Brody,
I am very familiar with Campbell's writings, debates, etc. I have one book, a debate he had with a Calvinist, N. L. Rice, that is nearly 1000 pages of fine print debating everything about baptism and creeds. As I recall they debated the meaning of the word baptizmo for about 170 pages! They were both exceptionally learned men. Campbell sternly rejected baptisimal regeneration, and he believed the true test of whether one is a Christian is obedience to divine commands, not correctness of opinion. Those who endeavor to follow Jesus in all He commanded he regarded as his brothers and sisters.
He took Acts 2:38 literally and viewed baptism as a token of God's promise of forgiveness. This view can be confused with baptisimal regeneration.
I believe Zwingli was the first to teach that baptism was unnecessary. Luther certainly did not teach this, berating those "who speak wickedly of baptism".
I'm sure the historic Churches of Christ regard the Boston C of C as no part of the movement.
The Church of Christ and necessity of Baptism
Ozark Christian College in Joplin, MO.GCS 98 ~ Which one?
It's funny about these movements that they all begin contrary to denominations but then they all eventually become one. The "restoration movement" began as a group of believers that recognized that all who believed in Christ were brethren but now they are as isolated as the rest. Oh well I guess I'll just join the mormons.
just kidding about the mormon thing.
Last edited by Guest on Wed Dec 31, 1969 7:00 pm, edited 0 times in total.
Reason:
Reason:
Brody,
It sounds like you are trying to goad a "Campbellite" into a debate.
The term "baptismal regeneration" is a pejorative that hinders discussion about the purpose and meaning of baptism. The same is true for comparisons to Jehovah's Witnesses and Mormons. With those threats hanging over us we dare not suggest that baptism is essential for salvation.
The term "baptismal regeneration" is often not well defined. Pedobaptists often use the term to refer to the baptism applied to infants in order to remove the guilt of original sin. To them this is "baptismal regeneration." Lutherans believe that baptism creates faith in the heart of the infant. To them this is "baptismal regeneration." Millions of Christians consider baptism necessary for salvation, yet do not believe in baptismal regeneration, the guilt of original sin, or infant baptism.
Those who deny the necessity of baptism seem to do so for a number of reasons:
1. They see it as a denial of salvation by grace through faith. There is no biblical evidence that there is any conflict between baptism and salvation by grace through faith. Any such conflict is imported to the text rather than read from the text.
2. They can think of situations where baptism is not possible. This is where the thief on the cross is mentioned, however, his circumstance is irrelevant when coming to an understanding of the New Testament teaches about Christian baptism. After all, the thief lived and died before the death and resurrection of Jesus made salvation through Him (as taught by the apostles in the Acts and the epistles) available. As for those run over by a truck as they are on the way to be baptized, they are in the hands of a most merciful God. Their destiny is also irrelevant when coming to and understanding of the New Testament teaching on baptism.
3. They consider baptism as merely a symbol, and the symbol is unnecessary when you have the reality. Baptism is often said to be an outward symbol of the salvation (redemption, justification, forgiveness) that has already been received. This understanding must be imported into the text. No scripture I am aware of demands this conclusion.
4. They fear that to affirm baptism as necessary will imply that those who do not share this position are falsely called Christian. Whether someone else shares the same conclusion is irrelevant in coming to an understanding of the New Testament teaching on baptism. Those who misunderstand the New Testament teaching on baptism, yet follow Jesus to the best of their knowledge and ability are in the hands of a most merciful God.
5. Sectarian Pride. They do not wish to share a belief in common with (fill in the name of your least favorite religious group here).
Those who affirm the necessity of baptism can fall into some traps:
1. They may erroneously rely on their own obedience rather than God’s grace. These people need an education and come to realize that only God has the power to save.
2. They may become sectarian. Those who believe in the baptism of believers by immersion for the forgiveness of sins are a definite minority who can easily become isolated. This isolation often fosters a sectarian spirit.
3. They may become legalists. On the other hand, those who do not consider baptism necessary for salvation may also become legalists.
You asked for our thoughts, here are some of mine.
It sounds like you are trying to goad a "Campbellite" into a debate.
The term "baptismal regeneration" is a pejorative that hinders discussion about the purpose and meaning of baptism. The same is true for comparisons to Jehovah's Witnesses and Mormons. With those threats hanging over us we dare not suggest that baptism is essential for salvation.
The term "baptismal regeneration" is often not well defined. Pedobaptists often use the term to refer to the baptism applied to infants in order to remove the guilt of original sin. To them this is "baptismal regeneration." Lutherans believe that baptism creates faith in the heart of the infant. To them this is "baptismal regeneration." Millions of Christians consider baptism necessary for salvation, yet do not believe in baptismal regeneration, the guilt of original sin, or infant baptism.
Those who deny the necessity of baptism seem to do so for a number of reasons:
1. They see it as a denial of salvation by grace through faith. There is no biblical evidence that there is any conflict between baptism and salvation by grace through faith. Any such conflict is imported to the text rather than read from the text.
2. They can think of situations where baptism is not possible. This is where the thief on the cross is mentioned, however, his circumstance is irrelevant when coming to an understanding of the New Testament teaches about Christian baptism. After all, the thief lived and died before the death and resurrection of Jesus made salvation through Him (as taught by the apostles in the Acts and the epistles) available. As for those run over by a truck as they are on the way to be baptized, they are in the hands of a most merciful God. Their destiny is also irrelevant when coming to and understanding of the New Testament teaching on baptism.
3. They consider baptism as merely a symbol, and the symbol is unnecessary when you have the reality. Baptism is often said to be an outward symbol of the salvation (redemption, justification, forgiveness) that has already been received. This understanding must be imported into the text. No scripture I am aware of demands this conclusion.
4. They fear that to affirm baptism as necessary will imply that those who do not share this position are falsely called Christian. Whether someone else shares the same conclusion is irrelevant in coming to an understanding of the New Testament teaching on baptism. Those who misunderstand the New Testament teaching on baptism, yet follow Jesus to the best of their knowledge and ability are in the hands of a most merciful God.
5. Sectarian Pride. They do not wish to share a belief in common with (fill in the name of your least favorite religious group here).
Those who affirm the necessity of baptism can fall into some traps:
1. They may erroneously rely on their own obedience rather than God’s grace. These people need an education and come to realize that only God has the power to save.
2. They may become sectarian. Those who believe in the baptism of believers by immersion for the forgiveness of sins are a definite minority who can easily become isolated. This isolation often fosters a sectarian spirit.
3. They may become legalists. On the other hand, those who do not consider baptism necessary for salvation may also become legalists.
You asked for our thoughts, here are some of mine.
Last edited by Guest on Wed Dec 31, 1969 7:00 pm, edited 0 times in total.
Reason:
Reason:
-
_brody_in_ga
- Posts: 237
- Joined: Fri Dec 23, 2005 8:55 pm
- Location: Richland Ga
I assure you that my intentions are not to "goad" anyone into a debate. Maybe when I was in third grade this would have been thought worthy. Such is not the case now. While most of what you said is true, the phrase that stuck out to me the most was: "They may become sectarian. Those who believe in the baptism of believers by immersion for the forgiveness of sins are a definite minority who can easily become isolated. This isolation often fosters a sectarian spirit."SamIam wrote:Brody,
It sounds like you are trying to goad a "Campbellite" into a debate.
