You wrote, "I agree, baptism is an act of obedience. But it does not save." But I Peter 3:21 says, "The like figure whereunto even baptism doth also now save us (not the putting away of the filth of the flesh, but the answer of a good conscience toward God,) by the resurrection of Jesus Christ:"
The reason Peter could say that baptism saves us, is that rather than washing the flesh as ordinary water would do, it is the "answer of a good conscience toward God." You have that good conscience toward God when you believe His gospel, accept His Son, and do what He tells you to do.
You say it's "an outward expression of obedience, praise God, but no more necessary than speaking in tongues." But if obedience to God is necessary for salvation, and baptism is the outward expression of it, then how can it not be necessary? That's the same as saying that believing is necessary, but you don't have to really demonstrate your faith, which is the exact opposite of what James says about faith: "Yea, a man may say, Thou hast faith, and I have works: shew me thy faith without thy works, and I will shew thee my faith by my works." (James 2:18)
If salvation depends on making Jesus your Lord, then how can we not obey him? "And why call ye me, Lord, Lord, and do not the things which I say?" (Luke 6:46) How much plainer could Jesus have made it? "He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved; but he that believeth not shall be damned." (Mark 16:16)
Act 16:30 And brought them out, and said, Sirs, what must I do to be saved?
Act 16:31 And they said, Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ, and thou shalt be saved, and thy house.
No water there. The obedience is to that command: believe on the Lord Jesus Christ. It's the faith itself, not the act of obedience that follows, which saves.
I think the ritual is a good thing. I just went through it. I have no problem with it. But I do have a problem with the notion that God can fill you with His spirit but must deny you salvation if you don't go swimming, or sprinkling, or whatever. In other words, I refuse to believe I was not saved until Sept. 17, 2005.
You say it's "an outward expression of obedience, praise God, but no more necessary than speaking in tongues." But if obedience to God is necessary for salvation, and baptism is the outward expression of it, then how can it not be necessary?
The same way speaking in tongues is an expression of obedience but not necessary. The same way witnessing is an expression of obedience but not necessary. The same way cleaning up your act and getting together with other believers are expressions of obedience but not necessary. The same way daily prayer, and hourly, if you're so inclined, is an expression of obedience but not necessary.
When I say necessary, I mean for salvation. I think all those things are important and vital to maintaining a relationship with God in Christ. But to call them necessary FOR SALVATION mocks the sacrifice of Christ.
Perhaps we have differing views on soteriology, which would explain our difference of opinion on this subject. As I said, for me, it's academic. I got baptized, praise God, not to become saved, but because God in Christ already had saved me.
Hi Mark..in your reply to Jerry you asked if Jesus did not teach things very well for the disciples to 'miss' things.
You can see by reading the N.T. that there were many things they 'missed' and 'forgot'. The two on the road to Emmaeus is one example.
Also remember because of travel obstacles and 'media' limitations one can understand why Phillip for example was 'still behind the 8-ball' in his thinking.Also one reads of Apollos being shown a more 'perfect way' of baptism by Aquilla and Priscilla in Acts 18.
The same way speaking in tongues is an expression of obedience but not necessary. The same way witnessing is an expression of obedience but not necessary. The same way cleaning up your act and getting together with other believers are expressions of obedience but not necessary. The same way daily prayer, and hourly, if you're so inclined, is an expression of obedience but not necessary.
When I say necessary, I mean for salvation. I think all those things are important and vital to maintaining a relationship with God in Christ. But to call them necessary FOR SALVATION mocks the sacrifice of Christ.
Perhaps we have differing views on soteriology, which would explain our difference of opinion on this subject. As I said, for me, it's academic. I got baptized, praise God, not to become saved, but because God in Christ already had saved me.
But there is no command that says, "He that believes and speaks in tongues shall be saved and he that does not shall be damned." Nor is there any such command for the other things you mention.
I think we might have differing views on soteriology, as you say. Salvation depends on believing the gospel message, repenting (that is turning your heart toward God) and confessing Jesus as Lord. If one were to say "I believe in Jesus" but never do any of the things he commanded, has he truly made Jesus Lord?
Hi Mark..in your reply to Jerry you asked if Jesus did not teach things very well for the disciples to 'miss' things.
You can see by reading the N.T. that there were many things they 'missed' and 'forgot'. The two on the road to Emmaeus is one example.
Also remember because of travel obstacles and 'media' limitations one can understand why Phillip for example was 'still behind the 8-ball' in his thinking.Also one reads of Apollos being shown a more 'perfect way' of baptism by Aquilla and Priscilla in Acts 18.
On the road to Emmaus, they (like the other disciples) had not yet seen the significance of Christ's death, and did not yet believe he was risen. However, the disciples were fully instructed in those things by Jesus himself afterward.
Apollos was shown a more prefect way, and what Paul shared with him regarding baptism in the name of Jesus is in harmony with other scriptures that teach this. But there is no clear teaching by Jesus, Paul, or anyone else, that baptism in water became obsolete with the coming of the holy spirit.
Besides, the point I was making is that the only way TWI could make the records that clearly show baptism in water fit with their doctrine, was to say that the apostles were wrong when they did it. This does not fit with anything in the scriptures. Sure they made mistakes, like when Peter acted like he should still not eat with Gentiles, as described in Galatians. But we don't have to guess which things were right and which were wrong. The scriptures plainly tell us that we are not under the Mosaic Law and that Gentiles are of the same body. But as I said, there is no clear teaching that baptism in water became obsolete with the coming of the holy spirit. We were taught to read this into the records by TWI, and must be willing to rethink and reevaluate this topic, just as we have with so many others that turned out to be wrong.
But there is no command that says, "He that believes and speaks in tongues shall be saved and he that does not shall be damned." Nor is there any such command for the other things you mention.
And there may not be a verse that says that either. Do a bit of research into the conclusion of Mark 16. I am not convinced it belongs in the Bible (nor am I convinced it does not).
