Baptism purpose Sign of the covenant.

[sojourner]

Whew!! You finally and reluctantly acknowledged that it is Jesus' Blood which Saves in the act of Baptism.

Funny...
Blood isn't used in the act of baptism.

 

[sincerly]

Funny...
Blood isn't used in the act of baptism.

What is funny----No, what is sad is your failure to understand and correctly relate the meaning of the Scriptures.

 

[Muffled]

Oximoron since salvation comes at water baptism. Plus there is no command in the Bible that is instructed to be followed "because it's a command". Denying oneself is commanded by Jesus, Loving one another as Jesus loved us is commanded by Jesus, Make disciples of all nations is commanded by Jesus. All of these commands have reasons attached to them, not solely for obedience sake. The reason attached to baptism is forgiveness of sins, Acts 2:38. Baptism solely for obedience sake doesn't exist. That's a protestant lingo thing.

This is not a truism and you have not proven it.

It is implied by this verse: Mat 28:19 Go ye therefore, and make disciples of all the nations, baptizing them into the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit:
Since it is a command for disciple makers to baptize it is also a command for the disciples to be baptized.

It is just as reasonable to say that hte forgiveness of sins comes with repentance since that was the original meaning of water baptism. However repentance can oocur at any time and water baptism does not have to immediately follow. Peter wasn't at a river. He was just calling for people to be baptized later but repentance is efficacious for the forgiveness of sins as soon as it is done.

So you are saying that having been saved I had no need to be baptized. That is probably true escept for the public declaration of faith that it entails and the symbolism that it provides it would not have added anything to my salvation.

 

[e.r.m.]

This is not a truism and you have not proven it.

It is implied by this verse: Mat 28:19 Go ye therefore, and make disciples of all the nations, baptizing them into the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit:
Since it is a command for disciple makers to baptize it is also a command for the disciples to be baptized.

It is just as reasonable to say that hte forgiveness of sins comes with repentance since that was the original meaning of water baptism. However repentance can oocur at any time and water baptism does not have to immediately follow. Peter wasn't at a river. He was just calling for people to be baptized later but repentance is efficacious for the forgiveness of sins as soon as it is done.

So you are saying that having been saved I had no need to be baptized. That is probably true escept for the public declaration of faith that it entails and the symbolism that it provides it would not have added anything to my salvation.

Welcome back Muffled!

This is not a truism and you have not proven it.
First, I know what truism means, but don't understand what you mean by this phrase. Please elaborate.


It is implied by this verse: Mat 28:19 Go ye therefore, and make disciples of all the nations, baptizing them into the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit:
I had a long discussion with one member about baptism with fire. That was his favorite phrase in the world. He had no scripture to define what baptism with fire was, but he used it universally to describe a change within a person. In short, he made up his own doctrine, and spoke of it as if if wat implied, between the lines. In fact, he was inferring it on his own. Then I had a conversation with a catholic on this forum who was saying baptism of infants and children was implied in the scriptures because culturally the head of the household in the first century was spiritually responsible for all under him so he could have children and babies baptized and it would be efficacious. He called it "implied" when it was in fact inferred.
NOW YOU are saying that baptism as an act of obedience is, gee what's the word?, IMPLIED, when it's actually inferred, just like the other two.
If baptism is soleley and for no other purpose, and act of obedience, the so is every other command in the new testament. Loving one another is not so all men may know we are his disciples -John 13:35, it's just for obedience. Denying ourselves isn't to save ourselves Luke 9:23-25, it's only for obedience. making disciples isn't for the sake of the lost souls, it's just for obedience, and nothing more!
Truth is, that idea isn't scriptural.
The scriptures already several reasons for water baptism, beyond obedience. Let's go over what you are aggressively ignoring and turning a blind eye to:

1. Mark 16:16 Whoever believes and is baptized will be saved, but whoever does not believe will be condemned. - Baptism is for salvation.

2. Acts 2:38 Peter replied, “Repent and be baptized, every one of you, in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins. And you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit. - Baptism is for forgiveness of sins and for receiving the indwelling of the Holy Spirit.

3. Acts 22:16 And now what are you waiting for? Get up, be baptized and wash your sins away, calling on his name.’ - Baptism is for washing away of sins.

4. Romans 6:3 Or do you not know that all of us who have been baptized into Christ Jesus have been baptized into His death? 4 Therefore we have been buried with Him through baptism into death, so that as Christ was raised from the dead through the glory of the Father, so we too might walk in newness of life. - Baptism is to be buried with Him into death, so that we too might walk in newness of life.

5. Galatians 3:26 For you are all sons of God through faith in Christ Jesus. 27 For all of you who were baptized into Christ have clothed yourselves with Christ. Baptism is to clothe ourselves with Christ.

6. 1 Peter 3:21 Corresponding to that, baptism now saves you—not the removal of dirt from the flesh, but an appeal to God [a]for a good conscience—through the resurrection of Jesus Christ, -
-Baptism is for salvation.
-Baptism is also an appeal to God for a good conscience.

Baptism as an act of obedience is ONLY a tactic by those who wish to the blatantly avoid the Bible's explicitly stated purposes for baptism.
Matthew 28:19-20 is a command just like every other command, It has not written marker or specialness to it "Baptism is a command for obedience, nothing more." You are seeing completely what you want to see, just like how people see shapes in clouds, completely inferred.

