Salvation Not Possible Without Works
- Thread starter SeaBass
- Start date
-
Christian Chat is a moderated online Christian community allowing Christians around the world to fellowship with each other in real time chat via webcam, voice, and text, with the Christian Chat app. You can also start or participate in a Bible-based discussion here in the Christian Chat Forums, where members can also share with each other their own videos, pictures, or favorite Christian music.
If you are a Christian and need encouragement and fellowship, we're here for you! If you are not a Christian but interested in knowing more about Jesus our Lord, you're also welcome! Want to know what the Bible says, and how you can apply it to your life? Join us!
To make new Christian friends now around the world, click here to join Christian Chat.
E
Actually it is complicated,
Do we submit to the baptism of God. or to the baptism of some man in water.
And what does confess and repent means.
And is mere belief ok, or do we actually need to trust God completely.
If your trusting in some man to wash your sin away, Your not trusting in God now are you?
Its wishy washy.
then after this it gets even more complicated. As we alreay know you do not believe in eternal security, So there still has to be a trust in self. and a keeping of whatever needs to be done BY YOU to keep your salvation.
Once more, in reference to the parable of the landowner going away leaving his servants verying amounts of talents of silver. All but one of the servants made a profit with the talents left in their care.
But the one servant buried his talent in the dirt. Now the landowner had rewarded those who made a profit with their talents, but the one who buried his talent to return it to him later was called slothful and wicked by the landowner. That servant was bound and thrown into the darkness where there is weeping and gnashing of the teeth.
That landownder is the Messiah, and the talents are the faith we are entrusted with until He returns. No words being played with here. This is straight from the teachings of the Master.
Do not bury your talent in the dirt.
Before anyone comes back with saying the talents do not represent the faith given each of us, first say then what the talents represent, otherwise do not bother to continue this non-controversey.
But the one servant buried his talent in the dirt. Now the landowner had rewarded those who made a profit with their talents, but the one who buried his talent to return it to him later was called slothful and wicked by the landowner. That servant was bound and thrown into the darkness where there is weeping and gnashing of the teeth.
That landownder is the Messiah, and the talents are the faith we are entrusted with until He returns. No words being played with here. This is straight from the teachings of the Master.
Do not bury your talent in the dirt.
Before anyone comes back with saying the talents do not represent the faith given each of us, first say then what the talents represent, otherwise do not bother to continue this non-controversey.
Refusing to obey the gospel is refusing to believe, refusing to repent, Lk 13:3,5, refusing to confess, Mt 10:32,33 and refusing to submit to baptism, Mk 16:16.
I agree that belief is more than just a mental assent of the mind. In Jn 6:27-19 Jesus calls belief a wrok that He gave His listeners to do.
Jn 3:16---------------believe>>>>>>>>>>>not perish/saved
Lk 13:,3,5------------repent>>>>>>>>>>>not perish/saved
Rom 10:9,10--------confess>>>>>>>>>>>unto salvation
Acts 2:38------------baptized>>>>>>>>>>>remission of sins
Since there is just one way to be saved, no alternatives. And the ible does not contradict itself then a saving belief includes repentance, confession and baptism.
You post ", repentance actually precedes saving faith in Christ and is not a totally separate act from faith"
I agree. Again:
Jn 3:16--------------believeth>>>>>>>>>>>not perish/saved
Lk 13:3,5------------repent>>>>>>>>>>>>not perish/saved
Since there is just one way to be saved then belief MUST include the work of repenting. THis means all the "belief only" in the world can never save an impenitent person, Rom 2:4,5.
You post "You place repentance after faith"
Why would an unbeliever repent? An unbeliever does not believe in Christ, in heaven or hell or even thinks anything about sin. Sins would mean nothing to an unbeliever? Heb 11:6 repentance is not possible nor pleasing to God without faith.
In Rom 10:9,10 Paul first puts confession before belief but then puts belief before confession. Why/how can someone confess a thing they do not believe in their heart?