The term "baptismal regeneration" is a pejorative that hinders discussion about the purpose and meaning of baptism. The same is true for comparisons to Jehovah's Witnesses and Mormons. With those threats hanging over us we dare not suggest that baptism is essential for salvation.
The term "baptismal regeneration" is often not well defined. Pedobaptists often use the term to refer to the baptism applied to infants in order to remove the guilt of original sin. To them this is "baptismal regeneration." Lutherans believe that baptism creates faith in the heart of the infant. To them this is "baptismal regeneration." Millions of Christians consider baptism necessary for salvation, yet do not believe in baptismal regeneration, the guilt of original sin, or infant baptism.
Those who deny the necessity of baptism seem to do so for a number of reasons:
1. They see it as a denial of salvation by grace through faith. There is no biblical evidence that there is any conflict between baptism and salvation by grace through faith. Any such conflict is imported to the text rather than read from the text.
2. They can think of situations where baptism is not possible. This is where the thief on the cross is mentioned, however, his circumstance is irrelevant when coming to an understanding of the New Testament teaches about Christian baptism. After all, the thief lived and died before the death and resurrection of Jesus made salvation through Him (as taught by the apostles in the Acts and the epistles) available. As for those run over by a truck as they are on the way to be baptized, they are in the hands of a most merciful God. Their destiny is also irrelevant when coming to and understanding of the New Testament teaching on baptism.
3. They consider baptism as merely a symbol, and the symbol is unnecessary when you have the reality. Baptism is often said to be an outward symbol of the salvation (redemption, justification, forgiveness) that has already been received. This understanding must be imported into the text. No scripture I am aware of demands this conclusion.
4. They fear that to affirm baptism as necessary will imply that those who do not share this position are falsely called Christian. Whether someone else shares the same conclusion is irrelevant in coming to an understanding of the New Testament teaching on baptism. Those who misunderstand the New Testament teaching on baptism, yet follow Jesus to the best of their knowledge and ability are in the hands of a most merciful God.
5. Sectarian Pride. They do not wish to share a belief in common with (fill in the name of your least favorite religious group here).
Those who affirm the necessity of baptism can fall into some traps:
1. They may erroneously rely on their own obedience rather than God’s grace. These people need an education and come to realize that only God has the power to save.
2. They may become sectarian. Those who believe in the baptism of believers by immersion for the forgiveness of sins are a definite minority who can easily become isolated. This isolation often fosters a sectarian spirit.
3. They may become legalists. On the other hand, those who do not consider baptism necessary for salvation may also become legalists.
You asked for our thoughts, here are some of mine.
This is exactly what the "Campbellites" or modern day Church of Christ movement has done. They will not even associate with other brothers who hold a different view of water baptism. Atleast the ones in my area are this way.
I think it boils down to our view of salvation. I think the scriptures teach that man is justified by grace through faith in the death, burial and ressurection of Jesus + nothing. Now don't misunderstand me when I say this, faith if it is alone, is not faith. But faith that motivates one to "work" is what I believe the bible defines as faith. Think about it this way: When I came to the knowledge that I was a lost sinner on the way to hell, I recieved the gift that Christ offers to anyone seeking. I accepted it in faith and trusted what God said would save me was good enough. Because of my faith in his promises, I pray, read the bible, give, ETC.. and every other thing that pertains to Christianity. I didn't appeal to God for salvation by getting baptised and standing in front of a bunch of people and confessing a creed. Although these things are important.
Thanks for your thoughts.
Last edited by Guest on Wed Dec 31, 1969 7:00 pm, edited 0 times in total.
Reason:
Reason:
For our God is a consuming fire.
Hebrews 12:29
Hebrews 12:29
Sam I Am,
You mentioned several possible reasons that people deny the necessity of water baptism for salvation and then gave comments on those points. I would like to offer some thoughts on these points also.
I do not believe water baptism is necessary for salvation, but it is commanded of all Christians by the Lord Jesus. In fact, some of the earliest Christian writings we have (even as far back as the second century) show us that many in the early church felt that following Christ's command to be water baptised was the simplest of His commands to follow and they therefore reasoned that if a person was unwilling to be baptised, then there was no proof that said person was willing to do anything Jesus commanded them to. After all, getting dunked in a lake (or however your congregation believes baptism should be performed) is pretty simple and requires very little "faith" if you will. For this reason, a person was not officially recognized as a member of the church until they were water baptised (I know there was a thread about church membership, but for the sake of the discussion let's not focus on that particular now). However, the Didache, the earliest Christian writing we have left from antiquity besides the Bible, which descirbes this thinking, does not go so far as to say that water baptism is part of the salvation work.
I would like to comment on some of what you wrote. I realize that you were giving two points of view to the discussion and were attempting to be as even handed as possible, so these are not rebuttals but simply comments on what you wrote.
1. They see it as a denial of salvation by grace through faith. There is no biblical evidence that there is any conflict between baptism and salvation by grace through faith. Any such conflict is imported to the text rather than read from the text.
I agree that there is no conflict between water baptism and salvation, but my belief in that statement is based on the understanding that it is not necessary to be baptised in order to be saved. It is necessary to be baptised to be obedient and to follow the pattern set in the New Testament, though many churches do not follow the example set in Acts where a believer was baptised quite soon (if not immediately) after their profession of faith.
I, for example, was converted many months prior to my water baptism. My church never taught me that water baptism was not to be delayed indefinitely,as if it was unimportant. I was unaware of the Biblical pattern until much later in my walk with Jesus. However, during the time from my conversion to my water baptism, I am confident Biblically that I was saved because I was bearing the fruits of the Spirit and the changes in my life made it clear that Jesus was my Lord. As a servant who knew very little about the Bible, I was a servant who in his ignorance was unaware of many things the Lord would have wanted me to do. However, I do believe that God's grace covered my ignorance and He eventually led me in believer's baptism.
The fact that the book of Acts shows water baptism in close proximity to a convert's profession of faith is where many people draw the idea of baptism as necessary for salvation from. Yet the book of Acts never goes so far as to say that. For example, in Acts 8, the Ethiopian eunuch saw water and asked "What hinders me from being baptized?". Philip answered "If you believe with all your heart, you may". It seems to me that Philip saw baptism as an act that only a believer could perform, and that the eunuch's faith is what his conversion hinged upon in Philip's understanding.
I would argue that if salvation requires baptism, then there is in fact a great deal of tension in the Bible with many verses that fail to mention that and that go so far as to make it sound as if faith alone is required. I would press you on whether baptism is a sign of salvation or a means to salvation. We are saved by grace through faith alone. Like circumcision, which I do not believe is an antitype of water baptism, these acts were required of those who wanted to obey God. Yet "Abraham believed God and it was accounted to him for righteousness" (Ro. 4:2-4), and this occured prior to any command to be circumcised or baptized.
2. They can think of situations where baptism is not possible. This is where the thief on the cross is mentioned, however, his circumstance is irrelevant when coming to an understanding of the New Testament teaches about Christian baptism. After all, the thief lived and died before the death and resurrection of Jesus made salvation through Him (as taught by the apostles in the Acts and the epistles) available. As for those run over by a truck as they are on the way to be baptized, they are in the hands of a most merciful God. Their destiny is also irrelevant when coming to and understanding of the New Testament teaching on baptism.
