism. Because baptism isn’t our work. It’s God’s work. Because humans are totally incapable of doing any of the things in the preceding paragraph.
Only God can.
John 6:63 indicates very directly that He (his words) "were spirit, the flesh profiting nothing".
That pretty much bars any possibility that he was speaking of "actual" corporeal [physical] flesh, other than His own upon the cross -- which of course was not dined upon in literal, corporeal sense by anyone.
32 Then Jesus said to them, “Most assuredly, I say to you, Moses did not give you the bread from heaven, but My Father gives you the true bread from heaven. 33 For the bread of God is He who comes down from heaven and gives life to the world.”
would indicate (from OT context) that it be not prophet, nor priest whom by their own 'authority' call Him down from Heaven, nor they alone to whom it should be reserved present to Him invitation for Himself to be present, and in spirit (not with teeth and gums) dined upon as truest, most central part of Passover -- to find the hidden manna.
For our consideration (I say "our" because it's for mine, and those who I pinged who I thought may be interested, even if they may already know of this type of setting and context for Bread of Life Discourse -- attributed to The Man, himself);
Bible-bangers are a scream. They never remember the numerous verses that contradict the claim they are making at the moment.
No it's not, and it's un-Biblical, IMHO, to discuss salvation without baptism as an critical part. I Peter 3:21, and, in addition to that, Christ himself even went through the process of baptism.
If baptism is an outward sign of one's acceptance of Christ, what would be the reason for omitting it?
Baptism meaning immersion, of course.
While I understand that God is the ultimate judge of such things, I see no basis for baptism to be omitted, and ample basis for it to be integrally included whenever possible.
Baptism does not save because it’s only the shedding of blood that gives forgiveness of sins, and water isn’t blood.
Ritual washing or whatever you want to call it, is never presented in Scripture as a means of salvation.
If salvation could be gained by any other means (than Christ’s death), the Christ died for NOTHING.
If salvation was by baptism, then Christ died for nothing.
And when a person is born of the flesh, a normal birth, the mother’s water breaks.
Jesus is talking normal human birth in that passage. He doesn’t jump from one meaning to another without explaining Himself even though the Catholic church tends to interpret Scripture that way.
Um, Jesus didn’t say that:
Nicodemus said to him, “How can a man be born when he is old? Can he enter a second time into his mother’s womb and be born?” 5 Jesus answered, “Truly, truly, I say to you, unless one is born of water and the Spirit, he cannot enter the kingdom of God. 6 That which is born of the flesh is flesh, and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit.[c] 7 Do not marvel that I said to you, ‘You[d] must be born again.’ 8 The wind[e] blows where it wishes, and you hear its sound, but you do not know where it comes from or where it goes. So it is with everyone who is born of the Spirit.”
9 Nicodemus said to him, “How can these things be?”...
Nicodemus asked how one is born a second time. Jesus answered “water and the spirit.” A single answer to his question. You’re right - he never jumped from one meaning to another. The entire discourse is about the spiritual birth. Physical birth didn’t confuse anyone anyway - that’s pretty clear. The spiritual birth is by “water and the spirit.” Since (water) baptism gives you the Holy Spirit (Acts 2, etc) - well there you go.
Appealing to the Bible while criticizing others for appealing to it.
Catholic hypocrisy is such a scream.
Baptism does not save because it’s only the shedding of blood that gives forgiveness of sins, and water isn’t blood.
Ritual washing or whatever you want to call it, is never presented in Scripture as a means of salvation.
If salvation could be gained by any other means (than Christ’s death), the Christ died for NOTHING.
If salvation was by baptism, then Christ died for nothing.
You’re correct in that only the shedding of blood atones for sin. Our forgiveness was earned by Jesus’s sacrifice on the Cross for us. No doubt.
But that doesn’t make baptism meaningless. Believing what the Bible says baptism does doesn’t mean Christ died for nothing.
Peter says that our baptism saves us through Jesus’s death and resurrection. Paul says our baptism buries us with Jesus’s death and raises us again with his resurrection. etc.
You cannot separate baptism from Jesus’s death and resurrection. Functionally, it’s basically Nestorianism. That’s the problem with your logical leap. Baptism is how we are united with the Savior - the one who DID shed His blood.
I never said it was meaningless.
It simply does not save someone.
Faith does that. Baptism, along with all other works and the fruit of the Spirit simply attest to what has already been done in the believer’s life.
