Water Baptism, is that ENOUGH?

[marksman]

Which is MORE important: Faith or works? And I would ask this: which is more important, being Baptized or LEARNING to 'love our God and our neighbors'?

I am not quite sure that this is a valid question. From my own experience faith is evident in works, so the two are indispensible, not either or.

Works without faith benefits the worker because they get the kudos. Works as a result of faith benefits the kingdom of God because the glory goes to God.

The same with second part, baptism or loving God. If you love God according to scriptures, you will obey him. Being baptised is to obey him so it is an expression of love...and obedience which is love in action.

 

[marksman]

But, they don’t want to hear the truth! And, they will not tolerate one resisting their doctrine very long.

I don't known whats wrong with me but I see what someone has written and it triggers off a "he is talking about me" response.

The church that I was in decided to appoint elders who according to their constitution were there to "support the pastor" which they are not according to scripture.

Anyway I decided to look at what the NT did say about leadership. It took me about 12 months and I decided to turn the study into a website. If you want to have a look go to http://churchalive66.googlepages.com

I consulted 40 other authors on the subject and wrote to several notable leaders in the country who had comitted their teaching to print. I raised issues that did not appear to be supported by scripture and stated my findings. Most of them ignored me and those that responded dropped me like a scalded cat when I challenged their teaching. Not one of them was able to challenge what I had said right up to the top dogs at the AOG in the USA.

When I presented some of my findings to the church their response was "go away and don't bother us with the truth" The State Leader who was the guest speaker for the induction of the elders actually contradicted scripture in what he said from the pulpit.

The last two churches I have been in put me on the shelf because I did not dot every 'I' and cross every 'T' when it came to their doctrinal statement (some of which were at variance with the scriptures). This was despite the fact that I had many years experience in Christian ministry and four degrees, not that I would make any claim just on that basis.

My current church whch I have been attending for about four months believes that everyone is acceptable according to their standing in Christ, not according to their doctrine. Already, they are going to consider some suggestions that I have put to them to grow the church.

It is obvious that we do have some differences over some doctrines, but they are more interested in what unites us rather than what separates us. As one of the leaders said, it is obvious that you are very committed to the Kingdom of God and to the ministry of the church.

The NT church was an experiential one. As long as you had repented, been baptised and followed the teaching of the apostles, you were welcomed into the fellowship of God's people to share meals, fellowship, goods and the task of making disciples (and producing a few miracles along the way).

In the words of a well known saying they used the KIS principal. They kept things simple and got on with the job without being slaves to ritual and regulations.

 

[Imagican]

Which is MORE important: Faith or works? And I would ask this: which is more important, being Baptized or LEARNING to 'love our God and our neighbors'?

I am not quite sure that this is a valid question. From my own experience faith is evident in works, so the two are indispensible, not either or.

Works without faith benefits the worker because they get the kudos. Works as a result of faith benefits the kingdom of God because the glory goes to God.

The same with second part, baptism or loving God. If you love God according to scriptures, you will obey him. Being baptised is to obey him so it is an expression of love...and obedience which is love in action.

This is NOT necessarily true in that there are MANY that have little faith but continue in works in the hopes that they are able to redeem themselves.

While works WILL be evident in the lives of those of faith, works themselves are no indication of faith.

I asked the question for the sake of this thread. For Baptism IS a 'work' or 'ritual' or whatever you would choose to call it. Yet many that will be and have been Baptized in water will not be 'saved' through this simple act. I have already offered scriptural evidence that all that are Baptized will NOT be saved. For WHO else would DO anything in the 'name of Christ' other than those that had been BAPTIZED in His name?

Once again, let me offer that I am NOT discouraging Baptism for the sake of this discussion. What I am ATTEMPTING to do is put water Baptism in it's proper perspective. Is is 'enough'? Of course not. Is it THE most important 'thing' that we can DO in order to receive the gifts that have been offered? I think NOT. For I am SURE that I am NOT the only one that has witnessed MANY that have participated in 'water Baptism' that offer NO 'fruit'. And I have witnessed MANY myself that have BEEN Baptized in water and have actually 'turned away' from God AFTER. So OBVIOUSLY 'water' was NOT enough.

Blessings,

MEC

 

[Imagican]

Which is MORE important: Faith or works? And I would ask this: which is more important, being Baptized or LEARNING to 'love our God and our neighbors'?

I am not quite sure that this is a valid question. From my own experience faith is evident in works, so the two are indispensible, not either or.

Works without faith benefits the worker because they get the kudos. Works as a result of faith benefits the kingdom of God because the glory goes to God.

The same with second part, baptism or loving God. If you love God according to scriptures, you will obey him. Being baptised is to obey him so it is an expression of love...and obedience which is love in action.

Mark, you can't really believe what you have offered here is anything but 'wishful thinking'? For there are MANY that 'hate God' that will be and have been Baptized. For one cannot serve TWO masters without loving the one and hating the other. And how many do we witness that serve darkness even though they would profess to BE followers of Christ even to the point of Baptism?

Christ's commandments were NOT for all to BE Baptized. What He commanded was for the apostles to 'go out' and Baptise in His name. What Christ commanded US to do is LOVE God and love our neighbors. MOST of what is offered by the apostles teaches the SAME.

