Who is my "brother" in Christ?

[Guest shiloh357]

QUOTE (shiloh357 @ Mar 26 2010, 09:10 PM)

And so far, you have not provided any evidence to refute it. All you have done is erect strawman arguments accusing us of denying the importance of baptism. The weakness of your position is evidenced in how little doctrinal support you can muster.

Multiple facts have been presented by myself and a few others in this regard:

Fact: John baptized in the Jordan because there was much water there.

Fact: The Lord was baptized by John to fulfill all righteousness

Irrelevant. None of neither of those facts pertain to Christian baptism. Jesus' baptism was an act of identification with us, as Jesus had no need of repentance.

Fact: Jesus said unless a man is born of the water (H20 - my emphasis) and the Spirit, he cannot (note cannot) enter into the kingdom of God.

This cannot refer to Christian baptism by immersion in water, unless you are going to argue that Jesus was commanding NT under the Old Covenant. So far your argument is that Christian baptism did not exist prior to Jesus' death on the cross, so you cannot use this remark as justification for Christian baptism, unless internal inconsistency doesn't mean anything to you.

Fact: Jesus disciples baptized (apparently in the presence of Jesus) this had to be water baptism in keeping with the context of the baptism previously performed.

But this was not Christian NT and is therefore irrlevant to the discussion.

Fact: Jesus commanded the disciples to go, indirectly he commanded that believers should be baptized that they shall be saved.

'There is no such thing as an indirect commandment. Water immersion is just the emblem of salvation and Jesus did not mean to be understood that water immersion is an agent in redemption.

Fact: Jesus is the one who baptizes with the Holy Spirit and fire (fire not discussed here)

Irrelevant.

Fact: The command was to baptize in the Name of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit

That is not indispute and is immaterial to the issue at hand.

[Guest shiloh357]

Fact: They commanded hearers to be repent AND be baptized for the remission of sins obviously in keeping with the commandments and examples listed above.

THat is what they said. However, that is in sufficient for doctrine. There is no teaching in the NT petaining to water immersion as an agent of redemption. The doctrine of salvation makes the blood of Jesus the agent of redemption, and the Holy Spirit the agent of salvation by immersing us into Christ (Rom 6:3-4, 1Cor. 12). Doctrine is never created out of narrative or descriptive texts.

Fact: Baptism will only follow belief. One must first believe before he will be baptized. That is one reason belief is the first commandment is given to those who hear.

That is why we call it "believer's baptism."

Fact: Hearing is an action one does. Belief is an action one does. Repentance is an action one does. Confessing Jesus is an actionone does. Baptism is an action done to one.

That is not indispute, but is still immaterial to the issue at hand.

Fact: The Ethiopian eunuch easily recognized the need to be baptized and called out for baptism on the road to Gaza. John was taken only after the baptism not before. (Salvation was made complete at baptism)

First of all, it was Phillip not John. Secondly, this does not prove baptism is necessary for salvation. It only shows that it is necessary. Thirdly, it does not say that the Eunich was saved at baptism. That is an assumption YOU are imposing on the text.

Fact: Saul was baptized washing away his sin.

But Ananias in Acts 9:17 already considered Saul a believer and referred to him as "brother Saul."

Fact: The Phillipian jailer, once taught, believe and was baptized in keeping with the commandment given the apostles (and all believers who wish to be saved)

True but does not really prove, much less address your point.

[Guest shiloh357]

Fact: Baptism is the Anti-type of the flood through which man is saved

the problem is that Peter has more to say namely that baptism pertains to a clear conscience before God. In the typology, the water was not the agent of salvation. The ark was what saved the people and the animals. The water was the agent of judgment, not salvation, which means that Peter could not have meant to be understood that it was the water that saved Noah. Noah and his family were saved though the water. They were not saved BY the water. That is the point you are missing in that mishandling of biblical typology.

Fact: It is the act of self-sacrifice of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ and the shedding of His blood that atones our sin. It is the gift of grace given by God to whoever believes in Him that if the believer will lay hold of that gift through faith and obedience and only then will he be saved. Obedience is not complete and salvation is not attained, or grace is not received until one is "resurrected" from the watery grave.