In Mat 21:32 Mk 1:15 Jesus was speaking to Jews who were already believers in God, not atheists. They had the OT law given to them but were not believing and obeying it. If they had been believing the OT law they would have known that Jesus was the Messiah the OT prophets spoke about. So they needed to repent and believe God's law. The Jews needed to repent of their hard heart they had toward Christ then they could come to believe in Christ and realize they were lost in their sins and needed to repent of those sins.
In Acts 20:21 Paul was "Testifying both to the Jews, and also to the Greeks"..."repentance toward God, and faith toward our Lord Jesus Christ."
Paul was summarizing His preaching he had done in Ephesus: to the Jews He preached repentance toward God to the Gentiles he preached faith in Christ. One cannot force order of events into ths summary Paul was making.
Rom 10 "And how shall they believe in him of whom they have not heard"
If one cannot believe what they have not heard, how can one repent when he has not heard or believed Christ?
One cannot be saved unless they FIRST confess Christ. One is a denier of Christ and remains in that sate until they do confess Christ.
In Rom 10:10 Paul said confession is UNTO salvation. Paul did not say confession is BECAUSE one is already saved.
Jn 12:42 "Nevertheless among the chief rulers also many believed on him; but because of the Pharisees they did not confess him, lest they should be put out of the synagogue:"
Belief alone, that is, belief void of confession cannot save.
I agree that belief is more than just a mental assent of the mind. In Jn 6:27-19 Jesus calls belief a wrok that He gave His listeners to do.
Jn 3:16---------------believe>>>>>>>>>>>not perish/saved
Lk 13:,3,5------------repent>>>>>>>>>>>not perish/saved
Rom 10:9,10--------confess>>>>>>>>>>>unto salvation
Acts 2:38------------baptized>>>>>>>>>>>remission of sins
Since there is just one way to be saved, no alternatives. And the ible does not contradict itself then a saving belief includes repentance, confession and baptism.
You post ", repentance actually precedes saving faith in Christ and is not a totally separate act from faith"
I agree. Again:
Jn 3:16--------------believeth>>>>>>>>>>>not perish/saved
Lk 13:3,5------------repent>>>>>>>>>>>>not perish/saved
Since there is just one way to be saved then belief MUST include the work of repenting. THis means all the "belief only" in the world can never save an impenitent person, Rom 2:4,5.
You post "You place repentance after faith"
Why would an unbeliever repent? An unbeliever does not believe in Christ, in heaven or hell or even thinks anything about sin. Sins would mean nothing to an unbeliever? Heb 11:6 repentance is not possible nor pleasing to God without faith.
In Rom 10:9,10 Paul first puts confession before belief but then puts belief before confession. Why/how can someone confess a thing they do not believe in their heart?
In Mat 21:32 Mk 1:15 Jesus was speaking to Jews who were already believers in God, not atheists. They had the OT law given to them but were not believing and obeying it. If they had been believing the OT law they would have known that Jesus was the Messiah the OT prophets spoke about. So they needed to repent and believe God's law. The Jews needed to repent of their hard heart they had toward Christ then they could come to believe in Christ and realize they were lost in their sins and needed to repent of those sins.
In Acts 20:21 Paul was "Testifying both to the Jews, and also to the Greeks"..."repentance toward God, and faith toward our Lord Jesus Christ."
Paul was summarizing His preaching he had done in Ephesus: to the Jews He preached repentance toward God to the Gentiles he preached faith in Christ. One cannot force order of events into ths summary Paul was making.
Rom 10 "And how shall they believe in him of whom they have not heard"
If one cannot believe what they have not heard, how can one repent when he has not heard or believed Christ?
One cannot be saved unless they FIRST confess Christ. One is a denier of Christ and remains in that sate until they do confess Christ.
In Rom 10:10 Paul said confession is UNTO salvation. Paul did not say confession is BECAUSE one is already saved.