Since it is a command for disciple makers to baptize it is also a command for the disciples to be baptized.
Obviously people are commanded to be baptized. Obviously the command is for the reasons above 1.-6.


It is just as reasonable to say that the forgiveness of sins comes with repentance since that was the original meaning of water baptism.
This isn't an opinion forum. Scripture doesn't go halfway, it says forgiveness of sins comes with repentance & baptism. Acts 2:38. The whole package.

However repentance can occur at any time and water baptism does not have to immediately follow. Peter wasn't at a river. He was just calling for people to be baptized later
They were baptized that same day. They must have found a river or water somewhere after the message.

but repentance is efficacious for the forgiveness of sins as soon as it is done.
You'll need a scriptural justification for this after the new covenant started, which was after Jesus's death - Hebrews 9:16-17.


So you are saying that having been saved I had no need to be baptized.
When did I say that?

public declaration of faith that it entails
What public declaration?

and the symbolism that it provides it would not have added anything to my salvation.
No one in the Bible got baptized for the sake of symbolism anyway.
That has nothing to do with this discussion.

You have no authority to claim salvation outside of the Bible. Imagine saying to God "Yeah you're Bible said to get baptized for salvation/forgiveness of sins. (Mark 16:16/Acts 2:38), but Your Word doesn't apply to me, I was already saved.

 

[sincerly]

Welcome back Muffled!

Since muffled hasn't answered this post of yours which is still the same erroneous claims for the truths of the Scriptures concerning Baptism, I'll answer it.

It is difficult to know who said what by the format both of you are using.

If baptism is soleley and for no other purpose, and act of obedience, the so is every other command in the new testament. Loving one another is not so all men may know we are his disciples -John 13:35, it's just for obedience. Denying ourselves isn't to save ourselves Luke 9:23-25, it's only for obedience. making disciples isn't for the sake of the lost souls, it's just for obedience, and nothing more!

Truth is, that idea isn't scriptural.
The scriptures already several reasons for water baptism, beyond obedience. Let's go over what you are aggressively ignoring and turning a blind eye to:

1. Mark 16:16 Whoever believes and is baptized will be saved, but whoever does not believe will be condemned. - Baptism is for salvation.

That red denotes a BELIEF not in baptism, but the Blood of Jesus Christ for the propitiation of SINS.---Therefore--one's Salvation.

The baptism is showing one's williness to die to self and be buried in baptism "With Christ" so that one can resurrect with Christ in newness of life(Spiritual).

2. Acts 2:38 Peter replied, “Repent and be baptized, every one of you, in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins. And you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit. - Baptism is for forgiveness of sins and for receiving the indwelling of the Holy Spirit.

"In the name of Jesus" is the belief concerning HIS SHED BLOOD for the "forgiveness of Sins". The Baptism manifests one's williness and determination to follow Jesus in death and resurrection for that promised new life and the receiving of the Holy Spirit and the Baptism of/with fire.

3. Acts 22:16 And now what are you waiting for? Get up, be baptized and wash your sins away, calling on his name.’ - Baptism is for washing away of sins.

Paul was admonished to be Baptised, he had acknowledged that the "voice" was the Lord GOD speaking to him.
John 13:8, "Peter saith unto him, Thou shalt never wash my feet. Jesus answered him, If I wash thee not, thou hast no part with me."
Titus 3:5, "Not by works of righteousness which we have done, but according to his mercy he saved us, by the washing of regeneration, and renewing of the Holy Ghost;"
Rev.7:14, "And I said unto him, Sir, thou knowest. And he said to me, These are they which came out of great tribulation, and have washed their robes, and made them white in the blood of the Lamb."

4. Romans 6:3 Or do you not know that all of us who have been baptized into Christ Jesus have been baptized into His death? 4 Therefore we have been buried with Him through baptism into death, so that as Christ was raised from the dead through the glory of the Father, so we too might walk in newness of life. - Baptism is to be buried with Him into death, so that we too might walk in newness of life.

Right, baptism is the symbolic death, burial, and resurrection with Christ Jesus. Salvation comes with believing in the shed blood for the remission of one's sins.

5. Galatians 3:26 For you are all sons of God through faith in Christ Jesus. 27 For all of you who were baptized into Christ have clothed yourselves with Christ. Baptism is to clothe ourselves with Christ.

That clothing is in the "faith in Christ Jesus" whose shed Blood was so that one could put on HIS ROBE OF RIGHTEOUSNESS.

6. 1Pet.3:21 Corresponding to that, baptism now saves you—not the removal of dirt from the flesh, but an appeal to God [a]for a good conscience—through the resurrection of Jesus Christ, -
-Baptism is for salvation.
-Baptism is also an appeal to God for a good conscience.

The "good conscience" is response to the belief in the "death, burial, and resurrection" of Jesus Christ for the propitiation of one's Sins. It is that shed blood/death that salvation is obtained and a "good conscience is obtained" so that one can appeal to the Father for Mercy.

 

[e.r.m.]

Baptism, according to my Episcopal upbringing, is a sacrament: That is, an outward and visible sign of an inward and spiritual grace. Neither the water, nor the act, are efficacious. It is God who is efficacious. The water and the act are necessary only to the degree that they serve to embody that grace for human beings with bodies, and who experience God's universe through bodily means.

