Baptism being necessary for salvation...

[dadof10]

You make a very valid point Sam and I agree with what you've said.

What I would like to add, or rather expand upon is this notion that our salvation is holistic and not just a spiritual experience. Furthermore, within scripture, it is normative, though not exclusive, that when one enters the baptismal waters the two (Spiritual and physical) come together. Thus, there is only one Baptism.

This is a great point and one I would have made myself if I had more time. You can't seperate water baptism from "baptism in the Spirit". A person recieves the GIFT of the Spirit at water baptism. So then, if receiving the gift of the Spirit equals salvation, and at water baptism you receive this Spirit, doesn't it logically follow that water baptism saves?

Sent using my cellular telephone device via the interweb.

 

[stovebolts]

The Spirit was also directly connected by Jesus himself to living (eternal) water (meaning that the Holy Spirit purifies us and gives us eternal life) in John 7:38-39 which says, “‘He who believes in Me, as the Scripture has said, out of his heart will flow rivers of living water.’ But this He spoke of the Spirit, whom those believing would receive.” Now almost always when a book in the NT refers to the “Scripture” it refers to the established Scripture of the day which was the OT only, and it is abundantly clear that Jesus was referring to an OT prophecy. It was most likely a composite reference to the end times promise of the eschatological rivers of living water foreseen in Ezekiel 47:1-9 and Zechariah 13:1. But most importantly this brings us back to the fact that Jesus expected Nicodemus to know to what he was referring, meaning it was an OT teaching, and - as we have seen here - the water spoken of was both moral and spiritual in nature, causing the cleansing and spiritual rebirth by the work of the Holy Spirit and the word of God (the Gospel) working in people’s hearts and minds for salvation.

Hi Josh,
Your correct in that Nicodemus was expected to understand the teachings from Torah, as I'm not sure he was speaking on the full Tanak.

For living waters, look at Genesis 16:14. I know you understand Hebrew, so dig around a bit and tell me what you find, and see if that fits a bit better in your outline.

Also, you'll find the other three pieces in Genesis 26, where three wells are spoken of. Pay particular attention to the third well, and based on the first two, tell me what you see there as well. Ohhh BTW, keep in mind that it was the era of the second Temple... What would the third Temple look like juxtaposed with the third well?

Grace and Peace.

 

[stovebolts]

Just to clarify Josh, when I said it was the era of the 2nd temple, I was referring to the time at which Jesus spoke. I want to see if you can connect the dots... with your OT background, it should ignite a spark!

As far as the four hebrew words you're going to find fascinating (Three from chapter 26), you'll have to dig a bit deeper than strongs, which I know you will.

Please share with us what you find ;)

 

[stovebolts]

This is a great point and one I would have made myself if I had more time. You can't seperate water baptism from "baptism in the Spirit". A person recieves the GIFT of the Spirit at water baptism. So then, if receiving the gift of the Spirit equals salvation, and at water baptism you receive this Spirit, doesn't it logically follow that water baptism saves?

Sent using my cellular telephone device via the interweb.

Hi Dad,

I understand your logic, but unfortunately this type of black and white logic doesn't work simply because there are too many variables. For instance, as discussed earlier, Cornelius and his household had received the Holy Spirit prior to being baptized in water.

We also have verses like these found in Ephesians 1.

12That we should be to the praise of his glory, who first trusted in Christ. 13In whom ye also trusted, after that ye heard the word of truth, the gospel of your salvation: in whom also after that ye believed, ye were sealed with that holy Spirit of promise,
14Which is the earnest of our inheritance until the redemption of the purchased possession, unto the praise of his glory.



It clearly states that it is after our belief, that we are sealed with the holy spirit. And of course, I believe Paul to be speaking on Baptized believers. Ephesians 4:5

 

[Alabaster]

For by one Spirit are you all(church in general) baptized into one body...and have been all made to drink into one Spirit(1Cor12:13). So all believers have been baptized in the Holy Spirit.

