Baptism?

[Nebuchadnezza10]

1ptr29citizen, sorry I did not articulate myself correctly. I agree that there is one baptism. I have just heard people call getting the gifts of the HS as being baptised with the Holy spirit. Sorry I was just trying to use the same lingo. What I meant was that there is one baptism and that the Holy spirit has different jobs. I.e. there is the Gifts of the Holy spirit and there is the HS living inside you as a seal to God, to show that you are saved.

Make sense?

[stevehut]

Greetings, all...

Can anyone here think of a Christian teacher before the 16th century, who did NOT say that baptism was for the remission of sins? Let me know if you can find it, please

[Guest Calamity]

Rom.1

[16] For I am not ashamed of the gospel of Christ: for it is the power of God unto salvation to every one that believeth; to the Jew first, and also to the Greek.

Where is it, that shows baptism to be part of the Gospel? As already posted, here is a rundown of the Gospel:

1Cor.15

[1] Moreover, brethren, I declare unto you the gospel which I preached unto you, which also ye have received, and wherein ye stand;

[2] By which also ye are saved, if ye keep in memory what I preached unto you, unless ye have believed in vain.

[3] For I delivered unto you first of all that which I also received, how that Christ died for our sins according to the scriptures;

[4] And that he was buried, and that he rose again the third day according to the scriptures:

This is what Paul preached. He preached Christ and Him crucified. The death, burial and resurrection of Christ. Why would he not include baptism, if it were necessary to salvation?

If baptism was part of salvation, why would he say this?

I Cor. 1

[14] I thank God that I baptized none of you, but Crispus and Gaius;

[15] Lest any should say that I had baptized in mine own name.

[16] And I baptized also the household of Stephanas: besides, I know not whether I baptized any other.

Would he say something like that, if baptism meant that those who he, or anyone baptized would be saved because of it?

[17] For Christ sent me not to baptize, but to preach the gospel: not with wisdom of words, lest the cross of Christ should be made of none effect.

[18] For the preaching of the cross is to them that perish foolishness; but unto us which are saved it is the power of God.

Why would he say this, if baptism were part of the Gospel? He distinctly separated it from the Gospel, sounds like to me.

And, can a person receive the Holy Spirit unless they are saved? No, I think not. What about these people here, who had received the Holy Spirit, before baptism? And notice, again, the Gospel being preached: death, burial, resurrection of Christ:

Acts 10

[38] How God anointed Jesus of Nazareth with the Holy Ghost and with power: who went about doing good, and healing all that were oppressed of the devil; for God was with him.

[39] And we are witnesses of all things which he did both in the land of the Jews, and in Jerusalem; whom they slew and hanged on a tree:

[40] Him God raised up the third day, and shewed him openly;

[41] Not to all the people, but unto witnesses chosen before of God, even to us, who did eat and drink with him after he rose from the dead.

[42] And he commanded us to preach unto the people, and to testify that it is he which was ordained of God to be the Judge of quick and dead.

[43] To him give all the prophets witness, that through his name whosoever believeth in him shall receive remission of sins.

[44] While Peter yet spake these words, the Holy Ghost fell on all them which heard the word.

[45] And they of the circumcision which believed were astonished, as many as came with Peter, because that on the Gentiles also was poured out the gift of the Holy Ghost.

[46] For they heard them speak with tongues, and magnify God. Then answered Peter,

[47] Can any man forbid water, that these should not be baptized, which have received the Holy Ghost as well as we?

[48] And he commanded them to be baptized in the name of the Lord. Then prayed they him to tarry certain days.

Notice vs. 47. They had already received the Holy Ghost. They were already saved, before baptism.

Baptism is not for remission of our sins. Christ's blood does that.

Matt.26

[28] For this is my blood of the new testament, which is shed for many for the remission of sins.

Heb.9

[22] And almost all things are by the law purged with blood; and without shedding of blood is no remission.

[Guest shiloh357]

Can anyone here think of a Christian teacher before the 16th century, who did NOT say that baptism was for the remission of sins? Let me know if you can find it, please

Steve, that is irrelavent. To assume that earlier teachings are correct, just because they are earlier, is fallacious reasoning. The only standard we judge any teaching against, is the Word of God.

[stevehut]

Shiloh,

I think you missed my point.

Can you show me in history, any christian teacher before the 16th century who said that baptism was not part of the salvation process? Really, I'd like to know...

[Guest shiloh357]

I think you missed my point.

Can you show me in history, any christian teacher before the 16th century who said that baptism was not part of the salvation process? Really, I'd like to know...

You did not make a point, you asked a question. My point is that just because someone prior to 16 th century taught something, does'nt give it any impetus. Earlier teachings are not more correct just because they are earlier. You seem to be implying that since early teachers taught something, that it must correct since they were closer to the apostles. Again, that is fallacious reasoning.

Those were not infalliable men, and so I do not have to give their teachings on baptism more weight than what is taught about it today.

[Guest shiloh357]

Can you show me in history, any christian teacher before the 16th century who said that baptism was not part of the salvation process? Really, I'd like to know...

Ok, I have some for you: Paul, James, Peter, John, Jude, Matthew, Mark, Luke

[stevehut]

Shiloh,

The reason why I asked my question, was this:

I have done a lot of research on church history. As far as I can tell, every christian teacher up until the 16th century said that baptism was a part of the salvation process. I'm not saying that they are "the authority", but the pattern is very interesting.

So if this was the only teaching for 1500 years, does that mean that no one was saved for 1500 years?

Again, if you know something I don't, please advise.

[godrulz]

If that was the teaching (debatable) for years, it does not make it biblical. Does that mean that all the Christians who are not baptized now are hellbound?

Steve: Church background for you?

[Guest shiloh357]

The reason why I asked my question, was this:

I have done a lot of research on church history. As far as I can tell, every christian teacher up until the 16th century said that baptism was a part of the salvation process. I'm not saying that they are "the authority", but the pattern is very interesting.

So if this was the only teaching for 1500 years, does that mean that no one was saved for 1500 years?

Again, if you know something I don't, please advise.

Why don't you show us the teachings you are referring to? Post the teachings and their authors. During that 1500 years the early church fathers also taught transubstantiation, they taught sprinkling as opposed to immersion, they considered Mary an intercessor for believers, papa infalliability, it was during that 1st 1500 years, that the church was responsible for crusades that brutally killed thousands of peaceful Jews living in the holyland. I see that they have a credibility issue. I am not quick to assume that their teachings are correct.