The problem is that when we trust in Christ, we identify with Him in both His death and His resurrection. Baptism is the testimony and affirmation of that identification. Salvation is at once, a death and a resurrection according to the NT. We are to reckon ourselves dead to the flesh and alive to God, seated with Christ in the heavenly places.

Fact: If baptism were other than the conventional water, it is specifically declared, be that of the Holy Spirit or fire.

Context also plays an important role in uderstanding how words are used. It is not always specifically stated.

You may deny any of these because of you hardness of heart, but the facts have been well established.

Well, not really. They are established in your mind, but you have so far not presented any competent exegesis to that end.

You may twist the meaning of immersion to be "insertion", "covering" or any other verbiage, but it does not change the true meaning that is consistent throughout Scripture. Your denial is only your opinion and I will respect but not validate it.

I am not twisting anything. I am just saying that the word baptism is not limited to water immersion.

One last fact: There is no point that can be made to a listener whose retort consists of "it doesn't mean that" or a direct negative imperative doesn't mean something is important. If you don't understand, a good example is: Mark 16:16 "He who has believed and has been baptized shall be saved; but he who has disbelieved shall be condemned. NASB

The retort is "He didn't say anything about NOT being baptized, so it doesn't have anything to do with salvation!"

One last fact is that you have absolutely no ability correctly recall what I said. What I said was that you are applying a negative inferrance fallacy to the text of Mark 16:16. You are working from the assumption that since the text says, "he that believes and is baptised shall be saved," the opposite must also be true, that he who believes and is not baptised will not be saved. You assume that since the positive true, all negatives must likewise be true. We don't operate with kind of fallacious thinking in real life and it is unreasonable to operate that way where the Bible is concerned.

You basically have a handful of verses that you string together to make a doctrine out of and no solid teaching from the NT that water immersion is necessary for salvation.

[exrockstar]

Baptism is a command given by God to follow conversion, and it is an important step in obedience, but baptism must follow salvation as in Acts 10:43-48, as Shiloh357 pointed out, the Gentiles that believed; received the Holy Spirit, before they were baptized, as seen in Acts 10 verse 47.

God should take notes from Obama; in the manner that Obama wants to ensure that all have access to care.

Unfortunately not all churches have a baptism pool, some of those that believe are out of luck if they live in remote places because they cannot to do baptism ritual, not all know the proper "ritual" for performing a baptism (which is not in the bible), and baptism is a work but yet this work is required? I saw a catalog where baptism tubs cost an average of $5000. Let's subsidize this.

all hail Obama.

[Scare Bear]

That would not change anything. No matter what you say, baptism is not a religious word in ancient Greek culture, and thus placing anything into anything else regardless of the specific elements is a baptism. If I put groceries in a bag, that is baptism. If put my car in the garage, that is a baptism by the strictest definition of the term.

I always found this a bit helpful:

The clearest example that shows the meaning of baptizo is a text from the Greek poet and physician Nicander, who lived about 200 B.C. It is a recipe for making pickles and is helpful because it uses both words bapto and baptixo. Nicander says that in order to make a pickle, the vegetable should first be 'dipped' (bapto) into boiling water and then 'baptized' (baptizo) in the vinegar solution. Both verbs concern the immersing of vegetables in a solution. But the first is temporary. The second, the act of baptizing the vegetable, produces a permanent change.

[Guest shiloh357]

That would not change anything. No matter what you say, baptism is not a religious word in ancient Greek culture, and thus placing anything into anything else regardless of the specific elements is a baptism. If I put groceries in a bag, that is baptism. If put my car in the garage, that is a baptism by the strictest definition of the term.

I always found this a bit helpful:

The clearest example that shows the meaning of baptizo is a text from the Greek poet and physician Nicander, who lived about 200 B.C. It is a recipe for making pickles and is helpful because it uses both words bapto and baptixo. Nicander says that in order to make a pickle, the vegetable should first be 'dipped' (bapto) into boiling water and then 'baptized' (baptizo) in the vinegar solution. Both verbs concern the immersing of vegetables in a solution. But the first is temporary. The second, the act of baptizing the vegetable, produces a permanent change.