Just because Jesus had not yet died does not mean that faith in Jesus was insufficient to save this man on the cross. Nor would ignorance have given him an excuse, since it is doubtful that being surrounded by a Jewish society that he could have truly claimed ignorance of right and wrong. After all, he had his entire life to act upon the light that God had exposed him to and he apparently had chosen not to. He really had no excuse to ask for special considerations.
Faith in Jesus prior to His death still saved just as faith in God in the OT saved - Christ's death according to Paul in I Cor. 15:13-15 proves that our faith in Jesus is not misplaced. Since He has risen from the dead, He proves that He has power over the grave and sin (since sin wields the sword of death as the penalty for sinners) and that He has the ability to raise us also on the last day. It is yet another proof that He is the Son of God. To believe in Jesus if He were still dead and buried, as Paul explains, would offer no real assurance that Jesus could make good on His promises to resurrect us if He could not even resurrect Himself.
Faith has always been the only manner in which a person was saved or pleased God. Romans 4 shows how this was true of Abraham, who was made righteous by his faith in God before there was a command to be circumcised and hundreds of years prior to the Mosaic law. In OT times, the law dictated what righteous and unrighteous behavior was, and therefore a faithful person would follow God's law. But that is not the same as saying that obedience to the law saved. And in the OT period, water baptism was not a central part of the Jewish religion as it is in Christianity. In fact, baptism as we know it was more for Jewish proselytes, who were Gentiles who were converted to Judaism. Circumcision was actually the central act of obedience to enter in to the Old Covenant, and we are told in the New Testament that this has been replaced with a circumcision of the heart (the conversion experience of a changed heart is the fulfillment of the type of OT circumcision).
There is only one path to God for all people of all time and it is via faith. God has revealed Himself more fully in the New Testament by sending us His Son, and certainly the Old and New Covenants have important differences, but faith has always been the only requirement for salvation.
The theif on the cross had faith and was saved. Jesus said so. He was not condemned by God because his life as a Christian lasted only a few hours and he didn't have the chance to be baptised, nor was a special exception made for his salvation because normally your supposed to be baptised but he didn't have the chance. That would make God a respector of persons, I believe, and would make the statements of Scripture about the singularity of the path to salvation appear misleading. There is not a detour or "fast-track" to heaven for people who are more stubborn or tardy about repenting and getting on with obeying God. Further, if baptism was required for salvation, God would not be unjust to send the thief to hell. It was his fault that he commited crimes deserving of death, and his fault if he could not meet the water baptism requirement. There must not be such a requirement because Jesus told this unwashed man that they would be together in paradise.
3. They consider baptism as merely a symbol, and the symbol is unnecessary when you have the reality. Baptism is often said to be an outward symbol of the salvation (redemption, justification, forgiveness) that has already been received. This understanding must be imported into the text. No scripture I am aware of demands this conclusion.
Well, there is no verse that says verbatim what you wrote above. But there are verses that say we are saved by faith and not by works. Why make baptism an exception to not being saved by works. Baptism is not a belief, it is an act of obedience. Why is that one act of obedience necessary to save but others like giving to the poor, church attendance, not murdering, evangelism....why are these non-salvific?
In Romans 6:1-4, I believe Paul tells us what the significance of water baptism is. He mentions that we should not sin thinking that grace will abound more if we sin more (obviously). But then he says:
"How shall we who died to sin live any longer in it? Or do you not know that as many of us who were baptized in Christ Jesus were baptized into His death? Therefore we were buried with Him through baptism into death, that just as Christ was raised from the dead by the glory of the Father, even so we also should walk in newness of life."
I take these verses to mean that water baptism (especially if the submerssion technique is in view) represents symbolically the death (submerssion) and resurrection (coming out of the physical water) of Jesus. Since Jesus dies this death for us, and according to Paul "in Him we all died", Paul argues that we should act like it. We have died to our old life as unregenerate sinners and now have a new life spiritually, just as in the future we will have new bodies and a New Heaven and New Earth. Jesus makes all things new, so why revert to our old manner of living which is out of sync with our new heart obtained for us at the high price of Christ's death? The act of baptism re-enacts the burial and resurrection of Jesus and underscores that we participated in that even by proxy. His death and resurrection and what it accomplished was counted to our record. We, mysteriously, become partakers in that act as Christians and baptism symbolizes that.
Also, I think Peter echoes the same sentiment in I Peter 3:21 where he refers to baptism this way, "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), through the resurrection of Jesus Christ..."
Baptism is an antitype, meaning it is a shadow of something real. Shadows are not of any substance, they are simply the abscence of light cast around something or someone. The fact that Peter refers to baptism in this manner means that it is symbolic of something, and he tells us that its value is not as much in the physical act itself (the washing away of filth from the flesh) but rather what it pictures. It pictures that through the death and resurrection of Jesus, we have been spiritually resurrected from the dead with a clean conscience toward God.
4. They fear that to affirm baptism as necessary will imply that those who do not share this position are falsely called Christian. Whether someone else shares the same conclusion is irrelevant in coming to an understanding of the New Testament teaching on baptism. Those who misunderstand the New Testament teaching on baptism, yet follow Jesus to the best of their knowledge and ability are in the hands of a most merciful God.
I have learned to be a lot less judgemental of people who do not share my beliefs on different theological topics. I no longer am offended that some of my brothers are dispensational or Calvinists or that they don't believe in the same set of gifts of the Spirit that I do. I have learned that there is a lot of room for us all under God's tent, so long as we are all in Jesus.
I appreciate you sentiment, but how a person is saved is central to who a believer is or is not. It is the core of our identity. The other things that follow are important but not damning if we are wrong, which is why diagreements on those subjects are to be tempered with charity as disagreements between brethren and not issues that define who our brethren are. Thankfully, God has not asked me to decide each individual's status as saved or unsaved, but I would worry about a person's soul if they felt that faith also required to be topped off with water baptism in order to be saved. I cannot see a difference between that and any other "faith plus works" system that is out there. The Mormons believe this, as you may know. In the Book of Mormon in II Nephi 25:23b it says "...for we know that it is by grace that we are saved, after all we can do." I fear that belief in water baptism as "part B" of the steps of entering into fellowship with God is too close to the doctrines of the cults to be just another peripheral disagreement in amongst Christians.
5. Sectarian Pride. They do not wish to share a belief in common with (fill in the name of your least favorite religious group here).
I hope I don't fall into this trap; I have before when I was younger in the Lord, but over different issues. This issue, however, is one I feel is worth going to the mat over.
Sorry this post is so long. I look forward to hearing responses to it.
You mentioned several possible reasons that people deny the necessity of water baptism for salvation and then gave comments on those points. I would like to offer some thoughts on these points also.
I do not believe water baptism is necessary for salvation, but it is commanded of all Christians by the Lord Jesus. In fact, some of the earliest Christian writings we have (even as far back as the second century) show us that many in the early church felt that following Christ's command to be water baptised was the simplest of His commands to follow and they therefore reasoned that if a person was unwilling to be baptised, then there was no proof that said person was willing to do anything Jesus commanded them to. After all, getting dunked in a lake (or however your congregation believes baptism should be performed) is pretty simple and requires very little "faith" if you will. For this reason, a person was not officially recognized as a member of the church until they were water baptised (I know there was a thread about church membership, but for the sake of the discussion let's not focus on that particular now). However, the Didache, the earliest Christian writing we have left from antiquity besides the Bible, which descirbes this thinking, does not go so far as to say that water baptism is part of the salvation work.
