Salvation without Baptism ?

[Jim Parker]

I'm trying to figure out why Jim Parker chose to use this verse. If you notice they received the Holy Spirit....then were baptized.

...saved, then baptized.

That was one of three verses I posted which demonstrate that baptism in water was the standard practice of new believers in the NT Church.
I posted it in response to Nathan's statement: "I believe that the water Jesus speaks of is the word of God."

 

[Nathan]

OK, you have no issue with water baptism and baptism doesn't mean immersion in water.
And you don't think that double-talk.
Got it.

Actually, you misunderstand me. I think baptism sometimes means in water. Just depends on the context of the passage.

 

[Jim Parker]

Jim, no one is saying baptism is wrong. You do understand that???

Yes.
No one is saying baptism is wrong.
That's not the point.
There are those who insist that Baptism is not what the scriptures show it to be and that it is not a necessity for a Christian.

It has been stated here that baptism is being "washed in the word of God." That is false. No where in scripture is that definition to be found.

It has been stated here that baptism is a "good thing to do." That is a half-truth. It is a command of our Lord. Jesus put obedience to His commands in a light quite different from, "It's a good thing to do."
He said: “But why do you call Me ‘Lord, Lord,' and not do the things which I say?" (Luke 6:46)

Scripture and the historic documents of the Church demonstrate that the baptism of which Jesus spoke at Mat. 28 is
(1) baptism in water, not "in the word of God", and
(2) is a command for all believers, not just a "good thing to do."

What is going on is an attempt to subtly undermine the teaching of scripture which specifically tells us that all believers are commanded to be baptized in water.

The words used to avoid affirming that scriptural doctrine are consistently couched in guileful language so as to give the appearance of accepting the teaching without actually doing so.

THAT is what I am responding to.

iakov the fool

 

[Jim Parker]

Actually, you misunderstand me. I think baptism sometimes means in water. Just depends on the context of the passage.

Do you accept that Jesus commanded that disciples be baptized in water? (Mat 28:18-19)

 

[Nathan]

Yes.
No one is saying baptism is wrong.
That's not the point.
There are those who insist that Baptism is not what the scriptures show it to be and that it is not a necessity for a Christian.

It has been stated here that baptism is being "washed in the word of God." That is false. No where in scripture is that definition to be found.

It has been stated here that baptism is a "good thing to do." That is a half-truth. It is a command of our Lord. Jesus put obedience to His commands in a light quite different from, "It's a good thing to do."
He said: “But why do you call Me ‘Lord, Lord,' and not do the things which I say?" (Luke 6:46)

Scripture and the historic documents of the Church demonstrate that the baptism of which Jesus spoke at Mat. 28 is
(1) baptism in water, not "in the word of God", and
(2) is a command for all believers, not just a "good thing to do."

What is going on is an attempt to subtly undermine the teaching of scripture which specifically tells us that all believers are commanded to be baptized in water.

The words used to avoid affirming that scriptural doctrine are consistently couched in guileful language so as to give the appearance of accepting the teaching without actually doing so.

THAT is what I am responding to.

iakov the fool

Actually, I am insisting that we understand baptism for what it is, not what we want to make it.

 

[Jim Parker]

Actually, I am insisting that we understand baptism for what it is, not what we want to make it.

Please state specifically what you believe baptism is.

 

[Nathan]

Do you accept that Jesus commanded that disciples be baptized in water? (Mat 28:18-19)

Jesus was not speaking of water in that passage. He specifically stated to baptize in the name of the Father, and the Son, and the Holy Spirit. I do not see the word water used.

 

[Nathan]

Please state specifically what you believe baptism is.

An immersion of a person into something.

 

[Jim Parker]

Jesus was not speaking of water in that passage. He specifically stated to baptize in the name of the Father, and the Son, and the Holy Spirit. I do not see the word water used.

Then explain why the accounts of baptism in Acts are in water.
Explain why the Didache and Justin Martyr's first Apology both specifically state that baptism is in water.

 

[Nathan]

Then explain why the accounts of baptism in Acts are in water.
Explain why the Didache and Justin Martyr's first Apology both specifically state that baptism is in water.

Water was a medium into which people were baptized. So to was the Spirit. And so to was the name of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit.

I can only explain that which I know is true. I do believe baptism also is done in water.

 

[Cygnus]

Baptism in water and in the Holy Spirit fulfill the requirements set forth by Jesus at John 3:5.

Jim, in a prvious post I presented you with several interpretations of the usage of water as it pertains to that verse. I asked you why it has to be water=baptism. You ignored the question.
Secondly I also showed you several verses where baptism was missing from salvation...then showed you if it was a requirement it would have been included in those verses. Once again you refused to comment.

 

[Cygnus]

That was one of three verses I posted which demonstrate that baptism in water was the standard practice of new believers in the NT Church.
I posted it in response to Nathan's statement: "I believe that the water Jesus speaks of is the word of God."

I understand that. Once one became a believer and saved...then got baptized. I even presented you with examples of people who were filled with the Holy Spirit then got baptized.

