Does water baptism save us

[Jackson123]

We as human beings seem to ask the WRONG QUESTIONS. The question that really needs to be asked Can we really say we love the Lord if we don't do what He tells us to? Can we really say that we are saved when we don't do what He commands us to (And again I am not saying perfectly) So the really question is if one does not get baptized when we are commanded to be,can that person say they are truly saved?

The bible also said the tree tel by it fruit.

The topic is: does water baptism save us?

If the answered is yes than every body that going to water baptism is save.

The bible said the tree tell by it fruit. the fact is some people go through water baptism and not bear the fruit of Holy spirit.

So to me salvation is by abide in Jesus and when he abide in Jesus if he have time he will go to baptism and if he doesn't have time like the thief next to the Lord, he save anyway.

It mean the baptism ritual itself not save us.

Catholic believe the ritual itself forgive the sin. and this water baptism ritual guaranty you to go to Heaven.

1263 By Baptism all sins are forgiven, original sin and all personal sins, as well as all punishment for sin.[SUP]66[/SUP] In those who have been reborn nothing remains that would impede their entry into the Kingdom of God, neither Adam's sin, nor personal sin, nor the consequences of sin, the gravest of which is separation from God.


this is what I believe.

It is similar to salvation, it by faith not by work but yes salvation produce work.

Jesus said if the branch not abide to the vine, it will not produce a fruit. the branch can not produce the fruit by itself.

Abide to Jesus mean save.

So this is the order, Save first then bear the fruit.

Salvation produce the good work, not all the way around.

Same thing with the water baptism. One have a faith in Jesus first then as testimony to the congregation, he go to baptism.

Water baptism not forgive the sin or guaranty to heaven. A lot of people go to water baptism for all kind of motive.

In 1965 in Indonesian law prohibit communism, and every citizen must be member of religion, and only 5 religion then are permitted, so some people go to baptism because it is obligation.

I don't think God so ignorant decide a man go to heaven because water baptism ritual.

It cheapen the priceless blood of Jesus.

I also see another catholic believe that indicate similar motive.

Read the label: Whosoever dies wearing this scapular shall not suffer eternal fire.

It is in directly replace the priceless blood of Jesus with cheap scapular.

Scapular cannot save us from hell. Only the blood of Jesus does.

 

[peacefulbeliever]

peacefulbeliever,

The infilteration of gnosticism begins with Augustine in his development of Original Sin. This is where the concept of total depravity comes from. Augustine adopted it from his Manichaenan background which was a comixture of a lot of religions of that day, including Christianity. Which is what confused Augustine possibly.

Unfortunately, Protestants because they are all in some form children of Augustine, either through Luther or Calvin. But Zwingli is the first in his arguments with Luther over the Eucharist to eliminate the "real presense" in any definition, either of RCC in Transubstantiation, and Luther in Consubstantiation. He did accept that it was a spiritual concept but had no meaning except that it was a rememberance, a ceremony remembering an event. From that is was downhill respective of the other sacraments of the RCC including baptism which are the only two that seem somewhat uniform of Protestants.
From the Orthdox perspective, these arguments are a denial of Christ's humanity and the reconciliation of the world, as well as the whole purpose of the sacraments, namely they are healing in nature. They do convey God's grace to man, thus are salvific in its purpose and were sanctified for that purpose.

This form of gnosticism appears in most Protestant definitions of the nature of man regarding Pauls description of the Old man and New man. You will find some forms of Protestantism that will actually claim that they do not sin because believers are in the Spirit. However, they do sin in the flesh which has no effect upon their status with Christ. And on it goes. I might also add it even extends to the understanding of the scriptural definition of the Body of Christ.
There is much more to Christianity than what will ever be seen from any forum that is solely based on the principle of sola scriptura. Man made theories abound by the thousands and each person has his own nuances to make it particular to his own interpretation. It is the antithesis of Christianity as it was meant to be and it is remote from the Gospel of Christ given ONCE in the beginning.


Rationalization of someones understanding and in only the Church to which it is being directed. Yet, never was the Church divided and separated over doctrine, practices of the Church. Corrections were made all through History. All false teachings were from within. Yet not a single one ever prevailed. Man has NEVER been able to impose his innovative ideas upon the Gospel of Christ within the Body of Christ which was entrusted with the Gospel and through which the Holy Spirit operates.

The first departure was the non-chalcedonians, who became the Oriental Churches but have now agreed to come back into the Orthodox Church. The ONLY other schism still in effect is the RCC. They have not just split but have added a lot to doctrines, new doctrines out of whole cloth, and reinterpretations of scripture, just as the Protestants do today, who were taught by the RCC.

The picture of sola scriptura over the last 500 years is not even close to the differences of understanding in the early Church when it was first developing from the former Jewish form. Sola scriptura will continue to the end of time and will get even worse than it is today. Thousands of new ideas, new doctrines, new innovations on every single aspect of scripture, many of which were declared heretical centuries even a millennium ago. The chaos, division and confusion has made the text, called the Bible, null and void. It is the epitome of man's supremacy, his intellect, ego and arrogance that he can do better than the Holy Spirit. In reality, the Bible has become a source of ideas. New idealogies have been created by individuals that are as different as Socrates is from Plato. All couched in biblical terminology. It is precisely Satan appearing as light.
He that has ears let him hear......