Jn 12:42 "Nevertheless among the chief rulers also many believed on him; but because of the Pharisees they did not confess him, lest they should be put out of the synagogue:"
Belief alone, that is, belief void of confession cannot save.
(Hope you do not mind i divided your post into 2 parts)
You originally said "The gospel is not a set of rituals to perform, a code of laws to be obeyed or a check list of good works to accomplish as a prerequisite for salvation"
So far it seems that you agree that the unbeliever, impenitent, the denier of CHrist cannot be saved, that in fact one must do the 'rituals' of believing repenting and confessing.
Mk 16:16 is a compound sentence with two different subjects.
Mk 16:16a deals with the subject of salvation and puts belief and baptism BEFORE salvation making both requirements to being saved.
Mk 16;16b deals with the subject of condemnation and makes unbelief the only requirement to be lost. THerefore one does not have to both not believe and not be baptized to be lost, unbelief is sufficient to being lost.
So the requiremnts to being saved (belief and baptism) are different from the requirement to being lost (unbelief), one had nothing to do with the other.
Also in Mk 16:16a Jesus used a sequence of prerequsite steps...one cannot be saved until he is baptized. One cannot be baptized unless he first believes...believe > baptized > saved. Since Jesus made belief a prerequsite to being baptized, that impliles an unbeliever cannot be baptized and be saved. Therefore in Mk 16;16b when Jesus said "he that believeth not" the phrase "believeth not" therefore automatically, logically includes the unbaptized for again belief is a prerequsite to baptism.
Just because baptism is not mentioned in every salvic verse in no way means it is not required. Many times 'believe" is used as a synecdoche (a part for the whoel) where "believe" includes being baptized.
Acts 2:41 "Then they that gladly received his word were baptized:..."
Acts 2:44 "And all that believed were together..."
In v41 those that receved Peter's gospel message were baptized, conversly those that rejected his gospel message rejected being baptized. So who were the ones that are said to have "believed"in v44? Obviously the ones that "believed" in v44 are the ones that were baptized in 41 and NOT the unbelievers that rejected Peter's gospel message and rejected baptism. So we have "bevelied" in v44 used as a synechdoche in v44 where "believed" includes being baptized. Furthermore the language of v41 shows that one recieves the gospel by being baptized. Therefore one is rejecting the gospel message until he has obeyed by submitting to baptism.
Mk 16:16; Acts 2:38 [among other verses] make baptism essential for salvation so it is understood that not being baptized leaves one lost. Again from what I posted above about Mk 16:16b, the phrase "believeth not" automtically includes the unbaptized, so any verse that condemns unbelief, is at the same time, condemning not being baptized. Again, Jesus made believing a prerequsite to being baptized.
Anyone that loves God must keep His commandments. Unbelievers must keep his commandments to get into a sved positoin and belivers must keep his commandments to remain in a saved positon....Jude commanded Christians "keep yoursleves inthe love of God" [v21] and Christians do that by keeping His commandments.
No, I am not perfectly sinless and God is not expecting or looking for perfection but God has always looked for an obedient faith as He got from Abraham who was not perfectly sinless. Eph 1:4 and 2 Pet 3:14 say that the Christian is to be holy, without spot, without blame. SO how can a Chrisitan who ocasionally sins ever be without spot and without blame?>>>>
1 Jn 1:7 "But if we walk in the light, as he is in the light, we have fellowship one with another, and the blood of Jesus Christ his Son cleanseth us from all sin."
1) IF is a condtional owrd, I have a choice to walk or not walk in the light as a Christian.
2) both verbs walk and cleasneth are present tense, an ongoing, sustained action.
So if I have an obedient faith (even though I occasionally sin) and CONTINUE to walk inthe light, then Christ's blood CONTINUES to cleanse ALL my sins leaving me without spot and blame. IF I quot obeying completely, quit walking inthe light all together, then Chris't blood no longer cleanses away all my sins, I thin have spot and blame and will be lost (if I do not rpent and return to walking in the light).