That is one application of baptizo. I can also take a cup and dip it into a bucket of cold water. That is baptizo as well and affects no change at all in the cup. Baptizo simply means to "place inside" or "immerse." It has no bearing the object or what it is immersed into. Hence, it is not a religious word.

[Scare Bear]

No the Bible says the demons believe in God. I asked you for where the Bible says that someone can believe on Jesus (for salvation) and still go to hell in faith. You said that the Bible teaches it so either produce it, or admit that you are wrong.

Now you're moving the goalposts. If a demon believes in the God of the bible then why weren't they saved before the coming of Christ? Belief alone does not save you. If certain acts will condemn someone to hell (i.e. adultery, murder, etc.) then wouldn't it be reasonable to conclude that faith and works by obedience will get you to heaven? Faith and works. If all the Israelites had to do was have faith then why the need for all commands to worship? Why did God not accept Nadab and Abihu's fire? Why couldn't Noah, Moses, and Abraham just have had faith and let God do the rest? They had to ACT on their faith.

He was saved before the flood, because Noah, prior to the flood found grace in the eyes of the Lord and was the only righteous man in His day. Noah's act of building the ark is an example of true faith being evidenced in what a person does. In fact, Hebrews 11 shows that it was faith that produced the righteous deeds of Abraham, Moses, Noah and others. Their faith was seen in what they did. None of their works were for the purpose of earning salvation.

If Noah was saved before the flood then there was no need for him to make an ark don't you think? No one is saying faith and works don't go hand in hand but it seems to me you're trying to separate the two.

I guess you don't know how to read??? I already told you. It is Jesus who changes a person. I cannot and you cannot change your heart. Salvation is an inward transformation that occurs by the power of the Holy Spirit. It is not a matter of just modifying behavior. It is a matter of being completely new creation in Christ and that does not happen in our own strength. We cannot change on our own sufficiently to please God. Only Jesus can affect that work in us.

So once we accept Jesus we give up our free will? We can never be lost after that?

You are not good enough to change yourself to please God. Your best works on your best day, no matter how good they appear in your own eyes are filthy rags before God. It is only human pride and religious vanity that imagines itself good enough to please God in its own strength. A change must take place, but YOU are incapable of making the change. That change can only be affected by Jesus Christ working in you in the person of the Holy Spirit.

So we have no say in our salvation whether we can keep it or lose it? That doesn't sound like free will.

Yes, God pretty much did everything for them. In the end, it was God and God alone who won their freedom. Their obedience was a work of faith nothing they did in their own strength won their freedom. If they could have done anything to gain their freedom, they didn't need God to do it for them.

I'm not saying God is insignificant in any of this. But if God told you to come to the fountain would you come or would you sit and say "I believe He'll bring the fountain to me." They had to act on their faith, they couldn't just sit around and let God do it all, if that were the case He wouldn't have needed Moses and would have gotten Pharaoh to just let them go somehow.

Your problem is your pride and religious vanity. You place an artificial, importance on the value of your works. Your works only have value if they are a product of faith. If you are trying earn your way to heaven by your works, you are going to be very, very disappointed to find out that your works profited you nothing and that you will spend eternity, forever separated from God.

I'm not doing works to be glorified. I'm doing works because I'm commanded to. The thing of it all is, don't do works to be seen of men, some people make a spectacle out of it, "Oh look I visited the sick!" vs. someone going to visit the sick regardless if they are seen or not, they visit the shut in because they care about the person, not the deed. There's a huge difference and that is what the Bible is talking about.

[Scare Bear]

None of those references refer to water immersion. They refer to Holy Spirit's act of placing in Christ at the moment we trust Christ for salvation.

Show me then where the verses are indicating Holy Spirit ONLY baptism?

We are saved by grace through faith.

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, so that no one may boast.

