1ptr29citizen

1. It is absolutely erroneus that Jesus was speaking of the amniotic fluid in natural birth. That is actually the fallacy that Nicodemus first assumed and was corrected on. Jesus said we need a new birth. Nicodemus asked about going back into the mother's womb. Jesus didn't agree with that at all, said the birth he spoke man needed was of water and spirit. The view then that would be consistent with Scripture would be Christian immersion in water. Why? Because on the day of Pentecost, Peter proclaimed that in order to be saved people must "Repent and be baptized... to receive the gift of the Holy Spirit." Thus, not only separating baptism as something to do BEFORE receiving the Holy Spirit, but saying that a baptism would bring about the Holy Spirit. The teaching about amniotic fluid cannot be supported with Scripture; the teaching that baptism brings birth in water and spirit is backed up entirely by Acts 2:38. 2. I have been accused of having inaccurate information regarding the Greek term baptizo. My whole point was not then considered. Baptizo means immersion, strictly, and we all understand this. But baptizo always denotes that the immersion is in water unless otherwise specified! For example, to the time period, if I said that I was going to baptizo my clothes today, they would understand a washing with water. If I said that I was going to baptizo them in jello, although it would seem weird, they would THEN assume that it was immersion in something other than water. When Israel was baptized into Moses, obviously there was no water. But when Paul was told to arise and be baptized, I am sure that Ananias immersed him in some pool leading to the salvation of his soul. 3. 1 Peter 3:20-21 is being misunderstood. It has been said that Noah should have FEARED the water, if nothing else, and so the water analogy is fallacy. This is incorrect. Noah was saved by the ark, clearly, there is no misunderstanding there. But the separating factor between those that were saved by the ark and those that were not was the water. Peter then states that "IN THE SAME WAY" baptism saves you - not by the removal of dirt from the body, but by the appeal to God for a clear conscience - through the resurrection of Jesus Christ. The analogy then should be obvious. Christ is the ark. He is the salvation of our souls. Baptism is the dividing line that separates those that participate in the ark and those that do not. The "IN THE SAME WAY," or antiupon, clearly demonstrates that the baptism is one of water, not to mention my previous explanation that the Greek baptizo automatically implies it anyway. And it clearly says: this baptism now saves you... through the resurrection of Jesus Christ. Outward sign of inward grace? Hrmm... I don't see that in there... Greek and all aside, do you really think that God is unintelligent to where He writes a book, upon which the salvation of the souls of men rest, that can only be understood by scholars? Or has to be explained away by preachers? "Well that's not what it really means, let me show you.." No, then things would be left to man's interpretation, which is ALWAYS a deadly affair. God write the Bible so that everyone can understand. His word clearly says that one should be baptized for the remission of sins. Every example of baptism in His Holy Scripture is of immersion in water. From the baptism of Jesus in the Jordan to the baptism of the house of Cornelius who "should not be denied water" to the baptism of the eunuch on the road when they came to some water. Baptism of the Holy Spirit is a term we came up with to understand the filling of the apostles on Pentecost and the house of Cornelius. These occasions were both miraculously visual and gave the parties miraculous ability to speak in tongue. Did anyone here's "baptism of the Holy Spirit" have rushing winds or tongues of flame? Of course not, that was employed only for proof of God at that time, now we have the Bible. I realize that Jesus brought about the baptism of the Holy Spirit, in a way, and that is possibly where the misunderstanding comes from. But he also brought about one of fire, and I have not seen many jump in the flame lately for Him. The point is explained in the passage following this: "He has the winnowing fork in His hand." Jesus is the judge that will immerse us by His winnowing fork either into eternal life in the Spirit or eternal condemnation in hell (fire). One or the other, no middle ground. I recommend none of us take any chances; live by the Word, and the Word alone.