Faith only does not get Christ's blood to cleanse away all my sins. Walking includes a faithful obedience in repenting, keeping Christ's works unto the end, being faithful unto death, Rev 2:10,26.
Again, 1 jn 1:7 faithful obeidnce in walking in the ligh keeps Christ's blood cleanseing away ALL, not some, but ALL my sins keeping me without spot and blame. Faith only does not do this.
Obedient works in believing repenting confessing and submitting to baptism do save. Good works keeps the Christian saved, Eph 2:10. GOd before ordaiend that Chrisians walk in good works, s oit is not possible for a Christian to be saved not walking in good works. One either does good or evil, no inbetween, and if the Christian is not doing good, doing righteousness, obedience then he is doing sin, unrighteousness, disobedience.
Not an issue about being 'good enough' but the Chrisian must do good works as he is able...Gal 2:10 "As we have therefore opportunity, let us do good unto all men, especially unto them who are of the household of faith."
If a Christian has the means to help a fellow Christian but does not then "But whoso hath this world's good, and seeth his brother have need, and shutteth up his bowels of compassion from him, how dwelleth the love of God in him?" 1 Jn 3:17 and he will face the condemnation in Mt 25:41-46.
It does not matter to me where "faith only" came from, it is not biblical and should be rejected.
James plainly said faith only does NOT justify but by works a man is justified. Again, 1 Jn 1:7 by an obedient faith in walking in the light, that obedient work of sustained "walking" keeps all my sins cleansed away continually, ie, keeps me justified. Again, no verse says faith only does this.
The works James speaks are obedient works, an obedient faith to God as Abraham had, a faith that obeys God's commands, ie, a faith that does God's rightoeusness.
You post "James does not teach that we are saved "by" works"
James says " by works a man is justified, and not by faith only" James 2:24,
Note the order of events as Paul has them in Rom 6;17,18:
1) servants of sins
2) then obeyed from the heart that form of doctrine
3) then freed from sins (justified) servants of righteousness.
Obedient works BEFORE justifcation just as James says by works a man is justified. Many try to reverse this and put 3) before 2) to force it to fit their man-made theologies. as many of those men you quoted did this very thing.
Last edited:
Peter is commanding everyone is his crowd to repent and then he commands each one in his crowd to be baptized. So who in the crowd does these words leave out for either repenting or being baptized?
Peter uses very specific language that each one in his crowd is to be baptized, not leaving any single person out.
Peter uses very specific language that each one in his crowd is to be baptized, not leaving any single person out.
OK they wrote them down as God gave them divine inspiration. Doesn't seem like many understand what they wrote. Which was the point when I said that the natural man cannot receive the word of God and that it is foolishness to the natural man. The Holy Spirit is the Comforter left by Christ to guide us into the truth of the word of God. Only born again, Spiritual men have the Holy Spirit as their guide. The natural man the carnal man the worldly man does not have the Holy Spirit in his heart so he lacks the ability to understand Spiritual matters beyond the revelation that he is a sinner.
Only saved men can obey and follow the Holy Spirit. Unsaved men can only be convicted about their sinful estate and their need to be saved or perish forever in eternal condemnation. Unsaved, natural men cannot obey that which they cannot comprehend. Unsaved men can only see the cross as foolishness not as the power of God unto salvation.
For the cause of Christ
Roger
For the cause of Christ
Roger
T
John chapters 14-17 and pretty much the whole New Testament says you are wrong.....there is a working of the Holy Spirit in us and upon us, this work is in addition to the word.
I know hundreds of "christians" that are Bible experts, but are not lead of the Spirit, likewise we have issues with many Spirit led people, becoming gnostic because they don't know the word.