I guess I have no ears . . . I still don't get it!

I just wanted a simple explanation of what you meant by "gnostic" and why I am gnostic - even with the definition I had and you convoluted explanation - I still don't see how it applies to me and what I believe. I didn't want a page long lecture of something that seems to be a copy and paste.

 

[peacefulbeliever]

I guess I have no ears . . . I still don't get it!

I just wanted a simple explanation of what you meant by "gnostic" and why I am gnostic - even with the definition I had and you convoluted explanation - I still don't see how it applies to me and what I believe. I didn't want a page long lecture of something that seems to be a copy and paste.

Never mind - I went back and read it thoroughly again. Basically, you are saying that I am gnostic because I believe in the 'old man' and the 'new man', a difference between flesh and spirit - at least that's what I think this document said.

Umph . . . I thought that God related to those terms also.

 

[Cassian]

Never mind - I went back and read it thoroughly again. Basically, you are saying that I am gnostic because I believe in the 'old man' and the 'new man', a difference between flesh and spirit - at least that's what I think this document said.

Umph . . . I thought that God related to those terms also.

No. The underlying premise is that the material world is evil. It cannot do good. This includes all uses of the material world for spiritual purposes. It includes the flesh of man as well.
Now relating to Paul's use of Old man and New man, is not a concept of flesh vs spirit of man. Man is not divided into to independent natures. Man is a person. When he sins it is the person that sins, not either the flesh or the spirit of man. Therein lies the difference. I believe it was you that I posted the concept of Pauls definition of sin in man.

 

[peacefulbeliever]

No. The underlying premise is that the material world is evil. It cannot do good. This includes all uses of the material world for spiritual purposes. It includes the flesh of man as well.

What does this have to do with 'water baptism' saving us? And is thinking that the 'material world' is evil contrary to what God says via scripture?

Now relating to Paul's use of Old man and New man, is not a concept of flesh vs spirit of man. Man is not divided into to independent natures. Man is a person. When he sins it is the person that sins, not either the flesh or the spirit of man. Therein lies the difference. I believe it was you that I posted the concept of Pauls definition of sin in man.

Man is partaker of Adam's nature and partaker of the divine nature (if that man is born again). Adam's nature is sin and death and the divine nature has the qualities of God. You don't read that in scripture?

 

[Cassian]

peacefulbeliever,

What does this have to do with 'water baptism' saving us? And is thinking that the 'material world' is evil contrary to what God says via scripture?

because you are separating the water from the Holy Spirit. The water in your theology is just to get wet. It has no other significance.

Man is partaker of Adam's nature and partaker of the divine nature (if that man is born again). Adam's nature is sin and death and the divine nature has the qualities of God. You don't read that in scripture?

Christ freed all mankind from the bondage to death and sin. Christ is the NEW MAN. He is our model and example that we are to emulate in perfecting our sinful natures into more perfect natures which exemplify the Divine Nature.
It is transforming the Adamic nature into the Divine nature. We do not possess them as independent natures. This is about the whole man being transformed into the Likeness of Christ.

Even the way you state it clearly implies the gnostic supposition.

 

[notuptome]

So if as you say water baptism is for those things,can you STILL say that if you DO NOT do so when Jesus clearly COMMANDED It and still say you are saved? So are you saying you CAN DISOBEY the Lord's commands and still be saved?

Salvation is by grace. Grace precludes all other things in the matter of salvation. That said I do support water baptism after salvation as an act of obedience. Let us remember that new Christians are babes and not all are ready for water baptism many lacking the requisite knowledge of what water baptism really entails. As evidenced by the many differing understandings on the subject.

For the cause of Christ
Roger

 

[SarahM777]

Salvation is by grace. Grace precludes all other things in the matter of salvation. That said I do support water baptism after salvation as an act of obedience. Let us remember that new Christians are babes and not all are ready for water baptism many lacking the requisite knowledge of what water baptism really entails. As evidenced by the many differing understandings on the subject.

For the cause of Christ
Roger

What are the two requirements to be baptized? Aren't they to repent and believe on the Lord Jesus Christ? What other requirements are there to be baptized? Did Cornelius UNDERSTAND everything about baptism BEFORE he was baptized? Does the Bible say that we MUST understand what baptism is BEFORE we are baptized? Or did Jesus say unless you become like a LITTLE CHILD you can not enter into the kingdom of heaven? Is Jesus implying full understanding or is it a matter of the heart?

 

[peacefulbeliever]

peacefulbeliever,

because you are separating the water from the Holy Spirit. The water in your theology is just to get wet. It has no other significance.