I am very glad that Mr*MrsSealedEternal seeks to back up that which they believe, but I have a few problems with your explanations. I am extremely curious as to the source of your evidence, especially for your Greek, however. Regarding the Great Commission given to the apostles at the conclusion of Matthew, the idea you propose is simply incorrect. The Greek suggests that Jesus literally told His apostles to "go discipling" in the world, and the means necessary was to "baptize and teach." Therefore, the Greek would suggest that one is made a disciple of Christ at baptism, and then of course should remain in the teachings of the apostles. But as to water baptism? Of course that's what the Greek suggests. Greek baptizo ALWAYS means that the immersion is in water unless it is otherwise noted. You told others that when the Savior dipped (Greek comes from a form of baptism) the bread before giving it to Judas Iscariot that the bread was not saved. Of course. That supports the point of water immersion for remission more than Holy Spirit baptism. The bread was immersed, obviously in some liquid, and then given to Judas. BAPTISM is a transliteration; the Greek doesn't mean for salvation, the Greek of baptism means simply IMMERSE. GO TAKE A BATH. SWIM. DIP ENTIRELY. Something like that, not to save. Baptism doesn't save, baptism accepts salvation! That is the whole point of 1 Peter 3:21. Accordingly, with the analogy of Noah and the water, I see it impossible to draw that the baptism there was in anything but water. And it clearly says "This baptism now saves you... through the resurrection of Jesus Christ." People can constrew that any way they want, but God's clarity sums it up for me. You read the prophecies about the baptism of the Holy Spirit on the Apostles in Jerusalem, and later in Acts about Cornelius, and the blessing of it to all of the first century converts and you can clearly see one thing. This is a statement that really helps me understand: The Baptism of the Holy Spirit was the exception, not the rule. It occurred for a time to serve its purpose, but now that "the perfection" (the Bible), as Paul wrote about, has come, the rule IS the Bible itself. So what then does the Bible say to us about baptism? Why do you wait? Arise and be baptized, calling on His name, to wash away your sins! Acts 22:16. The point is, yes Jesus is the Savior of the earth! Hallelujah! What a Savior! Romans says that through Him God has given us the gift of ETERNAL LIFE. That equals salvation! And for this we are overjoyed. To accept the gift the Bible says believe, proclaim He is Lord, repent of sin, be baptized, call on His name and continue in faith. It doesn't say one. It says all. And as far as I'm concerned, I'm going to do all. Does that mean that I merit my salvation? Of course not! That means that I do these things by faith to accept salvation. So why baptism? Well the better term, is why "immersion," isn't it? The answer is clear in Romans 6. Baptism is all about the death burial and resurrection of Jesus. In baptism, according to Romans 6, we die and are buried (in the water) and are raised to be a new creation in life (you don't stay in the water). So does baptism "take away from Christ's sacrifice"? No way! It wouldn't mean a thing without Christ's sacrifice! Does it add to it then? Of course not, it just receives it by imitating it in our own life. Baptism is the ultimate way of submitting to God's will and accepting His grace. That's how the Bible spells it out; and, again, now that the Bible is the rule, I have no business trying to make it to heaven by being part of "the exception." This is to everyone, and no one in particular: Judgment day is one-on-one with God. In John, we read that the Word is the judge. No exceptions, no preacher or elder to stand up for us, just us and God, judged by what the Bible says. Have you done what the Bible says? Are you living according to it, or trying to make it live according to you? If you have lived according to it, prepare for a "well done." If not, please don't wait. It's not a game.

King's have lineages, that's how they ascend to the throne. Christ was the direct line of David, but did not ascend because of lineage shifts in the Old Testament. To say that a king had no pedigree infers that he divinely took the throne, without dues to an inheritance, but because of the "divine right" grounds. Mel was appointed to be king and high priest, he didn't just get there because of who his "daddy" was. The Scriptures therefore compare Christ to Mel because Christ come to absolute Sovereignty divinely, not because of who He was born to. His authority grants him all power, not His parents. The focus is not on Mel, it is on Christ, that Christ is both High Priest and King of all. Mel was in no way God; many today argue over the Trinity, let's not start a Quadrinity doctrine! Wayne Jackson, a scholarly brother, discusses this far better than I ever could: http://www.christiancourier.com/questions/...dekQuestion.htm