In short, the Bible teaches that a mature son or daughter of God, will have the Leading of the Spirit and knowledge of the word. For the thousands that suggest all we need today is the word, this is a false doctrine and wrong. The Bible does not say or teach that.
I know a lot of lost people that obey certain parts of the Bible, does this make them, saved? The Bible doe snot save you, it is a discerner for what the Spirit tells you.
I know you follow cessastion so this will be hard for you to take...
I know hundreds of "christians" that are Bible experts, but are not lead of the Spirit, likewise we have issues with many Spirit led people, becoming gnostic because they don't know the word.
In short, the Bible teaches that a mature son or daughter of God, will have the Leading of the Spirit and knowledge of the word. For the thousands that suggest all we need today is the word, this is a false doctrine and wrong. The Bible does not say or teach that.
I know a lot of lost people that obey certain parts of the Bible, does this make them, saved? The Bible doe snot save you, it is a discerner for what the Spirit tells you.
I know you follow cessastion so this will be hard for you to take...
No one is arguing that except you. That is because you see this baptism as water when it is Holy Spirit. Until you can distinguish the difference you cannot arrive at the correct exegesis of the passage.
Greek being a more precise language than English you must know what was contained in the originals to arrive at the correct interpretation. There are multiple Greek meanings of the words translated a baptism in the English.
For the cause of Christ
Roger
Greek being a more precise language than English you must know what was contained in the originals to arrive at the correct interpretation. There are multiple Greek meanings of the words translated a baptism in the English.
For the cause of Christ
Roger
E
Actually this is in itself misleading. especially as it relates to this passage.
2nd person refers to the person being spoken to.
In the passage, Peter is telling people he is speaking to (2nd person plural) to repent. It is plural because the command is given to everyone.
3rd person refers to the person being spoken about.
In the 3rd person form here, The 3rd person is those who have received remmision of sin. The command is for THEM to be baptized. It is singular, because the command is speaking directly to those who had recieved remission of sin.
It makes perfect sense if one just open their eyes and looks at the language, and we take our blinders off to try to prove our points.
:
(1) The baptism mentioned in Matthew 28:19 had human administrators. Christ commissioned the apostles to go and make disciples, baptizing them into the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. Inasmuch as an apostle could not baptize “in the Spirit” (only Christ could do that — Mt. 3:11), one is forced to conclude that the baptism of Matthew 28:19 is water baptism, not Spirit baptism.
I am unaware of any reputable Bible scholar who contends otherwise. If, then, the other passages that mention baptism (see above) are of the same import, it follows that they likewise refer to water baptism, not Spirit baptism.
(2) Both Romans 6:3-4 and Colossians 2:12 make it clear that the baptism of these passages involves both an immersion in “something,” and a “being raised” from the same substance. This makes perfectly good sense if water baptism is in view.
On the other hand, if the “Spirit” is the element of the baptism, this would suggest that one is buried in the Spirit, and subsequently “raised from” the Spirit. This would imply further that the new convert would not have the Spirit, and therefore, would not belong to the Lord (Rom. 8:9; Gal. 4:6). This conclusion obviously is wrong — thus demonstrating that the element of the baptism in Romans 6:3-4 and Colossians 2:12 is not the Holy Spirit. By default, it must be water baptism.
(3) Water is specifically associated with baptism in 1 Peter 3:21. If the allusion here, then, is to water baptism, and yet 1 Peter 3:21 refers to the same sort of baptism as the other passages cited, then clearly they speak of water baptism as well.
(4) The passage that would come closest to teaching a “Spirit” baptism would be 1 Corinthians 12:13, but, the fact is, a careful analysis of related passages reveals that not even this text teaches a baptism in the Spirit.
Note the following logic: The baptism of 1 Corinthians 12:13 puts one into the one “body,” which is the same as the “church” (Eph. 1:22-23; Col. 1:18,24). But the church is identified with the kingdom of Christ (Mt. 16:18-19). Thus, the baptism of the text under consideration introduces one into the Lord’s kingdom.