Mark,

I guess you are insistant upon making absolutes that are according to YOUR understanding and belief. Therein lies the dificulty in having such a discussion. For YOU, loving God and being Baptized may well go hand in hand. But that is NOT to say that it is ONLY this understanding that exists. For NOW I ask, Baptism; is it NEEDED that one be emersed or is sprinkling the same thing? And WHO is righteously able to Baptise others? And one more tid bit of info so that you are more capable of understanding where I'm coming from: infant Baptism, what part does love play in this ritual? I don't believe that anyone would deny that the child has NO idea what is going on when Baptized at the age of ? 6 months? Or, can OUR love 'save others'?

MEC

 

[marksman]

This is NOT necessarily true in that there are MANY that have little faith but continue in works in the hopes that they are able to redeem themselves.

I think you will find that is what I said.

While works WILL be evident in the lives of those of faith, works themselves are no indication of faith.

I think you will find that is what I said.

And I have witnessed MANY myself that have BEEN Baptized in water and have actually 'turned away' from God AFTER. So OBVIOUSLY 'water' was NOT enough.

There are many who "confess their sin and repent" and then fall away, but that doesn't make repentance invalid. What people do or do not do after baptism is no criteria for the validity of it as it then becomes a subjective experience.

The Cornithian church was making a bit of a mess of the gifts of the spirit but Paul didn't say they are not authentic because of this fact. he chose to teach them the correct way things should happen. In other words, he didn't throw the baby our with the bathwater.

The gifts of the Spirit are enough and it is up to us to use them wisely. Baptism is suffcient along with true repentance but it is up to us to live in the blessing that it brings. Failure to do so is not a commentary on the efficacy of baptism.

And I have witnessed MANY myself that have BEEN Baptized in water and have actually 'turned away' from God AFTER. So OBVIOUSLY 'water' was NOT enough.

I don't base my understanding of scripture on subjective experience.

I guess you are insistant upon making absolutes that are according to YOUR understanding and belief.

As you are.

Mark, you can't really believe what you have offered here is anything but 'wishful thinking'?

I don't indulge in such fanciful emotions. It is based on experience as I said, a lifetime study of the scriptures spanning 54 years which included two years devoted to study at an evangelical bible college and consulting other authors in a library that contains over 1,000 books.

For one cannot serve TWO masters without loving the one and hating the other.

I believe the context is money, not baptism.

And how many do we witness that serve darkness even though they would profess to BE followers of Christ even to the point of Baptism?

Can't say I have seen too many.

Christ's commandments were NOT for all to BE Baptized. What He commanded was for the apostles to 'go out' and Baptise in His name.

The logic of this statement escapes me. Christ didn't command that everyone be baptised but he did tell his disciples to go and make disciples of all nations and baptise them. That sounds like everyone to me.

Baptism; is it NEEDED that one be emersed or is sprinkling the same thing?

The original greek for baptism is 'full immersed' so sprinkling does not fulfil the critera.

infant Baptism, what part does love play in this ritual?

I have not found infant baptism in scripture outside of family conversion and baptism. You will note that the head of the house was saved and all their house and the head of the house was baptised and all his household.

This happened because in NT times when the head of the house embraced a religion all the other members were expected to embrace the same religion. There was no such thing as individual conversion.

Therefore all the children of a household were included and were baptised by immersion. These same children had to work out their own salvation as they became mature adults and no doubt some left the faith and many didn't.

The backdrop to this is the fact that children in those days did not disobey their parents and become renegades. If they did, they were likely to be killed as they dishonoured their parents.

 

[AVBunyan]

Deleted by Avbunyan - he came to his senses once he realized where he was at. :-?

 

[Pogo]

marksman -

After visiting your website, I have at least one question.

If Christ's New Covenant frees us from following the law (OT only, in my view) which the scriptures had bound, then why did Paul in 1 Corinthians 11:1-2 tell us to follow/imitate him, just as he is following/imitating Christ, and to keep [hold(fast) - Strong's] to the ordinances/traditins AS delivered to us?

From your site...

The fact is, Paul did not want the Galatian Christians to go back to what they have been set free from. Far too many in the western church do not even know what they have been set free from because as soon as they come into an experience of salvation, they are required to fulfil the old covenant law of ritual and observances, albeit under the guise of being spiritual, to obtain their continuing salvation.

The bottom line is that the believer who refuses the ritual of the ‘lord’s table’ and insists on the ‘agape’ communal meal has both God and scripture to back him up and is standing fast in the freedom that the law of the spirit of life brings and against the law of sin and death which religion brings.

And, if we are now able to worship in the liberty that is Christ, why does it seem to me that the 'agape' communal meal, though different from 'just' the bread and wine, is but the substitution of one law/rite for another!

In Christ,

Pogo

 

[marksman]

If Christ's New Covenant frees us from following the law (OT only, in my view) which the scriptures had bound, then why did Paul in 1 Corinthians 11:1-2 tell us to follow/imitate him, just as he is following/imitating Christ, and to keep [hold(fast) - Strong's] to the ordinances/traditins AS delivered to us?

A very good question and one that should be asked on the face of what it appears to say.

I looked up several translations and they rendered v2 as follows...
doctrines I delivered
keeping traditions of the faith
hold fast the doctrines
ordinances = precepts
follow traditions
follow the teachings
obey the teachings
hold fast the traditions

From these translations, it is not clear that Paul was referring to old testament law. They would suggest that he was refering to what he taught the church himself which he received by revelation direct from God, bearing in mind that he spent a lot of time alone with him before he started his ministry.

I have the greatest respect for Strong, but I know that his rendering is not ALWAYS right. I prefer to weigh it up against the general revelation of scripture which I believe is always the best commentary on the Word.

