mobile21 Posted February 14, 2004 Group: Diamond Member Followers: 0 Topic Count: 21 Topics Per Day: 0.00 Content Count: 711 Content Per Day: 0.09 Reputation: 7 Days Won: 0 Joined: 08/04/2003 Status: Offline Share Posted February 14, 2004 To Mobile21: Was Jesus saved by John when he was baptized? If salvation comes from baptism, then it leaves a dilemma doesnt it? If baptism is a part of salvation, then again, why would Christ need to be baptized? Did Jesus have a need to be saved? Think carefully.... lol Of course baptism didn't save Jesus, what Jesus did is to institute the sacrament of baptism and to demonstrate the true action of the Holy Spirit in it. Mobile21: Physical baptism was being performed by John before Jesus approached him. It was already instituted. Jesus did not require John to change anything in the manner in which he was previously baptizing. John distuinguished between the baptizing he was performing and the baptism that Jesus would perform. " And I knew Him not: but that He sent me to baptize with water, the same said unto me, Upon Whom thou shalt see the Spirit descending, and remaining on Him, the same is He which baptizeth with the Holy Ghost." John 1: 33. Jesus had already instituted physical water baptism through John. From the above verse, would you agree that it reveals that Jesus provides a seperate baptism in the Holy Ghost? If you can agree with that, since it is what the scriptures state, then a question ...If salvation came through baptism, then why would Christ have to provide a seperate baptism in the Holy Ghost? If the first water baptism caused the one being baptized to receive the Holy Ghost, then there would be no need for the second. Since it would save the one being baptized. They would already be indwelt with the Holy Ghost. But yet John distuinguishes between water baptism and a baptism into Jesus. " And it came to pass, that, while Apollos was at Corinth, Paul having passed through the upper coast came to Ephesus, and finding certain disciples, he said unto them, have ye received the Holy Ghost since ye believed? and they said unto Him, we have not so much as heard whether there be any Holy Ghost. And he said unto them, unto what then were ye baptized? And they said, unto John's baptism. Then said Paul, John verily baptized with the baptism of repentance. Saying unto the people, that they should believe on Him which should come after him, that is, on Christ Jesus. When they heard this, they were baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus. And when Paul had laid his hands upon them, the Holy Ghost came on them, and they spake with tongues , and prophesied. " Acts 19:1-6. This reveals that believing on Jesus preceeded baptism, and that water baptism in itself was not enough to receive the Holy Ghost. Would you agree that receiving the Holy Ghost is an integral part of salvation? Keep in mind that they did not have the Holy Ghost beforehand, but afterwards. Let's see what the scriptures say about the Holy Ghost. " But ye are not in the flesh, but in the spirit, if so be that the Spirit of God dwell in you. Now if any man have not the Spirit of Christ, he is none of His. " Romans 8:9. So what do you think? Rick The Father sent the Son and the Son sent the Holy Spirit to us. Indeed John the Baptist used the water baptism as the rite of iniciation of believers but he did not institute it as a sacrament quite simply because he was not Jesus, the Son of God (hence John 1:33) so, in a way, Jesus took John's tradition and elevated it to the category of sacrament. One detail that is very important about the sacrament of baptism is that the Holy Spirit descends when Jesus is out of the water: "At that time Jesus came from Nazareth in Galilee and was baptized by John in the Jordan. As Jesus was coming up out of the water, he saw heaven being torn open and the Spirit descending on him like a dove." (Mk 1:9-10) so this confirms what John said in Jn 1:26, that he baptized with water only but it is Jesus the one who sends the Holy Spirit to us when we are baptized under the visible sign of water. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mobile21 Posted February 14, 2004 Group: Diamond Member Followers: 0 Topic Count: 21 Topics Per Day: 0.00 Content Count: 711 Content Per Day: 0.09 Reputation: 7 Days Won: 0 Joined: 08/04/2003 Status: Offline Share Posted February 14, 2004 Let's break it down to a simple question here. If an unsaved person gets baptised without a profession of faith have they been saved? If so, what is different about that tub of water and why not drop that on Iraq? You can't separate the profession of faith from the visible sign of the sacrament (water in baptism, bread and wine in the eucharist, chrism in confirmation and so on) so nope, if you were to drop a massive amount of water over Iraq what you would do is not massive biblical salvation but a flood of biblical proportions instead Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rick Posted February 14, 2004 Group: Diamond Member Followers: 0 Topic Count: 5 Topics Per Day: 0.00 Content Count: 265 Content Per Day: 0.03 Reputation: 2 Days Won: 0 Joined: 06/19/2002 Status: Offline Share Posted February 14, 2004 Mobile21: " so this confirms what John said in Jn 1:26, that he baptized with water only but it is Jesus the one who sends the Holy Spirit to us when we are baptized under the visible sign of water. " Mobile21, where did you get the above from? Jesus indeed sends the Holy Spirit to us, but not because of water baptism. If baptism brought the Holy Ghost, then how do you explain that those that had been previously baptized, had not received him? " And it came to pass, that, while Apollos was at Corinth, Paul having passed through the upper coast came to Ephesus, and finding certain disciples, he said unto them, have ye received the Holy Ghost since ye believed? and they said unto Him, we have not so much as heard whether there be any Holy Ghost. And he said unto them, unto what then were ye baptized? And they said, unto John's baptism. Then said Paul, John verily baptized with the baptism of repentance. Saying unto the people, that they should believe on Him which should come after him, that is, on Christ Jesus. When they heard this, they were baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus. And when Paul had laid his hands upon them, the Holy Ghost came on them, and they spake with tongues , and prophesied. " Acts 19:1-6. They were baptized under water. By John's baptism. But yet the Holy Ghost was not upon them. There's a flaw with believing that baptism saves. If baptism saved, they would not have needed another baptism. Believing on Christ is what saves. Many will trust in baptism for salvation, only to find that it was used to deceive them. Taking away from the true source of salvation which is in Jesus Christ alone. Rick Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest shadow2b Posted February 15, 2004 Share Posted February 15, 2004 -They were baptized under water. By John's baptism. But yet the Holy Ghost was not upon them. There's a flaw with believing that baptism saves. If baptism saved, they would not have needed another baptism. Believing on Christ is what saves. Many will trust in baptism for salvation, only to find that it was used to deceive them. Taking away from the true source of salvation which is in Jesus Christ alone. Rick -RIGHT ON BRO. :t3: :t3: :t3: :t3: :t3: :t3: :t3: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
1ptr29citizen Posted February 15, 2004 Group: Junior Member Followers: 0 Topic Count: 4 Topics Per Day: 0.00 Content Count: 94 Content Per Day: 0.01 Reputation: 0 Days Won: 0 Joined: 02/11/2004 Status: Offline Author Share Posted February 15, 2004 (Before I start, I'd really like to say, that if I have been taking verses out of context, your going to have to prove that. There still has not been SCRIPTURE given on salvation today). The topics I've only heard a million times... the thief on the cross and John's baptism. You have to draw a line. Jesus' physical life, and his death on the cross. That death on the cross separates a lot of thing, I mean it changed us from BC to AD for instance. We are no longer baptized into John's baptism! That is very well stated in the first of Acts! John's baptism was merely a baptism of repentance, that Jesus did as an example for the other people OF THAT TIME. We are now baptized INTO Jesus. We CLOTHE ourself in Jesus through baptism. If you think that that's not true, then I suggest you actually read some of the verses I've been listing... (Romans 6? Galatians 3:26-27?) With that being said, the thief on the cross. Before or after the death of Jesus? Baptism BEFORE Jesus' death was for repentance. Baptism afterwards was IN Jesus, IN the Holy Spirit, IN water (all instances of conversion talk about baptism, and a baptism in water). There's nothing special about water! It is just the act of doing it in the mindset of repentance. God disignated water as a later way of salvation back in the days of Noah! Noah and the flood foreshadowed baptism. That's scriptural, take a look at 1 Peter 3:18-21... No, baptism by itself will NOT in ANY WAY save you. The Bible says we must: believe, repent, confess, call on the name of the Lord, be baptized, and continue to live righteously for salvation. We can't pick one, we