Paul was speaking to particular people, not ALL IN GENERAL. If one has not experienced the usually SUBSEQUENT baptism of the Holy Spirit, then one needs to submit to it.

 

[cyberjosh]

Hi Josh,
Your correct in that Nicodemus was expected to understand the teachings from Torah, as I'm not sure he was speaking on the full Tanak.

For living waters, look at Genesis 16:14. I know you understand Hebrew, so dig around a bit and tell me what you find, and see if that fits a bit better in your outline.

Also, you'll find the other three pieces in Genesis 26, where three wells are spoken of. Pay particular attention to the third well, and based on the first two, tell me what you see there as well. Ohhh BTW, keep in mind that it was the era of the second Temple... What would the third Temple look like juxtaposed with the third well?

Grace and Peace.

Interesting. I will have to check out that reference in Genesis. As far as the Pentateuch/Torah I have found several new insights before about the Genesis narratives from Robert Alter's fresh translation of the Torah in The Five Books of Moses: A Translation with Commentary. Thanks for the pointers.

God Bless,

Josh

 

[cyberjosh]

Paul was speaking to particular people, not ALL IN GENERAL. If one has not experienced the usually SUBSEQUENT baptism of the Holy Spirit, then one needs to submit to it.

Paul was talking to every believer in the Church in vs. 13, else the verse (and chapter) looses its intent and meaning. If we were not all baptized into "one body" (1 Cor. 12:13) upon believing then there is no unified body of Christ. Paul follows up by saying "now there are many members, but one body" (vs. 20) and "Now you are Christ's body, and individually members of it" (vs. 27). Paul's analogy of the many members but one body is very similar to Jesus' analogy of him being the vine and his followers the branches. This cannot be referring to a subset of all Christians, it must refer to every Christian and believer in Jesus. Anything otherwise would go against the entire meaning of chapter 12. Likewise the statement, "we were all made to drink of one Spirit" (vs. 13). The Spirit's working is given "to each one" (vs. 11).

God Bless,

~Josh

 

[jasoncran]

Paul was talking to every believer in the Church in vs. 13, else the verse (and chapter) looses its intent and meaning. If we were not all baptized into "one body" (1 Cor. 12:13) upon believing then there is no unified body of Christ. Paul follows up by saying "now there are many members, but one body" (vs. 20) and "Now you are Christ's body, and individually members of it" (vs. 27). Paul's analogy of the many members but one body is very similar to Jesus' analogy of him being the vine and his followers the branches. This cannot be referring to a subset of all Christians, it must refer to every Christian and believer in Jesus. Anything otherwise would go against the entire meaning of chapter 12. Likewise the statement, "we were all made to drink of one Spirit" (vs. 13). The Spirit's working is given "to each one" (vs. 11).

God Bless,

~Josh

well then if that is case? why dont the non-charismatic operate in all the gifts? ie some as prophets and or interpreters et all?

 

[cyberjosh]

well then if that is case? why dont the non-charismatic operate in all the gifts? ie some as prophets and or interpreters et all?

I assume by non-charistmatic you are speaking in terms of denominations. Gifts can be neglected. Paul's admonition to the saints was, "Do not quench the Spirit" (1 Thess. 5:19) or "do not put out the Spirit's fire" as some translations have it, and also "kindle afresh the gift of God which is in you" (2 Timothy 1:6). Also there is the warning about not using what has been graciously given you, "And working together with Him, we also urge you not to receive the grace of God in vain" (2 Corinthians 6:1). Aside from that, not all gifts are outwardly "spectacular" in manifestation, teaching and preaching may be gifts that are exercised. I just believe that it is tongues that is far less commonly seen in non-charistmatic denominations, and sometimes also prophecy, but that is not always the case. I have seen them exercised in more than one of the baptist churches that I have gone to in the past, and I have heard a glossalia and its interpretation given before in one of them (not that long ago).