If we take John 3:5 and make it into baptism then 'water and spirit' used together would relate to 'living water' which Jesus compares to the holy Spirit. If I leave it in the context of being born again I have to include v6 as an Jesus' further expounding on v5 - water = that which is born of the flesh is flesh; spirit = that which is born of the spirit is spirit. Then when Nicodemus answered How can these things be? Jesus again makes a distinction - If I have told you earthly things, an you believe not, how shall you believe if I tell you of heavenly things. Oh well, it makes perfect sense to me and also goes with John proclaiming that Jesus will baptize in holy Spirit.

Christ freed all mankind from the bondage to death and sin. Christ is the NEW MAN. He is our model and example that we are to emulate in perfecting our sinful natures into more perfect natures which exemplify the Divine Nature.
It is transforming the Adamic nature into the Divine nature. We do not possess them as independent natures. This is about the whole man being transformed into the Likeness of Christ.

Even the way you state it clearly implies the gnostic supposition.

For I delight in the law of God after the inward man: But I see another law in my members, warring against the law of my mind, and bringing me into captivity to the law of sin which is in my members. O wretched man that I am! who shall deliver me from this body of death? I thank God through Jesus Christ our Lord. So then with the mind I myself serve the law of God; but with the flesh the law of sin. . . . .

. . . Walk in the Spirit and you shall not fulfil the lust of the flesh. For the flesh lusteth against the Spirit, and the Spirit against the flesh: and these are contrary the one to the other: so that you cannot do the things that you would.

I guess by your definition - I am a gnostic because I believe God says what he means and means what he says - simple as that. Don't have to read anything into the above to know what it means.

But thanks for the information on 'gnosticism'.

 

[Eva1218]

Water baptism does not save. We must understand first what water baptism is, which is a outer expression of what happened within meaning one has accepted JESUS as their LORD and SAVIOR that they strongly believe through Faith HE came, died and rose again to take away the sins of the world. by going into the water one is dying to their old self coming up a new creature in CHRIST

Therefore, one is was given another baptism which is by Fire by HOLY GHOST this gives one the Gifts of the SPIRIT. This gives one Discernment, Greater Faith, The Fruits of the SPIRIT which one continues to grow in daily. This can happen before or after water baptism.

One must have the SPIRIT of GOD within in order to obtain Salvation. Salvation is being Saved from eternal damnation what we know as hell and the lake of fire.

While JESUS was being crucified there were two thieves on each side of HIM one acknowledged JESUS as SAVIOR for he said remember me and by that JESUS spoke and said This Day will I see you in Paradise. The is no mention of the thief being water baptized what it does show is that he boldly acknowledged JESUS CHRIST and one can only do so through GOD. The Bible tells us through the conversation between JESUS and Peter where JESUS ask Peter who do you say I AM and Peter acknowledges that YOU are THE SON of GOD JESUS states flesh and blood has not revealed this to you this comes by way of the FATHER.

The Bible tells us that JESUS is the Way, the Truth and the Life. There is no other way to the FATHER but through JESUS. So when one dies they must appear before GOD and HE will say well done or I know ye not. So it's not the water but by GOD one is Saved. For JESUS told the FATHER i have lost none, and also HE will leave the 99 for 1

Blessings!!!!!!! :")

 

[mailmandan]

You have not given any new information here. You have done an excellent job in directly denying what scripture actually means. Your view does not align with scripture but is your personal interpretation.

Are you looking for new information or true information? My view aligns perfectly with scripture. Unfortunately, you just don't have eyes to see.

None of it aligns with the meaning of baptism in scripture as it has been believed and practiced or 2000 years unchanged. Your view was never even heard of before the Reformation.

Don't buy into that Roman Catholic sales pitch. Baptism is by immersion: "they went down both into the water and came up out of the water" (Acts:8:38-39). Why? Because baptism symbolizes the believer's identification with Christ in His death, burial and resurrection: "we are buried with him by baptism into death: that like as Christ was raised up from the dead...we also should walk in newness of life" (Rom:6:4).

Unfortunately, various innovations and heresies were gradually introduced regarding baptism: that one must be baptized to be saved; that baptism itself saves the soul even when administered to infants. These heresies became known as the doctrine of baptismal regeneration that originated with the Roman Catholic church, not with the apostles. The Council of Trent (1545-63) stated...the instrumental cause [of justification/regeneration] is the sacrament of baptism....If anyone says that baptism is...not necessary for salvation, let him be anathema." Vatican ll (1962-65) reconfirms all of Trent and reiterates the necessity of baptism for salvation, as does the universal Catechism of the Catholic Church released by the Vatican in 1993. "Baptism is necessary for salvation ... the Church does not know of any [other] means...that assures entry into eternal beatitude...."

For centuries before the Reformation, baptismal regeneration was rejected by Bible-believing Christians, whom the Roman Catholic Church therefore persecuted, tortured and slaughtered by the millions. The Lord preserved His people before the Reformation. The early Catholic churches were neither Roman nor Greek; the division into the western and eastern churches was not complete until in the eleventh century. Yet Catholic apologists conveniently forget the Greek Orthodox Church. They too claim a succession of bishops going back to the apostolic era. Moreover, there were other Christian churches such as the Donatists, Novatians, Waldenses, the Lollards and the Hussites, who were bitterly persecuted by Roman Catholics.