And I would agree, just not in your line of thinking. All throughout the gospels where people were baptized in water in Christ it is shown that they had some form of a belief in Christ. But you're thinking that baptism in water is showing outwardly the inward salvation you have ALREADY received, which is incorrect because there is no Biblical evidence whatsoever of baptism doing that. All I can say is that you read the context. After reading the context, if you still can't see Paul's point in why he said what he said in that verse, then I suggest looking on the Baptism? forum. It is locked, but this verse rises question several times throughout that board. Look for it, great explanations are often given. First of all, do you even understand the significance of "fire" in that verse? Many who believe in non-physical baptism only overlook that Christ also baptizes in fire. Have YOU been immersed in flame? But anyways... I'm not talking about the difference between John's baptism and Jesus' baptism, because if you look at it like that then yes, they both coexisted. However, in the context of Ephesians 4 where it says there is one baptism, it is clear it is talking about God and Christ around that baptism, not like the baptism of repentance. In Acts 19 Paul compares and contrasts the difference between John's baptism of repentance and Jesus' baptism. In the end, Jesus' baptism is the only baptism that stands firm. So keeping in mind that John's baptism was nullified after Christ was resurrected, why would people continue to baptize in water? Because that's what baptism is. It means in water, it's how it was done then, how it should be done now, period. It's not immersion in water that saves my friend, it's the resurrection of Christ. But looking at 1 Peter 3:21, one can see that you are saved by the resurrection of Christ THROUGH baptism.

Please eplain what you mean by this... A second baptism for elite believers? I'd just like to point out that seperating baptisms, as being "spiritually baptized" apart from the baptism in water that occured in Acts, isn't the most scriptural thing. It has to be one or the other:

I'd just like to say that there is nowhere where baptism is shown as an inward thing, that shows something that's ALREADY happened. Also, it is never mentioned as a public confession. The ethiopian eunuch was baptized very privately, on the side of the road, just him and Phillip, with maybe a chariot driver, MAYBE. And it does note that the eunuch was baptized in water, immediately after hearing the gospel, indicating that baptism was somewhere in the "good news" that Phillip preached. As to Acts 11 where Peter says that the people were baptized in the Holy Spirit, he is specifically referring to the Gentiles at Cornelius' house in Acts 10. So what was so special about those in Acts 10? They were Gentiles, and from reading Galatians one can see that Peter had a bit of a problem with accepting Gentiles as Christians. The whole point of Acts 10 was to show that God accepts all people, that's what the vision Peter got was about, but he didn't realize that until later. Obviously Peter was just there to preach, because God called Cornelius to get Peter to preach. However, Peter most likely wouldn't have thought that the Gentiles would have been saved. But as soon as God poured out A GIFT of the Holy Spirit (speaking in tongues is a gift, not the saving conscience of God), Peter saw that God was willing to save the Gentiles as well as the Jews that were saved in Acts 2. In Acts 2 it says the Jews were baptized and "added to the Church" considered "those who were being saved." As soon as Peter saw the Gentiles COULD BE saved in Acts 10, what did he immediately do? Hope it is all of help. :t:

First off mcm, we already have a baptism forum, it's just "locked" for some reason right now. Second off, no the thief on the cross wasn't baptized (most probably wasn't baptized anyway), but yes he was saved. Difference? Simple. Salvation before Christ's death, burial, and resurrection could be accomplished by Christ simply telling you that you will be saved. It's different for us. In 1 Peter 3:21 it says that baptism saves "by the resurrection of Christ." Was Christ resurrected before the thief on the cross. Of course not, therefore baptism in Christ for salvation would serve no purpose. As to the idea of "spirit baptism," you're trying to cut and paste pieces of 1 Peter 3:21. It says that baptism isn't something that removes dirt. Now if Peter was talking a "spirit baptism," why would he say something like that. If baptism was entirely non-physical, what would be the point in saying "not the removal of dirt from the body." Obviously, Peter was clarifying that baptism happens in water, but it isn't the same thing as taking a bath. Baptism saves you, it isn't washing away dirt, it is pledging a good conscience towards God. It saves you by the resurrection of Christ. That's what the verse says. Also, in verse 20, Noah was saved BECAUSE OF the ark, but saved THROUGH the water. That symbolizes, in the same way, baptism. It saves us BECAUSE OF the resurrection of Christ, but THROUGH the water. Want more proof? Take any Greek lexicon. Baptism in Greek actually means "to fully immerse," and unless the baptism specifies what someone is baptized IN, it is ALWAYS assumed that the immersion occurs in water. 1 Peter 3:21 says this baptism now saves you also. Does it specify? No, so it's in water. Does it save? We'll let the verse answer itself on that one...