 

[Cygnus]

Yes.
No one is saying baptism is wrong.
That's not the point.
There are those who insist that Baptism is not what the scriptures show it to be and that it is not a necessity for a Christian.

It has been stated here that baptism is being "washed in the word of God." That is false. No where in scripture is that definition to be found.

It has been stated here that baptism is a "good thing to do." That is a half-truth. It is a command of our Lord. Jesus put obedience to His commands in a light quite different from, "It's a good thing to do."
He said: “But why do you call Me ‘Lord, Lord,' and not do the things which I say?" (Luke 6:46)

Scripture and the historic documents of the Church demonstrate that the baptism of which Jesus spoke at Mat. 28 is
(1) baptism in water, not "in the word of God", and
(2) is a command for all believers, not just a "good thing to do."

What is going on is an attempt to subtly undermine the teaching of scripture which specifically tells us that all believers are commanded to be baptized in water.

The words used to avoid affirming that scriptural doctrine are consistently couched in guileful language so as to give the appearance of accepting the teaching without actually doing so.

THAT is what I am responding to.

iakov the fool

Jim, I don't think a person here would disagree with you that baptism is something we should do. There is no attempt to subtly undermine the teaching of scripture. Why do you claim there is?

Are you teaching that if we don't fulfill that command of Jesus' a believer will lose their salvation?

 

[Jim Parker]

I asked you why it has to be water=baptism. You ignored the question.

Paul's description of baptism, which was written decades before John's Gospel, gives a pretty clear statement that, when one is baptized, he rises from the water to new life in Christ.

Secondly I also showed you several verses where baptism was missing from salvation...then showed you if it was a requirement it would have been included in those verses. Once again you refused to comment.

The fact that baptism was missing from some accounts of salvation does not prove that Jesus command that ALL disciples were to be baptized was just a suggestion.

 

[Jim Parker]

I understand that. Once one became a believer and saved...then got baptized. I even presented you with examples of people who were filled with the Holy Spirit then got baptized.

Yes, the order of baptism in water and in Spirit appear to be of no consequence.
Again, I was responding to Nathan's comment: "I believe that the water Jesus speaks of is the word of God."
That view has no scriptural support.

 

[Mike]

Closing this thread for moderator review. This has degraded into insulting and/or feeling insulted. If it opens again, participants would do well to stick to the topic and not direct comments at other members.

 

[Mike]

I am reopening this thread. Please continue by focusing your comments so that baptism is the subject of your response and not the person.

Do not make disingenuous claims that someone does not believe what is written because they read the same text and come away with a different interpretation. Many posts have been deleted because they were specifically commenting on the person.

 

[Jim Parker]

Jim, in a prvious post I presented you with several interpretations of the usage of water as it pertains to that verse. I asked you why it has to be water=baptism. You ignored the question.

The verse being John 3:5 "...unless you are born (again) of water and of Spirit..."
Paul's explanation of of what baptism is about at Ro 6:2-7, in which believer is united with Christ's death and resurrection to new life in baptism, is being "born again of water" experiencing death and rebirth to new life in the waters of baptism.

Justin Martyr used the words "born again" with reference to baptism

Justin Martyr (100 – 165 AD Justin was the first apologist of the Church)
From: The First Apology, Chapter LXI, “Christian Baptism”

And for this [rite of baptism] we have learned from the apostles … in order that we … may obtain in the water the remission of sins formerly committed, there is pronounced over him who chooses to be born again, and has repented of his sins, the name of God the Father and Lord of the universe; … (he) is also washed in the name of Jesus Christ, who was crucified under Pontius Pilate, and in the name of the Holy Spirit, who through the prophets foretold everything about Jesus.

Secondly I also showed you several verses where baptism was missing from salvation...then showed you if it was a requirement it would have been included in those verses.

The fact that reports of salvation did not include mention of baptism is an argument from silence. The only thing they prove is that there was no mention of baptism. Since they say nothing about baptism, they say nothing about whether it was or was not done.

The key is still Jesus' command at Mat 28 to make disciples and to baptize them in the name of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit.
The historical documents of the Didache and Justin Martyr verify that to be exactly what was done.

iakov the fool

 

[eddif]

I Corinthians 10:2 KJV
And were all baptized unto Moses in the cloud and in the sea;

Water baptism in sea:
Exodus 14:21 KJV
And Moses stretched out his hand over the sea; and the LORD caused the sea to go back by a strong east wind all that night, and made the sea dry land, and the waters were divided.
22 And the children of Israel went into the midst of the sea upon the dry ground: and the waters were a wall unto them on their right hand, and on their left.

Baptism is not what you might expect.

eddif

 

[Jim Parker]

I Corinthians 10:2 KJV
And were all baptized unto Moses in the cloud and in the sea;

Water baptism in sea:
Exodus 14:21 KJV
And Moses stretched out his hand over the sea; and the LORD caused the sea to go back by a strong east wind all that night, and made the sea dry land, and the waters were divided.
22 And the children of Israel went into the midst of the sea upon the dry ground: and the waters were a wall unto them on their right hand, and on their left.

Baptism is not what you might expect.

eddif

And that "baptism" was before the clear revelation of the Trinity.

iakov the fool