However, a related passage demonstrates that it is through the birth of “water” that one enters Christ’s kingdom (Jn. 3:3-5). One is forced to conclude, therefore, that the baptism of 1 Corinthians 12:13 is water baptism. In this connection, one should also carefully study Ephesians 5:26, and note the reference to the “washing of water.”
Finally, there is a principle of interpretation that is paramount in sound Bible exegesis. Frequently it is the case that Bible words will form a pattern. That is, a consideration of several passages containing a term will reveal that the word has a commonly understood significance. Such being the case, that normal meaning is to be attached to the term unless an exceptional context suggests that it has taken on a special significance (i.e., a figurative sense).
The term “baptize,” and its cognate “baptism,” occur together about 100 times in the New Testament. A consideration of these passages will reveal that the word may, on occasion, take on a figurative application (cf. Mt. 3:11; Lk. 12:50; Acts 1:5). Unless, though, there is clear contextual evidence that a symbolic sense has been employed, the conclusion must be that the common usage (an immersion in water) is in view.
In view of this principle, there is no reason to conclude the baptism mentioned in Matthew 28:19; Mark 16:16; Acts 2:38, 22:16; Romans 6:3-4; 1 Corinthians 12:13; Galatians 3:27; Colossians 2:12, and 1 Peter 3:21 is anything other than water baptism — an act of obedience, predicated upon faith and repentance, which secures forgiveness of sins and brings one into union with Jesus Christ.
To all of this we add this point. The clear cases of “water” baptism in the book of Acts (chapters 8 and 10) very obviously were not examples of Jewish ritualism. The indisputable fact is that the Mosaic law had been abolished by the cross (Eph. 2:15; Col. 2:14), and no Jewish rite was henceforth tolerated in connection with the salvation process (cf. Acts 15:1; Gal. 5:2-4).
(1) The baptism mentioned in Matthew 28:19 had human administrators. Christ commissioned the apostles to go and make disciples, baptizing them into the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. Inasmuch as an apostle could not baptize “in the Spirit” (only Christ could do that — Mt. 3:11), one is forced to conclude that the baptism of Matthew 28:19 is water baptism, not Spirit baptism.
I am unaware of any reputable Bible scholar who contends otherwise. If, then, the other passages that mention baptism (see above) are of the same import, it follows that they likewise refer to water baptism, not Spirit baptism.
(2) Both Romans 6:3-4 and Colossians 2:12 make it clear that the baptism of these passages involves both an immersion in “something,” and a “being raised” from the same substance. This makes perfectly good sense if water baptism is in view.
On the other hand, if the “Spirit” is the element of the baptism, this would suggest that one is buried in the Spirit, and subsequently “raised from” the Spirit. This would imply further that the new convert would not have the Spirit, and therefore, would not belong to the Lord (Rom. 8:9; Gal. 4:6). This conclusion obviously is wrong — thus demonstrating that the element of the baptism in Romans 6:3-4 and Colossians 2:12 is not the Holy Spirit. By default, it must be water baptism.
(3) Water is specifically associated with baptism in 1 Peter 3:21. If the allusion here, then, is to water baptism, and yet 1 Peter 3:21 refers to the same sort of baptism as the other passages cited, then clearly they speak of water baptism as well.
(4) The passage that would come closest to teaching a “Spirit” baptism would be 1 Corinthians 12:13, but, the fact is, a careful analysis of related passages reveals that not even this text teaches a baptism in the Spirit.
Note the following logic: The baptism of 1 Corinthians 12:13 puts one into the one “body,” which is the same as the “church” (Eph. 1:22-23; Col. 1:18,24). But the church is identified with the kingdom of Christ (Mt. 16:18-19). Thus, the baptism of the text under consideration introduces one into the Lord’s kingdom.
