God's Conditional Grace

[ezra]

water baptism does not make you sinless. the Blood of Christ does that.


1 Peter 3:21
King James Version (KJV)
21 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: { jesus was baptized he was skinless ;) }

 

[smaller]

Now what does this have to do with baptism?

Which one might you be speaking of?

no wonder you came up with so many, here the writer tells us it is the word of God that produces the first fruits:

James 1:18 (KJV)
18 Of his own will begat he us with the word of truth, that we should be a kind of firstfruits of his creatures.

Apparently that would be insufficient in some readers eyes. :eeeekkk

And some will make some up, but there are only three, Water, Holy Spirit, and Fire = baptisms

Did I fail to mention baptism for the dead?

1 Corinthians 15:29
Else what shall they do which are baptized for the dead, if the dead rise not at all? why are they then baptized for the dead?

Again, this is not a "baptism", it is much like John 15:3 and James 1:18, it shows how Children of God become such by being begotten through the word, a word which is preached, believed, and obeyed. An example of the manner in which individuals are begotten and born again may be seen in the events of Pentecost when Peter, for the first time in the name of the risen Lord (Acts 2:1-47), preached the conditions of salvation, and three thousand souls in obedience thereto were born of the Word.

Many box these matters up to their understandings alone and then seek to eternally kill other believers on the grounds of their imperfect understandings.

In that they only show that the intention to kill other believers still controls their hearts.

s

 

[smaller]

water baptism does not make you sinless. the Blood of Christ does that.


1 Peter 3:21
King James Version (KJV)
21 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: { jesus was baptized he was skinless ;) }

yikes. I musta missed that part.

 

[rrowell]

Which one might you be speaking of?

all of them except "water", "Holy Spirit", and "Fire".

Apparently that would be insufficient in some readers eyes. :eeeekkk

That's why everyone should read the book of Jude it is packed full of warnings about such.

Did I fail to mention baptism for the dead?

1 Corinthians 15:29
Else what shall they do which are baptized for the dead, if the dead rise not at all? why are they then baptized for the dead?

This is your best (meaning worst) example yet!

The writer here teaches that it is apparent to every thoughtful person, this is an earnest argument to prove that Christians will rise from the dead. The purpose, scope, and connection will admit of but one meaning—If the dead rise not, what shall they do who are baptized in the hope of the resurrection? Men are "baptized into Christ," that they may live in him, die in him, and finally be justified and saved in him.

 

[smaller]

all of them except "water", "Holy Spirit", and "Fire".

So, toss the other scriptures? This is your method?

That's why everyone should read the book of Jude.

Only using your understandings presumably?

This is your best (meaning worst) example yet!

Cited the scripture. Nothing more than that fact.

The writer here teaches that it is apparent to every thoughtful person, this is an earnest argument to prove that Christians will rise from the dead.

So says you. It seems to read very clearly that the dead rise.

1 Corinthians 15:29
Else what shallthey do which are baptized for the dead, if the dead rise not at all? why are they then baptized for the dead?

The purpose, scope, and connection will admit of but one meaning—If the dead rise not, what shall they do who are baptized in the hope of the resurrection? Men are "baptized into Christ," that they may live in him, die in him, and finally be justified and saved in him.

Did I mention the baptism of John?

Acts 18
24 And a certain Jew named Apollos, born at Alexandria, an eloquent man, and mighty in the scriptures, came to Ephesus.
25 This man was instructed in the way of the Lord; and being fervent in the spirit, he spake and taught diligently the things of the Lord, knowing only the baptism of John.
26 And he began to speak boldly in the synagogue: whom when Aquila and Priscilla had heard, they took him unto them, and expounded unto him the way of God more perfectly.

Was John's baptism legitimate? From heaven? Or did they all need a do over with the correct formula?

s

 

[rrowell]

Did I mention the baptism of John?

Acts 18
24 And a certain Jew named Apollos, born at Alexandria, an eloquent man, and mighty in the scriptures, came to Ephesus.
25 This man was instructed in the way of the Lord; and being fervent in the spirit, he spake and taught diligently the things of the Lord, knowing only the baptism of John.
26 And he began to speak boldly in the synagogue: whom when Aquila and Priscilla had heard, they took him unto them, and expounded unto him the way of God more perfectly.

Was John's baptism legitimate? From heaven? Or did they all need a do over with the correct formula?

s

John's Baptism was "water" (one of the three)

 

[smaller]

John's Baptism was "water" (one of the three)

You see the baptism of John to be 'the same as' baptism of the N.T. post resurrection? 'The same as' baptism for the dead?

'The same as' Moses baptism in cloud and sea that was written for our examples? 'The same' effect as all the above?

