-
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.
Water baptism was only connected with one's savlation under the preaching of the Gospel of the Kingdom.
Water baptism will once again be connected with one's salvation in the time of Jacob's trouble, since Faith and Works will be necessary for salvation in the time of Jacob's trouble (Rev. 14:9-12), and also since the Gospel of the Kingdom will be preached in the time of Jacob's trouble.
Another thing to keep in mind, water baptism is connected with salvation in pertaining to the Kingdom of Heaven (literal, physical, Jewish Kingdom). But it is not connected with salvation in pertaining to the Kingdom of God (Spiritual Kingdom: New Jerusalem, Mind of Christ, Glorified Body, etc.).
John 3:5 does not teach water baptism for salvation.
Being born of water is referring to your physical birth.
Acts 2:38 is Doctrinally pointed at the Nation of Israel. It is not pointed to Gentile believers today.
Col. 2:12 says that we are buried with him in baptism. It does not say water baptism. Therefore, it must be referring to the Baptism of the Holy Ghost (1 Cor. 12:13) which is a spiritual baptisim.
In fact, you cannot find a mention of water within 10 chapters of either direction of the verses you just cited.
Galatians 3:27
Authorized (King James) Version (AKJV)
[SUP]
27 [/SUP]For as many of you as have been baptized into Christ have put on Christ.
Again, Gal. 3:27 is referring to the spiritual Baptism where the Holy Ghost baptized us into Jesus Christ (1 Cor. 12:13) at the very moment of our conversion.
You have to rememebr seabass, that it is not water baptism that puts us into Jesus Christ. But it is the Holy Ghost which puts and places us into the Body of Jesus Christ.
Romans 6:3-5
Authorized (King James) Version (AKJV)
[SUP]3 [/SUP]Know ye not, that so many of us as were baptized into Jesus Christ were baptized into his death? [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:
Once again Seabass; the Baptism which Paul writes about here is the Baptis of the Holy Spirit (1 Cor. 12:13) where the Holy Spirit places us into Jesus Christ (Gal. 3:27). It is Spiritual baptism. Not water baptism.
You won't find any reference to 'water' within the passage of Romans 6 until you look 23 chapters back to Acts 11:16!
And the next reference of 'water' is not found until you get to Ephesians 5:26. That is about 50 chapters after Romans 6!!
You need to get the context of the passages which you are referencing sir. You also need to rightly divide your Bible.
1 Peter 3:20-21
Authorized (King James) Version (AKJV)
[SUP]20 [/SUP]which sometime were disobedient, when once the longsuffering of God waited in the days of Noah, while the ark was a preparing, wherein few, that is, eight souls were saved by water. [SUP]21 [/SUP]The like figure whereunto even baptism doth also now save us (not the putting away of the filth of the flesh, but the answer of a good conscience toward God,) by the resurrection of Jesus Christ:
Peter is showing here that the water which saved those eight souls during the time of the flood of the whole earth. The water is a LIKE FIGURE of the baptism which we partake of in this Dispensation.
Peter also shows that he is not referring to water baptism by writing in parenthesis "not the putting away of the filth of the flesh, but the answer of a good conscience toward God."
The Baptism that saves us today is the Baptism of the Holy Ghost. And that takes place at the moment of conversion (Rom. 6:3; 1 Cor. 12:13; Gal. 3:27).
The washing of regenration and renewing of the Holy Ghost is not at all talking about water baptism. It is talking about the Baptism of the Holy Spirit. Only the Holy Spirit can regenerate a person and give him a new nature.
Water baptism cannot regenerate anybody. Neither can water baptism give anyone a new nature.
Ephesians 5:26-27
Authorized (King James) Version (AKJV)
[SUP]26 [/SUP]that he might sanctify and cleanse it with the washing of water by the word, [SUP]27 [/SUP]that he might present it to himself a glorious church, not having spot, or wrinkle, or any such thing; but that it should be holy and without blemish.
It is the washing of water by the word. The word of God.
Again, this is not referring to water baptism.
The church is cleansed and sanctified by the washing of water by the word of God.