Therefore, the water and act of Baptism are physical signs of something spiritual that God is doing with us.

With all due respect to the Episcopal tradition, the Bible never describes baptism as you described it here.
The Bible's teaching on baptism is entirely different.
1 Peter 3:21 Baptism does save you.
Acts 2:38 Baptism in Jesus's name is for forgiveness of sins.

So there's traditional teaching and there's Biblical teaching. Different separate teachings.

 

[e.r.m.]

Since muffled hasn't answered this post of yours which is still the same erroneous claims for the truths of the Scriptures concerning Baptism, I'll answer it.

It is difficult to know who said what by the format both of you are using.



[/b]

That red denotes a BELIEF not in baptism, but the Blood of Jesus Christ for the propitiation of SINS.---Therefore--one's Salvation.

The baptism is showing one's williness to die to self and be buried in baptism "With Christ" so that one can resurrect with Christ in newness of life(Spiritual).



"In the name of Jesus" is the belief concerning HIS SHED BLOOD for the "forgiveness of Sins". The Baptism manifests one's williness and determination to follow Jesus in death and resurrection for that promised new life and the receiving of the Holy Spirit and the Baptism of/with fire.



Paul was admonished to be Baptised, he had acknowledged that the "voice" was the Lord GOD speaking to him.
John 13:8, "Peter saith unto him, Thou shalt never wash my feet. Jesus answered him, If I wash thee not, thou hast no part with me."
Titus 3:5, "Not by works of righteousness which we have done, but according to his mercy he saved us, by the washing of regeneration, and renewing of the Holy Ghost;"
Rev.7:14, "And I said unto him, Sir, thou knowest. And he said to me, These are they which came out of great tribulation, and have washed their robes, and made them white in the blood of the Lamb."

Right, baptism is the symbolic death, burial, and resurrection with Christ Jesus. Salvation comes with believing in the shed blood for the remission of one's sins.

That clothing is in the "faith in Christ Jesus" whose shed Blood was so that one could put on HIS ROBE OF RIGHTEOUSNESS.

The "good conscience" is response to the belief in the "death, burial, and resurrection" of Jesus Christ for the propitiation of one's Sins. It is that shed blood/death that salvation is obtained and a "good conscience is obtained" so that one can appeal to the Father for Mercy.

Since muffled hasn't answered this post of yours which is still the same erroneous claims for the truths of the Scriptures concerning Baptism, I'll answer it.
By all means.


It is difficult to know who said what by the format both of you are using.
[/b]
Sorry.


That red denotes a BELIEF not in baptism, but the Blood of Jesus Christ for the propitiation of SINS.---Therefore--one's Salvation.
Those who believe (in Jesus Christ, including but not limited to his blood) AND are baptized will be saved.
The verse includes baptism. It doesn't leave it out. You're trying to.


The baptism is showing one's williness to die to self and be buried in baptism "With Christ" so that one can resurrect with Christ in newness of life(Spiritual).
Romans 6 doesn't "say" baptism is showing one's williness to die to self and...
This isn't semantics, Romans 4 showed that Paul had the capacity to call something a sign because he referred to the "sign" of circumcision. He always left the topic of baptism alone.


"In the name of Jesus" is the belief concerning HIS SHED BLOOD for the "forgiveness of Sins".
Whether or not that's what "in Jesus name" means, it still says to be baptized "in Jesus name" for the forgiveness of sins.


Baptism of/with fire.
Are you implying that everyone who gets water baptized will also get baptized with fire as the apostles did?


Paul was admonished to be Baptised, he had acknowledged that the "voice" was the Lord GOD speaking to him.
Right.


John 13:8, "Peter saith unto him, Thou shalt never wash my feet. Jesus answered him, If I wash thee not, thou hast no part with me."
What does washing another's feet have to do with immersion in water in Jesus's name for the forgiveness of sins?

Titus 3:5, "Not by works of righteousness which we have done, but according to his mercy he saved us, by the washing of regeneration, and renewing of the Holy Ghost;"
Your point?

Rev.7:14, "And I said unto him, Sir, thou knowest. And he said to me, These are they which came out of great tribulation, and have washed their robes, and made them white in the blood of the Lamb."
That clothing is in the "faith in Christ Jesus" whose shed Blood was so that one could put on HIS ROBE OF RIGHTEOUSNESS.
Where in the Bible are baptism for forgiveness of sins and Jesus's blood in conflict?

Right, baptism is the symbolic death, burial, and resurrection with Christ Jesus.
Says who? Not Paul. Romans 4 showed that Paul had the capacity to call something a sign because he referred to the "sign" of circumcision. He always left the topic of baptism alone.

Salvation comes with believing in the shed blood for the remission of one's sins.
Included, but not limited to...

The "good conscience" is response to the belief in the "death, burial, and resurrection" of Jesus Christ for the propitiation of one's Sins.
It says baptism is an appeal/answer to God for a good concience, through the resurrection. God I've been baptized in Jesus's name, please clear my conscience/I can approach you with a good conscience now that my sins are forgiven.
1 Peter 3:21 Corresponding to that, baptism now saves you—not the removal of dirt from the flesh, but an appeal to God [a]for a good conscience—through the resurrection of Jesus Christ,

It is that shed blood/death that salvation is obtained and a "good conscience is obtained" so that one can appeal to the Father for Mercy.
Which occurs at baptism - 1 Peter 3:21.

