Posted on 09/27/2010 6:17:08 PM PDT by bibletruth
Let's start by observing the Scriptures in John
The petty things include worrying about an external, third party, human activity, like baptism, instead of focusing on the actual words of Jesus instructing us how to live in love and charity. I am not against baptism, and have been baptized myself. It is meaningless, however, without a life that follows the instruction of Jesus. The sermon on the mount does not mention baptism.
http://www.gotquestions.org/baptism-Mark-16-16.html
Oh, I knew that, as the passage was from Romans.
I understood you were clarifying the passage, making it easier to understand.
I was answering your question regarding “In what edition of the KJV are the words in red found?”
Maybe I misunderstood.
Good thread and liked the discussion.
I would not want to be in a position of labeling Christ own words as "external, third party, human activity."
Acts 3:22 For Moses truly said unto the fathers, A prophet shall the Lord your God raise up unto you of your brethren, like unto me; him shall ye hear in all things whatsoever he shall say unto you. 23. And it shall come to pass, that every soul, which will not hear that prophet, shall be destroyed from among the people."
1) To claim it is "External" is to claim it is not in Scripture. See Mt 28:19
2) To claim it is "third party" is to attribute Christ own words to .......?
3) To claim it is "human activity" is to deny God's work. Col 2:11,12 In Him you were also circumcised with the circumcision made without hands, by putting off the body of the sins of the flesh, by the circumcision of Christ, buried with Him in baptism, in which you also were raised with Him through faith in the working of God, who raised Him from the dead.
"It is meaningless, however, without a life that follows the instruction of Jesus."
AMEN!
"The sermon on the mount does not mention baptism."
Nor does it mention confession or belief.
**Paul did not baptize [1 Cor 1:17].**
Let’s not just read the last verse of that passage. How about we also include 12-16:
12 “Now this I say, that every one of you saith, I am of Paul; and I am of Apollos; and I of Cephas; and I of Christ.”
Clearly, the people had become carnal enough to brag about which powerful preacher had preached to them and probably baptized them. Because....
13 “Is Christ divided?, was Paul crucified for you? or were you baptized in the name of Paul?”
14 “I thank God that I baptized none of you, BUT CRISPUS and GAIUS;” 15 “Lest any should say that I had baptized in mine own name”. 16 “And I also baptized the HOUSEHOLD of STEPHANAS: besides, I know not whether I baptized any other.
**”1 Cor 1:17 For Christ sent me not to baptize, but to preach the gospel:**
Well, Paul baptized 2, plus the ‘household of Stephanas’ (I wonder how many that was). I say either Paul was disobedient to his Lord by baptizing, and then stopped baptizing mid-mission at Corinth, or he’s simply trying to make it clear that his gospel message wasn’t solely to baptize. I believe the latter.
He left Corinth, went back to Antioch, then worked his way to Ephesus, and.....yes.....rebaptized those disciples of John, in the name of the Lord Jesus.
I convinced Paul changed nothing in his mission, right up to, and including his last convert.
Probably one of the biggest stumbling blocks, to understanding the doctrine that the apostles preached, is the fact that not every account is in complete detail.
It doesn’t have to be. There are enough instances in Acts of the gospel preached, and souls baptized in the name of Jesus and being filled with the Holy Ghost, to make the doctrine known.
Is the Law spelled out step by step beyond Deuteronomy? There’s alot of Hebrew history up through Malachi, yet the details of the Law are not recorded in full. The Lord gave his Law to the priests to administer. They have it written down, at times lost it, then found it (during Josiah’s reign). The gospel is the same way; people given charge to preserve the exact teaching of it, yet some losing the understanding of it, some finding it again.
Paul (who seems to be credited with giving the inspired message; the epistle to the Hebrews), made it clear when testifying to these born again Jews, that the doctrine is to remain intact:
Hebrews 6:1-3 “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 will we do, if God permit”.
The theme in that passage is, that after being born again, it’s a life that goes forward ‘to perfection’; living Godly, walking circumspectly, sound speech that cannot be condemned, etc. Does that eliminate the foundation listed?
No, because those things will continue, ‘if God permit’.
God is still permitting this foundation to be preached. But, surely the time to receive it is getting short.
**Luke 6:46 And why call ye me, Lord, Lord, and do not the things which I say?**
Good one. A rebuke to be received by all of us.
If interested, please note posts 47, 64, and 65, for more information.
Lord bless
The rest of the bible say “read me”
Question: “Does 1 Peter 3:21 teach that baptism is necessary for salvation?”
Answer: As with any single verse or passage, we discern what it teaches by first filtering it through what we know the Bible teaches on the subject at hand. In the case of baptism and salvation, the Bible is clear that salvation is by grace through faith in Jesus Christ, not by works of any kind, including baptism (Ephesians 2:8-9). So, any interpretation which comes to the conclusion that baptism, or any other act, is necessary for salvation, is a faulty interpretation. For more information, please visit our webpage on “Is salvation by faith alone, or by faith plus works?”
Those who believe that baptism is required for salvation are quick to use 1 Peter 3:21 as a “proof text,” because it states “baptism now saves you.” Was Peter really saying that the act of being baptized is what saves us? If he were, he would be contradicting many other passages of Scripture that clearly show people being saved (as evidenced by their receiving the Holy Spirit) prior to being baptized or without being baptized at all (like the thief on the cross in Luke 23:39-43). A good example of someone who was saved before being baptized is Cornelius and his household in Acts 10. We know that they were saved before being baptized because they had received the Holy Spirit, which is the evidence of salvation (Romans 8:9; Ephesians 1:13; 1 John 3:24). The evidence of their salvation was the reason Peter allowed them to be baptized. Countless passages of Scripture clearly teach that salvation comes when one believes in the gospel, at which time he or she is sealed “in Christ with the Holy Spirit of promise” (Ephesians 1:13).
Thankfully, though, we don’t have to guess at what Peter means in this verse because he clarifies that for us with the phrase “not the removal of dirt from the flesh, but an appeal to God for a good conscience.” While Peter is connecting baptism with salvation, it is not the act of being baptized that he is referring to (not the removal of dirt from the flesh). Being immersed in water does nothing but wash away dirt. What Peter is referring to is what baptism represents, which is what saves us (an appeal to God for a good conscience through the resurrection of Jesus Christ). In other words, Peter is simply connecting baptism with belief. It is not the getting-wet part that saves but is the “appeal to God for a clean conscience” which is signified by baptism, that saves us. The appeal to God always comes first. First belief and repentance, then we are baptized to publicly identify ourselves with Christ.
An excellent explanation of this passage is given by Dr. Kenneth Wuest, author of Word Studies in the Greek New Testament. “Water baptism is clearly in the apostle’s mind, not the baptism by the Holy Spirit, for he speaks of the waters of the flood as saving the inmates of the ark, and in this verse, of baptism saving believers. But he says that it saves them only as a counterpart. That is, water baptism is the counterpart of the reality, salvation. It can only save as a counterpart, not actually. The Old Testament sacrifices were counterparts of the reality, the Lord Jesus. They did not actually save the believer, only in type. It is not argued here that these sacrifices are analogous to Christian water baptism. The author is merely using them as an illustration of the use of the word ‘counterpart.’
“So water baptism only saves the believer in type. The Old Testament Jew was saved before he brought the offering. That offering was only his outward testimony that he was placing faith in the Lamb of God of whom these sacrifices were a type....Water baptism is the outward testimony of the believer’s inward faith. The person is saved the moment he places his faith in the Lord Jesus. Water baptism is the visible testimony to his faith and the salvation he was given in answer to that faith. Peter is careful to inform his readers that he is not teaching baptismal regeneration, namely, that a person who submits to baptism is thereby regenerated, for he says, ‘not the putting away of the filth of the flesh.’ Baptism, Peter explains, does not wash away the filth of the flesh, either in a literal sense as a bath for the body, nor in a metaphorical sense as a cleansing for the soul. No ceremonies really affect the conscience. But he defines what he means by salvation, in the words ‘the answer of a good conscience toward God,” and he explains how this is accomplished, namely, ‘by the resurrection of Jesus Christ,’ in that the believing sinner is identified with Him in that resurrection.”