John 17:15-18
Authorized (King James) Version (AKJV)
[SUP]15 [/SUP]I pray not that thou shouldest take them out of the world, but that thou shouldest keep them from the evil. [SUP]16 [/SUP]They are not of the world, even as I am not of the world. [SUP]17 [/SUP]Sanctify them through thy truth: thy word is truth. [SUP]18 [/SUP]As thou hast sent me into the world, even so have I also sent them into the world.
You should know this by now Seabass.
1 Cor. 12:13 is describing the Spiritual baptism of all believers. It is teaching us what happens to every man and woman the moment they beleive on the Lord Jesus Christ. Therefore, it is Spiritual Baptism that is being referenced in 1 Cor. 12:13. And not water baptism.
Eg,
No one would say that BECAUSE a man preaches the gospel that the Holy Spirit DOES NOT work through that man. No one would say it was THE MAN that saved them. No one would actually say that it Moses himself that parted the Red Sea.
Just because the disciples "healed " people it was NOT the disciples themselves that actually healed the people. Why then would one say that it is DIFFERENT with baptism? That somehow God CAN NOT or DOES NOT work through men? This is where at this point we do not have the frame of reference and WHY you can only see it as being a WORK FOR EARNING salvation.
By the way you are aware that almost no one would agree with you about baptism. Without exception they all pointed to it as WATER BAPTISM and the Holy Spirit working through that.
No one would say that BECAUSE a man preaches the gospel that the Holy Spirit DOES NOT work through that man. No one would say it was THE MAN that saved them. No one would actually say that it Moses himself that parted the Red Sea.
Just because the disciples "healed " people it was NOT the disciples themselves that actually healed the people. Why then would one say that it is DIFFERENT with baptism? That somehow God CAN NOT or DOES NOT work through men? This is where at this point we do not have the frame of reference and WHY you can only see it as being a WORK FOR EARNING salvation.
By the way you are aware that almost no one would agree with you about baptism. Without exception they all pointed to it as WATER BAPTISM and the Holy Spirit working through that.
Last edited:
E
No one would say that it was OT priest who circumcised that child who cleansed him, it Was God who cleansed him. No one would say it was by the priest, killing this innocent animal, and allowing its blood to flow to the alter which cleansed the sin of the people. (I pray you see where my examples are going?)
Yet they did it all the time. Paul had to fight this gospel of men often. Yet here we today see the same thing happening, Although this time, Not with OT law or their ceremonies, but with NT commands and their ceremonies. And if Paul called what they did a false gospel of works. What makes modern day people who do the same thing with NT commands any different that OT jews? Are they not also adding mens work to the gospel of christ? and are they not also teaching a false gospel.
I will be Honest Sarah. In one breath I see you condemn salvation or regeneration by baptism in water. Yet in the other the only person I see you critisize are those who teach against it. And not the ones who are teaching it. I am not trying to be mean or judgmental. I am just trying to show you. How can you expect anyone to understand what you believe, when you say you do not believe as they do. Yet defend them by adressing those who are trying to confront them on doctrinal issues, and say you believe the same way as those who are confronting them?
Thats interesting. I know thousands of people who agree with me. Look at all the people in here who agree with me, Yet you say you think almost no one? I have been going to many different churches since I was saved, All over the country, And in those many many different churches, not one would disagree with me. That is alot of people, ofr you to say almost no one.
Make up your mind sarah,
So you believe it is the HS who baptizes you into the death burial and body of Christ at the moment of faith, Giving us the spiritual circumcision done without hands paul spoke of in Col 2 by the baptism performed By God himself? and the cleansing and rebirth also completed by the HS as Paul spoke of in Titus 3" 5 not by any deed of righteousness which we have done (water baptism is a deed of righteousness you do understand that right? It is obeying a command of God) But by the work of the HS, the moment one places their faith in Christ and "calls on the name of the Lord to be saved" or are you going to relegate God to have to do his work ONLY once a man obeys a command, and does the work of righteousness called Water baptism?
You have to chose, it can not be both ways.
My point was this is an ongoing argument, and it is getting nowhere. No one is learning. No one is listening, and no one is willing to understand the other. People are misconstruing what others say. Do I think there is alot of heresy in this thread? Yes I do, but never called anyone specfically a heretic. This argument has evolved into insults, haughty attitudes, and complete disrespect so I suggested that maybe we should walk away. There is too much controversy for anyone to agree with anyone.
.