Non-Catholics taught from Scripture that baptism was only for those who had believed the gospel: "teach all nations baptizing them [who have believed]" (Mt 28:19); "Then they that gladly received his word were baptized" (Acts 2: 41); "[W]hat doth hinder me to be baptized? ... If thou believest [in Christ] with all thine heart, thou mayest" (Acts 8:35-37). Infants can't believe in Christ.

Consider Cornelius's household: they heard the gospel, believed it and were baptized. That there were no infants baptized is also clear, for they had all gathered "to hear all things that are commanded thee of God" (Acts 10:33). "The Holy Spirit fell on all them which heard [and, obviously, understood and believed] the word" (v 43,44); and they spoke with tongues (v 46), That they had "received the Holy Ghost" (v47) convinced Peter that they were saved. Therefore, he baptized them (v 48). You can believe the "2000 year sales pitch" if you like (I heard it in the RCC that I grew up in) but I will continue to believe the truth.

Even in this thread there are several other explanations, nuances, that are all different. Obviously, it is NOT the Gospel of Christ ONCE given and has been preserved by the Holy Spirit.

The Gospel of Christ is the "good news" of the death, burial and resurrection of Christ (1 Corinthians 15:1-4) and is the power of God unto salvation for everyone who believes.. (Romans 1:16). The gospel is a message of grace to be received through faith. 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. The Gospel simply sets forth Christ crucified, buried and risen as the Savior of all who believe (trust) in His finished work of redemption as the all sufficient means of their salvation "apart from additions or modifications."

It shows how feeble and inept man is in trying to figure out what a text means outside of its content and context.
You and other sola scripturists will be debating this long after you are gone and new and supposedly better ideas will prevail over yours. Yet, the Gospel of Christ will continue unchanged until He comes again.

Sola scripturists? Are the scriptures insufficient for you? Yes, the Gospel of Christ (death, burial and resurrection of Christ) will remain the power of God unto salvation for everyone who believes "apart from water, rituals, works" until Christ returns. Christ's finished work of redemption is sufficient and complete to save us. No supplements needed.

 

[mailmandan]

"Biased Church of Christ theology"?? That's pretty funny considering the primary source of your beliefs apparently come straight out of John Calvin's notebook.

I'm not a 5 point Calvinist and I knew very little about John Calvin when I received Christ through faith so explain how the primary source of my beliefs come straight out of John Calvin's notebook? That sounds like a Roman Catholic sales pitch. I at one time had temporarily attended a church of Christ so I immediately caught on to your 6 step plan of salvation that you cited in one of your posts - 1. hear 2. believe 3. repent 4. confess 5. get baptized 6. remain faithful. This patched together mixed up false gospel is the result of poor semantics and flawed hermeneutics.

your statement about me believing that there is power in the water makes it clear that you still do not have a clue as to what I believe, in spite of your claiming otherwise.

You keep saying that "born of water" is an allusion to water baptism and that the "washing of regeneration" is an allusion to water baptism. Explain to me how becoming born again and receiving the washing of regeneration equates to water baptism as the source or cause of being born again/regenerated yet there is no power in the water? Also explain to me why you make no reference to LIVING WATER when Jesus clearly does:

John 4:10 - 'Give Me a drink,' you would have asked Him, and He would have given you living water.

John 4:14 - but whoever drinks of the water that I shall give him will never thirst. But the water that I shall give him will become in him a fountain of water springing up into everlasting life.

John 7:37 - If anyone thirsts, let him come to Me and drink. 38 He who believes in Me, as the Scripture has said, out of his heart will flow rivers of living water. 39 But this He spoke concerning the Spirit..

Now compare that with "born of water and Spirit" and "washing of regeneration and renewing of the Holy Spirit". Jesus connects living water/Holy Spirit/everlasting life, yet all you connect water to is water baptism. Why do you dismiss the words of Jesus here?

The power is in the blood, not the water.

So there is no power in living water? (John 4:10,14; 7:37-39). What literally cleanses us on the inside? He who believes in me out of his heart will flow rivers of living water, but no cleansing is accomplished on the inside as the result of this?

I've said this more time and I can count. But you come in contact with that blood by obedience. Galatians 3:26–27

So your definition of obedience here is obviously baptism. Notice in Galatians 3:26, Paul said - For you are all sons of God through faith in Christ Jesus (period). He didn't say through faith and water baptism. We are baptized by one Spirit into one body and made to drink into one Spirit. Compare with drink in (John 4:10,14; 7:37-39). In what sense are we water baptized into Christ? In the same sense that the Israelites were "baptized into Moses" (metaphorically) indicating their oneness, or solidarity, with him as their leader (1 Corinthians 10:2) just as through water baptism we indicate our oneness, or solidarity with Christ as our Savior. Now does 1 Corinthians 10:2 teach that the Israelites were literally water baptized into the body of Moses? Absolutely not.