At any rate, none of this about gifts really has any bearing on whether a believer even has the Holy Spirit or not, for we know all believers do. As I already quoted Paul says in Romans, "If a man has not the Spirit of Christ, he is none of his" (Romans 8:9). And also we know that we are indwelled from the Spirit's own internal testimony, "The Spirit Himself testifies with our spirit that we are children of God" (Romans 8:16). And as children and part of the body of Christ we have an inheritance in God.

God Bless,

~Josh

 

[jasoncran]

I assume by non-charistmatic you are speaking in terms of denominations. Gifts can be neglected. Paul's admonition to the saints was, "Do not quench the Spirit" (1 Thess. 5:19) or "do not put out the Spirit's fire" as some translations have it, and also "kindle afresh the gift of God which is in you" (2 Timothy 1:6). Also there is the warning about not using what has been graciously given you, "And working together with Him, we also urge you not to receive the grace of God in vain" (2 Corinthians 6:1). Aside from that, not all gifts are outwardly "spectacular" in manifestation, teaching and preaching may be gifts that are exercised. I just believe that it is tongues that is far less commonly seen in non-charistmatic denominations, and sometimes also prophecy, but that is not always the case. I have seen them exercised in more than one of the baptist churches that I have gone to in the past.

At any rate, none of this about gifts really has any bearing on whether a believer even has the Holy Spirit or not, for we know all believers do. As I already quoted Paul says in Romans, "If a man has not the Spirit of Christ, he is none of his" (Romans 8:9). And also we know that we are indwelled by the Spirit's internal testimony, "The Spirit Himself testifies with our spirit that we are children of God" (Romans 8:16). And as children and part of the body of Christ we have an inheritance in God.

God Bless,

~Josh

with and having are often confused by the non-charismatics case in point read acts 9:11-14. the apostles john and peter went to the samiritians to lay hands so the samitarians would recieved the holy ghost as they had recieved the word of God. meaning salvation, if upon salvation then why was the apostles sent to give them something they already had?

and the spirit of christ while nearly the same isnt the same Person in the trinity as the holy spirit.

 

[Alabaster]

Paul was talking to every believer in the Church in vs. 13, else the verse (and chapter) looses its intent and meaning. If we were not all baptized into "one body" (1 Cor. 12:13) upon believing then there is no unified body of Christ. Paul follows up by saying "now there are many members, but one body" (vs. 20) and "Now you are Christ's body, and individually members of it" (vs. 27). Paul's analogy of the many members but one body is very similar to Jesus' analogy of him being the vine and his followers the branches. This cannot be referring to a subset of all Christians, it must refer to every Christian and believer in Jesus. Anything otherwise would go against the entire meaning of chapter 12. Likewise the statement, "we were all made to drink of one Spirit" (vs. 13). The Spirit's working is given "to each one" (vs. 11).

God Bless,

~Josh

We are definitely baptized into one Body---by water, and often people are baptized in the Holy Spirit at that time. How wonderful! But many are not, although the time is perfect for them to receive it. My opinion is that many could be baptized in the Spirit at that time but they are simply not taught about it, and in their ignorance, they walk away none the wiser, and as a result, they do not begin to walk in the power of their giftings, which is the evidence of the anointing.

The baptism of the Holy Spirit is a very real and separate event, as taught all through the NT, and displayed in Acts.

 

[Sam21]

with and having are often confused by the non-charismatics case in point read acts 9:11-14. the apostles john and peter went to the samiritians to lay hands so the samitarians would recieved the holy ghost as they had recieved the word of God. meaning salvation, if upon salvation then why was the apostles sent to give them something they already had?

and the spirit of christ while nearly the same isnt the same Person in the trinity as the holy spirit.

You make a valid point,however if the Holy Spirit can only be given by the laying on of the apostles hands then we are all doomed because the apostles died a very long time ago. It wasn't just the laying on of hands because Phillip could have done that. I suppose it is possible that the converts received the Holy Spirit at conversion(or else they were not saved)but that when the apostles layed their hands on them and prayed that they were filled with the Spirit and begin to speak in tongues.