Part of the confusion on this passage comes from the fact that in many ways the purpose of baptism as a public declaration of one’s faith in Christ and identification with Him has been replaced by “making a decision for Christ” or “praying a sinner’s prayer.” Baptism has been relegated to something that is done later. Yet to Peter or any of the first-century Christians, the idea that a person would confess Christ as his Savior and not be baptized as soon as possible would have been unheard of. Therefore, it is not surprising that Peter would see baptism as almost synonymous with salvation. Yet Peter makes it clear in this verse that it is not the ritual itself that saves, but the fact that we are united with Christ in His resurrection through faith, “the pledge of a good conscience toward God through the resurrection of Jesus Christ” (1 Peter 3:21).
Therefore, the baptism that Peter says saves us is the one that is preceded by faith in the propitiatory sacrifice of Christ that justifies the unrighteous sinner (Romans 3:25-26; 4:5). Baptism is the outward sign of what God has done “by the washing of regeneration and renewing by the Holy Spirit” (Titus 3:5).
THE RIGHT-DIVIDER'S POCKET STARTER is a series giving a primary dispensational set of cross-references. It is thus far posted on Free Republic in five parts; more parts coming.
Including a series on the Baptisms in the Bible in Part Two
Part One
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-religion/2581448/posts
Part Two
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-religion/2582566/posts
Part Three
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-religion/2583998/posts
Part Four
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-religion/2598088/posts
Part Five
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-religion/2593864/posts
Thanks. I am always interested in learning more. Lord bless you too.
precisely.
that is why the Holy Spirit guides the church, to stop confusion.
**the Bible is clear that salvation is by grace through faith in Jesus Christ, not by works of any kind, including baptism (Ephesians 2:8-9).**
You say that, and then place the reference after it, as though it does indeed say “not by works of any kind, including baptism”. It does not.
First of all, Eph. 2:1 says in present tense: “and you hath he quickened, who were (past tense) dead in trespasses and sins”. The folks Paul is addressing here have already been born again. That was made clear in Eph. 1:1, “.....to the saints which are at Ephesus, and the faithful in Christ Jesus”.
**“Is salvation by faith alone, or by faith plus works?”**
The devil believes in one God. Belief that leads to faith is what is required of us by God. Know that faith and obedience are inseparable. We live in physical bodies, and faith causes your muscles to move. To go and hear a preacher for the first time is a physical effort. Going down in the water, in the name of Jesus for the remission of sins, is physical effort, but is not ‘our own works’.
**Those who believe that baptism is required for salvation are quick to use 1 Peter 3:21 as a “proof text,” because it states “baptism now saves you.”**
It certainly harmonizes with Acts 2:38, where the same Peter said, “Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins......”.
Paul told the saints in Rome, “But God be thanked, that ye were (past tense) servants of sin, but ye have (past tense) obeyed from the heart that for of doctrine which was delivered you.” Romans 6:17
Paul and Silas, after receiving many stripes (it probably hurt a lot just to move) baptized the keeper of the prison, and his household, after they had preached the word of the Lord to them. Such was the importance they placed on baptism, that they did performed it even in their battered condition.
**Scripture that clearly show people being saved (as evidenced by their receiving the Holy Spirit) prior to being baptized..**
Yes, that would be Cornelius and his household. They were Gentiles, and Peter, probably still struggling with his ‘phobia’, may have been reluctant to baptize them, had that not happened first. But when it did, Peter said, “Can any man forbid water, that these should not be baptized......And he commanded them to be baptized in the name of the Lord.....”. Acts 10:47,48
When the Lord was baptized unto John’s baptism, he said, “Suffer it to be so now: for thus it becometh us to fulfil all rigtheousness”. Obeying Acts 2:38 is fulfilling righteousness, because the Lord has commanded it.
**..or without being baptized at all (like the thief on the cross in Luke 23:39-43).**
The new testament was not in effect, for the testator was not dead yet. (Hebrews 9:16,17)
When a preacher sent from God tells of Jesus Christ and what he did, and they respond like they did in Acts 2:37 saying, “Men and brethern what shall we do?”, instead of following the commands of Peter in Acts 2:38, they are told something like, “Just believe, he’s done it all for you”; totally rejecting the ordinance of the Lord.