"Through His blood" (Colossians 1:14; Ephesians 1:7) is a reference, not limited to the fluid as if the blood has saving properties in it's chemistry and we literally contact it in the waters of baptism or the water somehow magically activates the blood, but is an expression pointing to the totality of Christ's atoning work as a sacrifice for sin. The word "cross" is used similarly to refer to the whole atoning work of Christ on the cross (1 Corinthians 1:18; Galatians 6:12,14; Ephesians 2:16). I understand you needing to accommodate the theology of your church but this is ridiculous!

 

[notuptome]

What are the two requirements to be baptized? Aren't they to repent and believe on the Lord Jesus Christ? What other requirements are there to be baptized? Did Cornelius UNDERSTAND everything about baptism BEFORE he was baptized? Does the Bible say that we MUST understand what baptism is BEFORE we are baptized? Or did Jesus say unless you become like a LITTLE CHILD you can not enter into the kingdom of heaven? Is Jesus implying full understanding or is it a matter of the heart?

You are confusing water baptism with Holy Spirit baptism. Yes before water baptism you need to understand what it means and why we partake of it. Holy Spirit baptism occurs the instant we repent by changing what we believe. We change from believing in our righteousness and believe in the righteousness of Christ.

I think this is very clear when Philip tells the eunuch that if he believes he may receive water baptism. Does seem interesting that he may not he must receive water baptism.

I believe that every new Christian enters into Christ with only a very simple knowledge of what he or she is doing. The Holy Spirit convicts of sin, righteousness and judgment. It is very difficult for the religious to get saved because they have tons of baggage to bring to the table.

When the Holy Spirit convinces the sinner that he is guilty before God and that he deserves eternal condemnation that is only a basic knowledge of theology. When the sinner is presented with Gods simple plan of salvation the Holy Spirit reveals to that man his need to receive Gods gracious offer.

Very little is of consequence when the matter of salvation is at point. Evolution, Calvinism, YET, none of these things matter only that salvation is needed and today is the day of salvation.

For the cause of Christ
Roger

 

[Cassian]

Are you looking for new information or true information? My view aligns perfectly with scripture. Unfortunately, you just don't have eyes to see.

I have the True information. Of course your view aligns with scripture. Every sola scripturist view aligns with scripture which is why you are all different. However, your view does not align with what scripture has meant from the beginning.

Don't buy into that Roman Catholic sales pitch. Baptism is by immersion: "they went down both into the water and came up out of the water" (Acts:8:38-39). Why? Because baptism symbolizes the believer's identification with Christ in His death, burial and resurrection: "we are buried with him by baptism into death: that like as Christ was raised up from the dead...we also should walk in newness of life" (Rom:6:4).

there you have it, water baptism as it always has been.

Unfortunately, various innovations and heresies were gradually introduced regarding baptism: that one must be baptized to be saved; that baptism itself saves the soul even when administered to infants. These heresies became known as the doctrine of baptismal regeneration that originated with the Roman Catholic church, not with the apostles. The Council of Trent (1545-63) stated...the instrumental cause [of justification/regeneration] is the sacrament of baptism....If anyone says that baptism is...not necessary for salvation, let him be anathema." Vatican ll (1962-65) reconfirms all of Trent and reiterates the necessity of baptism for salvation, as does the universal Catechism of the Catholic Church released by the Vatican in 1993. "Baptism is necessary for salvation ... the Church does not know of any [other] means...that assures entry into eternal beatitude...."

fortunately for the RCC they retained the understanding of scriptual baptism. There was never a dispute or disagreement at to meaning, form or purpose until the Reformers. Now, for 500 years they have been arguing and probably will never come to a scriptural conclusion.

For centuries before the Reformation, baptismal regeneration was rejected by Bible-believing Christians, whom the Roman Catholic Church therefore persecuted, tortured and slaughtered by the millions. The Lord preserved His people before the Reformation. The early Catholic churches were neither Roman nor Greek; the division into the western and eastern churches was not complete until in the eleventh century. Yet Catholic apologists conveniently forget the Greek Orthodox Church. They too claim a succession of bishops going back to the apostolic era. Moreover, there were other Christian churches such as the Donatists, Novatians, Waldenses, the Lollards and the Hussites, who were bitterly persecuted by Roman Catholics.

The early Churches were all Greek. They also happened to be all in the Roman Empire except for Thomas who went to what is now India.
You do realize that all those what you call Christians the first two are heretical groups. The others are all western groups that come much later and located in what was RCC western territories.

You are correct the Lord has protected His Body here on earth. It has never ceased to exist. Which is why the Gospel has never changed from the beginning. Many men including those mentioned tried to impose their innovative ideas upon His Gospel, but all were rejected. It is the Body of Christ, over which Christ is head, and enlivened by the Holy Spirit that preserves that ONCE given gospel.
You mentioned that both Orthodox and the RCC make the same claim of Apostleship and Succession. It does not take long to figure out that the RCC after they split from the Church began to make wholesale changes to the meaning of scripture and added doctrines out of whole cloth thus changing Tradition to beome just another tradition.