I would like to comment on some of what you wrote. I realize that you were giving two points of view to the discussion and were attempting to be as even handed as possible, so these are not rebuttals but simply comments on what you wrote.
1. They see it as a denial of salvation by grace through faith. There is no biblical evidence that there is any conflict between baptism and salvation by grace through faith. Any such conflict is imported to the text rather than read from the text.
I agree that there is no conflict between water baptism and salvation, but my belief in that statement is based on the understanding that it is not necessary to be baptised in order to be saved. It is necessary to be baptised to be obedient and to follow the pattern set in the New Testament, though many churches do not follow the example set in Acts where a believer was baptised quite soon (if not immediately) after their profession of faith.
I, for example, was converted many months prior to my water baptism. My church never taught me that water baptism was not to be delayed indefinitely,as if it was unimportant. I was unaware of the Biblical pattern until much later in my walk with Jesus. However, during the time from my conversion to my water baptism, I am confident Biblically that I was saved because I was bearing the fruits of the Spirit and the changes in my life made it clear that Jesus was my Lord. As a servant who knew very little about the Bible, I was a servant who in his ignorance was unaware of many things the Lord would have wanted me to do. However, I do believe that God's grace covered my ignorance and He eventually led me in believer's baptism.
The fact that the book of Acts shows water baptism in close proximity to a convert's profession of faith is where many people draw the idea of baptism as necessary for salvation from. Yet the book of Acts never goes so far as to say that. For example, in Acts 8, the Ethiopian eunuch saw water and asked "What hinders me from being baptized?". Philip answered "If you believe with all your heart, you may". It seems to me that Philip saw baptism as an act that only a believer could perform, and that the eunuch's faith is what his conversion hinged upon in Philip's understanding.
I would argue that if salvation requires baptism, then there is in fact a great deal of tension in the Bible with many verses that fail to mention that and that go so far as to make it sound as if faith alone is required. I would press you on whether baptism is a sign of salvation or a means to salvation. We are saved by grace through faith alone. Like circumcision, which I do not believe is an antitype of water baptism, these acts were required of those who wanted to obey God. Yet "Abraham believed God and it was accounted to him for righteousness" (Ro. 4:2-4), and this occured prior to any command to be circumcised or baptized.
2. They can think of situations where baptism is not possible. This is where the thief on the cross is mentioned, however, his circumstance is irrelevant when coming to an understanding of the New Testament teaches about Christian baptism. After all, the thief lived and died before the death and resurrection of Jesus made salvation through Him (as taught by the apostles in the Acts and the epistles) available. As for those run over by a truck as they are on the way to be baptized, they are in the hands of a most merciful God. Their destiny is also irrelevant when coming to and understanding of the New Testament teaching on baptism.
Just because Jesus had not yet died does not mean that faith in Jesus was insufficient to save this man on the cross. Nor would ignorance have given him an excuse, since it is doubtful that being surrounded by a Jewish society that he could have truly claimed ignorance of right and wrong. After all, he had his entire life to act upon the light that God had exposed him to and he apparently had chosen not to. He really had no excuse to ask for special considerations.
Faith in Jesus prior to His death still saved just as faith in God in the OT saved - Christ's death according to Paul in I Cor. 15:13-15 proves that our faith in Jesus is not misplaced. Since He has risen from the dead, He proves that He has power over the grave and sin (since sin wields the sword of death as the penalty for sinners) and that He has the ability to raise us also on the last day. It is yet another proof that He is the Son of God. To believe in Jesus if He were still dead and buried, as Paul explains, would offer no real assurance that Jesus could make good on His promises to resurrect us if He could not even resurrect Himself.
Faith has always been the only manner in which a person was saved or pleased God. Romans 4 shows how this was true of Abraham, who was made righteous by his faith in God before there was a command to be circumcised and hundreds of years prior to the Mosaic law. In OT times, the law dictated what righteous and unrighteous behavior was, and therefore a faithful person would follow God's law. But that is not the same as saying that obedience to the law saved. And in the OT period, water baptism was not a central part of the Jewish religion as it is in Christianity. In fact, baptism as we know it was more for Jewish proselytes, who were Gentiles who were converted to Judaism. Circumcision was actually the central act of obedience to enter in to the Old Covenant, and we are told in the New Testament that this has been replaced with a circumcision of the heart (the conversion experience of a changed heart is the fulfillment of the type of OT circumcision).
There is only one path to God for all people of all time and it is via faith. God has revealed Himself more fully in the New Testament by sending us His Son, and certainly the Old and New Covenants have important differences, but faith has always been the only requirement for salvation.
The theif on the cross had faith and was saved. Jesus said so. He was not condemned by God because his life as a Christian lasted only a few hours and he didn't have the chance to be baptised, nor was a special exception made for his salvation because normally your supposed to be baptised but he didn't have the chance. That would make God a respector of persons, I believe, and would make the statements of Scripture about the singularity of the path to salvation appear misleading. There is not a detour or "fast-track" to heaven for people who are more stubborn or tardy about repenting and getting on with obeying God. Further, if baptism was required for salvation, God would not be unjust to send the thief to hell. It was his fault that he commited crimes deserving of death, and his fault if he could not meet the water baptism requirement. There must not be such a requirement because Jesus told this unwashed man that they would be together in paradise.
3. They consider baptism as merely a symbol, and the symbol is unnecessary when you have the reality. Baptism is often said to be an outward symbol of the salvation (redemption, justification, forgiveness) that has already been received. This understanding must be imported into the text. No scripture I am aware of demands this conclusion.
Well, there is no verse that says verbatim what you wrote above. But there are verses that say we are saved by faith and not by works. Why make baptism an exception to not being saved by works. Baptism is not a belief, it is an act of obedience. Why is that one act of obedience necessary to save but others like giving to the poor, church attendance, not murdering, evangelism....why are these non-salvific?
In Romans 6:1-4, I believe Paul tells us what the significance of water baptism is. He mentions that we should not sin thinking that grace will abound more if we sin more (obviously). But then he says:
"How shall we who died to sin live any longer in it? Or do you not know that as many of us who were baptized in Christ Jesus were baptized into His death? Therefore we were buried with Him through baptism into death, that just as Christ was raised from the dead by the glory of the Father, even so we also should walk in newness of life."
I take these verses to mean that water baptism (especially if the submerssion technique is in view) represents symbolically the death (submerssion) and resurrection (coming out of the physical water) of Jesus. Since Jesus dies this death for us, and according to Paul "in Him we all died", Paul argues that we should act like it. We have died to our old life as unregenerate sinners and now have a new life spiritually, just as in the future we will have new bodies and a New Heaven and New Earth. Jesus makes all things new, so why revert to our old manner of living which is out of sync with our new heart obtained for us at the high price of Christ's death? The act of baptism re-enacts the burial and resurrection of Jesus and underscores that we participated in that even by proxy. His death and resurrection and what it accomplished was counted to our record. We, mysteriously, become partakers in that act as Christians and baptism symbolizes that.
