What is The Baptism that saves us now?

[JLB]

You are ignoring post #138 and #143

You are also ignoring the words of Jesus "He who believes and is baptized will be saved" (Mk 16:16)

I'm not ignoring anything.

Do you understand there are three different baptizms?

Do you understand that a person must first believe and be saved in order to be water baptized?

Then Philip said, “If you believe with all your heart, you may.” And he answered and said, “I believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God.” So he commanded the chariot to stand still. And both Philip and the eunuch went down into the water, and he baptized him. Acts 8:37-38

No such thing as infant baptism.




JLB

 

[Free]

As the unborn and miscarried were never dead in trespasses and sins, they had no need of rebirth.

Of course, but that isn't the point.

 

[Hopeful]

Of course, but that isn't the point.

Sure it is.
As they were not disqualified from heaven by sin yet, there was no need for their RE-birth.
It is like...If you drive a car you need a license.
But, if you don't drive, you don't need a license.
The unborn and miscarried don't "drive".

 

[Free]

Sure it is.
As they were not disqualified from heaven by sin yet, there was no need for their RE-birth.
It is like...If you drive a car you need a license.
But, if you don't drive, you don't need a license.
The unborn and miscarried don't "drive".

Never mind. You clearly aren't understanding the point I was making regarding certain users' arguments regarding John 3:5-6.

 

[Mungo]

I was aware of that. That's why I asked you very specifically the following question in Post #78: You don't believe that what you term the Holy Spirit "falling upon believers" was a baptism according to the early church?

Please read the following and give me an answer:

ἐγὼ μὲν ὑμᾶς βαπτίζω ἐν ὕδατι εἰς μετάνοιαν: ὁ δὲ ὀπίσω μου ἐρχόμενος ἰσχυρότερός μού ἐστιν, οὗ οὐκ εἰμὶ ἱκανὸς τὰ ὑποδήματα βαστάσαι: αὐτὸς ὑμᾶς βαπτίσει ἐν πνεύματι ἁγίῳ καὶ πυρί (Matthew 3:11)

He spoke of two different baptisms here. One was in water, the other in fire. This distinguishes two different types of baptism, with two different substances they were baptized IN. The baptism in the Holy Spirit and Fire is not just a metaphor. It is a spiritual reality. The Holy Spirit Himself is Substantive, and the baptism in the Holy Spirit is a tangible and substantive experience as well, is it not?

I do not see the noun baptism, just a verb..
I see a metaphor comparing what John was doing with something new that Jesus was going to do..
And It's not in the Holy Spirit but with the Holy Spirit, just as Luke says clothing with power.

I also do not see that he will baptize you with the Holy Spirit and with fire indicates two separate events.
At Pentecost there was both the Holy Spirit and fire at one event.

One commentary sees a link with Mal 3:2
But who can endure the day of his coming, and who can stand when he appears?
“For he is like a refiner’s fire and like fullers’ soap;

Another see the fire as a figure for God's judgement.
His winnowing fork is in his hand, and he will clear his threshing floor and gather his wheat into the granary, but the chaff he will burn with unquenchable fire.” (Mt 3:12)

 

[Mungo]

I'm not ignoring anything.

Do you understand there are three different baptizms?

Do you understand that a person must first believe and be saved in order to be water baptized?

No I don't see that a person must first believe and be saved in order to be water baptized?
I believe what Jesus said "He who believes and is baptized will be saved"

Then Philip said, “If you believe with all your heart, you may.” And he answered and said, “I believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God.” So he commanded the chariot to stand still. And both Philip and the eunuch went down into the water, and he baptized him. Acts 8:37-38

No such thing as infant baptism.




JLB

That doesn't say the the eunuch was saved before he was baptised.
He needed to believe first and then be baptised. Then he was saved according to Jesus.

 

[Hopeful]

Never mind. You clearly aren't understanding the point I was making regarding certain users' arguments regarding John 3:5-6.

I just see it in a different manner that you.
If they are not born of water, mom, they won't need a second birth.

 

[Hidden In Him]

I do not see the noun baptism, just a verb..

So it has to be a noun or it is not referring to baptism?

And It's not in the Holy Spirit but with the Holy Spirit, just as Luke says clothing with power.