Whe you look at what Paul taught in his letters, there is an absence of teaching about the OT law. Most of it is about what they are in Christ under the new covenant and to correct things that were going wrong in a given church.

Therefore the general revelation of scripture which gives a more balanced view than one verse, would suggest Paul was all about the New Covenant, not insisting obedience to the OT law. Bearing in mind that as very devout Pharisee, he would know every aspect of the OT law, so if there was relevance for the new believer under the new covenant, I am sure he would have weaved it into his new covenant teaching, not left us to guess at what was relevant and what was not.

Another aspect is that the word 'tradition' is not the word that we understand. In NT greek it means 'transmission' so a tradition is something that you transmit by word of mouth one to another. In Acts 2 it tells us that they met daily for among other things the apostles doctrine. This would entail the 'transmission' of their teachings and these would constitute 'tradition'.

 

[marksman]

And, if we are now able to worship in the liberty that is Christ, why does it seem to me that the 'agape' communal meal, though different from 'just' the bread and wine, is but the substitution of one law/rite for another!

I look at the history of the church in three broad phases. The NT period up to 312AD when Constantine legalised christianity. From there until the reformation which was the era of the apostate catholic church and then from 1662 when the reformation began and the protestant church came about.

Period two and three were more about doctrine and dogma than spirit and life. This is understandable as the apostate roman church had bastardised the truth to the point where it was barely unrecognisable.

As a result, ritual was almost sacrosanct because it showed one's fidelity to the truth.

IN the NT church, I think that it is generally accepted that they met for the 'agape' communal meal on a daily basis. Not because they had to or to prove doctrine, but as an expression of their love and care for one another. All the authors I have read on this topic (over 40) suggest this to be so.

Moving forward to today, all over the world, the 'apage' meal is coming back into prominence and many churches are abandoning the communion ritual which had its origin in the apostate roman church.

Anything a body of believers do can become a ritual. the congregation I am involved in has an 'agape' meal at least 9 times a month, sometimes 10. The last couple have been very significant because people have testified how much they felt loved by the people in the fellowship bearing in mind we reach out to the marginalised in society. One was a brother who has just been told he has Huntingdon's disease. The last two I attended the conversation was animated and expressive and I learnt a lot about the people I was talking to. Sometimes, people wait until I sit down and then come and sit next to me or near me as they know they will get stimulating conversation.

Is it a ritual? No. Can it become a ritual? Yes. What is the difference? The food is different every time we eat. The conversation is different every time we eat. The ebb and flow of people keeps it alive and vital. We learn to love one another and meet each others needs as a result of meeting together. The fellowship is up close and personal. In my experience, none of that happens in the communion ritual, which has to be done exactly the same every time.

Ritual without relationship is religion.

 

[mutzrein]

And, if we are now able to worship in the liberty that is Christ, why does it seem to me that the 'agape' communal meal, though different from 'just' the bread and wine, is but the substitution of one law/rite for another!

I look at the history of the church in three broad phases. The NT period up to 312AD when Constantine legalised christianity. From there until the reformation which was the era of the apostate catholic church and then from 1662 when the reformation began and the protestant church came about.

Period two and three were more about doctrine and dogma than spirit and life. This is understandable as the apostate roman church had bastardised the truth to the point where it was barely unrecognisable.

As a result, ritual was almost sacrosanct because it showed one's fidelity to the truth.

IN the NT church, I think that it is generally accepted that they met for the 'agape' communal meal on a daily basis. Not because they had to or to prove doctrine, but as an expression of their love and care for one another. All the authors I have read on this topic (over 40) suggest this to be so.

Moving forward to today, all over the world, the 'apage' meal is coming back into prominence and many churches are abandoning the communion ritual which had its origin in the apostate roman church.

Anything a body of believers do can become a ritual. the congregation I am involved in has an 'agape' meal at least 9 times a month, sometimes 10. The last couple have been very significant because people have testified how much they felt loved by the people in the fellowship bearing in mind we reach out to the marginalised in society. One was a brother who has just been told he has Huntingdon's disease. The last two I attended the conversation was animated and expressive and I learnt a lot about the people I was talking to. Sometimes, people wait until I sit down and then come and sit next to me or near me as they know they will get stimulating conversation.

Is it a ritual? No. Can it become a ritual? Yes. What is the difference? The food is different every time we eat. The conversation is different every time we eat. The ebb and flow of people keeps it alive and vital. We learn to love one another and meet each others needs as a result of meeting together. The fellowship is up close and personal. In my experience, none of that happens in the communion ritual, which has to be done exactly the same every time.

Ritual without relationship is religion.

Well said marksman - and I agree.

 

[marksman]

It is essential to salvation – don’t want to argue this – it is not…period! Seen all the verses, have had then quoted to me out of context for so long I just want to scream!

I don't intend to question everything that you have said as the 'truth is out there' but I would like to ask you if you can show me one verse of scripture that says baptism is NOT essential to salvation?

Many saints in the Bible baptized so we should – sounds good but many saints did things in the Bible that we don’t do anymore. We don’t sacrifice lambs, we don’t raise people from the dead, we don’t take vows, we don’t abstain from pork, etc. Yes, things change and I’m glad they do!!!

In the NT they did not sacrifice lambs because the lamb of God was sacrificed for us as a once and for all sacrifice.

We do raise people from the dead. I can't tell you the number of times I have had emails from people I know who have reported raising someone from the dead.

