What Happens to an UNBAPTIZED believer?

[newbirth]

I suggest you study the word save as there are some 7 different ways the word can be translated and SOUL SALVATION is not always meant....ARE women SAVED in bearing children? 1Timothy 2:15<---according to your generic use of save yes!....BAPTISM is a public testimony or our inward faith and SETS US APART from the guilty word and PUBLICALLY states our death, burial and resurrection in JESUS

you keep suggesting but it seems you don't because it is clear the scripture backs up the claim of being saved by saying...by the resurrection of Jesus Christ,
parentheses are use to make a point clearer , since what are in the parentheses seem to confuse you, try reading the verse without them...and see or yourself....

The like figure to this, even baptism, doth also now save us by the resurrection of Jesus Christ,

 

[newbirth]

my friend, you say that there is 'no hint of a picture' in this passage,
but what do you think "in the likeness of" means?

It means you do the same action.... If I say do like I do is that a picture? A picture cannot replicate an action.....Jesus was laid in a tomb when he died. enclosed and covered by the earth...He gives us the opportunity to die with him being covered by water....

[SUP]5 [/SUP]For if we have become united with him in the likeness of his death, we shall be also in the likeness of his resurrection;

 

[posthuman]

It means you do the same action.... If I say do like I do is that a picture? A picture cannot replicate an action.....Jesus was laid in a tomb when he died. enclosed and covered by the earth...

and do we literally crucify ourselves, and have our bodies laid in a tomb?

or is our custom only a likeness - a picture - of what Christ did for us, and what the Spirit does in our hearts?

[SUP]5 [/SUP]For if we have become united with him in the likeness of his death, we shall be also in the likeness of his resurrection;

 

[Cassian]

how do you explain the events of Acts 10, where certain Gentiles who heard and believed were filled with the Holy Spirit before being baptized with H[SUB]2[/SUB]O ?

Peter's explanation is this:
Then I remembered what the Lord had said:
'John baptized with water, but you will be baptized with the Holy Spirit.'
(Acts 11:16)

This historically has been known as Gentile Baptism. It as a teaching tool of the Holy Spirit to the disciples/Apostles. Again, baptism of water is still included. Baptism has always been by water and the Spirit.

 

[posthuman]

This historically has been known as Gentile Baptism. It as a teaching tool of the Holy Spirit to the disciples/Apostles. Again, baptism of water is still included. Baptism has always been by water and the Spirit.

giving it a name "Gentile baptism" does not change the fact that the scripture directly refutes what you said, that the giving of the Holy Spirit is simultaneous with H[SUB]2[/SUB]O dipping, and that 'there is never a separation' :

Scripture makes it ONE baptism. It is a simultaneous event of water and the Spirit. There is never a separation of water baptism from the action of the Holy Spirit. Baptism enters one into the Kingdom, the Body of Christ. That entrance re-generates the lost union man (Adam) had with God in the beginning. Man was created to be eternal and in union with God.

in Acts 10-11 there is a separation. in Acts 10-11 the events are not simultaneous.
therefore what you said is wrong. giving the evidence of your error a name does not remove the error.

if Acts 10-11 is "a teaching tool" then let it teach you!
the sanctification of our souls is an act of God, not men, and God may approve whom He will approve according to His mercy.
in the scriptures we see quite often that Simon Peter needed to be taught, and in Acts 10 he was taught - and in Acts 11 he wrote to us what he had learned: that men baptize with H[SUB]2[/SUB]O but God baptizes with spirit, and that the baptism which sanctifies, the one baptism, is that of the Lord. man cannot undo what God has done, and men cannot do what only God can do.

if this is 'Gentile baptism' brother, the Lord found me, a Gentile.

 

[Cassian]

giving it a name "Gentile baptism" does not change the fact that the scripture directly refutes what you said, that the giving of the Holy Spirit is simultaneous with H[SUB]2[/SUB]O dipping, and that 'there is never a separation' :

part of your confusion on the matter is that I nor scripture equates the baptism of (water and the Spirit) as being filled with the Holy Spirit. Baptism is NEVER separated from water and the Spirit.

What you think scripture means usually a far stretch from how the early Church understood the Revelation given to them by the Apostles.
Given the fact that many Protestants do not recognize water baptism I can see why you would need to separate it from the action of the Holy Spirit, and why many simply recognize a non scriptural concept of baptism ONLY by the Holy Spirit without any use of water.

in Acts 10-11 there is a separation. in Acts 10-11 the events are not simultaneous.
therefore what you said is wrong. giving the evidence of your error a name does not remove the error.