 

[sincerly]

It is difficult to know who said what by the format both of you are using.
[/b]
Sorry.


That red denotes a BELIEF not in baptism, but the Blood of Jesus Christ for the propitiation of SINS.---Therefore--one's Salvation.
Those who believe (in Jesus Christ, including but not limited to his blood) AND are baptized will be saved.
The verse includes baptism. It doesn't leave it out. You're trying to.

e r.m., It is this phrase which makes your answer false. "including but not limited to his blood"
Those are incompatible--"Including", "but not limited to".[/quote]

The baptism is showing one's williness to die to self and be buried in baptism "With Christ" so that one can resurrect with Christ in newness of life(Spiritual).

Romans 6 doesn't "say" baptism is showing one's williness to die to self and...
This isn't semantics, Romans 4 showed that Paul had the capacity to call something a sign because he referred to the "sign" of circumcision. He always left the topic of baptism alone.

Right!, It is contextually implied.--- as Paul said in another place "I die daily".(1 Cor.15:21) being "Crucified with Christ". In Rom.4:11, Paul did refer to "circumcision as a sign of "Righteousness". In Col.2:10-14, "And ye are complete in him, which is the head of all principality and power: In whom also ye are circumcised with the circumcision made without hands, in putting off the body of the sins of the flesh by the circumcision of Christ: Buried with him in baptism, wherein also ye are risen with [him] through the faith of the operation of God, who hath raised him from the dead. And you, being dead in your sins and the uncircumcision of your flesh, hath he quickened together with him, having forgiven you all trespasses; Blotting out the handwriting of ordinances that was against us, which was contrary to us, and took it out of the way, nailing it to his cross; "---Therefore, the Salvation is by HIS Crucifixion and the Baptism is a manifestation of that "Righteousness" which is exhibited by Faith in HIS shed Blood. The "uncircumcised heart" having now been "circumcised by "unseen hands" through that same "Faith".

 

[Muffled]

Welcome back Muffled!

This is not a truism and you have not proven it.
First, I know what truism means, but don't understand what you mean by this phrase. Please elaborate.

It is implied by this verse: Mat 28:19 Go ye therefore, and make disciples of all the nations, baptizing them into the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit:
I had a long discussion with one member about baptism with fire. That was his favorite phrase in the world. He had no scripture to define what baptism with fire was, but he used it universally to describe a change within a person. In short, he made up his own doctrine, and spoke of it as if if wat implied, between the lines. In fact, he was inferring it on his own. Then I had a conversation with a catholic on this forum who was saying baptism of infants and children was implied in the scriptures because culturally the head of the household in the first century was spiritually responsible for all under him so he could have children and babies baptized and it would be efficacious. He called it "implied" when it was in fact inferred.
NOW YOU are saying that baptism as an act of obedience is, gee what's the word?, IMPLIED, when it's actually inferred, just like the other two.
If baptism is soleley and for no other purpose, and act of obedience, the so is every other command in the new testament. Loving one another is not so all men may know we are his disciples -John 13:35, it's just for obedience. Denying ourselves isn't to save ourselves Luke 9:23-25, it's only for obedience. making disciples isn't for the sake of the lost souls, it's just for obedience, and nothing more!
Truth is, that idea isn't scriptural.
The scriptures already several reasons for water baptism, beyond obedience. Let's go over what you are aggressively ignoring and turning a blind eye to:

1. Mark 16:16 Whoever believes and is baptized will be saved, but whoever does not believe will be condemned. - Baptism is for salvation.

2. Acts 2:38 Peter replied, “Repent and be baptized, every one of you, in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins. And you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit. - Baptism is for forgiveness of sins and for receiving the indwelling of the Holy Spirit.

3. Acts 22:16 And now what are you waiting for? Get up, be baptized and wash your sins away, calling on his name.’ - Baptism is for washing away of sins.

4. Romans 6:3 Or do you not know that all of us who have been baptized into Christ Jesus have been baptized into His death? 4 Therefore we have been buried with Him through baptism into death, so that as Christ was raised from the dead through the glory of the Father, so we too might walk in newness of life. - Baptism is to be buried with Him into death, so that we too might walk in newness of life.

5. Galatians 3:26 For you are all sons of God through faith in Christ Jesus. 27 For all of you who were baptized into Christ have clothed yourselves with Christ. Baptism is to clothe ourselves with Christ.

6. 1 Peter 3:21 Corresponding to that, baptism now saves you—not the removal of dirt from the flesh, but an appeal to God [a]for a good conscience—through the resurrection of Jesus Christ, -
-Baptism is for salvation.
-Baptism is also an appeal to God for a good conscience.

Baptism as an act of obedience is ONLY a tactic by those who wish to the blatantly avoid the Bible's explicitly stated purposes for baptism.
Matthew 28:19-20 is a command just like every other command, It has not written marker or specialness to it "Baptism is a command for obedience, nothing more." You are seeing completely what you want to see, just like how people see shapes in clouds, completely inferred.

Since it is a command for disciple makers to baptize it is also a command for the disciples to be baptized.
Obviously people are commanded to be baptized. Obviously the command is for the reasons above 1.-6.


It is just as reasonable to say that the forgiveness of sins comes with repentance since that was the original meaning of water baptism.
This isn't an opinion forum. Scripture doesn't go halfway, it says forgiveness of sins comes with repentance & baptism. Acts 2:38. The whole package.