Many christians do make vows. Fasting is nothing more than a vow not to eat food for a specific period of time.

Some christians do abstain from eating pork, especially if they are messianic Jews.

It is the first step of obedience - sounds good but there is no scripture to support this fine sounding phrase.

In Acts 2 Peter said "Repent and be baptised for the remissoin of sins and you will receive the gift of the Holy Ghost". 3,000 did just that and the question is why? Because it was a good idea? No. My mum made me do it? No? It helped fill in the time? No. I felt like a swim today? No. I might as well go along with the crowd? No.

The reason it happened was the fact that Peter gave them an ultimatum which they could obey or not. 3,000 did and some didn't. If baptism wasn't essential, Peter would not have issued the order as the scriptures says that he stood, filled with the Holy Spirit. In my experience, the Holy Spirit is not into giving directions because he likes the sound of his voice.

The Lord Jesus Christ commanded it in Matt. 28:19,20 – yes he did but also told you to observe all things whatsoever He had commanded and one of the things he commanded was to adhere to what the Pharisees taught and they taught the law - Matt. 23:3 – “All therefore whatsoever they bid you observe.†They taught the law and I know you believe you are not to adhere to the Old Testament law (well some of you do). (Similar to “d.)

Matthew 23:3 has conveniently been taken out of context. He was using it to tell his disciples to not do what the pharisees do.

Mat 23:3 You won't go wrong in following their teachings on Moses. But be careful about following them. They talk a good line, but they don't live it. They don't take it into their hearts and live it out in their behavior. It's all spit-and-polish veneer.
Mat 23:4 "Instead of giving you God's Law as food and drink by which you can banquet on God, they package it in bundles of rules, loading you down like pack animals. They seem to take pleasure in watching you stagger under these loads, and wouldn't think of lifting a finger to help.
Mat 23:5 Their lives are perpetual fashion shows, embroidered prayer shawls one day and flowery prayers the next.
Mat 23:6 They love to sit at the head table at church dinners, basking in the most prominent positions,
Mat 23:7 preening in the radiance of public flattery, receiving honorary degrees, and getting called 'Doctor' and 'Reverend.'
Mat 23:8 "Don't let people do that to you, put you on a pedestal like that. You all have a single Teacher, and you are all classmates.
Mat 23:9 Don't set people up as experts over your life, letting them tell you what to do. Save that authority for God; let him tell you what to do. No one else should carry the title of 'Father'; you have only one Father, and he's in heaven.
Mat 23:10 And don't let people maneuver you into taking charge of them. There is only one Life-Leader for you and them--Christ.

He said you wont go wrong in following the teaching of Moses, BUT....and the but is the important part. Following the law is letting people take charge of you. Christ is your only leader v 10.

He was insistent that you have to live the teachings not just talk it. The scripture demonstrates that Jesus came because we could not fulfill the requirement of the law under the Old Covenant so a New One had to be written in Jesus blood. The Old was fulfilled in the New so we fulfill the old by obeying the new.

and others trying to obey the “first step of obedience†and if they don’t they are made to fill like second class citizens by Baptist Churches.

Quite untrue. The Baptist church I belong to has one law "We do not judge" that is the Holy Spirit's job.

You have made a doctrine out of a tradition.

No, we have made a life changing experience out of the teaching of scripture.

Do you know why they continued to baptize during Acts? Because the Jews rejected Christ in the gospels and were getting a second chance in Acts. The Gentiles were in on it because they were getting in on Israel’s blessings at that time. Once Israel finally rejected the message in Acts 28 then there was no need to call everyone’s attention to Jesus being the Messiah for that plan was done away with and Paul was called out by God to reveal the body of Christ.

I have to admit that this is one of the strangest comments I have ever read in all my 54 years as a christian. When did we do away with Jesus as the messiah and replace him with the body of Christ as the means of salvation?

The issue of showing Christ being the Messiah is a non issue today for we have advanced revelation on the matter due to

Would love to know what this "advanced revelation" is?

 

[dadof10]

What was that you said "one bad apple". Seems to me the barrel is full of them.

This question still stands, as do the rest on this subject you won't (can't) address:

"If you carry the "one bad apple spoils the whole bunch" mentality to it's logical conclusion, you would wind up with no religion whatsoever. You certainly wouldn't be Christian. After all, Jesus was concieved out of wedlock, chose a tax collector as a disciple, hung around with prostitutes, spoke to Samaritians, one of His best friends was a prostitute herself, one of His chosen 12 stole from Him, betrayed Him then commited suicide. From a 1st century Jewish perspective, why would you follow such a Man? What He and His Apostles did "speaks louder" than what they say, right?"

 

[dadof10]

For Baptism IS a 'work' or 'ritual' or whatever you would choose to call it.

Again...Where does Scripture call water baptism a "work"?

 

[dadof10]

MEC, here is a post from me on Jan. 28th. I got busy and couldn't get back to you any sooner. The reason I'm re-posting it is because you might have missed it. If you meant to ignore it, just continue doing so. :D

As the Catholic Church and Scripture teach, Water Baptism is necessary for salvation.

dad,

I can only answer like this:

While I recognize that MANY beieve the word Baptism MEANS 'water Baptism', i do NOT.

MEC,

Well, baseball and Cub Scouts are over, as is school, so I finally have time to respond. Only a month late. :

To believe that the "baptism" in 1PT:3 is not "water baptism" is to deny the plain words of Scripture. It is blatantly obvious to anyone even casually reading these verses without a traditional Protestant bias that this can only refer to water baptism.