Also, I think Peter echoes the same sentiment in I Peter 3:21 where he refers to baptism this way, "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), through the resurrection of Jesus Christ..."
Baptism is an antitype, meaning it is a shadow of something real. Shadows are not of any substance, they are simply the abscence of light cast around something or someone. The fact that Peter refers to baptism in this manner means that it is symbolic of something, and he tells us that its value is not as much in the physical act itself (the washing away of filth from the flesh) but rather what it pictures. It pictures that through the death and resurrection of Jesus, we have been spiritually resurrected from the dead with a clean conscience toward God.
4. They fear that to affirm baptism as necessary will imply that those who do not share this position are falsely called Christian. Whether someone else shares the same conclusion is irrelevant in coming to an understanding of the New Testament teaching on baptism. Those who misunderstand the New Testament teaching on baptism, yet follow Jesus to the best of their knowledge and ability are in the hands of a most merciful God.
I have learned to be a lot less judgemental of people who do not share my beliefs on different theological topics. I no longer am offended that some of my brothers are dispensational or Calvinists or that they don't believe in the same set of gifts of the Spirit that I do. I have learned that there is a lot of room for us all under God's tent, so long as we are all in Jesus.
I appreciate you sentiment, but how a person is saved is central to who a believer is or is not. It is the core of our identity. The other things that follow are important but not damning if we are wrong, which is why diagreements on those subjects are to be tempered with charity as disagreements between brethren and not issues that define who our brethren are. Thankfully, God has not asked me to decide each individual's status as saved or unsaved, but I would worry about a person's soul if they felt that faith also required to be topped off with water baptism in order to be saved. I cannot see a difference between that and any other "faith plus works" system that is out there. The Mormons believe this, as you may know. In the Book of Mormon in II Nephi 25:23b it says "...for we know that it is by grace that we are saved, after all we can do." I fear that belief in water baptism as "part B" of the steps of entering into fellowship with God is too close to the doctrines of the cults to be just another peripheral disagreement in amongst Christians.
5. Sectarian Pride. They do not wish to share a belief in common with (fill in the name of your least favorite religious group here).
I hope I don't fall into this trap; I have before when I was younger in the Lord, but over different issues. This issue, however, is one I feel is worth going to the mat over.
Sorry this post is so long. I look forward to hearing responses to it.
Last edited by Guest on Wed Dec 31, 1969 7:00 pm, edited 0 times in total.
Reason:
Reason:
In Christ,
David
David
Brody,
Churches of Christ come in many flavors and some in them sadly are sectarian. Others are not. Your experience with them will no doubt vary.
I stand with you in the affirmation that only God has the power to save, and that salvation is by His grace, through faith in Jesus. I also stand with you in the affirmation that true faith is obedient.
You mentioned your “appeal to God for salvation.” Peter writes that … “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.” (1 Pet. 3:21 ESV) While this passage certainly deserves a careful exegesis, it appears to read “Baptism …saves you …as an appeal to God for a good conscience, through the resurrection of Jesus Christ.” Perhaps baptism is the method used to make such an appeal to God. This is consistent with what was told Saul “And now why do you wait? Rise and be baptized and wash away your sins, calling on his name.” (Acts 22:16 ESV) Whether being baptized and calling on God’s name (appealing to God for salvation?) are one act or two, they go together.
David,
The question I have is how did you derive your conclusion that it is not necessary to be baptized to be saved?
I must agree the book of Acts does not contain the quotation “baptism is necessary for salvation,” yet it says;
"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.” (Acts2:38 ESV)
“But when they believed Philip as he preached good news about the kingdom of God and the name of Jesus Christ, they were baptized, both men and women.” (Acts 8:12 ESV)
“And Paul said, "John baptized with the baptism of repentance, telling the people to believe in the one who was to come after him, that is, Jesus." On hearing this, they were baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus.” (Acts 19:4,5 ESV)
“And now why do you wait? Rise and be baptized and wash away your sins, calling on his name.” (Acts 22:16 ESV)
It seems that consistently (if not uniformly) the book of Acts reports that people were called upon to be baptized at the time of their conversion. It could be a coincidence. It could be because baptism is the natural response to the preaching they heard. Perhaps the apostles and evangelists in Acts considered it necessary for salvation and never failed to present it to their hearers.
With regard to the verses that describe salvation, yet do not mention baptism, it seems you are employing the following syllogism.
If a verse states that faith alone is a requirement for salvation, then baptism is not necessary for salvation.
Many verses state that faith alone is a requirement for salvation.
Therefore baptism is not a requirement for salvation.
This is a valid argument. However I do not concede the premise. Faith, as I understand it taught in the Bible, has several aspects. It certainly includes acceptance of something as a fact (God is, I am a sinner, Jesus died for me, etc.). It definitely includes the aspect of trust and dependence. It also includes obedience. Oddly enough, a quick search on BibleGateway reveals that the only time the phrase “faith alone” occurs in the Bible the verse says “You see that a person is justified by works and not by faith alone.” (James 2:24) What should we make of that?
I cannot concede that the statement “salvation is by faith” means “salvation is by faith and baptism is not required.” Repentance is also required for salvation. This is not in tension with the teaching that salvation is by faith alone.
With regard to whether baptism is a sign of salvation or a means to salvation: The only means of salvation is the saving act of God as performed in the atonement made possible by His Son (forgive me if this statement is inelegant or incomplete). God saves those who put their faith in Jesus. That is the only means of salvation. I consider faith to be a condition for salvation. There is no power to save in my faith. The only power to save is God’s. (I’m probably attracting the attention of the Calvinists who might insist that the only way I can have faith is if God puts it in me, but that may be another discussion.) I consider baptism to be a part of my responding to God’s grace. In baptism I identify myself with Jesus (baptized in His name, baptized into Him, baptized into His death, raised to walk with Him in a new life.) This seems perfectly consistent with what I read in Acts. What I do not read in Acts is an account where people are told “now that you are saved, follow Christ in baptism,” but maybe I have missed such a verse.
With regard to the thief on the cross, I do not argue that his faith was insufficient to save. I only argue that since he never heard the message of salvation through Jesus, based on His death and resurrection, as preached in Acts, the fact that he did not respond in baptism says nothing about whether we should respond in baptism.
Regarding faith and works: There are several verses that say we are saved by faith and not works. But still repentance is required. Repentance is not belief; it also is an act of obedience. May not baptism also be required without violating this principle? As for the other acts of obedience you mentioned (giving to the poor, etc.) don’t be so sure they are not required for salvation. Doesn’t Jesus send away some call to Him “Lord, Lord,” but fail to do some of these things you mention.
Does God have unnecessary commandments? Are there optional acts of obedience? All I can affirm is that there is no power to save in my faith or my obedience. The power to save is God’s alone. I can do nothing but submit to Him, and rest assured it is a very incomplete submission.
I concur completely with your comments on Romans 6. Doesn’t this verse make a lot of sense if Paul’s readers all considered their baptism into Christ was the beginning of their new life in Christ? That is, their baptism was a part of their response of faith in Christ? Would they have considered baptism not necessary for salvation? It seems it was the very picture of their salvation.