Mungo, I hate to tell you this, but you are playing with words way too much. In a previous post you claimed the "so-called baptism by/of/with the Holy Spirit" was just some concoction made up by the Pentecostals. The Greek technically describes it as the baptism IN the Holy Spirit, so I typed that out in bold in both English and in the Greek so we had terminology we could at least agree on and hopefully get passed the semantics you yourself were insisting upon to deal with the theology, but now you are changing it back to "with," and supposedly correcting things in the process.

I also do not see that he will baptize you with the Holy Spirit and with fire indicates two separate events.
At Pentecost there was both the Holy Spirit and fire at one event.

Neither do I, but that was never the question. The question is whether baptizing with water and baptizing with fire are two separate events.

I don't think you want to answer my questions.

 

[Runmyramble]

Wrong.
Jesus says Belief+ Water Baptism = Salvation (Mt 16:16)



That doesn't say the water was for drinking; nor that anybody drank it.

It could have been intended for Jesus to change into wine.
Or more likely for washing the disciples feet. (John 13:5)

Matthew 16:16 does not say that

 

[Walpole]

The context, the subject matter of what Jesus is teaching Nicodemus is that Nicodemus must be born again.

Exactly! The subject is NOT how one is born the first time, but rather how one IS born AGAIN.

Here again is the scene using the KJV...

John 3:3 Jesus answered and said unto him, "Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except a man be born again, he cannot see the kingdom of God."

John 3:4 Nicodemus saith unto him, "How can a man be born when he is old? can he enter the second time into his mother's womb, and be born?"

----> Our Blessed Lord now describes HOW man is born again in John 3:5: Jesus answered, "Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except a man be born of water and of the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God."

John 3:6 "That which is born of the flesh is flesh; and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit."

John 3:7 "Marvel not that I said unto thee, Ye must be born again."


If the water Jesus includes referred to natural birth, Jesus would be affirming Nicodemus' erroneous understanding of being born again. Nicodemus’ question to Jesus was clearly sarcastic, as surely he knew he could not climb back into his mother’s womb for a second birth. The question again was how a man can be born again, that is, a second time. If the “water” which Jesus refers to is natural childbirth, then Jesus would be affirming Nicodemus’ sarcastic suggestion that he climb back into his mother’s womb for a second birth.

Birth; born of the Spirit.

Water baptism comes after we are saved, and signifies that we have died with Christ to the world, and are raised to walk in the newness of life.

Only someone who is already saved, already born of the Spirit can make this solemn commitment.

Believers who are already saved are water baptized.

Those who believe are saved. Believing is how we are saved.

• The way we are born again is to believe.

For God so loved the world that He gave His only begotten Son, that whoever believes in Him should not perish but have everlasting life.
John 3:16


Again, water baptism is about death.

Being born again is about birth.


Biblical water baptism is for adults who believe.

Biblical water baptism is where a person if fully immersed in water, going down under water, fully submerged under water and coming up out of the water, which signifies death and resurrection.

No where do we find in the Scriptures where infants had water sprinkled on them.

• What hinders me from being baptized?”

Then Philip said, “If you believe with all your heart, you may.”



Now as they went down the road, they came to some water. And the eunuch said, “See, here is water. What hinders me from being baptized?”
Then Philip said, “If you believe with all your heart, you may.”
And he answered and said, “I believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God.”
So he commanded the chariot to stand still. And both Philip and the eunuch went down into the water, and he baptized him. Now when they came up out of the water, the Spirit of the Lord caught Philip away, so that the eunuch saw him no more; and he went on his way rejoicing. Acts 8:36-39

• And both Philip and the eunuch went down into the water, and he baptized him. Now when they came up out of the water,

JLB

Baptism is the normative means by which God brings people to newness of life (Romans 6:4). It means the old life and person has died in baptism and is made new, born again (John 3:5). This belief is based on all the baptism texts of Scripture, which say baptism "forgives sins" (Acts 2:38), "washes sin away" (Acts 22:16), "regenerates" (Titus 3:4-7), "buries, unites us to Christ, and frees us from sin" (Romans 6:1-10), was typified in the Israelites crossing the Red Sea (1 Corinthians 10:1-4) and yes, "saves" us (1 Peter 3:21).