"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.

Again...THROUGH WATER

The very next verse:

Baptism, which corresponds to this, now saves you...

Peter could not have been more clear.

Could you please show me in Scripture where water baptism is called "symbolic"?

 

[Imagican]

Marksman,

I don't intend to question everything that you have said as the 'truth is out there' but I would like to ask you if you can show me one verse of scripture that says baptism is NOT essential to salvation?

I can't show you scripture that says we are NOT to 'smoke crack' but I can assure you that we SHOULDN'T.

I have YET to find scripture that states that it IS imperitive that one be Baptized in order to be 'saved'. You say essential, I challenge YOU to show where it is stated that one MUST be Baptized in order to be 'saved'.

The 'churches' have taught this same indicated understanding that you present. But let me ask this: is Baptism performed by one that serves SATAN able to save? The pastor or priest that is molesting children, is HE able to perform an ACT that is able to SAVE others? Were those Baptized by Jim Jones and murdered by him, were they SAVED by this 'act' performed by a 'mad man'?

The apostles were told by Christ to 'spread the word'. YES, Baptism was mentioned, but BELIEF, (faith), was the prevailing sentiment offered by the mouth of Christ Himself. And as so poiniently spoken by Paul, CHARITY is the MOST important 'thing' that we can offer REGARDLESS of ritual.

But I will ask you Marksman, WHO is it that I should place my faith in: A priest or pastor that Baptizes with water, or Christ who is able to Baptize with The Holy Spirit? And WHICH is most likely to result in TRUE understanding? If it is ONLY water that cleanses, then ALL that USE it would be 'clean'. For it IS symbolic in that BELIEF in cleansing is what MAKES it of ANY import. And that same belief works with or WITHOUT water.

I see quite a bit of 'mumbo jumbo' as concerns rituals that people have been TAUGHT to believe are something of supernatural 'cure all' for that which ails us. It is our HEARTS that have become sick and weak NOT our bodies. What we possess in the flesh is NOTHING MORE than that; flesh. And it is DOOMED to be destroyed regardless of our attempts to save it.

We EAT to our damnation, we speak to our damnation, and we perform rituals FOR OURSELVES more than an offering of that which God TRULY desires from us. And ONLY when we are able to cast off that 'old man' and become renewed in Spirit are we able to recognize that which IS 'true understanding'.

Can Baptism 'save'? Perhaps it IS a 'step' in the right direction. But how often do we observe those that return over and over again to the water that SOME would say is 'able' to save? And how often is it's impotence plainly visible to ANY that are willing to 'see'? The children incoraged to 'fit in', the sinner convinced of it's 'magical power', the 'beginner TOLD of it's ability to 'change'. When all the time it's ONLY true power is in the minds and hearts of those that have been convinced to BELIEVE in it. So IS IT able to 'save'? Water Baptism. I KNOW what the churches teach, but what is contained within the Word? It is the BELIEF that is able to offer and NOT the ritual itself. For the ritual itself is NOTHING short of works. And works that have NO power to them that DO NOT 'truly believe'. Just another 'thing' to do. Like the Catholic making the 'sign of the cross', or the Budhist burning his incense, just an ACT performed in the hopes that it is able to 'bring us closer'. When in truth it is NOT about ritual for the SAKE of ritual, it is about LEARNING to love God and our neighbor. Learning to share what we have been given instead of TAKING that which we haven't. DOING for others instead of TAKING from them.

Beware of the importance that you place in THINGS, whether they be physical or spiritual. Beware of the TRUST that you place in OBJECTS that you may WELL turn them into idols. And ESPECIALLY beware of that which you would TEACH to others. For not only are you then subject to judgement of YOUR OWN understanding, but that which you have implanted in others as well.

I would NEVER discourage ANYONE from being Baptized. But what I WOULD DO is warn them that placing faith in such a ritual to bring about Salvation is a futile effort. For each and every time that we see Baptism used in scripture it came AFTER HEARING and Believing. And I would venture to say that many would have been judged LESS harshly WITHOUT Baptism than with it. For to be Baptized IS a committment. And one that I'm quite sure that God does NOT take lightly. That is WHY many of the past waited to be Baptized until their late years. COMING to understanding FIRST and then participating in the ritual that sybolically cleanses. You can BELIEVE that there was a 'reason' for such delay.

Believe what you will and teach what you will but never forget that we struggle NOT with that which we are 'aware of'. We struggle against principalities and powers that we are NOT even aware of. And these powers ARE able to destroy. To USE what has been given to destroy by altering it in the very slightest of ways. Turning truth into lies by the most subtle intervention.

Water Baptism, enough? Not according the JOHN the Baptist. For he stated openly that HE Baptized with water, but Him that would come after would Baptize with a MORE POWERFUL Baptism. A Baptism NOT ONLY able to cleanse, but able to REVEAL.

Blessings,

MEC

 

[Pogo]

marksman -

You posted...

“Therefore the general revelation of scripture which gives a more balanced view than one verse, would suggest Paul was all about the New Covenant, not insisting obedience to the OT law. Bearing in mind that as very devout Pharisee, he would know every aspect of the OT law, so if there was relevance for the new believer under the new covenant, I am sure he would have weaved it into his new covenant teaching, not left us to guess at what was relevant and what was not.“

Oh…I totally agree!