Why? Who cares. It's a dumb early church rule that is entirely non-Biblical, and is one of those "came about" rules I spoke of it earlier. Apostles pass away, whose there to tell them that what they're doing isn't Biblical? No one, so why not make up some stupid rule about waiting. Did the jailer and his household in Acts 16 wait to be baptized? No, in fact scripture tells us they got up to be "immediately" baptized after they had believed, then washed the apostles wounds. But as soon after they had washed their wounds, they were baptized. Immediately. 3 year rule? Not a chance. I agree, if the founding fathers of the Church said non-inspired things, they are simply reasonings possibly without scriptural back-up. However, please let's keep in mind that it IS however, IMPOSSIBLE for a "come about" idea to be true, considering it "came about" 1500 years after the resurrection of the Savior. Earlier isn't always necessarily more correct, but 1500 years after instruction is definately inaccurate.

Who exactly is doing the butchering, when the meaning of it is being changed from the interpretation of the verse for 1500 years of straight agreement? What's it matter?! Why toil away over thoughts like this, to try and justify your own salvation? I mean, Jesus told no lie when he said that belief and baptism are BOTH for salvation in Mark 16:16. And since the idea that baptism is "non-physically in the HS" is an idea that came-about, and obviously ALL came-about doctrines are wrong (seeing as how they were made after the Bible was written, and therefore going against Galatians 1:6-9), then wouldn't that make the thought of baptism NOT being in water in Christ wrong? Me too, I'll take Jesus as well. And seeing as how BAPTISM is how we take Jesus according to Galatians 3:27 and that its BAPTISM that saves us BY Jesus according to 1 Peter 3:21, then in that case I'll take baptism IN Christ, however that doesn't nullify the fact that baptism simply is done IN water. And to the idea of baptism NOT being a part of the gospel, too bad it is eh? Acts 8, Phillip preached the gospel to the eunuch. After the eunuch heard the gospel, the eunuch saw water. The eunuch says, "hey I need to be baptized" and so Phillip baptizes him, "going down into" the water and "coming up out of it." So since the eunuch heard the gospel, and then asked to be baptized, its clear as anything that baptism was a part of the gospel Phillip preached to the eunuch. Otherwise the eunuch would have said, "hey look there's water! That's a funny little liquid, serving no importance at all to Christ, because you didn't include water in the gospel." No he didn't say that. Instead, immediately after hearing the gospel he said, "Look here is water, why shouldn't I baptized?" And he should have been, and he was. Obviously, baptism was included in the good news.

First of all, water immersion in Christ is considered "baptism" in the Bible, and so therefore, whether you consider it "true" or not it is baptism. Point and dot, period. So seperating immersion in water from immersion in Christ is making it two baptisms, and that's just the truth. Secondly, taking Christ out of baptism (meaning immersion in water), would leave just that, just immersion in water. What's the point? Why do it? Don't give your reason as being Romans 6, because Romans 6 tells us about what happens inside WHEN WE ARE baptized, not symbolizing what has already happened. If the baptism (immersion in water) you do out of obedience isn't a baptism for salvation in Christ, what's the difference between it and taking a bath in the morning? Leonard, for the most part I agree with you. At least you can see the importance behind baptism. Muslims, Hindus, they are my brothers facing persecution, and to hear that makes me sad. But I don't care, they shall be rewarded for putting on Christ. And of course, the only thing we're in disagreement about (on this thread at least) is infant baptism. I really don't wanna get TOO into infant baptism, but: In many places throughout the gospels, Jesus tells us we must "become like a child" or "have the innocence of a child." Why is this? Because kids don't know sin, they only know "good and bad" according to mom and dad. Babies cannot comprehend Christ, neither can they comprehend spiritual death. Just like Paul said, that the Law made us conscience of sin, and that conscienous led us to Christ. Is a baby conscience of sin? I don't think so... Also, you have to look at Acts 19, where John the Baptist's followers were "re"baptized in Christ. They were baptized for the wrong reasons the first time, not understanding the Holy Spirit and the factor of Christ in baptism, so they therefore needed true baptism. Babies don't understand just like those followers, therefore they need a understanding of how they are dead, the gospel, and salvation to be truly baptized. Without the heart and soul behind baptism, a baby is just getting wet.

Hmmm... interesting. Were you aware of the history of baptism, and the fact that the baptist denomination used to be in agreement with all other protestant groups, that baptism, meaning immersion in water in Christ, was necessary for salvation? Funny how God's changing eh?