However repentance can occur at any time and water baptism does not have to immediately follow. Peter wasn't at a river. He was just calling for people to be baptized later
They were baptized that same day. They must have found a river or water somewhere after the message.

but repentance is efficacious for the forgiveness of sins as soon as it is done.
You'll need a scriptural justification for this after the new covenant started, which was after Jesus's death - Hebrews 9:16-17.


So you are saying that having been saved I had no need to be baptized.
When did I say that?

public declaration of faith that it entails
What public declaration?

and the symbolism that it provides it would not have added anything to my salvation.
No one in the Bible got baptized for the sake of symbolism anyway.
That has nothing to do with this discussion.

You have no authority to claim salvation outside of the Bible. Imagine saying to God "Yeah you're Bible said to get baptized for salvation/forgiveness of sins. (Mark 16:16/Acts 2:38), but Your Word doesn't apply to me, I was already saved.

I do bop around and get back here eventaully.

I am sure you believe that salvation by baptism is fact but you have not proven it to be so to my satisfaction.

That is like saying a tree exists to make houses, build fires and hit baseballs. Granted trees can be used for that but that doesn't mean that God specifiaclly created trees for that purpose.

Things aren't obvious. They have to be proven.

So if a person is baptized who isn't repenting goes about committing the same sins, those sins are forgiven because water was involved. Luke 18:13 But the publican, standing afar off, would not lift up so much as his eyes unto heaven, but smote his breast, saying, God, be thou merciful to me a sinner.
14 I say unto you, This man went down to his house justified ... In this verse no water was involved.

This is speculation. The text does not say that.

Ro 3:28 We reckon therefore that a man is justified by faith apart from the works of the law.

Eph 2:8 for by grace have ye been saved through faith; and that not of yourselves, it is the gift of God; No mention of baptism at all.

 

[e.r.m.]

Muffled,

So do I.

I think a person's satisfaction is largely based on how they've been taught to approach God's word. Usually, the more specific the person's approach, the higher the burden of proof. I don't know what your approach is, but it appears to me somewhat unspecific.

I like the tree analogy. I used it against the public profession of faith teaching. Some say that public profession of faith is NOW the purpose for baptism, when at best, it's just a side effect, an incidental. Like a tree is incidentally used to make fires.

Acts 2:38 is pretty good proof.

Luke 18:13-14.
1. Somewhat general/unspecific since the prayer doesn't mention Jesus in any way.
2. For the gazillionth and thirty-first time, baptism in Jesus name for salvation Mark 16:16 and/or forgiveness of sins Acts 2:38 wasn't given until after the new covenant began Hebrews 9:16-17. Baptism in Jesus's name was not commanded until after Jesus's resurrection. Do protestants retain memory of this point? Why does this have to be repeated as if for the first time, each time?

Romans 3:28 No conflict with baptism in Jesus's name, as it is not a work.

Ephesians 2:8/Romans 3:28 Just want to get across a concept, "Including, but not limited to."
Not every verse on salvation mentions belief/faith Luke 13:5 (there are more), not every verse mentions repentance Romans 10:9-10, not every verse mentions baptism. We put ALL new covenant verses that mention salvation/forgiveness of sins grace, faith, repentance, confessing Jesus is Lord, baptism, "together" and we get salvation. To debunk baptism's role in salvation, the burden of proof is no less than finding a verse that "explicitly" negates/excludes baptism's role - or - that assigns a role to baptism that contradicts salvation.

Would you accept Luke 13:5 as evidence that we don't need to believe in Jesus, since it doesn't mention belief like John 3:18 does? Think about your argument.

It is good to hear from you though.

 

[Muffled]

Muffled,

So do I.

I think a person's satisfaction is largely based on how they've been taught to approach God's word. Usually, the more specific the person's approach, the higher the burden of proof. I don't know what your approach is, but it appears to me somewhat unspecific.

I like the tree analogy. I used it against the public profession of faith teaching. Some say that public profession of faith is NOW the purpose for baptism, when at best, it's just a side effect, an incidental. Like a tree is incidentally used to make fires.

Acts 2:38 is pretty good proof.

Luke 18:13-14.
1. Somewhat general/unspecific since the prayer doesn't mention Jesus in any way.
2. For the gazillionth and thirty-first time, baptism in Jesus name for salvation Mark 16:16 and/or forgiveness of sins Acts 2:38 wasn't given until after the new covenant began Hebrews 9:16-17. Baptism in Jesus's name was not commanded until after Jesus's resurrection. Do protestants retain memory of this point? Why does this have to be repeated as if for the first time, each time?

Romans 3:28 No conflict with baptism in Jesus's name, as it is not a work.

Ephesians 2:8/Romans 3:28 Just want to get across a concept, "Including, but not limited to."
Not every verse on salvation mentions belief/faith Luke 13:5 (there are more), not every verse mentions repentance Romans 10:9-10, not every verse mentions baptism. We put ALL new covenant verses that mention salvation/forgiveness of sins grace, faith, repentance, confessing Jesus is Lord, baptism, "together" and we get salvation. To debunk baptism's role in salvation, the burden of proof is no less than finding a verse that "explicitly" negates/excludes baptism's role - or - that assigns a role to baptism that contradicts salvation.