With regard to 1 Peter 3:21, you are making a fine point of how baptism “corresponds” (ESV) to how Noah and his family were brought safely through water. I wholly agree that the water does not remove sin, but our baptism is “an appeal to God for a good conscience.” Talk about your sinner’s prayer, maybe the biblical way to say it is to be baptized and through that act call out to God for forgiveness.
On the issues that define who our brethren are: It is my intention to accept all who claim the name of Jesus. Whether they (or I) are ultimately saved is in God’s hands. Inevitably we will disagree. Perhaps we can minimize the disagreements if we try to keep our beliefs as close to the book as possible. I was shocked recently to learn from the internet that if I believe baptism is necessary for salvation I belong to a cult. It looks like somebody does not consider me a brother.
As for faith topped off with water baptism; it is your misunderstanding that equates what I consider the biblical teaching on salvation and baptism with a “faith plus works” system. Your assertion does not make it so.
The role of baptism is an issue that many will go the mat over. We may have to agree to disagree. Assigning those you disagree with to cult status however, is not likely to bring peace and understanding.
Give it some thought. Baptism for the remission of sins is not so scary. It might be, in fact, biblical.
Churches of Christ come in many flavors and some in them sadly are sectarian. Others are not. Your experience with them will no doubt vary.
I stand with you in the affirmation that only God has the power to save, and that salvation is by His grace, through faith in Jesus. I also stand with you in the affirmation that true faith is obedient.
You mentioned your “appeal to God for salvation.” Peter writes that … “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.” (1 Pet. 3:21 ESV) While this passage certainly deserves a careful exegesis, it appears to read “Baptism …saves you …as an appeal to God for a good conscience, through the resurrection of Jesus Christ.” Perhaps baptism is the method used to make such an appeal to God. This is consistent with what was told Saul “And now why do you wait? Rise and be baptized and wash away your sins, calling on his name.” (Acts 22:16 ESV) Whether being baptized and calling on God’s name (appealing to God for salvation?) are one act or two, they go together.
David,
The question I have is how did you derive your conclusion that it is not necessary to be baptized to be saved?
I must agree the book of Acts does not contain the quotation “baptism is necessary for salvation,” yet it says;
"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.” (Acts2:38 ESV)
“But when they believed Philip as he preached good news about the kingdom of God and the name of Jesus Christ, they were baptized, both men and women.” (Acts 8:12 ESV)
“And Paul said, "John baptized with the baptism of repentance, telling the people to believe in the one who was to come after him, that is, Jesus." On hearing this, they were baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus.” (Acts 19:4,5 ESV)
“And now why do you wait? Rise and be baptized and wash away your sins, calling on his name.” (Acts 22:16 ESV)
It seems that consistently (if not uniformly) the book of Acts reports that people were called upon to be baptized at the time of their conversion. It could be a coincidence. It could be because baptism is the natural response to the preaching they heard. Perhaps the apostles and evangelists in Acts considered it necessary for salvation and never failed to present it to their hearers.
With regard to the verses that describe salvation, yet do not mention baptism, it seems you are employing the following syllogism.
If a verse states that faith alone is a requirement for salvation, then baptism is not necessary for salvation.
Many verses state that faith alone is a requirement for salvation.
Therefore baptism is not a requirement for salvation.
This is a valid argument. However I do not concede the premise. Faith, as I understand it taught in the Bible, has several aspects. It certainly includes acceptance of something as a fact (God is, I am a sinner, Jesus died for me, etc.). It definitely includes the aspect of trust and dependence. It also includes obedience. Oddly enough, a quick search on BibleGateway reveals that the only time the phrase “faith alone” occurs in the Bible the verse says “You see that a person is justified by works and not by faith alone.” (James 2:24) What should we make of that?
I cannot concede that the statement “salvation is by faith” means “salvation is by faith and baptism is not required.” Repentance is also required for salvation. This is not in tension with the teaching that salvation is by faith alone.
With regard to whether baptism is a sign of salvation or a means to salvation: The only means of salvation is the saving act of God as performed in the atonement made possible by His Son (forgive me if this statement is inelegant or incomplete). God saves those who put their faith in Jesus. That is the only means of salvation. I consider faith to be a condition for salvation. There is no power to save in my faith. The only power to save is God’s. (I’m probably attracting the attention of the Calvinists who might insist that the only way I can have faith is if God puts it in me, but that may be another discussion.) I consider baptism to be a part of my responding to God’s grace. In baptism I identify myself with Jesus (baptized in His name, baptized into Him, baptized into His death, raised to walk with Him in a new life.) This seems perfectly consistent with what I read in Acts. What I do not read in Acts is an account where people are told “now that you are saved, follow Christ in baptism,” but maybe I have missed such a verse.
With regard to the thief on the cross, I do not argue that his faith was insufficient to save. I only argue that since he never heard the message of salvation through Jesus, based on His death and resurrection, as preached in Acts, the fact that he did not respond in baptism says nothing about whether we should respond in baptism.
Regarding faith and works: There are several verses that say we are saved by faith and not works. But still repentance is required. Repentance is not belief; it also is an act of obedience. May not baptism also be required without violating this principle? As for the other acts of obedience you mentioned (giving to the poor, etc.) don’t be so sure they are not required for salvation. Doesn’t Jesus send away some call to Him “Lord, Lord,” but fail to do some of these things you mention.
Does God have unnecessary commandments? Are there optional acts of obedience? All I can affirm is that there is no power to save in my faith or my obedience. The power to save is God’s alone. I can do nothing but submit to Him, and rest assured it is a very incomplete submission.
I concur completely with your comments on Romans 6. Doesn’t this verse make a lot of sense if Paul’s readers all considered their baptism into Christ was the beginning of their new life in Christ? That is, their baptism was a part of their response of faith in Christ? Would they have considered baptism not necessary for salvation? It seems it was the very picture of their salvation.
With regard to 1 Peter 3:21, you are making a fine point of how baptism “corresponds” (ESV) to how Noah and his family were brought safely through water. I wholly agree that the water does not remove sin, but our baptism is “an appeal to God for a good conscience.” Talk about your sinner’s prayer, maybe the biblical way to say it is to be baptized and through that act call out to God for forgiveness.
On the issues that define who our brethren are: It is my intention to accept all who claim the name of Jesus. Whether they (or I) are ultimately saved is in God’s hands. Inevitably we will disagree. Perhaps we can minimize the disagreements if we try to keep our beliefs as close to the book as possible. I was shocked recently to learn from the internet that if I believe baptism is necessary for salvation I belong to a cult. It looks like somebody does not consider me a brother.
As for faith topped off with water baptism; it is your misunderstanding that equates what I consider the biblical teaching on salvation and baptism with a “faith plus works” system. Your assertion does not make it so.
The role of baptism is an issue that many will go the mat over. We may have to agree to disagree. Assigning those you disagree with to cult status however, is not likely to bring peace and understanding.
Give it some thought. Baptism for the remission of sins is not so scary. It might be, in fact, biblical.
Last edited by Guest on Wed Dec 31, 1969 7:00 pm, edited 0 times in total.
Reason:
Reason:
-
_brody_in_ga
- Posts: 237
- Joined: Fri Dec 23, 2005 8:55 pm
- Location: Richland Ga
..
SamIam wrote:Brody,
Churches of Christ come in many flavors and some in them sadly are sectarian. Others are not. Your experience with them will no doubt vary.