And if so, how would you even begin to equate the baptism of cloud and sea to the above?

 

[rrowell]

You see the baptism of John to be 'the same as' baptism of the N.T. post resurrection? 'The same as' baptism for the dead?

'The same as' Moses baptism in cloud and sea that was written for our examples? 'The same' effect as all the above?

And if so, how would you even begin to equate the baptism of cloud and sea to the above?

No, the baptism of John was not a NT baptism, and those who after Christ once learned of Christ, they were re-baptized in the name of Christ:

Acts 19:4-5 (KJV)
4 Then said Paul, John verily baptized with the baptism of repentance, saying unto the people, that they should believe on him which should come after him, that is, on Christ Jesus. 5 When they heard this, they were baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus.

You are intentionally veering off the subject, there are three new testament baptisms, "water", "Holy Spirit" and "Fire", and only Jesus can baptize with the "Holy Spirit" and "Fire":

Luke 3:16 (KJV)
16 John answered, saying unto them all, I indeed baptize you with water; but one mightier than I cometh, the latchet of whose shoes I am not worthy to unloose: he shall baptize you with the Holy Ghost and with fire:

 

[smaller]

No, the baptism of John was not a NT baptism, and those who after Christ once learned of Christ, they were re-baptized in the name of Christ:

Acts 19:4-5 (KJV)
4 Then said Paul, John verily baptized with the baptism of repentance, saying unto the people, that they should believe on him which should come after him, that is, on Christ Jesus. 5 When they heard this, they were baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus.

You equate a re-do in this matter, where they were re-baptized in water? Or did they receive the Holy Ghost by the laying on of hands? Baptism in the Spirit.

So you would add #4 to the list of baptismS then? The baptism of John?

Please address the balance of the prior post as well.

s

 

[rrowell]

You equate a re-do in this matter, where they were re-baptized in water? Or did they receive the Holy Ghost by the laying on of hands? Baptism in the Spirit.

Where in the scriptures does it show "laying on of hands" a baptism?

Only Jesus can baptize with the Holy Spirit and Fire:

Luke 3:16 (KJV)
16 John answered, saying unto them all, I indeed baptize you with water; but one mightier than I cometh, the latchet of whose shoes I am not worthy to unloose: he shall baptize you with the Holy Ghost and with fire:

So you would add #4 to the list of baptismS then? The baptism of John?

Please address the balance of the prior post as well.

s

I already said Johns Baptism was not a NT baptism, it was to lead us to what was to come, "the latchet of whose shoes" he was not worthy to unloose.

So we are back down to three....

 

[smaller]

Where in the scriptures does it show "laying on of hands" a baptism?

Only Jesus can baptize with the Holy Spirit and Fire:

Acts 19:
2 He said unto them, Have ye received the Holy Ghost since ye believed? And they said unto him, We have not so much as heard whether there be any Holy Ghost.
3 And he said unto them, Unto what then were ye baptized? And they said, Unto John's baptism.
4 Then said Paul, John verily baptized with the baptism of repentance, saying unto the people, that they should believe on him which should come after him, that is, on Christ Jesus.
5 When they heard this, they were baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus.
6 And when Paul had laid his hands upon them, the Holy Ghost came on them; and they spake with tongues, and prophesied.

You might think you see that they all went to a water baptism first, but it can just as easily be read as a baptism in the Holy Ghost by laying on of hands.

Water baptism is something you inserted by imagination.

I already said Johns Baptism was not a NT baptism, it was to lead us to what was to come, "the latchet of whose shoes" he was not worthy to unloose.

I was pointing to baptism numero 4 to which Jesus Himself was baptized, even though without NEED to do so, being without SIN.

The act of repentance which water baptism <signifies> but does not 'effectuate' has long been sufficient in the way of God.

Repentance is a spiritual and <internal> matter. One can dip in water and it would mean nothing apart from an <internal> change.

Joel 2:13
And rend your heart, and not your garments, and turn unto the LORD your God: for he is gracious and merciful, slow to anger, and of great kindness, and repenteth him of the evil.

So we are back down to three....

Maybe in your mind. John's baptism was a baptism regardless and as such if you want to differentiate it from a N.T. baptism that still makes 4.

And we can dance around Moses baptism longer, but I suspect you don't want to touch it because it's beyond your grasp of understandings.

s

 

[rrowell]

Acts 19:
2 He said unto them, Have ye received the Holy Ghost since ye believed? And they said unto him, We have not so much as heard whether there be any Holy Ghost.
3 And he said unto them, Unto what then were ye baptized? And they said, Unto John's baptism.
4 Then said Paul, John verily baptized with the baptism of repentance, saying unto the people, that they should believe on him which should come after him, that is, on Christ Jesus.
5 When they heard this, they were baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus.
6 And when Paul had laid his hands upon them, the Holy Ghost came on them; and they spake with tongues, and prophesied.