Hmmm... two baptisms... interesting *cough* Ephesians 4 *cough.* How come no one will answer that question? OBVIOUSLY people in the Bible were immersed in water in Christ, making for one baptism. If you try and seperate that, aren't you going against Ephesians 4? No one has answered that yet... Umm... that also is instigating two baptisms. Where is your verse that water baptism in Christ is an outward showing of your inward baptism? Where is your verse about "accepting Christ as your Lord and Savior," and where is your verse saying that WE receive the spirit as soon as we believe. Also, calamity, water is just what baptism is in. That's just how God set it up, not mater how weird anyone views it, that's just how it is. But it's not the water that saves, its the resurrection of Christ, but your saved BY the resurrection of Christ THROUGH the water (1 Peter 3:20-21). Finally, "the Holy Spirit and fire" baptisms. Very interesting indeed, I had to study up on that when I first read it because it really threw me off. Conclusion? Christ will either be our salvation or our destruction. We are either immersed in Christ's spirit (in baptism, Galatians 3:27) or we are immersed in the fires of hell because we didn't believe and obey. These fires and second death can be seen from Revelation around the 20s. Hey calamity, by the way, what is the name of the building you worship at (i.e. what denomination do you follow)?

Right everyone, and obviously belief is all we need. I mean, we're all brothers in Christ with the demon Legion who possessed a man and then ran into a herd of pigs. Legion CERTAINLY believed that Jesus was the real Son of God, and so can't wait to see ol' Legion in heaven right? I mean James 2:19 would agree, demons believe in God. And that's all faith is, right? Belief? That's it? Yepp, I'ma see them demons in heaven... No. 1 John 2:3 Yeah, so obedience isn't necessary to be in a relationship with the Lord, right? Isn't that what that verse says? No. Hebrews 3:16-19 Right, so this verse tells us that the Israelites were frowned upon only because of their unbelief. I mean.. it also says obedience... but it says belief too! So which is it? They are both said to have not let the Israelites enter? Was it because of disobedience or because of unbelief? Both. They are equally tied together in faith. Faith is believing in God, but faith is known because of obedience to God's commands. Not obeying the word of God deadens faith, nullifying salvation. One more time:

tiggr, excellent post. And it is wrong. That's wrong Greek. Correct Greek in Acts 2:38 shows that repentance and baptism are done in order to be forgiven. I've looked at it. Check out heavenword Greek master, or some lexicon. And don't look for the Greek term for "because of," because "because of" isn't the word in Acts 2:38. Also, I like how you said that we can't take what someone teaches us for true. All my life I accepted what parents told me, what friends told me, what youth ministers, preachers, and other peolple told me. Then I woke up. How we've been raised and what beliefs we were taught don't matter. What matters is the word. If we look purely at the word, it's gonna tell us in a straight-forward way that baptism saves. Baptism meaning immersion in water in Christ, because we can't think of how the word might be interpreted today, we have to think of how God interpreted it.

Shiloh, I'm guessing someone has told you this, or you've seen it off of a web-site or something. Often people say that the "for" in Acts 2:38 means "because of," and mistake it for the Greek word "eis," using improper definitions. However, if you look at the Greek without someone telling you what the Greek is, you can see that the definition of "for" in Acts 2:38 is "in order to." So sorry, your argument is incorrect. The verse should read: Hmmm... I'm seeing Peter make a little bit of a connection between baptism and remission of sins through Christ, no? What's baptism? Immersion in water, and if applied to the uses in the NT, it means immersion in water in Christ. I'm sorry if you want to look around for other defintions, but they're just not right.. Ephesians says there's one baptism, correct? Correct. So tell me shiloh, why were people in Acts baptized IN WATER in Christ? Explain me that one... Ummm... are the apostles alive today? These people with Simon the Sorceror received the Spirit by the laying on of hands by the apostles, which would nullify the ability for anyone today to have the Spirit, since it was given by the apostles. So why was it given through hands? Miraculous powers, showed others God's authority and the reality of the Church. We don't need it today, we can know God is real, we have the Bible today. You cannot nullify Acts 2:38 with this verse. Also, I'd like to point out that all the people who received the Spirit were later on baptized, meaning immersed in water, in Christ. Same effect for Acts 10, except they received it from hearing the sermon, because Peter wouldn't have laid hands on them, he didn't think it was for the Gentiles to have. Again I state, there is one baptism. If so, then why were people in the Bible baptized in water?