have to do them all. The 1 Corinthians passage where Paul says he did not come to baptize but to preach the gospel WOULD indicate that baptism is not important. Well, that is if you only look at that verse. If you'll take the time to consider the context you'll see that Paul was saying he doesn't want to be someone who baptizes people, because he doesn't want to have people think that he himself is who they were baptized in rather than Jesus. He wasn't downplaying baptism, he was saying we need it, but we need it IN the name of Jesus, not in the name of Paul. If anyone remembers, in my first post I wrote that the belief that baptism was NOT necessary for salvation came about in the early 1500s (historical). Isn't it odd that the early church and the church continuing for 1500 years all agreed that is was needed... and then all of a sudden its not? Is that not odd? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest shadow2b Posted February 15, 2004 Share Posted February 15, 2004 -If anyone remembers, in my first post I wrote that the belief that baptism was NOT necessary for salvation came about in the early 1500s (historical). Isn't it odd that the early church and the church continuing for 1500 years all agreed that is was needed... and then all of a sudden its not? Is that not odd? -The topics I've only heard a million times... the thief on the cross and John's baptism. -Nawwwwww!!--what's odd is that people still want to debate--argue over water----For "what" -reason??-information??causing division??Supposedly INtelligent people with"more"than an 8th -grade-education-would truly be concerned?confused??worried?about someone's salvation -"other than their own"a total stranger--unknown-unrelated--to the concerned?worried?inquisitive -mind?that wants to"KNOW"IF they were"really--actually--scripturally-with the "correct doctrinal -teaching"were SAVED AT ALL--according to the topic starter's "correct-doctrinal-scripturally-sound- -understanding" & was "baptized"correctly in order to really--actually-BE SAVED--GEEEEE-WHIZZZZZ -I reckon then that since there is a NEW-ALL seeing---ALL knowing---with ALL perfect wisdom--ALL -knowledge---Totally qualified to"judge-discern the thoughts & intents of the heart---then WE-- -the "church"{hopefully-truly-really-saved?}church have been presented with A NEW GOD to follow -listen to--bow down to--to believe in--to trust in--because the "OLD-GOD"THE ONE TRUE GOD" -"THE GOD WHO ALONE IS GOD & THERE ARE NONE OTHERS BESIDE HIM"THE GOD OF gods"& there -are none else" THIS GOD is OLDE--worn-out-no longer qualified to be THE ONE TRUE GOD------- -WeLLLL,geee-whizzzz-I reckon "IF" these topics have already been heard a million times WHY even -continue {TO BELIEVE IN ANY TYPE OF SALVATION}WET--DRY-or even any other way??------ -shhhhhheeeeesssshhhhh- :x: :x: -I think I'LL go DROWN my sorrows in peanut oil--at least -my OLDE--OLDE-bones & joints will get lubricated- Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
1ptr29citizen Posted February 15, 2004 Group: Junior Member Followers: 0 Topic Count: 4 Topics Per Day: 0.00 Content Count: 94 Content Per Day: 0.01 Reputation: 0 Days Won: 0 Joined: 02/11/2004 Status: Offline Author Share Posted February 15, 2004 Well, I got extremely confused in everything that you just said. I don't know if my computer is messing up the text or something, but all I could make out was something about "let's not argue, aren't you just trying to raise debate" and "you must think God is changing." Well, no I am not raising these points to argue and draw debate. Rather, I'm trying to see if we can all find a conclusion scriptural and true before the Lord, because we are to have "no divisions among us." If that's so... then shouldn't a conclusion about something as important as salvation be found? And the point about "oh well God must be a changing God because of this new baptism view!" Well... I guess your right. God's changing if you look at how the church was set up historically. For the first 1500 years after Jesus' death God breathed the Spirit into his the apostles for them to instruct us, and people were saved through baptism. But once those 1500 years roled by he must have decided to change all of a sudden. Umm.. not exactly, considering "God is an unchanging God." I don't know if these answers relate to anything you were saying, tell me if they don't. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rick Posted February 15, 2004 Group: Diamond Member Followers: 0 Topic Count: 5 Topics Per Day: 0.00 Content Count: 265 Content Per Day: 0.03 Reputation: 2 Days Won: 0 Joined: 06/19/2002 Status: Offline Share Posted February 15, 2004 It amazes me how that some can see baptism as a saving experience. No one has ever been saved through baptism. Not one! If baptism alone saved, Then Christ died in vain! His sacrifice would not have been needed. Not one drop of His blood would have needed to have been shed. If the blood of bulls and goats never took away sin, why would anyone think that water baptism would? " Can any man forbid water, that these should not be baptized, which have received the Holy Ghost as well as we? And he commanded them to be baptized in the name of the Lord. Then prayed they him to tarry certain days." Acts 10:47-48. In the above verse its clear that they had received the Holy Ghost and had not yet been baptized. What event led to them receiving the holy Ghost before baptism? The answer lies in verses 43-44 that precedes their receiving the Holy Ghost. " To Him give all the prophets witness, that through His name whosoever believeth in Him shall receive remission of sins. While Peter yet spake these words, the Holy Ghost fell on all of them that heard the word." Thats a very simple thing to understand. And it can be seen in the context of John 3:16. " For God so loved the world, that He gave His only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in Him should not perish, but have eternal life" John 3:16. There was no mention of baptism in John 3:16. But eternal life is mentioned. Baptism is a commandment. But it does not save. Salvation only comes through belief in Jesus Christ. Rick Ohhhh... and Gary, I understand ya just fine Bro! lol Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
justjake Posted February 15, 2004 Group: Members Followers: 0 Topic Count: 3 Topics Per Day: 0.00 Content Count: 69 Content Per Day: 0.01 Reputation: 0 Days Won: 0 Joined: 02/14/2004 Status: Offline Birthday: 09/07/1974 Share Posted February 15, 2004 Everybody, you are missing the point here. The fullness of the Gospel is not just belief, it is not just repentance, it is not just hearing the word preached, it is not just baptism. It is ALL of them combined. Please notice in Acts 22 that Saul (later to be known as the Apostle Paul who wrote 1/3 of the New Testament) believed and had confessed Jesus as Lord three days before he was baptized. And when he was baptized it was not as a mere 'sign' or 'expression' of what had been done already. It was to wash away his sins! (v. 16) Why is it so hard for people to accept baptism as part of the Gospel? Why is it that submitting to the commandments of God is met with such opposition? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
1ptr29citizen Posted February 15, 2004 Group: Junior Member Followers: 0 Topic Count: 4 Topics Per Day: 0.00 Content Count: 94 Content Per Day: 0.01 Reputation: 0 Days Won: 0 Joined: 02/11/2004 Status: Offline Author Share Posted February 15, 2004 No, we wouldn't even have a baptism of salvation if it wasn't for the death of the Son. The Son of God died and was resurrected, we are baptized in water in that for salvation. Baptism isn't making the death of Jesus a thing in vain, it's accepting that you love him and are going to live a new life. Check out 1 Peter 3:21 (I still don't think anyone has) and it will clearly say that we are baptized in water, for salvation, telling us that baptism is not like a bath for dirt, but gives a pledge of a good conscience. IT SAVES US THROUGH the resurrection of Jesus Christ. Baptism is THROUGH the Jesus' resurrection. How is that taking what Jesus did for us in vain? Acts 10 is very confusing, but you have to look at the context. The people recieved a Holy Spirit that came strictly from the apostles for the purpose of miracles. Christianity wasn't widespread back then, so they needed miraculous signs to prove their message was from God. You could ONLY get the Holy Spirit mentioned in Acts 10 (also it fell on the Jews at Pentecost before baptism in Acts 2) through: the laying of hands by the apostles, or if it is poured out on you like in Acts 10. Can you speak in tongues like they could in Acts 10? No because the non-miraculous, but rather guiding, Holy Spirit we have now is NOT the same as the one they recieved so they could prove they were doing what God wanted. As to no mention of baptism in John 3:16, your correct it's not there. But belief isn't there John 3 starting in about verse 3 or so, but rather Jesus talks about a re-birth of water and spirit (baptism). Wouldn't that mean we have to do both? Mark 16:16 would imply so, that we must believe and be baptized. Look at it closely for the straight-forward meaning Jesus ment Mark 16:16 to be. How are we saved according to Mark 16:16? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts