So, what happens to unbaptized believers? [Archive]

Apollos

March 8th 2003, 06:12 PM

Baptism is represented by Paul as a form, figure, or likeness of the death, burial, and resurrection of Jesus. There is no other thing that is so represented.

-Not faith.
-Not repentance.
-Not confession.

Only baptism. In baptism, the old man of sin within us is buried, just as Christ was buried, and is transformed and resurrected by God as a new creature. It is then, and not until then, that we are "free from sin." Only then are we fit to be called "servants of righteousness" (Rom. 6:17-18).

Now this text (Romans 6:3-5) presents a serious problem for those who teach that salvation precedes baptism.

The popular interpretation of this passage is that by baptism, a person who is already saved identifies with Christ's death, burial and resurrection in a symbolic way. But if you stop and think about the ramifications of this for just a bit, this is really a scary doctrine. Let me show you why. Paul describes baptism as a "burial" and likens it to the death and burial of Christ. But now folks come along and tell us that when a man is baptized, he is "already saved."

Unless I'm way off on this, I've always thought that a person who was unsaved was "dead" and a person who was saved was "alive." Isn't that how the scriptures describe these two kinds of people? How is it then that folks today want to bury someone alive! Have they no shame?! Perhaps that's how it's done in other parts of the country, but here in Oklahoma, we normally bury just the dead ones. If a fellow's still alive, why we ordinarily try to keep him that way and we have found that it is much easier to do this before we bury 'em. (Of course, this doesn't apply to those guys on death row. We try to kill them as fast as we can.)

You know, I've got a hunch that's pretty much how they did it in Paul's day too. Just bury the dead ones and let the live ones go. And if I'm right about that, then it would seem to me that when Paul says that we are "buried with him by baptism into death" he had in mind folks who were spiritually dead, folks who were lost. In fact, if you were to bury a fellow who had already been saved when he believed, then why didn't he already have "newness of life?" Surely no one is going to tell me that you're saved when you believe but you keep that old man alive until you are baptized?

Now I've been poking a little fun to make a point, but I think it's a point that needs to dealt with. But there is another side of this to think about as well. I'm not going to use humor on this one though, for it is much too serious for that. In fact, I would suggest that if the commonly stated position on Romans 6:3-6 is correct and baptism is to be administered to those who are already saved (read "alive"), then Christianity itself is at risk!

How? Simply in this:

Our baptism in water is "like" the death, burial, and resurrection of Jesus Christ (Rom. 6:3-5, 17-18). If we bury "live" (read, saved) people in baptism, and if this is the "likeness" of what Jesus did, then the only conclusion that we can draw is that Jesus must have also been alive when they buried Him! The ramifications of such a doctrine are far-reaching, threatening the foundation of Christianity itself. If Jesus was alive when they buried Him, then He didn't die on the cross! And if He didn't die on the cross, then He could not be our sacrifice!

Furthermore, if He did not die on the cross, then the resurrection was a hoax for you don't "resurrect" someone who never died. I believe that it was a dead and lifeless body that was taken off that cross and buried in Joseph's tomb. In order for our baptism to be a "like figure" of that, we must also bury a dead man, that is, we must baptize sinners!

Water baptism is the means chosen by God through which man appropriates the salvation God offers man through His grace !! :thumb:

Apollos

March 8th 2003, 06:16 PM

Allow me to give an example to clarify the difference between likeness and symbolism.

The caduceus: It is a symbol of the medical profession. It represents a profession.
Its likeness is that of a serpent on a pole. It looks like, it is similar to a snake on a pole.

Baptism is a likeness. The passage says baptism is like, it is similar to the death, burial, and resurrection of Christ.
But our baptism does not represent *His* death, burial, & resurrection. Nothing we do can do that.

Baptism into Christ is OUR death, burial, and resurrection. When one is baptized, they have their OWN death (to flesh & sin), their own burial (in water, into Christ, into His death), and their own resurrection (to walk in a newness of life).

In baptism, these are the things that actually happen (in the working of God – Col. 2:12). In baptism, these events take place! They are not symbolic of what happens, they ARE what happens.

freeontheinside

March 8th 2003, 11:26 PM

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
03-07-2003 @ 11:07 PM
Xmansmommy:

Well Freak,
I may offend some people by my post but, you asked for thoughts so..... I got saved in September of 2001. I have not been water baptised since I got saved. I have however, been baptised By the Spirit at the point of my salvation. (1 Cor 12:13) I have not, nor will I get baptised in water. I feel that to do so is showing my lack of faith in the precious blood of Jesus Christ who paid for ALL of my sins at Calvary. It's Jesus plus nothing.

Eph:2:8: For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God: 2:9: Not of works, lest any man should boast.

My favorite....Ro:3:24: Being justified freely by his grace through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus: 3:25: Whom God hath set forth to be a propitiation through faith in his blood, to declare his righteousness for the remission of sins that are past, through the forbearance of God; 3:26: To declare, I say, at this time his righteousness: that he might be just, and the justifier of him which believeth in Jesus.
(One of these days I'm gonna have a license plate made with this one on it, just have to think of an airbrush picture that would do this passage justice. Any ideas?)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Salvation is not dependent upon the act of baptism but it is a command by the Lord and that means it should be followed. That however is between you and the Lord.

Freak,

I guess I would line up on the side of baptism is a representation of the death, burial, ressurection of the Lord. Baptism is an outward showing of who we are on the inside. We are merly identifyinmg ourselves with our Lord.

Xmansmommy

March 9th 2003, 12:53 AM

Let me ask to whom this outward sign of an inward grace would benefit? I am IN Christ, baptised by the Holy Spirit INTO His Body. I have no need to identify with Him, as I am a member of His Body. Sealed by the Holy Spirit, done by the operation of God. What more can man, or a baptismal font for that matter, do to better seal me? If God places me into Christ upon believing the gospel of my salvation, I'm satisfied, as I believe, is He.

Grace and peace,
Linda

AcousticJS

March 9th 2003, 07:37 AM

03-09-2003 @ 04:53 AM
Xmansmommy:

Let me ask to whom this outward sign of an inward grace would benefit? I am IN Christ, baptised by the Holy Spirit INTO His Body. I have no need to identify with Him, as I am a member of His Body. Sealed by the Holy Spirit, done by the operation of God. What more can man, or a baptismal font for that matter, do to better seal me? If God places me into Christ upon believing the gospel of my salvation, I'm satisfied, as I believe, is He.

If Jesus does actually want water baptism then how can it not benefit you? Or are we saying that Jesus wants us to do things that are bad for you? I would suggest that for you, baptism would actually be a further expression of faith since you don't see much of a need for it, but would be obeying the Lord in faith that He means well for you.

God bless
Jon

PS. Have you considered the case of Cornelius in Acts 10 who, even though he had believed and received (been baptised in) the Holy Spirit was still baptised in water? Baptism in the Spirit didn't suggest to Peter that water baptism was no longer necessary.

Sozo

March 9th 2003, 10:36 AM

Xmansmommy is correct! There is a great deal of applying verses that are referring to the baptism with the Spirit as though they were speaking of baptism with water, which they are not.

John said: "I baptized you with water; but He will baptize you with the Holy Spirit."

That passage refers to "this" baptism...

"He who has believed and has been baptized shall be saved; but he who has disbelieved shall be condemned."

John had offered a baptism for repentance, "and they were being baptized by him in the Jordan River as they confessed their sins", but Jesus was baptized to offer us the baptism of the Spirit...

"The cup that I drink you shall drink; and you shall be baptized with the baptism with which I am baptized."

Jesus was not baptized for a repetance of sins. Jesus was free of sin.

Even some of Jesus' final words relayed this important contrast...

And gathering them together, He commanded them not to leave Jerusalem, but to wait for what the Father had promised, "Which," [He said], "you heard of from Me; for John baptized with water, but you shall be baptized with the Holy Spirit not many days from now."

Water baptism continued in the early church to identify the Jews to Jesus as the Christ. But, Paul himself claimed that baptism in water diminished the role of the cross...

"For Christ did not send me to baptize, but to preach the gospel, not in cleverness of speech, that the cross of Christ should not be made void."

Yet Paul clearly spoke of the baptism with the Holy Spirit into the body of Christ...

"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."

"For all of you who were baptized into Christ have clothed yourselves with Christ."

"Therefore we have been buried with Him through baptism into death, in order that as Christ was raised from the dead through the glory of the Father, so we too might walk in newness of life."

Paul claimed that there is only one baptism...

"There is one body and one Spirit, just as also you were called in one hope of your calling; one Lord, one faith, one baptism, one God and Father of all who is over all and through all and in all."

Our being buried with Him in baptism, has nothing to do with water baptism, but the description of us no longer being "in the flesh", but "in the Spirit"...

"For in Him all the fulness of Deity dwells in bodily form, and in Him you have been made complete, and He is the head over all rule and authority; and in Him you were also circumcised with a circumcision made without hands, in the removal of the body of the flesh by the circumcision of Christ; having been buried with Him in baptism, in which you were also raised up with Him through faith in the working of God, who raised Him from the dead."

Theolog

March 9th 2003, 11:39 AM

No matter how you cut it “Water Baptism” is; cultural, symbolic, metaphorical and esoteric, commanded, misunderstood, a work of man, and unnecessary for salvation.

Cultural: Water Baptism was customary for many religions and cults at the time to cleanse your stinking body, put on clean clothes and do some kind of ceremony to spiritually cleanse/baptize yourself before going to the temple to make offerings to the deity.

Symbolic: Water Baptism is purely symbolic because it is only cleansing the outside on the body and does nothing to change the inside.

Metaphorical and esoteric: Water Baptism is used by writers in a metaphorical sense, to picture a work that is done on the inside, by God, that is esoteric in nature, only being truly understood by the initiate who has undergone the transformation of receiving a rebirth of the spirit.

Commanded: Water Baptism is commanded.

Misunderstood: Because there are so many aspects of baptism it is easy to misunderstand it’s many facets, People in a wooden literalism mode tend to apply a single understanding to the word which causes them great confusion in understanding many verses.

A work of man Water Baptism: Enough said.

Unnecessary for salvation: Water Baptism cannot be necessary for salvation for many reasons. One is that all babies born dead, the Patriarchs and Gods elect prior to the church would be doomed. I find that unlikely.

Matthew 3:5-12 ...As administered by John. Mt 3:5-12; Joh 3:23; ...
5 People went out to him from Jerusalem and all Judea and the whole region of the Jordan. 6 Confessing their sins, they were baptized by him in the Jordan River.
7 But when he saw many of the Pharisees and Sadducees coming to where he was baptizing, he said to them: “You brood of vipers! Who warned you to flee from the coming wrath? 8 Produce fruit in keeping with repentance. 9 And do not think you can say to yourselves, ‘We have Abraham as our father.’ I tell you that out of these stones God can raise up children for Abraham. 10 The ax is already at the root of the trees, and every tree that does not produce good fruit will be cut down and thrown into the fire.
11 “I baptize you with b water for repentance. But after me will come one who is more powerful than I, whose sandals I am not fit to carry. He will baptize you with the Holy Spirit and with fire. 12 His winnowing fork is in his hand, and he will clear his threshing floor, gathering his wheat into the barn and burning up the chaff with unquenchable fire.”

John 3:23 ...Mt 3:5-12; Joh 3:23; Ac 13:24; ...
23 Now John also was baptizing at Aenon near Salim, because there was plenty of water, and people were constantly coming to be baptized.

Acts 13:24 ...12; Joh 3:23; Ac 13:24; 19:4. ...
24 Before the coming of Jesus, John preached repentance and baptism to all the people of Israel.

Acts 19:4 ...23; Ac 13:24; 19:4. 2. Sanctioned ...
4 Paul said, “John’s baptism was a baptism of repentance. He told the people to believe in the one coming after him, that is, in Jesus.”

Matthew 3:13-15 ...s submission to it. Mt 3:13-15; Lu 3:21. ...
The Baptism of Jesus
13 Then Jesus came from Galilee to the Jordan to be baptized by John. 14 But John tried to deter him, saying, “I need to be baptized by you, and do you come to me?”
15 Jesus replied, “Let it be so now; it is proper for us to do this to fulfill all righteousness.” Then John consented.

Luke 3:21 ...Mt 3:13-15; Lu 3:21. 3. Adopted ...
The Baptism and Genealogy of Jesus
21 When all the people were being baptized, Jesus was baptized too. And as he was praying, heaven was opened
John 3:22 ...3. Adopted by Christ. Joh 3:22; 4:1,2. ...
John the Baptist’s Testimony About Jesus
22 After this, Jesus and his disciples went out into the Judean countryside, where he spent some time with them, and baptized.
John 4:1 ...Christ. Joh 3:22; 4:1,2. 4. Appointed ...
Jesus Talks With a Samaritan Woman
4 The Pharisees heard that Jesus was gaining and baptizing more disciples than John,

John 4:2 ...3:22; 4:1,2. 4. Appointed ...
2 although in fact it was not Jesus who baptized, but his disciples.

Matthew 28:19 ...of the Christian church. Mt 28:19,20; Mr 16:15,16. ...
19 Therefore go and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in a the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit,

Matthew 28:20 ...church. Mt 28:19,20; Mr 16:15,16. ...
20 and teaching them to obey everything I have commanded you. And surely I am with you always, to the very end of the age.”

Mark 16:15 ...church. Mt 28:19,20; Mr 16:15,16. 5. To ...
15 He said to them, “Go into all the world and preach the good news to all creation.

Mark 16:16 ...19,20; Mr 16:15,16. 5. To ...
16 Whoever believes and is baptized will be saved, but whoever does not believe will be condemned.

Acts 8:36 ...and visible sign in. Ac 8:36; 10:47. ...
36 As they traveled along the road, they came to some water and the eunuch said, “Look, here is water. Why shouldn’t I be baptized?” c

Acts 10:47 ...in. Ac 8:36; 10:47. 7. Regeneration, ...
47 “Can anyone keep these people from being baptized with water? They have received the Holy Spirit just as we have.”

John 3:3 ...and spiritual grace of. Joh 3:3,5,6; Ro 6:3,4,11. ...
3 In reply Jesus declared, “I tell you the truth, no one can see the kingdom of God unless he is born again. a”

John 3:5 ...of. Joh 3:3,5,6; Ro 6:3,4,11. ...
5 Jesus answered, “I tell you the truth, no one can enter the kingdom of God unless he is born of water and the Spirit.

John 3:6 ...of. Joh 3:3,5,6; Ro 6:3,4,11. ...
6 Flesh gives birth to flesh, but the Spirit b gives birth to spirit.

Romans 6:3 ...of. Joh 3:3,5,6; Ro 6:3,4,11. 8. Remission ...
3 Or don’t you know that all of us who were baptized into Christ Jesus were baptized into his death?

Romans 6:4 ...3,5,6; Ro 6:3,4,11. 8. Remission ...
4 We were therefore buried with him through baptism into death in order that, just as Christ was raised from the dead through the glory of the Father, we too may live a new life.

Romans 6:11 ...3,5,6; Ro 6:3,4,11. 8. Remission ...
11 In the same way, count yourselves dead to sin but alive to God in Christ Jesus.

Acts 2:38 ...of sins, signified by. Ac 2:38; 22:16. ...
38 Peter replied, “Repent and be baptized, every one of you, in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins. And you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit.

Acts 22:16 ...by. Ac 2:38; 22:16. 9. Unity ...
16 And now what are you waiting for? Get up, be baptized and wash your sins away, calling on his name.’

1 Corinthians 12:13 ...the Church effected by. 1Co 12:13; Ga 3:27,28. ...
13 For we were all baptized by a one Spirit into one body—whether Jews or Greeks, slave or free—and we were all given the one Spirit to drink.

Galatians 3:27 ...by. 1Co 12:13; Ga 3:27,28. 10. Confession ...
27 for all of you who were baptized into Christ have clothed yourselves with Christ.

Galatians 3:28 ...13; Ga 3:27,28. 10. Confession ...
28 There is neither Jew nor Greek, slave nor free, male nor female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus.

Matthew 3:6 ...of sin necessary to. Mt 3:6. 11. Repentance ...
6 Confessing their sins, they were baptized by him in the Jordan River.

Acts 8:37 ...12. Faith necessary to. Ac 8:37; 18:8. ...
36 As they traveled along the road, they came to some water and the eunuch said, “Look, here is water. Why shouldn’t I be baptized?” c

Acts 18:8 ...to. Ac 8:37; 18:8. 13. There ...
8 Crispus, the synagogue ruler, and his entire household believed in the Lord; and many of the Corinthians who heard him believed and were baptized.

Ephesians 4:5 ...There is but one. Eph 4:5. 14. Administered ...
5 one Lord, one faith, one baptism;
Acts 8:38 ...Administered to a. Individuals. Ac 8:38; 9:18. ...
38 And he gave orders to stop the chariot. Then both Philip and the eunuch went down into the water and Philip baptized him.

Acts 9:18 ...Individuals. Ac 8:38; 9:18. b. Households. ...
18 Immediately, something like scales fell from Saul’s eyes, and he could see again. He got up and was baptized,

Acts 16:15 ...9:18. b. Households. Ac 16:15; 1Co 1:16. ...
15 When she and the members of her household were baptized, she invited us to her home. “If you consider me a believer in the Lord,” she said, “come and stay at my house.” And she persuaded us.

1 Corinthians 1:16 ...Households. Ac 16:15; 1Co 1:16. c. Only ...
16 (Yes, I also baptized the household of Stephanas; beyond that, I don’t remember if I baptized anyone else.)

Acts 8:12 ...6; Mr 16:16; Ac 8:12,37; 10:47,48. ...
12 But when they believed Philip as he preached the good news of the kingdom of God and the name of Jesus Christ, they were baptized, both men and women.

Acts 10:48 ...8:12,37; 10:47,48. d. Scriptures ...
48 So he ordered that they be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ. Then they asked Peter to stay with them for a few days.

Proverbs 30:6 ...Scriptures supporting infant baptism. Pr 30:6. 15. Administered ...
6 Do not add to his words,
or he will rebuke you and prove you a liar.

Matthew 3:16 ...the person in water. Mt 3:16; Ac 8:38,39. ...
16 As soon as Jesus was baptized, he went up out of the water. At that moment heaven was opened, and he saw the Spirit of God descending like a dove and lighting on him.

Acts 8:39 ...16; Ac 8:38,39. 16. Emblematic ...
39 When they came up out of the water, the Spirit of the Lord suddenly took Philip away, and the eunuch did not see him again, but went on his way rejoicing.

Matthew 3:11 ...of the Holy Spirit. Mt 3:11; Tit 3:5. ...
11 “I baptize you with b water for repentance. But after me will come one who is more powerful than I, whose sandals I am not fit to carry. He will baptize you with the Holy Spirit and with fire.

Titus 3:5 ...Spirit. Mt 3:11; Tit 3:5. 17. Typified. ...
5 he saved us, not because of righteous things we had done, but because of his mercy. He saved us through the washing of rebirth and renewal by the Holy Spirit,

1 Corinthians 10:2 ...3:5. 17. Typified. 1Co 10:2; 1Pe 3:20,21. ...
2 They were all baptized into Moses in the cloud and in the sea.

1 Peter 3:20 ...Typified. 1Co 10:2; 1Pe 3:20,21. ...
20 who disobeyed long ago when God waited patiently in the days of Noah while the ark was being built. In it only a few people, eight in all, were saved through water,

1 Peter 3:21 ...2; 1Pe 3:20,21. ...
21 and this water symbolizes baptism that now saves you also—not the removal of dirt from the body but the pledge e of a good conscience toward God. It saves you by the resurrection of Jesus Christ,

efesus

March 9th 2003, 01:03 PM

03-07-2003 @ 11:07 PM
Xmansmommy:

Eph:2:8: For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God: 2:9: Not of works, lest any man should boast.

Oh dear - I see we are falling into the old trap of taking scripture out of context. The following verses read:

You are God's masterpiece created in Christ for good worls, that he has prepared beforehand for you to do. (Eph 2:9-10)

I would suggest that one of the good works would be baptism as an expression of obedience to the command of the Lord Jesus:

And Jesus came and said to them, "All authority in heaven and on earth has been given to me. Go therefore and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, teaching them to observe all that I have commanded you; and lo, I am with you always, to the close of the age." (Mat 28:18-20)

The Lord of the church command his disciples to make disciples of all nations and baptise the new disciples. This clearly indicates that the new disciples should be baptised.

The issue here is one of obedience to Jesus - not necessarily one of salvation.

Incidentally, howabout the idea that salvation is a process with an initiation in four phases:
1. Repentance from sin
2. Faith toward God
3. Baptism in water
4. Baptism in Spirit

Sozo

March 9th 2003, 01:12 PM

03-09-2003 @ 11:03 AM
efesus:

Oh dear - I see we are falling into the old trap of taking scripture out of context.

Incidentally, howabout the idea that salvation is a process with an initiation in four phases:
1. Repentance from sin
2. Faith toward God
3. Baptism in water
4. Baptism in Spirit

So now there are 2 baptisms?

Hitch

March 9th 2003, 01:26 PM

Well Jesus certainly didnt need to get baptized. But he certainly did get baptized. The stated reason is to 'fulfill all righteousness'. Water of course adding nothing to the divinty or righteousness of Christ. Rather a reasonable concern for appearence sake.

The other obvious example is the thief on the cross. And this makes a dirrect answer to the basic question

So, what happens to unbaptized believers?

L23;43

This one has been dealt with, right here on this forum, by the manufacture of a 'dispensation' just for this individual. Such is the power of legalistic cultic errors.

take care

Hitch

Rubia Warren

March 9th 2003, 02:24 PM

*sigh* I feel a 250 page thread coming on, Freak. LOL (J/K)

Sozo

March 9th 2003, 03:08 PM

03-09-2003 @ 12:24 PM
La Rubia:

*sigh* I feel a 250 page thread coming on, Freak. LOL (J/K)

And to think, all they need to do is read Post# 30695, and their questions would be answered. :smile:

Freak

March 9th 2003, 04:30 PM

I'm getting the feeling that some of you believe, believers who have not yet been baptized in water are in somehow in rebellion, correct? How will this effect the believer? Will he/she lose their salvation, not attain some blessings from God, etc?

Since Jesus was baptized in water for symoblic sake should we be water baptized for symbolic sense?

I thought Theolog brought up some excellent points. He said: Unnecessary for salvation: Water Baptism cannot be necessary for salvation for many reasons. One is that all babies born dead, the Patriarchs and Gods elect prior to the church would be doomed. I find that unlikely.

Gavin

March 9th 2003, 04:49 PM

xmansmommy
I got saved in September of 2001. I have not been water baptised since I got saved. I have however, been baptised By the Spirit at the point of my salvation. (1 Cor 12:13) I have not, nor will I get baptised in water. I feel that to do so is showing my lack of faith in the precious blood of Jesus Christ who paid for ALL of my sins at Calvary. It's Jesus plus nothing.

I agree that people can be saved without being baptized by water, and that baptism by water is merely an outward sign of an inward transformation.

However, to attribute baptism to a lack of faith is unfounded. Should we attribute the same to the practice of communion? Spiritual gifts? Evangelism?

Baptism by water is instituted by our Lord himself and is practiced throughout the New Testament. If its truly Jesus or nothing, we do well to not leave out the sacraments that Jesus instituted.

Matthew 28:19
"Therefore go and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit."

Acts 2:38
Peter replied, "Repent and be baptized, every one of you, in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins. And you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit.

Acts 2:41
Those who accepted his message were baptized, and about three thousand were added to their number that day.

Acts 8:12
But when they believed Philip as he preached the good news of the kingdom of God and the name of Jesus Christ, they were baptized, both men and women.

Acts 8:13
Simon himself believed and was baptized. And he followed Philip everywhere, astonished by the great signs and miracles he saw.

Acts 8:38
And he gave orders to stop the chariot. Then both Philip and the eunuch went down into the water and Philip baptized him.

Acts 10:48
So he ordered that they be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ. Then they asked Peter to stay with them for a few days.

ETC.

Pilgrim

March 9th 2003, 05:05 PM

What will happen to them? They will go to Heaven.

End of story.

Sozo

March 9th 2003, 05:12 PM

I'm telling you guys... READ POST # 30695

You keep beating a dead horse!

Jesus did not sin! What baptism did Jesus undergo?

Pilgrim

March 9th 2003, 06:35 PM

Water baptism as a sign of obedience?

ItalianGold

March 9th 2003, 07:07 PM

I doubt there is a person on this thread who can doubt the sincerity of xmansmommy.

Back in the day...when I was Catholic, I never did subscribe to the church's stand on infant baptism.

As an atheist, agnostic and now someone whose beliefs don't fit into any pigeon hole - I've always had a "knowing" that those rituals which are instituted by man have nothing to do with having our eyes opened to the Divine.

"Salvation" - "Grace" - "Enlightenment" are processes, internal and personal.

To those of you who believe that baptism is desired but not necessary for salvation...that it is more of a sign of obedience and therefore to be greatly desired, how can you then also deny Christ's teachings which clearly command you to love one another? This is the full essence of his teaching. You claim that "works" are not necessary, but in the next breath claim that certain things must be done. Religion does not have the answers. Christ did. It's not complicated.

Just my opinion.

Sozo

March 9th 2003, 07:08 PM

03-09-2003 @ 04:35 PM
Pilgrim:

Water baptism as a sign of obedience?

Obedience? What obedience was Jesus fulfilling?

Did Jesus undergo John's baptism, even though Jesus was indeed baptized in water?

When was Jesus' baptism completed?

"But I have a baptism to be baptized with; and how am I straitened till it be accomplished!"

We are partakers in Christ's baptism, not John's (a baptism of repentance).

We are the fulfillment of Jesus' baptism, by being placed into the body of Christ with the Holy Spirit, and then sealed for the day of redemption.

Freak

March 9th 2003, 07:13 PM

03-09-2003 @ 09:12 PM
Sozo:

I'm telling you guys... READ POST # 30695

You keep beating a dead horse!

Jesus did not sin! What baptism did Jesus undergo?

Sozo--have you been baptized in water after trusting in Jesus Christ for salvation? Would you recommend your children be water baptized after trusting Jesus Christ as Lord?

After coming to Jesus Christ I was baptized in water for symbolic reasons--to testify to the world I have been risen with Christ and now possess new life.

Gavin, I think you made some valid points.

Sozo

March 9th 2003, 07:50 PM

03-09-2003 @ 05:13 PM
Freak:

Sozo--have you been baptized in water after trusting in Jesus Christ for salvation?

Yes, because I didn't know any better.

Would you recommend your children be water baptized after trusting Jesus Christ as Lord? Not a chance!

Freak

March 9th 2003, 08:57 PM

03-09-2003 @ 11:50 PM
Sozo:

Yes, because I didn't know any better.

Not a chance!

Would you teach genuine believers not to get water baptized?

Sozo

March 9th 2003, 09:13 PM

03-09-2003 @ 06:57 PM
Freak:

Would you teach genuine believers not to get water baptized?

I would tell them it doesn't matter one way or the other.

We can't teach it both ways. It is either essential, and no one is saved without it, or it was merely to identify followers to Christ in the early church, and and no longer necessary according to Paul.

Gavin

March 9th 2003, 09:29 PM

Sozo,
It is either essential, and no one is saved without it, or it was merely to identify followers to Christ in the early church, and and no longer necessary according to Paul.
Can you offer any scriptural or logical argumentation for that statement?

Thanks Sozo.

Sozo

March 9th 2003, 10:10 PM

03-09-2003 @ 07:29 PM
Gavin:

Sozo,

Can you offer any scriptural or logical argumentation for that statement?

Thanks Sozo.

If baptisim was essential or important in the scope of evangelism or salvation, Paul would never have made this statement...

"Now I did baptize also the household of Stephanas; beyond that, I do not know whether I baptized any other. For Christ did not send me to baptize, but to preach the gospel, not in cleverness of speech, that the cross of Christ should not be made void. For the word of the cross is to those who are perishing foolishness, but to us who are being saved it is the power of God."

Gavin

March 9th 2003, 10:27 PM

Sozo,
If baptisim was essential or important in the scope of evangelism or salvation, Paul would never have made this statement...

"Now I did baptize also the household of Stephanas; beyond that, I do not know whether I baptized any other. For Christ did not send me to baptize, but to preach the gospel, not in cleverness of speech, that the cross of Christ should not be made void. For the word of the cross is to those who are perishing foolishness, but to us who are being saved it is the power of God."
OK, so baptism was periphal to the preaching of the cross in Paul's mission.

But does this prove that baptism is no longer needed today? To be of secondary importance is not the same as being of no importance at all.

Freak

March 9th 2003, 10:41 PM

03-10-2003 @ 02:10 AM
Sozo:

If baptisim was essential or important in the scope of evangelism or salvation, Paul would never have made this statement...

"Now I did baptize also the household of Stephanas; beyond that, I do not know whether I baptized any other. For Christ did not send me to baptize, but to preach the gospel, not in cleverness of speech, that the cross of Christ should not be made void. For the word of the cross is to those who are perishing foolishness, but to us who are being saved it is the power of God."

I agree water baptism is of a minor importance compare to the essentials of the christian faith. But the apostle Paul did acknowledge that he did in fact baptize some....

Sozo

March 9th 2003, 11:53 PM

03-09-2003 @ 08:27 PM
Gavin:

Sozo,

OK, so baptism was periphal to the preaching of the cross in Paul's mission.

But does this prove that baptism is no longer needed today? To be of secondary importance is not the same as being of no importance at all.

I understand what you are saying, but I tend to see this as more black & white.

It is either a command or it is not. I don't have a problem with people who want to be baptized, as long as they do not teach others that it is required by God as part of salvation. If you want to make a confession to others of your new life in Christ, go for it. But, I think it is disingenuous to add some kind of mystical or spiritual application to the event. It may be good for the soul, as is communion, but ritualistic Christianity is not what saves us.

Sozo

March 9th 2003, 11:54 PM

03-09-2003 @ 08:41 PM
Freak:

I agree water baptism is of a minor importance compare to the essentials of the christian faith. But the apostle Paul did acknowledge that he did in fact baptize some....

Regrettably, it appears.

Gavin

March 10th 2003, 12:03 AM

I understand what you are saying, but I tend to see this as more black & white.

It is either a command or it is not. I don't have a problem with people who want to be baptized, as long as they do not teach others that it is required by God as part of salvation. If you want to make a confession to others of your new life in Christ, go for it. But, I think it is disingenuous to add some kind of mystical or spiritual application to the event. It may be good for the soul, as is communion, but ritualistic Christianity is not what saves us.
I strongly agree with your statement, "it is either a command or it is not."
Baptism is commanded in Scripture. I don't know how to get around this.

Matthew 28
19Therefore go and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit

The point I differ on is that I don't believe all of God's commands are salvific, i.e., that we are not saved if we do not do them. I don't see any warrant for justifying the notion that if baptism is truly a command, we must be baptized in order to be saved. I see communion in the same light as communion. We should do it but our salvation is not dependant on it.

Gavin

March 10th 2003, 12:06 AM

By the way, your hannibal avatar really freaks me out.:eek:

Sozo

March 10th 2003, 12:18 AM

03-09-2003 @ 10:06 PM
Gavin:

By the way, your hannibal avatar really freaks me out.:eek:

That's not good, another "Freak" is one too many! :noid:

Sozo

March 10th 2003, 12:31 AM

03-09-2003 @ 10:03 PM
Gavin:

I strongly agree with your statement, "it is either a command or it is not."
Baptism is commanded in Scripture. I don't know how to get around this.

Matthew 28
19Therefore go and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit

The point I differ on is that I don't believe all of God's commands are salvific, i.e., that we are not saved if we do not do them. I don't see any warrant for justifying the notion that if baptism is truly a command, we must be baptized in order to be saved. I see communion in the same light as communion. We should do it but our salvation is not dependant on it.

What are the repercussions of disobeying a command of God?

And, why do we assume that Jesus referred to water baptism in this verse? If it is water baptism, than only 2 possible scenerios can apply... It was a specific dispensation to the disciples for the purpose of establishing the church, or it is an absolute must without which, no one is saved. God's commands are not negotiable.

Freak

March 10th 2003, 12:42 PM

03-10-2003 @ 04:31 AM
Sozo:

What are the repercussions of disobeying a command of God?

And, why do we assume that Jesus referred to water baptism in this verse? If it is water baptism, than only 2 possible scenerios can apply... It was a specific dispensation to the disciples for the purpose of establishing the church, or it is an absolute must without which, no one is saved. God's commands are not negotiable.

You said: What are the repercussions of disobeying a command of God?

Good question. Could it be that you lost a powerful opportunity to share a external witness to others of the inner transformation that has already occured in Christ?

Gavin

March 10th 2003, 12:53 PM

Sozo,
What are the repercussions of disobeying a command of God?
Sozo, do you believe in communion for the church today?

If so, would you say that those who do not practice communion have lost their salvation?

Neglect of one aspect of church life does not forfeit your eternal salvation (although there may be real and serious other consequnces).

(Even if Matthew 28 is not referring to water baptism, which I doubt, clearly the references to baptism in Acts are baptism by water.)

Xmansmommy

March 10th 2003, 12:58 PM

03-10-2003 @ 11:42 AM
Freak:

You said: What are the repercussions of disobeying a command of God?

Good question. Could it be that you lost a powerful opportunity to share a external witness to others of the inner transformation that has already occured in Christ?

Freak, I would have to ask what powerful opportunity am I missing out on by not getting wet in front of a church full of believers? In the church I attend, we recognize and realize the ONE baptism done by the Spirit. Nobody is missing out on any "witness," because the witness they see, is the Life of Christ in me. THAT is indeed greater than any ceremony that could be performed to "prove myself." And personally I don't see water batptism as a command to me. For those who aren't aware, I am an Acts 9 dispensationalist, so I am very careful to recognize to whom those commands were given. Hope that helps some of you to better understand my "disobedience." :xmm:

Sozo

March 10th 2003, 04:37 PM

03-10-2003 @ 10:53 AM
Gavin:
Sozo, do you believe in communion for the church today?

No, not in the sense that it is taught in either the Catholic or Protestant churches.

(Even if Matthew 28 is not referring to water baptism, which I doubt, clearly the references to baptism in Acts are baptism by water.) Yes they are, but it is not the baptism that Jesus spoke of, nor that revealed by Paul. Even though I am not an OV'r, I seem to be in agreement, I believe, with their view regarding the confusion between that which was presented to the Jews, and that which was given to the Gentiles through Paul. There is no mystery that Paul & James did not see things the same way.

Sozo

March 10th 2003, 04:40 PM

03-10-2003 @ 10:42 AM
Freak:

You said: What are the repercussions of disobeying a command of God?

Good question. Could it be that you lost a powerful opportunity to share a external witness to others of the inner transformation that has already occured in Christ?

If that is the "witness", than you would have more problems that water baptism :smile:

Gavin

March 10th 2003, 06:19 PM

Sozo:

For all your bashing on legalism, the view that disobedience to commands of God necessarily forfeits your eternal salvation seems to be harshly legalistic to me. And this is what I take you to be saying (please correct me if I am wrong) - that if baptism is for today, and a convert is not baptized, they will not go to heaven.

No, not in the sense that it is taught in either the Catholic or Protestant churches.
In what sense do you believe it is for today?

Gavin

March 10th 2003, 06:22 PM

I guess my concern is that I don't understand how you guys can exclude practices from contemporary church life that are so clearly instituted in the New Testament, like water baptism and communion (Linda I know you accept communion).

Sozo

March 10th 2003, 06:42 PM

03-10-2003 @ 04:19 PM
Gavin:

Sozo:

For all your bashing on legalism, the view that disobedience to commands of God necessarily forfeits your eternal salvation seems to be harshly legalistic to me. And this is what I take you to be saying (please correct me if I am wrong) - that if baptism is for today, and a convert is not baptized, they will not go to heaven.

In what sense do you believe it is for today?

We may be getting somewhere :brow:

I am against all obedience beyond obeying the gospel (which is believing the message concerning Christ). My point on the baptism issue would be the same as any command, if it is required by God as something that we must do, then there is no middle ground, we MUST do it. The Law or commands of God are not "do the best you can" mandates. They require absolute perfection, or they are made void. For example... to be saved and enter into the kingdom of God, you MUST be:

Righteous

Holy

Blameless

Sanctified

Free from all sin

&

Baptized into the body of Christ

There are no options! Therefore God had to do what is necessary for us, because of our total inabilty to keep His laws, or obey His commands.

In what sense do you believe it is for today?

The same as it was then.

When we come together for fellowship with the body of Christ, we are to remember that Christ is our Passover.

Freak

March 10th 2003, 09:06 PM

03-10-2003 @ 04:58 PM
Xmansmommy:

Freak, I would have to ask what powerful opportunity am I missing out on by not getting wet in front of a church full of believers? In the church I attend, we recognize and realize the ONE baptism done by the Spirit. Nobody is missing out on any "witness," because the witness they see, is the Life of Christ in me. THAT is indeed greater than any ceremony that could be performed to "prove myself." And personally I don't see water batptism as a command to me. For those who aren't aware, I am an Acts 9 dispensationalist, so I am very careful to recognize to whom those commands were given. Hope that helps some of you to better understand my "disobedience." :xmm:

Symbols have redemptive value. I can't begin to tell you the amount of times people have seen the wooden cross I have hung up in my living room and have asked about it (and my beliefs). The cross reminds people of what Jesus did. Is there anything wrong with a cross? Absolutely not! It is a powerful symbol.

Baptism in water is a symbol. The first century believers were water baptized as a symbolic witness of their union with Christ and His life. No, I do not believe it is necessary for salvation. Justification is by faith alone in Christ but water baptism could be a powerful witness to the inner transformation that has already occured in your life.

I'm certain you have no problems with the symbolism used in marriage cermonies, correct? Many exchange rings? No,it's not necessary but symbolism is a powerful witness to the world that watches.

Food for thought!

Freak

March 10th 2003, 09:11 PM

Sozo--

Water baptism is a symbol. You'd like to do away with that symbol, correct?

What about the exchanging of rings in a marriage ceremony? Would you like to do away with that powerful symbol also? Do you wear a ring? Your wife?

What about crosses? Would you like to do away with the crosses from every church building?

Sozo

March 10th 2003, 09:13 PM

03-10-2003 @ 07:06 PM
Freak:

Symbols have redemptive value. I can't begin to tell you the amount of times people have seen the wooden cross I have hung up in my living room and have asked about it (and my beliefs). The cross reminds people of what Jesus did. Is there anything wrong with a cross? Absolutely not! It is a powerful symbol.

Baptism in water is a symbol. The first century believers were water baptized as a symbolic witness of their union with Christ and His life. No, I do not believe it is necessary for salvation. Justification is by faith alone in Christ but water baptism could be a powerful witness to the inner transformation that has already occured in your life.

I'm certain you have no problems with the symbolism used in marriage cermonies, correct? Many exchange rings? No,it's not necessary but symbolism is a powerful witness to the world that watches.

Food for thought!

Good points Freak!

And therefore we are free to determine whether to or not to in light of the enviroment it is done in.

Freak

March 10th 2003, 09:17 PM

03-11-2003 @ 01:13 AM
Sozo:

Good points Freak!

And therefore we are free to determine whether to or not to in light of the enviroment it is done in.

In agreement with that.

Pilgrim

March 10th 2003, 09:56 PM

I agree with Freak on the value of symbols and liturgy. They can be a powerful witness and a great instructional tool. They become a sort of artistic form of confession even.