Which we now know is your misunderstanding of the difference of action of the Holy Spirit and the indwelling of the Holy Spirit.

if Acts 10-11 is "a teaching tool" then let it teach you!
the sanctification of our souls is an act of God, not men, and God may approve whom He will approve according to His mercy.
in the scriptures we see quite often that Simon Peter needed to be taught, and in Acts 10 he was taught - and in Acts 11 he wrote to us what he had learned: that men baptize with H[SUB]2[/SUB]O but God baptizes with spirit, and that the baptism which sanctifies, the one baptism, is that of the Lord. man cannot undo what God has done, and men cannot do what only God can do.

and you come to the correct biblical statement, Baptism is of water and the Spirit. John 3:5, It has been practiced and understood as such for 2000 years, and even before it became scripture.

if this is 'Gentile baptism' brother, the Lord found me, a Gentile.

Do you think Corneilus was a Jew? What has this to do with you personally. Do you think you still live in the first century before scripture was even written?

You are the only one that seem to separate the water from the Spirit and what scripture teaches regarding ONLY one baptism. The Church has never separated the two. They are meaningless for man unless they are united. sAme for any sacrament.

To many Protestants hold to the Zwinglian view of non sacraments, or worse the Gnostic understanding that matter is evil and insignificant.

 

[Atwood]

part of your confusion on the matter
. . . how the early Church . . . [blah, blah]

is how you go on pontificating and not proving things from the Bible. I spose you don't need to because your final authority is your denomination, not God's Word.

Baptism is of water and the Spirit. John 3:5,

Neither baptize nor baptism occurs in John 3. Natural birth is referred to explicitly. Having natural water birth (as establishing descent from Abe) does not save; one born AGAIN, born of the Spirit.

ONLY one baptism. The Church has never [false!] separated the two.

There are at least 3 baptisms in the NT, and at least many in the Church are not so obtuse as to fail to see that. John baptize with water. The special baptism of the Lord Jesus is something different and contrasted with it. The Lord Jesus continued the water baptism begun by Paul in the gospels. On the day of Pentecost He sent the Holy Spirit to baptize, a new thing, not many days hence from Acts 1:5.

The 3rd baptism is the one the Lord Jesus said He yet had to undergo before the cross.

I see your Zwingly & your Gnostics;
and I raise you one Holy Bible!

Thou shalt call His name Jesus, for
He shall save His people from their sins.

Those who have elevated water-baptism to an idol, making it savior, are urged to repent of the idolatry & trust the Savior.

 

[Atwood]

No One has yet posted a verse that condemns the unbaptized believer.

being covered by water....

So what happens to all the Presbyterians, Lutherans, Methodists, and Episcopalians [& other denominationals] who happen to trust Christ as Savior, but were sprinkled as babies and die without being actually being water-baptized (as defined by dipping, dunking, immersing)?

Are they roasted in the Lake of Fire with weeping, wailing, and gnashing of teeth?

 

[Atwood]

Re: What Happens to a Merely Sprinkled Believer?

What happens to the sprinkled believers?

Christ's baptism was not required under the old law.

Thus Alligator would seem to have to throw out John 3 from his baptism arguments as John 3 was under the old law, as was most of the teachings of the earthly Jesus. Thus he should beware of quoting anything before Acts 2 in this discussion.

Now don't hold your breath waiting for the Alligator to answer this one:

What happens to all the Presbyterians, Lutherans, Methodists, and Episcopalians [& other denominationals] who happen to trust Christ as Savior, but were sprinkled as babies and die without being actually being water-baptized (as defined by dipping, dunking, immersing)?

Are they roasted in the Lake of Fire with weeping, wailing, and gnashing of teeth?

 

[Cassian]

is how you go on pontificating and not proving things from the Bible. I spose you don't need to because your final authority is your denomination, not God's Word.



Neither baptize nor baptism occurs in John 3. Natural birth is referred to explicitly. Having natural water birth (as establishing descent from Abe) does not save; one born AGAIN, born of the Spirit.



There are at least 3 baptisms in the NT, and at least many in the Church are not so obtuse as to fail to see that. John baptize with water. The special baptism of the Lord Jesus is something different and contrasted with it. The Lord Jesus continued the water baptism begun by Paul in the gospels. On the day of Pentecost He sent the Holy Spirit to baptize, a new thing, not many days hence from Acts 1:5.

The 3rd baptism is the one the Lord Jesus said He yet had to undergo before the cross.

I see your Zwingly & your Gnostics;
and I raise you one Holy Bible!

Thou shalt call His name Jesus, for
He shall save His people from their sins.

Those who have elevated water-baptism to an idol, making it savior, are urged to repent of the idolatry & trust the Savior.