I had pointed out to me, I forget by whom, that when the Children of Israel crossed the Red Sea and walked on dry land, miracle as that was --- no "baptism".
Forty years later when progeny of those whom had been delivered from bondage in Egypt crossed River Jordan, they again went across on dry land. Still no baptism.
Don't get me wrong. I'm certainly not saying baptism is not required.
Immediate forerunner to Christ --- John the Baptist.
As said to Zacharias concerning the son to be born to himself and his wife Elizabeth (Mary's cousin, or relative. Strong's Greek Transliteration: suggenes -- akin, a relative);
13 But the angel said to him, “Do not be afraid, Zacharias, for your prayer is heard; and your wife Elizabeth will bear you a son, and you shall call his name John. 14 And you will have joy and gladness, and many will rejoice at his birth. 15 For he will be great in the sight of the Lord, and shall drink neither wine nor strong drink. He will also be filled with the Holy Spirit, even from his mother’s womb. 16 And he will turn many of the children of Israel to the Lord their God. 17 He will also go before Him in the spirit and power of Elijah, ‘to turn the hearts of the fathers to the children,’[a] and the disobedient to the wisdom of the just, to make ready a people prepared for the Lord.”[a] Malachi 4:5-6;
5 Behold, I will send you Elijah the prophet
Before the coming of the great and dreadful day of the Lord.
6 And he will turn The hearts of the fathers to the children,
And the hearts of the children to their fathers,
Lest I come and strike the earth with a curse.”
Was John the Baptist really Elijah? [reincarnated, in the flesh --No. "in the spirit and power of Elijah" --Yes]
Not always. Remember too, where does the wind blow? (John 3:8)
For some the wind arrives sooner, for others --later. See possibly comment #25 this thread?
Yet too at baptism, for some number [raises hand]. That's when I was filled, when first plunged under the water -- although I'd been flooded by the Holy Spirit years previous to that, too.
After baptism--- the Spirit did remain present, yet (I assume, due to my own inconstancy) does need a bit of wooing and attention (worship: Enter into his gates with thanksgiving, and into his courts with praise: be thankful unto him, and bless his name) to help stir Him...
Does this make sense to anyone? Can I get a witness?
Yes, faith saves you. And baptism or not, if you reject your faith, you lose your salvation.
Still doesn’t mean that baptism doesn’t do what the Bible says it does. And nowhere in the Bible does baptism “simply attest to what has already been done in the believer’s life.”
Here’s the long and the short of it. Peter says baptism saves you. To get around that, you have to explain away a clear passage of scripture. You have to pit scripture against scripture to try to make some of the scripture you don’t like go away. That’s not scripture interpreting scripture. And this article does a lot of that: three separate times. This article is all eisigesis.
Two very different Baptisms. One saves you by Grace. It is given because you ask and believe. The other is an act or observance of public profession of faith. The first is spiritual Baptism by Jesus Christ which when you believe and call on His name for salvation are Baptized by spirit in His blood and are saved at that very moment. John The Baptist spoke of that Baptism which was of Jesus Christ. The second {public} Baptism is an act of obedience and public profession. The time frames between the Baptisms may vary greatly for some.
The UPCI is only one of several organization that teach Acts 2:38, but probably the largest.
Mr Idleman is a “Ahimaaz” messenger: he is out there with a message, but he doesn’t have all the facts, or at least doesn’t have them straight. (2Samuel 18:19-32)
He is leaning on man-made tradition. (Also, the thief on the cross was granted forgiveness while the Law was still in effect, which was before the Lord died. The new testament was not in effect until the death of the testator. See Heb. 9:16,17). Consider the scriptural facts:
The following shows a LOT of proof that water baptism is in the name of Jesus for the remission of sin.
First of all, is it not right to believe on the Lord as HE instructs us to believe on him? He gives very explicit instructions in being born again, beginning with John 3:5-8. Then, at the end of the Gospels, we read his words of commission to his apostles.
Matt. 28:19; the Lord commanded that THEY baptize souls.
Mark 16:16; The Lord commanded to his disciples that one must believe and be baptized.
Luke 24:47; The Lord commanded that repentance and remission of sins are to be preached in his name among all nations, beginning at Jerusalem.
John 20:23; The Lord commanded that whose soever sins YE remit, they are remitted unto them; and whose soever sins YE retain, they are retained.
Then following those commands, the apostles preached Jesus Christ, commanding repentance, and baptism in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins, and receiving the Holy Ghost.
Jesus has made it quite clear that if you want his blood on you, you must be buried (by baptism) in his name.
In Acts 2:37 (Jews) we find convicted souls asking, “what shall we do?”
The wide way answer seems to be, “Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ, and you shall be saved”. but no details, such as HOW to believe, contrary to what the Lord and his apostles specifically commanded.
2:38; 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. (note the position of the commas in the KJV.)
Now I will list the separate DETAILED accounts of water baptism:
8:12,13 (Samaritans) But when they believed Philip preaching the things concerning the kingdom of God, and the name of Jesus Christ, they were baptized, both men and women. Then Simon himself believed also: and when he was baptized, he continued with Philip...”.
Notice that they believed, and were baptized. (sounds like fulfillment of the the Lord’s command in Mark 16:16; “He that believeth, and is baptized..”). They had NOT received the Spirit yet. Peter and John were then called to come to Samaria:
8:16; (For as yet he was fallen upon NONE of them: only they were baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus.)
The Ethiopian eunuch: 8:35-38; “Then Philip....preached unto him Jesus. And as they went on their way, they came unto a certain water: and the eunuch said, See here is WATER; what doth hinder me to be baptized? And Philip said, If thou believest with all thine heart, thou mayest. And he answered and said, I believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God. And he commanded the chariot to stand still: and they went down INTO the WATER, both Philip and the eunuch; and he baptized him.” (first detailed witness mentioning water used in baptism).
10:46,47,48 (Gentiles) “...Then answered Peter, Can any man forbid WATER, that these should not be baptized, which have received the Holy Ghost as well as we? And he commanded them to be baptized in the NAME of the Lord...”. (care to guess what that name is?)
AND, remember these words of Peter: “Can any man forbid water..”.That is the second detailed witness mentioning water baptism).
In Acts 11 we find Peter back in Jerusalem, after the conversion event at Cornelius’ house in Caesarea, testifying of their receiving the Holy Ghost. With God giving them the Spirit, his hand was forced to obey God’s ordained plan, and baptize them in the name of Jesus for the remission of sins. Notice his testamony at that point:
11:17; “Forasmuch then as God gave them the like gift as he did unto us, who believed on the Lord Jesus Christ; WHAT WAS I, THAT I COULD WITHSTAND GOD?”.
God expected Peter to do HIS part, and baptise them in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission sins. Peter HAD to do it, for it was required by God.
Re-baptism in Ephesus: 19:5,6 “When they heard this, they were baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus. And when Paul laid his hands on them, the Holy Ghost came on them; and they spake with tongues, and prophesied.”
1Cor. 1:17 is a declaration by Paul, telling us that his ministry was not just baptism. Otherwise, he would not have baptized ANYBODY!)
Now, the list of the brief mentioning of baptisms. You may argue that those are Spirit baptisms only. Can you prove that? I say they are water baptisms, or both (and Paul is involved in all but the first of them):
Acts 2:41 about 3,000 were added.
9:18 Saul/Paul conversion.
16:15 Lydia and her household.
16:33 keeper of the prison and his household, in Philippi.
18:8 Crispus (one of several Paul admitted to baptizing in Corinth. 1Cor 1:14,16)
22:16 Saul/Paul again.
Now, the references to baptism in the epistles, which were written to those ALREADY born again (note the intro to those letters: brethern, faithful, saints, etc., that is the context).
Romans 6:3; “Know ye not, that so many of us as were baptized into Jesus Christ were baptized into his death?
4. Therefore we are buried with him by baptism into death:....” (That is certainly not Spirit baptism, because the Spirit is life.) “..that like as Christ was raised up from the dead by the GLORY of the FATHER, even so we also should walk in newness of life.”
5. For if we have been planted together in the LIKENESS of his death, we shall be also in the LIKENESS of his resurrection.”
Col. 2:12 is quite similar: “Buried with him in baptism, wherein also ye are risen with him through the operation of God, who raised him from the dead.”
Buried,...planted.....That sure is clear to me: Paul is referring to water baptism, and Spirit baptism, as separate events, and that both are required.