Non-Catholics taught from Scripture that baptism was only for those who had believed the gospel: "teach all nations baptizing them [who have believed]" (Mt 28:19); "Then they that gladly received his word were baptized" (Acts 2: 41); "[W]hat doth hinder me to be baptized? ... If thou believest [in Christ] with all thine heart, thou mayest" (Acts 8:35-37). Infants can't believe in Christ.

Where does it say that one must believe before one is baptised. What is the purpose of baptism? Obviously, any revelation of God to man would be given to adults and not babies. But that does not exclude babies from participating and belonging to the Body of Christ. Babies have been baptised from the very beginning.

Consider Cornelius's household: they heard the gospel, believed it and were baptized. That there were no infants baptized is also clear, for they had all gathered "to hear all things that are commanded thee of God" (Acts 10:33). "The Holy Spirit fell on all them which heard [and, obviously, understood and believed] the word" (v 43,44); and they spoke with tongues (v 46), That they had "received the Holy Ghost" (v47) convinced Peter that they were saved. Therefore, he baptized them (v 48). You can believe the "2000 year sales pitch" if you like (I heard it in the RCC that I grew up in) but I will continue to believe the truth.

You do make huge assumptions, but always in the reverse of what actually happened and has happened for 2000 years. It is unfortunate that you left the RCC, but that was like going from bad to worse. The only difference is that instead of one man interpreting for a whole Church, you can interpret for yourself what scripture means and your opinions are infallible, just as every other sola scripturist assumes. Consequently we have thousands of interpretations placed upon scripture by individual men, men who were never taught the Gospel in the first place and assuming they can deduce from a text that is not a manual or even a textbook, what God's Revelation meant.
You have joined a world of chaos, confusion, division that is far worse than the RCC.

The Gospel of Christ is the "good news" of the death, burial and resurrection of Christ (1 Corinthians 15:1-4) and is the power of God unto salvation for everyone who believes.. (Romans 1:16). The gospel is a message of grace to be received through faith. 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. The Gospel simply sets forth Christ crucified, buried and risen as the Savior of all who believe (trust) in His finished work of redemption as the all sufficient means of their salvation "apart from additions or modifications."

For an ex-RCC you really don't understand scripture very well. Your statement voids the whole purpose of Christ's death. What you stated here is nothing more than the same statement Satan can make because He surely believes that Christ defeated him and abolished his two tools, the enemy of man, death and sin.
I have noticed also that most on this forum do not understand the Incarnation and its salvific content.

As much as you state you are no longer RCC, you have retained or taken with you several of the man developed theories that the RCC has adopted, Originial Sin, the Satisfaction theory of atonement. By default most protestants have adopted the Zwinglian understanding of the sacraments including the number of them.

Sola scripturists? Are the scriptures insufficient for you? Yes, the Gospel of Christ (death, burial and resurrection of Christ) will remain the power of God unto salvation for everyone who believes "apart from water, rituals, works" until Christ returns. Christ's finished work of redemption is sufficient and complete to save us. No supplements needed.

Which is a gift you got whether you believed or not. One of those gifts, is LIFE. You and every single human being will be raised in the last day. You are not being raised because you believed. You are being raised because Christ defeated death, the power of Satan for everyone. He raised our human nature to life. You have bypassed the Incarnation again, like it never existed. Your theology in effect, makes heaven and hell impossible. It negates the whole reason Christ came into the world, to defeat death and sin.
Your definition above does not save you anymore than it would an unbeliever. You misunderstand the Incarnation, and they void its purpose which was to enable man to have a relatioship with Christ and attain eternal life with Him. Christ DID NOT save you to a relationship. That relationship is ALL YOUR RESPONSIBILITY.

 

[Jabberjaw]

I have the True information. Of course your view aligns with scripture. Every sola scripturist view aligns with scripture which is why you are all different. However, your view does not align with what scripture has meant from the beginning.

Cassian,

You keep saying this about "sola scripturist", let me ask you, if I think I don't understand scripture am I to ask you? and is this what I do every time I think I need support on the meaning of scripture?

Is this what you would call not being a "sola scripturist?" because this is exactly what has caused division, it is because rather than reading the bible in context and study to come to understanding of which is promised us in scripture, man reverts to some other man to come to his understanding, what is the difference if someone turns to Orthodox traditions of men, or the Westminster confessions, or Roman catholic catechism or any other man made device, these men are no more inspired than anyone else, all this does is cause those who read each one of these man made devices to click together with each other, by not using the bible as they should.

When man thinks they need other men to understand the Oracles of God, then there will always be division.

 James 1:5 (NKJV)
[SUP]5 [/SUP]If any of you lacks wisdom, let him ask of God, who gives to all liberally and without reproach, and it will be given to him.

 

[SeaBass]

By authority but not immerse Father Son and Holy Ghost?

Brother Do you believe that as son as ritual of water immersion, Jesus will be the King of the baptized?

Do you believe the Thief next to Jesus baptized. Jesus command to baptize after His resurrection, If this thief baptized, what kind of baptism he has?