You might think you see that they all went to a water baptism first, but it can just as easily be read as a baptism in the Holy Ghost by laying on of hands.

Water baptism is something you inserted by imagination.

Here you misunderstand baptism "with" the Holy Spirit, this IS one of baptisms, but ONLY JESUS can do this, and was only recorded done to two distinct people (Apostles) Acts. 2:1-4 and (House of Cornelius) Acts. 10:44,

The act of baptism "with" the Holy Spirit to the House of Cornelius was done to show that God is not a respecter of person as testified by the first words our of Peters mouth when he proceeded to preach to him:

Acts 10:34-35 (KJV)
34 Then Peter opened his mouth, and said, Of a truth I perceive that God is no respecter of persons: 35 But in every nation he that feareth him, and worketh righteousness, is accepted with him.

It was to show that the Gospel was not only for the Jew (until now this Miracle was ONLY done to the Apostles). This was the ONLY time anyone was baptize (other than an Apostle) "with" the Holy Spirit, but then note what Peter said in verse 47:

Acts 10:47 (KJV)
47 Can any man forbid water, that these should not be baptized, which have received the Holy Ghost as well as we?

Only Jesus can perform baptism with the Holy Spirit, and with Fire.
And still yet the House of Cornelius were told to be Baptized with "water" Why?

Because water now doeth now save us:

1 Peter 3:20-22 (KJV)
20 Which sometime were disobedient, when once the longsuffering of God waited in the days of Noah, while the ark was a preparing, wherein few, that is, eight souls were saved by water. 21 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: 22 Who is gone into heaven, and is on the right hand of God; angels and authorities and powers being made subject unto him.

I was pointing to baptism numero 4 to which Jesus Himself was baptized, even though without NEED to do so, being without SIN.

He needed to do so, because he kept the Old Law perfectly, it was a command he must do, His (Christ) law was not yet in effect, it required the death of the testator.

The act of repentance

which water baptism <signifies> but does not 'effectuate' has long been sufficient in the way of God.

Water baptism does not signify repentance, repentance is a turning away from sin, baptism is a washing away putting us "into Christ".

Repentance is a spiritual and <internal> matter. One can dip in water and it would mean nothing apart from an <internal> change.

Finally something you and I can agree on :yes

Maybe in your mind. John's baptism was a baptism regardless and as such if you want to differentiate it from a N.T. baptism that still makes 4.

And we can dance around Moses baptism longer, but I suspect you don't want to touch it because it's beyond your grasp of understandings.

s

The "Moses baptism" was a metaphor in describing the baptism of Christ, Ill let this commentator speak to this as I fully agree with his take on it:

2 and were all baptized unto Moses—It brought them into a relationship to Moses they had never sustained before. That is, into his undisputed control over their movements. Up to the very moment of that baptism this control was still disputed by Pharaoh. They were saved by that baptism from his hands and passed under the leadership of Moses. True they were baptized figuratively in the cloud and in the sea; yet at the same time, by a like figure, passed out of Pharaoh into Moses. They were committed to his leadership as men now by baptism are consecrated to the leadership of Jesus Christ, and this transition into Moses by an act quite similar to baptism.
Gospel Advocate Commentaries - New Testament Commentary – A Commentary on the New Testament Epistles: First Corinthians.

 

[smaller]

Here you misunderstand baptism "with" the Holy Spirit, this IS one of baptisms, but ONLY JESUS can do this, and was only recorded done to two distinct people (Apostles) Acts. 2:1-4 and (House of Cornelius) Acts. 10:44,

I don't subtract God in Christ from any spiritual matter regardless of the human instruments involved. Don't know how that has any bearing on the matter.

Observed that no where in your citing is 'water baptism' in the (whatever) sense was detailed in that citing. There is undoubtedly Spirit Baptism involved beyond any question, and if so The Spirit of God in Christ was assuredly involved regardless.

The act of baptism "with" the Holy Spirit to the House of Cornelius was done to show that God is not a respecter of person as testified by the first words our of Peters mouth when he proceeded to preach to him:

Acts 10:34-35 (KJV)
34 Then Peter opened his mouth, and said, Of a truth I perceive that God is no respecter of persons: 35 But in every nation he that feareth him, and worketh righteousness, is accepted with him.

It was to show that the Gospel was not only for the Jew (until now this Miracle was ONLY done to the Apostles). This was the ONLY time anyone was baptize (other than an Apostle) "with" the Holy Spirit, but then note what Peter said in verse 47:

Acts 10:47 (KJV)
47 Can any man forbid water, that these should not be baptized, which have received the Holy Ghost as well as we?