So I have never been water baptised, yet I have obeyed Romans 10: 9,10. I speak in tongues ( fluently, distinctly, enunciatedly (!) my question is..what am I missing out on by not having been 'water' baptised. ??
And there may not be a verse that says that either. Do a bit of research into the conclusion of Mark 16. I am not convinced it belongs in the Bible (nor am I convinced it does not).
Actually, I have done quite a bit of research, and find that there is nothing absolutely conclusive to prove that the section does not belong.
But even if there were, it does not contradict any of the other clear indications from Scripture that baptism was a command of the Lord. Despite what Conybeare said about Eusebius quoting Matthew 28:19, there is no manuscript that does not include the reference to baptism in that verse. And Luke 23:47 clearly states that Jesus commanded repentance and remission of sins be preached in the name of Jesus Christ, which Peter links with baptism in Acts 2:38, as well as the pattern of baptism seen throughout Acts. It can't be just tossed away because of a couple of verses.
I exhort anyone reading this to put aside all previous notions about the subject that were learned from TWI and consider the Scriptures as if you had never taken any classes. Virtually all Biblical scholars have recognized that Christian baptism is not just spirit to the exclusion of water. The very idea that spirit replaced water is actually a recent one, only seen in this century.
So I have never been water baptised, yet I have obeyed Romans 10: 9,10. I speak in tongues ( fluently, distinctly, enunciatedly (!) my question is..what am I missing out on by not having been 'water' baptised. ??
I believe I answered that already. Please reread my previous posts.
So I have never been water baptised, yet I have obeyed Romans 10: 9,10. I speak in tongues ( fluently, distinctly, enunciatedly (!) my question is..what am I missing out on by not having been 'water' baptised. ??
Allen
You aren't missing anything.
My Lord, if we we're to cover all the bases men say we miss by this and that we wouldn't have time to enjoy the fellowship made availible by Christ in God now.
Virtually all Biblical scholars have recognized that Christian baptism is not just spirit to the exclusion of water.
The truth of the matter is a number of biblical scholars have already recognized the corruption of Christian baptism through pagan "water-worship" and "baptismal regeneration." Various forms of baptism, and the doctrine of baptismal regeneration were common characteristics of pagan religions before the birth of Jesus Christ. We have the testimonies from Jambilicus, Virgil, Ovid, Herodotus, Juvenal and others.
The reverence for water, and faith in its spiritual cleansing efficacy arose from the pagan ideology that it was permeated by the divine essence. It had the ability and "supernatural power" to enlighten, cleanse and purify the soul, without regard to the spiritual state of the baptismal candidate. This doctrine of baptismal regeneration was transferred to Christianity even before the close of the second century, and through it the early church was rapidly filled with with baptized, but unconverted pagans. (Further proof will follow near the end of this post). The following are the words of Jambilicus:
"It is acknowledged then by all men that the oracle in Colophon gives its answers through the medium of water. For there is a fountain in a subterranean dwelling from which the prophetess drinks; and on certain established nights after many sacred rites have been previously performed, and she has drunk of the fountain, she delivers oracles, but is not visible to those that are present. That this water, therefore, is prophetic is from hence manifest. But how it becomes so, this, according to the proverb, is not for every man to know. For it appears as if a certain prophetic spirit pervaded through the water. This is not, however, in reality the case. For a divine nature does not pervade through its, participants in this manner, according to interval and division, but comprehends, as it were, externally, and illuminates the fountain, and fills it from itself with a prophetic power. For the inspiration which the water affords is not the whole of that which proceeds from a divine power, but the water itself only prepares us, and purifies our luciform spirit, so that we may be able to receive the divinity; while in the meantime, there is a presence of divinity prior to this, and illuminating from on high."
Another oracle from Jamblicus states:
"The prophet woman too, in Branchidae, whether she holds in her hand a wand, which was at first received from some God, and becomes filled with a divine splendor, or whether seated on an axis, she predicts future events, or dips her feet, or the border of her garment in the water, or receives the God by imbibing the vapor of the water; by all these she becomes adapted to partake externally of the God."
Jambilicus states that the baths were a part of the preparation for being thus inspired. The same combination is shown by Virgil in the following:
"He started up, and viewing the rising beams of the ethereal sun, in his hollow palms with pious form he raised water from the river, and poured forth to heaven these words: 'Ye nymphs, ye Laurentine nymphs, whence rivers have their origin; and Thou, O Father Tiber, with thy sacred river, receive Aeneas and defend him at length from dangers. In whatever source thy lake contains thee, compassionate to our misfortunes, from whatever soil thou springest forth most beauteous, hornbearing river, monarch of the Italian streams, ever shalt thou be honored with my veneration, ever with my offerings. O grant us thy present aid, and by nearer aid confirm thy divine oracles'."
One can eaisly see the concept of spiritual purity by or through baptismal water did not originate in Christianity. It was a pagan concept that water produced spiritual purity, and it was a concept that was expressed in many forms and in many ways. Water baptism is nothing but the "paganism surviving in Christianity" today. Greatly influencing Christianity was the Mitharic and Gnostic baptisms, the concept that baptism remmitted sins. To show how early Christianity became corrupted by these pagan influnces, consider the following extracts which are from the grand Gnostic text-book. It also serves to show how the same notions, (and probably forms) were transferred to the service of Gnosticism." 'Baptism — Remitting Sins.' — (Pistis-Sophia) (298).
"Then came forth Mary and said: Lord, under what form do baptisms remit sins? I have heard thee saying that the Ministers of Contentions (eridaioi) follow after the soul, bearing witness against it of all the sins that it hath committed, so that they may convict it in the judgments. Now, therefore, Lord, do the mysteries of Baptism blot out the sins that be in the hands of the Receivers of Contention, so that they shall utterly forget the same? Now, therefore, Lord, tell us in what form they remit sins; for we desire to know them thoroughly.