If you don't even believe baptism actually does that which Scripture says it does (above), then arguing about the volume of water used like whether to immerse or sprinkle someone is entirely moot.

 

[Walpole]

Matthew 16:16 does not say that

It says exactly that.

Mark 16:16 ---> "Whoever believes and is baptized will be saved, but whoever does not believe will be condemned."

It looks like you and the other anti-Sacramentalists are trying to center the command on "believe" and make the point that if one doesn't believe the Gospel, he'll be condemned.

Guess what, no one disputes that!

But the teaching of Jesus in Mark 16.16 is NOT what is required to be damned, but what is required to be saved. The conclusion many of you are trying to reach-- which is that because not believing alone is sufficient to condemn, therefore believing alone is sufficient to be saved -- is both illogical, and false to the text.

First, our Blessed Lord describes two necessary conditions in the first clause: belief and baptism. In the second clause, He is describing a person who, by not believing, lacks the first essential condition. Ergo, that person will not be saved.

Second, why do you all seem to think that because Jesus doesn't mention baptism in the second clause, that He's taking back what He said about the need for baptism in the first clause? He was clearly understandable to the Apostles -- and to the entire Christian world except for a minority of Protestant dissenters -- to be saying that he who believes them when they preach the Gospel, and therefore believe their preaching of baptism for the remission of their sins (Act 2.38) -- and obey, will be saved. It's obvious that Jesus and His Apostles understood that no one who refused the Gospel was going to be baptized. Why would he?

Furthermore, you are being false to the text by attempting to use the second clause to nullify the first. Jesus already introduced belief as one of two necessary conditions for salvation in the first clause. Since the unbeliever in the second clause already lacks the one of the two essential conditions, there is no reason to even mention the second, which would be insufficient by itself. Why would there need to be a separate penalty for not being baptized or any other omission? The person who doesn't believe has already failed to meet one of the two necessary conditions that Jesus just laid down: belief and baptism. There is no logical need for an additional "penalty."

Are you and the other anti-Sacramentalists asking us to believe that Jesus' command in Mark 16.16 is His way of saying if you don't get baptized, God won't hold that against you? In other words, baptism is just a suggestion?

 

[jaybo]

No I don't see that a person must first believe and be saved in order to be water baptized?
I believe what Jesus said "He who believes and is baptized will be saved"



That doesn't say the the eunuch was saved before he was baptised.
He needed to believe first and then be baptised. Then he was saved according to Jesus.

Why can't you accept what the Bible clearly says?

John 3:16 (perhaps the most famous verse in Christendon): “For God so loved the world, that he gave his only Son, that whoever believes in him should not perish but have eternal life." Belief! Not belief and baptism!

Ephesians 2:8-9: "For by grace you have been saved through faith. And this is not your own doing; it is the gift of God, not a result of works [including baptism], so that no one may boast.

Baptism is a ritual statement that the old, sinful person is dead and the new, sinless person has risen. Romans 6"4, "We were buried therefore with him by baptism into death, in order that, just as Christ was raised from the dead by the glory of the Father, we too might walk in newness of life."

You Catholics have this need to add everything under the sun, especially rituals, onto God's word, but I am a Protestant and believe in sola scriptura. I believe what the Bible clearly and unmistakably says in context. It does not say that baptism saves us. If that was the case, then belief is unnecessary and God's word is untrue.

 

[jaybo]

No I don't see that a person must first believe and be saved in order to be water baptized?
I believe what Jesus said "He who believes and is baptized will be saved"



That doesn't say the the eunuch was saved before he was baptised.
He needed to believe first and then be baptised. Then he was saved according to Jesus.

Doesn't this contradict your belief that baptism alone saves?

 

[Mungo]

Doesn't this contradict your belief that baptism alone saves?

I've never said that baptism alone saves.
I keep saying, as Jesus said "He who believes and is baptized will be saved"
How do you get baptism alone from that?

 

[Mungo]

Why can't you accept what the Bible clearly says?

John 3:16 (perhaps the most famous verse in Christendon): “For God so loved the world, that he gave his only Son, that whoever believes in him should not perish but have eternal life." Belief! Not belief and baptism!