Only Jesus can perform baptism with the Holy Spirit, and with Fire.
And still yet the House of Cornelius were told to be Baptized with "water" Why?

Because water now doeth now save us:

Well, it is fun to get you on record of being both sinless and saved via water.

I find that view entertaining only, particularly in view of the fact that you openly attribute the matters to 'internal' and 'unseen' actions also in play.

He needed to do so, because he kept the Old Law perfectly, it was a command he must do, His (Christ) law was not yet in effect, it required the death of the testator.

I can appreciate that you are able to jump all over the text and change the subject matter. As it pertains to 'unconditional Grace' as opposed to 'conditional' is that Gods Grace is factually distributed to those who actually perceive it. Your claim is that it only comes via actions associated 'post sight' or 'post belief' hinging that in part on baptism.

But as we can also see the subjects of baptismS <plural> is diverse, complex, and 'mentally' percieved in many ways by many believers.

In every instance of water baptism it is always preceded by an internal change that happened prior. In no case can someone expect to be dipped in water and by that action alone have any type of internal change.

The act itself then apart from 'internal change' would be nothing more than that, an external act, and without a corresponding and prior internal change, completely worthless to effectuate anything.

Water baptism is, in short, nothing more than what the persons themselves believe it internally to be.

And it is also easily seen in an abundance of variations as noted prior in multiple baptismS plural.

Water baptism does not signify repentance, repentance is a turning away from sin, baptism is a washing away putting us "into Christ".

Believers believed in God in Christ by faith in each and every case regardless of that external exercise.

If they did not believe in and by faith and did the external exercise itself it was, is and would remain entirely meaningless as an act by itself.

Finally something you and I can agree on.

I will remain having a difficult time communicating with believers who think they were made sinless and saved by mere water. Sorry. That will remain quite a denigration of the Spirit of God in Christ in my eyes.

The "Moses baptism" was a metaphor in describing the baptism of Christ, Ill let this commentator speak to this as I fully agree with his take on it:

So, you metaphor this one but not the other? Nice try.

2 and were all baptized unto Moses—It brought them into a relationship to Moses they had never sustained before. That is, into his undisputed control over their movements. Up to the very moment of that baptism this control was still disputed by Pharaoh. They were saved by that baptism from his hands and passed under the leadership of Moses. True they were baptized figuratively in the cloud and in the sea; yet at the same time, by a like figure, passed out of Pharaoh into Moses. They were committed to his leadership as men now by baptism are consecrated to the leadership of Jesus Christ, and this transition into Moses by an act quite similar to baptism.
Gospel Advocate Commentaries - New Testament Commentary – A Commentary on the New Testament Epistles: First Corinthians.

Similar to but not the same. And I entirely agree that matters of baptism are in fact figurative of spiritual matters. How that may figure into the thinking of believers as noted prior varies dramatically from sect to sect.

So, we now have not only the 4 baptismS prior, but we add the baptism of Moses in both cloud and sea and baptism for the dead and we are now clocking in at a bastismS list of potentially SEVEN.

And we wonder why believers have a hard time finding common ground?

No wonder.

Now add to this matter all of your perceptions and figurative examples of each of those, multiply that by each and every other observer of same and we again wonder how so many different views come about, ALL conditional to the sights of each holder.

To me this became not only an absurdity, but an impossibility of mutual understandings. I pity a new believer trying to sort out all these matters.

That is why, in the end, UNCONDITIONAL GRACE is the fulcrum and starting points that sails every vessel of honor into these WATERS of understandings.

Where they blow from there is really anyone's guess. I believe that the Author of this exercise does know what He's Doing and where it's all headed. Were I to stake my views on the subjective sights of others, I merely box myself in to their canyons of personal subjectivity, which is in fact the only commonality.

enjoy!

s

 

[Theodore A. Jones]

John's Baptism was "water" (one of the three)

The difference between what John the Baptist taught, repentance of sins plural, and what the Acts 2 message teaches and requires is that salvation is predicated upon the faith to repent a sin. The sin of a man's murder that was committed about forty days previously. Both systems do require baptism in water to be effective. However there will not be any relief granted from serving the penalty of eternal death by the faith of repenting of sins or multiple baptisms in water.

 

[Theodore A. Jones]

John's Baptism was "water" (one of the three)

The difference between what John the Baptist taught, repentance of sins plural, and what the Acts 2 message teaches and requires is that salvation is predicated upon the faith to repent of a sin. The sin of a man's murder that was committed about forty days previously. Both systems do require baptism in water to be effective. However there will not be any relief granted from serving the penalty of eternal death by the faith of repenting of sins or multiple baptisms in water.