The fact you could not refute what I stated which is all in scripture and has had the same meaning, practice and understanding for 2000 years speaks volumes.

You're the ONLY one pontificating with non scriptural assertions and cannot prove them to be scriptural.
I notice that you blaspheme the work of the Holy Spirit again as well.

My question to you is if you don't believe in the scriptural Holy Spirit, just what Holy Spirit do you believe in. You dismiss His authority and the Revelation He gave in the beginning. What Savior do you actually believe? It seems one of your own making - Atwoodism.

You will never find a biblical answer to your unbiblical premise of this OP. That should be quite obvious, but maybe not for those who believe in Atwoodism.

 

[posthuman]

The fact you could not refute what I stated which is all in scripture and has had the same meaning, practice and understanding for 2000 years speaks volumes.

while we're on the subject, you didn't "refute" anything i said either, and haven't addressed how you can hold the view that H[SUB]2[/SUB]O baptism and the sanctification and regeneration of the spirit are self-same, concurrent, unseparated and always simultaneous events.

all you did was pontificate about how "confused" i am in my "misunderstanding" and pretend that i think Cornelius is a Jew. not true, and not relevant. you just said "o that's gentile baptism, it's different" -- well, how so?

how about you explain the cognitive dissonance and lay off the accusations:

you say the Spirit and H[SUB]2[/SUB]O are inexorably linked.
Acts 10-11 says differently. John the Baptist says differently. Jesus says differently. Peter says differently.

what gives?

If then God gave the same gift to them as he gave to us when we believed in the Lord Jesus Christ, who was I that I could stand in God's way?
(Acts 11:17)

^ sure reads as though Peter considered these men "justified before God and man" before they were H[SUB]2[/SUB]O baptized, don't it??

 

[Atwood]

Still No Verse Giving Condemnation to the Unbaptized Believer.
But heretics post on.

The fact you could not refute

Kindly refrain from making up things. Thou shalt not bear false witness. Liars go to the Lake of Fire. When you just go on & on pontificating without quoting scripture, there is nothing that needs refuting; Sola Cassiana goes no where. Anyone who cares can read your latest pontification & see how it has not one Bible quote in it. I don't ask anyone to believe something because I say it or my denomination says it. It seems clear by now that you think your denomination is superior to the Bible & you think all you need do is spout your denominational position.

Then you lie, and say I blasphemed the precious Holy Spirit. You are not the Holy Spirit, neither is your idolatrous Mary-worshipping denomination.

What you are calling Atwoodism is standard evangelical Christian doctrine, plainly taught in God's Word, & the doctrinal statement of Christian Chat, BTW.

I would not post this for you, Cassiana, but for the audience:


God so loved the world that He gave His only Son that whosoever believes
in Him should not perish but have everlasting life.

Whosoever rules out any essential addition to believes.

 

[posthuman]

Baptism is NEVER separated from water and the Spirit.

maybe someone can help me -- where's the immersion in a mikveh in this passage?

For I do not want you to be ignorant of the fact, brothers and sisters, that our ancestors were all under the cloud and that they all passed through the sea. They were all baptized into Moses in the cloud and in the sea. They all ate the same spiritual food and drank the same spiritual drink; for they drank from the spiritual rock that accompanied them, and that rock was Christ.
(1 Corinthians 10:1-4)

Atwood, i believe that makes 4 baptisms mentioned in the NT ^ and in this one, it was not a ceremony, but what they trusted, followed and passed through that 'baptized' them into Moses.

 

[posthuman]

imagine 2,000 years from now - when people will believe that
"pour a bucket of ice water on your head"
is equivalent to
"donate to charity"

 

[Atwood]

the immersion in a mikveh in this passage?

Atwood, i believe that makes 4 baptisms mentioned in the NT ^ and in this one, it was not a ceremony, but what they trusted, followed and passed through that 'baptized' them into Moses.

You are counting the dry-bone red sea crossing as a baptism? I am used to seeing the reference as figurative as referred to in the NT. But it is correct that going through the Red Sea was no ceremony! It was an historical experience of life vs death.

Or are you counting priest immersion?
I understand that priests were initiated in OT by a baptism in water. But I haven't studied it. Is that what you mean by a 4th baptism?

Too bad that Cassian can't see that Spirit baptism in the NT never has water mentioned with it. Spirit baptism is a contrast to water baptism.

 

[posthuman]

You are counting the dry-bone red sea crossing as a baptism? I am used to seeing the reference as figurative as referred to in the NT. But it is correct that going through the Red Sea was no ceremony! It was an historical experience of life vs death.

