Spirit Baptism Vs. Water Baptism

[Guest sanctification]

What do you read in Heb 11, Stevehut?

[stevehut]

Here is what God said He would do in baptism:

"I will sprinkle clean water on you, and you will be clean;

You're looking in the OT for a doctrine about Christian baptism?

Baptize (Greek baptizdo) means to immerse.

[stevehut]

What do you read in Heb 11, Stevehut?

OK, maybe I was confused there for a minute. This is what I was trying to say:

Faith and works are not mutually exclusive.

In Heb. 11, several people are cited as examples of faith: Abel, Enoch, Noah, Abe, Isaac, Jacob, Joseph, Moses' parents, Moses, the Israelites at the Red Sea, Rahab, etc. In every instance, it says they had faith and tells what they did. Their works became the evidence of their faith.

James 2:14 What good is it, my brothers, if a man claims to have faith but has no deeds? Can such faith save him?... faith by itself, if it is not accompanied by action, is dead.

21Was not our ancestor Abraham considered righteous for what he did when he offered his son Isaac on the altar? 22You see that his faith and his actions were working together, and his faith was made complete by what he did. 23And the scripture was fulfilled that says, "Abraham believed God, and it was credited to him as righteousness," and he was called God's friend. 24You see that a person is justified by what he does and not by faith alone.

In my own study of church history, I have come to the conclusion that many tradition-minded churches (Catholic, Orthodox, etc.) became too ritualistic and placed too much importance on rituals and man-made rules. In protest against this system, many people overreacted to the other extreme by saying that works mean nothing. But truth is rarely found in extremes.

I hope this is clear.

[Guest mcm42]

Faith and works are not mutually exclusive

This is true, but they are separate entities. Faith is one thing, and works is another. Notice James says that the Works were working with the Faith. Well the faith had to be their first.

As you said yourself

In every instance, it says they had faith and tells what they did. Their works became the evidence of their faith.

A person can not have a faith without works, but then a person can not have true works without faith.

The works clearly come AFTER the faith. The reason we break this down is as you said, so that people don't get the idea that works produces the saving faith!

Faith always comes first, and, it is by faith alone that we are saved, the works do not save, but they will be present. So true faith is not without works, but true faith is all that is needed to save, we don't need to do works to get saved.

i.e. if someone has true saving faith and dies before he can do any good works, his faith is enough, he did not have to first produce a work!

So for salvation... Faith alone, know that true faith will produce works, given the oppurtunity to do so!

[Guest there]

Peace and sisterly love to you all

Reading the posts has been very interesting.

I do have a few thoughts to present here:

1 Where in the bible or by what train of thought does it come to the conclusion and show evidence that the thief on the cross was not baptised. Where does this come from as it is one of the most common forms of reason used to not get baptised.

Let alone that the poor guy if he was not baptized was in no possition to change his circumstances but we are> So how does this fit in.

2 In 1 John 5:7-12 "For there are three that testify, the Spirit, the water and the blood and the three are in agreement. We accept man's testimony, but God's testimony is greater because it is the testimony of God which he has given about His Son. Anyone who believes in the Son of God has this testimony in his heart .... Please continue to read it for youselves.

Please read chapter 5 from verse 1 it also states obedience We are to follow Christ so really i can't see the problem.

:hug:

Paul also baptised not many but he did do it in 1 Corinthians 1:13-16 if he was teaching (as some have said to me not here but elsewhere) that baptism is like the law of circumsion no longer necessary why then did he also baptize? In Acts 9:18 He got baptized it was the first he did when his blindness was healed hmmmm

The apostles baptized and we see in John 4:1-3 Jesus although He did not baptize was there when His disciples were baptizing. Wouldn't He have stopped it or said something if it would no longer be needed? Mathew 28 the Great commission verse 19. John 4:1-3 and Mathew 28:19 we See the Lord Jesus Christ personally associated with water baptism. Is there anywhere that He said baptism is no longer a part of it.?

The Lord Yeshua bless and keep you all in His Word

YSIC

Hellen

[Guest sanctification]

<< Baptize (Greek baptizdo) means to immerse. >>

Actually, it means "to dip (in)."

There are five variations of the word "baptize" used in the NT as far as I have studied. One means "Baptist (a noun)" another means "to dip in (a verb)" another means "ceremony (a noun)" another means "a destructive wash (a verb)" and the last means "baptism (the noun)."

Of all of the hundred or so instances of variations of the word "baptize," the variation meaning "to dip (in)" is used not more than a single time in all of the NT. Not used in any of the passages that describe the baptism God commands Christians to take part in. Every time it does mention the command (verb) version of "baptize" it uses the variation described as "a destructive wash."