But, doesn’t this view conflict with your position that we are no longer bound by law.

As I interpret the scriptures, we are still bound by law, just not the OT law. The pattern we have of Christ's examples and commands (commands are laws, are they not?) that are found in the NT still serve as our laws, do they not?

What about…

John 14:15 KJV
(15) If ye love me, keep my commandments.

And…
2 Timothy 1:13 KJV
(13) Hold fast the form (pattern – NKJV) of sound words, which thou hast heard of me, in faith and love which is in Christ Jesus.

Which, by the way, seems to validate Strong’s definition/interpretation of ‘keep = hold(fast)’ in
1 Corinthians 11:2.

I’m sorry, but I can’t help but see these passages above, as well as others, as anything
other than binding us to be obedient Christians, rather than loosing the need to follow
the pattern taught.

The freedom which Christ brings us is the freedom from the OT laws, such as animal
sacrifices, circumcision, etc.

After doing a little more research, I have more questions about the positions taken on your website.

You state that the original Greek manuscripts of Luke 22:19 do NOT contain, “…this do in remembrance of me.â€Â

However, when I went to verify this claim with my own eyes, it did not hold up!

Though I have no training in Greek or Hebrew, I do have access to three of the original texts with Strong’s Numbers, the Textus Receptus, the Westcott-Hort, and the Robinson/Pierpont Byzantine.

And, ALL of them show Luke 22:19 concluding WITH, “…this do in remembrance of me.â€Â

Also, it appears to me that, if anything, Paul is rebuking the church in Corinth for the manner in which they are partaking the ‘agape’ style communion, wherein he concludes his rebuke of them with the command for them to eat at home.

1 Corinthians 11:22-23 KJV
(22) What? have ye not houses to eat and to drink in? or despise ye the church of God, and shame them that have not? What shall I say to you? shall I praise you in this? I praise you not.
(23) For I have received of the Lord that which also I delivered unto you, That the Lord Jesus the same night in which he was betrayed took bread:

Then, Paul immediately begins to recount the example/pattern of Christ’s ‘last supper.’ Which, in my eyes, has to be seen as instructions for them/us on the proper manner of partaking the Lord’s Supper.

Which, according to Paul, is exactly like Christ, Himself, performed the rite!

May God bless us all,

Pogo

 

[Imagican]

dad,

I ask this; do you believe that the bread and wine are 'actual flesh and blood'?

We were told to eat in REMEMBERANCE. This is an obvious reference to the act being symbolic in it's presentation and participation.

If what is stated concerning Baptism IS truth, then what I have offered previous would be truth as well: one could Baptize AGAINST the will of another and it would STILL be able to cleanse them from their sins.

Water Baptism is a sybolic commitment to Christ. Only the churches have taught that water Baptism is as important as it has become in belief. The apostles Baptized but it is obvious through their epistles that water Baptism came AFTER acceptance.

Now, I ask you, can you show me ONE scripture that states that one MUST be Baptized in water in order to enter heaven or be 'saved'?

In a perfect world and with PERFECT hearts what is offered by many may well be 'truth'. But we do not live in a perfect world and our hearts are far from perfect. I have offered numerous instances that NO ONE wishes to address. Why? If water Baptism is SO important, surely it would be able to be proven through scripture. NO, I am not referning to the offerings that people WERE Baptized. But shouldn't there be MORE concerning it's IMPORTANCE if it is indeed SO important?

Who is righteously ABLE to Baptise? Should we simply blindly follow those that would teach us regardless of scripture? Or, should we base WHO we follow ON scripture? As I have alreaady spoken; Many would teach that Baptism is of a supreme importance in adhering to Christ's commands and following Him. I have yet to find this in scripture. It is mentioned and may well 'have it's place', but the significance and importance that the churches place in it doesn't seem to exist in scripture. And here I speak of 'water Baptism'. For I have yet to witness the miraculous benefits that so many place in 'water Baptism'. I have witnessed adulterers who have been Baptized in water, murderers, fornicators, theives, liars, haters of God and man........... the list goes on and on.

But, I may add that I have witnessed Baptism of 'another sort' that DOES seem to 'make a difference'. For I have also witnessed those born again through the Baptism of The Spirit and THESE seem to have come to a 'better understanding' and more LASTING commitment to Christ. And MANY that have been Baptized through water don't even understand what it MEANS to be Baptized in Spirit.

Surely one must be able to recognize that MUCH of what is offered throughout scritpure is PURELY symbolic. The mention of Noah, dad, is PURELY symbolic in that water was used to purify the planet. The circumcision of the heart is NOT a physical reality but Spiritually symbolic in that the 'skin of the heart' is NOT altered but the CONTENTS of it. And HOW does this happen? Through 'water Baptism'? I think not.

it is the churches that have created and perpetuated the significance of 'water Baptism'. They have turned it into 'just another idol'. They spend mucho bucks on their Baptismals for a PURPOSE. For the sake of APPEARANCE more than the significance of what it ACTUALLY does. They have taught and convinced those that are willing to follow them that placing one in some 'stale water' is able to cleanse. That chanting some particular words are able to DO something 'mystical' and 'magical'. Folks, NO amount of water is able to do ANYTHING on it's OWN. it is through the Spirit that we are able to be forgiven and renewed. Not some 'mystical mumbo jumbo spirit', but through THE Spirit of God that we are able to BE transformed. How? Golly Gee........ I cannot actually say. But I can offer that it is ONLY through a complete submission to It that It is able to alter our understanding and commitments to God through His Son.