Jn 4:1,2 "When therefore the Lord knew how the Pharisees had heard that Jesus made and baptized more disciples than John, (Though Jesus himself baptized not, but his disciples,)

Verse 1 says Jesus "baptized" but verse 2 says Jesus "baptized not". This is not a contradictin for Jesus did not baptise anyone personally, but baptized by givning the disciples His autority to baptize in His name.

The thief is not an example of NT salvation.

 

[Cassian]

Cassian,

You keep saying this about "sola scripturist", let me ask you, if I think I don't understand scripture am I to ask you? and is this what I do every time I think I need support on the meaning of scripture?

this is the huge problem for the sola scripturists. If I have a problem with some understanding, I can go to the priest or bishop. When he explains it to me I should be a good "Berean" and check it the Church has always understood it the way he explained. The Truth is Christ, not me, nor any individual or even a text. Christ entrusted His revelation to His Church. He did NOT give us a book. The Book is part of the whole revelation He gave. That meaning is what has been preserved for 2000 years.

Here is another note... Any Christian, if he is a true Christian, can or should be able to explain the Gospel as any other Christian has understood it form the beginning. There should be no difference. If there is, then it does not align with the original meaning. This has been the true test of false teachings as well, from the beginning - if it has not been believed from the beginning by all everywhere, it is false. Thus for me a doctrine of Calvinism, OSAS can outright be stated as unscriptural because it is a man formulated teaching that comes 1500 years after the Gospel was given.

Therein lies the huge problem of a sola scripturist. He cannot either prove his position is scriptural, nor can he disprove another. Both are using scripture as their base and their own intellectual accumen to arrive at a interpretation. Since it is man's opinion, each person makes his own interpretation the "true gospel" and infallible at that. The sola scripturist statement that scripture is one's authority clearly is false, for surely. if scripture actually had authority, it would at least give the same meaning to each individual. Most, if not all, claim being given their interpretation by the Holy Spirit. First it is a direct denial of what Christ stated in II Pet 1:20. But especially that the Holy Spirit would be very confused and or that there are actually many thousands of ligitimate Gospels and each man can develop his own from a text that was dropped from the sky with no inherent meaning.

Is this what you would call not being a "sola scripturist?" because this is exactly what has caused division, it is because rather than reading the bible in context and study to come to understanding of which is promised us in scripture, man reverts to some other man to come to his understanding, what is the difference if someone turns to Orthodox traditions of men, or the Westminster confessions, or Roman catholic catechism or any other man made device, these men are no more inspired than anyone else, all this does is cause those who read each one of these man made devices to click together with each other, by not using the bible as they should.

First you must assume that the Church, the Body of Christ is a man made institution. It is unique statement that one should not accept any thing from a man, yet the sola scripturist is a man and he can accept his own interpretation as infallible.
The Revelation of God to man is NOT a tradition. It is the Gospel which He did entrust to 12 men in the beginning, as the foundation of His Body that He established here on earth for man. That Gospel was given wholly, It did not need to be interpreted by anyone. The early Church recieved the Gospel, not a text. They did not use the text to interpret anything. The later texts confirmed what they already believed and were practicing.
It is the work of the HOLY Spirit to preserve Christ's Gospel. The Church teaches that Gospel, it does not need to interpret something from a text. Disputes are not handled by man's interpretation, since that is what is always the false teaching historically, but from what the Church has always believed and practiced. Man has NEVER interpreted scripture. The Body through the Holy Spirit has defined the Gospel against false teachings. Priests and bishops DO NOT INTERPRET scripture.
This is different than most westerners are familiar with because everything goes back to the RCC. Man, either the Pope, or the Magisterium has developed a lot of new doctrines. under the guise of "developed revelation". Which presumes that the early Church was not given the full Gospel.

When man thinks they need other men to understand the Oracles of God, then there will always be division.

 James 1:5 (NKJV)
[SUP]5 [/SUP]If any of you lacks wisdom, let him ask of God, who gives to all liberally and without reproach, and it will be given to him.

First, individual man has never had authority over scripture.
Secondly, God works through men. You would have never even received the OT let alone the NT if God did not first give it to men. The Truth was given ONCE, Now it is being preserved by the Body, the whole from beginning to present time through the work of the Holy Spirit who enlivens that Body over which Christ is the Head.
Wisdom in your citation is NOT revelation or the meaning of the Gospel. The Truth was never given to individuals in this Age. It was given to the Apostles. There will be no more revelation in this age. Thus when man comes up with all these new innovative ideas one knows it is not of the Holy Spirit. The Gospel was given ONCE, to be used by Christ's Church, His Body, to heal those who enter.

But tell me about all these men who don't need other men to understand the Oracles of God, how has that worked over the last 500 years. Has man kept the Gospel unified as does the Holy Spirit?

 

[SeaBass]

[/FONT][/COLOR]That does not negate Acts 10:44 - While Peter was still speaking these words (vs. 43 - whoever believes in Him will receive remission of sins) the Holy Spirit fell upon all those who heard the word. (not heard nothing at all).



How ironic for you to say that. It's actually the other way around.