Ephesians 2:8-9: "For by grace you have been saved through faith. And this is not your own doing; it is the gift of God, not a result of works [including baptism], so that no one may boast.

Baptism is a ritual statement that the old, sinful person is dead and the new, sinless person has risen. Romans 6"4, "We were buried therefore with him by baptism into death, in order that, just as Christ was raised from the dead by the glory of the Father, we too might walk in newness of life."

You Catholics have this need to add everything under the sun, especially rituals, onto God's word, but I am a Protestant and believe in sola scriptura. I believe what the Bible clearly and unmistakably says in context. It does not say that baptism saves us. If that was the case, then belief is unnecessary and God's word is untrue.

Why can't you accept what the Bible clearly teaches:
"He who believes and is baptized will be saved" (Mk 16:16)
"Baptism, which corresponds to this, now saves you" (1Pet3:21)

 

[Mungo]

Matthew 16:16 does not say that

Sorry, I keep doing that.
I mean Mk 16:16

 

[jaybo]

Why can't you accept what the Bible clearly teaches:
"He who believes and is baptized will be saved" (Mk 16:16)
"Baptism, which corresponds to this, now saves you" (1Pet3:21)

I do believe what the Bible clearly teaches. You don't.

 

[jaybo]

Which person is saved..?

Someone who is baptized but doesn't believe that Jesus died for their sins?
Someone who believes that Jesus died for their sins but isn't baptized?

 

[Mungo]

So it has to be a noun or it is not referring to baptism?


Mungo, I hate to tell you this, but you are playing with words way too much. In a previous post you claimed the "so-called baptism by/of/with the Holy Spirit" was just some concoction made up by the Pentecostals. The Greek technically describes it as the baptism IN the Holy Spirit, so I typed that out in bold in both English and in the Greek so we had terminology we could at least agree on and hopefully get passed the semantics you yourself were insisting upon to deal with the theology, but now you are changing it back to "with," and supposedly correcting things in the process.


Neither do I, but that was never the question. The question is whether baptizing with water and baptizing with fire are two separate events.

I don't think you want to answer my questions.

Transferring a verbal metaphor to a noun doesn't work.

Do you realise that the term "Baptism with the Holy Spirit" was an invention of the Pentecostal movement by R A Torrey and D L Moody at the end of the 19th century.

The RSV uses "with the Holy Spirit" but some people say "by" and others "of".

 

[Mungo]

So it has to be a noun or it is not referring to baptism?


Mungo, I hate to tell you this, but you are playing with words way too much. In a previous post you claimed the "so-called baptism by/of/with the Holy Spirit" was just some concoction made up by the Pentecostals. The Greek technically describes it as the baptism IN the Holy Spirit, so I typed that out in bold in both English and in the Greek so we had terminology we could at least agree on and hopefully get passed the semantics you yourself were insisting upon to deal with the theology, but now you are changing it back to "with," and supposedly correcting things in the process.


Neither do I, but that was never the question. The question is whether baptizing with water and baptizing with fire are two separate events.

I don't think you want to answer my questions.

Transferring a verbal metaphor to a noun doesn't work.

Do you realise that the term "Baptism with the Holy Spirit" was an invention of the Pentecostal movement by R A Torrey and D L Moody at the end of the 19th century.

The RSV uses "with the Holy Spirit" but some people say "by" and others "of".

Baptising with water and, if you want to use the term, "baptising with the Holy Spirit"are two separate events.
They are the fulfillment of two separate prophecies in the OT.

Ez 36:25-27
I will sprinkle clean water upon you, and you shall be clean from all your uncleannesses, and from all your idols I will cleanse you. A new heart I will give you, and a new spirit I will put within you; and I will take out of your flesh the heart of stone and give you a heart of flesh. And I will put my spirit within you, and cause you to walk in my statutes and be careful to observe my ordinances.

Joel2:28-29 (quoted by Peter at Pentecost.
“And it shall come to pass afterward,
that I will pour out my spirit on all flesh;
your sons and your daughters shall prophesy,
your old men shall dream dreams,
and your young men shall see visions.
Even upon the menservants and maidservants
in those days, I will pour out my spirit.