However, a related passage demonstrates that it is through the birth of “water” that one enters Christ’s kingdom (Jn. 3:3-5). One is forced to conclude, therefore, that the baptism of 1 Corinthians 12:13 is water baptism. In this connection, one should also carefully study Ephesians 5:26, and note the reference to the “washing of water.”
Finally, there is a principle of interpretation that is paramount in sound Bible exegesis. Frequently it is the case that Bible words will form a pattern. That is, a consideration of several passages containing a term will reveal that the word has a commonly understood significance. Such being the case, that normal meaning is to be attached to the term unless an exceptional context suggests that it has taken on a special significance (i.e., a figurative sense).
The term “baptize,” and its cognate “baptism,” occur together about 100 times in the New Testament. A consideration of these passages will reveal that the word may, on occasion, take on a figurative application (cf. Mt. 3:11; Lk. 12:50; Acts 1:5). Unless, though, there is clear contextual evidence that a symbolic sense has been employed, the conclusion must be that the common usage (an immersion in water) is in view.
In view of this principle, there is no reason to conclude the baptism mentioned in Matthew 28:19; Mark 16:16; Acts 2:38, 22:16; Romans 6:3-4; 1 Corinthians 12:13; Galatians 3:27; Colossians 2:12, and 1 Peter 3:21 is anything other than water baptism — an act of obedience, predicated upon faith and repentance, which secures forgiveness of sins and brings one into union with Jesus Christ.
To all of this we add this point. The clear cases of “water” baptism in the book of Acts (chapters 8 and 10) very obviously were not examples of Jewish ritualism. The indisputable fact is that the Mosaic law had been abolished by the cross (Eph. 2:15; Col. 2:14), and no Jewish rite was henceforth tolerated in connection with the salvation process (cf. Acts 15:1; Gal. 5:2-4).
The baptism mentioned in Matthew 28:19 had human administrators. Christ commissioned the apostles to go and make disciples, baptizing them into the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. Inasmuch as an apostle could not baptize “in the Spirit” (only Christ could do that — Mt. 3:11), one is forced to conclude that the baptism of Matthew 28:19 is water baptism, not Spirit baptism.
E
There is no argument here, this is water. And we are also told when the person was to be baptized (AFTER they were made disciples (saved)
This is dangerous. Because it makes assumptions. Which may or may not be true. That is like saying every time you see the word circumcize, You automatically assume it means physical act. When this is so obviously not true.
1. Romans does not speak of raising, Thus to use this as an example would not be honest. According to romans, Our ressurection is a yet future event, If anything, this proves it is NOT WATER.
2. Col 2: 12 Specifically states it is the work of God who raised him from the dead who baptizes us, Unless your "human baptizer" raised Jesus from the dead, It most certainly is not him,
3. Matt 28 says to baptize them, And we are the ones told to do the baptizing, It does not say what a person is baptized in, so we must interpret it by who is the one doing the baptizing. Rom 6 and Col 2 specifically states what we are baptized in. So to interpret the word baptize to mean in water, You would have to interpret romans 6. Baptized in water in christ, Baptized in water and in his death, And in col 2. It would be Baptized in water in CHrist.
You see how foolish this sounds,
So as I said earlier, It is not that hard, Just open your mind, You will see what is being said.
Again this is a false premise it is not baptized into the spirit. It is baptism of *the spirit is doing the work) so this argument is already off base.
Having the spirit is due to annointing. Not baptizing. Any theologion no matter what they believe should understand this
Well of course it is wrong, because it is based on a false premise.
In your example which is false, Yes you would be right,
But that is not what is being said, The elements of romans 6 and col 2 is the object that is specifically says we are baptized into. The HS is the one who performs this baptism It is a baptism of God. As col 2 says.
I would suggest next time you investigate something, you should make sure you have your facts right. If you cut and pasted this you obviously did not investigate what the guy said, Or you still show you do not understand what we are saying..
I am not going to respond to the rest. Lets get thes down pat first. Then we can move on to the rest.