Would you accept Luke 13:5 as evidence that we don't need to believe in Jesus, since it doesn't mention belief like John 3:18 does? Think about your argument.

It is good to hear from you though.

I can't say I ever was taught an approach to God's word. Somewhere along the line I learned that interpretation requires an understanding of context. I would go further and state that spiritual things are spiritually discerned.

However that is not the case. Baptism was originally and continues to be a public proclamation of repentance. I agree that speaking of ones salvation at that time is incidental but not totally foreign to the concept of making a public profession. However my church required the public profession first and did the baptism afterwards so that they were only connected by an assumption that people knew what the baptism was for. So for that reason baptism had been relegated to only a symbol of the confession that had already been made. Why then bother with the baptism at all one might say? I say because the immersion in water carries the symbolism of salvation ie dieing to oneself and being born again to new life in Jesus. Ro 6:4 We were buried therefore with him through baptism into death: that like as Christ was raised from the dead through the glory of the Father, so we also might walk in newness of life.

Not when it is misinterpreted.

However the verse is about forgiveness of sins which was given by God long before Jesus ws born.

Don't let the "and" fool you because it is belief that saves, when Jesus mentions the opposite He leaves out baptism which reaveals the true nature of what He was saying.

Again baptism doesn't forgive sins, God does when a person repents.

There doesn't have to be a verse negating it since it doesn't exist in scripture in the first place.

That verse is about physical salvation not salvation of the soul. It basicly says that a soul that sins will die and that is true even after a person has received Jesus as Savior. If I walk off a cliff I will die. However Jesus keeps me from walking off cliffs because He is my Savior. If a person were able to completely repent his sins ie never do any, then he would be saved just as much as a person having Jesus as Savior. However there is no such person who can avoid sin in his own power.

 

[e.r.m.]

Muffled, I missed you, I thought you had forgotten me, lol. Just messing with you.

I can't say I ever was taught an approach to God's word. Somewhere along the line I learned that interpretation requires an understanding of context. I would go further and state that spiritual things are spiritually discerned.
Everyone is. Even those in the Bible 1 Timothy 4:16, 2 Peter 1:20-21, Matthew 15:1-9
Someone may not have have sat down with you and taught you their approach, but protestants have a very distinctive style, which you convey almost verbatimly. Also, MANY refer to their biases as spritually discerned, Pentecostals are the first that come to mind (not saying they're right or wrong). We are to spiritually discern, but that involves listening to the Spirit above our own biases. Not something to take lightly.


However that is not the case. Baptism was originally and continues to be a public proclamation of repentance.
Please tell me, says who?

I agree that speaking of ones salvation at that time is incidental but not totally foreign to the concept of making a public profession. However my church required the public profession first and did the baptism afterwards so that they were only connected by an assumption that people knew what the baptism was for. So for that reason baptism had been relegated to only a symbol of the confession that had already been made. Why then bother with the baptism at all one might say?
Great example of the protestant approach to the Bible. How does it not worry protestants that no one in the Bible ever referred to baptism as a profession of faith? And that they build a WHOLE theology around something not in the Bible?

I say because the immersion in water carries the symbolism of salvation ie dieing to oneself and being born again to new life in Jesus. Ro 6:4 We were buried therefore with him through baptism into death: that like as Christ was raised from the dead through the glory of the Father, so we also might walk in newness of life.
Baptists insert the "symbolism", not Paul.

Not when it is misinterpreted.
It is an uphill battle to try to justify the notion "Biblically" that baptism is a work. That's a man made doctrine.

However the verse is about forgiveness of sins which was given by God long before Jesus ws born.
Which verse?

Don't let the "and" fool you because it is belief that saves, when Jesus mentions the opposite He leaves out baptism which reaveals the true nature of what He was saying.
I haven't heard this one in a long time. It's an older argument with a fatal flaw.
What He said in the entire verse is "the true nature of what He was saying".
Without a baptist sitting next to a reader giving a qualifier, such as the one you gave, many readers will walk away believing that baptism is a part of salvation. Jesus did not qualify His statement. He left it just the way he said it. The word explains itself. I asked someone who has little Biblical knowledge and had never before seen the verse, whether based on what it says, if belief and baptism are both part of being saved, or no. He said "Yes". Jesus left it just as he said it. John 12:49-50.

Again baptism doesn't forgive sins, God does when a person repents.
It is a misquote that we say baptism forgives. You need to at least quote correctly. God forgives when a person believes, repents, and is baptized. Mark 16:16, Acts 2:38.

There doesn't have to be a verse negating it since it doesn't exist in scripture in the first place.
Acts 2:38, for example.

That verse is about physical salvation not salvation of the soul. It basicly says that a soul that sins will die and that is true even after a person has received Jesus as Savior. If I walk off a cliff I will die.
However Jesus keeps me from walking off cliffs because He is my Savior.
There are more.
Romans 5:9-11 Since we have now been justified by his blood, how much more shall we be saved from God's wrath through him! [10] For if, when we were God's enemies, we were reconciled to him through the death of his Son, how much more, having been reconciled, shall we be saved through his life! [11] Not only is this so, but we also rejoice in God through our Lord Jesus Christ, through whom we have now received reconciliation.
I have seen people claim that everyone on earth is already saved, faith or not. Not every scripture on salvation mentions faith.