So before you want to "correct" me make sure you understand what I am saying first before coming to false assumptions. You may enjoy the debate in this thread. I do not. I do not find it at all edifying.
.
So before you want to "correct" me make sure you understand what I am saying first before coming to false assumptions. You may enjoy the debate in this thread. I do not. I do not find it at all edifying.
Last edited:
Citing from scripture is meaningless when the opponents do the very same and come to a different conclusion.
However, respective of your view, it has been a false teaching since the beginning. The understanding of baptism, the meaning of baptism the form of baptism has never changed from the early Church.
Protestants have been arguing over this issue for 500 years, there are numerous explanations, each depending on the supposition of the expositor.
You have even added another false teaching of dispensationalism, a new idea of only 200 years of existence.
However, respective of your view, it has been a false teaching since the beginning. The understanding of baptism, the meaning of baptism the form of baptism has never changed from the early Church.
Protestants have been arguing over this issue for 500 years, there are numerous explanations, each depending on the supposition of the expositor.
You have even added another false teaching of dispensationalism, a new idea of only 200 years of existence.
And James and John, the sons of Zebedee, came up to him and said to him,
our Lord surely wasn't talking about water ↑
“Teacher, we want you to do for us whatever we ask of you.”
And he said to them, “What do you want me to do for you?”
And they said to him, “Grant us to sit, one at your right hand and one at your left, in your glory.”
Jesus said to them, “You do not know what you are asking. Are you able to drink the cup that I drink, or to be baptized with the baptism with which I am baptized?”
And they said to him, “We are able.”
And Jesus said to them, “The cup that I drink you will drink, and with the baptism with which I am baptized, you will be baptized, but to sit at my right hand or at my left is not mine to grant, but it is for those for whom it has been prepared.”
(Mark 10:35-40)our Lord surely wasn't talking about water ↑
This is precisely what we do as described in Rom 6:3-4 which the entire chapter is known as the baptism chapter. It describes what John 3:5 states. By baptism we spiritually experience the death and resurrection of Christ. We put on Christ. Rom 6:3-4 is also known as the "first resurrection". The spiritual resurrection from death (spiritual) to life (spiritual).
You forget Paul ALSO baptized people. All he says is that he did not baptize many in the church at Corinth. By the way why then DID they WATER BAPTIZE if all it is to be a DEAD CEREMONIAL THING?
EG,the point that I disagree with you on is that you continue to say it is BAPTISM by the Spirit that these things are done,what I have said is that the Holy Spirit WORKS THROUGH water baptism.
My bad,I did not continue my thought there. The early Church WOULD NOT BE in agreement with you. Almost all of the early church writers say WATER BAPTISM not baptism by the Holy Spirit. But that the Holy Spirit WORKS through water baptism.
yes, and Jesus having already been baptized with water ('fitting to fulfill all righteousness') spoke here of another thing.
i hope that brings understanding to anyone trusting in a physical ritual to actualize a spiritual event; for though He says to His disciples "you will be baptized" with the baptism He went forward to, they presumably having already been washed with water, there is still one baptism and one faith, one Lord whose death and life we must be baptized into, as the scriptures say in another place. "not the putting away of the filth of the flesh" Peter tried to make it clear to us, "but the answer of a good conscience toward God." does not Christ also make it clear? not washing in the river, but taking up His cup, and walking after His ways. the answer of a good conscience is not completed with a towel and a dry change of clothes!
we ought to do all things in Christ's name. if anyone would honor the ritual, honor it for Christ's sake. if for the sake of lifting up the name of Christ, anyone considers the ritual a trifling thing, then it is also for Christ's sake, that His glory be even greater. so why bite each other? we should all praise God; here is where our fellowship is!
i hope that brings understanding to anyone trusting in a physical ritual to actualize a spiritual event; for though He says to His disciples "you will be baptized" with the baptism He went forward to, they presumably having already been washed with water, there is still one baptism and one faith, one Lord whose death and life we must be baptized into, as the scriptures say in another place. "not the putting away of the filth of the flesh" Peter tried to make it clear to us, "but the answer of a good conscience toward God." does not Christ also make it clear? not washing in the river, but taking up His cup, and walking after His ways. the answer of a good conscience is not completed with a towel and a dry change of clothes!
we ought to do all things in Christ's name. if anyone would honor the ritual, honor it for Christ's sake. if for the sake of lifting up the name of Christ, anyone considers the ritual a trifling thing, then it is also for Christ's sake, that His glory be even greater. so why bite each other? we should all praise God; here is where our fellowship is!