I stand with you in the affirmation that only God has the power to save, and that salvation is by His grace, through faith in Jesus. I also stand with you in the affirmation that true faith is obedient.
You mentioned your “appeal to God for salvation.” Peter writes that … “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.” (1 Pet. 3:21 ESV) While this passage certainly deserves a careful exegesis, it appears to read “Baptism …saves you …as an appeal to God for a good conscience, through the resurrection of Jesus Christ.” Perhaps baptism is the method used to make such an appeal to God. This is consistent with what was told Saul “And now why do you wait? Rise and be baptized and wash away your sins, calling on his name.” (Acts 22:16 ESV) Whether being baptized and calling on God’s name (appealing to God for salvation?) are one act or two, they go together.
David,
The question I have is how did you derive your conclusion that it is not necessary to be baptized to be saved?
I must agree the book of Acts does not contain the quotation “baptism is necessary for salvation,” yet it says;
"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.” (Acts2:38 ESV)
“But when they believed Philip as he preached good news about the kingdom of God and the name of Jesus Christ, they were baptized, both men and women.” (Acts 8:12 ESV)
“And Paul said, "John baptized with the baptism of repentance, telling the people to believe in the one who was to come after him, that is, Jesus." On hearing this, they were baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus.” (Acts 19:4,5 ESV)
“And now why do you wait? Rise and be baptized and wash away your sins, calling on his name.” (Acts 22:16 ESV)
It seems that consistently (if not uniformly) the book of Acts reports that people were called upon to be baptized at the time of their conversion. It could be a coincidence. It could be because baptism is the natural response to the preaching they heard. Perhaps the apostles and evangelists in Acts considered it necessary for salvation and never failed to present it to their hearers.
With regard to the verses that describe salvation, yet do not mention baptism, it seems you are employing the following syllogism.
If a verse states that faith alone is a requirement for salvation, then baptism is not necessary for salvation.
Many verses state that faith alone is a requirement for salvation.
Therefore baptism is not a requirement for salvation.
This is a valid argument. However I do not concede the premise. Faith, as I understand it taught in the Bible, has several aspects. It certainly includes acceptance of something as a fact (God is, I am a sinner, Jesus died for me, etc.). It definitely includes the aspect of trust and dependence. It also includes obedience. Oddly enough, a quick search on BibleGateway reveals that the only time the phrase “faith alone” occurs in the Bible the verse says “You see that a person is justified by works and not by faith alone.” (James 2:24) What should we make of that?
I cannot concede that the statement “salvation is by faith” means “salvation is by faith and baptism is not required.” Repentance is also required for salvation. This is not in tension with the teaching that salvation is by faith alone.
With regard to whether baptism is a sign of salvation or a means to salvation: The only means of salvation is the saving act of God as performed in the atonement made possible by His Son (forgive me if this statement is inelegant or incomplete). God saves those who put their faith in Jesus. That is the only means of salvation. I consider faith to be a condition for salvation. There is no power to save in my faith. The only power to save is God’s. (I’m probably attracting the attention of the Calvinists who might insist that the only way I can have faith is if God puts it in me, but that may be another discussion.) I consider baptism to be a part of my responding to God’s grace. In baptism I identify myself with Jesus (baptized in His name, baptized into Him, baptized into His death, raised to walk with Him in a new life.) This seems perfectly consistent with what I read in Acts. What I do not read in Acts is an account where people are told “now that you are saved, follow Christ in baptism,” but maybe I have missed such a verse.
With regard to the thief on the cross, I do not argue that his faith was insufficient to save. I only argue that since he never heard the message of salvation through Jesus, based on His death and resurrection, as preached in Acts, the fact that he did not respond in baptism says nothing about whether we should respond in baptism.
Regarding faith and works: There are several verses that say we are saved by faith and not works. But still repentance is required. Repentance is not belief; it also is an act of obedience. May not baptism also be required without violating this principle? As for the other acts of obedience you mentioned (giving to the poor, etc.) don’t be so sure they are not required for salvation. Doesn’t Jesus send away some call to Him “Lord, Lord,” but fail to do some of these things you mention.
Does God have unnecessary commandments? Are there optional acts of obedience? All I can affirm is that there is no power to save in my faith or my obedience. The power to save is God’s alone. I can do nothing but submit to Him, and rest assured it is a very incomplete submission.
I concur completely with your comments on Romans 6. Doesn’t this verse make a lot of sense if Paul’s readers all considered their baptism into Christ was the beginning of their new life in Christ? That is, their baptism was a part of their response of faith in Christ? Would they have considered baptism not necessary for salvation? It seems it was the very picture of their salvation.
With regard to 1 Peter 3:21, you are making a fine point of how baptism “corresponds” (ESV) to how Noah and his family were brought safely through water. I wholly agree that the water does not remove sin, but our baptism is “an appeal to God for a good conscience.” Talk about your sinner’s prayer, maybe the biblical way to say it is to be baptized and through that act call out to God for forgiveness.
On the issues that define who our brethren are: It is my intention to accept all who claim the name of Jesus. Whether they (or I) are ultimately saved is in God’s hands. Inevitably we will disagree. Perhaps we can minimize the disagreements if we try to keep our beliefs as close to the book as possible. I was shocked recently to learn from the internet that if I believe baptism is necessary for salvation I belong to a cult. It looks like somebody does not consider me a brother.
As for faith topped off with water baptism; it is your misunderstanding that equates what I consider the biblical teaching on salvation and baptism with a “faith plus works” system. Your assertion does not make it so.
The role of baptism is an issue that many will go the mat over. We may have to agree to disagree. Assigning those you disagree with to cult status however, is not likely to bring peace and understanding.
Give it some thought. Baptism for the remission of sins is not so scary. It might be, in fact, biblical.
I had a feeling you would respond with 1 Peter 3:21. This verse is used by some to teach water baptism as nessesary for salvation. However, if you read it carefully, such is not the case. Also, Acts 2:38 can be used to teach baptismal regeneration, but Greek scholars like Julius Mantey and A.T Robertson have concluded that such is not the case. The word "for" is (Eis) in Greek. It can mean "because of" in certain cases. For example, I take tylenol "for" my headache. I took the medicine because of my headache. Not in order to "obtain" it.
I reject the Church of Christ order of salvation because it isn't consistent with scripture. At least not in my mind(which has flaws BTW.)
Last edited by Guest on Wed Dec 31, 1969 7:00 pm, edited 0 times in total.
Reason:
Reason:
For our God is a consuming fire.
Hebrews 12:29
Hebrews 12:29
Justin Martyr (110 A.D. - 165 A.D.) in his "Apology" (Explanation)
I will also relate the manner in which we dedicated ourselves to God when
we had been made new through Christ; lest, if we omit this, we seem to be unfair in the explanation we are making. As many as are persuaded and believe that what we teach and say is true, and undertake to be able to live accordingly, are instructed to pray and to entreat God with fasting, for the remission of their sins that are past, we praying and fasting with them. Then they are brought by us where there is water, and are regenerated inthe same manner in which we were ourselves regenerated. For, in the name of God, the Father and Lord of the universe, and of our Savior Jesus Christ, and of the Holy Spirit, they then receive the washing with water. For Christ also said, “Except ye be born again, ye shall not enter into the kingdom of heaven. ... And how those who have sinned and repent shall escape their sins, is declared by Esaias the prophet, as I wrote above; he thus speaks: “Wash you, make you clean; put away the evil of your doings from your souls; learn to do well; judge the fatherless, and plead for the widow: and come and let us reason together, saith the Lord. And though your sins be as scarlet, I will
make them white like wool; and though they be as crimson, I will make
them white as snow. But if ye refuse and rebel, the sword shall devour
you: for the mouth of the Lord hath spoken it.”