If a person were able to completely repent his sins ie never do any, then he would be saved just as much as a person having Jesus as Savior. However there is no such person who can avoid sin in his own power.
Agreed.

 

[e.r.m.]

You just quoted 1 Pet 3:21 out of context of the verse itself. Why use just half a verse unless you are trying to find support for man-made false doctrines. The whole context shows that baptism is NOT for the removal of flesh but "the answer of a good conscience."

If you go back to Genesis and examine the context of Noah, then you will find that Noah was just and righteous BEFORE the Flood. Water never gave Noah this standing of righteousness.

Context rules. You must use God's Word in context or fall prey to perversions of human-centered righteousness.

Dr. O

The rest of the verse doesn't disagree with the first part of the verse. Of course if a person is saved at baptism, they'll have a good conscience before God. Peter didn't say "baptism which now saves you also, oh but I didn't really mean that."

I've read about Noah. It still says baptism saves you.

 

[e.r.m.]

I like Col 2:11-13. Saving baptism happens without hands! This baptism is that of the Holy Ghost. This baptism without hands is just like the "buried with Him in baptism." The passage does not talk of the literal real water. The context is of the symbolic Spiritual baptism.

Those who would raise up human-centered righteousness would make this verse point to literal water so that they could add human works to faith.

Col 2:11 must be understood the right way - in its context.
Dr. O

There's God's part and there's our part.
Acts 8:38 And he gave orders to stop the chariot. Then both Philip and the eunuch went down into the water and Philip baptized him.

Our part is with hands.

The default of baptism in the NT is with water, unless said otherwise. Matthew 28:19, Acts 2:38, being baptized in Jesus's name was commanded to be done. Acts 10:47-48 baptism in Jesus's name is in water. That is the standard.

Baptism of the Holy Spirit Acts 2:3-4 and Baptism in Jesus's name (water) for forgiveness of sins Acts 2:38 are distinct.

This is the context of Colossians 2:12.

You're mistaken, baptism in water is not a work.

 

[e.r.m.]

Ascund,
Post 197

Baptist often make up their own doctrine

Acts 8:37 And Philip said, "If you believe with all your heart, you may." And he answered and said, "I believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God."

It says believe, it does not say saved. Only protestants replace the word believe with the word saved. Belief alone for salvation is not established. That's what we're discussing. You're bordering so close to lying.
Baptism is for those who believe, not for those who are saved. There is no scripture that baptism is for the "saved".

Context, scriptural context, does not disagree with the text. That untoward generation did crucify Jesus. You however, and you alone, are expanding that to baptism. Acts 2:39 despite your speaking for the scripture, says the promise is for all who are far off, for all whom the Lord our God will call. It doesn't leave it open to the imagination or for an outside construct. It's specific,
-for you
-your children
-and all who are far off, for all whom the Lord our God will call.

The text says something different than just that untoward generation.

The scriptures cannot be dismissed by calling them a sideshow.

So Peter commanded it for the wrong reason? Acts 2:38, 10:47-48.

Philip never cautioned it was for the saved. Go by the Bible.

 

[e.r.m.]

Ascund
Post 198

I can't type as fast as you.

I don't dispute the facts of Noah, I dispute your conclusion.
Without all the fancy words, it sounds to me like you're saying (correct me if I'm wrong) that Peter is saying in 1 Peter 3:21 that people are saved in a temporal sense, like Noah was, but the context of saved in 1 Peter 3:21 is not being saved physically, but of being saved spiritually,
1 Peter 3:18-21 For Christ also died for sins once for all, the just for the unjust, so that He might bring us to God, having been put to death in the flesh, but made alive in the spirit; [19] in which also He went and made proclamation to the spirits now in prison, [20] who once were disobedient, when the patience of God kept waiting in the days of Noah, during the construction of the ark, in which a few, that is, eight persons, were brought safely through the water. [21] Corresponding to that, baptism now saves you--not the removal of dirt from the flesh, but an appeal to God for a good conscience--through the resurrection of Jesus Christ,

 

[e.r.m.]

Your assumption is faulty. A person is not saved at baptism. No verse in the Bible that says such a thing. I've already shown that Acts 2:38, your main pillar of denominational doctrine, violates the context of one UNTOWARD GENERATION of Israelites. The forgiveness of sins was specifically for murdering their Messiah.

When your assumptions are unsupported, then any other conclusion that you try is equally invalid.

Dr. O

1 Peter 3:21 says they are.

The text in Acts 2:38,39 disagrees with the construct you are trying to build "around" Acts 2:38.

 

[e.r.m.]

Yes. You are right about the spiritual sense. That is why Peter denounced water baptism as putting away the filth of the flesh (forgiveness of sins).

Yes! Peter went on to say that water baptism was the response (answer) of a good conscience toward God. The unsaved person does not have a good conscience toward God. Only the already saved person has a good conscience toward God.

Faith (eternal life), then water baptism as a symbol of that which already exists. It's just like Noah. He believed and was counted as just and righteous (Gen 6:9; 7:1) 120 years before the Flood. The Flood verfied that Noah had a good conscience toward God because he built that huge ark.

Faith first, then water (optional).
There is no other pattern in the Bible.

Dr. O

Yes. You are right about the spiritual sense. That is why Peter denounced water baptism as putting away the filth of the flesh (forgiveness of sins).
I've never known sins to stick to the flesh, but to the soul. Removal of filth from the flesh is not forgiveness of sins, but of actual removal of "filth" from the "flesh". And that is exactly what is says. It doesn't say "not of forgiveness of sins."