Then the Saviour answered and said: Thou hast well spoken; of truth those Ministers are they that testify against all sins, for they abide constantly in the places of judgment, laying hold upon the souls, convicting all the souls of sinners who have not received the mystery, and they keep them fast in chaos tormenting them. But these contentious ones cannot pass over chaos so as to enter into the courses that be above chaos; in order to convict the souls therefore receiving the mysteries, it is not lawful for them to force so as to drag them down into chaos, where the Contentious Receivers may convict them. But the souls of such as have not received the mysteries, these do they desire and hail into chaos; whereas the souls that have received the mysteries, they have no means of convicting, seeing that they cannot get out of their own place, and even if they did come forth, they could not stop those souls, neither shut them up in their chaos.
Hearken, therefore, I will declare to you in truth in what form the mystery of Baptism remitteth sin. If the souls when yet living in the world have been sinful, the Contentious Receivers verily do come, that they may bear witness of all the sins they have committed, but they can by no means come forth out of the regions of chaos, so as to convict the soul in the places of judgment that be beyond chaos. But the counterfeit of the spirit testifies against all the sins of the soul, in order to convict it in the places of judgment that be beyond chaos. Not only doth it testify, but also sets a seal upon all the sins of the soul, so as to print them firmly upon the soul, that all the Rulers of the judgment place of the sinners may know that it is the soul of a sinner, and likewise know the number of sins which it hath committed from the seals that the counterfeit of the spirit hath imprinted upon it, so that they may punish the soul according to the number of its sins; this is the manner in which they treat the soul of a sinner.
Now, therefore, if any one hath received the mysteries of Baptism, those mysteries become a great fire, exceeding strong and wise, so as to burn up all the sins; and the Fire entereth into the soul secretly, so that it may consume within it all the sins which the counterfeit of the spirit hath printed there. Likewise it entereth into the body secretly, that it may pursue all its pursuers, and divide them into parts — for it pursueth within the body, the counterfeit of the spirit, and Fate — so that it may divide them apart from the Power and the Soul, and place them in one part of the body — so that the fire separates the counterfeit of the spirit, Fate, and the Body into one portion, and the Soul and the Power into another portion. The mystery of Baptism remaineth in the middle of them, so that it may perpetually separate them, so that it may purge and cleanse them in order that they may not be polluted by Matter. Now, therefore, Mary, this is the manner whereby the mystery of Baptism remitteth sins and all transgressions.
"And when the Saviour had thus spoken, he said to his disciples: Do ye understand in what manner I speak with you? Then came forth Mary saying: Of a truth, Lord, I perceive in reality all the things that thou hast said. Touching this matter of the Remission of Sins, thou speaketh aforetime to us in a parable, saying: I am come to bring fire upon the earth, nay more; let it burn as much as I please. And, again thou hast set it forth openly, saying: I have a baptism wherewith I will baptize and how shall I endure until it be accomplished. Ye think that I am come to bring peace upon the earth? By no means so, but dissension, which I am come to bring. For from this time forth there shall be five in one house; three shall be divided against two, and two against three. This, Lord, is the word that thou speakest openly. But, concerning the word that thou spakest: I am come to bring fire upon the earth, and let it burn so much as I please; in this thou hast spoken of the mystery of Baptism in the world, and let it burn as much as thou pleasest for to consume all the sins of the soul, that it may purge them away.
And again thou hast shewn the same forth openly, saying: I have a baptism wherewith I will baptize, and how shall I endure until it be accomplished? The which is this: Thou wilt not tarry in the world until the baptisms be accomplished to purify all the perfect souls. And again what thou spakest unto us aforetime: Do ye suppose I am come to bring peace upon earth," etc. This signifieth the mystery of Baptism which thou hast brought into the world, because it hath brought about dissension in the body of the world, because it hath divided the Counterfeit of the spirit, the Body, and the Fate thereof, into one party and the Soul and the Power into the other party. The same is," There shall be three against two, and two against three." And when Mary had spoken these things the Saviour said: 'Well done thou spiritual one in the pure light, this is the interpretation of my saving'."
As stated earlier, spiritual purity through water baptism was largely a pagan concept, and it was a concept that was expressed in many forms and in many ways. It came across and influenced many other cultures and religions other than Christianity. In addition to the Mithraic and Gnostic baptism was also witnessed the baptism in blood, baptism at death and for the dead, baptism linked with serpent-worship, the sacred Nile, water-worship in India, the modern Buddhistic baptism, baptism among the Hindus, water-worship in Nortern Europe and Mexico, water that secured immunity from disease, Greecian water-worship, in addition to the influence the Greek mysteries had on corrupting Christianity. All this would be too much to get to in one single post. However I think this will do it for now.
Actually, I have done quite a bit of research, and find that there is nothing absolutely conclusive to prove that the section does not belong.
Nothing conclusive? I agree. Nor do I see any conclusive proof that they should be accepted. I certainly wouldn't use them as proof texts.
Luke 23:47 does not say what you say it says. You're thinking of a different verse.
Luke 24:47. One chapter off. No biggie. A little running start:
He told them, "This is what is written: The Christ will suffer and rise from the dead on the third day, and repentance and forgiveness of sins will be preached in his name to all nations, beginning at Jerusalem."
You can add water, if you'd like. But you're not adding substance. Isn't that the point? That it's our faith and love for God that counts on this matter, not the physical act of immersion or standing under a hot shower, or a cold one? You've turned the act of baptism from a voluntary act of loving worship to a compulsory ritual. And you're missing the beauty of it.
What the Hey:
One could take your information and come to the conclusion that both John and Jesus were pagan influenced in using water for baptism.
Nothing conclusive? I agree. Nor do I see any conclusive proof that they should be accepted. I certainly wouldn't use them as proof texts.
Luke 23:47 does not say what you say it says. You're thinking of a different verse.