And I can offer this: It becomes apparent in the walk of an individual that has been Baptized in Spirit. It becomes apparent in their understanding and the love that they are able to offer to OTHERS. it becomes apparent in their ability to forgive and offer love EVEN to their enemies. Water is NOT able to accomplish these things in MY experience. I KNOW that the churches TEACH it, but I have yet to SEE that it is as they TEACH. Nor have I found what they TEACH offered up in scripture. Especially those chruches that teach that water Baptism ALONE is able to bring about 'rebirth'.

Blessings,

MEC

 

[Pogo]

Imagician -

My brother, I realize that you have a strong conviction that supports your position in this thread, but please allow me to repeat a few of my related views for those who may not be so convinced.

You posted...

We were told to eat in REMEMBERANCE. This is an obvious reference to the act being symbolic in it's presentation and participation.

YES!!! So true!! It is those who are ignoring the symbolism involved, who are, and have, corrupted this rite into one of idolatry.

If what is stated concerning Baptism IS truth, then what I have offered previous would be truth as well: one could Baptize AGAINST the will of another and it would STILL be able to cleanse them from their sins.

I disagree with this view, as you have also noted, baptism has to follow belief, so as I see it, forced baptism, such as infant baptism, accomplishes nothing more than rinsing a person's flesh.

Now, I ask you, can you show me ONE scripture that states that one MUST be Baptized in water in order to enter heaven or be 'saved'?

Also, please note, as indicated by the color of the text, WHO it is that just happens to be making this statement below...

Mark 16:15-16 KJV - Red Letter Edition
(15) And he said unto them, Go ye into all the world, and preach the gospel to every creature.
(16) He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved; but he that believeth not shall be damned.

Regarding one being baptized by another, who is guilty of sin themselves, only those few who were baptized by Jesus Christ, Himself, were baptized by one who was sinless.

It is only we who believe the Gospel, that can take advantage of the promises of God, through Jesus, offered to us in the NT, of a baptism by another believer, who has been, and can continue to be, forgiven for their sins!

May God bless us all,

Pogo

 

[Paidion]

When you enter into an agreement to purchase a house, how do you clinch the deal so that it is certain to go through? Is believing that the seller will honour the agreement sufficient? No. Is accepting the agreement sufficient? No. Is making a down payment sufficient? No. Is putting your trust in the seller to honour his word sufficient? No.

The thing that clinches the deal is the “outward formality†of signing the agreement. That and only that will clinch the deal. So it is with baptism. You can believe that Christ will save you. You can accept Him. You can commit your time and money to his service. You can trust Christ to honour His word. But none of these things “clinch the dealâ€Â. Only baptism does that. Even non-Christians understand this. In many countries, a person from another religion can attend Christian meetings, believe what they teach, spend time and money in the church, or virtually any other activity except being baptized. If they are baptized, the face the possibility of being killed and the certainty of being ostracized by their family.

The early Christians definitely believed that baptism was not only necessary, but was the moment when a person was regenerated. Outwardly he simply went down into the water. But inwardly, he died to his former nature, and was regenerated.

he saved us, not because of deeds done by us in righteousness, but in virtue of his own mercy, by the washing of regeneration and renewal in the Holy Spirit. Titus 3:5

I realize that many do not interpret “the washing of regeneration†as baptism. But in what other sense would regeneration be called a “washing� Here is a passage from Justin Martyr’s (110 – 165 A.D) First Apology or explanation of the way of Christians to the Roman emperor Augustus Caesar:

I will also relate the manner in which we dedicated ourselves to God when
were being made new through Christ; lest, if we omit this, we seem to be
unfair in the explanation we are making. As many as are persuaded and
believe that what we teach and say is true, and undertake to be able to live
accordingly, are instructed to pray and to entreat God with fasting, for the
remission of their sins that are past, we praying and fasting with them.
Then they are brought by us where there is water, and are regenerated in
the same manner in which we were ourselves regenerated. For, in the name
of God, the Father and Lord of the universe, and of our Savior Jesus
Christ, and of the Holy Spirit, they then receive the washing with water.
For Christ also said, “Except ye be born again, ye shall not enter into the
kingdom of heaven. Now, that it is impossible for those who have once
been born to enter into their mothers’ wombs, is manifest to all. And how
those who have sinned and repent shall escape their sins, is declared by
Esaias the prophet, as I wrote above; he thus speaks: “Wash you, make
you clean; put away the evil of your doings from your souls; learn to do
well; judge the fatherless, and plead for the widow: and come and let us
reason together, saith the Lord. And though your sins be as scarlet, I will
make them white like wool; and though they be as crimson, I will make
them white as snow. But if ye refuse and rebel, the sword shall devour
you: for the mouth of the Lord hath spoken it.â€Â

And for this we have learned from the apostles this reason. Since at
our birth we were born without our own knowledge or choice, by our
parents coming together, and were brought up in bad habits and wicked
training; in order that we may not remain the children of necessity and of

ignorance, but may become the children of choice and knowledge, and 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 who
leads to the laver the person that is to be washed calling him by this name
alone.

And now for some more Scriptural passages to consider:

Baptism … now saves you … 1Peter 3:21

Peter is not saying that the ritual of baptism saves, but that true baptism which includes repentance and submission to Christ saves, and provides a clear conscience.