 

[Sam21]

Folks, I just do not believe that being dunked under WATER can give us anything but wet skin, I am convinced that it is nothing except what it appears to be,a symbolic act. Salvation occurs when the mind,emotions,and will,of the person reach out to God,and we make a total commitment to God,turn our back on the world,and call upon Jesus to save us, THEN God will save us and give us the indwelling Holy Spirit.
God gave us water baptism because we are physical beings and need something physical in order to teach us something spiritual. God was saying,YOU HAVE TO BE CONVERTED IN A MOMENT OF TIME, so God gave us a physical act to acknowledge our conversion(water baptism)...but the physical act IS NOT THE CONVERSION because real conversion is the mind and will by faith rejecting this world and accepting Christ as Saviour.
The flesh nature loves to exalt water baptism because it gives us a simple easy to follow formula in order to get into the kingdom of God,however if you want to really get saved it requires one to die to self and commit totally to God and accept Jesus as Saviour...AND THAT IS VERY HARD TO DO!

 

[jasoncran]

You make a valid point,however if the Holy Spirit can only be given by the laying on of the apostles hands then we are all doomed because the apostles died a very long time ago. It wasn't just the laying on of hands because Phillip could have done that. I suppose it is possible that the converts received the Holy Spirit at conversion(or else they were not saved)but that when the apostles layed their hands on them and prayed that they were filled with the Spirit and begin to speak in tongues.

it has to be asked for that is also and the point was that it a seperate event, though one can be indwelled as one is saved there is place in acts, again recieving the holy spirit or not isnt salvinic, he being with you is. one must be a child of his first , the apostles had him with them, but they didnt have the indwelling.

 

[stovebolts]

Interesting. I will have to check out that reference in Genesis. As far as the Pentateuch/Torah I have found several new insights before about the Genesis narratives from Robert Alter's fresh translation of the Torah in The Five Books of Moses: A Translation with Commentary. Thanks for the pointers.

God Bless,

Josh

Well, if you want to know what Nicodemous should have known.. You wouldn't go to a non Jewish source

Amazon.com: Ramban (Nachmanides): Commentary on the Torah (5 Vol. Set) S/C (9781607630494): Ramban (Nachmanides): Books

This is what I have, and it's like having 8 or 9 commentaries wrapped into one volume as he discusses the most debated views in Judaism. Here's a snipit on 26:20

And he called the name of the well esek.

Scripture gives a lengthy account of the matter of the wells when in the literal interpretation of the story there would seem to be no benefit nor any great honor to Isaac in that he and his father did the identical thing. ( 174.Both Isaac and Abraham dug wells in the land of the Philistines. They did not quarrel with Abraham, but they did quarrel with Isaac. Thus, in the literal meaning of the story, there “is no great honor to Isaac.”

However, there is a hidden matter involved here since Scripture’s purpose is to make known a future matter. A well of Living Water alludes to the House of G-d which the children of Isaac will build. This is why Scripture mentions a well of living waters, even as it says, A fountain of living waters, the Eternal. (175 Jeremiah 17:13. From the context of Ramban’s language it would appear that he interprets the verse as if it said, A fountain of living waters, which is the house of the Eternal.)

He called the first well Esek (contention), which is an allusion to the First House (176 The First Sanctuary, which was built by Solomon and destroyed by the Babylonians.) Concerning which the nations contended with us and instigated quarrels and wars with us until they destroyed it. The second well he called ‘sitnah’ (Enmity), (177 Verse 21 here.) a name harsher than the first. This alludes to the Second House, (178 The Second Sanctuary, which was built by the Jews who returned from the Babylonian Cativity and which was destroyed by the Romans.) which indeed been referred to by this very name, in the beginning of his reign, they wrote ‘sitnah’ (179 Hatered, accusation. Thus the same word sitna appears in connection with the Second Sanctuary.) against the inhabitants of Judah and Jerusalem. (180 Ezra 4:6)