E
Then you are claiming a false gospel. That God can not wash you UNTIL you do a work of righteousness. Your making God hold back his cleansing salvic act until a man or woman obeys him in a physical act.
the baptism of the HS prophesied by John the baptist. Promised by Jesus, and witnessed by ALL the apostles is not the same as the baptism in water, they are two separate events. God does not need my obedience, nor does he need water to totally immerse me into the death, burial and body of Christ, which is what the literal interpretations of those passages are.
the only early church I base any doctrine on is the church of the NT. I refuse to base any doctrine on any paganized church of rome. you will have to forgive me (they had many other false precepts of the word of God also)
The fact remains. People who claim that the HS can only work through an act of a righteous act of men in water are trying to replace his work with the work of men. and totaly ignore what paul says in titus 3: 5.
Not by works of righteousness which WE HAVE DONE, (which would include water baptism, communion, church membership, giving to the poor etc etc) But by HIS MERCY he SAVED US, BY (through the means of) the WASHING AND RENEWING OF THE HOLY SPIRIT.
No water baptism here, only the cleansing of the blood of christ through the act of the HS Immersing us into the death and burial (rom 6 and col 2) and the Body of Christ (1 cor 12)
i doubt very much there were 500 years of peace and agreement among all men! even among the writings that remain from the first few centuries after the resurrection and the apostles, there is not agreement among all of them, and many libraries have been destroyed in the intervening millennium, by accident with fire and flood, and by purpose with wars and inquisitions. so we don't know the extent of arguments and debates among the church 'fathers' - this is lost to us both by misfortune and by design.
have you read the epistle to the Galatians? it sounds to me as though there weren't 5 years gone by without wrong teachings and arguments arising among the believers. Peter, too, must have had a reason to write of Paul: "There are some things in them that are hard to understand, which the ignorant and unstable twist to their own destruction, as they do the other Scriptures" -- so there has been discord within the church since the beginning. (if you can call those who departed from the true faith part of the 'church' -- doesn't John say "they" that depart from the faith were never truly part of it (1 John 2:19)?)
but no, we can't follow men instead of God, and in everything we should praise the works of God, not the works of men. that's why not saying baptism is "wrong" or "unnecessary" i want to focus on what God Himself has done, and the baptism He Himself baptizes us with, and i will not say anything "saves" us but God alone. if i am obedient to His will, it is still by His will and mercy i am redeemed, not of myself.
have you read the epistle to the Galatians? it sounds to me as though there weren't 5 years gone by without wrong teachings and arguments arising among the believers. Peter, too, must have had a reason to write of Paul: "There are some things in them that are hard to understand, which the ignorant and unstable twist to their own destruction, as they do the other Scriptures" -- so there has been discord within the church since the beginning. (if you can call those who departed from the true faith part of the 'church' -- doesn't John say "they" that depart from the faith were never truly part of it (1 John 2:19)?)
but no, we can't follow men instead of God, and in everything we should praise the works of God, not the works of men. that's why not saying baptism is "wrong" or "unnecessary" i want to focus on what God Himself has done, and the baptism He Himself baptizes us with, and i will not say anything "saves" us but God alone. if i am obedient to His will, it is still by His will and mercy i am redeemed, not of myself.
E
their excuse gets old. All we have to do is read the first 2 chapters of revelation to realise the church in the time of John was in chaos with many different problems. beliefs and issues. Some want us to think it all of a sudden came together. That would be a stretch. Paul tried for years to unify the church and we see in Johns writtings he failed. what would make us think someone else could unify it under one gospel?
There have been disagreements which is inevitable. Paul even warns more of the wolves from within as they are much more subtle than the direct, obvious ones from without. Historically, all but a few of the heretical teachings have been from within. But the Church never became divided. Only two schisms remain, Oriental and the RCC. Oriental for all practical purposes since their agreement to rejoin the Orthodox leaves only the RCC that have split off.