He who believes and is baptized will be saved… Mark 16:16

While it is possible that the above passage was not in the original memoir of Mark, whoever wrote it, did not seem to think believing was sufficient, or he would not have added “and is baptizedâ€Â.

When did the apostle Paul have his sins washed away? Was it at the time he had the vision of Christ, and was told by Christ what to do? No. By his own account, it was at the time of his baptism. Cornelius had said to him:

And now why do you wait? Rise and be baptized, and wash away your sins, calling on his name.’ Acts 22:16

When Paul told the gathered Jews that they had put to death God’s Messiah, and they were cut to the heart, that was a special moment when they were open to evangelism. Did Paul haul out the four spiritual laws, or ask them to accept Christ as their personal Saviour? No, he said:

Let all the house of Israel therefore know assuredly that God has made him both Lord and Messiah, this Jesus whom you crucified." Now when they heard this they were cut to the heart, and said to Peter and the rest of the apostles, "Brethren, what shall we do?" And Peter said to them, "Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the forsaking of your sins; and you shall receive the gift of the Holy Spirit. Acts 2:36-38

It was the same message that John the baptizer had given. Repent and be baptized for the forsaking of your sins. Jesus, too, called for repentance, and those who followed Him and entered into the Kingdom, were baptized by His disciples.

Paul also taught in Romans 6, that those who have been baptized into Christ were buried by baptism into death. Our old self was crucified so that we might no longer be enslaved to sin. So again, baptism is the way salvation from sin is clinched.

Do you not know that all of us who have been baptized into Christ Jesus were baptized into his death? We were buried therefore with him by baptism into death, so that as Christ was raised from the dead by the glory of the Father, we too might walk in newness of life. For if we have been united with him in a death like his, we shall certainly be united with him in a resurrection like his. We know that our old self was crucified with him so that the sinful body might be destroyed, and we might no longer be enslaved to sin. For he who has died is freed from sin. Romans 6:3-7

Again, I realize that some spiritualize the baptism mentioned in this passage. However, I believe the passage speaks of regular baptism.

And... oh yes. The dying thief on the cross who would be with Christ in paradise and who was not baptized. Is that proof that baptism isn't necessary. I don't think so. The dying thief had no opportunity, and thus it wasn't require of him. But if one can "clinch the deal" with baptism, but refuses to do so on the grounds that it is unnecessary, or on some other inadequate grounds, he may be in spiritual danger.

 

[Catholic Crusader]

Few truths are so clearly taught in the New Testament as the doctrine that in baptism God gives us grace. Again and again the sacred writers tell us that it is in baptism that we are saved, buried with Christ, incorporated into his body, washed of our sins, regenerated, cleansed, and so on (see Acts 2:38, 22:16; Rom. 6:1–4; 1 Cor. 6:11, 12:13; Gal. 3:26–27; Eph. 5:25-27; Col. 2:11–12; Titus 3:5; 1 Pet. 3:18–22). They are unanimous in speaking of baptism in invariably efficient terms, as really bringing about a spiritual effect.

Despite this wealth of evidence, [some Christians] are almost equally unanimous in rejecting this truth. In general [they] regard baptism as something like an ordinance: an observance that does not itself bring about any spiritual effect but merely represents that effect. Its observance may be required by obedience, but it is not necessary in any further senseâ€â€certainly not for salvation.

This view requires [them] to explain away all the New Testament passages on the nature of baptism as figurative language. It is not baptism itself, they assert, but what baptism represents, that really saves us. Yet the language of the New Testament on this point is so uniform that they cannot even dredge up a couple of "proof-texts" on baptism to support this view or their figurative reading of all the other passages.

There is one text that [they] occasionally mention. In 1 Corinthians 1:14–17 Paul wrote that he was glad that he himself had baptized so few of the Corinthians, since they could not say that they were baptized in his name; and he went on to say, "For Christ did not send me to baptize but to preach the gospel. . . ."

Needless to say, this passage doesn’t say anything about baptism only representing spiritual realities, or not really saving. It doesn’t say anything about how those who accepted Paul’s preaching of the gospel were then saved. Paul didn’t write, "For I was not sent to baptize but to pray with people to accept Jesus as their personal Savior" (or even "to lead people to faith"). Paul didn’t pit faith against baptism.

Nor did he pit preaching against baptism. He would hardly have contradicted the great commission in Matthew 28:19: "Go therefore and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit." Paul’s point was not that God didn’t want him to baptize, only that preaching was the driving force of his evangelistic ministry.

In short, Paul’s remark doesn’t remotely support [this minority] view of baptism, or justify a figurative interpretation of all the other passages. Yet this is the closest thing to [their] proof-text!

The early Fathers were equally unanimous in affirming baptism as a means of grace. They all recognized the Bible’s teaching that "[In the ark] a few, that is, eight persons, were saved through water. 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" (1 Pet. 3:20–21, emphasis added).

Protestant early Church historian J. N. D. Kelly writes, "From the beginning baptism was the
universally accepted rite of admission to the Church. . . . As regards its significance, it was always held to convey the remission of sins . . . we descend into the water ‘dead’ and come out again ‘alive’; we receive a white robe which symbolizes the Spirit . . .the Spirit is God himself dwelling in the believer, and the resulting life is a re-creation. Prior to baptism . . . our heart was the abode of demons . . . [but] baptism supplies us with the weapons for our spiritual warfare" (Early Christian Doctrines, 193–4).

Source: "Baptismal Grace":
LINK: http://www.catholic.com/library/Baptismal_Grace.asp