And for this we have learned from the apostles this reason. Since at
our birth we were born without our own knowledge or choice, by our
parents coming together, and were brought up in bad habits and wicked
training; in order that we may not remain the children of necessity and of
ignorance, but may become the children of choice and knowledge, and may obtain in the water the remission of sins formerly committed, there is
pronounced over him who chooses to be born again, and has repented of
his sins, the name of God the Father and Lord of the universe; he who
leads to the laver the person that is to be washed calling him by this name
alone... And this washing is called illumination, because they who learn these things are illuminated in their understandings. And in the name of Jesus Christ, who was crucified under Pontius Pilate, and in the name of the Holy Ghost, who through the prophets foretold all things about Jesus, he who isilluminated is washed.
I will also relate the manner in which we dedicated ourselves to God when
we had been made new through Christ; lest, if we omit this, we seem to be unfair in the explanation we are making. As many as are persuaded and believe that what we teach and say is true, and undertake to be able to live accordingly, are instructed to pray and to entreat God with fasting, for the remission of their sins that are past, we praying and fasting with them. Then they are brought by us where there is water, and are regenerated inthe same manner in which we were ourselves regenerated. For, in the name of God, the Father and Lord of the universe, and of our Savior Jesus Christ, and of the Holy Spirit, they then receive the washing with water. For Christ also said, “Except ye be born again, ye shall not enter into the kingdom of heaven. ... And how those who have sinned and repent shall escape their sins, is declared by Esaias the prophet, as I wrote above; he thus speaks: “Wash you, make you clean; put away the evil of your doings from your souls; learn to do well; judge the fatherless, and plead for the widow: and come and let us reason together, saith the Lord. And though your sins be as scarlet, I will
make them white like wool; and though they be as crimson, I will make
them white as snow. But if ye refuse and rebel, the sword shall devour
you: for the mouth of the Lord hath spoken it.”
And for this we have learned from the apostles this reason. Since at
our birth we were born without our own knowledge or choice, by our
parents coming together, and were brought up in bad habits and wicked
training; in order that we may not remain the children of necessity and of
ignorance, but may become the children of choice and knowledge, and may obtain in the water the remission of sins formerly committed, there is
pronounced over him who chooses to be born again, and has repented of
his sins, the name of God the Father and Lord of the universe; he who
leads to the laver the person that is to be washed calling him by this name
alone... And this washing is called illumination, because they who learn these things are illuminated in their understandings. And in the name of Jesus Christ, who was crucified under Pontius Pilate, and in the name of the Holy Ghost, who through the prophets foretold all things about Jesus, he who isilluminated is washed.
Last edited by Guest on Wed Dec 31, 1969 7:00 pm, edited 0 times in total.
Reason:
Reason:
Paidion
Avatar --- Age 45
"Not one soul will ever be redeemed from hell but by being saved from his sins, from the evil in him." --- George MacDonald
Avatar --- Age 45
"Not one soul will ever be redeemed from hell but by being saved from his sins, from the evil in him." --- George MacDonald
Brody,
I have tried to read 1 Peter 3:21 carefully. You will have to explain to me where I went off the track.
The citation of A.T. Robertson is interesting. I understand this is what he wrote concernig "for the remission of sins" in Acts 2:38:
"One will decide the use here according as he believes that baptism is essential to the remission of sins or not. My view is decidedly against the idea that Peter, Paul, or any one in the New Testament taught baptism as essential to the remission of sins or the means of securing such remission. So I understand Peter to be urging baptism on each of them who had already turned (repented) and for it to be done in the name of Jesus Christ on the basis of the forgiveness of sins which they had already received." (Robertson's Word Pictures of the New Testament)
This appears to be a confession that Robertson is not letting the reading of this verse form his beliefs, but he is letting his preconcieved beliefs form his understanding of this scripture.
I have tried to read 1 Peter 3:21 carefully. You will have to explain to me where I went off the track.
The citation of A.T. Robertson is interesting. I understand this is what he wrote concernig "for the remission of sins" in Acts 2:38:
"One will decide the use here according as he believes that baptism is essential to the remission of sins or not. My view is decidedly against the idea that Peter, Paul, or any one in the New Testament taught baptism as essential to the remission of sins or the means of securing such remission. So I understand Peter to be urging baptism on each of them who had already turned (repented) and for it to be done in the name of Jesus Christ on the basis of the forgiveness of sins which they had already received." (Robertson's Word Pictures of the New Testament)
This appears to be a confession that Robertson is not letting the reading of this verse form his beliefs, but he is letting his preconcieved beliefs form his understanding of this scripture.
Last edited by Guest on Wed Dec 31, 1969 7:00 pm, edited 0 times in total.
Reason:
Reason:
-
_Christopher
- Posts: 437
- Joined: Fri Apr 01, 2005 5:35 pm
- Location: Gladstone, Oregon
Let me ask this question:
Is there anything that prevents God from being able to regenerate a person who believes but is not baptized?
What is it about the water that He is bound by?
Is baptism really the issue, or is it obedience to His Lordship?
Will God say to those who believed but were never baptized "Oh, you almost made it. If you'd only known how serious I was about the dipping. Well...off to the furnace with ya me lad".
If He desires all to be saved, what is it that obligates Him to strictly adhere to this technicality?
There are a multitude of reasons that someone would not be baptized (ignorance, lack of opportunity, etc.) but in my opinion, the only reason I could see for that being a salvation issue is avoiding baptism out of disobedience. That merely indicates the person hasn't confessed Jesus as Lord.
If someone knows that Jesus commands baptism, and they have opportunity to do it, not doing that one simple act demonstrates that they still consider themselves to be on the throne of their lives.
Is there anything that prevents God from being able to regenerate a person who believes but is not baptized?
What is it about the water that He is bound by?
Is baptism really the issue, or is it obedience to His Lordship?
Will God say to those who believed but were never baptized "Oh, you almost made it. If you'd only known how serious I was about the dipping. Well...off to the furnace with ya me lad".
If He desires all to be saved, what is it that obligates Him to strictly adhere to this technicality?
There are a multitude of reasons that someone would not be baptized (ignorance, lack of opportunity, etc.) but in my opinion, the only reason I could see for that being a salvation issue is avoiding baptism out of disobedience. That merely indicates the person hasn't confessed Jesus as Lord.
If someone knows that Jesus commands baptism, and they have opportunity to do it, not doing that one simple act demonstrates that they still consider themselves to be on the throne of their lives.
Last edited by Guest on Wed Dec 31, 1969 7:00 pm, edited 0 times in total.
Reason:
Reason:
"If ye continue in my word, then are ye my disciples indeed;
And ye shall know the truth, and the truth shall make you free." John 8:31-32
And ye shall know the truth, and the truth shall make you free." John 8:31-32