Luke 24:47. One chapter off. No biggie. A little running start:
He told them, "This is what is written: The Christ will suffer and rise from the dead on the third day, and repentance and forgiveness of sins will be preached in his name to all nations, beginning at Jerusalem."
You can add water, if you'd like. But you're not adding substance. Isn't that the point? That it's our faith and love for God that counts on this matter, not the physical act of immersion or standing under a hot shower, or a cold one? You've turned the act of baptism from a voluntary act of loving worship to a compulsory ritual. And you're missing the beauty of it.
What the Hey:
One could take your information and come to the conclusion that both John and Jesus were pagan influenced in using water for baptism.
I didn't add water. Water was part of the outward sign of repentance from John onward. Jesus added spirit, but it didn't replace water. And it was Peter and the other apostles who confirmed that baptism was the proper response after believing the gospel.
As for being a voluntary act, it is still voluntary, just as accepting Jesus as Lord is voluntary. You say it's our faith. To paraphrase James' admonition, show me your faith without works and I will show you my faith by my works. Faith without action is not really faith. The beauty of it is that rather than have to suffer and die as Jesus did, or cut up animals to shed blood sacrificially, all we have to do is demonstrate our repentance and sharing in the Lord's sacrifice by this simple rite.
You can cite many reasons why it seems wrong to you, as I did for many years. But can you show me any scriptural proof that it is just an "optional extra?" If there were any Scripture that said that, it would contradict the many passages of Scripture that present it clearly.
***
As for spiritual purity and cleansing through water being a pagan concept, I agree. But while scholars recognize that there were pagan rituals which involved water, they also recognize that John's baptism was something new, in that he preached the baptism of repentance for the forgiveness of sins. And the baptism in the name of Jesus which followed was also a symbol of repentance and change in heart. The NT does not say it is the water that cleanses. It is the change in heart, accompanied by the power of the holy spirit, that makes you spiritually pure. But the outward symbol is as necessary as the spirit inside, because it has to do with demonstrating your faith, and entering into a sharing in Jesus Christ's sacrifice and shed blood.
While scholars recognize the existance of pagan rituals, my point was that Biblical scholars have always recognized that baptism was the commonly accepted rite of initiation into the Christian Church and into Christ, and that it involved water and spirit. You don't have to look for obscure scholarly writings either. Look up baptism in any Bible dictionary and you will see this pattern. The whole idea that baptism of the holy spirit made water obsolete is a recent invention, and very few outside of TWI and its offshoots hold to this belief. We were taught to accept what VPW said and avoid reading the works of other scholars, and as a result our whole system of Biblical interpretation was largely esoteric and elitist.
Exactly CWF..Peter also said in Hebrews 6: 2 about 'moving on' from doctrines of baptisms etc..
maybe we should to. I wonder if it is discussed by people who are not sure if they are actually born-again, saved or whatever. ??
Hebrews 6:2 does not say we should move on in the sense of not talking about things that don't matter. It says we should "go on to perfection, not laying again the foundation of repentance from dead works, and of faith toward God, of the doctrine of baptisms, and of laying on of hands, and of resurrection of the dead and of eternal judgment..." These things (including baptism) are THE BASICS, and we should not be laying the foundation again, but growing beyond the basics. The epistle is actually reproving those to whom it is addressed, because they were not even upholding the basics. "For when for the time ye ought to be teachers, ye have need that one teach you again which be the first principles of the oracles of God; and are become such as have need of milk, and not of strong meat." (Heb. 5:12)
I again want to highly exhort anyone reading this to put aside Way doctrine and thinking patterns, and search the Scriptures to see if these things are so.
Hebrews 9 has an extremely important lesson for anybody trying to understand scripture. It speaks about much of what happens in the Old Testament being a "figure" of what would happen after the resurrection of Christ.
Heb 9:9 "This is a symbol of the present time..." is something that we should all try to keep in mind.
Of course, the specific example being cited is in reference to the OT sacrifices as propitiation being a figure of the one true sacrifice of the Lamb of God, but the principle can be seen in other areas, as well. One of these other areas is baptism.
1 Pet 3:20b-22 "...while God patiently waited in the days of Noah during the building of the ark, in which a few persons, eight in all, were saved through water. This prefigured baptism, which saves you now. It is not a removal of dirt from the body but an appeal to God for a clear conscience, through the resurrection of Jesus Christ, who has gone into heaven and is at the right hand of God, with angels, authorities, and powers subject to him."
1 Cor 10:1-2 "I do not want you to be unaware, brothers, that our ancestors were all under the cloud and all passed through the sea, and all of them were baptized into Moses in the cloud and in the sea."
Baptism was even prophesied about by Ezekiel:
Eze 36:24-26 "For I will take you away from among the nations, gather you from all the foreign lands, and bring you back to your own land. I will sprinkle clean water upon you to cleanse you from all your impurities, and from all your idols I will cleanse you. I will give you a new heart and place a new spirit within you, taking from your bodies your stony hearts and giving you natural hearts."
So clearly we can see that baptism was forecast throughout the Old Testament and in addition we can see that the element of water is physical matter key to baptism. Of course, the physical act of baptizing with water brings on a far deeper spiritual cleansing, but, to say that one baptizes without water or that water is some type of new innovation brought on by the mind of man is simply ludicrous (unless, of course, you do not subscribe to the validity of sacred scripture in the first place, in which case the point is moot).
"So clearly we can see that baptism was forecast throughout the Old Testament..."
Clearly? Hardly. You cited ONE verse, and it has to do with the end. You could make the argument that it was referring to the present time, but even then, you haven't made the argument that it is anything more than symbolic.
"I will sprinkle clean water upon you..."
Jesus Christ promises living water, and delivers holy spirit.
If anything, you may have just undermined your case.
The scripture does compare Noah's flood to baptism, so be my guest. But it's still a symbolic representation. Other people don't die when you're baptized. It's a symbolic comparison, which further undermines your case.