1Cor. 1:12-17
Now is as good of a time as any to address the inconsistancies of the folks that say that water baptism is not essential:
When faced with passages that mention baptism, but do not specifically say that it was water baptism, they will say it is not talking about water baptism. But, when faced with the passage in 1Cor. 1:12-17, then they wholehearted agree that it is referring to water baptism.
(I have just taken the afore mentioned Acts 18:8 (Crispus), and solidly put that passage in the water baptism category.)
Then there is the emphasis on the name, which Paul makes clear to be Jesus: 1Cor. 1:13 “Is CHRIST divided? was PAUL crucified for you? or were ye baptized in the NAME of Paul?”
(Yes, Paul baptized in water at Corinth, in the name of Jesus.)
But then the ‘not essential’ crowd totally dismisses baptism at times, using the “..Christ sent me not to baptize, but to preach the gospel..”, when Paul JUST got done admitting to baptizing several souls.
Heb. 6:1-3 is written to those born again: “Therefore leaving the principles of the doctrine of Christ, let us go on to perfection: not laying again the foundation of repentance from dead works, and of faith toward God, Of the doctrine of baptisms, and of laying on of hands, and of resurrection of the dead, and of eternal judgement. And this we will do if God permit.”
(Notice the ‘doctine of baptisms’ is plural?)
1Peter is also written to born again souls. Look at 1:2, “Elect according to the foreknowledge of God the Father, through sanctification of the Spirit, unto OBEDIENCE and SPRINKLING of the blood of Jesus Christ...”
1Peter 3:20,21 is quite plain, if you are willing to allow it to harmonize with everything presented so far. 20 “...eight souls were saved by water. 21 The LIKE figure whereunto even BAPTISM doth also now save us (not the putting away of the filth of the flesh, but the answer of a good conscience toward God.) by the resurrection of Jesus Christ.”
Water baptism is not a bath, but is done in the name of Jesus for the remission of sins. That is how it saves. That is how one has the answer of a good conscience toward God. Being buried with him is where you get his blood on you, but his NAME must not be left out.
If there is no resurrection, then water baptism is a waste of time. “Else what shall they do which are baptized for the dead, if the dead rise not at all? Why are they then baptized for the dead?” 1Cor 15:29.
That is Paul (the one who was not suppose to baptize), saying that if Christ (and the asleep in Christ) rise not, then it is all vain. Of course, we know that is not the case, since Christ is risen, and the Spirit poured out.
Being born again requires obedience, which is NOT ‘our OWN works’. As Paul said to the saints in Rome:
“But God be thanked, that ye were the servants of sin, but have OBEYED from the heart that form of doctrine which was delivered you. Being THEN made free from sin, ye became the servants of righteousness.” Rom. 6:17,18
Acts 16:30-31 is a favorite of the believe only folks (but do we really believe when we don’t believe the rest of the story?
The rest of the story:
32. “And they spake unto him the word of the Lord, and to all that were IN his house”.
We can see that between vs 31 and 32, Paul, Silas, the keeper of the prison have left the prison and entered into the man’s house.
33. “And he TOOK them the same hour of the night, and washed there stripes; and was baptized, he and all his straightway.”
He took them somewhere. Somewhere where there was plenty of water, for he washed their stripes, and was baptized along with his household.
34. “And when he had brought them INTO his house, he set meat before them, and rejoiced, believing in God with all his house”.
They came back from somewhere and went back into his house. Details are in the scriptures for a reason. (SkyDancer, when a captain tells the first officer to preflight the aircraft, he expects the first officer to have a checklist. Correct?). There are many messengers that think that they can tell the message with an incomplete checklist.
For someone emphasizing context, your highlighting tends to show a favoritism, to a result similar to taking scripture out of context. Why did you not also highlight: “..baptism now saves you..”? (Not sure what version you’re quoting, but the translation seems similar enough).
Apologies...NASB is the version.
Emphasis on highlighted on what baptism is.
If baptism does not save, then that means we can be saved while still in our sins(see Acts 22:16) and that we can be saved outside of Christ (see Romans 6:3 & 4 and Galatians 3:27). Why would Jesus say in Mark 16: 16 that that faith and baptism are both necessary? Are people afraid that that the one doing the baptizing will hold them under water long enough to drown them?
In the New Testament, baptism was typically the immediate action following conversion. In fact, I’m pretty sure it always happened that way.
In many evangelical churches, it may follow months or even years later. That’s not treating it as important.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.