Show me in the Bible where unbelievers receive the Holy Spirit? You won't find it in John 7:38,39; Acts 10:43-47; 11:17; 15:8,9; Ephesians 1:13.

Jn 3:5----------------spirit+++++++++++*living water>>>>>>>>>in the kingdom
1cor12:13----------spirit+++++++++++*Spirit baptized>>>>>>>in body
Tts 3"5---------Holy Ghost++++++*washing of reg/spiritual washing/living water>>>>>saved

*Corrections made above.



I already refuted it multiple times. You just simply refuse to believe the truth for the sake of accommodating your biased theology.



No He didn't. [/FONT]He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved" (general cases without making a qualification for the unusual case of someone who believes but is not baptized) but he that believeth not shall be damned. The omission of baptized with "believeth not" shows that Jesus does not make baptism essential to salvation. Condemnation rests on unbelief, not on baptism. So salvation rests on belief. If water baptism is required for salvation, then why did Jesus Himself not mention it in the following verses? (3:15,16,18; 5:24; 6:29,40,47; 11:25,26). What is the ONE requirement that Jesus mentions 9 different times in each of these complete statements? BELIEVES. What happened to baptism?



Believing and receiving the remission of sins precedes water baptism (Acts 10:43) and so does receiving the Holy Spirit (Acts 10:44-47; 11:17; Ephesians 1:13). One Lord, one faith, one baptism. One Spirit baptized into one body. Spirit baptism.

I never said Acts 11:4,14,15 negates Acts 10 but Acts 11 puts the events of Acts 10 "IN ORDER".

Without Acts 11 you cannot tell me with any certainty that the word "while" in v44 means at the beginning, in the middle of speaking or at the end of speaking the HG fell upon them. Of course, your bias wants the HG falling upon the Gentiles "while" Peter finished speaking. So the implication of the ORDER of events means the Gentiles had not yet heard those saving "words" (gospel) Acts 11:14 when the HG fell upon them.

Furthermore, God sent Cornelius an angel to send for Peter, God gave Peter a vision telling him Gentiles were clean and God baptized the Gentiles with the HG. The purpose of God doing these things was to prove to the Jews that salvation was not meant just for them and the Jews understood that, Acts 11:18. Water baptism saves/remits sins Acts 2:38. In Acts 10:47 Peter says "Can any man forbid water, that these should not be baptized, which have received the Holy Ghost as well as we?"
Any man that forbid water baptism for the Gentiles would be going against God's will in salvation going to the Gentiles.
If any man forbid water baptism, the Gentiles would be saved anyway? Hardly.


You posted: (blue)

Jn 3:5----------------spirit+++++++++++*living water>>>>>>>>>in the kingdom
1cor12:13----------spirit+++++++++++*Spirit baptized>>>>>>>in body
Tts 3"5---------Holy Ghost++++++*washing of reg/spiritual washing/living water>>>>>saved

Do I really need to comment on how you changed theses verses? Jesus said nothing about "living water" in Jn 3:5 nor did Paul say "spirit baptized" in 1 Cor 12:13. You simply added/made changes to these verses to get them to say what your bias wants them to say.

You are trying to make all three verses say: spirit ++++++++spirit>>>>>>>saved

YOU are being needlessly repetitious in how YOU are using spirit. I think the technical word you're guilty of is tautology..

Not only are you rewriting the 3 verses above, you now rewrite Mk 16;16 to say "he that believeth is saved" leaving baptism completely out.

The conjunction "and" joins "believeth" to "baptized" making them inseparable. So whatever "believeth" is necessary for, so is baptism. So if baptism is not necessary, neither is belief.

Acts 2:38 has both repentance and baptism BEFORE remission of sins.


Acts 2:38-----------baptized>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>for remission of sins
Acts 10:43---------believe>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>for remission of sins


Since there is just one way to be saved, then believing MUST include baptism.

Eph 2:8--------faith>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>saves
1Pet3:21-----baptism>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>saves

When comparing Acts 2:41 with v44, the ones said to have "believed" in v44 are the ones bpatized in v41. So "believed in v444 includes beign baptized. The language of v41 means one has not received the gospel word until he has been baptized.

The eunuch, he jailer, Lydia: NONE were baptized with the Holy Spirit for water baptism is the "like manner" way, Acts 15:11 that Jew and Gentiles are saved.

 

[Jabberjaw]

But tell me about all these men who don't need other men to understand the Oracles of God, how has that worked over the last 500 years. Has man kept the Gospel unified as does the Holy Spirit?

There is much I disagree with and would like to address, but this thread is on baptism and I don't wish to derail it any more than it already does...

I can tell you for the last 2000 years, the only ones that have removed themselves from the pattern of the New testament church are the ones who rely on more than the bible, as you said, it is not a continual revelation to man, it has been revealed to man, God has promised providential preservation, it is up to man to follow the pattern given him.

All these so called churches cannot find a pattern that matches theirs in the New Testament and why we are here debating water baptism, what is sad is that water baptism is a part of the pattern.

 

[ChosenbyHim]

However, respective of your view, it has been a false teaching since the beginning.

And what view is that?