And during its entire existence they (181 Our historic enemies during the period of the Second Temple, signified in the chapter here by the Philistines.) were a source of enmity unto us until they destroyed it and drove us from it into bitter exile. The third well he called Rechovoth (Spacious). This is a reference to the Future House, which will be speedily build in our days, and it will be done without quarrel and feud, and G-d will enlarge our boarders, even as it says, And if the Eternal thy G-d enlarge thy border, as He hath sworn, etc. , (182 Deuteronomy 19:8) which refers to the future. And concerning the Third House of the future, it is written, Broader (183 In Hebrew verachavah, from the same root at the name of the third well, Rechovoth. The connection between the third well and the Third Temple of the future concerning which Ezekiel prophesied, is thus established) and winding about higher and higher (184 Ezekiel 41:7.) [The concluding statement I the present narrative, concerning the naming of the third well] , and we shall be fruitful in the land (185 Verse 22 here.) signifies that all peoples will come to worship G-d with one consent (186 Zephaniah 3:9)

Abraham dug, in connection with which he gave Abimelech seven lambs as a witness [to his ownership of the well]. (195 Above, 21:30) The Philistines, however, stopped it together with the other wells, whereupon Isaac dug it again and called it by the same name which his father had called it. It is for this reason that the name of the city is Beer-sheba: on account of the well (be’er) which both the father and the son called by that name because there they swore both of them. (196 ibid., verse 31. The verse there refers to Abraham and Abimelech. Ramban uses it here only as a expression to indicate that both Abraham and Isaac called the same well by the same name and both had occasion to swear over it. The name of the city “Beer-sheba” thus derives its historical significance from both the first patriarch ad his son.)

This well of theirs alludes to the Tabernacle at Shiloh, which the Philistines stopped when the Ark of G-d was taken captive by them (197 1 Samuel 4:11) And they redug it, indicating that the Philistines indeed returned the Ark together with the honorary gift to G-d (198 ibid., 6:110

 

[dadof10]

I see cleanfreak decided to use the unabridged version but CF is correct; taking a verse out of context and using it as prooftext isn't the way to go.

Here's my explanation:

If we only read v. 21, we will no doubt be inclined to associate salvation with water. But look at the bigger picture, the whole passage. What really saved Noah and family? Was it the water or the ark?

Yes, of course it was the ark and from a Christocentric POV, the ark represents Christ.

Ignoring the plain words of Scripture in favor of a novel interpretation that supports a non-biblical view isn't the way to go either.

Here is the verse in question, in it's entire context:

For Christ also died for sins once for all, the righteous for the unrighteous, that he might bring us to God, being put to death in the flesh but made alive in the spirit; 19 in which he went and preached to the spirits in prison, 20 who formerly did not obey, when God's patience waited in the days of Noah, during the building of the ark, in which a few, that is, eight persons, were saved through water.
21 Baptism, which corresponds to this, now saves you, not as a removal of dirt from the body but as an appeal to God for a clear conscience, through the resurrection of Jesus Christ, 22 who has gone into heaven and is at the right hand of God, with angels, authorities, and powers subject to him. (1Peter (RSV) 3)

Where does Peter say Jesus "corresponds" to, or is symbolized by, the ark?

It's not there, but what IS there are the words "Baptism, which corresponds to this ["saved through water"] now saves you..."

How am I taking this out of context? How can a rational person, reading the plain words of the text come to any other conclusion but that water baptism saves?

Peter compares water baptism with flood waters, and says the eight were saved "through water". I can see the point he's making, namely, both the flood waters and baptism wash away filth. The flood cleansed the earth and baptism removes sin, but that's not all.

It saves:

"not as a removal of dirt from the body..." It goes further than the flood did.

"...but as an appeal to God for a clear conscience..." The people in the days of Noah sinned and did not repent. Baptism, on the other hand, requires repentance, for those who can repent, those over the age of reason.

"...through the resurrection of Jesus Christ..." The merits of Christ's resurrection are applied to the sinner at water baptism. As the NIV puts it "It [baptism] saves you by the resurrection of Jesus Christ..."

You're going to have to expound on the comparison between baptism and a boat ride because I don't see it.