Can I show any scripture that says it's an optional extra? Sure I can. The Romans Peter witnessed to were saved before they were baptized in water.
Couldn't help but notice the other day while I was in the shower that I had been circumcised, which apparently happened when I was an infant (glad I can't remember that). So I guess that makes me a true Jew?
whoo-hoo!
What? It was only for hygienetic purposes, like the shower?
Had baptism been a requirement for salvation, those men would not have received the holy spirit prior to the water cleansing.
James says I will show you my faith by my works, but the works he refers to do not include baptism! Why would that be? Simple: James is not making the case that we are actually saved by works, but rather that a person of faith will exhibit works. It's still the faith that saves, but we have people walking around saying "I have faith" while still doing nothing to exhibit it. What kind of faith is that?
The absence of works can easily lead one to question faith, but the presence of works does not guarantee the presence of faith. Can you be baptized without faith? Sure you can! Ask any Catholic infant.
To me, faith without baptism is no more unusual (or recommended) than having faith and then ceasing in fellowship, or Bible reading, or witnessing.
So Mark..using your statement of the OT 'baptism' being a 'foreshadow' of Johns' baptism..why is it not possible that Johns' baptism (of the gospel period) was a 'foreshadow' of the new birth, pentecostal baptism of spirit ?
Num 8:5-7 "The LORD said to Moses: "Take the Levites from among the Israelites and purify them. This is what you shall do to them to purify them. Sprinkle them with the water of remission; then have them shave their whole bodies and wash their clothes, and so purify themselves."
Lev 16:24-25 "After bathing his body with water in a sacred place, he shall put on his vestments, and then come out and offer his own and the people's holocaust, in atonement for himself and for the people, and also burn the fat of the sin offering on the altar."
Ps 51:9-10 "Cleanse me with hyssop, that I may be pure; wash me, make me whiter than snow." (Yes I know this is speaking metaphorically, but the point is the symbology is still there)
Zech 13:1 "On that day there shall be open to the house of David and to the inhabitants of Jerusalem, a fountain to purify from sin and uncleanness."
The point is that washing -- and water -- has always been the matter of cleansing from impurity. And therefore, a forecast of baptism. Baptism is NOT a innovation from the New Testament created simply from the ether.
I would have thought you guys would have remembered the use of water throughout the OT. This list of scripture is still not a conclusive list, but it should illustrate the point.
As to the necessity of a physical matter as the token of a spiritual reality (i.e., the sacramental view of the transmission of grace) versus a ordinance-based view of accomplishing an action, I'm not going to even go there...that would be a completely different thread.
Paul writes, "Christ sent me not to baptize, but to preach the gospel."
Now, if baptism is sooooo integral to the salvation experience that one cannot be saved without it, then Christ DID send Paul to baptize. Else, what good would preaching the gospel do without the subsequent required baptism?
Ah, but Paul did perform water baptisms. He just seems to have put it in its proper place: a good outward expression of inner faith, but not a salvation experience in and of itself. It's by grace we are saved through faith. See it? Not of works, lest any man should boast. What meaning could these words have? If someone has faith, he will do what God asks of him, but it is not the doing that leads to salvation: it is the FAITH.
Water is no more necessary for salvation than hyssop. Thank you for proving my point.
The water has ALWAYS been symbolic of what was taking place within.
Paul writes, "Christ sent me not to baptize, but to preach the gospel."
Raf, I am shocked!!!! I would have NEVER thought that you, of all people, would have been guilty of taking a verse out of context. (Seriously, I am very, very, very disappointed. I thought better of you)
The Context:
1 Cr 1:10-18
I urge you, brothers, in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that all of you agree in what you say, and that there be no divisions among you, but that you be united in the same mind and in the same purpose. For it has been reported to me about you, my brothers, by Chloe's people, that there are rivalries among you. I mean that each of you is saying, "I belong to Paul," or "I belong to Apollos," or "I belong to Kephas," or "I belong to Christ."
Is Christ divided? Was Paul crucified for you? Or were you baptized in the name of Paul? I give thanks (to God) that I baptized none of you except Crispus and Gaius, so that no one can say you were baptized in my name. (I baptized the household of Stephanas also; beyond that I do not know whether I baptized anyone else.)
For Christ did not send me to baptize but to preach the gospel, and not with the wisdom of human eloquence, so that the cross of Christ might not be emptied of its meaning. The message of the cross is foolishness to those who are perishing, but to us who are being saved it is the power of God. For it is written: "I will destroy the wisdom of the wise, and the learning of the learned I will set aside." Where is the wise one? Where is the scribe? Where is the debater of this age? Has not God made the wisdom of the world foolish?
Clearly the verse, taken in its context has nothing to do with the efficacy of baptism. Rather Paul is thanking God that he didn't baptise any of them!
Recommended Posts
Top Posters In This Topic
35
14
18
21
Popular Days
Nov 16
19
Nov 17
16
Nov 20
15
Nov 25
11
Top Posters In This Topic
Raf 35 posts
Allan 14 posts
Mark Clarke 18 posts
markomalley 21 posts
Popular Days
Nov 16 2005
19 posts
Nov 17 2005
16 posts
Nov 20 2005
15 posts
Nov 25 2005
11 posts
Mark Clarke
Raf,
You wrote, "I agree, baptism is an act of obedience. But it does not save." But I Peter 3:21 says, "The like figure whereunto even baptism doth also now save us (not the putting away of the filth of the flesh, but the answer of a good conscience toward God,) by the resurrection of Jesus Christ:"
The reason Peter could say that baptism saves us, is that rather than washing the flesh as ordinary water would do, it is the "answer of a good conscience toward God." You have that good conscience toward God when you believe His gospel, accept His Son, and do what He tells you to do.