Apollos

March 11th 2003, 02:44 AM

Hey Guys -

Did I miss it? I have been waiting for the passage(s) that show us that water baptism is SYMBOLIC.

I looked back and I have yet to see a scripture given that says so!

Who has the passage?

And if you think Romans 6 is it, please go back and read my posts about that and correct me where needed.

In the meantime, can someone tell us what water baptism is FOR and what it DOES ?? (Supported by scripture please!!!)

:read:

GrayPilgrim

March 11th 2003, 10:08 AM

As I posted here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?postid=28782#post28782). I view baptism as the initiatory rite into the New Covenant. It was the equivalent of circumcison which gained one admitance in to the Abrahamic/Mosiac Covenant Communities. This being said, I don't think it is necessary for salvation, but it will be attened with a particular grace, similar to all obedience.

ItalianGold,

You are correct to point out that we are to love ine another. In fact Jesus set that up as the litmus test for whether we were from Him and whether He was sent by the father.

GP

Socrates

March 11th 2003, 10:46 AM

IG:
As an atheist, agnostic and now someone whose beliefs don't fit into any pigeon hole ... how can you then also deny Christ's teachings which clearly command you to love one another? This is the full essence of his teaching.But the first commandment was to love God with all your heart, soul, mind and strength. Atheists, agnostics and others who don't acknowledge the true God of the Bible are breaking this greatest commandment.

Xmansmommy

March 11th 2003, 11:33 AM

03-10-2003 @ 08:06 PM
Freak:

Symbols have redemptive value. I can't begin to tell you the amount of times people have seen the wooden cross I have hung up in my living room and have asked about it (and my beliefs). The cross reminds people of what Jesus did. Is there anything wrong with a cross? Absolutely not! It is a powerful symbol.

Baptism in water is a symbol. The first century believers were water baptized as a symbolic witness of their union with Christ and His life. No, I do not believe it is necessary for salvation. Justification is by faith alone in Christ but water baptism could be a powerful witness to the inner transformation that has already occured in your life.

I'm certain you have no problems with the symbolism used in marriage cermonies, correct? Many exchange rings? No,it's not necessary but symbolism is a powerful witness to the world that watches.

Food for thought!

Freak again, I would ask to whom this event would be a great witness too? The church I attend does not perform water baptisms and the members are all aware of why, and are in agreement with why. So who would be of benefit? Me? I know how God is working IN me based on how my life has changed and also based on His word, which I apply to the details of my life. A water tank can't help me better understand the working of the Holy Spirit that indwells me. The word of God working effectually IN me, can.
Also, having a wedding ring, or a cross on your wall does not compare with a one time event that you have no evidence of, other than an plaque on your wall. If you desire the conversation piece go for it. Personally my walk, my talk, my life itself, is, or at the very least should be, that great testimony of what's already taken/taking place in my life. My family and friends know who I was living my life for before I got saved, and they now see who I am living my life for after I got saved. What better testimony is there than that? Symbolism can't touch what God does IN the believer!

Freak

March 11th 2003, 12:53 PM

03-11-2003 @ 03:33 PM
Xmansmommy:

Freak again, I would ask to whom this event would be a great witness too? The church I attend does not perform water baptisms and the members are all aware of why, and are in agreement with why. So who would be of benefit? Me? I know how God is working IN me based on how my life has changed and also based on His word, which I apply to the details of my life. A water tank can't help me better understand the working of the Holy Spirit that indwells me. The word of God working effectually IN me, can.
Also, having a wedding ring, or a cross on your wall does not compare with a one time event that you have no evidence of, other than an plaque on your wall. If you desire the conversation piece go for it. Personally my walk, my talk, my life itself, is, or at the very least should be, that great testimony of what's already taken/taking place in my life. My family and friends know who I was living my life for before I got saved, and they now see who I am living my life for after I got saved. What better testimony is there than that? Symbolism can't touch what God does IN the believer!

But, you once again failed to see how symbols do play a part in our lives.

Marriage rings are symbolic of the commitment you made to your spouse and to God. Does the Bible require us to wear a ring? No. But it does give us the opportunity to remind ourselves and to others in the world that watches of our commitments. Same with water baptism--it tells the watching world of the commitment you made to Christ. Who cares if your church has a tank. The world is filled with lakes, seas, oceans, rivers that allow you to be baptized. It gives you an opportunity to be a witness.

You might say, but, its useless! Then you better take off that marriage ring and better not let anyone hang up a cross. Be consistent.

You say its a one time event. Well of course it is. As is the exchanging of rings. But, I bet, you exchanged rings. Those witnessing the event can be impacted by the powerful symbolism. Whose to say God can't use symbolism. I just gave you some examples--many can attest how they were touched by God witnessing a baptism or the symbol of the cross or the exchanging of the rings in a marriage ceremony. You underestimate God!

Sozo

March 11th 2003, 01:21 PM

People put that fish thing on their cars, are you saying we should all do that?

Should we all pierce our ears with little crosses? How about our nose, or maybe a big tatto on our foreheads of the Shroud of Turin.

What is the proper symbolism? If in fact, water baptism is designed for that purpose, why aren't we doing it in public forums?

Xmansmommy

March 11th 2003, 01:51 PM

Freak,
I never said God couldn't use a water baptism as a means to affect others. I do not underestimate Him. For I know all things work together for the good to those who love Him, which I do. Let me reiterate that for me personally, I would consider a water baptism a lack of faith on my part.

Ga:6:14: But God forbid that I should glory, save in the cross of our Lord Jesus Christ, by whom the world is crucified unto me, and I unto the world.

Gavin

March 11th 2003, 02:39 PM

Linda - by the same line of reasoning, why should communion still be practiced?

Xmansmommy

March 11th 2003, 02:48 PM

Gavin,
I don't partake of communion as a command. I do so out of remembrance for what Christ has done for me. I don't partake for the benefit of others either. I simply rejoice in what He's accomplished for me, and partake to honor and remember Him. That's something personal between me and Jesus Christ. It's not an outward sign for someone else to see and be affected by. I don't believe I'm in any danger if I choose not to partake. I would again state that I don't believe water baptism as a command for the Body of Christ. Baptism is essential however, just not by water.

1Co:12:13: For by one Spirit are we all baptized into one body, whether we be Jews or Gentiles, whether we be bond or free; and have been all made to drink into one Spirit.

For and By Him,
Linda

Sozo

March 11th 2003, 02:54 PM

xmansmommy...

Your last 2 posts are (in the words of DDW) the bomb!

Gavin

March 11th 2003, 04:32 PM

Linda,
thank you for your response:
Gavin,
I don't partake of communion as a command. I do so out of remembrance for what Christ has done for me. I don't partake for the benefit of others either. I simply rejoice in what He's accomplished for me, and partake to honor and remember Him. That's something personal between me and Jesus Christ. It's not an outward sign for someone else to see and be affected by. I don't believe I'm in any danger if I choose not to partake. I would again state that I don't believe water baptism as a command for the Body of Christ. Baptism is essential however, just not by water.

1Co:12:13: For by one Spirit are we all baptized into one body, whether we be Jews or Gentiles, whether we be bond or free; and have been all made to drink into one Spirit.

For and By Him,
Linda
So why not chose to be baptized for the same reasons - to honor and remember Christ and what he has done for you?

I am not saying baptism and communion are legastic things that if you do not do fully, all the time, you are necessarily sinning. If you don't want to be baptized, it is not the end of the world. I just don't see any reason to not follow the sacraments and means of grace that Christ instituted in the NT, generally speaking.

Thanks,
Gavin

Freak

March 11th 2003, 04:36 PM

03-11-2003 @ 05:21 PM
Sozo:

People put that fish thing on their cars, are you saying we should all do that?

Should we all pierce our ears with little crosses? How about our nose, or maybe a big tatto on our foreheads of the Shroud of Turin.

What is the proper symbolism? If in fact, water baptism is designed for that purpose, why aren't we doing it in public forums?

Like I said--should we do away with the exchanging of rings in a marriage ceremony. Be consistent. The exchanging of the rings (the symbolic commitment to one another) is the focus point of most marriage ceremonies. Should we avoid this symbolic practice? By the way, do you wear a ring? Does your wife?

While we are at it...let's rid all the churches of the cross, right?

Look, I understand, people can go overboard on the use of symbols but I don't think anyone is suggesting a heavy emphasis on the use of symbolism but we ought not to do away with symbolism for symbolism can be used of God to remind people of His majesty (a ring-bringing the two together in Holy union--the cross symbolizing the victory Christ has over death--water baptism--the symbolic act of the death, burial, and resurrection of Christ).

Freak

March 11th 2003, 04:43 PM

03-11-2003 @ 06:48 PM
Xmansmommy:

Gavin,
I don't partake of communion as a command. I do so out of remembrance for what Christ has done for me. I don't partake for the benefit of others either. I simply rejoice in what He's accomplished for me, and partake to honor and remember Him. That's something personal between me and Jesus Christ. It's not an outward sign for someone else to see and be affected by. I don't believe I'm in any danger if I choose not to partake. I would again state that I don't believe water baptism as a command for the Body of Christ. Baptism is essential however, just not by water.

1Co:12:13: For by one Spirit are we all baptized into one body, whether we be Jews or Gentiles, whether we be bond or free; and have been all made to drink into one Spirit.

For and By Him,
Linda

Curious to see if you are truly consistent in your view of Christian symbols. Do you wear a wedding ring (that is if your married)?

Look, nobody is saying you are dammed to eternal hell because your not water baptized. We are simply saying that God can use symbols to speak to a watching world. The marriage ring is a symbol--it has no inherent power--but the mere sight of it brings into remembrance of the commitment you made to your spouse and to Christ.

Can water baptism be used by God in such a way? I believe so. We do it to symbolize our death, burial, resurrection, in Christ. That is not a negative as you propose but a positive before a watching world.

Sozo

March 11th 2003, 05:00 PM

03-11-2003 @ 02:32 PM
Gavin:
I just don't see any reason to not follow the sacraments and means of grace that Christ instituted in the NT, generally speaking.

Thanks,
Gavin

Means of grace? :huh: I think not :no:

Xmansmommy

March 11th 2003, 06:51 PM

Originally posted by Gavin...
So why not chose to be baptized for the same reasons - to honor and remember Christ and what he has done for you?
As I stated before, for me personally it would not be honoring nor remembering Jesus Christ and what He's accomplished for me at Calvary. It would be just the opposite. I realize, recognize and praise Him every day. I am very thankful for what He's done for me. I am very grateful for what He is continuing to do in my life. I believe He knows how thankful I am. :xmm:

Xmansmommy

March 11th 2003, 07:14 PM

03-11-2003 @ 03:43 PM
Freak:

Curious to see if you are truly consistent in your view of Christian symbols. Do you wear a wedding ring (that is if your married)?

Look, nobody is saying you are dammed to eternal hell because your not water baptized. We are simply saying that God can use symbols to speak to a watching world. The marriage ring is a symbol--it has no inherent power--but the mere sight of it brings into remembrance of the commitment you made to your spouse and to Christ.

Can water baptism be used by God in such a way? I believe so. We do it to symbolize our death, burial, resurrection, in Christ. That is not a negative as you propose but a positive before a watching world.

Well Freak to answer your question, I don't wear a wedding ring because I am not married. I believe if and when that time comes I will indeed sport a ring. The wedding ring is a symbol that is ever present to the one wearing it and those in their presence. What symbol does the person who is water baptised carry with them as a reminder of that symbol? According to a watching world perhaps it might be a positive or a negative. Depends on who you ask. For those who realize that water baptism is not for today it might be a hinderance. If I profess that Christ's precious blood is sufficient and I go before a world of likeminded believers and get water baptized, I might not be such a great witness as to what or WHOM I'm putting my faith in. I desire to mean what I say. I trust the blood of Christ alone. NO need for a symbolic baptism, I prefer the real deal!

Freak

March 11th 2003, 07:53 PM

03-11-2003 @ 11:14 PM
Xmansmommy:

Well Freak to answer your question, I don't wear a wedding ring because I am not married. I believe if and when that time comes I will indeed sport a ring. The wedding ring is a symbol that is ever present to the one wearing it and those in their presence. What symbol does the person who is water baptised carry with them as a reminder of that symbol? According to a watching world perhaps it might be a positive or a negative. Depends on who you ask. For those who realize that water baptism is not for today it might be a hinderance. If I profess that Christ's precious blood is sufficient and I go before a world of likeminded believers and get water baptized, I might not be such a great witness as to what or WHOM I'm putting my faith in. I desire to mean what I say. I trust the blood of Christ alone. NO need for a symbolic baptism, I prefer the real deal!

The exchanging of the rings is a one time event. One doesn't keep on exchanging rings. The symbolism is real and powerful even if its just a one time event. Same with water baptism. One should confess verbally that Jesus is Lord and testify to ones salvation experience in Christ. The one baptizing should baptize the person in the likness of Jesus death, burial, and resurrection--making it a powerful reminder what Christ has done and will do.

You said: According to a watching world perhaps it might be a positive or a negative. Depends on who you ask. For those who realize that water baptism is not for today it might be a hinderance.

Well, I guess the same could be said for exchanging rings in a marriage ceremony. But for the most part Biblical water baptism is a positive. I believe many genuine believers here at TWEB could probably attest to this fact.

You said: I might not be such a great witness as to what or WHOM I'm putting my faith in. I desire to mean what I say.

Huh? Genuine believers do not trust in the water. They have trusted in Jesus. The baptism is simply a way (symbolically) to share what has occured in the heart. Just like married people don't trust in the ring. The ring merely symbolizes the commitment one made.

Finally you say: NO need for a symbolic baptism, I prefer the real deal!

Well, I hope your as consistent to the wearing of a engagement ring or wedding band. They are symbolic. Why can you just trust Jesus--the real deal--no need for symbolic rings, right?

Xmansmommy

March 11th 2003, 08:10 PM

Freak,
I am having a hard time understanding your purpose for starting this thread. Apparently you don't believe water baptism is necessary for salvation, yet you desire to convince me that it is necessary to be a good witness. Again, I have my life as a testimony and my words as my confession that I have trusted in what Jesus Christ has done for me personally. I feel that is a far greater testimony than a ceremony for the sake of others. Perhaps I'm simply not articulating myself very well. I do tend to have a difficult time sometimes doing so. As for a wedding ring and consistancy in symbolism, I see a huge difference between wearing a wedding ring and a one time event of water baptism. You said, "The baptism is simply a way (symbolically) to share what has occured in the heart. Just like married people don't trust in the ring. The ring merely symbolizes the commitment one made." While I agree that the rings are a symbol of the commitment they have made, it is also a visible commitment that they wear daily. The event of water baptism does nothing for your everyday life seeings as how there is no symbol you can wear around attesting to that fact. As for how water baptism has affected members of TW, I'm certain it has, yet that is no reason for me to do something I believe for me personally shows a lack of faith. What part of that am I unclear on Freak?

Justified

March 11th 2003, 10:57 PM

Freak,

What evidence can you provide from God's word to show us that water baptism is symbolic of what we believe?

Freak

March 11th 2003, 11:20 PM

03-12-2003 @ 12:10 AM
Xmansmommy:

Freak,
I am having a hard time understanding your purpose for starting this thread. Apparently you don't believe water baptism is necessary for salvation, yet you desire to convince me that it is necessary to be a good witness. Again, I have my life as a testimony and my words as my confession that I have trusted in what Jesus Christ has done for me personally. I feel that is a far greater testimony than a ceremony for the sake of others. Perhaps I'm simply not articulating myself very well. I do tend to have a difficult time sometimes doing so. As for a wedding ring and consistancy in symbolism, I see a huge difference between wearing a wedding ring and a one time event of water baptism. You said, "The baptism is simply a way (symbolically) to share what has occured in the heart. Just like married people don't trust in the ring. The ring merely symbolizes the commitment one made." While I agree that the rings are a symbol of the commitment they have made, it is also a visible commitment that they wear daily. The event of water baptism does nothing for your everyday life seeings as how there is no symbol you can wear around attesting to that fact. As for how water baptism has affected members of TW, I'm certain it has, yet that is no reason for me to do something I believe for me personally shows a lack of faith. What part of that am I unclear on Freak?

You fail to see that...the exchanging of the rings is a one time event too. One doesn't keep on exchanging rings. The symbolism is real and powerful even if its just a one time event. Same with water baptism.

I didn't say water baptism was necessary. I simply pointed out it was a way to share a witness of a changed life. Yes, it's but a one time event. So? The fact is the exchanging of the rings is a one time event too. But you didn't mind that though. One doesn't keep on exchanging rings. But, I'm sure the symbolism impacts many. That's what counts. Lives are impacted. If it didn't the symbolism wouldn't even exist in our day or be practiced. There is meaning behind it that is why people still practice the one time event of exchanging rings.

You keep on telling me that "my words as my confession that I have trusted in what Jesus Christ has done for me personally. I feel that is a far greater testimony than a ceremony for the sake of others." Well you better not exchange rings when you (if you do) get married. Do you hug people or hold hands with someone you care about? Those actions involve no words per se but those actions are powerful. They are symbolic to others watching. First Corinthains 13 tells us that love involves actions expressed in various ways like harboring no wrongs, being patient, etc...

I just believe you are merely limiting God to what He can use (like water baptism, exchanging rings, etc) to impact people's lives. Who are you to say otherwise?

Xmansmommy

March 12th 2003, 08:01 AM

Freak,
I am quite aware that exchanging rings is a one time event, that can impact lives. Agreed. If they exchanged rings and never wore those rings again after they exchanged them at the wedding ceremony, would they be much "witness" after that event? If not, the witness that that married couple would have then, is how they present themselves and how they live their lives as a couple. My point being Freak, that the life they now live is a greater witness than that one time event, although it was very wonderful and probably impacted lives for the moment.
Again Freak, I do not underestimate God. Nor do I limit Him. That may be your belief because I find water baptism to be in direct conflict with the gospel of the grace of God. You're entitled. :smile:

Freak

March 12th 2003, 10:48 AM

03-12-2003 @ 12:01 PM
Xmansmommy:

Freak,
I am quite aware that exchanging rings is a one time event, that can impact lives. Agreed. If they exchanged rings and never wore those rings again after they exchanged them at the wedding ceremony, would they be much "witness" after that event? If not, the witness that that married couple would have then, is how they present themselves and how they live their lives as a couple. My point being Freak, that the life they now live is a greater witness than that one time event, although it was very wonderful and probably impacted lives for the moment.
Again Freak, I do not underestimate God. Nor do I limit Him. That may be your belief because I find water baptism to be in direct conflict with the gospel of the grace of God. You're entitled. :smile:

The issue we are speaking of is the use of symbolism. The fact is God uses symbolism to touch the human heart which you have admitted to: "I am quite aware that exchanging rings is a one time event, that can impact lives. Agreed."

Nobody is suggesting that somehow the symbolism is more important then the decision made within the heart. That is absurd. But we are making it clear God endorses and blesses the use of symbolism. For remember God the Father sent Jesus to a cross (a symbol) to purchase our redemption. As Paul tells "The message of the cross is foolishness to those who are perishing but to those who are being saved it is the power of God unto salvation."

Perhaps you can start looking at symbolism as not being in direct conflict with God but rather used of God (as you have admitted) to touch hearts. Symbolism is not the enemy. For if it was, the early church would have never participated in water baptism (for that baptism was merely symbolic).

Pilgrim

March 12th 2003, 11:09 AM

Xmans,

I can see your point of view up to a point. I think it goes way to far to say that it is in "direct contradiction to the Gospel." Especially considering that Christ was baptized in water and his disciples baptized people in water and were instructed to do so.

Pilgrim

George Blaisdell

March 12th 2003, 11:51 AM

03-08-2003 @ 08:53 PM
Xmansmommy:

Let me ask to whom this outward sign of an inward grace would benefit? I am IN Christ, baptised by the Holy Spirit INTO His Body. I have no need to identify with Him, as I am a member of His Body. Sealed by the Holy Spirit, done by the operation of God. What more can man, or a baptismal font for that matter, do to better seal me? If God places me into Christ upon believing the gospel of my salvation, I'm satisfied, as I believe, is He.

Grace and peace,
Linda

Matthew 28:
16 Then the eleven disciples went away into Galilee onto a mountain where Jesus had appointed them. 17 And when they saw Him, they worshiped Him; but some doubted. 18 18 And Jesus came and spoke unto them, saying, "All power is given unto Me in Heaven and on earth. 19 Go ye therefore and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost, 20 teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you. And lo, I am with you always, even unto the end of the world." Amen.

Linda - Do you really wish to place yourself outside the aegis of Christ's words here? And instead place your faith in the spiritual experiences you have had which are only between you and and spiritual powers, which can be good or evil? And do you not know that the presence of grace at any time is no guarantee that the subsequent spiritual event, riding the coat-tails of grace, is not delusion? And that outside a long and arduous path of purification by fire in many trials within the Church, one simply has no way to discern the spirits?

The holiness of your calling is not at all in question, the calling which you regard as your salvation, as indeed it is, but not if you keep yourself outside the commandments of Christ, and one of these is baptism... Another is the obedience we owe to our Church fathers and elders...

When you write: "If God places me into Christ upon believing the gospel of my salvation, I'm satisfied, as I believe, is He.", you must emphasize the IF...

God in no place in the Bible places anyone into Christ after His resurrection outside their willingness to be baptised. Even Saul had to go to Ananias for healing of his blindness, and his baptism into the Church as Paul... Do you claim to be more God-directed that Paul???

I shudder at your unwillingness to be baptized...

Please forgive me if I sound critical of you... I have walked in the "just me and God" delusion, being a "satellite Christian"... But that was before...

Newly baptized into Christ...

geo

Xmansmommy

March 12th 2003, 01:48 PM

03-12-2003 @ 10:09 AM
Pilgrim:

Xmans,

I can see your point of view up to a point. I think it goes way to far to say that it is in "direct contradiction to the Gospel." Especially considering that Christ was baptized in water and his disciples baptized people in water and were instructed to do so.

Pilgrim
Acts 9 dispensationalism explains my comments about water baptism being in direct conflict with the gospel of the grace of God. I don't believe that Jesus and the disciples were preaching the gospel of the grace of God. They were preaching the gospel of the kingdom. Hope that helps Pilgrim.

:smile:

Sozo

March 12th 2003, 09:53 PM

03-12-2003 @ 09:51 AM
George Blaisdell:

19 Go ye therefore and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost, 20 teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you.03-12-2003 @ 09:51 AM
George Blaisdell:

Do you claim to be more God-directed than Paul???

George, did Paul do what Jesus commanded Him according to your understanding of water baptism?

Perhaps not!!

1Cor 1:17

"For Christ did not send me to baptize, but to preach the gospel, not in cleverness of speech, that the cross of Christ should not be made void."

:smile:

Justified

March 12th 2003, 10:00 PM

Water baptism is not a sign of what we believe and the greater witness of God is the only sign that we must receive.

Ye sent unto John, and he bare witness unto the truth. John 5:33
But I receive not testimony from man: but these things I say, that ye might be saved. John 5:34
He was a burning and a shining light: and ye were willing for a season to rejoice in his light. John 5:35
But I have greater witness than that of John: for the works which the Father hath given me to finish, the same works that I do, bear witness of me, that the Father hath sent me. John 5:36
And the Father himself, which hath sent me, hath borne witness of me. Ye have neither heard his voice at any time, nor seen his shape. John 5:37

Salvation is not in obedience of the flesh but is a operation of God when we believe in the finished work of Christ at the cross. Water baptism is a old testament sign under the law...For the Jews require a sign, and the Greeks seek after wisdom: 1 Cor. 1:22 (KJV). But (note the contrast) we preach Christ crucified, unto the Jews a stumblingblock, and unto the Greeks foolishness; 1 Cor. 1:23

Signs were nothing more than a shadow of things to come and are no longer needed after Christ (THE REAL THING) suffered and shed His blood for our sins. Praise God!!!!!!!!

But he answered and said unto them, An evil and adulterous generation seeketh after a sign; and there shall no sign be given to it, but the sign of the prophet Jonas: Matt. 12:39 (KJV)
For as Jonas was three days and three nights in the whale’s belly; so shall the Son of man be three days and three nights in the heart of the earth. Matt. 12:40 (KJV)
The men of Nineveh shall rise in judgment with this generation, and shall condemn it: because they repented at the preaching of Jonas; and, behold, a greater than Jonas is here. Matt. 12:41 (KJV)

The words of Jesus testify to the truth...."and there shall no sign be given to it, but the sign of the prophet Jonas". The ONLY SIGN will be the death and resurrection of Jesus but many say no that's not true by including water baptism as a sign.

Know ye not, that so many of us as were baptized into Jesus Christ were baptized into his death? Rom. 6:3 (KJV)
Therefore we are buried with him by baptism into death: 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. Rom. 6:4 (KJV)

Baptism into His death is an operation of God received by faith in believing He died in our place and it has nothing to do with water.

For Christ sent me not to baptize, but to preach the gospel: not with wisdom of words, lest the cross of Christ should be made of none effect. 1 Cor. 1:17 (KJV)
For the preaching of the cross is to them that perish foolishness; but unto us which are saved it is the power of God. 1 Cor. 1:18 (KJV)
For it is written, I will destroy the wisdom of the wise, and will bring to nothing the understanding of the prudent. 1 Cor. 1:19 (KJV)

George Blaisdell

March 12th 2003, 11:36 PM

03-12-2003 @ 05:53 PM
Sozo:

George, did Paul do what Jesus commanded Him according to your understanding of water baptism?

Perhaps not!!

1Cor 1:17

"For Christ did not send me to baptize, but to preach the gospel, not in cleverness of speech, that the cross of Christ should not be made void."

:smile:

Perhaps you missed the point of mentioning Paul - He was called into the service of Christ by the risen Christ Himself, and this when he was Saul, and a great blindness was imposed upon him, and he was taken, at Christ's direction, to Ananias, who was a member of this upstart Jewish sect that Saul had been persecuting. [This sect is the early Church, and their Bible was the Old Testament, the Greek one... the lxx.].. And Ananias was told by Christ to receive Saul, and he objected, for Saul's persecution of the Church, ie Christ ["Saul, Saul, Why are you persecuting ME?" And not "Why are you persecuting these followers of Me?" Yes?] was well known at that time. Yet he obeyed Christ, and received Saul, and cured his blindness [scales came out of his eyes, remember?] and baptized him into the Church, and his new [baptismal and Christian] name became Paul...

And the point is not "Paul baptized" [Which as you point out was not his calling] but "Paul WAS BAPTIZED." He was baptized into Christ, into His Church, by Ananias - This man, Paul, who was as "God-direct" in his encounter with the risen Christ on the Road to Damascus as any of us post moderns might ever fancy ourselves to be - This holy man, who was to write half the New Testament, suffered himself to be baptized, welcomed himself to be baptized, to be entered into Christ, into His holy body, the Church, and as your epistle reading shows, he was called not to baptize, but to evangellize, [alla euaggelizesqai] and not in the wisdom of word, [ouk en sofia logou,] but in reality and in deed and in power, and in fear and in trembling and in fact... That Christ's cross not be made void.

It was not his words that made him a great evangellist... But his praxis... His God bearing deeds...

And he calls us to be like him...

How could anyone decline being baptized into Christ's holy body?

I cannot imagine such a thing...

geo

Sozo

March 12th 2003, 11:57 PM

03-12-2003 @ 09:36 PM
George Blaisdell:

How could anyone decline being baptized into Christ's holy body?

I cannot imagine such a thing...

geo

We are baptized into Christ's body... by the Spirit, not by water!

George... Don't you think that if water baptism was an essential to the Christian faith that it would have been foolish and contradictory of Paul to say that he was not sent to baptize?

You are far off from understanding the gospel George, and are seeped in foolish traditions, and vain religious and unbiblical philosophies.

George Blaisdell

March 13th 2003, 12:12 AM

Justified writes:

> Baptism into His death is an operation of God received by faith in believing He died in our place and it has nothing to do with water.

Then tell me why Saul was sent by the Risen Christ Himself to Ananias for healing and for [water] baptism... And tell me why the entire first thousand years of Christianity practiced water baptism. Are you saying that the Church that Christ established at Pentecost got it all wrong for the first thousand years, and that you have read their text, the Bible, and you have somehow now 1500 years after the fact been miraculously given the divine wisdom to set them aright? Are you saying that Christ failed? That His Church failed? That they've got this water thing all wrong?? That it is not the Church that baptizes, but instead is God? So that you would drive a wedge between God and His Church? And that "faith in believing" is some kind of magical substitute for the praxis of the faith as it was given once for all to the apostles? That all we have to do is believe and we are baptized all by ourselves, just God and Me? So that every man is his own pope, being born God-direct outside the faith received once for all by the apostles, and conveyed by them from generation to generation? That we are all Lone Ranger Christians?

Enough of this rhetorical rant! I do not believe any of that nonsense! Christ's Church has been pruned, but never defeated, and is alive and well and upon this earth and visible and invisible and in heaven and is ONE... As it has always been...

geo

George Blaisdell

March 13th 2003, 12:22 AM

03-12-2003 @ 07:57 PM
Sozo:

We are baptized into Christ's body... by the Spirit, not by water!

George... Don't you think that if water baptism was an essential to the Christian faith that it would have been foolish and contradictory of Paul to say that he was not sent to baptize?

Hardly - He teaches that each of us has a different work, some to teach, some to preach, some to baptize, some to evangellize, each according to God's will...

You are far off from understanding the gospel George, and are seeped in foolish traditions, and vain religious and unbiblical philosophies.

I am sure you are right, for my traditions are reason and athiesm and western philosophy, and my understanding is far from the truth...

Have mercy on me O God, according to Thy great mercy!

I can only join with the publican, and cry for forgiveness of my sins...

But I make no apology for the Gospel of Christ... Nor for His Holy Body, His One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church.

geo

Justified

March 13th 2003, 09:45 PM

03-13-2003 @ 04:12 AM
George Blaisdell:

Justified writes:

> Baptism into His death is an operation of God received by faith in believing He died in our place and it has nothing to do with water.

Then tell me why Saul was sent by the Risen Christ Himself to Ananias for healing and for [water] baptism...

Show me the scripture where Christ sent Ananias to water baptize Saul. Anainas was a devout man according to the law (Acts 22:12) and water baptize is a commandment under the law (Mark 1:4). Christ did not instruct Anannias to command Paul to be water baptized.

And tell me why the entire first thousand years of Christianity practiced water baptism. Are you saying that the Church that Christ established at Pentecost got it all wrong for the first thousand years, and that you have read their text, the Bible, and you have somehow now 1500 years after the fact been miraculously given the divine wisdom to set them aright? Are you saying that Christ failed? That His Church failed? That they've got this water thing all wrong??

Did you read my previous post? Paul was lead by the Spirit to say Christ sent him not to baptize. Should I be any different? Should anyone? We are to follow the teachings of Paul as he was lead by the Spirit of Christ and Paul was the first to preach a message that delivered us from the law. Paul's gospel fulfilled the word of God (Col 1:25) and I don't care to regress. We must be lead by the Spirit not church tradition. Why was Paul called if the gospel was complete at Pentecost?

That it is not the Church that baptizes, but instead is God? So that you would drive a wedge between God and His Church? And that "faith in believing" is some kind of magical substitute for the praxis of the faith as it was given once for all to the apostles?

Baptism is an operation of God (Col 2:12) by the Spirit (1 Cor 12:13) and it has nothing whatsoever to do with water. This operation of God places us into the body of Christ (1 Cor 12:13). All that receive this doctrine are not under the law and therefore will not be judged by the law of commandments which is a wedge that separates us from Christ. Church tradition is the doctrine of men that follow men. I follow Christ by His Spirit as Paul did.

That all we have to do is believe and we are baptized all by ourselves, just God and Me? So that every man is his own pope, being born God-direct outside the faith received once for all by the apostles, and conveyed by them from generation to generation? That we are all Lone Ranger Christians?

Is God not enough? What more do you need? There is no mediator between God and man but Christ Jesus (1 Tim 2:5), as I said I am lead by His Spirit not a pope.

Enough of this rhetorical rant!

Then shut your mouth and prove what you say with scripture.

I do not believe any of that nonsense! Christ's Church has been pruned, but never defeated, and is alive and well and upon this earth and visible and invisible and in heaven and is ONE... As it has always been...

I never said Christ's Chruch was defeated! It is alive and lead by the Spirit of Truth not church tradition or a pope.

George Blaisdell

March 13th 2003, 10:43 PM

Justified writes:

> Is God not enough? What more do you need? There is no mediator between God and man but Christ Jesus (1 Tim 2:5), as I said I am lead by His Spirit not a pope.

My friend, this only makes of you your own pope...

And just as I do not acknowledge Roman Pontifical Authority, neither do I acknowledge your own personal and private spirit-led Papal Infallibility of Self... This whole notion of "just me and God" outside the Church established by Christ is insanity...

Christ established His Church upon the earth, and it has real people, and real sacraments, and real apostolic succession, and real holiness. It is the pillar and ground of truth, and against it the yawing gates of hell shall not prevail...

Nowhere in scripture will you find your doctrine of "Me and God"...

"I am lead by His Spirit not a pope."

Are you Popophobic?

Is that why you claim God-direct justification?

So that you can be your own authoritarian ruler over yourself?

And not have to submit your will to some old guy in Rome?

You don't want him to have authority over you?

You think you are safer under your own authority, claiming it is God's?

That is what the Pope does, you know...

Filling the world with millions of self-autocratic popes each in charge of themselves and their relationship with God, and outside the Church created in the flesh and on earth by Christ, is not the answer to the doctrine of Papal Infallibility!

Christ is indeed the mediator between God and man, which is why He created His one, holy, catholic and apostolic Church, which Church is His holy body, the pillar and ground of the truths...

It is within the Body of Christ that we find our salvation, and that body is in the flesh and upon the earth, now and ever, and unto the ages of ages... Trying to find our salvation outside this body is not Biblical...

I am not Roman Catholic... Tilting at such windmills is not helpful...

When you write: "Then shut your mouth and prove ..." I shudder, for the faith is received, not proven, one person to another... But your advice to shut my mouth is well received! Thank-you - And mum's the word!

And... I apologize for the harsh tone of this post.

geo

Justified

March 13th 2003, 11:41 PM

03-14-2003 @ 02:43 AM
George Blaisdell:

Justified writes:

> Is God not enough? What more do you need? There is no mediator between God and man but Christ Jesus (1 Tim 2:5), as I said I am lead by His Spirit not a pope.

My friend, this only makes of you your own pope...

And just as I do not acknowledge Roman Pontifical Authority, neither do I acknowledge your own personal and private spirit-led Papal Infallibility of Self... This whole notion of "just me and God" outside the Church established by Christ is insanity...

Christ established His Church upon the earth, and it has real people, and real sacraments, and real apostolic succession, and real holiness. It is the pillar and ground of truth, and against it the yawing gates of hell shall not prevail...

Nowhere in scripture will you find your doctrine of "Me and God"...

"I am lead by His Spirit not a pope."

Are you Popophobic?

Is that why you claim God-direct justification?

So that you can be your own authoritarian ruler over yourself?

And not have to submit your will to some old guy in Rome?

You don't want him to have authority over you?

You think you are safer under your own authority, claiming it is God's?

That is what the Pope does, you know...

Filling the world with millions of self-autocratic popes each in charge of themselves and their relationship with God, and outside the Church created in the flesh and on earth by Christ, is not the answer to the doctrine of Papal Infallibility!

Christ is indeed the mediator between God and man, which is why He created His one, holy, catholic and apostolic Church, which Church is His holy body, the pillar and ground of the truths...

It is within the Body of Christ that we find our salvation, and that body is in the flesh and upon the earth, now and ever, and unto the ages of ages... Trying to find our salvation outside this body is not Biblical...

I am not Roman Catholic... Tilting at such windmills is not helpful...

When you write: "Then shut your mouth and prove ..." I shudder, for the faith is received, not proven, one person to another... But your advice to shut my mouth is well received! Thank-you - And mum's the word!

And... I apologize for the harsh tone of this post.

geo

Just as I thought, no scripture.

For Christ sent me not to baptize, but to preach the gospel: not with wisdom of words, lest the cross of Christ should be made of none effect. 1 Cor. 1:17

GrayPilgrim

March 14th 2003, 10:51 AM

Thank you George, and while I am not Orthodox, I think I can agree with pretty much all that you are saying. Here some Scriptural proof for you nay sayers:

1 Peter 3:18-22 "For Christ also suffered once for sins, the righteous for the unrighteous, that he might bring us to God, being put to death in the flesh but made alive in the spirit, 19 in which he went and proclaimed to the spirits in prison, 20 because they formerly did not obey, when God's patience waited in the days of Noah, while the ark was being prepared, in which a few, that is, eight persons, were brought safely through water. 21 Baptism, which corresponds to this, 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, 22 who has gone into heaven and is at the right hand of God, with angels, authorities, and powers having been subjected to him. "

This is definitely speaking of water baptism. But you will say--"That's Peter".

So--
Galatians 3:24-29 24 So then, the law was our guardian until Christ came, in order that we might be justified by faith. 25 But now that faith has come, we are no longer under a guardian, 26 for in Christ Jesus you are all sons of God, through faith. 27 For as many of you as were baptized into Christ have put on Christ. 28 There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free, there is neither male nor female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus. 29 And if you are Christ's, then you are Abraham's offspring, heirs according to promise.

εβαπτισθητε refers to water baptism. The onus is on you, disentors, to prove otehrwise:

As FF Bruce said in his commentary:
This is the only reference to baptism in Galatians, and it is difficult to suppose that that the readers would not have understood it as a statement aboout their initiatory baptism in water...Christian baptsims took over from the baptism of John it connexion (sic) with repentance and remission of sins and its significance as a pointer to the new age. But it was not administered specifically in Jesus' name and was the outward and visible sign of admission tothe new community: 'in one Spirit' says Paul to the COrinthians, 'we were all baptized into one body' (1 Cor. 12:13) p. 185

Let us look at acovenants for a second as well. All covenants have both an initiatroy rite and a rite of renewal.

In the Abrahamic Covenant circumcision served as both.
In the Mosiac Covenant circumcision served as the initiatory rite and Pasover served as the renewal rite.
In the New Covenant Water Baptism is the Initiatory Rite and Comunion is the Rite of Renewal.

ALL covenants have both rites. These are physical acts that one can see. If water baptism is not the rite given for initiation into the covenant then what is it. Mind you that just as you eat real food and drink real wine/grape juice in communion so too the initiatory rite needs to be just as tangible.

GP

Sozo

March 14th 2003, 12:23 PM

I can't believe how stupid people are on this subject :no:

GrayPilgrim

March 14th 2003, 02:29 PM

That post was rather unhelpful.

Sozo

March 14th 2003, 04:11 PM

03-14-2003 @ 12:29 PM
GrayPilgrim:

That post was rather unhelpful.

This is not a difficult subject, and yet there are those who still persist in feeding on milk.

"For everyone who partakes [only] of milk is not accustomed to the word of righteousness, for he is a babe. But solid food is for the mature, who because of practice have their senses trained to discern good and evil. Therefore leaving the elementary teaching about the Christ, let us press on to maturity, not laying again a foundation of repentance from dead works and of faith toward God, of instruction about washings, and laying on of hands, and the resurrection of the dead, and eternal judgment."

George Blaisdell

March 14th 2003, 04:50 PM

03-14-2003 @ 12:11 PM
Sozo:

This is not a difficult subject, and yet there are those who still persist in feeding on milk.

"For everyone who partakes [only] of milk is not accustomed to the word of righteousness, for he is a babe. But solid food is for the mature, who because of practice have their senses trained to discern good and evil. Therefore leaving the elementary teaching about the Christ, let us press on to maturity, not laying again a foundation of repentance from dead works and of faith toward God, of instruction about washings, and laying on of hands, and the resurrection of the dead, and eternal judgment."

Sozo - The foundation that has been laid needs to be kept - The issues we are discussing are foundational, and cannot be moved foreward from until they have become our foundation. To discard baptism in Christ's Church by triple immersion and chrismation destroys the foundation...

You are right, it is not a difficult subject - we need to turn from our sinful ways [in repentance from them] and turn unto God and be baptized into Christ's Church that He established on earth with real people and partake of Her sacramental life... And live Christian lives...

Scripture here is not telling us to discard "repentance from dead works and of faith toward God, of instruction about washings, and laying on of hands, and the resurrection of the dead, and eternal judgment," but to grow forth having been FOUNDED upon them...

These are milk issues, my friend - Baptism by the Church in water and Spirit is foundational, is milk... Scorning them because they are milk and disdaining how stupid people are, as you did two posts ago, is not what many would regard as halmarks of people who are mature in the faith...

And I, for one, am NOT mature in the faith...

geo

Sozo

March 14th 2003, 04:58 PM

03-14-2003 @ 02:50 PM
George Blaisdell:

These are milk issues, my friend - Baptism by the Church in water and Spirit is foundational, is milk

There are not 2 baptisms.

To discard baptism in Christ's Church by triple immersion and chrismation destroys the foundation... Then Paul, destroyed the foundation.

George Blaisdell

March 14th 2003, 11:07 PM

> > George Blaisdell wrote:

> > These are milk issues, my friend - Baptism by the Church in water and Spirit is foundational, [is the milk of entry into the Body of Christ.]

> There are not 2 baptisms.

There is one.

When John baptized Christ in the River Jordan, Christ came out of the water, and the Holy Spirit descended as a dove, and remained upon Him.

And similarly in the Church established by Christ, when a new person is baptized into the body of Christ, [the Church], he or she is similarly immersed in water, and then given the seal of the Holy Spirit in chrismation [Christing] - It has been done this way from the very beginnings - It is how Saul was entered into Christ's Church by Ananias, and how the Churches he established baptized new believers...

Are you seriously saying that REAL Christians scorn water baptism in favor of a personal and private "spiritual' baptism in the privacy of their own experience??? If yes, then you have a burden of proof that you cannot lift at all, for there is no history of it whatsoever in the early and sorely persecuted Church.

> > [geo]
> > To discard baptism in Christ's Church by triple immersion and chrismation destroys the foundation...

> Then Paul, destroyed the foundation.

Immersion in water and chrismation is the practice of all the Churches Paul founded - He founded MY Church in Antioch, and we have been baptizing in this manner from the very beginnings...

Sozo - Do you REALLY believe this nonsense of DRY baptism as a private event between you and God and no one else???

Please forgive my incredulity, but there are some things that just do not compute well in my mental corridors - Square circles... Flying alogrithyms... Dry baptisms... and Holy sinfulness...

Am I really understanding you right?

geo

Justified

March 14th 2003, 11:25 PM

“For Christ also hath once suffered for sins, the just for the unjust, that he might bring us to God, being put to death in the flesh, but quickened by the Spirit: 19By which also he went and preached unto the spirits in prison; Which sometime were disobedient, when once the longsuffering of God waited in the days of Noah, while the ark was a preparing, wherein few, that is, eight souls were saved by water.
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: Who is gone into heaven, and is on the right hand of God; angels and authorities and powers being made subject unto him.”

I would say baptism by fire will replace this baptism in water.

By faith Noah entered the ark which is a representation of Christ and those in the ark were saved from the water.

God has set His bow in the heavens as a token of His promise not to destroy the earth again by water. Fire will replace the element of water for all those that will not enter into the body of Christ by faith. Water baptism can not save. Peter refers to a baptism that will not remove filth from the body but says it is a baptism received by faith in the Christ who suffered once for our sins and was resurrected to the right hand of God.

“Wherefore the law was our schoolmaster to bring us unto Christ, that we might be justified by faith. But after that faith is come, we are no longer under a schoolmaster. For ye are all the children of God by faith in Christ Jesus. For as many of you as have been baptized into Christ have put on Christ. There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither bond nor free, there is neither male nor female: for ye are all one in Christ Jesus. And if ye be Christ’s, then are ye Abraham’s seed, and heirs according to the promise.”

I would point out that we are not justified by works and the onus is on dissenters of the truth to prove water baptism is not a work. Faith in Christ is our only justification and that faith has delivered us from the law. Water baptism was performed under the law and it was required to receive remission of sins. Christ’s death made the new covenant (testament) effectual. The new testament of His shed blood for remission (Matt 26:28) is received by faith to the inner man. We do not drink His blood naturally, we receive it spiritually.

GrayPilgrim

March 14th 2003, 11:37 PM

No one is arguing for baptismal regeneration. Please note baptism was meant to fill the role that Finney and those following him gave to the sinners prayer. It was to be the confession that Jesus Christ is Lord and Savior and he has redeemed me by his work and placed me into his Church. So it is this later inovation that must be defended, as no one argued about this until a little over a century ago, now unless you want to say that Martin Luther believed you are saved by works I think you need to rethink things. When asked how he knew that he was saved, Luther responded "I was baptized" (Probably sounded more like Ich bin in Wasser getieft, but that's another matter). Luther took his assurance from his baptism, which made him a member of ht echurch and thus was protection from the devil. Now I don't agree with all of Luther's stuff, but hmm the guy wanted to throw things out of the Bible he thought taught works-salvation, so to say that we, who beleive that the idea of an un-(water) baptized believer is a silly thing, are teaching works salvation is to misread what we are saying and requires closer reading.

GP

George Blaisdell

March 15th 2003, 12:03 AM

Justified writes:

> "I would say baptism by fire will replace this baptism in water."

In the sense that baptism is a purification of the person, it should be said that there is a purification by fire in Christ that follows the baptism of entry into His Holy Body, which indeed does produce the answer of a good conscience toward God in the newly illumined...

And this 'baptism' by fire is the withdrawal of grace that inevitably follows its infusion, so that what has been acquired during the infusion can be tested, and the fire of withdrawal will burn away all that is without effect, and what is pure will remain. Then will grace return, and the process repeated. So that in Orthodoxy, the presence of great grace is a special time of concern that we prepare in it what will later be tried by fire. It is not there for our pleasure, but for our growth in Christ... Another way of talking about it is the metaphor of the chastizement of the child by the Father, for if one is receiving chastizement, this is a great blessing, for God loves those whom He chastizes, and some are chastized sorely... To their great benefit. [Such is this baptism, this purification, by fire...]

Others of us, like me, just putz along fat dumb and happy thinking they are doing fine and enjoying the pleasures of God's outpouring of grace, and are headed for a fall, which will burn away the straw and show them the charred remains of their shoddily founded efforts... Remember Christ counselling us to "count the cost" of our faith? So that we will be able to finish what we start?

The renewal of baptism, in Orthodoxy, is the daily outpouring of tears of contrition and remorse in repentance from our daily failings, where we stand with the Publican in contrition asking Christ for mercy, and not with the Pharisee thanking God for pre-selecting us for salvation no matter what we do...

It is our tears that daily wash our souls anew... "A sacrifice unto God is a broken spirit. A heart that is broken and humbled God will not despise..." A day without tears of repentance is a day lost forever...

geo

Apollos

March 15th 2003, 12:54 AM

Sozo -

In Paul’s discourse of 1 Corinthians 1, he pleads for the unity that disciples of Christ should have by the mere virtue of being in Christ. The Corinthians did not have that unity.

Paul goes on to explain that they were using baptism as a means of division, that each was claiming themself better than another because of who had baptized that person. Paul mentions here that he did in fact BAPTIZE some that were at Corinth – Gaius, Crispus, and even the household of Stephanus.

So what is Paul trying to say? Paul DID baptize some at Corinth! If we look in Acts 19:8 when Paul was there in the flesh, we even discover that it was not just Crispus, but the household of Crispus was baptized, and also “many of the Corinthians” !!!
My-my!!

And given that Paul was in Ephesus (Acts 19) when he wrote the book of 1 Corinthians, and there in Acts 19 we read where Paul was dunkin’ them in the water (the 12 Ephesians), you MUST reconcile what Paul was practicing with what Paul is telling the Corinthians by saying - “Christ sent me not to baptize but to…”

Hint: Study the principle of the "not... ...but" elliptical statements used in scripture.

George Blaisdell

March 15th 2003, 11:00 AM

Sozo quotes Hebrews 5:

[14] But solid food is for the mature, who because of practice have their senses trained to discern good and evil.

I went to the Greek, for I had never looked at this one in the original, and it gives a pretty good indication of what it is that differentiates the mature from the immature. [The immature like me - VERY immature - Dont let my old calendar fool you!] And the essential element is clearly the praxis, the doing, the repetitions, of the faith.

teleiwn de estin h sterea trofh,
But of the perfected is the strong nourishment

twn dia thn exin ta aisqhthria gegumnasmena ecovntwn
of those through habituation the senses having exercized possessing

pros diakrisin kalou te kai kakou.
for discerning both good and evil.

Cleaned up for English intelligibility, it reads:

But strong nourishment is of the mature, of those who by means of habit possess exercized senses for discerning both good and evil.

And what I was looking at is this term "exercized senses" [ta aisqhthria gegumnasmena]... The two words that comprise it are fairly accessible in their English derivatives - Senses is aesthetics, and exercized is the word for the action of working out in a gymnasium.

So my question to you, dear Sozo, is the following:

"What habituation of gymnastic exercizes is it that Hebrews is referring to, such that it results in the ability of the one doing them, once they become thoroughly ingrained and habitual, to discern both good and evil?"

An interesting associated term is mathete, from mathmatics, which indicates a disciple in the time of Christ, and is perhaps as well somewhat descriptive of what they did, as they entered into the practice of the faith so as to acquire it, having "heard and believed"...

For it is the SENSES that are habituated... Through EXERCISES...

This is the clear and unambiguous meaning of the text.

So what exactly IS this exercising of the senses that enables the one doing them to discern both good and evil? Is it going on down to McDonalds for a double cheeseburger and fries, super-size??? Or attending La Traviatta at the Met? Or reading Chaucer or Doyle? Or going to a health spa for mud packs and massage?

geo - the VERY immature...

Sozo

March 15th 2003, 11:51 AM

Geo asks...

So what exactly IS this exercising of the senses that enables the one doing them to discern both good and evil?

Renewing your mind with the truth. It is being accustomed to the "word of righteousness" (vs 13)

Where as you see the word of righteousness being works, I see it as faith.

"But to the one who does not work, but believes in Him who justifies the ungodly, his faith is reckoned as righteousness,just as David also speaks of the blessing upon the man to whom God reckons righteousness apart from works: "

"For I am not ashamed of the gospel of Christ: for it is the power of God unto salvation to every one that believeth; to the Jew first, and also to the Greek. For therein is the righteousness of God revealed from faith to faith: as it is written, The just shall live by faith."

"Not by works of righteousness which we have done, but according to his mercy he saved us, by the washing of regeneration, and renewing of the Holy Ghost; Which he shed on us abundantly through Jesus Christ our Saviour"

George Blaisdell

March 15th 2003, 04:48 PM

Geo asks...
“> > So what exactly IS this exercising of the senses...?
”

Sozo opines:
> Renewing your mind...

Well, then I would suggest, dear Sozo, that you have your mind confused with your senses... The senses are touch, hearing, seeing, feeling.... The mind is, well... er.... Not these! Nor are these the "truth" [below] with which one renews ones mind:

> with the truth.

Scripture is very clearly discussing here the habituation of the senses through "gymnastic" exercises of some kind in such a way that those who have done so enough [so as to have matured in the practice] can discern both good and evil. It will not do to call this the renewing of mind, because it clearly states the senses, and NOT the mind.

> It is being accustomed to the "word of righteousness" (vs 13)

[Heb. 5:13] "For every one that useth milk is unSKILLed in the word of righteousness, for he is a babe."

Clearly we can see that what is had by the mature in Christ is a SKILL that is acquired by REPETITION across the YEARS, yes??? And the reason for this is that they have an "habituation of the senses", without which the discernment of good and evil would not seem to exist all that efficaciously...

So that if these exercises are not merely mental gymnastics, but instead are of some kind that actually train the senses, what on earth [or in heaven] do you think they might BE???

Proof texting other verses that you think support your unscriptural "mental" view of the physical senses in this passage are of no help, for we all agree that there is an habituation of the mind as well, but this is NOT what this passage is stating. It is plainly and clearly talking about the habituation of the senses, which will of necessity involve the mind, but be more than mere mental affirmation...

And much more than this, it is saying that without this habituation of the senses, the MIND cannot discern both good and evil...

It would actually seem to indicate, for us to begin to become mature, to actually DO something that has some kind of habituation impact upon our sensory life, don't you agree? An actual life-style change, yes? But what do you think it might be?

You then add: "you see the word of righteousness being works," and this is not at all true. What I am saying is that scripture here clearly indicates that for us to mature in this 'word of righteousness' we must PRACTICE it upon our senses... Until our senses become habituated.

"Mortify your members..." Remember Paul saying this? I think it is related to this passage... Don't you as well?

geo

Sozo

March 16th 2003, 01:43 PM

Yesterday @ 02:48 PM
George Blaisdell:

Geo asks...
“ So what exactly IS this exercising of the senses...?
”

Sozo opines:
Renewing your mind...

Well, then I would suggest, dear Sozo, that you have your mind confused with your senses... The senses are touch, hearing, seeing, feeling.... The mind is, well... er.... Not these! Nor are these the "truth" [below] with which one renews ones mind:

with the truth.

Well George, you've completely lost your senses.

That is not even close to what the context, nor the word "senses" has to do with.

Here are a few more passages to disprove your version of truth, and to confirm mine...

"And when His own people heard of this, they went out to take custody of Him; for they were saying, "He has lost His senses."

Did he lose his taste? Sight? Smell?

"But when he came to his senses, he said, 'How many of my father's hired men have more than enough bread, but I am dying here with hunger!"

"And the Lord's bond-servant must not be quarrelsome, but be kind to all, able to teach, patient when wronged, with gentleness correcting those who are in opposition, if perhaps God may grant them repentance leading to the knowledge of the truth, and they may come to their senses and escape from the snare of the devil, having been held captive by him to do his will."

Justified

March 16th 2003, 10:59 PM

The so called "Great Commission" is the doctrine of men and it can not be found within the holy bible. The instructions of Christ after the cross were part of the new testament (Matt 26:28) for remission which was not in force until after His death (Heb. 9:17) and are not to be confused with John the Baptist‘s testimony (Mark 1:4) of water baptism for remission before the cross. It can be clearly seen that Jesus instructed the apostles to teach and that teaching will baptize all that believe. He did not command them to do the baptizing in water yet the apostles continued preaching the doctrine of the Baptist which was a baptism of repentance for the remission of sins (Acts 2:38). The apostles message at Pentecost is completely void of the new testament for remission so they failed to obey these words of Christ....
Teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you: and, lo, I am with you alway, even unto the end of the world. Amen. Matt. 28:20 (KJV)

The greatest message every to be delivered to the apostles (Matt 26:28) was not part of their doctrine at Pentecost and the silence of it is deafening.

When asked ... What shall we do, that we might work the works of God? (John 6:28)
Jesus said...This is the work of God, that ye believe on him whom he hath sent. John 6:29 (KJV)

Simple message but few even today have received it. There is no work needed but faith in the Son of God.

For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life. John 3:16

The message of eternal life is believe that Christ’s shed blood of the new testament for remission is sufficient and nothing more is needed unless you do not believe.

Let's look at what Christ taught the apostles and heed God’s warning by not adding “water” to His words.

For I testify unto every man that heareth the words of the prophecy of this book, If any man shall add unto these things, God shall add unto him the plagues that are written in this book: Rev. 22:18 (KJV)

#1
For Christ sent me not to baptize, but to preach the gospel.... 1 Cor. 1:17 (KJV)

Why would Christ send Paul NOT to baptize if the GREAT COMMISSION was... You apostles go water baptize? There is no rhyme to this type of reasoning. Man’s doctrine teaches water baptism was commanded by Jesus in the “great commission” but this is not biblical terminology.

#2
Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost: Matt. 28:19 (KJV)

It is clear the apostles are being instructed to teach and the teaching of the word will baptize them. The word is spirit and it is by this word (Eph 5:26) we are baptized...It is the "spirit" that quickeneth; the flesh profiteth nothing: the words that I speak unto you, they are spirit, and they are life John 6:63 (KJV). The quickening of the spirit (baptism) is immediate when the words of the new testament are believed and it is not possible to receive this by the flesh. The new testament is a new testimony with a greater witness (John 5:33-36) for remission of sins (Matt. 26:28) as opposed to the old testimony for remission (Mark 1:4).

The new testament is not a series of books starting with the four gospels but is a greater witness given by Christ and was not in force until after the death of Christ (Heb. 9:17). The apostles never baptized in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost because this Spirit baptism is performed by Christ when we believe His words.

#3
Go ye into all the world, and preach the gospel to every creature. Mark 16:15 (KJV)
He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved; but he that believeth not shall be ****ed. Mark 16:16 (KJV)

Again the teaching but also when one believes the word they are immediately baptized by the word. Believing and baptism by the Spirit are inseparable as is the unbelieving and ****ation. This baptism (quickening) is received the moment one believes the "spirit" word of Christ and they are born again. Compare these words spoken to Nicodemus...That which is born of the flesh is flesh; and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit (John 3:6). Again, Jesus delivered this eternal message to Nicodemus as He did to the apostles...For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life (John 3:16). Nicodemus did not understand this message and Jesus said:
We speak that we do know, and testify that we have seen; and ye receive not our witness. John 3:11 (KJV)
If I have told you earthly things, and ye believe not, how shall ye believe, if I tell you of heavenly things? John 3:12 (KJV)

This word of the gospel of Christ is spirit and life eternal in the new testament made possible only by His shed blood.

Jesus said....Whoso eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, hath eternal life; and I will raise him up at the last day. John 6:54 (KJV)

The disciples responded....This is an hard saying; who can hear (believe) it? John 6:60 (KJV)

For this is my blood of the new testament, which is shed for many for the remission of sins. Matt. 26:28 (KJV)

It is the spirit that quickeneth; the flesh profiteth nothing: the words that I speak unto you, they are spirit, and they are life. John 6:63 (KJV)

#4
Thus it is written, and thus it behoved Christ to suffer, and to rise from the dead the third day: Luke 24:46 (KJV)
And that repentance and remission of sins should be preached in his name among all nations, beginning at Jerusalem. Luke 24:47 (KJV)

Christ said that remission of sins would be received through His death. He did not say remission would be in water baptism. The word of the "new" testament for remission of sins must be believed. Christ is clearly explaining how remission of sins would be received and referring to Isaiah 53 where “it is written” He was to suffer. These scriptures not once mention water baptism.

#5
For John truly baptized with water; but (on the contrary) ye shall be baptized with the Holy Ghost not many days hence. Acts 1:5 (KJV)

Christ speaks of the contrast of the two baptisms and confirms it will not be in water BUT Spirit! The contrast was further revealed in that the death of Christ for remission of sins superceded water baptism....But I receive not testimony from man: but these things I say, that ye might be saved. John 5:34 (KJV)
He was a burning and a shining light: and ye were willing for a season to rejoice in his light. John 5:35 (KJV)
But I have greater witness than that of John: for the works which the Father hath given me to finish, the same works that I do, bear witness of me, that the Father hath sent me. John 5:36 (KJV)

By comparing scripture with scripture it is evident the commission was to preach the new testimony for sin remission and when one believes the words of this gospel of Christ they would be baptized by the Spirit. The confusion is had when men go against the warning of God and “ADD” the word “WATER” to the final words of Christ. To be baptized by the Spirit who is Christ (2 Cor 3:17) is to be washed with His words (Eph 5:26) making us holy and without blemish thus no need for ritual washings (Heb 6:1-2).

Jesus instructed the apostles in the "new" testament for remission but they continued to teach the "old" testimony of water baptism for remission at Pentecost. Christ Jesus did “NOT” commission the apostles to “WATER” baptize after He gave a NEW testimony for remission of sins. Paul was the first man to deliver Christ’s eternal message of remission through His shed blood.

Whom God hath set forth to be a propitiation through """faith in his blood""", to declare his righteousness """for the remission of sins""" that are past, through the forbearance of God; Rom. 3:25 (KJV)
To declare, I say, """at this time""" his righteousness: that he might be just, and the """justifier of him which believeth in Jesus""". Rom. 3:26 (KJV)

Receive not the doctrine of men but believe the words of the Lord Jesus and receive His offer of everlasting life.

And if by grace, then is it no more of works... Rom. 11:6

George Blaisdell

March 17th 2003, 12:42 PM

Geo asks...
“ So what exactly IS this exercising of the senses...?
”

Sozo opines:
Renewing your mind...

[geo]Well, then I would suggest, dear Sozo, that you have your mind confused with your senses... The senses are touch, hearing, seeing, feeling.... The mind is, well... er.... Not these! Nor are these the "truth" [below] with which one renews ones mind:

Sozo retorts: "Well George, you've completely lost your senses."

And then adds: "You really don't want to make me angry..."

I agree with you that the senses needed for maturity are what you can call "Christian sensibility" - But these are acquired, if we are understanding this passage correctly, through exercise, yes? And the exercise to acquire them - And they are indeed an almost visceral sensitivity, yes? - The exercise needed for their acquisition is the point of the question, for we established a pretty literal translation: " But strong nourishment is of the mature, of those who by means of habit possess exercized senses for discerning both good and evil."

Now you are saying that the habituated exercise of these senses, which the Christian has come to, and the non-Christian has NOT come to, in the usual sense of "coming to one's senses", regarding this exercise, you are saying that it is a renewing of one's mind.

So that for one to be mature in the word of God, one only has to think a lot... And if you think a lot about scripture, and what is written therein, and read it a lot, and do a lot of discussion with those with whom you agree, and against those with whom you disagree, that this is the exercise of the senses that Paul speaks of here.

And you do this, you believe this, because this is your experience, born of your western 20th century tradition of reason and individualism and faith in the Bible...

In the ancient tradition, such Christian sensibility is acquired primarily in the practice of the faith, and one's thinking about what is written in scripture it is a part of that practice - Nowhere in scripture do you find Paul telling the Corinthians, for instance, to read scripture and figure out the faith each according to their own individual understandings...

And as a matter of fact, it is the matters of the practice of the faith that are presumed in the epistles. The practice of the faith predates the writing of the New Testament, which was written by those who practiced it. Yet nowhere do we find the nuts and bolts prescriptions of its daily practice in the NT writtings...

Yet we find the Church, which is the pillar and ground of the truths... And we find instructions that tell us to be obedient to the elders [presbyters], and to receive correction in the Church, and this Church is a viable and living and observable Church - It is not some hairy-fairy pie in the sky "triumphant" [vs militant] church in the etheric realms of individual minds and imaginings, is it? It is the REAL Church, with folks with names like Barnabus, and Paul, and Sarah - This is the Church that is the pillar and ground, yes?

And within this Church are found the practices that exercise the senses that make for maturity in the faith such that those who have acquired their habituation can discern both good and evil.

And there is indeed scriptural renewing of one's mind, but there is also the daily praying, the all night vigils, the fasting, the giving of alms, the holding of all things in common, and on and on - The obedience to the elders, the love of ones neighbor as oneself, the praying for one another, the shouldering of one another's burdens, the acquisition of poverty of spirit, and the acquisition of humility, and the striving for spiritual gifts, the suffering for one another... All these things and more are a part of this practice of the faith that brings us in maturity to our Christian senses.

So I have to say that I agree with you!

It is indeed the renewing of our mind...

But perhaps I disagree with you too...

For it takes great effort in my understanding, and I think in yours, such effort is to be scorned as 'works righteousness'...

geo

George Blaisdell

March 17th 2003, 01:07 PM

Justified writes:

#2
> "Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost:" Matt. 28:19 (KJV)

> It is clear the apostles are being instructed to teach and the teaching of the word will baptize them.

Every heresy in the history of the Church begins with scripture, and ends up twisting the meaning of that scripture into interpretations that are outside the body of Christ, His Church.

Here, the plain meaning of the text is the instruction to be teaching and be baptizing - in that order... There is perfectly good Greek to say "to baptize by teaching" - And this does not say that at all.

To believe that the early Church got it all wrong, that the apostles themselves got it wrong, as you seem to argue here, is to deny Christ and the Bible, for it is the Apostles who penned the Bible, and established the Church, and if they were deceived and wrong, then so is the Bible, and so was Christ.

If you do not affirm the Church established by Christ, then you make Christ wrong, for against this Church, the pillar and ground of truth, the gates of Gehenna shall not prevail... Simple as that... And that Church was in the flesh and in the spirit, and they are one, and it is the Body and Bride of our Lord, and has prevailed through every error and sin of her flock...

Ever notice Paul's words when he writes: "We have the mind [nous] of Christ."? The word 'nous' is singular - One Mind, Christ's Mind, this is what Christians are having... Not a bunch of individualized opinions on the myriad possible meanings of scripture... And this Mind, properly not 'mind but 'nous', the 'eye of the heart' - This 'Nous" of Christ is entered in a disciple's baptism into Christ's Body, and His Body is the Church...

It is not entered by sitting around reading and discussing the various possible meanings of English translations of the Bible... And then having some 'spiritual' even take place... Nowhere in scripture is this DRY "baptism" affirmed...

geo

Justified

March 17th 2003, 11:43 PM

George,

You said:
Every heresy in the history of the Church begins with scripture, and ends up twisting the meaning of that scripture into interpretations that are outside the body of Christ, His Church.

My reply:
Can you provide a scripture reference where those at Pentecost were considered members of His body? Heretics define themselves as the church and heresy is a result of adding words to scripture.

You said:
Here, the plain meaning of the text is the instruction to be teaching and be baptizing - in that order... There is perfectly good Greek to say "to baptize by teaching" - And this does not say that at all.

My reply:
The words "and be" are not in the verse. Is that what you call good Greek.

You said:
To believe that the early Church got it all wrong, that the apostles themselves got it wrong, as you seem to argue here, is to deny Christ and the Bible, for it is the Apostles who penned the Bible, and established the Church, and if they were deceived and wrong, then so is the Bible, and so was Christ.

My reply:
They were not wrong! At Pentecost they continued to preach the gospel of the kingdom that began with the Baptist. The old testament is inspired scripture but Christ died to remove the ordinances it contained (Eph 2:15).

You said:
If you do not affirm the Church established by Christ, then you make Christ wrong, for against this Church, the pillar and ground of truth, the gates of Gehenna shall not prevail... Simple as that... And that Church was in the flesh and in the spirit, and they are one, and it is the Body and Bride of our Lord, and has prevailed through every error and sin of her flock...

My reply:
I affrim the church established by Christ and Christ was not wrong. Where is it said that the chruch at Pentecost is His body?

You said:
Ever notice Paul's words when he writes: "We have the mind [nous] of Christ."? The word 'nous' is singular - One Mind, Christ's Mind, this is what Christians are having... Not a bunch of individualized opinions on the myriad possible meanings of scripture... And this Mind, properly not 'mind but 'nous', the 'eye of the heart' - This 'Nous" of Christ is entered in a disciple's baptism into Christ's Body, and His Body is the Church...

Peter said:
But in every nation he that feareth him, and "worketh righteousness", is accepted with him. Acts 10:35
The word which God sent unto the children of Israel, preaching peace by Jesus Christ: (he is Lord of all:) Acts 10:36
That word, I say, ye know, which was published throughout all Judaea, and "began from Galilee", after "the baptism which John preached"; Acts 10:37

Paul said:
"Not by works of righteousness" which we have done, but according to his mercy he saved us, "by the washing of regeneration", and renewing "of the Holy Ghost"; Titus 3:5
Which he shed on us abundantly through Jesus Christ our Saviour; Titus 3:6
That being justified by his grace, we should be made heirs "according to the hope of eternal life". Titus 3:7

You said:
It is not entered by sitting around reading and discussing the various possible meanings of English translations of the Bible... And then having some 'spiritual' even take place... Nowhere in scripture is this DRY "baptism" affirmed...

My reply:
Which things also we speak, not in the words which man’s wisdom teacheth, but which the Holy Ghost teacheth; comparing spiritual things with spiritual. 1 Cor. 2:13
But the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him: neither can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned. 1 Cor. 2:14

Jeus said "the words that I speak unto you, they are spirit" John 6:63.

If we compare His words and our minds are renewed by them I would consider that a "spiritual" event.

Jesus answered and said unto her, If thou knewest the gift of God, and who it is that saith to thee, Give me to drink; thou wouldest have asked of him, and he would have given thee living water. John 4:10

Is this "living water" wet?

Justified

March 17th 2003, 11:49 PM

The water baptized at Pentecost believed in the OLD testament message "for" remission of sins that had it's inception concerning the nation of Israel as a whole with John the Baptist. This national priestly remission (Ex. 19:6) through obedience was in effect (Mark 1 :4) before the New testament (Matt 26:28) of His shed blood "for" remission was given. The simplicity of this truth is clearly revealed. The Peterine message at Pentecost was the same as John the Baptist’s message before the cross. It is of extreme importance that we understand the new testament is a better witness (John 5:36) and was not effectual until after the death of Christ (Heb. 9:17).

The kingdom was taken because of unbelief.

Thou wilt say then, The branches were broken off, that I might be grafted in. Rom. 11:19 (KJV)
Well; because of unbelief they were broken off, and thou standest by faith. Be not highminded, but fear: Rom. 11:20 (KJV)

Branches are believers (John 15:5) not unbelievers! They were to continue to abide (John 15:4) until all things had become "new" (2 Cor 5:17). It is the new that they did not believe. The new message became a Gentile message...Whereas thou hast been forsaken and hated, so that no man went through thee, I will make thee an eternal excellency, a joy of many generations. Isa. 60:15 (KJV)
Thou shalt also suck the milk of the Gentiles... Isa. 60:16 (KJV)

Israel was God's chosen to deliver this "new" testament (greater witness(John 5:36) to the world but because of unbelief it went to the Gentiles.

The elect that became believers through repentance and water baptism were enemies of the gospel of Christ but He will graft them in AGAIN.

For this is my covenant unto them, when I shall take away their sins. Rom. 11:27 (KJV)
As concerning the gospel, they are enemies for your sakes: but as touching the election, they are beloved for the fathers’ sakes. Rom. 11:28 (KJV)
For the gifts and calling of God are without repentance. Rom. 11:29 (KJV)
For as ye (Gentiles) in times past have not believed God, yet have now obtained mercy through their unbelief: Rom. 11:30 (KJV)
Even so have these (elect) also now not believed, that through your mercy they also may obtain mercy. Rom. 11:31 (KJV)
For God hath concluded them all in unbelief, that he might have mercy upon all.
Rom. 11:32 (KJV)
O the depth of the riches both of the wisdom and knowledge of God! how unsearchable are his judgments, and his ways past finding out! Rom. 11:33 (KJV)

The Gentiles freely accepted the new eternal testament (Acts 13:48) because they were without the offence (law) of the cross (Roms. 5:20). It is a matter of simple logic to realize one trained from birth that the law of obedience gives remission will not easily understand a “new’ testimony completely opposite of the old testimony in that the law is an offence to the new. This was the monumental task given to Paul and is evident in all his epistles. Paul’s knowledge of the “new” testament came by revelation of mysteries that were progressively revealed.

Unto me, who am less than the least of all saints, is this grace given, that I should preach among the Gentiles the unsearchable riches of Christ; Eph. 3:8 (KJV)
And to make all men see what is the fellowship of the mystery, which from the beginning of the world hath been hid in God, who created all things by Jesus Christ: Eph. 3:9 (KJV)
To the intent that now unto the principalities and powers in heavenly places might be known by the church the manifold wisdom of God, Eph. 3:10 (KJV)
According to the eternal purpose which he purposed in Christ Jesus our Lord: Eph. 3:11 (KJV)

God’s purpose was to deliver the “eternal” message of the “new” testament. If the apostles at Pentecost had clearly delivered that “incorruptible eternal” message of the blood of Christ for remission of sins then there would have been no need for Christ to have called Paul into the ministry. The eternal message would now have to be received through the Gentiles.

Whereas thou hast been forsaken and hated, so that no man went through thee, I will make thee an eternal excellency, a joy of many generations. Isa. 60:15 (KJV)
Thou shalt also suck the milk of the Gentiles, and shalt suck the breast of kings: and thou shalt know that I the LORD am thy Saviour and thy Redeemer, the mighty One of Jacob. Isa. 60:16 (KJV)

As newborn babes, desire the sincere milk of the word, that ye may grow thereby: 1 Pet. 2:2 (KJV)

Those of us who believe the new testament for remission are chosen by God to deliver the eternal message whereby we can have all men see what is the manifold wisdom of God.

Fight the good fight of faith, lay hold on eternal life, whereunto thou art also called, and hast professed a good profession before many witnesses. 1 Tim. 6:12 (KJV)

And account that the longsuffering of our Lord is salvation; even as our beloved brother Paul also according to the wisdom given unto him hath written unto you; 2 Pet. 3:15 (KJV)
As also in all his epistles, speaking in them of these things; in which are some things hard to be understood, which they that are unlearned and unstable wrest, as they do also the other scriptures, unto their own destruction. 2 Pet. 3:16 (KJV)
Ye therefore, beloved, seeing ye know these things before, beware lest ye also, being led away with the error of the wicked, fall from your own stedfastness. 2 Pet. 3:17 (KJV)

This is the third time I am coming to you. In the mouth of two or three witnesses shall every word be established. 2 Cor. 13:1 (KJV)
And there are three that bear witness in earth, the Spirit, and the water, and the blood: and these three agree in one. 1 John 5:8 (KJV)
If we receive the witness of men, the witness of God is greater: for this is the witness of God which he hath testified of his Son.
1 John 5:9 (KJV)

The three witnesses agreed in One when Christ shed spirit , water, and blood at His death on the cross.

We know God is not a respecter of persons therefore His requirements to receive Spiritual baptism will not change in regards to a dispensation. The witness of John the Baptist under the law was to manifest Jesus as the son of God to Israel and this manifestation was completed by Peter at Pentecost.

To be considered a member of the body of Christ we must profess the greater witness (John 5:36) for sin remission (Rom. 3:25). This greater witness was not manifested at Pentecost and the message of Acts 2:38 is void of this witness. As salvation for us is concerned we must believe Christ died for our sins to receive remission and it’s only through faith in His blood remission is freely given.

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. Acts 2:38 (KJV)

Water baptism is not the gospel of Christ! The shed blood of Christ surpassed water as the agent for remission of sins. Paul was the first man to proclaim the Gospel of Christ.

Moreover, brethren, I declare unto you the gospel which I preached unto you, which also ye have received, and wherein ye stand; 1 Cor. 15:1 (KJV)
By which also ye are saved, if ye keep in memory what I preached unto you, unless ye have believed in vain. 1 Cor. 15:2 (KJV)
For I delivered unto you first of all that which I also received, how that Christ died for our sins according to the scriptures; 1 Cor. 15:3 (KJV)

V1 - Paul declares the "gospel" in which we stand.

V2 - He says if we do not believe it then we have believed in vain!

V3 - He says he was the first to deliver it and that "gospel is "Christ died for our sins".

Paul also had this to say:

For Christ sent me not to baptize, but to preach the gospel: not with wisdom of words, lest the cross of Christ should be made of none effect. 1 Cor. 1:17 (KJV)

Paul understands that water baptism made the cross of Christ of none effect as to remission of sins. Water baptism from its inception before the cross was for remission of sins but we have a new message in the new testament given by Christ for remission of sins. The new has replaced the old and if one believes the old testimony then the new testimony is of none effect.

One Lord, one faith, one baptism, Eph. 4:5 (KJV)

Forasmuch as ye know that ye were not redeemed with corruptible things, as silver and gold, from your vain conversation received by tradition from your fathers; 1 Pet. 1:18 (KJV)
But with the precious blood of Christ, as of a lamb without blemish and without spot: 1 Pet. 1:19 (KJV)
Who verily was foreordained before the foundation of the world, but was manifest in these last times for you, 1 Pet. 1:20 (KJV)

Whom God hath set forth to be a propitiation through faith in his blood, to declare his righteousness for the remission of sins that are past, through the forbearance of God; Rom. 3:25 (KJV)

To the praise of the glory of his grace, wherein he hath made us accepted in the beloved. Eph. 1:6 (KJV)
In whom we have redemption through his blood, the forgiveness of sins, according to the riches of his grace; Eph. 1:7 (KJV)
Wherein he hath abounded toward us in all wisdom and prudence; Eph. 1:8 (KJV)
Having made known unto us the mystery of his will, according to his good pleasure which he hath purposed in himself: Eph. 1:9 (KJV)

Who hath delivered us from the power of darkness, and hath translated us into the kingdom of his dear Son: Col. 1:13 (KJV)
In whom we have redemption through his blood, even the forgiveness of sins: Col. 1:14 (KJV)

George Blaisdell

March 18th 2003, 12:54 AM

The Justified writes: "Where is it said that the chruch at Pentecost is His body?"

The Publican sinner responds: "Was there some OTHER Church that Christ established?" And is THAT OTHER Church the one that is His body?:

Ro 12:5 - so we, being many, are one body in Christ, and every one members one of another.

1Co 10:16 - The cup of blessing which we bless: is it not the communion of the blood of Christ? The bread which we break: is it not the communion of the body of Christ?

1Co 12:12 - For as the body is one, and hath many members, and all the members of that one body, being many, are one body, so also is Christ.

1Co 12:27 - Now ye are the body of Christ, and members in particular.

Eph 5:30 - For we are members of His body, of His flesh, and of His bones.

What a LAZY way to post!! All I gotta do is copy and paste! I don't have to answer arguments! I just have to cut and paste my favorite self-supporting passages and claim I have the Bible supporting me for my view!!

geo

Freak

April 16th 2003, 11:52 AM

Apollos--

If you come across a someone who desires to be a Christian on the street--do you tell them they will have to wait until you can find some water to baptize them with?

nomad

April 17th 2003, 07:35 AM

i haven't read the entire thread, but enough of it.

i'd like to start with those saying baptism is unbiblical, i.e. forbidden. some seem to be implying that at the present time, being baptized is some kind of lack of faith and should absolutely not be done by any christian at any time.

to that, i simply answer this... jesus was baptized (matt 3:16), and disciples were baptized in his name with his apparent approval (john 4:1-2, though he did not do it himself). unless we want to argue jesus was promoting something harmful, i can't see any way to argue that baptism has any *negative* affects.

in addition, it is a peculiar exception to those who claim to be 'exempt from law' and only on faith, to say that you can do just about anything, but you can't do these particular rituals... let's look at paul himself, whose rejection of earthly circumcision is well documented in his discussions on the law:

Acts 16:3 Paul wanted this man to go with him; and he took him and circumcised him because of the Jews who were in those parts, for they all knew that his father was a Greek.

now WHY??, after Paul said so many things against the circumcision, would he POSSIBLY go and circumcise this boy? pragmatism, most likely.

in any case, in stark contrast to many 'anti-baptists', paul didn't see circumcision, or not being circumcised, as something worth creating divisions over - and we are talking divisions OUTSIDE the church. paul really believed that circumcision was NOTHING - nada. do it, don't do it, it doesn't make a difference to your spiritual walk one way or the other.

what makes it wrong then? it is, as all things are, a heart thing... baptism *in itself* can never be wrong; those who do it out of a love for Christ and His words will be right; those who go through it, not caring for God at all but trying to fulfill some sort of 'legal contract' with Him and 'earning' salvation that way, it will be wrong.

so if this circumcision was not a lack of faith, i find it difficult to imagine a baptism as a lack of faith.

second, the two baptisms... unless Peter himself was confused...

Acts 10:46-48 For they were hearing them speaking with tongues and exalting God. Then Peter answered, (47) "Surely no one can refuse the water for these to be baptized who have received the Holy Spirit just as we did, can he?" (48) And he ordered them to be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ. Then they asked him to stay on for a few days.

in *this* passage he uses 'baptism' to mean 'baptism by water' as is clear from the text. and this is separate from the baptism of the spirit (though he does not actually use that word here). which at least means, if you're going to claim that 'baptism' always means 'baptism by the spirit', i don't think that is supported by the text and needs to be justified. so matthew 24:19 is more likely to be talking about water than the spirit.

let's take the other side, is water baptism necessary? the thief on the cross says 'no'.

so how about the middle, is it beneficial?

well, we will start with a sort of appeal to authority.
jesus apparently didn't think it a bad idea.
paul baptized believers (in water), and was baptized himself.
peter baptized in water.

apparently, they thought it was a good idea.

church history also records that the church has always thought baptism a good idea.

now, the main objection, that of paul saying 'i was not sent to baptize'. well, since paul says in the same breath that yes, he did baptize some people, he must not have thought it wrong at the time (and if he did think it was wrong and still did it, how can we trust his writings?) so how can we resolve this apparent contradiction?

context. this is obviously a rhetorical construct. paul is saying that his primary goal is evangelism, not baptism. and it's obvious from his concurrent discussion on factions that the *baptisms* were what were creating the factions. in other words, it wasn't the baptism itself that was wrong, it was that people were attaching special prestige to who baptized them.

1 corinthians 1:13 makes this clear, when he asks 'were you baptized in the name of Paul?'

what does baptism do for you? it's a mystery. but i believe that anyone who has faith in Jesus, who loves Him, would want to do his commandments. this is NOT a theology issue, and your particular theology on communion or baptism should NOT affect your desire to obey him. so while i don't see it as essential to salvation, i can't see how anyone with faith would not want to follow His words and example.

George Blaisdell

April 17th 2003, 10:36 AM

Nice job, Nomad -

Baptism is the rule, just as no circumsizion is the rule, for the early Church has baptized from the beginnings [in water], yet She records circumstances where angels have done baptism in dreams, when outward circumstances would not permit a person to be baptized...

The thief on the cross, and the man circumsized by Paul, are exceptions dictated by circumstances, the one by the God-head of the Church, and the other by the evangellizing implanter of Churches... Neither by individuals acting apart on their own personal experience of the Holy Spirit style of authority...

Thanks for bringing a little sanity of perspective to the discussion... That you should have to argue for the ideas you presented is to my eyes an embarassment... Yet needful...

geo

Justified

April 17th 2003, 10:18 PM

i don't see it (water baptism) as essential to salvation

What is your interpretation of Acts 2:38?

Steven

April 18th 2003, 05:10 PM

I think this is a pretty simple issue, that those who believe upon Jesus as Lord shall be saved. Water baptism is merely a symbol of your obedience to Christ as a result of your salvation. A symbol of being washed clean from the dirty, filthy rags of sin.

Steven

www.informationgospel.net

PRAISE

April 18th 2003, 05:32 PM

03-07-2003 @ 10:17 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=29636#post29636)
Freak:

I have met a few posters on TWEB that believe, incorrectly I might add, that unless you are baptized in water you have no hope of salvation. What do you think? Do believers who placed their faith in Christ but who have failed to be baptized in water in danger of hell?

What role does water have in ones salvation, if any?

My position on this is this:

I believe justification is by faith and faith alone in Jesus Christ.

Therefore, since we have been justified through faith, we have peace with God through our Lord Jesus Christ,

Before this faith came, we were held prisoners by the law, locked up until faith should be revealed. So the law was put in charge to lead us to Christ that we might be justified by faith. Now that faith has come, we are no longer under the supervision of the law.

To be right with God, all one needs is to be justified by faith in Christ. Water is merely symbolic of that faith you have place in Christ. Water is incapable of saving but Christ can.

And if genuine believers do believe water is essential for salvation should he/she be branded as heretics and their teachings as heretical?

Thoughts?

Freak-you are so right on this! The verse to remember is (I believe), I or II Timothy, where it says that "there is one God, & one man, & one mediator between God & Man. The man Jesus Christ". It is JESUS that saves you-not baptism! Also if you look in the Gospels, I don't believe that Jesus ever said to any of His followers to be baptised! All he said was to take up our cross, & follow Him! Baptism is simply a public declaration to the world that you are a follower of Jesus Christ, & that you have recieved Him into your heart as your Lord & Savior! It is nothing more than that. It is an honor to be baptised, & to show the world that you know Jesus personaly, but it has no bearing on your salvation! Salvation is-(As Evangilist Carl Harris put it), JESUS +
NOTHING! That is what salvation is all about! That is why our Lord & Savior died for our sins! GLORY TO YOU LORD JESUS! Let's all remember this, especially at this Easter Season!

God be with us always!
PRAISE!:thumb:

Justified

April 18th 2003, 08:56 PM

Many have said that water baptism is symbolic of our faith but where is the proof text?

Jesus said who ever believes and is baptized shall be saved and Ananias told Paul to be baptized to wash away his sins. Remission of sins was at the moment of baptism as the Baptist said it was a baptism of repentance for the remission of sins.
Peter said "repent, and be baptized"... "for the remission of sins", and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost. Repentance and baptism were required to receive the Holy Ghost which was a sign that God had accepted those that obeyed. Peter confirmed this truth when he said..." we are his witnesses of these things; and so is also the Holy Ghost, whom God hath given to them that obey him".

The order was repentance and water baptism before receiving the Holy Ghost at Pentecost.

Would any of you that believes water baptism is symbolic of our salvation tell anyone to repent and be baptized for the remission of sins and you will receive the Holy Ghost?

nomad

April 19th 2003, 12:28 PM

sorry, i've been away and couldn't respond.

What is your interpretation of Acts 2:38?

Acts 2:38 Peter said to them, "Repent, and each of you be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins; and you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit.

i was going to post my responses, and immediately a dozen questions appeared. so i'll need to think about this some more.

so i'll keep this simple for now, to two things:

one, if you believe that baptism is not required for salvation, we sort of have an apparent contradiction here between this, and the part of the bible that led us to believe that baptism IS required. we can deal with this apparent contradiction several ways, but most of them involve deciding that our understanding of one (or both!) of the verses is flawed (perhaps because of context, or equivocation, or something else) and needs re-examined. this goes for just about any side on any issue.

i'd be curious as to how you read this verse, for those that think that baptism isn't necessary or even is a bad idea.
i am not sure why you brought it up, so i'd like to know how you resolve this apparent contradiction (if you've already addressed this in this thread, point me to it).

second... one thing that appears true in this thread is the sentiment 'it isn't required for salvation, so why do it?'

scripture seems to point to the church, and the apostles, perceiving some benefit in baptism. they didn't understand the benefit, but they did appreciate it.

it may not be required for salvation, but neither is bible study, prayer, worship, or church attendance. yet i don't think anyone here would declare someone who chose to do all these things 'bound up in works'. they are beneficial.

i just find it curious that people seem actually scared of something that the apostles did and instructed people to do, jesus himself did, and the early church also held in high regard?

note that i am not necessarily arguing you need to go out and get baptized. i WOULD like to understand the seeming animosity towards it though.

Sozo

April 19th 2003, 01:12 PM

Baptism is essential, just not water baptism.

nomad

April 19th 2003, 01:45 PM

so again, how do you interpret acts 2:38?

equivocation IS one way that i have seen it explained (baptism means' water baptism' in some places, and 'fire baptism' in others), and, if i assume this, the few passages i looked at still make sense, so it least it could be internally consistent.

but acts 2:38 seems problematic for this explanation.

after all, 'baptism by fire' is usually equated to the giving of the holy spirit.

if this is true, peter effectively said 'repent and be baptized by fire, and you will be baptized by fire'. this doesn't make any sense.

George Blaisdell

April 19th 2003, 04:13 PM

Sozo: writes:

> > Baptism is essential, just not water baptism.

Nomad replies:

> "So again, how do you interpret acts 2:38?"

Acts 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."

Pretty well sequenced:
1 - Repentance
2 - Baptism
3 - Reception

And all of this within the Ekklesia, Christ's Church.

Nothing about finding a Gideon's Bible, reading a passage, having a visit from the Holy Spirit, and THEN repenting... And then maybe, if you feel like it, confirming your "election" in an outward baptism that but affirms the inner...

Clearly here, the GIFT of the Holy Spirit follows baptism - And this does NOT mean that the Holy Spirit is not active in your recruitment... Your Calling... But there is GIFT that one receives
following baptism, and that gift is the seal of the Holy Spirit, and it is given in the annointing of the one newly baptized - Chrismation it is called in Orthodoxy, which has not changed the practice from the time of the writing of this passage in Acts...

You are advocating an innovative understanding of baptism that is contradicted by the entire Christian Church for the first two thousand years, Sozo... Is that the payoff? Or is it that you have had Holy Spirit experiences that you are understanding as your own baptism? We have pretty much all had these, and they CAN indeed be so [mis]-understood... For they are holy encounters... So are inevitably followed by our own mental and very private interpretations...
geo

Justified

April 19th 2003, 05:21 PM

Nomad,

one, if you believe that baptism is not required for salvation, we sort of have an apparent contradiction here between this, and the part of the bible that led us to believe that baptism IS required.

There is no contradiction in the words that Christ spoke concerning salvation.

The Baptist came preaching a baptism of repentance for the remission of sins under the law but Jesus said "I have greater witness than that of John" the witness is for remission of sins. Christ shed His blood of the new testament (witness) for remission and it superceded John's witness of water baptism. The apostles understanding of Christ's words was progressive.

we can deal with this apparent contradiction several ways, but most of them involve deciding that our understanding of one (or both!) of the verses is flawed (perhaps because of context, or equivocation, or something else) and needs re-examined. this goes for just about any side on any issue.
I don't have a problem with the verses in light of progressive revelation and man's progressive understanding of God's revealed truth.
i'd be curious as to how you read this verse, for those that think that baptism isn't necessary or even is a bad idea.
i am not sure why you brought it up, so i'd like to know how you resolve this apparent contradiction (if you've already addressed this in this thread, point me to it).
Easily read and mean exactly what they say, repentance and water baptism were necessary to receive remission before the cross. It was a message under the law that required obedience but those that beleive in the shed blood of Christ for remission are no longer under the law thus water baptism is not necessary for remission. God's word reveals two messages for remission (Mark 1:4) (Mat 26:28) and as the first fades away the new takes its place. As the Baptist said...

He must increase, but I must decrease. John 3:30
He that cometh from above is above all: he that is of the earth is earthly, and speaketh of the earth: he that cometh from heaven is above all. John 3:31
And what he hath seen and heard, that he testifieth; and no man receiveth his testimony. John 3:32

second... one thing that appears true in this thread is the sentiment 'it isn't required for salvation, so why do it?'
Many would have us believe that water baptism is a sign of what we believe and it comes after remission but this idea is not Biblical.
scripture seems to point to the church, and the apostles, perceiving some benefit in baptism. they didn't understand the benefit, but they did appreciate it.
Go back and read the verses believing what they clearly say then study the doctrines of remission rightly dividing the word of truth. The apostles continued to preach a water baptism of repentance for remission at Pentecost (Acts 2:38) that began with the Baptist (Mark 1:4).
it may not be required for salvation, but neither is bible study, prayer, worship, or church attendance. yet i don't think anyone here would declare someone who chose to do all these things 'bound up in works'. they are beneficial.
It is not difficult to understand that water baptism was a baptism of repentance 'for remission' and it was a witness (Sign) to the early Church. Paul said...

For the Jews require a sign, and the Greeks seek after wisdom: 1 Cor. 1:22
But we preach Christ crucified, unto the Jews a stumblingblock, and unto the Greeks foolishness; 1 Cor. 1:23
But unto them which are called, both Jews and Greeks, Christ the power of God, and the wisdom of God. 1 Cor. 1:24
Because the foolishness of God is wiser than men; and the weakness of God is stronger than men. 1 Cor. 1:25

i just find it curious that people seem actually scared of something that the apostles did and instructed people to do, jesus himself did, and the early church also held in high regard?
Jesus was born under the law and fulfilled it completely and He paid the penalty that the law demanded. All that place ther faith in Him are freed from the law.
note that i am not necessarily arguing you need to go out and get baptized. i WOULD like to understand the seeming animosity towards it though.
Many believe that through their obedience to the ritual they receive remission of sins. It clouds the message of the new testament in the shed blood of Christ for remission. Should we risk only one being lost to the flames of hell so that we may continue a ritual that is of non effect.

Justified

April 19th 2003, 05:26 PM

Today @ 06:12 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=73247#post73247)
Sozo:

Baptism is essential, just not water baptism.

:thumb:

Baptism by the Spirit (Christ) has replaced baptism by men in water for remission.

nomad

April 19th 2003, 08:36 PM

The apostles understanding of Christ's words was progressive.

progressive revelation?

so, the contention is that the law existed for some 3000 years or so (maybe more, maybe less, i am not sure when moses was supposed to have lived), during which sacrifices are the 'method' by which people are justified (though of course a sacrifice does not justify you, God justified you, this is shown from OT passages where God rejects the sacrifices of the people because of their evil acts)...

then baptism is instituted as a penitential rite for what, about 10 years? 17 if you're lucky (because john was only a few months older than jesus; jesus was around 30 when baptized, and john couldn't have started ministry until at least after his bar mitzvah at 13...and probably later than that...)

then replaced again, never to return.

of course, i am not that familiar with baptism in bible times; the only OT example i know of is naaman, and that would be a type of healing, not redemption.

i am not saying it's impossible, just that i have a hard time believing it.

and to add to that... we already discussed acts 2:38, and no one has tried to show how it actually refers to 'baptism by fire', 'receiving the Holy Spirit', etc. and not water baptism. and that is after the cross, and after Pentecost (when the Holy Spirit was sent) as well.

Acts 10:44-48 While Peter was still speaking these words, the Holy Spirit fell upon all those who were listening to the message. (45) All the circumcised believers who came with Peter were amazed, because the gift of the Holy Spirit had been poured out on the Gentiles also. (46) For they were hearing them speaking with tongues and exalting God. Then Peter answered, (47) "Surely no one can refuse the water for these to be baptized who have received the Holy Spirit just as we did, can he?" (48) And he ordered them to be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ. Then they asked him to stay on for a few days.

ok, so your claim is that the apostles had a 'progressive revelation' that baptism is really 'baptism by fire', and no longer 'baptism by water'. but here again, we have peter declaring, well after pentecost, that 'surely no one can refuse the water for these to be baptized'? here is a definite 'baptism by water', there is no misunderstanding this.

Acts 8:34-39 The eunuch answered Philip and said, "Please tell me, of whom does the prophet say this? Of himself or of someone else?" (35) Then Philip opened his mouth, and beginning from this Scripture he preached Jesus to him. (36) As they went along the road they came to some water; and the eunuch *said, "Look! Water! What prevents me from being baptized?" (37) [And Philip said, "If you believe with all your heart, you may." And he answered and said, "I believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God."] (38) And he ordered the chariot to stop; and they both went down into the water, Philip as well as the eunuch, and he baptized him. (39) When they came up out of the water, the Spirit of the Lord snatched Philip away; and the eunuch no longer saw him, but went on his way rejoicing.

here we have philip the evangelist giving the good news to a ethiopian eunuch, who apparently doesn't know much about jesus. somehow the eunuch gets the impression of water baptism... 'look! water! what prevents me from being baptized'. where do you think he got this impression from, that being baptized was something he should do? and here again, it is definitely water baptism, not some other kind.

and finally, can you or I even *give* the Holy Spirit? only God can give the Holy Spirit. it doesn't even make sense, if that is what it means, for me to 'baptize' someone else, or for Paul, when he says he baptized someone else, for it to mean that. it is not the work of men at all.

Easily read and mean exactly what they say, repentance and water baptism were necessary to receive remission before the cross. It was a message under the law that required obedience but those that beleive in the shed blood of Christ for remission are no longer under the law thus water baptism is not necessary for remission.

are we talking about the same verses? this was acts 2:38, which is pretty much definitely after the cross.

Many would have us believe that water baptism is a sign of what we believe and it comes after remission but this idea is not Biblical.

that's a strong statement... i thought that was the discussion? ;)

anyways, i am not one of those people. i believe that obedience to baptism has spiritual rewards, i just do not know exactly what they are.

Go back and read the verses believing what they clearly say then study the doctrines of remission rightly dividing the word of truth. The apostles continued to preach a water baptism of repentance for remission at Pentecost (Acts 2:38) that began with the Baptist (Mark 1:4).

can you put this in context for me? one, i'm not sure exactly which verses you are talking about (maybe the ones you posted, but it's not clear), and second, you now appear to be agreeing with me, that water baptism was preached by the apostles.

Many believe that through their obedience to the ritual they receive remission of sins. It clouds the message of the new testament in the shed blood of Christ for remission. Should we risk only one being lost to the flames of hell so that we may continue a ritual that is of non effect.

'non effect' in your opinion.... besides, what about people who think they are saved because they go to church every week? or give money to the church (which they might not even attend)? or because once upon a time they mentally assented to a statement about Jesus that they didn't really believe? should we abandon these as well because they could be abused? that's a specious argument.

i know, you can probably make a better case for the efficacy of those, but then you risk falling into utilitarianism...

Justified

April 19th 2003, 11:09 PM

Nomad,

progressive revelation?

Yes!

so, the contention is that the law existed for some 3000 years or so (maybe more, maybe less, i am not sure when moses was supposed to have lived), during which sacrifices are the 'method' by which people are justified (though of course a sacrifice does not justify you, God justified you, this is shown from OT passages where God rejects the sacrifices of the people because of their evil acts)...

It has always been by faith through grace. The ordinance of a blood sacrifice for remission under the law was a temporary method until Christ. This ordinance taught how remission is received but after God's people accepted the blood of Christ for remission they were no longer under a schoolmaster (Gal 3:24-25). God progessively revealed the Gospel and that revelation continued after Pentecost.

then baptism is instituted as a penitential rite for what, about 10 years? 17 if you're lucky (because john was only a few months older than jesus; jesus was around 30 when baptized, and john couldn't have started ministry until at least after his bar mitzvah at 13...and probably later than that...)

Water baptism was very much a part of Judaism before John the Baptist with its inception under the Mosaic law (Ex 19:10). It was a ritual cleansing that prepared the priest to receive the sacrifice (Ex 29:4). The applied blood of the sacrifice according to the law which is a representation of Christ remitted sins. This is seen again during John's ministry, a time when the law was still in force, as John prepared the way of the Lord with water baptism making Israel a nation of priest.

Now therefore, if ye will "obey my voice" indeed, and keep my (Mosaic) covenant, then ye shall be a peculiar treasure unto me above all people: for all the earth is mine: Ex. 19:5 (KJV)
And ye shall be unto me a kingdom of priests, and an holy nation. These are the words which thou shalt speak unto the children of Israel. Ex. 19:6 (KJV)

The "voice of one crying" in the wilderness, Prepare ye the way of the Lord, make his paths straight. Mark 1:3 (KJV)
John did baptize in the wilderness, and "preach the baptism of repentance for the remission of sins". Mark 1:4 (KJV)

John was beheaded and the apostles completed the task at Pentecost when all the nations of Israel gathered to hear the gospel. Water baptism was preparatory yet the ritual was not complete until the blood was applied. Paul after Pentecost is called by the Spirit and it is his ministry that fulfills the gospel (Col 1:25). Paul is the first apostle to preach the message of Christ's shed blood for remission (Romans 3:25).

then replaced again, never to return.

Baptism is still required for remission, it had it's inception with the law and it was for remission. Baptism by the Spirit (1 Cor 12:13) who is Christ has freed us from the law of water baptism.

of course, i am not that familiar with baptism in bible times; the only OT example i know of is naaman, and that would be a type of healing, not redemption.

It was a type of cleansing and the antitype which is Spirit baptism cleanses us on the inside. Circumcision of the flesh was also a type but now we who are in Christ by the Spirit receive a circumcision made without hands by the same Spirit. (Col 2:11).

i am not saying it's impossible, just that i have a hard time believing it.

and to add to that... we already discussed acts 2:38, and no one has tried to show how it actually refers to 'baptism by fire', 'receiving the Holy Spirit', etc. and not water baptism. and that is after the cross, and after Pentecost (when the Holy Spirit was sent) as well.

The gift of the Holy Ghost is not baptism by the Spirit. The gift was power to perform miracles (signs) so that the people would believe the message given was of God. Baptism by fire will burn up the chaff see Mat 3.

ok, so your claim is that the apostles had a 'progressive revelation' that baptism is really 'baptism by fire', and no longer 'baptism by water'. but here again, we have peter declaring, well after pentecost, that 'surely no one can refuse the water for these to be baptized'? here is a definite 'baptism by water', there is no misunderstanding this.

The Cornelius account is proof text for the progressive understanding of God's word. Peter was instructed by Christ to go to all the world yet he clearly had a problem in going to a Gentile with the gospel. God also showed Peter that the Holy Ghost was now received before obedience to water baptism.

Baptism is now by the Spirit not by fire.

here we have philip the evangelist giving the good news to a ethiopian eunuch, who apparently doesn't know much about jesus. somehow the eunuch gets the impression of water baptism... 'look! water! what prevents me from being baptized'. where do you think he got this impression from, that being baptized was something he should do? and here again, it is definitely water baptism, not some other kind.
Paul was the first apostle to reveal that remission of sins was through faith in the shed blood of Christ. When we believe this greater witness (John 5:36) is supercedes the old witness of the Baptist that was a baptism of repentance for the remission of sins. Phillip still believed in the witness of the Baptist.(

and finally, can you or I even *give* the Holy Spirit? only God can give the Holy Spirit. it doesn't even make sense, if that is what it means, for me to 'baptize' someone else, or for Paul, when he says he baptized someone else, for it to mean that. it is not the work of men at all.

Water baptism is no longer required to receive remission. Your calling is not to water baptize but to preach the gospel of faith in the shed blood of Christ for remission (Roms 3:25). Only God can judge the heart therefore baptism by the Spirit is an operation of God that places us into Christ. Paul did water baptize early in his ministry but he never taught a water baptism for remission. Paul said that Christ sent him not to baptize but to preach the gospel (1 Cor 1:17) which is faith in His blood for remission. God comissioned the Baptist (a man) to water baptize and the apostles (men) continued the ritual at Pentecost. Paul was not comissioned to water baptize but to preached the gospel and when that gospel is believe God by the Spirit does the baptizing not men.

are we talking about the same verses? this was acts 2:38, which is pretty much definitely after the cross.

Sorry, I was referring to all baptism verses.

that's a strong statement... i thought that was the discussion? ;)

anyways, i am not one of those people. i believe that obedience to baptism has spiritual rewards, i just do not know exactly what they are.

Sorry again, I thought you believed water baptism was symbolic of our faith. Baptism had to be obeyed under the law. The apostles at Pentecost continued to preach the same message as the Baptist (Mark 1:4) before the cross. Paul was called after Pentecost to fulfill the gospel (Col 1:25) and it releases all that believe from required obedience to water baptism.

No time to finish responding.

Apollos

April 20th 2003, 12:18 PM

1 Corinthians 12:13

For by (the direction) of one Spirit are we all (water) baptized into one body (the church).

To say that the baptism in this passage is not water baptism is to contradict the preaching and practice of Paul !

<<*>>

(Has anyone come up with a passage yet that states that water baptism is some type - any type of a "symbol" ??)

Freak

April 20th 2003, 06:31 PM

Today @ 05:18 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=73968#post73968)
Apollos:

1 Corinthians 12:13

For by (the direction) of one Spirit are we all (water) baptized into one body (the church).

To say that the baptism in this passage is not water baptism is to contradict the preaching and practice of Paul !

<<*>>

(Has anyone come up with a passage yet that states that water baptism is some type - any type of a "symbol" ??)

If you met someone on the street and they wanted to be a Christian would you tell they would have to wait until you could run and get some water?

GrayPilgrim

April 20th 2003, 10:31 PM

Philip obviously did when he met the Ethipoian Eunuch.

GP

Freak

April 21st 2003, 08:21 AM

Today @ 03:31 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=74282#post74282)
GrayPilgrim:

Philip obviously did when he met the Ethipoian Eunuch.

GP

Who were you responding to?

George Blaisdell

April 21st 2003, 10:28 AM

Justified:

Baptism by the Spirit (Christ) has replaced baptism by men in water for remission.

Where O Where... ???

Where in the NT does it say that baptism in water has been replaced by anhydrous baptism? Peter baptized the eunich in water - All the NT baptisms are in water - Show just one baptism that is clearly stated as being NOT in water.

Baptism is so obviously in water that it does not require arguing, or even mentioning most of the time... The very word itself means immersion in water [dip] ... It has always meant this - Christ Himself was immersed, and we are called [by the Holy Spirit] to follow Him, for by His walk upon this earth He has prepared the very way in which we ourselves, following Him, are to walk in His footsteps, dead to the world, alive in Christ...

That is salvation...

And Christ Himself walked into the waters of baptism, changing them forever...

And where in the Bible do you find any record of anyone being baptized all by themselves in a private visitation of the Holy Spirit or Christ? All baptisms are done by holy men of God, like Peter and Paul and Ananias, and on and on even unto this day, in the Name of Christ, in His Church...

I am saddened by the tenacity with which people embrace this "Just ME and MY Holy Spirit Experience" nonsense...

It only makes sense if one has never met a holy person of God... Then it makes a LOT of sense...

geo

nomad

April 21st 2003, 11:45 AM

It has always been by faith through grace.

so we agree on this (i think i said this as wel). but we also agree that before Christ, god expected the jews to do *something* to show their obedience to God. right?

but again, i don't hold much to 'progressive revelation' really, in my mind god has been saying the same think since the dawn of time, 'believe and obey'. and he is still saying this today.

Water baptism was very much a part of Judaism before John the Baptist with its inception under the Mosaic law (Ex 19:10). It was a ritual cleansing that prepared the priest to receive the sacrifice (Ex 29:4).

i assumed it was there somewhere. this is even better though... do you not see the symbolism?

Paul is the first apostle to preach the message of Christ's shed blood for remission (Romans 3:25).

what? you can't really mean this.

Baptism is still required for remission, it had it's inception with the law and it was for remission. Baptism by the Spirit (1 Cor 12:13) who is Christ has freed us from the law of water baptism.

NOMAD:
and to add to that... we already discussed acts 2:38, and no one has tried to show how it actually refers to 'baptism by fire', 'receiving the Holy Spirit', etc. and not water baptism. and that is after the cross, and after Pentecost (when the Holy Spirit was sent) as well.

JUSTIFIED:
The gift of the Holy Ghost is not baptism by the Spirit. The gift was power to perform miracles (signs) so that the people would believe the message given was of God. Baptism by fire will burn up the chaff see Mat 3.

ok, i am getting confused. can you differentiate and define:

- baptism by fire
- baptism by the Holy Spirit
- baptism by the Holy Spirit
- gift of the Holy Spirit

perhaps i am being trapped by equivocation.

The Cornelius account is proof text for the progressive understanding of God's word. Peter was instructed by Christ to go to all the world yet he clearly had a problem in going to a Gentile with the gospel. God also showed Peter that the Holy Ghost was now received before obedience to water baptism.

but this wasn't new... in the *OLD* testament God said that Jesus would be for both jews and gentiles. there's a difference between true new revelation (god saying something no one ever knew before), and god taking the time to pound something into peter's head :)

i ALSO disagree with your exegesis - after all, in this time baptism was the method by which believers were 'inducted' into the church. the receiving of the Holy Spirit was what finally convinced peter that they SHOULD be inducted into the church.

you see, God didn't write the bible as a legal contract, and He can do things His own way when He chooses to :)

Paul was the first apostle to reveal that remission of sins was through faith in the shed blood of Christ. When we believe this greater witness (John 5:36) is supercedes the old witness of the Baptist that was a baptism of repentance for the remission of sins. Phillip still believed in the witness of the Baptist.

for one, i don't agree that paul was the first apostle to claim that. what you are saying is that Jesus, when he was here post-resurrection, somehow just decided not to make this clear to his apostles. why? and if this is true, when did you rip 1 and 2 peter out of your bible? ;)

this was clear teaching of Jesus. why did the apostles not know (and therefore teach) it? where did Paul learn what he knew about Jesus? can you tell me that?

anyway, i do feel a bit that we are talking past each other, so i'll bow out at this point and continue some research (i did find one verse i need to explain, acts 9:38). if you can answer the definitions above, it might help. thanks...

Justified

April 21st 2003, 08:14 PM

Geo,

And Christ Himself walked into the waters of baptism, changing them forever...

Explain this 'change'.

Justified

April 21st 2003, 10:24 PM

Nomad,

“
It has always been by faith through grace.
”

so we agree on this (i think i said this as wel). but we also agree that before Christ, god expected the jews to do *something* to show their obedience to God. right?

but again, i don't hold much to 'progressive revelation' really, in my mind god has been saying the same think since the dawn of time, 'believe and obey'. and he is still saying this today.

God did expect the Jews to do something and that something can be found in 'ordinances'. We are not under the law therefore the ordinances of old are not required.

Having abolished in his flesh the enmity, even the law of commandments contained in ordinances; for to make in himself of twain one new man, so making peace; Eph. 2:15

The Holy Ghost this signifying, that the way into the holiest of all was not yet made manifest, while as the first tabernacle was yet standing: Heb. 9:8
Which was a figure for the time then present, in which were offered both gifts and sacrifices, that could not make him that did the service perfect, as pertaining to the conscience; Heb. 9:9
Which stood only in meats and drinks, and divers washings, and carnal ordinances, imposed on them until the time of reformation. Heb. 9:10
But Christ being come an high priest of good things to come, by a greater and more perfect tabernacle, not made with hands, that is to say, not of this building; Heb. 9:11
Neither by the blood of goats and calves, but by his own blood he entered in once into the holy place, having obtained eternal redemption for us. Heb. 9:12
For if the blood of bulls and of goats, and the ashes of an heifer sprinkling the unclean, sanctifieth to the purifying of the flesh: Heb. 9:13

The 'way' into the holiest of all was not manifested (revealed) until Christ shed His blood of the new testament. How then could God have been saying the same thing since the dawn of time? The 'way' was not revealed and that meaning man did not understand the 'way'. God has progressively revealed the gospel
and man has progessively understood.

God instructed man with the law. The law served a dual purpose, it reveal sin and taught remission. Remission under the law was not the 'way' and it did not reveal the 'way' but it did prepare a people to receive the 'way' then it was revealed. Purifying of the flesh was not eternal remission. Water baptism remission was temporary and preparatory but faith in His shed blood grants eternal remission therefore the first is no longer needed.

“
Water baptism was very much a part of Judaism before John the Baptist with its inception under the Mosaic law (Ex 19:10). It was a ritual cleansing that prepared the priest to receive the sacrifice (Ex 29:4).
”

i assumed it was there somewhere. this is even better though... do you not see the symbolism?

Yes, I see the symbolism (type or sign) but we have the antitype therefore the type is an opposite being different, as in nature, quality, or significance.

Paul expressed this contrast when he said...

For Christ sent me not to baptize, but to preach the gospel: not with wisdom of words, lest the cross of Christ should be made of none effect. 1 Cor. 1:17

For the Jews require a sign, and the Greeks seek after wisdom: 1 Cor. 1:22
But we preach Christ crucified, unto the Jews a stumblingblock, and unto the Greeks foolishness; 1 Cor. 1:23

“
Paul is the first apostle to preach the message of Christ's shed blood for remission (Romans 3:25).
”

what? you can't really mean this.

The message Paul revealed was 'faith' in the shed blood of Christ for remission and he was the first apostle to reveal it.

For I delivered unto you first of all that which I also received, how that Christ died for our sins according to the scriptures; 1 Cor. 15:3

If it is true that the 'way' was not revealed until Christ died and that 'way' is the new testament of His shed blood for remission then why was it not the main theme of the apostles message at Pentecost? The process of revelation is that God reveals and man progressively understands with God's help of course.

“
NOMAD:
and to add to that... we already discussed acts 2:38, and no one has tried to show how it actually refers to 'baptism by fire', 'receiving the Holy Spirit', etc. and not water baptism. and that is after the cross, and after Pentecost (when the Holy Spirit was sent) as well.

JUSTIFIED:
The gift of the Holy Ghost is not baptism by the Spirit. The gift was power to perform miracles (signs) so that the people would believe the message given was of God. Baptism by fire will burn up the chaff see Mat 3.
”

ok, i am getting confused. can you differentiate and define:

- baptism by fire
- baptism by the Holy Spirit
- baptism by the Holy Spirit
- gift of the Holy Spirit

perhaps i am being trapped by equivocation.

God's word leaves no room for equivocations.

I indeed baptize you with water unto repentance: but he that cometh after me is mightier than I, whose shoes I am not worthy to bear: he shall baptize you with the Holy Ghost, and with fire: Matt. 3:11
Whose fan is in his hand, and he will thoroughly purge his floor, and gather his wheat into the garner; but he will burn up the chaff with unquenchable fire. Matt. 3:12

John baptizes with water but (note the contrast) Jesus will baptize with the Holy Ghost and with fire.

Holy Spirit baptism is the process by which the wheat is gathered for it is the seal of redemption (See Ephs 1:13-14).

Fire baptism is to be immersed into the flames of hell where He will burn up the chaff.

Sorry can't complete, having computer problem, can't save it, must finish with additional post.......

Justified

April 22nd 2003, 12:24 AM

...continued

And he said unto them, It is not for you to know the times or the seasons, which the Father hath put in his own power. Acts 1:7
But ye shall receive power, after that the Holy Ghost is come upon you: and ye shall be witnesses unto me both in Jerusalem, and in all Judaea, and in Samaria, and unto the uttermost part of the earth. Acts 1:8

The gift of the Holy Ghost was power to perform miracles.

“
The Cornelius account is proof text for the progressive understanding of God's word. Peter was instructed by Christ to go to all the world yet he clearly had a problem in going to a Gentile with the gospel. God also showed Peter that the Holy Ghost was now received before obedience to water baptism.
”

but this wasn't new... in the *OLD* testament God said that Jesus would be for both jews and gentiles. there's a difference between true new revelation (god saying something no one ever knew before), and god taking the time to pound something into peter's head :)

i ALSO disagree with your exegesis - after all, in this time baptism was the method by which believers were 'inducted' into the church. the receiving of the Holy Spirit was what finally convinced peter that they SHOULD be inducted into the church.

you see, God didn't write the bible as a legal contract, and He can do things His own way when He chooses to :)

The new revelation is the 'way' Jews and Gentiles could be in one body. Peter is an example of man's progressive understanding of God's revelation. God then progressively revealed His message to Peter. Why did God wait until after Pentecost to reveal His acceptance of Gentiles to Peter? Did Peter understand the one (Jew and Gentile) body of Christ at Pentecost that Paul clearly explains. What is it about Peter's understanding that caused him to say.... Ye know how that it is an 'unlawful thing' for a man that is a Jew to keep company, or come unto one of another nation; but God hath showed me that I should not call any man common or unclean. Acts 10:28

For he is our peace, who hath made both one, and hath broken down the middle wall of partition between us; Eph. 2:14
Having abolished in his flesh the enmity, even the law of commandments contained in ordinances; for to make in himself of twain one new man, so making peace; Eph. 2:15
And that he might reconcile both unto God in one body by the cross, having slain the enmity thereby: Eph. 2:16
And came and preached peace to you which were afar off, and to them that were nigh. Eph. 2:17

How is it possible that Peter revealed the church of the one body of Christ at Pentecost when God did not reveal acceptance of Gentiles to Peter until after Pentecost?

God chose to progressively reveal to man the 'way' the body of Christ is formed and it was not revealed until Paul delivered it.

“
Paul was the first apostle to reveal that remission of sins was through faith in the shed blood of Christ. When we believe this greater witness (John 5:36) is supercedes the old witness of the Baptist that was a baptism of repentance for the remission of sins. Phillip still believed in the witness of the Baptist.
”
for one, i don't agree that paul was the first apostle to claim that. what you are saying is that Jesus, when he was here post-resurrection, somehow just decided not to make this clear to his apostles. why? and if this is true, when did you rip 1 and 2 peter out of your bible? ;)

this was clear teaching of Jesus. why did the apostles not know (and therefore teach) it? where did Paul learn what he knew about Jesus? can you tell me that?

If you don't agree I need your proof text to prove otherwise.

I can not explain why God chose to reveal the truth of Christ progressively no more than I could explain the fall of man except to say that is according to God's purpose. God loves us and He wants us to accept that love freely or we truly can't love Him in the 'way' that He desires.

I enjoy reading 1 and 2nd Peter very much and I would never rip it out of my bible. It shows what God can do with a man that seeks to know his God.

But I certify you, brethren, that the gospel which was preached of me is not after man. Gal. 1:11
For I neither received it of man, neither was I taught it, but by the 'revelation of Jesus Christ'. Gal. 1:12

anyway, i do feel a bit that we are talking past each other, so i'll bow out at this point and continue some research (i did find one verse i need to explain, acts 9:38). if you can answer the definitions above, it might help. thanks...

I have enjoyed our discussion and will answer any question you have in hopes of you understanding what I believe.

Acts 9:38 ?

nomad

April 22nd 2003, 10:08 AM

How then could God have been saying the same thing since the dawn of time? The 'way' was not revealed and that meaning man did not understand the 'way'. God has progressively revealed the gospel
and man has progessively understood.

this is probably too much to discuss here. but you have given me some things about.

though, i can think of at least one example where god indicated his intentions long in advance... it was jewish tradition LONG before Jesus came that when the messiah came, all sacrifices would cease EXCEPT the thanksgiving offering (which is grain and wine). sound familiar?

anyways, i won't respond to everything, i do find it interesting though.

God instructed man with the law. The law served a dual purpose, it reveal sin and taught remission.

i would argue 'repentance' not remission, but that's ok.

For the Jews require a sign, and the Greeks seek after wisdom: 1 Cor. 1:22
But we preach Christ crucified, unto the Jews a stumblingblock, and unto the Greeks foolishness; 1 Cor. 1:23

i don't get what you got out of these passages. but why does everyone always use this passage to talk about 'signs', and no one ever uses this passage to talk about the 'wisdom' of the greeks?

If it is true that the 'way' was not revealed until Christ died and that 'way' is the new testament of His shed blood for remission then why was it not the main theme of the apostles message at Pentecost?

that is a good question, but a bit circular, as well as an argument from silence. it argues that it SHOULD have been the focus. i will agree that i would have expected some clearer statements to that effect, but

- they had already been speaking via the Holy Spirit in many languages. no mention is made of what they said.

- Peter was speaking to Jews. Jews talked a lot about the messiah. peter's message (as listed in Acts) was very simple: Jesus IS the Messiah. there is no more to it than that. THAT is much more foundational than any theological arguments.

it is probably of note that after he said this (and JUST this), the people were 'stabbed in the heart' and asked 'what shall we do?' At this point, they are not asking for theology but action, for which peter responds 'repent and be baptized'.

what you assert may be true, but this is not a good proof text.

God's word leaves no room for equivocations.

of course not :) that's why i was asking for definitions, terms seemed to be thrown around recklessly. i'll try re-reading through the thread again based on what you posted.

The new revelation is the 'way' Jews and Gentiles could be in one body. Peter is an example of man's progressive understanding of God's revelation. God then progressively revealed His message to Peter. Why did God wait until after Pentecost to reveal His acceptance of Gentiles to Peter?

actually, he didn't... it is in isaiah as well.

Did Peter understand the one (Jew and Gentile) body of Christ at Pentecost that Paul clearly explains. What is it about Peter's understanding that caused him to say.... Ye know how that it is an 'unlawful thing' for a man that is a Jew to keep company, or come unto one of another nation; but God hath showed me that I should not call any man common or unclean. Acts 10:28

sure, i can accept that. but it's one thing to assert that peter did not fully understand this before, and quite another to say that God had never revealed it before.

If you don't agree I need your proof text to prove otherwise.

fair enough. i need to do some more reading anyways. though i do find it odd that AFTER jesus arose from the dead, and spent time with his apostles, he would just sort of 'forget' to mention something like 'redemption by faith'. that's just shocking.

I enjoy reading 1 and 2nd Peter very much and I would never rip it out of my bible. It shows what God can do with a man that seeks to know his God.

well, more i was asking, by justification do you consider it canon, if peter was, in fact, *wrong* at some point? this is basically what you are asserting. i am wondering what basis we use to say that these gospels are in fact the 'word of God'.

i suppose a similar case could be made for the time when peter got in with the judaizers, and paul opposed him (i forget where that is recorded, but one of the pauline epistles). i suppose an argument could be made that that was just as much of a theological error. yet we still consider it canon. something else to look into.

But I certify you, brethren, that the gospel which was preached of me is not after man. Gal. 1:11
For I neither received it of man, neither was I taught it, but by the 'revelation of Jesus Christ'. Gal. 1:12

now this is the most interesting thing you have posted. i do not necessarily think it *proves* that Paul was the first to mention this, but it is very interesting.

Acts 9:38 ?

yes. most of the times when baptism is mentioned, it appears to be something that a person does (which would make more sense applied to water baptism than any other kind, which only Jesus can do), or as a distinctly separate event (which doesn't really prove one or the other, but it is consistent with either water or spirit baptism).

ahh, posted wrong reference. i meant acts 9:18, i can see why you were confused :)

Acts 9:18-19 And immediately there fell from his eyes something like scales, and he regained his sight, and he got up and was baptized;
(19) and he took food and was strengthened. Now for several days he was with the disciples who were at Damascus,

the first time i read it (in the LITV, this is the NASB) it appeared to be saying that the regaining of sight and the baptism were *concurrent* - this would be difficult to explain by water baptism. but now i am reading it again, and now it appears to be a verse that could be consistent with either view.

thanks... you have given me some good things to investigate on my own and think about... and that's always a blessing :)

George Blaisdell

April 22nd 2003, 10:43 AM

Justified:

Acts 1:7
But ye shall receive power, after that the Holy Ghost is come upon you: and ye shall be witnesses unto me both in Jerusalem, and in all Judaea, and in Samaria, and unto the uttermost part of the earth. Acts 1:8

> The gift of the Holy Ghost was power to perform miracles.

In part you are correct, yet the gift of the Holy Spirit is much more than this, and in a way, much less. To read this passage and exegete that it means that the gift of the Hoy Spirit is power to perform miracles is to miss its meaning, because the issue is one of knowing WHEN the miracles of witness shall be coming - They are not coming all the time, you see... The Apostles are not walking miracle machines possessing the Holy Spirit and doling out miracles as they see fit. Instead, they shall indeed persorm great signs, and they are being told here that they will know that they are about to be doing so...

And how will they know when? It will be "...after that the Holy Ghost is come upon you." This will be HOW they will know. They are not being given carte blanche with the Holy Spirit, but only during those times that are at the behest of the Holy Spirit, which behest will be announced to them inwardly by the Holy Spirit "coming upon" them...

This passage is not referring the gift of the Holy Spirit conferred upon a new believer in the holy service of baptism by immersion - Because this gift is bestowed upon all believers, yet not all will immediately begin performing signs [though some immediately do so indeed], but instead is addressed to those entering evangellical apostleship.

> Peter is an example of man's progressive understanding of God's revelation....Why did God wait until after Pentecost to reveal His acceptance of Gentiles to Peter?

He didn't. Peter knew it, but was not doing it... His mouth was not being backed up by his mouth, so to speak [speaking and eating] What was being "progressively revealed" was his sinfulness, not the evangel of the Word...

> Did Peter understand the one (Jew and Gentile) body of Christ at Pentecost that Paul clearly explains. What is it about Peter's understanding that caused him to say.... Ye know how that it is an 'unlawful thing' for a man that is a Jew to keep company, or come unto one of another nation; but God hath showed me that I should not call any man common or unclean. Acts 10:28

Exactly - Because for him to call any man common or unclean is to not eat with him... And it is important to remember that early Christians were Jewish, and not all that much different from the Jews - Christ Himself was a Jew, yet the Jews [as a nation] did not follow Him, but persecuted - Him. So that Peter regarded himself as a Jew, and had to be led by God away from this understanding... For gentiles, their particular "progressive revelation" would differ, in that they worshipped pagan gods, or none at all.

So that what you are seeing is not progressive revelation of the evangel, but the progressive spiritual development vis-a-vis repentance - All you are seeing with Peter is his repentance, and the fact that even so great a one as he was also needs to be repenting from wrongs as they are given unto him to repent - This is the walk of repentance that all Christians are called to walk, in the footsteps of Christ...

> How is it possible that Peter revealed the church of the one body of Christ at Pentecost when God did not reveal acceptance of Gentiles to Peter until after Pentecost?

The key element of this question is its particularity to Peter - The Church was revealed, the particularity of each person's state of mind was not...

> God chose to progressively reveal to man the 'way' the body of Christ is formed and it was not revealed until Paul delivered it.

This is flat out not true at all. And the reason is that you use "man" generically when what is generically implied is individual sinfulness, not "man the body of Christ" ... The Body of Christ is FULLY formed already, and has been since Pentecost - It is the particular persons within that Holy Body of our Lord Who is its Head that need to live repentant lives - Even those at the top... For all have sinned...

> I can not explain why God chose to reveal the truth of Christ progressively

The mystery of the faith is received in a purified conscience in the Mystery of Baptism - The truth of Christ is to be found therein, and not in some watyoutside of this... The contest that each of us is called to enter in our following in the steps of our Lord, overcoming our own sins in His Love, even unto blood, is what you are calling "progressive revelation", J...

> no more than I could explain the fall of man except to say that is according to God's purpose.

Try reading the Church Fathers on THAT one!

But I certify you, brethren, that the gospel which was preached of me is not after man. Gal. 1:11
For I neither received it of man, neither was I taught it, but by the 'revelation of Jesus Christ'. Gal. 1:12

And indeed, this is how we are all to learn it, and not by private revelation... But by the reception into a purified conscience of the Mystery of the Faith, into the Body of our Lord, in the Mystery of Baptism... And our remaining within the body of our Lord is very dependant upon our actions, and like Peter, we will be corrected when we err... Or be cast out...

geo

Justified

April 22nd 2003, 09:58 PM

George,

I would like you to explain how the waters of baptism were changed when Jesus was baptized.

What is the difference between before and after the change?

I want to see the proof text, your theology seems to hinge on this assumption.

George Blaisdell

April 23rd 2003, 02:05 AM

Justified: writes:

George,

>>>I would like you to explain how the waters of baptism were changed when Jesus was baptized.

What is the difference between before and after the change?

I want to see the proof text, your theology seems to hinge on this assumption. >>>

My theology hinges on the Body of Christ, on the incrnation of the logos in history, on Holy Tradition. It hinges, in a word, on the one, holy, catholic and apostolic Church, the pillar and ground of truth, against which the gates of gehenna shall not prevail...

From the beginnings, the Church has celebrated each year the liturgy of the Blessing of the Waters, the epiphany, the baptism of Christ, and this changing of the waters from cleansing to Life-Giving is affirmed in these services.

Just as the cross was only an instrument of torture unto prolonged agony ending in death prior to Christ's being crucified, but now is life giving, so water was only really good to wash your ditties in and drink prior to His baptism... But now is life giving.

Such are the footsteps of the Master we are called to trod... " If anyone is willing..."

This understanding has never been challenged in the entire history of the Church that I know of, and it is affirmed by all the fathers who touch on it... Just as baptism by triple immersion enjoys a 2000 year uncontested history of theory and practice in the Holy Tradition of Orthodoxy...

Does this help?

geo

Justified

April 26th 2003, 03:00 PM

Nomad,

“How then could God have been saying the same thing since the dawn of time? The 'way' was not revealed and that meaning man did not understand the 'way'. God has progressively revealed the gospel
and man has progessively understood. ”

this is probably too much to discuss here. but you have given me some things about.

though, i can think of at least one example where god indicated his intentions long in advance... it was jewish tradition LONG before Jesus came that when the messiah came, all sacrifices would cease EXCEPT the thanksgiving offering (which is grain and wine). sound familiar?

anyways, i won't respond to everything, i do find it interesting though.

God saying that sacrifices will cease is not revealing the 'way' of our salvation in that Christ shed His blood for our sins.
“God instructed man with the law. The law served a dual purpose, it reveal sin and taught remission. ”

i would argue 'repentance' not remission, but that's ok.

Repentance of sins is not remission through faith in Christ.
“For the Jews require a sign, and the Greeks seek after wisdom: 1 Cor. 1:22
But we preach Christ crucified, unto the Jews a stumblingblock, and unto the Greeks foolishness; 1 Cor. 1:23 ”

i don't get what you got out of these passages. but why does everyone always use this passage to talk about 'signs', and no one ever uses this passage to talk about the 'wisdom' of the greeks?

The point is that Greeks did not seek after signs. As a matter of biblical fact the Jews required a sign and the Pentecostal experience was Jewish.
“If it is true that the 'way' was not revealed until Christ died and that 'way' is the new testament of His shed blood for remission then why was it not the main theme of the apostles message at Pentecost? ”

that is a good question, but a bit circular, as well as an argument from silence. it argues that it SHOULD have been the focus. i will agree that i would have expected some clearer statements to that effect, but

- they had already been speaking via the Holy Spirit in many languages. no mention is made of what they said.

- Peter was speaking to Jews. Jews talked a lot about the messiah. peter's message (as listed in Acts) was very simple: Jesus IS the Messiah. there is no more to it than that. THAT is much more foundational than any theological arguments.

it is probably of note that after he said this (and JUST this), the people were 'stabbed in the heart' and asked 'what shall we do?' At this point, they are not asking for theology but action, for which peter responds 'repent and be baptized'.

what you assert may be true, but this is not a good proof text.

The scriptures are God breathed and we are not to add or take away from them. The new testament is the door to immortality and is the central focus of the bible and the full revelation of the gospel. It is only by faith in the testament of Christ that we are united in Him receiving the benefits of sonship. I will refer you to the "law of first mention" .

The devils believed Jesus was the Christ but that knowledge did not profit them. Again, progressive revelation indicates we must not only believe He was the Messiah but we must believe He died for our sins to receive the full benefits of His Sonship.

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. Acts 2:38 (KJV)

Water baptism is not the gospel of Christ! The shed blood of Christ surpassed water as the agent for remission of sins. Paul was the first man to proclaim the Gospel of Christ.

Moreover, brethren, I declare unto you the gospel which I preached unto you, which also ye have received, and wherein ye stand; 1 Cor. 15:1 (KJV)
By which also ye are saved, if ye keep in memory what I preached unto you, unless ye have believed in vain. 1 Cor. 15:2 (KJV)
For I delivered unto you first of all that which I also received, how that Christ died for our sins according to the scriptures; 1 Cor. 15:3 (KJV)

V1 - Paul declares the "gospel" in which we stand.

V2 - He says if we do not believe it then we have believed in vain!

V3 - He says he was the first to deliver it and that "gospel is "Christ died for our sins".

Paul also had this to say:

For Christ sent me not to baptize, but to preach the gospel: not with wisdom of words, lest the cross of Christ should be made of none effect. 1 Cor. 1:17 (KJV)

Paul understands that water baptism made the cross of Christ of none effect as to remission of sins. Water baptism from its inception before the cross was a 'baptism of repentance' 'for remission of sins' but we have a new message in the new testament given by Christ for remission of sins. The new has replaced the old and if one believes the old testimony then the new testimony is of none effect.

[“ The new revelation is the 'way' Jews and Gentiles could be in one body. Peter is an example of man's progressive understanding of God's revelation. God then progressively revealed His message to Peter. Why did God wait until after Pentecost to reveal His acceptance of Gentiles to Peter? ”

actually, he didn't... it is in isaiah as well.

The fact that it is written in Isaiah has nothing to do with when God revealed acceptance of Gentiles to Peter. Peter knew the Gentiles were without the law and that is why he said it was unlawful for him to go to a Gentile. Christ died to remove the law so that Gentiles and Jews could be one body.
''Did Peter understand the one (Jew and Gentile) body of Christ at Pentecost that Paul clearly explains. What is it about Peter's understanding that caused him to say.... Ye know how that it is an 'unlawful thing' for a man that is a Jew to keep company, or come unto one of another nation; but God hath showed me that I should not call any man common or unclean. Acts 10:28 ”

sure, i can accept that. but it's one thing to assert that peter did not fully understand this before, and quite another to say that God had never revealed it before.

We are discussing the 'way' Jews and Gentiles are one body through the death of Christ without the law not when God said that Gentiles would be accepted.
''If you don't agree I need your proof text to prove otherwise. ”

fair enough. i need to do some more reading anyways. though i do find it odd that AFTER jesus arose from the dead, and spent time with his apostles, he would just sort of 'forget' to mention something like 'redemption by faith'. that's just shocking.

It has more to do with when the message was understood by the apostles who were God's messengers. It has always been by faith but as God progressively reveals His message man's faith must progressively follow. Faith in the shed blood of Christ for remission is the fulfillment of the Gospel. So I ask that you proived the proof text if you beleive that Paul was not the first to reveal our faith and I look forward to discussing it with you.
“I enjoy reading 1 and 2nd Peter very much and I would never rip it out of my bible. It shows what God can do with a man that seeks to know his God. ”

well, more i was asking, by justification do you consider it canon, if peter was, in fact, *wrong* at some point? this is basically what you are asserting. i am wondering what basis we use to say that these gospels are in fact the 'word of God'.

i suppose a similar case could be made for the time when peter got in with the judaizers, and paul opposed him (i forget where that is recorded, but one of the pauline epistles). i suppose an argument could be made that that was just as much of a theological error. yet we still consider it canon. something else to look into.

We can not judge the truth of God by the actions and words of men but by the very words of God and the Lord Jesus. Apostles are not infallible and the bible is a record of God's instructing men by progressively revealing His Truth.
“But I certify you, brethren, that the gospel which was preached of me is not after man. Gal. 1:11
For I neither received it of man, neither was I taught it, but by the 'revelation of Jesus Christ'. Gal. 1:12 ”

now this is the most interesting thing you have posted. i do not necessarily think it *proves* that Paul was the first to mention this, but it is very interesting.

For I delivered unto you first of all that which I also received, how that Christ died for our sins according to the scriptures; 1 Cor. 15:3 (KJV)

“Acts 9:38 ? ”

yes. most of the times when baptism is mentioned, it appears to be something that a person does (which would make more sense applied to water baptism than any other kind, which only Jesus can do), or as a distinctly separate event (which doesn't really prove one or the other, but it is consistent with either water or spirit baptism).

ahh, posted wrong reference. i meant acts 9:18, i can see why you were confused :)

Acts 9:18-19 And immediately there fell from his eyes something like scales, and he regained his sight, and he got up and was baptized;
(19) and he took food and was strengthened. Now for several days he was with the disciples who were at Damascus,

the first time i read it (in the LITV, this is the NASB) it appeared to be saying that the regaining of sight and the baptism were *concurrent* - this would be difficult to explain by water baptism. but now i am reading it again, and now it appears to be a verse that could be consistent with either view.

thanks... you have given me some good things to investigate on my own and think about... and that's always a blessing :)

Ananias a 'devout man according to the law' was the one that instructed Paul to be water baptized and those under the law believed it 'washed away sins'. The Baptist preached a 'water baptism of repentance' 'for remission' under the law but Christ died to remove us from the law. Repentance was to beleive Jesus was the Messiah and testify to that fact in water baptism as reflected in the words of Ananias...wash away thy sins calling on the name of the Lord. Paul received progressive revelations after he was water baptized and by those revelations he fulfilled the gospel.

George Blaisdell

April 28th 2003, 10:47 AM

Justified writes:

"Paul received progressive revelations after he was water baptized and by those revelations he fulfilled the gospel."

Are you really saying that Paul was baptized in water according to Jewish custom by Ananias, and not according to Christ? That Ananias was not of Christ? That Ananias was but a devout Jew?

And then are you saying that having received progressive revelations following being baptized by Ananias, he told his followers to follow a differing path, to avoid being baptized in water, even though the Risen Christ Himself sent Paul himself to Ananias for healing and baptism by triple immersion in water? {In the Name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit?]

IF such nonsense had been the case, there would surely be great recorded controversy, where DRY BAPTISM is the NEW REP:ACEMENT for that OLD WET baptism by triple immersion which you so wrongly attribute to the Jews... [Theirs was a small, symbolic ceremonial baptism that was a washing by God, and not a full triple immersion... The baptisms of John in the Jordan were not standard Jewish baptisms - His was a divergence, a sect, and hence the arrival and investigation by the Pharisees and chief Priests...]

If Paul had been CHANGING BAPTISM from what he himself had received at the hands of the Risen Christ, he would have made that startling fact ABUNDANTLY clear in his epistles.

He did not...

His work was to evangellize, not to baptize - Others baptized. As an evangellizer, he brought the Holy Spirit into people's hearts and minds, yet others [mostly, but not always] did the work of baptizing, as HAS been made abundantly clear...

Strange tenacity you have here, Justified... Trying to get us to avoid the life-giving waters of Christ's baptism that you admit Paul received, and turning us to some DRY BAPTISM, in the name of your private "visitations" of the "holy spirit"...

Sorry for any offence for being so blunt...

geo

nomad

April 28th 2003, 01:40 PM

God saying that sacrifices will cease is not revealing the 'way' of our salvation in that Christ shed His blood for our sins.

of course not. but it is a hint. god likes to drop hints. he dropped plenty about the messiah, starting way back in genesis 2. jesus himself said that 'abraham saw my day and rejoiced'. and there are the analogies in the law, in the passover, etc. god rarely drops something totally new on us. and there's good reasons for that... otherwise, why are we christians instead of mormon or islamic? they all claimed new revelation as well.

The devils believed Jesus was the Christ but that knowledge did not profit them. Again, progressive revelation indicates we must not only believe He was the Messiah but we must believe He died for our sins to receive the full benefits of His Sonship.

of course :) i believe this is all part of believing in him as The Christ (although i do not really know; at some point in the near future i would like to read all the original jewish rabbinical traditions; i have more than once heard interesting information coming from there).

Water baptism is not the gospel of Christ! The shed blood of Christ surpassed water as the agent for remission of sins. Paul was the first man to proclaim the Gospel of Christ.

ironic, since jesus himself had the opportunity to proclaim this 'gospel'.

Moreover, brethren, I declare unto you the gospel which I preached unto you, which also ye have received, and wherein ye stand; 1 Cor. 15:1 (KJV)
By which also ye are saved, if ye keep in memory what I preached unto you, unless ye have believed in vain. 1 Cor. 15:2 (KJV)
For I delivered unto you first of all that which I also received, how that Christ died for our sins according to the scriptures; 1 Cor. 15:3 (KJV)

15:4-8 a list of people he appeared to after resurrection (including caiaphas!)
15:9 For I am the least of the apostles...
15:10... but I labored more abundantly than they all, yet not I, but the grace of God which was with me.
15:11 Therefore, whether it was I or they, so we preach and so you believed.

paul apparently does not believe that the gospel he is preaching is different from the one the other apostles preach. how do you explain that?

V3 - He says he was the first to deliver it and that "gospel is "Christ died for our sins".

an interesting take. read directly, it appears not to say what you assert, but that Paul preached this first to the Corinthians. acts shows this isn't true, so let's look at a couple of other translations:

1 Corinthians 15:3 NASB (3) For I delivered to you as of first importance what I also received, that Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures,

1 Corinthians 15:3 LITV (3) For I delivered to you in the first place what I also received, that Christ died for our sins, according to the Scriptures,

both of these seem like possibilities, based on the greek (though i am not an expert). the NASB one expresses the importance; the LITV one seems to imply that Paul was the first to preach to the Corinthians. .

For Christ sent me not to baptize, but to preach the gospel: not with wisdom of words, lest the cross of Christ should be made of none effect. 1 Cor. 1:17 (KJV)

we've already dealt with this.

Paul understands that water baptism made the cross of Christ of none effect as to remission of sins.

try reading it again. maybe this will help:

1 Corinthians 1:17-19 KJV (17) For Christ sent me not to baptize, but to preach the gospel: not with wisdom of words, lest the cross of Christ should be made of none effect. (18) For the preaching of the cross is to them that perish foolishness; but unto us which are saved it is the power of God. (19) For it is written, I will destroy the wisdom of the wise, and will bring to nothing the understanding of the prudent.

it is fairly obvious that it is _preaching from wisdom_ (cleverness in the NASB, 'wisdom of discourse' in young's literal, 'eloquent wisdom' in the ISV) that would bring the cross to no effect, not the baptism.

The fact that it is written in Isaiah has nothing to do with when God revealed acceptance of Gentiles to Peter. Peter knew the Gentiles were without the law and that is why he said it was unlawful for him to go to a Gentile. Christ died to remove the law so that Gentiles and Jews could be one body.

well yes, for peter. but the same could be true for anyone... it had not yet even been revealed to Paul that Jesus is the Messiah. does that make it some separate revelation?

god doesn't appear to like surprises. when something happens in the bible, it is always (from my investigations) told ahead of time, usually MUCH ahead of time, so that people will know it is actually from God.

so, if this is NEW revelation, it should have the pointers to it. and if you want to point back to Jesus as the pointer (as yes, i believe it is), then you need to explain how those who spent time with him 'didn't get it'.

We are discussing the 'way' Jews and Gentiles are one body through the death of Christ without the law not when God said that Gentiles would be accepted.

you just said how, 'through the death of Christ'.

It has more to do with when the message was understood by the apostles who were God's messengers.

so then, i'm curious... if Paul said he baptized people one, but then regretted it, how do you that some of the stuff he wrote down he didn't regret later and changed his mind? if the apostles 'were mistaken', then how can we trust anything that peter wrote down as encouragement for instance? in that case, we only have the words of Jesus as absolute truth (as recorded by the gospel accounts).

So I ask that you proived the proof text if you beleive that Paul was not the first to reveal our faith and I look forward to discussing it with you.

well, the rest of 1 cor 15 above hopefully helps with this. but moreover, i am not one of those who believe that somehow the scriptures came to us from the clouds somehow inerrant, and there is truth in them that the very apostles that wrote them didn't appear to grasp, and 2000 years of church history just somehow 'missed it'.

peter had a good heart-to-heart with Jesus after the resurrection. you'd think something important like 'don't baptize in water anymore, or you will make the whole thing null and void', besides being extremely legalistic, would be something he might have mentioned. 'peter, feed my sheep' was what he told him. don't you think he would tell him to feed the flock good food? it is just incredible to me to assume that Jesus would have just ignored it here.

and then, we have the early church who it seems certainly baptized, and many many years of church history which is filled with baptism. what do we do with them?

i don't need a 'proof text', i would need a very good and straightforward 'proof text' to show that paul taught something utterly unknown to the church at the time, and all i have seen so far is innuendo and suggestion that it looks like no one else might have preached this. i would expect a much more straightforward condemnation of baptism as well.

on the contrary, that's not what i see at all, unless you assume things that i can't justify, that 'baptism' never means water. romans 6 shows that paul certainly understood the symbolism of baptism, as well as colossians 2:12, both of which make far more sense for the imagery invoked if they talk about water baptism. 1 cor 15 talks about the 'baptism for the dead' which is obviously not the Holy Spirit falling on the dead.

and there is 1 peter 3:21, which is clearly showing water baptism. if this isn't a true verse, you need to hold all of 1 peter suspect. and 1 peter 1:6-10 appear to also teach justification by faith (though perhaps not so directly stated), so here they are together in one book.

Justified

April 28th 2003, 11:40 PM

Geo,

"Paul received progressive revelations after he was water baptized and by those revelations he fulfilled the gospel."

Are you really saying that Paul was baptized in water according to Jewish custom by Ananias, and not according to Christ? That Ananias was not of Christ? That Ananias was but a devout Jew?

Paul was water baptized according to Jewish custom.

Christ did not instructed Ananias to water baptize Paul.

Ananias was of Christ.

Ananias was a devout Jew.
And then are you saying that having received progressive revelations following being baptized by Ananias, he told his followers to follow a differing path, to avoid being baptized in water, even though the Risen Christ Himself sent Paul himself to Ananias for healing and baptism by triple immersion in water? {In the Name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit?]

Israel was chosen to be a nation of priest perpared by water baptism to deliver the message of remission to the world but they failed and God called Paul to fulfill the gospel. God revealed the gospel in type with the law and ordinances for remission. A study of sacrifice and priestly duties provides in type a pattern for what occurred at Pentecost. God expected Israel as a nation to perform the priestly duties but they denied and crucified the Messiah.
Paul was the first apostle to instruct man out of the law and yes it is a different path with a far greater reward.
Yes, Christ sent Ananias to Paul but He did not instruct Ananias to water baptize Paul and Ananias was a devout man according to the law.
Give me just one reference where anybody (apostles included) baptized anyone in the name of the Father, Son and Holy Ghost.

If Paul had been CHANGING BAPTISM from what he himself had received at the hands of the Risen Christ, he would have made that startling fact ABUNDANTLY clear in his epistles.

He did not...

This I find amusing yet sadly it is typical of your theology..."he himself had received at the hands of the Risen Christ".

We must believe what the scriptures say, as they say it, and where they say it. Paul was not sent to baptize yet many would have use believe apostles were commissioned to water baptize. Paul then must have been called to fufill a different purpose in that it did not include water baptism.
IF such nonsense had been the case, there would surely be great recorded controversy, where DRY BAPTISM is the NEW REP:ACEMENT for that OLD WET baptism by triple immersion which you so wrongly attribute to the Jews... [Theirs was a small, symbolic ceremonial baptism that was a washing by God, and not a full triple immersion... The baptisms of John in the Jordan were not standard Jewish baptisms - His was a divergence, a sect, and hence the arrival and investigation by the Pharisees and chief Priests...]

I am still waiting for the proof text to back up your assumption that Peter's baptism was any different than John's. Spouting off about what some church believes proves nothing. The scriptures
are a gift from God to expose lies and misunderstandings regardless of how many years they have been held as tradition.
John's authority was called into question not the baptism method. The pharisees and priest claimed the authority in the matters of remission much the same as your church does today but God does not hold to such foolish ideas.

His work was to evangellize, not to baptize - Others baptized. As an evangellizer, he brought the Holy Spirit into people's hearts and minds, yet others [mostly, but not always] did the work of baptizing, as HAS been made abundantly clear...

Show me the scriptures to prove that others were baptizing (mostly, but not always) for Paul. If you believe Paul was an apostle and he was sent not to baptize yet apostles were commanded to baptize. Explain why!
Strange tenacity you have here, Justified... Trying to get us to avoid the life-giving waters of Christ's baptism that you admit Paul received, and turning us to some DRY BAPTISM, in the name of your private "visitations" of the "holy spirit"...

I am trying discuss scripture and you remind me of a scared little boy that hides behind his mother simply because someone he is not familiar with wishes to speak to him. I have not spoken of private visitations of the Holy Spirit but have explained to you that doctrine is defined by comparing spiritual things with spiritual things (scripture with scripture).
Sorry for any offence for being so blunt...

I like bluntness but I can't understand why someone will spout off at the mouth how they know the truth when they are completely unable to back it with the scriptures.

George Blaisdell

April 29th 2003, 11:02 AM

Justified: writes:

> Paul was water baptized according to Jewish custom.

Just as you think John baptized by Jewish custom? And do you as well think that he ignored Christ's commandment to baptize in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit? Do you deny that these were Christ's commandments? Are you saying that Paul received ANOTHER Jewish baptism by Ananias???

> Christ did not instructed Ananias to water baptize Paul.

Christ sent Paul to Ananias, and as well told Ananias what to do for Paul. And Paul went away from Ananias baptized by him. Are you saying that Ananias gave Paul ANOTHER Jewish baptism all on his own, without Christ's specific instruction? Do you somehow imagine that Ananias was not utterly obedient to the risen Christ with Whom he was in intimate communion? That he just went off on his own and baptized Paul with ANOTHER Jewish baptism that was NOT at the behest of the Risen Christ?

> Ananias was of Christ.

So that he was baptizing in the Name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit, yes? Are you denying that this was the instruction of Christ? To go to the ethnoi, to do this? That this is Christ's commandment for baptism?

> Ananias was a devout Jew.

No - SAUL was the devout Jew, and he was out and about with an armed gang looking for guys like Ananias to persecute and kill... Ananias was of Christ. The Jews, the Jewish faith, rejected Christ. They still do - You can go on down to your local Synagogue if you don't believe me - They will patiently explain it to you. They will tell you that Ananias was NOT a devout Jew...

Gotta run!

geo

Justified

April 30th 2003, 11:52 PM

Nomad,

“God saying that sacrifices will cease is not revealing the 'way' of our salvation in that Christ shed His blood for our sins. ”

of course not. but it is a hint. god likes to drop hints. he dropped plenty about the messiah, starting way back in genesis 2. jesus himself said that 'abraham saw my day and rejoiced'. and there are the analogies in the law, in the passover, etc. god rarely drops something totally new on us. and there's good reasons for that... otherwise, why are we christians instead of mormon or islamic? they all claimed new revelation as well.

We agree then, God has progressive revealed His truth and it is contained in the Bible.

To have eternal life we must have three witnesses:

1-Believe Jesus is the Christ (witnessed by the "Father" from heaven during John‘s ministry in "water" baptism).

2-Believe that He shed His "blood" was buried and rose again (witnessed by His "Son" the "Word" of God during the apostles ministry).

3-Believe we are baptized by the "Spirit" through faith and that His shed blood removed the law and granted eternal life (witnessed by the "Holy Ghost" during Paul‘s ministry).

John did baptize in the wilderness, and preach the baptism of repentance for the remission of sins. Mark 1:4

Before the new testament of Christ's shed blood was in effect (Heb 9:15-17) many were receiving forgiveness of sins (saved) under the law in water baptism when they believed Jesus was the Christ. The new testament (Matt 26:28) is a better witness for remission (John 5:36), granting eternal life (John 6:54) and is without the law (Rom 3:21), and it superceded the old testament (Mk 1:4).

For this is my blood of the NEW testament, which is shed for many for the remission of sins. Matt. 26:28

We can identify when man understands and believes a NEW message by when he first preaches it.

Any time a new message takes the place of the old it is progressively understood and believed. Acts is a record of this transitional message of remission. Water baptism witnessed that Jesus was the Christ and it began at Galilee (Acts 10:37) with John the Baptist under the law (Mark 1:4) and was to be delivered to all nations (Matt 24:14). The Baptist was beheaded and his witness (John 1:15) was finally delivered to ALL NATIONS (Luke 24:27) at Pentecost during Peter's ministry (Acts 2:38). The apostles added their witness (Luke 24:46-48) of the death, burial and resurrection of Jesus to the message given at Pentecost (Acts 1:22,2:32,3:15,4:2,5:30-32). Saul after the stoning of Stephen is called to bear Christ’s name (Acts 9:15). . Paul preaches Christ is the Son of God (Acts 9:20) and His resurrection (acts 13:30).

Paul adds further witness (Acts 22:15) to the gospel with a message of deliverance from the law (Acts 13:39). Paul tells us he was sent not to baptize (1 Cor 1:17) and is the first apostle to preach remission of sins through faith in His blood (Rom 3:25). Paul’s message explains how to receive eternal life (Acts 13:38-48) (Rom 5:6-21)(Titus 1:1-3)(Titus 3:5-7) through His shed blood. Paul tells us we are baptized by the Spirit (1 Cor 12:13) and through faith in the shed blood of Christ we receive remission of sins (Rom 3:25) and that he was called to fulfill the word of God (Col 1:25).

The God of our fathers hath chosen thee, that thou shouldest know his will, and see that Just One, and shouldest hear the voice of his mouth. Acts 22:14
For thou shalt be his witness unto all men of what thou hast seen and heard. Acts 22:15

In the day when God shall judge the secrets of men by Jesus Christ according to my gospel. Rom. 2:16

Howbeit for this cause I obtained mercy, that in me first Jesus Christ might show forth all longsuffering, for a pattern to them which should hereafter believe on him to life everlasting. 1 Tim. 1:16
“
The devils believed Jesus was the Christ but that knowledge did not profit them. Again, progressive revelation indicates we must not only believe He was the Messiah but we must believe He died for our sins to receive the full benefits of His Sonship.
”

of course :) i believe this is all part of believing in him as The Christ (although i do not really know; at some point in the near future i would like to read all the original jewish rabbinical traditions; i have more than once heard interesting information coming from there).

There is more to the gospel than believing Jesus is the Christ.

“
Water baptism is not the gospel of Christ! The shed blood of Christ surpassed water as the agent for remission of sins. Paul was the first man to proclaim the Gospel of Christ.
”

ironic, since jesus himself had the opportunity to proclaim this 'gospel'.

To the Jew first and so it was.

Jesus said...Whoso eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, hath eternal life; and I will raise him up at the last day. John 6:54 (KJV) This was not to be taken naturally but was to be received spiritually. Jesus explains it with these words...It is the spirit that quickeneth; the flesh profiteth nothing: the words that I speak unto you, they are spirit, and they are life John 6:63 (KJV).
There is no profit in anything that the flesh can accomplish and anything that man can perform is a work of the flesh. The words Jesus spoke of the “new” testament (Matt. 26:28) in His blood are spirit and it is by believing in these words that we profit eternal life. Salvation is the work of God that many deny when they say you must obey in water baptism. They do not comprehend "the flesh profiteth nothing". Dead sinners can hear the words of the new testament (Matt. 26:28) but remain dead until they believe the words of the Son of God. It is the personal word of Christ that commands life and that life is eternal. It is the Holy Spirit who reveals the spoken words of Christ, and imparts spiritual life when those words are believed.
The apostles did not receive theses words of Jesus but said....This is an hard saying; who can hear it John 6:60 (KJV).

The sower soweth the word. Mark 4:14 (KJV)
And these are they by the way side, where the word is sown; but when they have heard, Satan cometh immediately, and taketh away the word that was sown in their hearts. Mark 4:15 (KJV)

After offering the new testament in His blood Jesus said to Peter..... Simon, Simon, behold, Satan hath desired to have you, that he may sift you as wheat: Luke 22:31 (KJV)
But I have prayed for thee, that thy faith fail not: and when thou art converted, strengthen thy brethren. Luke 22:32 (KJV)

The new testament (Matt. 26:28) was not understood until Paul revealed this truth after Pentecost through revelations received from Jesus Christ. Paul was the first man to teach that the blood of Christ was shed for remission of sins and that is why Paul could say.......For Christ sent me not to baptize (for remission of sins), but to preach the gospel.... 1 Cor. 1:17 (KJV)

“
Moreover, brethren, I declare unto you the gospel which I preached unto you, which also ye have received, and wherein ye stand; 1 Cor. 15:1 (KJV)
By which also ye are saved, if ye keep in memory what I preached unto you, unless ye have believed in vain. 1 Cor. 15:2 (KJV)
For I delivered unto you first of all that which I also received, how that Christ died for our sins according to the scriptures; 1 Cor. 15:3 (KJV)
”
15:4-8 a list of people he appeared to after resurrection (including caiaphas!)
15:9 For I am the least of the apostles...
15:10... but I labored more abundantly than they all, yet not I, but the grace of God which was with me.
15:11 Therefore, whether it was I or they, so we preach and so you believed.

paul apparently does not believe that the gospel he is preaching is different from the one the other apostles preach. how do you explain that?

Then fourteen years after I went up again to Jerusalem with Barnabas, and took Titus with me also. Gal. 2:1
And I went up by revelation, and communicated unto them that gospel which I preach among the Gentiles, but privately to them which were of reputation, lest by any means I should run, or had run, in vain. Gal. 2:2

“
V3 - He says he was the first to deliver it and that "gospel is "Christ died for our sins".
”

an interesting take. read directly, it appears not to say what you assert, but that Paul preached this first to the Corinthians. acts shows this isn't true, so let's look at a couple of other translations:

1 Corinthians 15:3 NASB (3) For I delivered to you as of first importance what I also received, that Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures,

1 Corinthians 15:3 LITV (3) For I delivered to you in the first place what I also received, that Christ died for our sins, according to the Scriptures,

both of these seem like possibilities, based on the greek (though i am not an expert). the NASB one expresses the importance; the LITV one seems to imply that Paul was the first to preach to the Corinthians. .

I am not really interested in the other translations but I understand your point. To settle our disagreement all you need do is provide a proof text where someone preached this gospel before Paul.
“
Paul understands that water baptism made the cross of Christ of none effect as to remission of sins.
”

try reading it again. maybe this will help:

1 Corinthians 1:17-19 KJV (17) For Christ sent me not to baptize, but to preach the gospel: not with wisdom of words, lest the cross of Christ should be made of none effect. (18) For the preaching of the cross is to them that perish foolishness; but unto us which are saved it is the power of God. (19) For it is written, I will destroy the wisdom of the wise, and will bring to nothing the understanding of the prudent.

it is fairly obvious that it is _preaching from wisdom_ (cleverness in the NASB, 'wisdom of discourse' in young's literal, 'eloquent wisdom' in the ISV) that would bring the cross to no effect, not the baptism.

It is biblicly correct to say that water baptism was a 'baptism of repentence' 'for remission of sins' before the cross. Hebrews tells us that the new testament of 'His shed blood' 'for remission' was not in effect until Christ died. It is not difficult to figure it out from there.
“
The fact that it is written in Isaiah has nothing to do with when God revealed acceptance of Gentiles to Peter. Peter knew the Gentiles were without the law and that is why he said it was unlawful for him to go to a Gentile. Christ died to remove the law so that Gentiles and Jews could be one body.
”

well yes, for peter. but the same could be true for anyone... it had not yet even been revealed to Paul that Jesus is the Messiah. does that make it some separate revelation?

We are discussing the 'progressive' revelation of God and that man individually progressively understands that revelation.

The progress of the first is not determined by the progress of the second.

god doesn't appear to like surprises. when something happens in the bible, it is always (from my investigations) told ahead of time, usually MUCH ahead of time, so that people will know it is actually from God.

The gospel of Christ was foretold in type or in part progressively until it was fulfilled.

so, if this is NEW revelation, it should have the pointers to it. and if you want to point back to Jesus as the pointer (as yes, i believe it is), then you need to explain how those who spent time with him 'didn't get it'.

The law.

“
We are discussing the 'way' Jews and Gentiles are one body through the death of Christ without the law not when God said that Gentiles would be accepted.
”
you just said how, 'through the death of Christ'.

It is through 'faith' in the death of Christ for the remission of sins.

“
It has more to do with when the message was understood by the apostles who were God's messengers.
”
so then, i'm curious... if Paul said he baptized people one, but then regretted it, how do you that some of the stuff he wrote down he didn't regret later and changed his mind? if the apostles 'were mistaken', then how can we trust anything that peter wrote down as encouragement for instance? in that case, we only have the words of Jesus as absolute truth (as recorded by the gospel accounts).

God does not hold man accountable for believing a message that is not fully revealed but He did expect them to progressively believe each progressive revelation. Paul regretted that many believed water baptism granted remission not that he had baptized those few. All of God's word is profitable for doctrine and correction and none of it was regretted by Paul. Paul had studied the scriptures and God corrected him by the Spirit who is Christ. The words of Jesus are the judge of all doctrine but many judge the words of Jesus by the doctrine of men which is not possible when men progressively understands the truth. Peter had to be corrected many times including after Pentecost.

We also know Jesus stated that Peter would be converted at a later date (Luke 22:32). This statement of Jesus was made right after He offered the "new testament in His blood" (John 6:53-56) of which the apostles replied "who can hear (believe) it" (John 6:60). To say that Peter understood that Christ would die for His sins is to deny clear scripture to the contrary. When Jesus began teaching Peter of His death Peter spoke against it and Jesus replied...Get thee behind me, Satan: thou art an offence unto me: for thou savourest not the things that be of God, but those that be "of men"( Matt. 16:23).
We know Peter did not understand the clear teachings of Jesus...how that he must go unto Jerusalem, and suffer many things of the elders and chief priests and scribes, and be killed, and be raised again the third day( Matt. 16:21) because after His resurrection...he appeared unto the eleven as they sat at meat, and upbraided them with their unbelief and hardness of heart, because they believed not them which had seen him after he was risen (Mark 16:14). Peter's conversion continued after Pentecost for he was instructed...Go ye into all the world, and preach the gospel to every creature (Mark 16:15) but Peter had this to say concerning Cornelius....Ye know how that it is an unlawful thing for a man that is a Jew to keep company, or come unto one of another nation ( Acts 10:28).....That is in direct opposition to the great commission. At the Jerusalem council Paul confronts Peter... I withstood him to the face, because he was to be blamed (Gal. 2:11). Peter admits the things he did not understand but were revealed to Paul....As also in all his epistles, speaking in them of these things; in which are some things hard to be understood, which they that are unlearned and unstable wrest, as they do also the other scriptures, unto their own destruction (2 Pet. 3:16).

Paul confronted Peter in Gal. 2 and instructed the apostles in the Gospel of Christ:

But when I saw that they (apostles) walked not uprightly according to the truth of the gospel, I said unto Peter before them all, If thou, being a Jew, livest after the manner of Gentiles, and not as do the Jews, why compellest thou the Gentiles to live as do the Jews? Gal. 2:14 (KJV)
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. Gal. 2:16 (KJV)
But if, while we seek to be justified by Christ, we ourselves also are found sinners, is therefore Christ the minister of sin? God forbid. Gal. 2:17 (KJV)
For if I build again the things which I destroyed, I make myself a transgressor. Gal. 2:18 (KJV)
For I through the law am dead to the law, that I might live unto God. Gal. 2:19 (KJV)
I am crucified with Christ: nevertheless I live; yet not I, but Christ liveth in me: and the life which I now live in the flesh I live by the faith of the Son of God, who loved me, and gave himself for me. Gal. 2:20 (KJV)
I do not frustrate the grace of God: for if righteousness come by the law, then Christ is dead in vain. Gal. 2:21 (KJV)

The apostles were slow to learn and were in error concerning the death of Christ (Matt. 16:23), the new testament (John 6:60),the resurrection of Christ (Mark 16:14), the great commission (Acts 10:28), eating with Gentiles , circumcision, the law of works (Gal. 2), and such errors are NOT taught by the Holy Spirit. Therefore we can know Peter did not understand “all things” at Pentecost yet the Holy Spirit would bring them to his remembrance at a later date. What we learn from this is the doctrines of men are not God’s but the truth would be revealed by progressive revelation of which was fulfilled with the teachings of Paul, the last apostle called, by the Spirit of Christ.

We must remove this works option of water baptism for remission (Acts 2:38)and leave only the finished work of Christ (Matt. 26:28) for remission of sins. I do not believe in clear cut dispensations but believe in progressive revelation in respect to what the listeners believed and what their actions and words testify as compared to the new testament. It cannot be said that every word the apostles spoke at Pentecost was Spirit inspired truth concerning a new message but it can be said that every word of Christ is the gospel.
“
So I ask that you proived the proof text if you beleive that Paul was not the first to reveal our faith and I look forward to discussing it with you.
”

well, the rest of 1 cor 15 above hopefully helps with this. but moreover, i am not one of those who believe that somehow the scriptures came to us from the clouds somehow inerrant, and there is truth in them that the very apostles that wrote them didn't appear to grasp, and 2000 years of church history just somehow 'missed it'.

Church tradition must be judged by the scriptures regardless of how old that tradition may be.

peter had a good heart-to-heart with Jesus after the resurrection. you'd think something important like 'don't baptize in water anymore, or you will make the whole thing null and void', besides being extremely legalistic, would be something he might have mentioned. 'peter, feed my sheep' was what he told him. don't you think he would tell him to feed the flock good food? it is just incredible to me to assume that Jesus would have just ignored it here.

It is incredible that Peter had to be corrected after Pentecost and did not understand the 'way' the body (Jew and Gentile) of Christ was formed without the law.
and then, we have the early church who it seems certainly baptized, and many many years of church history which is filled with baptism. what do we do with them?

i don't need a 'proof text', i would need a very good and straightforward 'proof text' to show that paul taught something utterly unknown to the church at the time, and all i have seen so far is innuendo and suggestion that it looks like no one else might have preached this. i would expect a much more straightforward condemnation of baptism as well.

I suggest you read again what I have written with the understanding that your rebuttal is weak at best.

Sorry, out of time, will continue....

George Blaisdell

May 1st 2003, 12:56 AM

Justified: writes:

> For this is my blood of the NEW testament, which is shed for many for the remission of sins. Matt. 26:28

> Jesus said...Whoso eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, hath eternal life; and I will raise him up at the last day. John 6:54 (KJV)

John 6: 50 This is the Bread which cometh down from Heaven, that a man may eat thereof and not die. 51 I am the living Bread which came down from Heaven. If any man eat of this Bread, he shall live for ever; and the Bread that I will give is My flesh, which I will give for the life of the world." 52 The Jews therefore strove among themselves, saying, "How can this man give us his flesh to eat?" 53 Then Jesus said unto them, "Verily, verily I say unto you, unless ye eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink His blood, ye have no life in you. 54 Whoso eateth My flesh and drinketh My blood hath eternal life, and I will raise him up at the Last Day. 55 For My flesh is meat indeed, and My blood is drink indeed. 56 He that eateth My flesh and drinketh My blood dwelleth in Me, and I in him. 57 As the living Father hath sent Me, and I live by the Father, so he that eateth Me, even he shall live by Me. 58 This is that Bread which came down from Heaven, not as your fathers ate manna and are dead; he that eateth of this Bread shall live for ever."

> This was not to be taken naturally but was to be received spiritually.

Matthew 26:26-30 26 And as they were eating, Jesus took bread and blessed it and broke it, and gave it to the disciples and said, "Take, eat; this is My body." 27 And He took the cup and gave thanks, and gave it to them, saying, "Drink ye all of it; 28 for this is My blood of the new testament, which is shed for many for the remission of sins.

> Jesus explains it with these words...

"Take, eat; this is My body... Drink ye all of it; 28 for this is My blood of the new testament, which is shed for many for the remission of sins. "

"He that eateth My flesh and drinketh My blood dwelleth in Me, and I in him."

The truth is really very simple...

geo

Justified

May 1st 2003, 09:06 AM

Nomad,

Continued from above.........

on the contrary, that's not what i see at all, unless you assume things that i can't justify, that 'baptism' never means water. romans 6 shows that paul certainly understood the symbolism of baptism, as well as colossians 2:12, both of which make far more sense for the imagery invoked if they talk about water baptism. 1 cor 15 talks about the 'baptism for the dead' which is obviously not the Holy Spirit falling on the dead.

Romans 5 reveals how we are baptized into his death and it is an operation of God by the Spirit. Those who walk by sight and mind the things of the flesh say obeying the old testament command of water baptism places us into Christ yet they can not provide the scripture to prove it. Paul said Christ sent him not to baptize therefore we can conclude it is no longer necessary for the remission of sins. Paul by the Spirit reveals a new message for sin remission through “faith” in the blood of the new testament.

Therefore being justified by faith, we have peace with God through our Lord Jesus Christ: Rom. 5:1
By whom also we have access by faith into this grace wherein we stand, and rejoice in hope of the glory of God. Rom. 5:2

Grace is accessed by faith and grace is voided by works. Those who argue that water baptism is not a “righteous work” are fooling themselves. If a work is required then salvation must be earned therefore it is no longer free. Jesus said “it is finished” and those who do not have “faith” in His finished work for remission believe water baptism is required thus are still in their sins (Rom 11:6).

And if by grace, then is it no more of works: otherwise grace is no more grace. But if it be of works, then is it no more grace: otherwise work is no more work. Rom. 11:6

Not by works of righteousness which we have done, but according to his mercy he saved us, by the washing of regeneration, and renewing of the Holy Ghost; Titus 3:5

We are justified by His blood and the only way that can be received is by faith. Nothing more need be added unless you do not believe. The old testament message for remission of sins began with the Baptist (Mark 1:4) and continued at Pentecost (Acts 2:38) has been superceded by the greater witness of God (John 5:36) not a new water baptism..

Paul is called and progressively receives revelations by the Spirit. Paul is the first man to teach the new message of faith in His blood for remission of sins (Rom 3:25). This message was not reveal by the Baptist or the Apostles at Pentecost and during that time water baptism was commanded for remission.

But not as the offence, so also is the free gift. For if through the offence of one many be dead, much more the grace of God, and the gift by grace, which is by one man, Jesus Christ, hath abounded unto many. Rom. 5:15 (KJV)

We can not add to the finished work of Christ for remission and it is a "gift" by grace that must be received "freely" or it is no longer a gift.

For as by one man’s disobedience many were made sinners, so by the obedience of one shall many be made righteous. Rom. 5:19 (KJV)

It is not "our" obedience but by the obedience of "one" so that the gift may be "free".
Some say it is not free and by adding their obedience they deny the word of God and void the free gift.

Know ye not, that so many of us as were baptized into Jesus Christ were baptized into his death? Rom. 6:3 (KJV)

Notice that it says baptized "into Jesus" and there is no scripture where those baptized “in water” were placed into Christ. How are we to get into the body of Christ?...For by one Spirit are we all baptized into one body 1 Cor. 12:13 (KJV)

Therefore we are buried with him by baptism into death: 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. Rom. 6:4 (KJV)

The penalty for sin is death and Christ died for sin. We must be in His body to identify with His death and that process is an "operation of God" (Col 2:12) accomplished through Spirit baptism. In other words when we are baptized by the Spirit we are placed in His body and we died with Him and it is received through "faith".

And you, being dead in your sins and the uncircumcision of your flesh, hath he quickened together with him, having forgiven you all trespasses; Col. 2:13 (KJV)

This quickening or baptism by the Spirit is through faith in the words of Jesus Christ in reference to the new testament for remission of sins.

It is the spirit that quickeneth; the flesh profiteth nothing: the words that I speak unto you, they are spirit, and they are life. John 6:63 (KJV)
But there are some of you that believe not. For Jesus knew from the beginning who they were that believed not, and who should betray him. John 6:64 (KJV)

The flesh can profit nothing therefore water is not needed.

and there is 1 peter 3:21, which is clearly showing water baptism. if this isn't a true verse, you need to hold all of 1 peter suspect. and 1 peter 1:6-10 appear to also teach justification by faith (though perhaps not so directly stated), so here they are together in one book.

If it is a like figure to that of Noah in the ark then indeed it must be a dry baptism that does not remove the filth from your flesh.

nomad

May 1st 2003, 04:05 PM

first of all, justified, i was wondering if you could tell me what bible version you are using. some of the quotes don't line up with the versions i normally use, so i was wondering where they came from.

secondly, i just wanted to thank you for keeping this cordial. i hope i have done the same. i am feeling more and more that we are sort of 'talking past each other'; i am looking at the same verses and not seeing what you see in them, so i have to assume that there is some basic assumption we do not agree on. i will do some more reading on progressive revelation; perhaps it will help (any recommendations for a book to start with? i should be doing a book run soon...)? but i will keep this reply short, and probably respectfully bow out at this point.

John did baptize in the wilderness, and preach the baptism of repentance for the remission of sins. Mark 1:4

one basic thing we differ on is here: you assert that the baptism was the witness of John. i believe that the witness of John was that the Messiah was coming soon, and that Jesus' witness was that he IS the Messiah, obviously a greater witness. perhaps this explains some of our confusion.

There is more to the gospel than believing Jesus is the Christ.

that's why i want to investigate more about everything that jewish tradition says about the messiah. acts 9:22 says that the first thing saul did was go about in the synagogue, proving that Jesus was the Christ. it doesn't say anything else, but one can assume that this was the most important message he had at the time.

jesus also responded to peter's 'you are the christ, the son of the living god' with a praise from jesus and 'you will be cephas, and on this rock i will build my church'. if you do not subscribe to the roman explanation (as i do not, and most if not all protestants do not), then the usual second explanation is that this was a statement of faith, and that faith demonstrated as peter did would be the foundation. if this simple statement was enough, i wonder what all is included in it.

I am not really interested in the other translations but I understand your point. To settle our disagreement all you need do is provide a proof text where someone preached this gospel before Paul.

i'll see what i can do. we don't have a large record of non-pauline teaching, and even on these, i guess i'll have to look up the dates (i.e. if peter teaches the same in 1 peter, i need to show 1 peter was before paul's visit etc.). i see the burden of proof you wish me to show, and am not ready to do so yet.

unfortunately, this is the point of our departure... i do not see them preaching different gospels, and want a proof that they did. some of this is because of my assumptions about baptism. you see them teaching different gospels, and want proof that they were the same. i do not see us making much progress here, and i read many of the verses you posted with different results, so i will have to leave it for now and come back at a later time.

Church tradition must be judged by the scriptures regardless of how old that tradition may be.

when a doctrine contradicts what i see in scripture, or, as i have seen happen, two doctrines contradict each other but both seem internally consistent if you assume the assumptions each makes, then i generally go to tradition and those 'closest to the source' so to speak to let them weigh in. i usually use the 'dictionary of early christian fathers', and you will find few words (if any) that are against baptism, even dating after paul.

since it was tradition that gave us the scriptures, i expect them to be in concert, not fighting against each other. and this is what i see, that most ECF believed in water baptism (some of them, just saying 'baptism', could be construed either way, but many are clear). and my reading of scripture supports them. this is not 'tradition vs. scripture', this is one interpretation vs. another interpretation of the same scripture, one which matches tradition, and the other which doesn't.

i am not necessarily saying you are wrong, just saying that traditions have their place.

Those who argue that water baptism is not a “righteous work” are fooling themselves.

so you say :) it is truly amazing to me to think that i can do something jesus did, and yet be condemned for it. looks like i just swapped one set of laws for another.

i think we have significantly different understandings of what 'works' means. i believe that a baptism done out of an earnest desire to follow in Jesus' footsteps (and baptism was the first thing he did) would be rejoiced in heaven, while a baptism out of a foollish desire to 'go through the motions just in case' would not.

the rest, we will just have to agree to disagree, because i am not coming to the same conclusions you are, from the same verses. i hope this perhaps addresses some of my assumptions though.

Justified

May 4th 2003, 05:20 PM

Nomad,

My replies are in bold.

first of all, justified, i was wondering if you could tell me what bible version you are using. some of the quotes don't line up with the versions i normally use, so i was wondering where they came from.
KJV edition 2
secondly, i just wanted to thank you for keeping this cordial. i hope i have done the same. i am feeling more and more that we are sort of 'talking past each other'; i am looking at the same verses and not seeing what you see in them, so i have to assume that there is some basic assumption we do not agree on. i will do some more reading on progressive revelation; perhaps it will help (any recommendations for a book to start with? i should be doing a book run soon...)? but i will keep this reply short, and probably respectfully bow out at this point.
I have enjoyed our discussion & hope I have explained my beliefs clearly to you. I am interested in what you think this basic assumption is that we disagree on. I haven’t as yet located any book on Progressive Revelation but it is clearly evident in the scriptures.
“
John did baptize in the wilderness, and preach the baptism of repentance for the remission of sins. Mark 1:4
”
one basic thing we differ on is here: you assert that the baptism was the witness of John. i believe that the witness of John was that the Messiah was coming soon, and that Jesus' witness was that he IS the Messiah, obviously a greater witness. perhaps this explains some of our confusion.
I would like to discuss the above with you in more detail because it is foundational to what I believe. Let me try to explain, Christendom either believes water baptism is symbolic of our salvation or that it is required to receive salvation, and there is no hope of agreement. Dispensationalism has an answer to this dilemma but is not accepted because of its dualism based on a parenthesis. Progressive revelation removes this dilemma in that God reveals a truth and man progressively understands that truth.

Witness:From G3144; evidence given (judicially or generally):—record, report, testimony, witness.

John’s witness indeed was that Jesus was the Christ and that truth was manifested in water baptism.

Manifest:From G5318; to render apparent (literally or figuratively):—appear, manifestly declare, (make) manifest (forth), shew (self).

This is he of whom I said, After me cometh a man which is preferred before me: for he was before me. John 1:30
And I knew him not: but that he should be made manifest to Israel, therefore am I come baptizing with water. John 1:31
And John bare record, saying, I saw the Spirit descending from heaven like a dove, and it abode upon him. John 1:32
And I knew him not: but he that sent me to baptize with water, the same said unto me, Upon whom thou shalt see the Spirit descending, and remaining on him, the same is he which baptizeth with the Holy Ghost. John 1:33

We have a messenger (John) of God that will be superceded by a greater witness (Christ) yet the requirement for remission will not change.

Ye sent unto John, and he bare witness unto the truth. John 5:33
But I receive not testimony from man: but these things I say, that ye might be saved. John 5:34
He was a burning and a shining light: and ye were willing for a season to rejoice in his light. John 5:35
But I have greater witness than that of John: for the works which the Father hath given me to finish, the same works that I do, bear witness of me, that the Father hath sent me. John 5:36
And the Father himself, which hath sent me, hath borne witness of me. Ye have neither heard his voice at any time, nor seen his shape. John 5:37
And ye have not his word abiding in you: for whom he hath sent, him ye believe not. John 5:38
Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me. John 5:39

Jesus tells us he has a greater witness (testimony) than John and that it will be the works that God has given him to “finish”. Those works were finished at the cross that we might believe John 19:34. We must also understand that his death is the New Testament (witness) for remission (Matt 26:28) and that it is the greater witness that superceded John's. When we believe his greater witness Christ baptizes us into his body by the spirit and we receive remission eternally.
“
There is more to the gospel than believing Jesus is the Christ.
”
that's why i want to investigate more about everything that jewish tradition says about the messiah. acts 9:22 says that the first thing saul did was go about in the synagogue, proving that Jesus was the Christ. it doesn't say anything else, but one can assume that this was the most important message he had at the time.
I completely agree Paul was to receive many revelations during his ministry and by those revelations the gospel was fulfilled. The gospel was not fulfilled at Pentecost even though Jesus delivered it in word because man progressively understood.

jesus also responded to peter's 'you are the christ, the son of the living god' with a praise from jesus and 'you will be cephas, and on this rock i will build my church'. if you do not subscribe to the roman explanation (as i do not, and most if not all protestants do not), then the usual second explanation is that this was a statement of faith, and that faith demonstrated as peter did would be the foundation. if this simple statement was enough, i wonder what all is included in it.
Nothing more than what Peter said, it is not possible that Peter believed in the new testament for remission. We can discuss it if you like . Jesus was referring to himself as the rock on which the church is built only faith in the death of Christ for remission places us into the 'body' of the new testament church.
“
I am not really interested in the other translations but I understand your point. To settle our disagreement all you need do is provide a proof text where someone preached this gospel before Paul.
”
i'll see what i can do. we don't have a large record of non-pauline teaching, and even on these, i guess i'll have to look up the dates (i.e. if peter teaches the same in 1 peter, i need to show 1 peter was before paul's visit etc.). i see the burden of proof you wish me to show, and am not ready to do so yet.
Peter makes reference to Paul’s gospel as hard to understand and Paul was called after Pentecost.
unfortunately, this is the point of our departure... i do not see them preaching different gospels, and want a proof that they did. some of this is because of my assumptions about baptism. you see them teaching different gospels, and want proof that they were the same. i do not see us making much progress here, and i read many of the verses you posted with different results, so i will have to leave it for now and come back at a later time.
They did not teach a different gospel yet you are witnessing it progressively revealed. The gospel has always included remission and in its beginning pointed to Christ in type yet after Christ was fully manifested to all nations of Israel at Pentecost remission had to be received through faith in the New Testament of Christ.
“
Church tradition must be judged by the scriptures regardless of how old that tradition may be.
”
when a doctrine contradicts what i see in scripture, or, as i have seen happen, two doctrines contradict each other but both seem internally consistent if you assume the assumptions each makes, then i generally go to tradition and those 'closest to the source' so to speak to let them weigh in. i usually use the 'dictionary of early christian fathers', and you will find few words (if any) that are against baptism, even dating after paul.
The Bible, which I believe its the word of God, does not instruct us to define doctrine in such a way as you have described. The word tells us that scripture is given for correction and we are to compare scripture with scripture with right division. If we study in this manner we receive Gods approval and will not be ashamed. Traditional doctrine must be judged by scripture.
since it was tradition that gave us the scriptures, i expect them to be in concert, not fighting against each other. and this is what i see, that most ECF believed in water baptism (some of them, just saying 'baptism', could be construed either way, but many are clear). and my reading of scripture supports them. this is not 'tradition vs. scripture', this is one interpretation vs. another interpretation of the same scripture, one which matches tradition, and the other which doesn't.

i am not necessarily saying you are wrong, just saying that traditions have their place.
God gave us the scriptures by his word not by tradition and I point you to what Christ had to say about traditions of man that he fought against. If tradition wasn’t right then why would I be expected to believe it’s right now. The problem of interpretation is right division with a clear understanding of when the gospel was fully revealed by man. Tradition judges truth by what the apostles taught without the realization that the apostles progressively understood the words of Christ as exemplified with Peter. Doctrine is defined by the Word of God and all men will be judged by Him.
“
Those who argue that water baptism is not a “righteous work” are fooling themselves.
”
so you say :) it is truly amazing to me to think that i can do something jesus did, and yet be condemned for it. looks like i just swapped one set of laws for another.
Jesus was born under the law, he obeyed it in its entirety and we aren't required to because his death freed us from the law. Water baptism will not condemn you unless you believe it is for remission of sins. Many denoms do not understand the requirement of Acts 2:38 in the early church at Pentecost before Paul was called. The revelation of the gospel revolves around remission and how it is received. The Peterine doctrine at Pentecost was a 'Baptism of Repentance'' for remission' and not once is the new testament (Matt 26:28) mentioned. Paul is called after Pentecost and by revelations tells us he was sent not to baptize but to preach the gospel. The gospel that Christ died for our sins is uniquely Pauline and not once does Paul mention a Baptism of repentance 'for' remission of sins.
i think we have significantly different understandings of what 'works' means. i believe that a baptism done out of an earnest desire to follow in Jesus' footsteps (and baptism was the first thing he did) would be rejoiced in heaven, while a baptism out of a foollish desire to 'go through the motions just in case' would not.
Again, you aren’t required to follow the law as Christ did fulfilling the law for us. I don’t believe we have a different understanding of works after salvation. The discussion was focused on work ” for” salvation as in a “ baptism of repentance for remission.” Church tradition teaches water baptism is required “for” salvation believing that John’s baptism was not valid. Tradition would have us believe the waters of baptism were “changed” at the baptism of Jesus thus creating a new water baptism for remission. The fact is John the Baptist before the cross and Peter at Pentecost taught a baptism of repentance “for” remission.
the rest, we will just have to agree to disagree, because i am not coming to the same conclusions you are, from the same verses. i hope this perhaps addresses some of my assumptions though.
God would have us speak the same mind and it will never be possible without discussing the scriptures. These forums are a great tool that God is using in these last days to reveal the gospel to the heart of men.

May God Bless You,

Justified

George Blaisdell

May 4th 2003, 11:33 PM

Justified: writes:

> Nomad wrote:
> > Jesus also responded to Peter's 'you are the Christ, the son of the living God' with a praise from jesus and 'You will be Cephas, and on this rock I will build my church'. If you do not subscribe to the Roman explanation (as I do not, and most if not all Protestants do not), then the usual second explanation is that this was a statement of faith, and that faith demonstrated as Peter did would be the foundation. If this simple statement was enough, I wonder what all is included in it.

> Nothing more than what Peter said, it is not possible that Peter believed in the new testament for remission. We can discuss it if you like . Jesus was referring to himself as the rock on which the church is built only faith in the death of Christ for remission places us into the 'body' of the new testament church.

The section in question is as follows:

16:15 He said unto them, "But who say ye that I am?"

16:16 And Simon Peter answered and said, "Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God."

Notice that it is Simon Peter's response that engenders Christ's next words:

16:17 And Jesus answered and said unto him, "Blessed art thou, Simon Bar-Jonah, for flesh and blood hath not revealed it unto thee, but My Father who is in Heaven.

This is the crucial point - The SOURCE of Simon Bar-Jonah's con-fession, for he was but agreeing with [fessing with] God the Father, and this is the source of his being makarios [blessed]. And indeed, it is this revelation by the Father that is the ROCK upon which Christ shall build His Church. Not flesh and blood, and certainly not a book, but the revelation of WHO Christ IS given by the Father - to people like Simon Bar-Johan... The Holy Fathers of the Church...

Upon this confession by Simon Bar-Jonah, Christ gives him a new name: "You are Peter." And He then explains to Peter and the rest of the disciples, who are all there, that upon this rock, the rock of revelation by the Father of the identity of Christ, that He will build His Church. It is a given that Christ is the cornerstone, but the building of the household is to be upon revelation by the Father, not the preaching of flesh and blood, and not the reading of books, nor the reasonings of North American neo-scholastics 2000 years later ...

16:18 And I say also unto thee, that thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build My church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.

That Church has never gone out of existence - The Jerusalem Patriarchate, for instance, is alive and struggling to this day, as it has always been...

16:19 And I will give unto thee the keys of the Kingdom of Heaven. And whatsoever thou shalt bind on earth shall be bound in Heaven, and whatsoever thou shalt loose on earth shall be loosed in Heaven."

The keys of the Kingdom of the Heavens are to be given later... And this refers to sins bound and loosed - Released and retained - Which the Church faithfully carries out to this very day, just as it has done since Christ instituted it...

geo

Freak

May 6th 2003, 06:42 AM

George--

If someone came to you on the street and said he would like to become a Christian. Would you tell them that they would have to wait until you found some water to baptize them?

George Blaisdell

May 6th 2003, 10:13 AM

Freak: writes:

> George--

> If someone came to you on the street and said he would like to become a Christian. Would you tell them that they would have to wait until you found some water to baptize them?

Actually, I would take him to McDonalds for some instant hamburgers, let him tell me his life story during the time it takes to get the hamburgers while standing in line, talk to him about how HE CAN COMMIT his life to Christ while we are eating our instant meat and bread, and offer him the opportunity to commit himself to Christ and be saved right there in McDonalds, so that no matter what he did thereafter, he would know the Lord and be saved unto eternity in the Lord because he mad a decision for eternal life that day.

Then I would invite him to Church, so that he could bear public witness of his eternal salvation, and his assuredness that he himself is one of Christ's pre-selected and chosen ones...

Instant eternal salvation - And oh yes - He can get baptized if he wants to as well - His choice actually - And he can start reading the Bible too, so that he will be able to interpret for himself what it says, except the verses that disagree with what he thinks, of course...

And quite naturally, I would offer to help him with the one that says that Christ instructed his apostles to instruct the ethnoi, and did not instruct the ethnoi to instruct themselves, and that He instructed them to baptize the ethnoi in the Name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit - Because we all know that Christ really did not mean what He said, and that what He really meant was meet some guy on the street and be given instant eternal salvation after a nice Happy Meal under the Golden Arches...

And that one's baptism is a VERY private event, that it happens solely within the confines of one's very own mind...

And that of course, he is free to disagree, because we live in a free country...

And when he piles up in a heap of depression, anger and frustration a couple of months or so later, as his 'instant salvation' begins to bear its inevitable fruit, and falls away from the instant salvation I have so generously afforded him, I will quickly reassure myself that God hadn't really [arbitrarily] pre-selected him after all, but that he did ME, so I really don't have to worry about him - God will punish him for his sins... But I will keep re-assuring myself that God DID pre-select ME, and it is not MY FAULT that this guy fell away...

But I will NOT, Freak, ever tell him to repent and be baptized into Christ's one, holy, catholic and apostolic Church, and take his instruction in the faith from this Church that has been instructing the faithful for 2000 years.

Instead, I will tell him to make up his own mind about what he believes, that this is what God gave him a mind to do, to decide for himself the meaning of Scripture, and that everyone can do it if they just read the Bible and pray all by themselves... And so what if nobody agrees with anyone else? After all, the Bible tells us we are all supposed to have our own private interpretations of what scripture means...

Lord have mercy!

I apologize in advance for the rant - But that is what I cannot avoid seeing with your question...

geo

Freak

May 6th 2003, 02:24 PM

Today @ 03:13 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=88853#post88853)
George Blaisdell:

Freak: writes:

> George--

> If someone came to you on the street and said he would like to become a Christian. Would you tell them that they would have to wait until you found some water to baptize them?

Actually, I would take him to McDonalds for some instant hamburgers, let him tell me his life story during the time it takes to get the hamburgers while standing in line, talk to him about how HE CAN COMMIT his life to Christ while we are eating our instant meat and bread, and offer him the opportunity to commit himself to Christ and be saved right there in McDonalds, so that no matter what he did thereafter, he would know the Lord and be saved unto eternity in the Lord because he mad a decision for eternal life that day.

geo

So, salvation is through faith alone, right? In light of what you said here this seems to be what you believe.

Warcraft3

May 6th 2003, 05:11 PM

Today @ 10:13 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=88853#post88853)
George Blaisdell:

Freak: writes:

> George--

> If someone came to you on the street and said he would like to become a Christian. Would you tell them that they would have to wait until you found some water to baptize them?

Actually, I would take him to McDonalds for some instant hamburgers, let him tell me his life story during the time it takes to get the hamburgers while standing in line, talk to him about how HE CAN COMMIT his life to Christ while we are eating our instant meat and bread, and offer him the opportunity to commit himself to Christ and be saved right there in McDonalds, so that no matter what he did thereafter, he would know the Lord and be saved unto eternity in the Lord because he mad a decision for eternal life that day.

Then I would invite him to Church, so that he could bear public witness of his eternal salvation, and his assuredness that he himself is one of Christ's pre-selected and chosen ones...

Instant eternal salvation - And oh yes - He can get baptized if he wants to as well - His choice actually - And he can start reading the Bible too, so that he will be able to interpret for himself what it says, except the verses that disagree with what he thinks, of course...

And quite naturally, I would offer to help him with the one that says that Christ instructed his apostles to instruct the ethnoi, and did not instruct the ethnoi to instruct themselves, and that He instructed them to baptize the ethnoi in the Name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit - Because we all know that Christ really did not mean what He said, and that what He really meant was meet some guy on the street and be given instant eternal salvation after a nice Happy Meal under the Golden Arches...

And that one's baptism is a VERY private event, that it happens solely within the confines of one's very own mind...

And that of course, he is free to disagree, because we live in a free country...

And when he piles up in a heap of depression, anger and frustration a couple of months or so later, as his 'instant salvation' begins to bear its inevitable fruit, and falls away from the instant salvation I have so generously afforded him, I will quickly reassure myself that God hadn't really [arbitrarily] pre-selected him after all, but that he did ME, so I really don't have to worry about him - God will punish him for his sins... But I will keep re-assuring myself that God DID pre-select ME, and it is not MY FAULT that this guy fell away...

But I will NOT, Freak, ever tell him to repent and be baptized into Christ's one, holy, catholic and apostolic Church, and take his instruction in the faith from this Church that has been instructing the faithful for 2000 years.

Instead, I will tell him to make up his own mind about what he believes, that this is what God gave him a mind to do, to decide for himself the meaning of Scripture, and that everyone can do it if they just read the Bible and pray all by themselves... And so what if nobody agrees with anyone else? After all, the Bible tells us we are all supposed to have our own private interpretations of what scripture means...

Lord have mercy!

I apologize in advance for the rant - But that is what I cannot avoid seeing with your question...

geo

George that was an excellent post. You made your point quite well.

Russ

George Blaisdell

May 6th 2003, 06:31 PM

Russ wrote:

"George that was an excellent post. You made your point quite well."

Thanks, Russ -

You wrote - "One of the leading causes of athiesm is Christians"???

':rofl:'

From the Eastern Orthodox perspective, of course, it is the Protestants and Catholics that are giving Christianity a bad name... :teeth: But then, I am not having one of my kinder days today...

geo

Warcraft3

May 6th 2003, 06:48 PM

Today @ 06:31 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=89299#post89299)
George Blaisdell:

Russ wrote:

"George that was an excellent post. You made your point quite well."

Thanks, Russ -

You wrote - "One of the leading causes of athiesm is Christians"???

':rofl:'

From the Eastern Orthodox perspective, of course, it is the Protestants and Catholics that are giving Christianity a bad name... :teeth: But then, I am not having one of my kinder days today...

geo

George:
I was exposed to eastern orthodoxy when I was at Penn State University and I was very impressed by them. I find that I agree with alot of what they say, although at certain points I diverge.

Right now I am leaning towards becoming a theistic evolutionist or an evolutionary creationist as some have called it. This causes many Christians to immediately put up walls between themselves and me. I did not see the EO guys at Penn State do this, which surprised me quite a bit.

I think the EO have some good arguments aginst both catholics and Protestants. I remember asking them what category I fell into and they said I was "almost Orthodox", but still wasnt there yet. I must admit I now have a soft spot for EO people and hope to visit those I knew at Penn State sometime in the near future.

I plan on visiting an EO church when i get a free weekend. I find your views interesting, indeed I find some of them compelling.

Russ

George Blaisdell

May 6th 2003, 11:40 PM

Russ writes:

> George:
> I was exposed to eastern orthodoxy when I was at Penn State University and I was very impressed by them. I find that I agree with alot of what they say, although at certain points I diverge.

What a kind letter! Thank-you... The trade mark that is the object of discipleship and the practice of the faith in Orthodoxy is indeed softness of heart... A heard-harted Orthodox Christian is an oxymoron, [among others!]...

> Right now I am leaning towards becoming a theistic evolutionist or an evolutionary creationist as some have called it. This causes many Christians to immediately put up walls between themselves and me. I did not see the EO guys at Penn State do this, which surprised me quite a bit.

Well, EO's are Christians... We tend to think of those other guys as, aah, how can I say this? Um.... er.... well... "Pre-Christians"!!! ':tongue:'

And if you have not yet read Genesis, Creation and Early Man, The Orthodox Christian Vision, by Fr. Seraphim Rose, I utterly commend it to you, and especially given your 'leanings'... The nakedness of which Adam and Eve were so ashamed was not due to genital exposure, but to the absence of their clothing, and they had been clothed in the radiance of divine Light, and that Light is the Life of men, and it was lost when they died the day they sinned and turned from God, believed the lie of the serpent, and ate of the fruit of the tree of knowledge of good and evil... They died that day, and their death was shameful, and God gave them garments of skin...

And on and on...

> I think the EO have some good arguments aginst both catholics and Protestants. I remember asking them what category I fell into and they said I was "almost Orthodox", but still wasn't there yet.

Yes, you are pre-Orthodox! You only get "there" when you are baptized into the Church...

> I must admit I now have a soft spot for EO people and hope to visit those I knew at Penn State sometime in the near future.

Your soft spot for anyone is Orthodox!!

> I plan on visiting an EO church when I get a free weekend.

You've never attended a Divine Liturgy? Get ahold of one of your Orthodox Penn pals and tell him or her what you are up to, and they will grease your ways and see to it that you get to a really good one - The Russians are some of the best - Billowing clouds of incense, and music to die for... But they are all awesome...

> I find your views interesting, indeed I find some of them compelling.

They are only what Christ's Church has always taught...

God bless you, Russ...

geo

Warcraft3

May 7th 2003, 08:24 PM

And if you have not yet read Genesis, Creation and Early Man, The Orthodox Christian Vision, by Fr. Seraphim Rose, I utterly commend it to you, and especially given your 'leanings'... The nakedness of which Adam and Eve were so ashamed was not due to genital exposure, but to the absence of their clothing, and they had been clothed in the radiance of divine Light, and that Light is the Life of men, and it was lost when they died the day they sinned and turned from God, believed the lie of the serpent, and ate of the fruit of the tree of knowledge of good and evil... They died that day, and their death was shameful, and God gave them garments of skin...

Yes they also recommended the writings of Fr. Seraphim Rose, but I just never had the time to read his works. But I do have the time now and I will try to pick up the work you suggested by this weekend.

Russ

Apollos

May 8th 2003, 04:02 PM

If someone came to you on the street and said he would like to become a Christian. Would you tell them that they would have to wait until you found some water to baptize them?

You know, it was -50- days from Christ's resurrection until the day of Pentecost. Why did it take so long for Deity to get around to announcing baptism in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins ???

Why did Jesus take so long to to send Ananias to Saul to baptize and save him ???

Why did God wait about -10- years to finally get around to getting the gospel via Peter to the Gentiles - the time from Acts 2 to Acts 10 ???

I think the 10 minutes from "McDonald's" to the water is pretty short, especially when you know it is for the salvation of your soul!! (Can you drive a little faster now ????)

George Blaisdell

May 8th 2003, 11:56 PM

Apollos: wrote:

> I think the 10 minutes from "McDonald's" to the water is pretty short, especially when you know it is for the salvation of your soul!!

The normal length of a catechumen's tenure in the early Church prior to baptism was three years of prayer, fasting, standing vigils, sleeplessness, hard labors, study, and obedience...

In the US of A, our Protestant Churches greet us at the door with a smile as big as Texas and a handshake warm as Alpaca, and welcome the newbe aboard the train of salvation - Just make the altar call and accept Christ as your personal Lord and Savior, and you've got your ticket aboard!

Problem is, there is always a "morning after"... And instant food, instant gratification, instant Zen via some acid trip, all have morning afters, and lead to death...

Becoming a Christian was the hardest thing I have ever done in my almost 60 years on this planet - Took me 4 years, and there were times that I didn't think I would make it. Army boot camp was a cake walk in comparison...

The whole point is that you just don't hand salvation to someone who walks up to you on the street. Paul sure didn't - He established Churches, and kept watch over them, instructing and correcting them, teaching them by written and by spoken word... There is no instant salvation handed out in the NT - The thief on the cross is the exception that proves the rule, because for him, catechesis was not an option... And besides, Christ's death prefigures the final judgement, with the saves on His right, and the goats on the left...

geo

Freak

May 9th 2003, 08:31 AM

[i]Today @ 04:56 AM
Becoming a Christian was the hardest thing I have ever done in my almost 60 years on this planet - Took me 4 years, and there were times that I didn't think I would make it. Army boot camp was a cake walk in comparison...

4 years to become a Christian?

:huh:

dizzle

May 9th 2003, 08:37 AM

This subject is always a good thread.

Solly

May 9th 2003, 09:28 AM

Today @ 04:56 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=91685#post91685)
George Blaisdell:

Becoming a Christian was the hardest thing I have ever done in my almost 60 years on this planet - Took me 4 years, and there were times that I didn't think I would make it. Army boot camp was a cake walk in comparison...

The whole point is that you just don't hand salvation to someone who walks up to you on the street. Paul sure didn't - He established Churches, and kept watch over them, instructing and correcting them, teaching them by written and by spoken word... There is no instant salvation handed out in the NT - The thief on the cross is the exception that proves the rule, because for him, catechesis was not an option... And besides, Christ's death prefigures the final judgement, with the saves on His right, and the goats on the left...

geo

Ahh, for some Christian experience like our fathers knew. All told, I think it was nearly three years before I could be convinced I was a Christian and that the work was done; this included "becoming" one, joining a church that knew practically nothing about becoming one except,"put your hand up; you're a Christian.", and then having my initial experience torn apart and put back together by the Lord (that's how I came to Reformed theoloy btw). The initial work was done in a day, but then there was the humbling under his mighty hand, the showing that in my flesh there dwelt no good thing, the bringing to the realisation that faith was all of him, the "law" work, the "grace" work, the dependance upon the Spirit, until finally, Gospel liberty.

Of many today it can be said: they have no changes.
Yea verily, they will have it laid on a plate for them these days, with their Alpha Courses, decision cards, altar calls, four spiritual laws, mood music, dim lights, soothing voice, celebrity speakers (nothing but mendicant friars who breeze into town for a campaign), revivals, mass rallies, and the inevitable "recommitments", and "just believe brother don't worry about the feelings." But they have no answer for those who see it all, and are told to believe, yet do not find it in themselves to believe, and must lie at his feet seeking the Spirit's help, his grace, the revelation of Christ to the soul as their Saviour.

anti-rant over

George Blaisdell

May 9th 2003, 10:08 AM

Freak: wonders:

4 years to become a Christian?

:huh:

Orthodox are not McDonald's Happy Meal Christians, Freak... Fast food for us is bread and salt and water, with fruits and nuts and vegetables, but no oil, meat, fish or dairy... The food we are allowed a little of during our 40 day Lenten Fast... That ends in the triumph of the service of the celebration of Pascha, the Resurrection of our Lord, and then we can eat normally again, returning to the regular rhythm of only fasting on Wednesdays and Fridays, and these only abstaining from red meats.

This is the 'old time' Christianity, handed down from our forefathers from the beginnings - We worship standing up facing East within the Cross that is the shape of our Church, upon whose walls the icons of the saints give their witness in silence to the cloud of witnesses of the undivided Church, where incense, the prayers of the saints, washes the faithful and the holy things of God...

And yes, it took me 4 years to become a Christian, and I didn't do it, but Christ did, entering me into His Holy Body in the mystery of baptism, that the real work might begin of purging my soul of all its sickness that clings to life's Happy Meals, the luxuriance of pleasures, Snickers, R rated enrapture, and on and on... For it is in the crucible of this agony of repentance from the desires and passions of the world that we grow stronger and stronger each day in Christ unto maturity in Him... A lifelong process washed in daily tears of repentance and heartfelt contrition...
We simply call it the practice [praxis] of the faith, whose mystery we hold in a conscience purified in confession and tears and a life lived in the communion of Christ's Holy Body, the Church [Ekklesia - Those called out from the world]...

I am weary of fast-food Happy Meal Christianity spawned by our me-first I want it all and I want it all right now generation of impassioned pleasure seekers with too many parfaits, cars, phoney clothes and haircuts and mutilated skin and tatoos...

Yes - Four years, Freak -

And it would have been the greatest bargain on earth had it taken 24... Or 94...

geo

Warcraft3

May 9th 2003, 10:23 AM

Orthodox are not McDonald's Happy Meal Christians,

Indeed they are not. After meeting those of the Orthodox variety I must say they impressed me quite alot. I have met few Protestants or Catholics that have left such an impression in my mind and heart. I miss the many discussions (some of which were enjoyable debates) I had with my Orthodox friends. They are excellent at leading those who accept Christ into becoming diciples.

Russ

George Blaisdell

May 9th 2003, 10:38 AM

Solly: writes:

> Ahh, for some Christian experience like our fathers knew.

That is why they hand down the same faith GIVEN once for all to the Apostles... It is handed down in the Church created at Pentecost...

> All told, I think it was nearly three years before I could be convinced I was a Christian

Solly, I AVOIDED Christians for over 10 years after being "born again" from athiesm - Only to be led by the same Spirit that brought me forth out of depravity and loss to the Book of John, and then to the Greek of it, there to discover that, by inward revelation of the Holy Spirit, that my calling is of the same Spirit that John wrote from... To my great shock and stunned disbelief, I might add! "You're kidding me," I said... "I'm not..." came back... That was some 6 years away from baptism into Orthodoxy... I started hanging out around Protestant Churches here, but remaining outside them, wondering to God "Who is ministering to their ministers?" For I was finding everything there except lives of prayer, worship and holiness...

> and that the work was done;

Christ's work is done - And I know that you do not believe that YOUR work is done... But that it is only beginning...

> this included "becoming" one, joining a church that knew practically nothing about becoming one except,"put your hand up; you're a Christian.",

Yes - All that silliness...

> and then having my initial experience torn apart and put back together by the Lord (that's how I came to Reformed theoloy btw).

It is also why you are attracted to Orthodoxy...

> The initial work was done in a day,

Those calls are powerful!

> but then there was the humbling under his mighty hand, the showing that in my flesh there dwelt no good thing, the bringing to the realisation that faith was all of him, the "law" work, the "grace" work, the dependance upon the Spirit, until finally, Gospel liberty.

Well, my friend, I hope you don't stop there! [With the Gospel]...

Of many today it can be said: they have no changes.
Yea verily, they will have it laid on a plate for them these days, with their Alpha Courses, decision cards, altar calls, four spiritual laws, mood music, dim lights, soothing voice, celebrity speakers (nothing but mendicant friars who breeze into town for a campaign), revivals, mass rallies, and the inevitable "recommitments", and "just believe brother don't worry about the feelings." But they have no answer for those who see it all, and are told to believe, yet do not find it in themselves to believe,

That be you and me!

> and must lie at his feet seeking the Spirit's help, his grace, the revelation of Christ to the soul as their Saviour.

Every day...

> anti-rant over

Anti???

':cheers:'

geo

George Blaisdell

May 9th 2003, 10:45 AM

Dee Dee Warren: writes:

This subject is always a good thread.

So are Sun Conures! Ya got one?? Do you 'knock him out'? [Get him to play dead?] Is he too much fun? Great icon... No need to creat another thread - I'll shut up about it!!

I LOVE those birds...

Really!

geo

Solly

May 9th 2003, 11:25 AM

Thanks George. Psa 133.

Freak

May 9th 2003, 05:21 PM

[i]Today @ 03:08 PM
And yes, it took me 4 years to become a Christian, ... A lifelong process washed in daily tears of repentance and heartfelt contrition...
Yes - Four years, Freak -

And it would have been the greatest bargain on earth had it taken 24... Or 94...

geo

The Holy Scriptures tell me:

That if you confess with your mouth, "Jesus is Lord," and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved.

Does this take 4 years? I know many like myself who read this verse and believed. It may have taken a few seconds. I was transformed by Christ and have been serving Him for 20 years now.

Since we don't have assurances to live another day the Gospel must be received and believed upon. Waiting 4 years or a day for that matter may be too late.

Warcraft3

May 9th 2003, 07:12 PM

Today @ 05:21 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=92378#post92378)
Freak:

The Holy Scriptures tell me:

That if you confess with your mouth, "Jesus is Lord," and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved.

Does this take 4 years? I know many like myself who read this verse and believed. It may have taken a few seconds. I was transformed by Christ and have been serving Him for 20 years now.

Since we don't have assurances to live another day the Gospel must be received and believed upon. Waiting 4 years or a day for that matter may be too late.

I think you are missing the point.

Russ

Freak

May 9th 2003, 08:45 PM

[i]Yesterday @ 03:08 PM
And yes, it took me 4 years to become a Christian, and I didn't do it, but Christ did, entering me into His Holy Body in the mystery of baptism, that the real work might begin of purging my soul of all its sickness

Yes - Four years, Freak -

And it would have been the greatest bargain on earth had it taken 24... Or 94...

geo

Russ, that's what the man said. Do you believe it takes that long to trust in Christ for your salvation.

He didn't say it took 4 years to invesitigate Christianity but 4 years to become a Christian.

Your're not a very smart guy are you, Russ?

George Blaisdell

May 10th 2003, 09:52 AM

Freak: writes:

"Your're not a very smart guy are you, Russ?"

> Russ, that's what the man said.

"Your're not a very smart guy are you, Russ?"

> Do you believe it takes that long to trust in Christ for your salvation.

"Your're not a very smart guy are you, Russ?"

> He didn't say it took 4 years to invesitigate Christianity but 4 years to become a Christian.

"Your're not a very smart guy are you, Russ?"

> I was transformed by Christ

"Your're not a very smart guy are you, Russ?"

> [in the few seconds it took to read a Bible verse]

"Your're not a very smart guy are you, Russ?"

> and have been serving Him for 20 years now."

"Your're not a very smart guy are you, Russ?"

Your apology to Russ, Dear Freak, would serve our Lord and Master. Your attack on his being "not a very smart guy" serves another... And your failure to apologize will only serve this "other master"... And not our Lord...

Please say "I am sorry" to Russ...

geo

George Blaisdell

May 10th 2003, 10:16 AM

Freak: writes:

> Russ, that's what the man said. Do you believe it takes that long to trust in Christ for your salvation.

Do you really think anyone could consecrate four years of their life if they did NOT trust Christ for their salvation? Yet you are right, for when God communicates to man, it does not take but a few seconds, and the after-glow is enduring... I think most on the list are familiar with that...

> He didn't say it took 4 years to invesitigate Christianity but 4 years to become a Christian.

Yes, one becomes a Christian when one enters into the communion of His holy Body, the Church, in the Mystery of Baptism, and receives the seal of the Holy Spirit...

Orthodoxy is not a McDonald's Happy Meal faith, where a person has a spiritual event or 2, or 10 or a hundred or a thousand and then self-proclaim's his or her salvation by election, and criticizes those who disagree.

It is a communion of faith, partaking of one cup. It is the Communion of Love...

geo

Warcraft3

May 10th 2003, 01:22 PM

Yesterday @ 08:45 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=92472#post92472)
Freak:

Russ, that's what the man said. Do you believe it takes that long to trust in Christ for your salvation.

He didn't say it took 4 years to invesitigate Christianity but 4 years to become a Christian.

Your're not a very smart guy are you, Russ?

Okay freak Im not going to speak for George (since he is an EO he is more than capable of responding himself), but here is my take.
There is a difference between the "moment" when one trusts Christ, and the long difficult process of becoming a Christian. While Christs initial indwelling (ok technically its the holy spirit) is accomplished in but an instant, the process of becoming Christ like and entering into communion with Him can take(and does) a lifetime.

As a side note....Who are you to say exactly how long it should take? George is rebuking the all too often practice of "instant salvation". What do I mean by instant salvation? This is when someone has an emotional reaction at some service (but of course we say its always the spirit, right?) and goes to some altar call with little or no realization of what he or she is doing. Often they never go beyond that initial experience, even if they do become truly save. This is not how we are to make diciples. Christ did not just want converts, He wanted diciples.

Remember our conversation on miracles freak? Why arent most Christians able to do the "signs and wonders" that I spoke of? Because they are too spiritually immature and are not ready to handle the awesome responsibility of such power. For a brief period in my life I was intrusted with a mustard seed sized portion of that power. And I screwed up big time and hurt alot of people in the process. Spiritual power is important, but only comes with much much much prayer, fasting, wisdom, suffering, compassion, humility, and sacrifice.

There is no "quick fix". I have the utmost respect for Orthodoxy because they truly do not produce "quick fix" Christians. I do not necessarily think that Orthodoxy is the ultimate answer for the problems I see, but I do think it is a step in the right direction.

Freak, I know I offend you because I call into question the validity of the "miracles" you claim to perform. While I can apologize for you being offended I can not apologize for my stance on the issue.
No, I have seen far too much "instant Christians, instant deliverance, instant miracles, and instant holiness" and I have seen the damage it causes. I think George is heading in the right direction and you misunderstand his position.

Russ

Warcraft3

May 10th 2003, 01:31 PM

Do you really think anyone could consecrate four years of their life if they did NOT trust Christ for their salvation? Yet you are right, for when God communicates to man, it does not take but a few seconds, and the after-glow is enduring... I think most on the list are familiar with that...
Quite correct.

Yes, one becomes a Christian when one enters into the communion of His holy Body, the Church, in the Mystery of Baptism, and receives the seal of the Holy Spirit...
While I am not Orthodox myself I understand your position on how one becomes a Christian. I would differ on what I consider the church, although I would include EO is my definition.

Orthodoxy is not a McDonald's Happy Meal faith, where a person has a spiritual event or 2, or 10 or a hundred or a thousand and then self-proclaim's his or her salvation by election, and criticizes those who disagree.
Indeed it is not.

It is a communion of faith, partaking of one cup. It is the Communion of Love...
geo
I do enjoy your posts George, as I have a special place in my heart for you EO guys.

Oh by the way....Im going to try to attend a EO liturgy at Penn State two weeks from now since I will be in Penn State. Ill let you know how it goes.:thumb:

Russ

Justified

May 10th 2003, 11:42 PM

Russ,
I can't speak for Freak but I felt the need to respond.
Okay freak Im not going to speak for George (since he is an EO he is more than capable of responding himself), but here is my take.
I disagree, George is not able to defend his church doctrine. Geore made the statement that the waters of baptism were changed at the baptism of Christ. I asked that he prove this assumption with scripture and he was unable to do so. Would you care to explain with scripture this doctrine of 'change' in the baptismal waters or do you accept it by blind faith as Geogre has.
There is a difference between the "moment" when one trusts Christ, and the long difficult process of becoming a Christian. While Christs initial indwelling (ok technically its the holy spirit) is accomplished in but an instant, the process of becoming Christ like and entering into communion with Him can take(and does) a lifetime.
your presupposition is based on your personal experience but that does not mean your experience is the model of salvation that all must follow. The problem you have is not realizing that you will never be like Christ no matter how hard you work at it. Christ indwelling is the moment of salvation and it is not a personal process of becoming Christ like. Christ is the Seed that indewells believers and He can not deny Himself. It is the Holy Spirit that seals us until the day of redemption. It is the operation of God by the Spirit not of men that places us into His body and we receive Christ's righteousness the righteousness of God.

As a side note....Who are you to say exactly how long it should take? George is rebuking the all too often practice of "instant salvation". What do I mean by instant salvation? This is when someone has an emotional reaction at some service (but of course we say its always the spirit, right?) and goes to some altar call with little or no realization of what he or she is doing. Often they never go beyond that initial experience, even if they do become truly save. This is not how we are to make diciples. Christ did not just want converts, He wanted diciples.
Saying a prayer, expressing emotions, and altar calls are not to be understood as the operation of God for all these things are processes acomplished by men. Men can not make disciples only God can.
Remember our conversation on miracles freak? Why arent most Christians able to do the "signs and wonders" that I spoke of? Because they are too spiritually immature and are not ready to handle the awesome responsibility of such power. For a brief period in my life I was intrusted with a mustard seed sized portion of that power. And I screwed up big time and hurt alot of people in the process. Spiritual power is important, but only comes with much much much prayer, fasting, wisdom, suffering, compassion, humility, and sacrifice.
Spiritual maturity is not based on the power to perform miracles.
Not every one that saith unto me, Lord, Lord, shall enter into the kingdom of heaven; but he that doeth the will of my Father which is in heaven. Matt. 7:21
Many will say to me in that day, Lord, Lord, have we not prophesied in thy name? and in thy name have cast out devils? and in thy name done many wonderful works? Matt. 7:22
And then will I profess unto them, I never knew you: depart from me, ye that work iniquity. Matt. 7:23

The false prophet will deceive many by the working of miracles. Do you believe he will be spiritually mature?

There is no "quick fix". I have the utmost respect for Orthodoxy because they truly do not produce "quick fix" Christians. I do not necessarily think that Orthodoxy is the ultimate answer for the problems I see, but I do think it is a step in the right direction.
You are relating to a religion that closely mirrors your own personal experience. You many see a process because of your failure but that does not mean that God has failed.
Freak, I know I offend you because I call into question the validity of the "miracles" you claim to perform. While I can apologize for you being offended I can not apologize for my stance on the issue.
No, I have seen far too much "instant Christians, instant deliverance, instant miracles, and instant holiness" and I have seen the damage it causes. I think George is heading in the right direction and you misunderstand his position.

God is not the cause of damage, man is. You are witnessing the failure of the righteousness of men.

Warcraft3

May 11th 2003, 03:31 PM

Justified:

Russ,
I disagree, George is not able to defend his church doctrine. Geore made the statement that the waters of baptism were changed at the baptism of Christ. I asked that he prove this assumption with scripture and he was unable to do so. Would you care to explain with scripture this doctrine of 'change' in the baptismal waters or do you accept it by blind faith as Geogre has.
I believe I said that George was capable of defending the EO position, yet you ask me to defend it. I am not EO myself and I was not even addressing your past conversation with George, so I will make no comments or responces to the above statement.

I said.....
There is a difference between the &quot;moment&quot; when one trusts Christ, and the long difficult process of becoming a Christian. While Christs initial indwelling (ok technically its the holy spirit) is accomplished in but an instant, the process of becoming Christ like and entering into communion with Him can take(and does) a lifetime.

And Justified responded.......
your presupposition is based on your personal experience but that does not mean your experience is the model of salvation that all must follow.
What presupposition? Did I say my personal experience was the model which must be followed? I did not say it was the model and Im not "presupposing" anything.

And he continues..........
The problem you have is not realizing that you will never be like Christ no matter how hard you work at it.
Thanks for assuming I have a problem and then pointing it out to me. I really love it when people tell me what "problem" I have. Especially when it is about an opinion I supposedly have, when in reality I have no such opinion. You just "corrected" me on a view I do not even hold. I know I will never be exactly like Christ no matter how hard I try. How you leaped to such a conclusion is beyond me.

He also makes the following comments........
Christ indwelling is the moment of salvation and it is not a personal process of becoming Christ like.
Yes the moment of Christs indwelling is the moment of salvation. Im not sure why you felt the need to tell me that, since I never implied otherwise. Yes the initial salvation experience is not a personal process of becoming Christ like, but it does mark the beginning of such a process. Those who are truly saved have a work begun in them that day.

Christ is the Seed that indewells believers and He can not deny Himself.
Yes He is the seed and He can not deny Himself. I fail to see the purpose for telling me this.

It is the Holy Spirit that seals us until the day of redemption. It is the operation of God by the Spirit not of men that places us into His body and we receive Christ's righteousness the righteousness of God.
Did I say otherwise? I certainly did not. And yes it is the work of God and not that of men, but God does use men to accomplish His purposes.

My next comment was this.....
As a side note....Who are you to say exactly how long it should take? George is rebuking the all too often practice of &quot;instant salvation&quot;. What do I mean by instant salvation? This is when someone has an emotional reaction at some service (but of course we say its always the spirit, right?) and goes to some altar call with little or no realization of what he or she is doing. Often they never go beyond that initial experience, even if they do become truly save. This is not how we are to make diciples. Christ did not just want converts, He wanted diciples.

And here is the responce.....
Saying a prayer, expressing emotions, and altar calls are not to be understood as the operation of God for all these things are processes acomplished by men.
What exactly do you mean by "the operation of God"? Does God not operate in and through prayer, emotions, or altar calls? Are these things simply "processes accomplished by men" and nothing more? Indeed they are not.

Men can not make disciples only God can.
Oh good then I guess I do not have to worry about the commandment to go and make diciples. :no: You are correct that ultimetaly it is God who causes the change, but he uses us to help and guide the person. So we are a fundamental part of the plan to make diciples.

I then commented to freak......
Remember our conversation on miracles freak? Why arent most Christians able to do the &quot;signs and wonders&quot; that I spoke of? Because they are too spiritually immature and are not ready to handle the awesome responsibility of such power. For a brief period in my life I was intrusted with a mustard seed sized portion of that power. And I screwed up big time and hurt alot of people in the process. Spiritual power is important, but only comes with much much much prayer, fasting, wisdom, suffering, compassion, humility, and sacrifice.
And I got this reply.......
Spiritual maturity is not based on the power to perform miracles.[b]
Um yeah. I did not say it was. Did you read my conversation with freak concerning miracles? Its in the Schizo thread. You should read it so you know exactly where I stand before making conclusions on what I believe.

[b]Not every one that saith unto me, Lord, Lord, shall enter into the kingdom of heaven; but he that doeth the will of my Father which is in heaven. Matt. 7:21
Many will say to me in that day, Lord, Lord, have we not prophesied in thy name? and in thy name have cast out devils? and in thy name done many wonderful works? Matt. 7:22
And then will I profess unto them, I never knew you: depart from me, ye that work iniquity. Matt. 7:23
Well I guess quoting those verses disproves my entire position on miracles, right? I mean, I was not even aware those verses existed before you quoted them to me, right? Wrong and wrong again. You are trying to prove me wrong, yet you do not even know what my position is. You quoted those scriptures for nothing, since I have read them many times and agree with them. But they do not by any means contradict what I am saying about miracles.

The false prophet will deceive many by the working of miracles. Do you believe he will be spiritually mature?

Do you believe how badly you are misrepresenting my position? Go read my conversation with freak. If you are still unsure about my position then simply ASK ME. And I will be happy to share it with you.

I also said.......
There is no &quot;quick fix&quot;. I have the utmost respect for Orthodoxy because they truly do not produce &quot;quick fix&quot; Christians. I do not necessarily think that Orthodoxy is the ultimate answer for the problems I see, but I do think it is a step in the right direction.
And he responded.........
You are relating to a religion that closely mirrors your own personal experience. You many see a process because of your failure but that does not mean that God has failed.
There you go again justified!! Telling me what my position is without even knowing what it is. Such assumptions are not justified and are unwise when debating or discussing issues. Freak knows where I stand because he has interacted with me before, but you just come out of nowhere and make all kinds of assumptions about me. Please refrain from such actions in the future.
I then closed my post to freak with this statement............
Freak, I know I offend you because I call into question the validity of the &quot;miracles&quot; you claim to perform. While I can apologize for you being offended I can not apologize for my stance on the issue.
No, I have seen far too much &quot;instant Christians, instant deliverance, instant miracles, and instant holiness&quot; and I have seen the damage it causes. I think George is heading in the right direction and you misunderstand his position.

God is not the cause of damage, man is. You are witnessing the failure of the righteousness of men.
So now you are implying that I am blaming God? Where are you coming up with these conclusions? Please refrain from commenting on my posts until you understand my position. You are both directly and indirectly misrepresenting me and I do not appreciate it. I hope you will cease from such actions in the future.

Russ

George Blaisdell

May 11th 2003, 10:00 PM

Russ wrote:

"There is no "quick fix". I have the utmost respect for Orthodoxy because they truly do not produce "quick fix' Christians. I do not necessarily think that Orthodoxy is the ultimate answer for the problems I see, but I do think it is a step in the right direction."

Justified replied:
"You are relating to a religion that closely mirrors your own personal experience. You many see a process because of your failure but that does not mean that God has failed.”

And Russ replies:
"There you go again justified!! Telling me what my position is without even knowing what it is."

This is a sad coversation!

Lord have mercy...

geo

Justified

May 11th 2003, 10:38 PM

Please refrain from commenting on my posts until you understand my position.

This thread is a discussion about baptism. If you are not here for that purpose I suggest you start another thread. :smile:

Justified

May 11th 2003, 10:45 PM

George,

If the EO believes the waters of baptism 'changed' why is it they are void of scriptures to back it up?

Why the need of a 'change"? Was John's baptism not Christian baptism?

Warcraft3

May 12th 2003, 12:33 AM

Yesterday @ 10:00 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=93847#post93847)
George Blaisdell:

Russ wrote:

"There is no "quick fix". I have the utmost respect for Orthodoxy because they truly do not produce "quick fix' Christians. I do not necessarily think that Orthodoxy is the ultimate answer for the problems I see, but I do think it is a step in the right direction."

Justified replied:
"You are relating to a religion that closely mirrors your own personal experience. You many see a process because of your failure but that does not mean that God has failed.”

And Russ replies:
"There you go again justified!! Telling me what my position is without even knowing what it is."

This is a sad coversation!

Lord have mercy...

geo

George:
I did not mean to offend anyone by my response to Justified. The comment "there you go again!!" was not spoken out of anger or frustration but was for the purpose of making a point.

In several places Justifieds response to me misrepresents my position or makes assumptions on what I am thinking or feeling. I can not properly respond to someone who does not understand my position or makes erroneous assumptions about where I stand. In such instances I need to illuminate the fact that I am being misrepresented if further dialogue is to occur.

I did not mean to offend you or justified and apologize if my post was offensive.

Russ

Warcraft3

May 12th 2003, 12:37 AM

Yesterday @ 10:38 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=93871#post93871)
Justified:

This thread is a discussion about baptism. If you are not here for that purpose I suggest you start another thread. :smile:

My original post to freak did come out of a discussion of baptism. Your responce to that post had several inncorrect statements concerning my position on several issues. I simply pointed these out so I wasnt being misrepresented. Much of your response did not deal exclusively with baptism, so obviously my response to that post would reflect that.

You will find that often threads seem to get "off course", but that is simply the nature of such discussions. There are so many issues that often one topic branches into another. That is very difficult to avoid when discussing theology.:shrug:

Russ

George Blaisdell

May 12th 2003, 10:35 AM

Russ writes:

> George said:
> > "This is a sad coversation!

> > Lord have mercy..."

> George:
> I did not mean to offend anyone by my response to Justified.

Hey, Russ - My turn to apologize - I did not mean, nor was I very clear at all, that your part in this conversation was offensive. It is just that the whole conversation between you and Justified or Freak just seems to have no chance at all, for all the reasons you mention.

It appears that Freak is not going to humble himself enough even to apologize for his little knife-cut of saying to you: "You're not a real smart guy, are you Russ?" And Justified jumped in to salvage what he could by misrepresenting you. He misrepresented me too, so don't feel all that singled out - That kind of thing often happens on these kinds of boards, and J just happens to be pretty good at it.

The basic problem is that when one has a personally derived understanding of scripture, based upon one's own personal reading of the Bible, which one is careful to derive and defend against all comers, you will find yourself arguing theology with everyone else. Put ol' Justified and Freak in a closet together, and I would wager they would find great areas of disagreement between them.

Everyone simply has to be their own Pope under this approach to God, where we all determine for ourselves what we believe on the basis of what we read in the Bible [In English, no less!] Everyone is their own personal scriptural authority. Used to be we only had one Pope claiming this [mistaken] infallibility, but now in the west we have millions of them, each claiming the right to demand scriptural proof of any words that are not their very own personal ones... [Which is why I simply confess the apostolic faith handed down...]

It's an amazing thing to watch.... I mean, on the internet, we get to see a million popes, all with a different opinion, and each convinced that theirs is the right one, that all the 'others' are wrong, and each ready to defend their very own "position"... All of them thinking they are right... All in disagreement...

Yaaarrgghhh!!!

And you wonder why "Christianity" is losing ground, except just afer 9-11...

That is what makes the conversation so sad to watch, Russ. The guys who are fairly good at the Protestant Pope game take any variance [from their "correct' position] as logically entailing another 'wrong' position, which they then attribute to the person they are talking with, and then blast the straw man they have created. That's how the protestant pope [P.P] maintains his infallibility... And that is the inevitable outcome of proving one's self [which Christ commands us to deny] to be right - We end up not only proving our "position", which is bad enough, but we are proving our papal little selves, and these we are proving to be "right"... Because we can 'prove' we are right by reference to our trusty English [or Hebrew, or German, of Greek either, for that matter] Bibles...

> In several places Justified's response to me misrepresents my position or makes assumptions on what I am thinking or feeling. I can not properly respond to someone who does not understand my position or makes erroneous assumptions about where I stand. In such instances I need to illuminate the fact that I am being misrepresented if further dialogue is to occur.

That methodology is part and parcel of the tactical means of defence of one's own position... Fortunately, it is only a Maginot Line -

> I did not mean to offend you or justified and apologize if my post was offensive.

You were not offensive, Russ. What I see on these boards, even when two combatants go to the gym and put the gloves on, is that one almost never sees anone convince the other - Each party goes away self-Justified that theirs is T.H.E. Correct Understanding of Scripture...

THAT is why I said: "This is a sad coversation! Lord have mercy..."

geo

George Blaisdell

May 12th 2003, 12:55 PM

Justified: asks:

> George,

> If the EO believes the waters of baptism 'changed' why is it they are void of scriptures to back it up?

I don't know if "they" are void of scriptural attestation in this belief, J. - I just know that I am -

> Why the need of a 'change'?

Why the "need" of the incarnation? Why the "need" for Christ to be baptized in the Jordan at all? I believe Christ's words were "That all righteousness should be fulfilled." Is that how you remember it?

Christ entered the water, and also commanded the disciples to baptize all nations, and you are arguing that the baptism of the Holy Spirit is apart from the water, yet when Christ Himself came up out of the waters of the Jordan, the Holy Spirit descended and remained upon Him, as if [hWS = like unto] a dove - So that now, when we are baptized into the body of Christ, the same thing happens to us, that all righteousness should be fulfilled.

> Was John's baptism not Christian baptism?

John's baptism of Christ established the basis for our baptism into Christ. John himself only baptised in water, unto the repentance from sins [yes?]... And as he himself wrote, he must decrease, that Christ increase... John's was a prophet's baptism, yes? Did not Christ call him the greatest of the prophets?

I do not think that John's baptism changed after baptising Christ - It just diminished - Christian Baptism came with the establishment of the Church at Pentecost... With the sending of the Holy Spirit into the Church of the Apostles - And with Christ's command to the Apostles to baptize the peoples [hOI ETHNOI] in the Name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit. That established the specifically Christian baptism - The Resurrection of Christ happened first, then Pentecost, yes?

The tongues of fire of the Holy Spirit came to those who had been baptized in water, yes? And indeed, they went forth and baptized in water also, and then, after they baptized people in water, they then annointed the newly cleansed in the holy Chrism of the seal of the Holy Spirit - Sealed... That It remain, as It did upon Christ, as a Dove, in the waters of the Jordan.

For those of you, Justified, who believe that Christ meant DRY baptism, it should be a small matter to find Christ baptizing folk with no water, or His disciples, or the Apostles in Acts, or in the records of the early Church - Yet it is found nowhere in these, but only in the reasonings of your very own private mind, in which you find convincing proof based upon your private understanding of reading your very own Bible... The one passed on to you so faithfuly by the very Church, that you so easily push aside in favor of your private interpretation...

And private opinions are just like mouths - Everybody's got one - Yet as Paul writes, "We have the nous of Christ." Which says nothing about a bunch of "exegetically" derived private opinons about scriptures, which did not yet exist except for the Septuagint...

And as to your demand for scriptural proof of the changing of the waters, I don't happen to have it - Which does not mean that it does not exist. It has been taught by the very Church that brought you the Bible, indeed the very people whom God entrusted to write the holy Booksof the Bible, since the beginnings, yet you only care to hear what you can read, and seem unwilling to read in the Bible that we are to obey BOTH what is written and what is delivered in person by the Apostles... So that you only read what you are already hearing, and ignore what you have not already concluded - And this is indeed what has to happen when each person has to figure it all our for themselves in the privacy of their own mind with their private experience of the Holy Spirit, and their own private understanding thereof, and the reasonings that proceed therefrom. This is quintessential teaching of men.

None of which is Biblical, for what is Biblical is the Apostolic Church... The ground and pillar of Truth, baptizing in water...

This is the second time I have addressed this issue for you, Justified - If you are really interested in the matter, instead of asking the same question ove again on some other and different forum, I would recommend you read the early Fathers... And then find someone more knowledgable than I am to answer your questions... I have done about the best I can at this point...

And I am sorry for my terse tone - for from the Orthodox perspective, dry baptism is a very much Johnny-come-lately post-modern doctrine of no significance whatsoever, except as a matter of individual catechesis... For the correction and healing of those poor souls caught in the error believing it...

Christ wants you to be baptized as He was, and He was baptized in water, and then came down the Holy Spirit as a Dove, and it remained upon Him... THAT is o be OUR baptism... Your DRY baptism is unbiblical and unChristian, or nowhere can you find a Biblical warrant for it that is plainly out in the open, but only by allusion and your private and illusionary reasoning upon it...

Sorry again for any offence...

geo

mickiel

May 13th 2003, 03:28 AM

Is there such a thing as reaching a level where rituals and traditions, even those in scripture, are rendered meaningless? The answer is yes, when the ritual or scripture is more powerful than Christ himself, it is meaningless because the focus is off of Christ and on the ritual or scripture or tradition. When something is given more weight than Jesus, that is considered a blashpemy. For example, if a person thinks conversion is 70% baptism, and 30% Christ, their thinking is in vain. The proper numerics is this; conversion is 100% Christ plus nothing. However when one seeks to add to this formula by saying other things are of nessecity to be converted, there are no other nesseccitys that can replace Jesus or add to him, when you have Christ, you have enough. However, if you can, yes, then be baptised, be a church member, be involved in worship services, but remember if you cannot for whatever reasons do none of these things, if you have Jesus, you have enough. Jesus has all power in his hands. If he can save a theif on a cross, a man he didnot physically touch, he had never seen, he didnot baptize the man, never preached the gospel to him, the man was not a member of a church, this man was a sinner all of his life, was not baptized by the Spirit, the man didnot know Jesus and only requested to be remembered in his kingdom, Jesus saved the man. Jesus can do this for any man, at any time, in any situation, and there is nothing no one can do about it. I could care less to be concerned about the conditions humans stress on salvation, in the mind of Christ, there are none, no matter what the human requires to help them, Jesus is fully equiped by God to "cover them". Man can find all the rules and conditions he wishes, Jesus will still find a way to save the person.

George Blaisdell

May 16th 2003, 02:58 PM

Mickiel writes:

>>>"For example, if a person thinks conversion is 70% baptism, and 30% Christ, their thinking is in vain."<<<

Dear Mickiel - If we are baptized into the baptism in which Christ was baptized, which is what scripture tells us, then our baptism is 100% Christ. If we are baptized into some "other" baptism, some unscriptural "dry baptism" that avoids water in favor of personal and private experience of the "Holy Spirit", then the percentages are meaningless, for these so-called baptisms are not Christ's baptism, which scripture prescribes for us...

>>>"The proper numerics is this; conversion is 100% Christ plus nothing."<<<

If you believe this, [as I do], then why on earth are you accepting zero percent Christ's baptism in the River Jordan at the hands of another [John] with it's descent of the Holy Spirit, Plus the 100% human inference doctrine of dry baptism that is all alone and by yourself and in the privacy of your own fallen [worldly controlled] mind? It is the separation of the sheep from the flock that is the goal of the wolves, my friend, for when you are alone, the noetic wolf can feast upon your soul at his leisure... And fallen man, all by himself, is subject to easy deception - Examples are rampant - Suicide murderers thinking they are doing the will of God are but the obvious few... Where demons feast on the devotion of hatred...

As well, are we not commanded to love God? And How much are we so commanded? With all our heart? Is that not 100%? And all our soul? Another 100%? And all our strength? That's another 100%. And all our mind? Another 100% still!

So our salvation is 100% Christ plus everything we've got, because if we deliberately hold anything back from Christ, we lose the salvation we seek. We cannot have 100% Christ, you see, without 100% repentance, and that is the cross we pick up every day, as we deny our SELVES [repentance] and follow Him... As He commands us to do... It is the 100% repentance that defines the MEANING of your "plus nothing"... For without repentance from something, there can be no nothing...

geo

mickiel

May 17th 2003, 01:20 AM

Therefore your view of salvation is based on man "doing"something other than what Christ has done. Under this understanding, man can glory in his effort, or he cannot be saved. He must "do" something. Go ahead, give yor effort credit, and if others are not living up to this effort, well they can be counted as condemned. The methodology is simple; salvation is not really free under your view of God, it cost human performance, human committment, human belief, the human must do something. As you have done, so you count yourself safe, as if you have achieved. Your effort is useless, your salvation was established before you were born, you are just short sighted as to others salvation.

George Blaisdell

May 17th 2003, 01:57 AM

mickiel: writes:

> "Therefore your view of salvation..."

This is the uncontested view of salvation held for 2000 years by the Church Christ created. It is not my very own personal view, to argue and defend. It is the witness of Christ's Church from the beginnings, and indeed, in the very words of Christ: "If anyone is willing to be my follower, let him deny himself, pick up his cross and follow me." Those are three things we must do, according to Christ. Would you make our Lord a liar, and insist that we are to do NOTHING??

> "is based on man "doing" something other than what Christ has done.

Yes, a person must obey Christ - Just as Christ obeyed His Father in Heaven - If you fail to obey Christ, you will not attain salvation...

> Under this understanding, man can glory in his effort, or he cannot be saved.

Our efforts are but payment of what is owed by us to Christ - They earn us nothing. Nor did Christ's efforts "EARN" us anything. Salvation is not earned. It is given freely. We need but receive it in obedience to Christ, by faith... [And not by the logical proofs of our very own minds interpretating the words of scripture.]

> He must "do" something.

Yes, you cannot be a do nothing Christian. Prayer is required, not optional. Self-denial is required, not optional. The list goes on... Picking up one's own cross is required, not optional. Following Christ is required, not optional...

> Go ahead, give yor effort credit, and if others are not living up to this effort, well they can be counted as condemned.

The effort required is 100% ["Be ye perfect, as even My Father in heaven is perfect..." Remember? - This is a commandment, and not an instruction to do nothing and let Christ do everything. Likewise, you cannot commit unrepented murder and be saved, nor unrepented sodomy, nor rape, nor a lot of other things...

And the credit for ALL this is God, but the doing is ours to do, our will to comply with God... It is the human will that needs healing, and that means voluntary co-operation in the process of salvation, which is the healing of the will and the soul from the ravages of a sinful live.

> The methodology is simple; salvation is not really free under your view of God, it cost human performance, human committment, human belief, the human must do something.

"In the world, ye will find tribulation." There is such a thing as Christian virtue, and its acquisition takes great effort. I am a sorry excuse for the effort it takes. We are commanded to love God with ALL our strength. I have not yet collapsed in a failure of strength in my love for God, so faithless am I. Yet this is commanded...

> As you have done, so you count yourself safe, as if you have achieved.

I count myself lost. I stand with the publican, and beg for mercy, calling on the Name of the Lord, for I am a sinner...

You, on the other hand, thank God for His pre-selection of you from the foundation of the world, and his saving of you even in the absence of your merits, but only because of Christ's merits. You stand, you see, with the saved. And I with the Publican...

> Your effort is useless, your salvation was established before you were born, you are just short sighted as to others salvation.

Your word is not my salvation, but a life lived in Christ, and in obedience to His commandments...

Do you regard the Beattitudes as commandments?

geo

mickiel

May 17th 2003, 02:12 AM

You may think your obedience earns you salvation, but it is not good enough. Nothing can take away your sins but Christ, you just don't believe he has taken away the sins of the world, you just think believers are covered, Or the good people, Jesus did not come for people who are righteous, or the christians, he came for the whole world of sinners. You think God is partial to only those who obey, you think God will let those who hate him perish. You think like every other christian i have met thinks, your head is stuck in hell ground. Salvation is complette, mans understanding of it is not.

George Blaisdell

May 17th 2003, 10:34 AM

mickiel:[/i]

> You may think your obedience earns you salvation,

I do not. It is but payment of what I already owe. A lifetime of obedience is but rags...

> but it is not good enough.

You are right. Yet nobody said that it is... Yet without it, we glorify self...

> Nothing can take away your sins but Christ,

That is true. Are you saying that Christ takes away deliberate and unconfessed sins from which someone refuses to repent, but keeps on murdering? We need but turn from sin, and Christ is faithful...

> you just don't believe He has taken away the sins of the world,

He is taking away the sin of the world, but only for the repentant, and not for those who exult in their evil ways, and glory in wickedness.

> you just think believers are covered, Or the good people,

If I do not confess, repent, and seek forgiveness, I am not covered, but instead grow in sins...

We are all sinners. If a person is not willing to admit their faults and turn from them unto God, then that person's faults will remain... Our souls, my friend, are sick in sins unto death, and desperately need the healing wrought in confession, repentance, and forgiveness.

> Jesus did not come for people who are righteous, or the christians, he came for the whole world of sinners.

Indeed He did, yet not all are willing to receive Him, and this is the judgement, that they prefer darkness over the Light... I am certainly one of these...

> You think God is partial to only those who obey, you think God will let those who hate him perish.

I cannot speak for God - I only know that I am sick in sin, and desperately need Christ's healing in my body and soul, and that I have found no help outside doing what He commands us to do, for outside of Him is only death and sin and self...

> You think like every other christian i have met thinks,

There are about a thousand folks on this very forum who would disagree with you - Who think I am one of those wierd Orthodox guys, who likes all the bells, black robes, incense, and long chanted prayers before dawn and in the midnight hours, and at all other intrusive times - As one who is so faithless that he needs all this 'support' to deceive himself into thinking he is saved... And who am I to say they are wrong...?

> your head is stuck in hell ground.

You are right, which is why I call on the name of the Lord in fear and contrition, and I do not call enough, nor am I nearly contrite enough...

> Salvation is complete,

Christ is complete, and He is our salvation...

> man's understanding of it is not.

Amen to that, my Brother...

Amen to that!

Thank you for a very illuminating post...

geo

mickiel

May 17th 2003, 03:18 PM

Repentance is granted by God, given by God, installed by God, it is not of the humans personal desire. A person cannot even have a desire to repent without God giving it. Its all God man, but know one knows this. You are trying to save just some space in there for the individuals will, giving them the option of believing or repenting. Nobody can believe or repent without God first doing it for them. God locked everyone up in sin, Romans 11:32, everyone and everything physical, Romans 8:20, only God can open this lock, John 6:44, Romans 2:4, it does not matter if the person believes in God, when God frees them they are freed, Romans 3:3, Psalms 100:5, 106:7-8, 12, 40-46, 91:4, John 1:12.

Your mind is fixed on the effort of man factoring into salvation. You think unrepentant sinners cannot be saved. 1 Tim4:10 shows two class of men. God is the savior of them all, and espeically those who believe, clear distinction showing unbelievers saved. A mind steeped into the destruction of mankind cannot see this. A mind that sees salvation as a survival of the "fittest program", will not see this verse. A mind hopeing for the destruction of most of manklind will not see this truth. Limited salvation is for those who have limited understanding.

George Blaisdell

May 17th 2003, 11:44 PM

Mickiel: writes:

> Repentance is granted by God, given by God, installed by God, it is not of the humans personal desire. A person cannot even have a desire to repent without God giving it. Its all God man, but know one knows this.

I think most of the folks reading this would agree with you, Mickiel - Although some might join me in wondering what you might mean when you say that "Its all God man."

As a matter of fact, I agree with you. Yet Christ tells us to repent, so I would submit that you are only looking at half the evidence, and ignoring the other half. Yes, it's all God. And yes, man must give 100%. Take away either and there is no salvation. Man can't do it on his own, and God doesn't do it if man rejects God's calling...

> You are trying to save just some space in there for the individuals will, giving them the option of believing or repenting.

Man's active, willing, consenting participation in God's calling for him is absolutely essential. Many are called and fall away. Paul writes of these that they are NOT to be baptized again, but are in dire danger, and must take drastic measures...

> Nobody can believe or repent without God first doing it for them.

Yes, that is the call, and things go along easily for some time, and then begins the withdrawal of grace, a little at a time, and we are tested - Do we want God, or do we prefer our selves? For when grace is withdrawn, our edifice of faith is tested in the 'fire' of perditious trial, and we either burn up, or we withstand the heat, and then move on... Or not...

> God locked everyone up in sin, Romans 11:32,

Rom 11:32 [my literal translation]
For God ensnared them all unto disobedience that He should have mercy on them all.

>everyone and everything physical, Romans 8:20,

20: For in corruption was made subject the creature, not willingly, but through the Creator, upon Hope...

> only God can open this lock, John 6:44,

44: No one is able to be coming to Me unless the Father Who sent Me draw him.

> Romans 2:4, it does not matter if the person believes in God, when God frees them they are freed, Romans 3:3, Psalms 100:5, 106:7-8, 12, 40-46, 91:4, John 1:12.

All this, that you understand to be salvation, the Orthodox have understood for 2000 years now to be but the calling of God, the initial infusion of grace, that does indeed unlock the binding, for all are bound, that God should have mercy on all, and this mercy is the infusion of grace, and in it we are indeed free, for the forces of sin that we had previously been enslaved to are held back, and our burdens are light and easy, and we receive an earnest of the life to come. This is not salvation - It is the call to salvation... This is the easy part, and it is easy, when it happens, to think that we are saved by the "free ride"...

We are not.

Grace withdraws, and our actions during its infusion are crucial to how we will be able to withstand the withdrawal, for the straw will burn, and what is sound will remain and abide.

> Your mind is fixed on the effort of man factoring into salvation.

It would appear, my friend, that your mind is fixated on my mind...

Man's effort, the essentiality of it, the utter need for all of it, is unquestionably scriptural, irrefutably scriptural, and to deny it is to be guilty of only allowing the parts of the Bible that support your view to have any significance.

> You think unrepentant sinners cannot be saved.

No, I don't.

But when they ARE saved, it is by faith unto repentance. You will not find any Biblical examples of anyone murdering their way into heaven - David, who murdered, gave us Psalm 51. [50 LXX], "Have mercy on me O Lord, according to Thy great mercy..." The great Psalm of repentance...

> 1 Tim4:10 shows two class of men. God is the savior of them all, and espeically those who believe, clear distinction showing unbelievers saved.

Hardly - The air is for all to breathe, but especially for those who DO breathe... And Christ is the Savior of all, but especially for those believing. That is the meaning. Christ is the savior of the unrepentant as well as the repentant, but more so with the repentant. And on and on. Christ is the savior of those refusing salvation, as well as of those embracing it in faith... That is the meaning...

> A mind steeped into the destruction of mankind cannot see this. A mind that sees salvation as a survival of the "fittest program", will not see this verse. A mind hopeing for the destruction of most of manklind will not see this truth. Limited salvation is for those who have limited understanding.

Yes, you believe that Hitler is saved, along with Idi Amin and Bin Laden, and murder by suicide killers of babies. If anyone believes you, they are free to kill and worship satan, for according to your theory, God is the giver of unlimited salvation, regardless of what evils we should commit unto the end of our lives...

Except this is not Biblical...

Do you really believe that we are free to rape, rob and pillage, because God will save us anyway? And that if anyone says that our salvation has something to do with our actions, then they are believers in only 'limited salvation', and not God's salvation?

geo

mickiel

May 18th 2003, 02:47 AM

Today @ 04:44 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=100098#post100098)
George Blaisdell:

Mickiel: writes:

> Repentance is granted by God, given by God, installed by God, it is not of the humans personal desire. A person cannot even have a desire to repent without God giving it. Its all God man, but know one knows this.

I think most of the folks reading this would agree with you, Mickiel - Although some might join me in wondering what you might mean when you say that "Its all God man."

Christ is all in all, he is all of the formula for salvation. God will be all in all, when Christ presents the church to him without spot or wrinkle, or he will give men to God who are renewed and born again, all their sins purged, all of this is made possible by Christ, men do not contribute in this process, but you are believing that they do. Whatever part men think they contribute, they can claim personal glory in that part. No man will glory in Gods eyes, because we do nothing to deserve the free gift of eternal life. Its all about God, its his son, his plan, his creations, his strength, his faith, his love, his grace.

As a matter of fact, I agree with you. Yet Christ tells us to repent, so I would submit that you are only looking at half the evidence, and ignoring the other half. Yes, it's all God. And yes, man must give 100%. Take away either and there is no salvation. Man can't do it on his own, and God doesn't do it if man rejects God's calling...

This is where we differ, you can take away mans effort, and Christ can still save them. Salvation is not dependant on anything men do, it is all what Christ has done, but its hard to show a mind that must glory in itself this. You think salvation is based on the human accepting it. Every prophet, every apostle, every deciple in the bible was called into service, they were not given a choice to reject God. Nowhere in the bible does God accept a rejection from anyone, he just simply gets his way.

> You are trying to save just some space in there for the individuals will, giving them the option of believing or repenting.

Man's active, willing, consenting participation in God's calling for him is absolutely essential. Many are called and fall away. Paul writes of these that they are NOT to be baptized again, but are in dire danger, and must take drastic measures...

Mans consent in salvation is an illousion, totally incorrect. Every knee will bow to God, every tounge will confess to him. There is no other way but Gods way. There is no other choice but God. What is the other choice- death, nonexistance - those are not choices, its an ultimatim, God is he who must be obeyed. There is only ONE way to deal with God, only one possible way, and that is to serve him, there is no consent in the picture when you deal with a being like The Great God.

> Nobody can believe or repent without God first doing it for them.

Yes, that is the call, and things go along easily for some time, and then begins the withdrawal of grace, a little at a time, and we are tested - Do we want God, or do we prefer our selves? For when grace is withdrawn, our edifice of faith is tested in the 'fire' of perditious trial, and we either burn up, or we withstand the heat, and then move on... Or not...

You still think conversion is to be or not to be, to do or not to do, to perform or not to perform. You are a "works" believer, you tabulate the works of the human into salvation, thus seeking to give mankind control over salvation, instead of Christ sacrifice.

&frees them they are freed, Romans 3:3, Psalms 100:5, 106:7-8, 12, 40-46, 91:4, John 1:12.

Man's effort, the essentiality of it, the utter need for all of it, is unquestionably scriptural, irrefutably scriptural, and to deny it is to be guilty of only allowing the parts of the Bible that support your view to have any significance.

> You think unrepentant sinners cannot be saved.

No, I don't.

But when they ARE saved, it is by faith unto repentance. You will not find any Biblical examples of anyone murdering their way into heaven - David, who murdered, gave us Psalm 51. [50 LXX], "Have mercy on me O Lord, according to Thy great mercy..." The great Psalm of repentance...

You will not find a heaven that EXCLUDES MURDERERS, you will not find a heaven that can say it contains no murderers.

> 1 Tim4:10 shows two class of men. God is the savior of them all, and espeically those who believe, clear distinction showing unbelievers saved.

Hardly - The air is for all to breathe, but especially for those who DO breathe... And Christ is the Savior of all, but especially for those believing. That is the meaning. Christ is the savior of the unrepentant as well as the repentant, but more so with the repentant. And on and on. Christ is the savior of those refusing salvation, as well as of those embracing it in faith... That is the meaning...

> A mind steeped into the destruction of mankind cannot see this. A mind that sees salvation as a survival of the "fittest program", will not see this verse. A mind hopeing for the destruction of most of manklind will not see this truth. Limited salvation is for those who have limited understanding.

Yes, you believe that Hitler is saved, along with Idi Amin and Bin Laden, and murder by suicide killers of babies. If anyone believes you, they are free to kill and worship satan, for according to your theory, God is the giver of unlimited salvation, regardless of what evils we should commit unto the end of our lives...

The list of men above have one thing in common, they are sinners, no sinner is disqualified from salvation, i don't care what they did or how long they did it, Jesus saved a theif while he was hanging on the cross, the theif was a sinner all his life, no different than the men you listed, i maintain that as long as Christ lives, the sin of men, no matter how evil, how much of it they did, they can be saved. And yes i believe God is the giver of unlimited salvation, and that Jesus is the payment for all sin, hitler, bin laden, it does not matter, Christ died for all, not just for a few.

Except this is not Biblical...

Do you really believe that we are free to rape, rob and pillage, because God will save us anyway? And that if anyone says that our salvation has something to do with our actions, then they are believers in only 'limited salvation', and not God's salvation?

Shall we sin, God forbid! That was Pauls answer to the same question you asked me. We are not free period. I'm telling you salvation is a predestined done deal made before we even existed. I don't care how crazy it sounds, God is going to save all of mankind, he doesn't want to be without any of us, he loves all of his children, with a pure great love, he just can't help himself. His will and power is so great, he gets what he wants.

geo

George Blaisdell

May 18th 2003, 09:57 PM

Mickiel writes:

> > Yet Christ tells us to repent, so I would submit that you are only looking at half the evidence, and ignoring the other half. Yes, it's all God. And yes, man must give 100%. Take away either and there is no salvation. Man can't do it on his own, and God doesn't do it if man rejects God's calling...

> This is where we differ, you can take away man's effort, and Christ can still save them. Salvation is not dependant on anything men do, it is all what Christ has done,

Then we are all saved and don't hve to worry about it - No need to repent, no need to turn away from all the lustings of the flesh, murder of one's brothers, pillaging of one's neighbors... Just keep on sinning just like we have always done, and we are saved anyway - What an unBiblical dream world you have created!

> Every prophet, every apostle, every deciple in the bible was called into service, they were not given a choice to reject God. Nowhere in the bible does God accept a rejection from anyone, he just simply gets his way.

There are a fair number of examples of people who fail to repent, and the consequences - Beginning with the man and wife in acts who held back their property, not trusting God - They were struck dead. Pharoah's army as well comes to mind... You show me one example of salvation against the will of the person being saved...

> Man's consent in salvation is an illusion, totally incorrect.

Tell it to Adam, who lost his salvation by an act of will... [And was raised by Christ from hell...]

> Every knee will bow to God, every tounge will confess to him. There is no other way but Gods way. There is no other choice but God. What is the other choice- death, nonexistance - those are not choices, its an ultimatim, God is he who must be obeyed. There is only ONE way to deal with God, only one possible way, and that is to serve him, there is no consent in the picture when you deal with a being like The Great God.

On this earth, the key word is IF... [EI in the Greek] Christ's words, which I keep repeating, and you keep ignoring, are "IF anyone is willing to be following me, let him deny himself, pick up his cross, and follow me..." That's a BIG "EI" starting out that sentence by our Lord. EI DE TIS THELEI means literally "If anyone is willing..." And to be willing, you see, is to consent... Are we both speaking the same English??

> You still think conversion is to be or not to be, to do or not to do, to perform or not to perform. You are a "works" believer, you tabulate the works of the human into salvation, thus seeking to give mankind control over salvation, instead of Christ sacrifice.

Yes, Christ has done His part, and now it is up to us to do ours...

> > > You think unrepentant sinners cannot be saved.

> > No, I don't.

> > But when they ARE saved, it is by faith unto repentance. You will not find any Biblical examples of anyone murdering their way into heaven - David, who murdered, gave us Psalm 51. [50 LXX], "Have mercy on me O Lord, according to Thy great mercy..." The great Psalm of repentance...

> You will not find a heaven that EXCLUDES MURDERERS, you will not find a heaven that can say it contains no murderers.

You will not find unrepentant murderers in heaven - Exulting in their sins, glorifying themselves in their victimizing others... These are not in heaven. Those who have repented from these actions, yes... Those who have not? Where in the Bible do you find a record of the salvation of the unrepentant? Chapter and verse, please!

> The list of men above have one thing in common, they are sinners, no sinner is disqualified from salvation, i don't care what they did or how long they did it, Jesus saved a theif while he was hanging on the cross, the theif was a sinner all his life, no different than the men you listed,

The wise thief confessed Christ and His Kingdom from the cross, and was saved... Hitler blew his brains out blaming Germany for not being good enough for him, because it lost the war... Just like the other criminal crucified on Christ's left, who bemoaned his fate, rather than confess Christ...

> I maintain that as long as Christ lives, the sin of men, no matter how evil, how much of it they did, they can be saved. And yes i believe God is the giver of unlimited salvation, and that Jesus is the payment for all sin, hitler, bin laden, it does not matter, Christ died for all, not just for a few.

I agree - But your problem is the two men crucified with Christ, one on His right confessing Him and attaining salvation, and the other not and not... You are arguing that not-not is saved-saved...

> > Except this is not Biblical...

> > Do you really believe that we are free to rape, rob and pillage, because God will save us anyway? And that if anyone says that our salvation has something to do with our actions, then they are believers in only 'limited salvation', and not God's salvation?

> Shall we sin, God forbid! That was Pauls answer to the same question you asked me.

That was not the question Paul was answering. He observed that where sin abounds, grace superabnounds - Thqat describes what happens during the call to salvation...

> We are not free period.

We are slaves to sin - You and me both - We are slaves to our bodies, to our pleasures and pains, to our hunger and desire for tasty foods, to our desire to be of good report by other people, and on and on...

> I'm telling you salvation is a predestined done deal made before we even existed. I don't care how crazy it sounds, God is going to save all of mankind, he doesn't want to be without any of us, he loves all of his children, with a pure great love, he just can't help himself. His will and power is so great, he gets what he wants.

O blog-slorpers! "He just can't help Himself"???????

See-ya Mickiel!

geo

mickiel

May 18th 2003, 11:39 PM

In Isaiah 45:23 God swears that everybody will swear alligance to him. That means they will be converted, and many of them will not want this., Read verse 25, all the house of Isreal will be saved, anyone who thinks all the house of Isreal has submitted to God does not know the bible. Isreal was the most stubborn nation on earth, but they all will be saved, but only their leaders submitted to God. I show you not just one man who is saved inspite of his rejection of God, this is a whole nation.

George Blaisdell

May 19th 2003, 01:41 PM

Mickiel:
"In Isaiah 45:23 God swears that everybody will swear alligance to him. That means they will be converted..."

No - It does not. Not on this earth prior to death... Once dead, and at the final judgement, all are believers... Too late for repentance to do them any good, for we repent in the flesh... That is the great opportunity of our fallen existence after the inCARNation of our Lord...

geo

mickiel

May 20th 2003, 02:15 AM

Yesterday @ 06:41 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=101274#post101274)
George Blaisdell:

Mickiel:
"In Isaiah 45:23 God swears that everybody will swear alligance to him. That means they will be converted..."

No - It does not. Not on this earth prior to death... Once dead, and at the final judgement, all are believers... Too late for repentance to do them any good, for we repent in the flesh... That is the great opportunity of our fallen existence after the inCARNation of our Lord...

geo

Yes it does, you cannot see the scripture. They will bow to God, will confess that he is God, they will know and believe that only in God is strength and right thinking, They will come to this point, and in your mind, they still need to be killed or tortured. Mainstream christianity is ruthless toward sinners, thats why i don't like them. Why bring men to this point only to torture them or kill them, you think God is like you. I am thankful he is not. God is merciful, to bring someone to the point of confession, submission, and belief, then torture them is ruthless, as is your interpitation of God.

George Blaisdell

May 20th 2003, 10:48 AM

[b]mickiel writes:

> > > That means they will be converted..."

> > Not on this earth prior to death...

> Yes it does

noitdoesnt! ':smile:'

> you cannot see the scripture.

Don't you know that every time you point your finger at me like that, and every time you claim to have some divine inspiration concerning some mentally intuited by you shortcoming in me, you have the other three fingers pointing right back at your heart? That every accusation is a confession?

> They will bow to God, will confess that he is God, they will know and believe that only in God is strength and right thinking,

Yes they will - Shock of shocks, we actually agree!

The problem with your thesis, where we do not agree, is that in Isaiah he doesn't say WHEN this will come to pass. And the fact is, most go to their graves unrepentant...

> They will come to this point, and in your mind, they still need to be killed or tortured.

There you go again with your divinely appointed ability to speak for what is "in" my mind. I would suspect that you may think that ***I*** need to be killed or tortured because of YOUR thought that I think that THEY need so to be dealt with.

I don't think that.

You are speaking to your own mind, not mine, when you create such phantasies about my mind... If you actually KNEW my mind, you would weep and pray for me, as I do for you...

> Mainstream christianity is ruthless toward sinners, thats why i don't like them.

Well AMEN to THAT, Brother!

Why do you think I became Orthodox?? I do not like organized religion, [no prosecutor has ever proved "organization" of Orthodoxy!] and the very idea of judging one's brother is anathema to Orthodoxy. [Which is not to say that many Orthodox are not hippocrites.]

> Why bring men to this point only to torture them or kill them, you think God is like you.

There you go again, telling me what I think.

Were you raised by some abusive Fundy control-freak pastor who liked to preach fire and judgement upon not only his congregation but on his kids too? I mean, you keep coming back to this "YOU think this", and "YOU think that", and you really do not know, my friend, what I think at all. Speaking for muyself, I can say that you are answering someone who is not me...

Mainstream US Christianity is not at all mainstream world Christianity. British Baptists shake their heads at what they see in the US... Reformed too...

> I am thankful He is not. [like geo]

Me too...

> God is merciful, to bring someone to the point of confession, submission, and belief,

Indeed, so that even sinners like me can begin the long journey of faith and repentence back to being right with God [righteousness]... One step at a time...

> then torture them is ruthless, as is your interpitation of God.

There you go with that mind-reading stuff again, Mikiel...

:argh:

I know... Nor am I any better...

geo

mickiel

May 21st 2003, 12:11 AM

I don't mean to group you together with the many i have been debateing here, i am wrong for that. Its just that when so many come at you because their views are different than yours, the tendency is to pre-judge everyone. I have found some of your views and your humility refreshing.

George Blaisdell

May 24th 2003, 10:07 AM

mickiel writes:

> I don't mean to group you together with the many i have been debateing here, i am wrong for that.

Well, it's not that I am ungroupable! I try to stay grouped with the Eastern Orthodox communion of Churches, and you can pretty much rely on that groups views not having a lot in common with those of the west, despite similar vocbulary and reference to a common Book...

> Its just that when so many come at you because their views are different than yours, the tendency is to pre-judge everyone.

I do that all the time! I even did it to you, and yet here you are owning up, which I didn't think you would do.

Glory to God! And thanks to you...

And my apologies for responding so late - I did not been receive notification for some reason, and just happened to wander by...

> I have found some of your views and your humility refreshing.

While I would deny that I have either - Neither enough humility to make for even a clean square inch of my living carcass, nor any views that have any worth, my Church has both in abundance, and insofar as I speak the mind of the Church [Remember Paul saying in 1 Cor 2:16 "But we have the mind of Christ."?] my words may find a a small place of welcome in a few hearts...

For I do not speak my mind much here, if I can avoid it, but speak what Christ's Church has always taught - And I tend to get impatient and cranky, and I have to remember to remember God, and when I do this, I do better... And I do not do this enough, for I forget God all the time... Such is the hopelessly wretched condition of my unrepented soul... Which creates a great burden upon the part of my soul that is somewhat repented ...

But the long and short of it all is that I am not one of the group that you have been confronting - And you may find that my group is even more loathsome than the one you are accustomed to, yet at least it will be for somewhat, I should hope, different reasons...

Orthodoxy has taught and baptized, [yes, immersing in water] without division of mind or opinion at all for some 2000 years now - We teach that Christian baptism began with the baptism of Christ, and do not recognize this johnny-come-lately post modern industrial revolutionary dry baptism of recent innovationist mein. The whole issue is not even debatable, from our point of view, so long and consistently attested is the Church's understanding and practice. We do not chase the winds of innovative doctrines, for that would dissipate all our efforts away from the great effort needed unto the transformation of ourselves into the new man in Christ... The great effort of repentance, of entering the conflict of good and evil within our own souls and bodies, that we might with God's grace overcome the evil within us all...

And mine is the Apostolic Church of Antioch, now out of Damascus, and growing in the US... Antioch, the location of the apostolic Church where followers of Christ were first called Christians... [Acts: something or other...]

You take care, Mickiel...

geo

daniel1965

July 1st 2003, 09:16 AM

Baptism: Baptizo in Greek, to fully immerse. Baptism was commanded by our Lord in the Great Commission. In order to become a Disciple of his one must be baptized. Who is to question his authority?

Baptism also put's us in Christ where all spiritual blessings are found. Who does not want to be where the spiritual blesssings are.

A sinner is dead in his sins until he is buried in the waters of baptism, he then is raised to newness of life.

John's Baptism was a Baptism of repentance only, on Pentacost the 3000 were told to "Repent and be Baptized for the forgiveness of sins and you shall receive the gift of the holy spirit"

If there ever was a Preacher who preached Baptism it was John the Baptist. This is what he emphasized: this is the new and additional requirement which he brought from God to give
His people the knowledge of salvation by the forgiveness of their sins.

Remember, the beginning of the Gospel of Jesus Christ, the Son of God, started with the preaching of John, and it included preaching a baptism for forgiveness of sins, he told the people to believe in Jesus and in doing he preached a baptism for the forgiveness of sins.

Jesus said: He that believeth and is baptized shall be ......... What?

For those of you that think that salvation is by Faith alone what about Repentance? (Acts 17:30)
If Justification is by Faith alone, then one is saved before and without confessing Christ. The unbeliever does not confess Christ as Lord- only the believer will do that. (Rom.10:9-10)

I think that we Americans who are so used to things being so quick, i.e. fast food, T.V. Changer, credit cards, everything that has made our lives so simple have also allowed that same ideal into our relationship with the Lord and we do it as fast and as painless as possible for us and nevermind the words of the Lord let alone his Commands.:huh:

EdJones

September 29th 2003, 09:57 AM

So, what happens to unbaptized believers?

They are dry cleaned.

mickiel

September 29th 2003, 11:00 AM

Today @ 02:57 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=225203#post225203)
EdJones:

They are dry cleaned.

You hit the nail on the head, Ed. Some Christians are always trying to find ways to condemn others. I think some christians are simply hope erasers, very negative in the areas of salvation and grace or forgiveness. None of these are the attributes of God.

bar Jonah

October 2nd 2003, 12:13 AM

spl_cadet:
Such a case would probably fall under either invincible ignorance or baptism of desire.

From the Catechism of the Catholic Church:
1257 The Lord himself affirms that Baptism is necessary for salvation. 60 He also commands his disciples to proclaim the Gospel to all nations and to baptize them. Baptism is necessary for salvation for those to whom the Gospel has been proclaimed and who have had the possibility of asking for this sacrament. The Church does not know of any means other than Baptism that assures entry into eternal beatitude; this is why she takes care not to neglect the mission she has received from the Lord to see that all who can be baptized are "reborn of water and the Spirit." God has bound salvation to the sacrament of Baptism, but he himself is not bound by his sacraments.

1258 The Church has always held the firm conviction that those who suffer death for the sake of the faith without having received Baptism are baptized by their death for and with Christ. This Baptism of blood, like the desire for Baptism, brings about the fruits of Baptism without being a sacrament.

1259 For catechumens who die before their Baptism, their explicit desire to receive it, together with repentance for their sins, and charity, assures them the salvation that they were not able to receive through the sacrament.

1260 "Since Christ died for all, and since all men are in fact called to one and the same destiny, which is divine, we must hold that the Holy Spirit offers to all the possibility of being made partakers, in a way known to God, of the Paschal mystery." Every man who is ignorant of the Gospel of Christ and of his Church, but seeks the truth and does the will of God in accordance with his understanding of it, can be saved. It may be supposed that such persons would have desired Baptism explicitly if they had known its necessity.

1261 As regards children who have died without Baptism, the Church can only entrust them to the mercy of God, as she does in her funeral rites for them. Indeed, the great mercy of God who desires that all men should be saved, and Jesus' tenderness toward children which caused him to say: "Let the children come to me, do not hinder them," allow us to hope that there is a way of salvation for children who have died without Baptism. All the more urgent is the Church's call not to prevent little children coming to Christ through the gift of holy Baptism.
Wow, I guess according to your Bible v.2.0, I'm going to Hell, then.

(Which I can foresee affecting how we exchange from here on out, since you necessarily now believe I am not a believer.)

jesusreligion

October 5th 2003, 11:45 AM

10-02-2003 @ 12:13 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=229408#post229408)
RightIdea:

Wow, I guess according to your Bible v.2.0, I'm going to Hell, then.

(Which I can foresee affecting how we exchange from here on out, since you necessarily now believe I am not a believer.)

I can dunk your head under water for a couple of bucks! Salvation Guaranteed!
:rofl:

jesusreligion

October 5th 2003, 11:56 AM

07-01-2003 @ 09:16 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=136652#post136652)
daniel1965:

Baptism: Baptizo in Greek, to fully immerse. Baptism was commanded by our Lord in the Great Commission. In order to become a Disciple of his one must be baptized. Who is to question his authority?

Baptism also put's us in Christ where all spiritual blessings are found. Who does not want to be where the spiritual blesssings are.

A sinner is dead in his sins until he is buried in the waters of baptism, he then is raised to newness of life.

John's Baptism was a Baptism of repentance only, on Pentacost the 3000 were told to "Repent and be Baptized for the forgiveness of sins and you shall receive the gift of the holy spirit"

If there ever was a Preacher who preached Baptism it was John the Baptist. This is what he emphasized: this is the new and additional requirement which he brought from God to give
His people the knowledge of salvation by the forgiveness of their sins.

Remember, the beginning of the Gospel of Jesus Christ, the Son of God, started with the preaching of John, and it included preaching a baptism for forgiveness of sins, he told the people to believe in Jesus and in doing he preached a baptism for the forgiveness of sins.

Jesus said: He that believeth and is baptized shall be ......... What?

For those of you that think that salvation is by Faith alone what about Repentance? (Acts 17:30)
If Justification is by Faith alone, then one is saved before and without confessing Christ. The unbeliever does not confess Christ as Lord- only the believer will do that. (Rom.10:9-10)

I think that we Americans who are so used to things being so quick, i.e. fast food, T.V. Changer, credit cards, everything that has made our lives so simple have also allowed that same ideal into our relationship with the Lord and we do it as fast and as painless as possible for us and nevermind the words of the Lord let alone his Commands.:huh:

What a joke! I remember having this same discussion with our youth minister eons ago (when I went to "church"). So, sounds like you got it all figured out with a nice, neat and tidy little formula for salvation. This + this + this = salvation. Wow! A math equation that can used!

The power of God to redeem all does not lie within man's religious formulas and rites...you are searching for law and have found it, my friend. Problem is, I (and those who can hear what the spirit is saying to them) will not follow the Moses you have become and rely on YOU to hear God for me. I'll go up the mountain to see God for myself and TO HIM I will listen.

1 Pet 3:21 "There is also an antitype which now saves us; baptism (not the removal of the filth of the flesh, but the answer of a good conscience toward God)" (scripture for you...)

bar Jonah

October 5th 2003, 01:32 PM

jesusreligion:
I can dunk your head under water for a couple of bucks! Salvation Guaranteed!
:rofl:
No thanks, I already took a public bath. Didn't mean a thing. I promptly went out and became a witch for most of my adult life.

Bill the Cat

October 5th 2003, 01:46 PM

Today @ 01:32 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=234247#post234247)
RightIdea:

No thanks, I already took a public bath. Didn't mean a thing. I promptly went out and became a witch for most of my adult life.

:offtopic:

Jim, did I hear you say you were in Diego Garcia for a while??

bar Jonah

October 5th 2003, 02:10 PM

Bill the Cat:
:offtopic:

Jim, did I hear you say you were in Diego Garcia for a while??
Yuppers! LOVED it! I extended! :rithumb:

Big John

November 15th 2003, 01:44 AM

Those who have faith in Christ unto salvation, are saved. Those who insist that they must be water baptized to earn or complete salvation are all wet! However, Believers in obedience should follow the ordinance of Water baptism by immersion. The faithful want to obey every thing that is commanded in the scripture for those who love Christ. Baptism will not add to or take away from our salvation which Jesus has already bought and paid for. But Consider this: How wonderful it will be for every believe that hears, "Well done, thou good and faithful servant," as they enter the gates of glory. Amen.

EdJones

November 15th 2003, 09:42 AM

Today @ 05:44 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=286832#post286832)
Big John:

Those who have faith in Christ unto salvation, are saved. Those who insist that they must be water baptized to earn or complete salvation are all wet! However, Believers in obedience should follow the ordinance of Water baptism by immersion. The faithful want to obey every thing that is commanded in the scripture for those who love Christ. Baptism will not add to or take away from our salvation which Jesus has already bought and paid for. But Consider this: How wonderful it will be for every believe that hears, "Well done, thou good and faithful servant," as they enter the gates of glory. Amen.

Welcome Big John!

:thumb:

Robyn Banks

November 17th 2003, 06:42 PM

Freak:

I have met a few posters on TWEB that believe, incorrectly I might add, that unless you are baptized in water you have no hope of salvation. What do you think? Do believers who placed their faith in Christ but who have failed to be baptized in water in danger of hell?

What role does water have in ones salvation, if any?

My position on this is this:

I believe justification is by faith and faith alone in Jesus Christ.

Both 'baptism' and 'faith' are a part of the process of salvation. There is only a perceived problem where there is a split in time between the grace of baptism and the grace of faith. But there is no problem in the eyes of God.

It is impossible to divide God's grace of baptism in water, from the giving of His Spirit to Christians. Water-baptism and Spirit-baptism are part of the whole process of salvation.

1 - Baptism in the New Testament is always a baptism of the Spirit, whether "water baptism" or "Spirit baptism".

-Rom 8:9; 1Cor 6:11; 12:13

-There is only one baptism for the body (the Church)
-Ephesians 4:4-6 ("one Lord, one faith, one baptism")

The New Testament views baptism as the initial Christian experience of grace, not a symbolic second experience. Baptism in water is not a mere outward sign of conversion. It has its own power as well: i.e. it is a "sacrament" - a visible sign of an inward and spiritual grace. It is a means of God's grace. As Augustine said, a sacrament is "the visible form of an invisible grace". The grace as a whole is God's leading you to salvation.

2 - Baptism brings salvation

The saving grace of God is present in baptism itself
- Mark 16:16 ("The one who believes and is baptized will be saved")
- Acts 2:38-41 (repentance/baptism saves and gives the gifts of the Spirit. When Peter was asked, on the day of Pentecost, "Brethren, what shall we do?" he did not reply, "repent and believe... for forgiveness.. and the Holy Spirit", but "repent and be baptized")
- Acts 8:12-13 (Philip's preaching in Samaria resulted in baptism)
- 1 Corinthians 12:13 ("By one Spirit we were all baptized into one body")
- Baptism in water is referred to as the "seal of the Spirit" (2 Cor 1:22; Eph 1:13; 4:30)

3 - But baptism is not a "rite" (a ceremony you have to follow, which saves you merely because of what you outwardly do or say)

-The Spirit is not given because of the rite of baptism, but because of what baptism is in fact - the work of the Spirit in the person who recognises the name of the Lord Jesus as their Redeemer (1 Peter 3:21). Baptism into Christ involves union with Christ, and it is this union with Christ that gives the Spirit to us.

- 1 Peter 3:21 (not as a physical act of washing, but as an appeal to God for a good conscience, through the work of Jesus)
- 1 Cor 10:1f
- Galatians 3:27 (Justified by faith, baptized in Christ)
- Romans 6:1ff - it is the gracious action of God Himself, not some impersonal influence, through material substances (note passive mood of Rom 6:1-11)
- Col 2:12 - baptism is from God

4 - To refute the view that baptism is merely symbolic, the New Testament shows the close association between baptism and every element of salvation in the New Testament:
-Forgiveness of sins (Acts 2:38)
-Cleansing from sins (Acts 22:16; 1Cor 6:11)
-Union with Christ (Gal 3:27)
-Union with Him in His death and resurrection (Rom 6:3f; Col 2:11f)
-Participation in sonship (Gal 2:26f)
-Consecration to God (1 Cor 6:11)
-Membership in the church, the body of Christ (1 Cor 12:13; Gal 3:27- 29)
-Possession of the Spirit (Acts 2:38; 1Cor 6:11, 12:13)
-Regeneration/renewal in the Spirit (Tit 3:5-7; John 3:5)
-Deliverance from evil (Col 1:13)
-Inheritance of the Kingdom of God (John 3:5)
-Eternal life (Tit 3:5-7)

i.e. "baptism" is as much the means of salvation as "grace" or "faith". Through baptism God works your salvation.

5 - Michael Green talks of a "trinity" of the means of salvation:

- "Initiation into Christ" is viewed in three ways in scripture:
1 Divine viewpoint: reception of Spirit, adoption, forgiveness,
justification
2 Human viewpoint: repentance, faith
3 Church viewpoint: baptism into the body

- There are three different expressions of the same phenomenon of redemption, yet only one method of redemption. We may equally say that we are saved by grace, by faith, or by baptism, as the bible talks about redemption using each of these means, sometimes in conjunction, sometimes separately. Each is a different view of the same phenomenon of salvation, which is a gift from God, separate from any human work.
- Water and Spirit baptism are can be understood as separate events. But they are merely different aspects of one great initiation complex which includes the inward attitudes of repentance and faith, the outward marks of water-baptism and the laying-on of hands, and the declaration by God of sin's forgiveness and heart renewal.

6 - What of the woman who dies after having faith in Christ, but before she is baptized?

- Baptism may be necessary as a step of faith, and a means of grace by which we can be saved. And it is the usual step that God requires to be taken for salvation. But if a person dies after mere faith in God to save her, how can the grace of God in allowing that person to come near to Him be for nothing? How can the grace shown at the time of conversion not be saving grace, just because that person dies?

- Those who say that baptism could not be part of salvation, just because the new Christian may die before baptism, confuse the true nature of baptism - it is a grace from God, not something that is required to be done!

- And vice versa, if a person has been baptized as an infant and later has faith in God, it would be incorrect to reject God's initial grace in baptism by being baptized again.

7 - God deals with man through this sacrament. We can be sure of this, but need not understand it fully. We can't fully understand God's grace to us, so too with the sacrament of baptism.

"God's way with men in Word and Sacrament, as in other things, is sure; but it is past finding out. Why not say as much?"
-Bernard Manning

Hope that helps.

Robyn Banks