(Eph 2:8-9)

If faith only is needed why did Jesus say to the rich man this: Mark 10:17-21 - And when he was gone forth into the way, there came one running, and kneeled to him, and asked him, Good Master, what shall I do that I may inherit eternal life? And Jesus said unto him, Why callest thou me good? there is none good but one, that is, God. Thou knowest the commandments, Do not commit adultery, Do not kill, Do not steal, Do not bear false witness, Defraud not, Honour thy father and mother. And he answered and said unto him, Master, all these have I observed from my youth. Then Jesus beholding him loved him, and said unto him, One thing thou lackest: go thy way, sell whatsoever thou hast, and give to the poor, and thou shalt have treasure in heaven: and come, take up the cross, and follow me.

Couldn't Jesus have just told him to have faith and believe?

Because after salvation we are expected to grow in wisdom and are in the process of sanctification. We are expected to live in accordance with God's commandments as an evidence that we are saved and to be a light to the world to lead others to Christ. We are to let our light shine before men that they may see our good works and in doing so bring glory to God.

So you just said, we are expected to live in accordance with God's commandments, to be a light to the world... that would be a work wouldn't it?

See, you have it backwards. You see works as means to an end, namely to get saved. You are working to earn your salvation. Your purpose is not glorify God. You could not care less about God. You are just working for your own selfish, arrogant motives. You want to glory in your own efforts as if you gained salvation by your own strength. That is the effect of religious vanity and it is a stench in God's nostrils.

No, I want to to what God commands me to. If He commands me that I should go to the fountain, I will go instead of just having faith that he'll get me to the fountain without any doing on my part. I can accept or refuse salvation just like anyone else. I can accept it or deny it. What you have done here is tried to take free will away from those who are saved... like you can be saved and since you're saved you can do no wrong henceforth, which is a lie. You can choose to turn from God at any moment.

No you don't. It is the Holy Spirit that makes you a new person at the moment of salvation when you trust in Christ. You are still penciling in garbage that the Bible does not teach.

What about the Ethiopian Eunuch? Why was he baptized in the water? Couldn't he have just been baptized with the spirit and let go on his merry way?

Noah was saved by believing. That believing resulted in corresponding action. Noah built the ark BY faith, not to procure faith. Noah already had God's grace before he began building so your attempt to twist the analogy collapses like a house of cards.

He still had to do the work that which was required of him though...

Again, that is not talking about water immersion. There is more than one kind of baptism relative to the NT church and not every reference to baptism refers to water immersion.

Let me ask you something, if baptism is only referring to Holy Spirit baptism, why was Jesus immersed in water? How does one distinguish between a "Holy Spirit" baptism and one that is immersed in water?

[Scare Bear]

That is one application of baptizo. I can also take a cup and dip it into a bucket of cold water. That is baptizo as well and affects no change at all in the cup. Baptizo simply means to "place inside" or "immerse." It has no bearing the object or what it is immersed into. Hence, it is not a religious word.

Not once have I seen the word "baptizo" to mean anything outside of being immersed, dunked, dipped into a liquid of some kind. The word always follows something being immersed in a liquid.

[Guest shiloh357]

That is one application of baptizo. I can also take a cup and dip it into a bucket of cold water. That is baptizo as well and affects no change at all in the cup. Baptizo simply means to "place inside" or "immerse." It has no bearing the object or what it is immersed into. Hence, it is not a religious word.

Not once have I seen the word "baptizo" to mean anything outside of being immersed, dunked, dipped into a liquid of some kind. The word always follows something being immersed in a liquid.

Actually you are referring to word usage, not meaning.

Yes, but you added the notion of the object being immersed undergoing a permanent change, and that is outside the usual usage of the word. If an objecting being immersed undergoes a change as a result of being immersed, that is incidental to the immersion and is dependent on the properties of both the liquid and the immersed object.

My point is that if you dunk a cookie in milk, it is a baptism. If you put dirty dishes into a sink of hot soapy water, that is a baptism. If you jump in a river or lake for a swim, that is a baptism. Hence, it is not a religious word or concept.

The Bible borrows baptizo to illustrate a spiritual concept, namely our being immersed into Christ by the Holy Spirit when we are born again.