You say it's "an outward expression of obedience, praise God, but no more necessary than speaking in tongues." But if obedience to God is necessary for salvation, and baptism is the outward expression of it, then how can it not be necessary? That's the same as saying that believing is necessary, but you don't have to really demonstrate your faith, which is the exact opposite of what James says about faith: "Yea, a man may say, Thou hast faith, and I have works: shew me thy faith without thy works, and I will shew thee my faith by my works." (James 2:18)
If salvation depends on making Jesus your Lord, then how can we not obey him? "And why call ye me, Lord, Lord, and do not the things which I say?" (Luke 6:46) How much plainer could Jesus have made it? "He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved; but he that believeth not shall be damned." (Mark 16:16)
Mark
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Raf
When were the Romans saved? The ones Peter witnessed to, when were they saved?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Raf
No water there. The obedience is to that command: believe on the Lord Jesus Christ. It's the faith itself, not the act of obedience that follows, which saves.
I think the ritual is a good thing. I just went through it. I have no problem with it. But I do have a problem with the notion that God can fill you with His spirit but must deny you salvation if you don't go swimming, or sprinkling, or whatever. In other words, I refuse to believe I was not saved until Sept. 17, 2005.
Edited by RafLink to comment
Share on other sites
Raf
The same way speaking in tongues is an expression of obedience but not necessary. The same way witnessing is an expression of obedience but not necessary. The same way cleaning up your act and getting together with other believers are expressions of obedience but not necessary. The same way daily prayer, and hourly, if you're so inclined, is an expression of obedience but not necessary.
When I say necessary, I mean for salvation. I think all those things are important and vital to maintaining a relationship with God in Christ. But to call them necessary FOR SALVATION mocks the sacrifice of Christ.
Perhaps we have differing views on soteriology, which would explain our difference of opinion on this subject. As I said, for me, it's academic. I got baptized, praise God, not to become saved, but because God in Christ already had saved me.
Edited by RafLink to comment
Share on other sites
Allan
Hi Mark..in your reply to Jerry you asked if Jesus did not teach things very well for the disciples to 'miss' things.
You can see by reading the N.T. that there were many things they 'missed' and 'forgot'. The two on the road to Emmaeus is one example.
Also remember because of travel obstacles and 'media' limitations one can understand why Phillip for example was 'still behind the 8-ball' in his thinking.Also one reads of Apollos being shown a more 'perfect way' of baptism by Aquilla and Priscilla in Acts 18.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Mark Clarke
But there is no command that says, "He that believes and speaks in tongues shall be saved and he that does not shall be damned." Nor is there any such command for the other things you mention.
I think we might have differing views on soteriology, as you say. Salvation depends on believing the gospel message, repenting (that is turning your heart toward God) and confessing Jesus as Lord. If one were to say "I believe in Jesus" but never do any of the things he commanded, has he truly made Jesus Lord?
On the road to Emmaus, they (like the other disciples) had not yet seen the significance of Christ's death, and did not yet believe he was risen. However, the disciples were fully instructed in those things by Jesus himself afterward.
Apollos was shown a more prefect way, and what Paul shared with him regarding baptism in the name of Jesus is in harmony with other scriptures that teach this. But there is no clear teaching by Jesus, Paul, or anyone else, that baptism in water became obsolete with the coming of the holy spirit.
Besides, the point I was making is that the only way TWI could make the records that clearly show baptism in water fit with their doctrine, was to say that the apostles were wrong when they did it. This does not fit with anything in the scriptures. Sure they made mistakes, like when Peter acted like he should still not eat with Gentiles, as described in Galatians. But we don't have to guess which things were right and which were wrong. The scriptures plainly tell us that we are not under the Mosaic Law and that Gentiles are of the same body. But as I said, there is no clear teaching that baptism in water became obsolete with the coming of the holy spirit. We were taught to read this into the records by TWI, and must be willing to rethink and reevaluate this topic, just as we have with so many others that turned out to be wrong.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Raf
And there may not be a verse that says that either. Do a bit of research into the conclusion of Mark 16. I am not convinced it belongs in the Bible (nor am I convinced it does not).
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Allan
So I have never been water baptised, yet I have obeyed Romans 10: 9,10. I speak in tongues ( fluently, distinctly, enunciatedly (!) my question is..what am I missing out on by not having been 'water' baptised. ??
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Mark Clarke
Actually, I have done quite a bit of research, and find that there is nothing absolutely conclusive to prove that the section does not belong.
But even if there were, it does not contradict any of the other clear indications from Scripture that baptism was a command of the Lord. Despite what Conybeare said about Eusebius quoting Matthew 28:19, there is no manuscript that does not include the reference to baptism in that verse. And Luke 23:47 clearly states that Jesus commanded repentance and remission of sins be preached in the name of Jesus Christ, which Peter links with baptism in Acts 2:38, as well as the pattern of baptism seen throughout Acts. It can't be just tossed away because of a couple of verses.
I exhort anyone reading this to put aside all previous notions about the subject that were learned from TWI and consider the Scriptures as if you had never taken any classes. Virtually all Biblical scholars have recognized that Christian baptism is not just spirit to the exclusion of water. The very idea that spirit replaced water is actually a recent one, only seen in this century.
I believe I answered that already. Please reread my previous posts.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
CWF
Allen
You aren't missing anything.
My Lord, if we we're to cover all the bases men say we miss by this and that we wouldn't have time to enjoy the fellowship made availible by Christ in God now.