To dip in is something hard-pressed to be describing something happening internally. However A destructive wash does not imply either the exterior or interior of a man. I believe that the destructive washing happening during baptism is referring not to the washing of the exterior of a man, but the washing away of sin.

According to "A concise dictionary of the greek" by john R Kohenberger, III and James Swanson.

"'Did you receive the Holy Spirit when you believed?'

They answered, 'No, we have not even heard that there is a Holy Spirit.'

So Paul asked, 'Then what baptism did you receive?'" acts 19:2-3

What Paul is asking literally is "what destructive washing did you receive?"

The footnote in my bible references this passage with 966: destructive washing; not 967 "to dip (in)."

I want to make another point. In order for us to be saved through physical water baptism, someone must believe that this is the moment we come into contact with the blood of Jesus, because without receiving the covering of His blood, there is no forgiveness of sins.

I want to give you an account of what I have studied. At any time in the bible, wherever the blood of Jesus is mentioned, water is not mentioned. Wherever water is mentioned, the blood is not mentioned. Nowhere does it say that the blood of Jesus comes to us through the waters of baptism, especially physical baptism.

Why is baptism commanded and performed upon belief so often in Acts? Because Jesus said "if you deny me on earth I will deny you before my Father in heaven" and visa versa. There was definitely an "us versus them" political and social thing going on in the first century in regard to becoming a Christian. It means a lot to the Lord to have him glorified among men for them to see a man be willing to step into the act of water baptism and say in effect: "I am with these guys."

[Guest sanctification]

Here is another reason why baptism in water is impossible to be necessary for salvation:

"Christ is the end of the law so that there may be righteousness for everyone who believes." rom 10:4

Were we commanded to be baptized? Yes!

So to be baptized is a law.

Just in case you aren't convinced, let me reassure you that it is a sin not to get baptized:

James 4:17 "Anyone, then, who knows the good he ought to do and does not do it, sins."

Rom 3:20 "rather it is through the law that we become conscious of sin."

Rom 7:7 "Indeed I would not have known what sin was, except through the law."

Rom 10:4 makes it clear: those who believe are not required to carry out any more laws for the sake of gaining righteousness!

Now why are they granted righteousness? Because they have been credited the righteousness Jesus earned at the cross; they have had their sins wiped clean; they have received the gift of the holy spirit.

[Guest sanctification]

I don't understand why the Lord Jesus' words are not the authority in this matter?

"'Whoever believes in me, as the Scripture has said, streams of living water will flow from within him.' By this he meant the Spirit, whom those who believed in him were later to receive." john 7:38-39

Anyone who says that the Spirit of God cannot come through faith alone makes Jesus a liar. He said it: whoever believes WILL have water flowing from within him. There are two things God is famous for saying about himself:

I AM

I WILL

The Spirit of God cannot dwell where sin is. So we receive the atonement of our sins through faith alone.

[Guest sanctification]

Stevehut,

Yes, I looked at the OT for a doctrine about Christian baptism. God's promises are irrespective of time, and in the case of where I was quoting the Lord was prophecying the New Covenant.

You said:

<< Faith and works are not mutually exclusive. >>

Works absolutely must flow from a person who has a faith that is saving.

But it is absolutely necessary that you do not try and obtain salvation by any other means than faith that is alone.

It does not matter that Heb 11 lists all of the accomplishments that OT peoples had in what they had DONE for the Lord. It still is not a doctrine of salvation. It does not say that the Spirit of God comes through works of any kind, or deeds in the flesh, added in and mixed with a faith in the Lord.

In my own study of church history, I have come to the conclusion that many tradition-minded churches (Catholic, Orthodox, etc.) became too ritualistic and placed too much importance on rituals and man-made rules. In protest against this system, many people overreacted to the other extreme by saying that works mean nothing. But truth is rarely found in extremes.

Can you give me some details of how you think this applies to the doctrine of baptism? What happened and who is mistaken or mis-informed?

Works are designed for reward. God bestows crowns of accomplishment for those who have first acknowledged their inability to achieve any good.

[stevehut]

Can you give me some details of how you think this applies to the doctrine of baptism?  What happened and who is mistaken or mis-informed?

Yes, check out a Catholic Catechism, a Celtic Missal, or an Anglican Prayer Book. (Just a few examples of many). Based upon this type of ritualism, and (perhaps borderline) idolatry of rituals and physical objects, it's easy to see why people would in time begin to reject it.

But during and after the Reformation, many people began to throw out the baby with the bathwater, and they over-reacted, discarding much of what was good.