**‘the answer of a good conscience toward God,”**
Of course the conscience toward God is good, because obedience to his desire/command has resulted in remission of sins because of the power of his name in baptism.
**Baptism is the outward sign of what God has done**
That is a tradition of men. (I know, for I believed it that way for many years)
What I saw simply assumes dispensationalism 'a priori' and then 'interprets' Scripture using the axiom that the initial assumption is true.
You have merely chopped Scripture into many pieces and declared that certain pieces no longer apply because you have assumed dispensationalism 'a priori'.
That's why you can't see that baptism is when the believer receives their priesthood.
And, when will you send the first Scripture to establish your position? Any Scripture you send will be based upon your a priori position that water baptism established priesthood.
May I ask whether you are a KJV Bible-believer?
If so, you will use the KJV to prove your position.
If not, why are you posting to this thread?
The ark got wet. The ark took the suffering; the ark was baptized by a watery suffering. In the ark were eight believers who never got wet.
The baptism of the sufferings of Christ at Calvary NOW SAVES US. He, our ARK took the suffering and was baptized by it (Matthew 20:22).
By being in Christ we are as good as nailed to that Cross with Christ in His sufferings.
1 Peter 3 has nothing to do with any believer being baptized by water to be saved . . . if it did, then Noah and his family were still lost, for they never got wet.
Which obviously means that my position is just as valid as yours. That was the conclusion I was leading you to. You catch on quick... kinda.
"May I ask whether you are a KJV Bible-believer? If so, you will use the KJV to prove your position. If not, why are you posting to this thread?"
Because I was trying to share a Scriptural perspective on baptism w/ a group that might be interested.
I apologize for posting things that are not consistent with your preferred paradigm.
Acts 2:38, Col 2:11,12, Acts 22:16, Mark 16:16 and others would like to receive the same treatment.
Eph 2:8,9 Clearly teaches that MANS work does not save him. Your statement of, "not by works of any kind, including baptism", has two errors in it. 1) as Zuriel pointed out "including baptism" is not in the text. 2) It is clear that the work of God is not to be excluded.We are saved by the work of God. Now I know that is obvious and I'm not trying to say you meant God's work should be excluded. But, a careful reading of Col 2:11,12 shows that baptism is in fact a work of God.
Col 2:11,12In whom also ye are circumcised with the circumcision made without hands, in putting off the body of the sins of the flesh by the circumcision of Christ: 12. Buried with him in baptism, wherein also ye are risen with him through the faith of the operation of God , who hath raised him from the dead. KJV
11. In Him you were also circumcised with the circumcision made without hands, by putting off the body of the sins of the flesh, by the circumcision of Christ, 12. buried with Him in baptism, in which you also were raised with Him through faith in the working of God, who raised Him from the dead. NKJV
11. In him you were also circumcised, in the putting off of the sinful nature, not with a circumcision done by the hands of men but with the circumcision done by Christ, 12. having been buried with him in baptism and raised with him through your faith in the power of God, who raised him from the dead. NIV
It is clear that baptism is that connection to faith, and by ones faith, in the work of God to do what He promised He would do at baptism. Forgive sin. Acts 2:38 It's not just "any work", it's GOD'S work. Baptism does not wash away the filth of the flesh, it washes away the sin Acts 22:16, or in context of Col 2 it is where God cuts the sin away.
As for Cornelius. As Zuiel pointed out Peter commands Cornelius to be baptized. Act 10:48 One has to wonder why Peter had not got the memo and was commanding baptism. ;O) But, then we look a few verses earlier. Acts 10:6 He lodgeth with one Simon a tanner, whose house is by the sea side: he shall tell thee what thou oughtest to do. Peter was sent to tell Cornelius what he must do. Therefore command sounds about right.
"Yet to Peter or any of the first-century Christians, the idea that a person would confess Christ as his Savior and not be baptized as soon as possible would have been unheard of."
I think I'll go with Peter on this one.
But still no Scripture to support this "Scriptural perspective."
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.