I wouldn't question your salvation, brother.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
What The Hey
The reverence for water, and faith in its spiritual cleansing efficacy arose from the pagan ideology that it was permeated by the divine essence. It had the ability and "supernatural power" to enlighten, cleanse and purify the soul, without regard to the spiritual state of the baptismal candidate. This doctrine of baptismal regeneration was transferred to Christianity even before the close of the second century, and through it the early church was rapidly filled with with baptized, but unconverted pagans. (Further proof will follow near the end of this post). The following are the words of Jambilicus:
Another oracle from Jamblicus states:
Jambilicus states that the baths were a part of the preparation for being thus inspired. The same combination is shown by Virgil in the following:One can eaisly see the concept of spiritual purity by or through baptismal water did not originate in Christianity. It was a pagan concept that water produced spiritual purity, and it was a concept that was expressed in many forms and in many ways. Water baptism is nothing but the "paganism surviving in Christianity" today. Greatly influencing Christianity was the Mitharic and Gnostic baptisms, the concept that baptism remmitted sins. To show how early Christianity became corrupted by these pagan influnces, consider the following extracts which are from the grand Gnostic text-book. It also serves to show how the same notions, (and probably forms) were transferred to the service of Gnosticism." 'Baptism — Remitting Sins.' — (Pistis-Sophia) (298).
As stated earlier, spiritual purity through water baptism was largely a pagan concept, and it was a concept that was expressed in many forms and in many ways. It came across and influenced many other cultures and religions other than Christianity. In addition to the Mithraic and Gnostic baptism was also witnessed the baptism in blood, baptism at death and for the dead, baptism linked with serpent-worship, the sacred Nile, water-worship in India, the modern Buddhistic baptism, baptism among the Hindus, water-worship in Nortern Europe and Mexico, water that secured immunity from disease, Greecian water-worship, in addition to the influence the Greek mysteries had on corrupting Christianity. All this would be too much to get to in one single post. However I think this will do it for now.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Allan
Thankyou what the hey..I'm glad I'm not a 'baptised pagan' !!!!!!!!!!!!
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Raf
Nothing conclusive? I agree. Nor do I see any conclusive proof that they should be accepted. I certainly wouldn't use them as proof texts.
Luke 23:47 does not say what you say it says. You're thinking of a different verse.
Luke 24:47. One chapter off. No biggie. A little running start:
He told them, "This is what is written: The Christ will suffer and rise from the dead on the third day, and repentance and forgiveness of sins will be preached in his name to all nations, beginning at Jerusalem."
You can add water, if you'd like. But you're not adding substance. Isn't that the point? That it's our faith and love for God that counts on this matter, not the physical act of immersion or standing under a hot shower, or a cold one? You've turned the act of baptism from a voluntary act of loving worship to a compulsory ritual. And you're missing the beauty of it.
What the Hey:
One could take your information and come to the conclusion that both John and Jesus were pagan influenced in using water for baptism.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Allan
Exactly CWF..Peter also said in Hebrews 6: 2 about 'moving on' from doctrines of baptisms etc..
maybe we should to. I wonder if it is discussed by people who are not sure if they are actually born-again, saved or whatever. ??
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Mark Clarke
I didn't add water. Water was part of the outward sign of repentance from John onward. Jesus added spirit, but it didn't replace water. And it was Peter and the other apostles who confirmed that baptism was the proper response after believing the gospel.
As for being a voluntary act, it is still voluntary, just as accepting Jesus as Lord is voluntary. You say it's our faith. To paraphrase James' admonition, show me your faith without works and I will show you my faith by my works. Faith without action is not really faith. The beauty of it is that rather than have to suffer and die as Jesus did, or cut up animals to shed blood sacrificially, all we have to do is demonstrate our repentance and sharing in the Lord's sacrifice by this simple rite.
You can cite many reasons why it seems wrong to you, as I did for many years. But can you show me any scriptural proof that it is just an "optional extra?" If there were any Scripture that said that, it would contradict the many passages of Scripture that present it clearly.
***
As for spiritual purity and cleansing through water being a pagan concept, I agree. But while scholars recognize that there were pagan rituals which involved water, they also recognize that John's baptism was something new, in that he preached the baptism of repentance for the forgiveness of sins. And the baptism in the name of Jesus which followed was also a symbol of repentance and change in heart. The NT does not say it is the water that cleanses. It is the change in heart, accompanied by the power of the holy spirit, that makes you spiritually pure. But the outward symbol is as necessary as the spirit inside, because it has to do with demonstrating your faith, and entering into a sharing in Jesus Christ's sacrifice and shed blood.
While scholars recognize the existance of pagan rituals, my point was that Biblical scholars have always recognized that baptism was the commonly accepted rite of initiation into the Christian Church and into Christ, and that it involved water and spirit. You don't have to look for obscure scholarly writings either. Look up baptism in any Bible dictionary and you will see this pattern. The whole idea that baptism of the holy spirit made water obsolete is a recent invention, and very few outside of TWI and its offshoots hold to this belief. We were taught to accept what VPW said and avoid reading the works of other scholars, and as a result our whole system of Biblical interpretation was largely esoteric and elitist.
Hebrews 6:2 does not say we should move on in the sense of not talking about things that don't matter. It says we should "go on to perfection, not laying again the foundation of repentance from dead works, and of faith toward God, of the doctrine of baptisms, and of laying on of hands, and of resurrection of the dead and of eternal judgment..." These things (including baptism) are THE BASICS, and we should not be laying the foundation again, but growing beyond the basics. The epistle is actually reproving those to whom it is addressed, because they were not even upholding the basics. "For when for the time ye ought to be teachers, ye have need that one teach you again which be the first principles of the oracles of God; and are become such as have need of milk, and not of strong meat." (Heb. 5:12)
I again want to highly exhort anyone reading this to put aside Way doctrine and thinking patterns, and search the Scriptures to see if these things are so.
Edited by Mark ClarkeLink to comment
Share on other sites
markomalley
Hebrews 9 has an extremely important lesson for anybody trying to understand scripture. It speaks about much of what happens in the Old Testament being a "figure" of what would happen after the resurrection of Christ.
Heb 9:9 "This is a symbol of the present time..." is something that we should all try to keep in mind.
Of course, the specific example being cited is in reference to the OT sacrifices as propitiation being a figure of the one true sacrifice of the Lamb of God, but the principle can be seen in other areas, as well. One of these other areas is baptism.