I don't know whether you think that baptism is merely symbolic, but nowhere in Scripture is this taught.

So, what, or who, is really responsible for our salvation is Christ. No water, no works, no anything outside of what Christ did for us. It's Christ + nothing.

I agree, only Christ saves. Where we disagree is the APPLICATION of the merits of Christ in a person's life. The Catholic Church teaches that it is by Grace alone we are saved. An infant is baptized and saved without having to DO anything to merit that salvation. The merits of Christ are applied through Grace alone. This is the ordinary means of salvation, and repentance is required for adult converts, as stated above. Of course, salvation can be lost, (hence the need for a lifelong "appeal to God for a clear conscience"), but that's another thread.

Protestantism teaches a person MUST reach a certain age and "accept Jesus as Lord and Savior" IN ORDER to be saved. A person must earn their salvation by making a profession of faith. Any way you slice it this is a work, according to Protestantism's definition of "work".

From the beginning of time 'til He returns, man will always be looking for a way to take at least partial credit for his/her adoption by God, as if we could actually choose the parents who adopt us.

The infant who receives baptism (and the Graces attached), takes no credit and chooses NOTHING. God freely bestows His Grace upon the baby. Salvation by Grace alone.

 

[dadof10]

Hi Dad of 10 (Do you really have 10 children?)

It's funny, because when I read what Peter writes about Noah, I'm taken back to the story of Noah. Essentially, I view the story as Noah, who was living in a world surrounded by sin where corruption was rampant. God tells Noah to build an Ark (which by the way the Hebrew word for Ark is only used twice in the whole bible. It is used in Exodus 1 and generally translated as "basket", but I may come back to this.)

Anyway, Noah builds this ark and entered into it with his family. The rains come down and by the water, they are swept away from their old life surrounded by sin, and brought to a new world that is fresh and vibrant with new life. You see, it was the water which cleansed the old world... a world filled with evil desires and everything ungodly and it became new.

Juxtapose this with Romans 6. I won't quote it because I know you know this passage well, but it speaks of being buried with christ, and being brought up with Christ. Thus, Peters own words in 3:21 state, by the resurrection of Jesus Christ

Tell me, do you think Baptism mirrors, or parallels Circumcision in any way?

Yes, they are both rites of initiation, circumcision into Judaism, baptism into Christianity. Baptism goes further whereas it can save and circumcision can't, but that is one parallel. Why?

I agree, for the most part, with your take on the pre-flood world, Romans 6 and dying with Christ in baptism to be raised with Him. I don't see where we disagree. I imagine it's coming...keep going.

And yes, I do have 10 kids. My wife and I have a blended family.

 

[dadof10]

Can God grant the Holy Spirit outside of water baptism? Absolutely, no questions asked. Is it normative in scripture?... What's normative, is that those who have been granted the Holy Spirit, have also been Baptized in water.

Good point. There is the ordinary means of salvation and extraordinary means. I have had this conversation 100 times with people on the subject of the thief on the cross. He is brought up almost every time salvation is mentioned, he was brought up on this thread earlier, I think....

Anyway, the ordinary means of salvation incorporates baptism, accepting Jesus as Lord, constant prayer, repentance, keeping the commandments, etc. God wants it all from the time a person is called until death.

The Thief is an example of the extraordinary means of salvation as he was hours from certain death. He was definitely saved by his deathbed confession.

As you rightly said above, the ordinary means (or "normative") of the gift of the Holy Spirit is water baptism. There are, however extraordinary exceptions. We can't put God in a box.

 

[dadof10]

There are many Christians who receive water baptism and are saved, but they do not ever experience the baptism of the Holy Spirit. His baptism is not what saves us. It empowers those who are ALREADY saved.

Chapter and verse, please

 

[dadof10]

But, all of these times would be exceptional. The norm is that people do live for a while after accepting Christ as Lord and Savior. The thief on the cross didn't, nor would the "atheist in the foxhole" that was snatched just as the bomb blew.

For the rest of us though, if we have enough time to sit here and debate about it on line, we have enough time to be baptized.