In doing my research form the earliest of writings from Ignatius onward there is no discord on the doctrines and practices of the Church. They have been held consistantly, by the Church, handed down as they were expected to be handed down and preserved by the Holy Spirit, as ONE Lord, ONE faith, ONE baptism, ONE Church. Christ cannot be divided. I don't believe the Holy Spirit will permit the Gospel to become null and void by the chaos, division. confusion over a text that has occured by man using the principle of sola scriptura.
When individual man extracted the text from the Church, from its full content, from its authority and imposed his own interpretation and authority upon a text, even though Luther knew the existence of the Orthodox, was the inevitable result of the See of Rome who had usurped Christ's authority 500 years earlier. Instead of correcting the abuses of that Church, Luther created the means for individual man to be an authority in developing his own gospel. An exercise of man's self centeredness, egoistic self serving purpose of pride and arrogance which is NOT the work of the Holy Spirit, but of the devil.
In doing my research form the earliest of writings from Ignatius onward there is no discord on the doctrines and practices of the Church. They have been held consistantly, by the Church, handed down as they were expected to be handed down and preserved by the Holy Spirit, as ONE Lord, ONE faith, ONE baptism, ONE Church. Christ cannot be divided. I don't believe the Holy Spirit will permit the Gospel to become null and void by the chaos, division. confusion over a text that has occured by man using the principle of sola scriptura.
When individual man extracted the text from the Church, from its full content, from its authority and imposed his own interpretation and authority upon a text, even though Luther knew the existence of the Orthodox, was the inevitable result of the See of Rome who had usurped Christ's authority 500 years earlier. Instead of correcting the abuses of that Church, Luther created the means for individual man to be an authority in developing his own gospel. An exercise of man's self centeredness, egoistic self serving purpose of pride and arrogance which is NOT the work of the Holy Spirit, but of the devil.
Eg,you're the one that saying that I am trying to make baptism something WHICH IT IS NOT. There is not one place within the Bible about baptism that even points to it BEING salvic. It is positional NOT salvic. If one pulls it out and says that all the things that the Bible actually says about baptism and try to force it to be salvic then one can only draw the conclusion that the old testaments weren't saved because they weren't baptized.
The Old testament saints sins were atoned for. They were saved by faith without baptism. But what they could not be is buried with Christ in baptism. They were not regenerated by the new birth. etc etc etc.
Baptism is RELATIONAL NOT SALVIC.
The Old testament saints sins were atoned for. They were saved by faith without baptism. But what they could not be is buried with Christ in baptism. They were not regenerated by the new birth. etc etc etc.
Baptism is RELATIONAL NOT SALVIC.
Which categorically refutes your theory of OSAS.
But in order for the devil to assail the Church of Christ, he must at minimum marginalize the Truth. He will leave it to others to demonize it so that all false teachings are not just tolerated, but become the basis of his truth. You did a very good job of ascribing to the work of the Holy Spirit to that of the devil in another thread. One of the better blasphemous statements I have ever heard on any forum. The blasphemy was so palpable for me that I needed to withdraw from that thread.
You clearly do not believe in the power of the Holy Spirit. And to think that the Holy Spirit cannot keep the Gospel unified.
Obviously, you lack that so-called genuine faith. You have much more faith in yourself and your interpretation of a text.
Your outlook about the Churches of Revelation was about the two threads dealing with the faith, the living faith, the people not living according to the precepts that Christ had laid down, which you say, man does not need to do in order to obtain eternal life. John is telling you differently, Maybe you should read it without your very foggy glasses.
But in order for the devil to assail the Church of Christ, he must at minimum marginalize the Truth. He will leave it to others to demonize it so that all false teachings are not just tolerated, but become the basis of his truth. You did a very good job of ascribing to the work of the Holy Spirit to that of the devil in another thread. One of the better blasphemous statements I have ever heard on any forum. The blasphemy was so palpable for me that I needed to withdraw from that thread.
You clearly do not believe in the power of the Holy Spirit. And to think that the Holy Spirit cannot keep the Gospel unified.
Obviously, you lack that so-called genuine faith. You have much more faith in yourself and your interpretation of a text.
Your outlook about the Churches of Revelation was about the two threads dealing with the faith, the living faith, the people not living according to the precepts that Christ had laid down, which you say, man does not need to do in order to obtain eternal life. John is telling you differently, Maybe you should read it without your very foggy glasses.