Yes! Peter went on to say that water baptism was the response (answer) of a good conscience toward God. The unsaved person does not have a good conscience toward God. Only the already saved person has a good conscience toward God.
Which is why an answer of a good conscience toward God occurs at baptism. "baptism, which now saves you also,"

Faith (eternal life), then water baptism as a symbol of that which already exists.
Zwinglian doctrine. There is not a single verse that "says" baptism is a symbol of that which already exists. Romans 6 neither "says" that people get baptized as a symbol of that which already exists.

It's just like Noah. He believed and was counted as just and righteous (Gen 6:9; 7:1) 120 years before the Flood. The Flood verfied that Noah had a good conscience toward God because he built that huge ark.
Not the New covenant Hebrews 9:16-17

Faith first,
Yes

then water (optional).
There is no other pattern in the Bible.
Says who?

 

[e.r.m.]

Really answer the following questions.

1) Which nation was celebrating the Passover?
2) Who came to the Passover?
3) Who spoke to the crowd?
4) Who was referenced in the Acts 2 sermon?
5) Which Book was used as the basis of the Acts 2 sermon?
6) Who killed Jesus?
7) Who is that UNTOWARD GENERATION?

The answers are all some variant of Israel. You want to lift verse 39 from this context so that you can force your creeds upon the verse. Why not use the whole chapter and verse 40 with it?

The differences between us significant. Consider the following contrasts.

ERM: single verse.
Dr. O: Whole Context

ERM: creeds interpret verse 39.
Dr. O: Context interprets verse 39.

OH that you would honor the totality of God's Word more than your denominational creeds.
Dr. O

Really answer the following questions.

1) Which nation was celebrating the Passover?
2) Who came to the Passover?
3) Who spoke to the crowd?
4) Who was referenced in the Acts 2 sermon?
5) Which Book was used as the basis of the Acts 2 sermon?
6) Who killed Jesus?
7) Who is that UNTOWARD GENERATION?
Your argument is that the Jews Peter is addressing are the only ones Peter is talking "about". This is an assumption.
-Romans 1:7 He spoke to the saints in Rome, Romans 10:1 including comments "about" his Israelite brothers who had not yet been saved.
-Acts 17:22 Paul speaks "to" the men in Athens, vs. 30 including that "now he commands all people everywhere to repent."
-2 Corinthians 8:1-3 Paul spoke "to" the Corinthians, including comments "about" the Macedonian churches.

Acts 2:39 Says explicity all the people who Peter is talking "about"
The promise is for
-you and -your children (those he was addressing)

-and for all who are far off---for all whom the Lord our God will call."

The answers are all some variant of Israel. You want to lift verse 39 from this context so that you can force your creeds upon the verse. Why not use the whole chapter and verse 40 with it?
The scripture speaks explicitly for itself.

The differences between us significant. Consider the following contrasts.

ERM: single verse.
Dr. O: Whole Context
Context shows who Peter was talking "to" and who Peter said the promise is "for".

ERM: verse 3 speaks for verse 39
Dr. O says that untoward generation are the only ones to receive that promise. There is no exclusion verse within the "alleged" context. Verse 39 is stronger than inference.

OH that you would honor the totality of God's Word more than your denominational creeds.
The totality of God's Word does not stray from God's Word. One's position has at least got to be written "within" God's word. (e.g.-"The promise is only for this untoward generation.")

 

[e.r.m.]

Way wrong.

The default of the gospel is faith. Water baptism is optional. Noah was saved BEFORE water. Abraham was saved without water. The weeping woman was saved without water. Zacheus was saved without water. The eunuch was saved BEFORE water. Every OT saint was saved without water.

Remember OT saint Abraham is our pattern (Rom 4:23-24).

Col 2:11 says saving baptism happens WITHOUT HANDS. This is because it is the Holy Spirit Who immerses us into Christ (1 Cor 12:13).

It is dangerous to teach something different from the gospel.
Dr. O

Way wrong.

The default of the gospel is faith.
The default of "baptism" is the topic, which is water baptism.

Water baptism is optional.
Book, chapter, and verse

Noah was saved BEFORE water. Abraham was saved without water. The weeping woman was saved without water. Zacheus was saved without water. The eunuch was saved BEFORE water. Every OT saint was saved without water.
Not the New covenant Hebrews 9:16-17.

Remember OT saint Abraham is our pattern (Rom 4:23-24).
Did you forget? Matthew 3:9-10 And do not think you can say to yourselves, `We have Abraham as our father.' I tell you that out of these stones God can raise up children for Abraham. [10] The ax is already at the root of the trees, and every tree that does not produce good fruit will be cut down and thrown into the fire.
Romans 4:23-24 is not an exclusive statement. It does not say faith alone. You are saying faith alone.

Col 2:11 says saving baptism happens WITHOUT HANDS. This is because it is the Holy Spirit Who immerses us into Christ (1 Cor 12:13).
No, it doesn't "say" baptism is done without hands, it "says" circumcision is done without hands. That's God's part, belief and baptism is the part given to us. Matthew 28:19, Acts 2:38.

It is dangerous to teach something different from the gospel.
Dr. O
Then why do you keep saying stuff that's not "written" in the gospel?