Or are you counting priest immersion?
I understand that priests were initiated in OT by a baptism in water. But I haven't studied it. Is that what you mean by a 4th baptism?
[/FONT][/SIZE][/COLOR]

[/QUOTE]

i mean Paul called it "baptism" -- and i think he is referring to the Jews becoming 'disciples' of Moses & the law in this way.
so i don't think Paul's understanding of "baptism" is limited to literal ritual immersion in H[SUB]2[/SUB]O

now that you mention priest-washing --- i should dig around in the Midrash, but i'm pretty sure that the Levites regularly washed themselves ceremonially before eating, after touching anything ceremonially unclean, and fully immersed themselves before festivals and at other times. synagogues were built with mikvehs -- which are pools of water specifically for ceremonial washing, i.e. baptism. in the law, in addition to the ceremonial washing of Aaron and the other priests as they were ordained, there are many passages commanding ritual washing, including full-body immersion for anyone who had handled certain sacrifices.

i could go along with the washing of the priesthood as yet another baptism, into the temple ordinance.

washing with H[SUB]2[/SUB]O didn't "suddenly appear" with John -- it was an extension of the ceremonial practice in the Torah & Midrash, right?
so to 1st century Jews, "baptism" carried a great ceremonial significance - but it wasn't effective for washing sin, as Christ alluded to when He reprimanded the Pharisees for washing the outside of the pot & leaving the inside dirty. the inside is what must be cleansed, and only the Lord can do that.

 

[posthuman]

Too bad that Cassian can't see that Spirit baptism in the NT never has water mentioned with it. Spirit baptism is a contrast to water baptism.

it's too bad that people say we "hate baptism" or "disagree with the practice" just because we glorify God by it instead of thinking it is some kind of 'blessed' sorcery by which people can summon and command the Holy Spirit.

=\

i just want the glory to go to the Creator, not the created thing.

 

[newbirth]

and do we literally crucify ourselves, and have our bodies laid in a tomb?

or is our custom only a likeness - a picture - of what Christ did for us, and what the Spirit does in our hearts?

the scripture says ...
Romans 6:4-6King James Version (KJV)
[SUP]4 [/SUP]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.

[SUP]5 [/SUP]For if we have been planted together in the likeness of his death, we shall be also in the likeness of his resurrection:

[SUP]6 [/SUP]Knowing this, that our old man is crucified with him, that the body of sin might be destroyed, that henceforth we should not serve sin.


what part of, buried with him by baptism into death...do you not understand????
notice the red...have you been planted together with him???? then you are in the blue...if not ...that means trouble for you...

 

[Atwood]

i mean Paul called it "baptism" -- and i think he is referring to the Jews becoming 'disciples' of Moses & the law in this way.
so i don't think Paul's understanding of "baptism" is limited to literal ritual immersion in H[SUB]2[/SUB]O

now that you mention priest-washing --- i should dig around in the Midrash, but i'm pretty sure that the Levites regularly washed themselves ceremonially before eating, after touching anything ceremonially unclean, and fully immersed themselves before festivals and at other times. synagogues were built with mikvehs -- which are pools of water specifically for ceremonial washing, i.e. baptism. in the law, in addition to the ceremonial washing of Aaron and the other priests as they were ordained, there are many passages commanding ritual washing, including full-body immersion for anyone who had handled certain sacrifices.

i could go along with the washing of the priesthood as yet another baptism, into the temple ordinance.

washing with H[SUB]2[/SUB]O didn't "suddenly appear" with John -- it was an extension of the ceremonial practice in the Torah & Midrash, right?
so to 1st century Jews, "baptism" carried a great ceremonial significance - but it wasn't effective for washing sin, as Christ alluded to when He reprimanded the Pharisees for washing the outside of the pot & leaving the inside dirty. the inside is what must be cleansed, and only the Lord can do that.
[/QUOTE]

Well, I hate to speculate. But I have heard it said that gentiles had to be baptized to join Israel and that priests upon their consecration were baptized (I don't mean just washed, but immersed; I don't refer to the laver of the Tabernacle which I am confident was not for immersion). The gentile immersion is not in the Bible. And as to the priests, I have yet to check that one.


But surely John the Baptist had a novel ministry, calling Israelites to repent & be dunked.

 

[Atwood]

No one has shown that believers who were only sprinkled as babies are condemned yet.

the scripture says ...
Romans 6:4-6King James Version (KJV)

NewB, now surely you haven't forgot how in Romans 6 it is baptism into Christ, not into water?

And what about it O NewB,
Do believers who were sprinkled as babies but never immersed condemned to the Lake of Fire?