1 Pet 3:20b-22 "...while God patiently waited in the days of Noah during the building of the ark, in which a few persons, eight in all, were saved through water. This prefigured baptism, which saves you now. It is not a removal of dirt from the body but an appeal to God for a clear conscience, through the resurrection of Jesus Christ, who has gone into heaven and is at the right hand of God, with angels, authorities, and powers subject to him."
1 Cor 10:1-2 "I do not want you to be unaware, brothers, that our ancestors were all under the cloud and all passed through the sea, and all of them were baptized into Moses in the cloud and in the sea."
Baptism was even prophesied about by Ezekiel:
Eze 36:24-26 "For I will take you away from among the nations, gather you from all the foreign lands, and bring you back to your own land. I will sprinkle clean water upon you to cleanse you from all your impurities, and from all your idols I will cleanse you. I will give you a new heart and place a new spirit within you, taking from your bodies your stony hearts and giving you natural hearts."
So clearly we can see that baptism was forecast throughout the Old Testament and in addition we can see that the element of water is physical matter key to baptism. Of course, the physical act of baptizing with water brings on a far deeper spiritual cleansing, but, to say that one baptizes without water or that water is some type of new innovation brought on by the mind of man is simply ludicrous (unless, of course, you do not subscribe to the validity of sacred scripture in the first place, in which case the point is moot).
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Raf
"So clearly we can see that baptism was forecast throughout the Old Testament..."
Clearly? Hardly. You cited ONE verse, and it has to do with the end. You could make the argument that it was referring to the present time, but even then, you haven't made the argument that it is anything more than symbolic.
"I will sprinkle clean water upon you..."
Jesus Christ promises living water, and delivers holy spirit.
If anything, you may have just undermined your case.
The scripture does compare Noah's flood to baptism, so be my guest. But it's still a symbolic representation. Other people don't die when you're baptized. It's a symbolic comparison, which further undermines your case.
Can I show any scripture that says it's an optional extra? Sure I can. The Romans Peter witnessed to were saved before they were baptized in water.
Edited by RafLink to comment
Share on other sites
TheInvisibleDan
Couldn't help but notice the other day while I was in the shower that I had been circumcised, which apparently happened when I was an infant (glad I can't remember that). So I guess that makes me a true Jew?
whoo-hoo!
What? It was only for hygienetic purposes, like the shower?
"Rabbi Dan"
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Raf
Had baptism been a requirement for salvation, those men would not have received the holy spirit prior to the water cleansing.
James says I will show you my faith by my works, but the works he refers to do not include baptism! Why would that be? Simple: James is not making the case that we are actually saved by works, but rather that a person of faith will exhibit works. It's still the faith that saves, but we have people walking around saying "I have faith" while still doing nothing to exhibit it. What kind of faith is that?
The absence of works can easily lead one to question faith, but the presence of works does not guarantee the presence of faith. Can you be baptized without faith? Sure you can! Ask any Catholic infant.
To me, faith without baptism is no more unusual (or recommended) than having faith and then ceasing in fellowship, or Bible reading, or witnessing.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Allan
So Mark..using your statement of the OT 'baptism' being a 'foreshadow' of Johns' baptism..why is it not possible that Johns' baptism (of the gospel period) was a 'foreshadow' of the new birth, pentecostal baptism of spirit ?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
TheInvisibleDan
"hygienetic"....
oh cripes, I'm getting as bad as George Bush.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
markomalley
Num 8:5-7 "The LORD said to Moses: "Take the Levites from among the Israelites and purify them. This is what you shall do to them to purify them. Sprinkle them with the water of remission; then have them shave their whole bodies and wash their clothes, and so purify themselves."
Lev 16:24-25 "After bathing his body with water in a sacred place, he shall put on his vestments, and then come out and offer his own and the people's holocaust, in atonement for himself and for the people, and also burn the fat of the sin offering on the altar."
Ps 51:9-10 "Cleanse me with hyssop, that I may be pure; wash me, make me whiter than snow." (Yes I know this is speaking metaphorically, but the point is the symbology is still there)
Zech 13:1 "On that day there shall be open to the house of David and to the inhabitants of Jerusalem, a fountain to purify from sin and uncleanness."
The point is that washing -- and water -- has always been the matter of cleansing from impurity. And therefore, a forecast of baptism. Baptism is NOT a innovation from the New Testament created simply from the ether.
I would have thought you guys would have remembered the use of water throughout the OT. This list of scripture is still not a conclusive list, but it should illustrate the point.
As to the necessity of a physical matter as the token of a spiritual reality (i.e., the sacramental view of the transmission of grace) versus a ordinance-based view of accomplishing an action, I'm not going to even go there...that would be a completely different thread.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Raf
Paul writes, "Christ sent me not to baptize, but to preach the gospel."
Now, if baptism is sooooo integral to the salvation experience that one cannot be saved without it, then Christ DID send Paul to baptize. Else, what good would preaching the gospel do without the subsequent required baptism?
Ah, but Paul did perform water baptisms. He just seems to have put it in its proper place: a good outward expression of inner faith, but not a salvation experience in and of itself. It's by grace we are saved through faith. See it? Not of works, lest any man should boast. What meaning could these words have? If someone has faith, he will do what God asks of him, but it is not the doing that leads to salvation: it is the FAITH.
Water is no more necessary for salvation than hyssop. Thank you for proving my point.
The water has ALWAYS been symbolic of what was taking place within.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
markomalley
Raf, I am shocked!!!! I would have NEVER thought that you, of all people, would have been guilty of taking a verse out of context. (Seriously, I am very, very, very disappointed. I thought better of you)
The Context:
1 Cr 1:10-18
Clearly the verse, taken in its context has nothing to do with the efficacy of baptism. Rather Paul is thanking God that he didn't baptise any of them!
But thanks for helping prove my point for me!
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.