SermonIndex Audio Sermons
Promoting Genuine Biblical Revival.
Looking for free sermon messages?
Sermon Podcast | Audio | Video

Discussion Forum : Scriptures and Doctrine : What place does baptism have in Biblical salvation?

Print Thread (PDF)

Goto page ( Previous Page 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 | 18 | 19 | 20 | 21 | 22 | 23 Next Page )
PosterThread









 Re:

MARY SAID:

"because this thread is about water baptism."


STEVER'S RESPONSE:

That is what I thought when I first looked at this thread as well, but the title is : "What place does baptism have in Biblical Salvation".

The more I thought about it, the more I thought that there should be clarification about the two (2) baptisms mentioned in the New Testament.

That clarification is what my posts have focused on.

God bless,

Stever

 2005/6/18 0:43
philologos
Member



Joined: 2003/7/18
Posts: 6566
Reading, UK

 Re:

Quote:
Just how many Spirits does God have?? Check out this Scripture:

"God is a Spirit: and they that worship him must worship him in spirit and in truth." [John 4:24]

Notice the indefinite article "a." God is a (singular) Spirit. How many Spirits?



Additional to my original response...
The phrase should really be 'God is Spirit' there is no definite article but this, unlike in English, does not mean that we should always supply an 'in-definite article. This phrase of John's is one of a fascinating trio of revelation..

1John 1:5 This then is the message which we have heard of him, and declare unto you, that [u]God is light[/u], and in him is no darkness at all.

1John 4:16 And we have known and believed the love that God hath to us. [u]God is love[/u]; and he that dwelleth in love dwelleth in God, and God in him.

these are revelations of the 'character' of God not of His 'essential' constitution.


_________________
Ron Bailey

 2005/6/18 3:16Profile









 Re:

Quote:
I certainly do not believe that speaking in tongues is the proof of being born again. However, I can see that consistently it is the sign accompanying the New Testament Baptism in the Holy Spirit.



Do you mean, not everyone who is baptised in the Spirit speaks in tongues? I agree.

The other way to read it is, maybe some people speak in tongues, but, it is not because they are born again.

I hope you did not have this in your mind at all. Could you say what you mean more clearly, please?

Quote:
Stever said:
Some say that the Baptism in the Holy Spirit no longer exists today. Others take another approach and say that EVERY born again Christian was baptised in the Spirit at his conversion. Both kinds of teaching have the effect of robbing believers of something very important that Christ provided for them as part of their necessary inheritance in this life...



[i]Much[/i] earlier in this thread, Lyndon drew attention to Matthew 20:22, and Mark 10:38,39 in which Jesus refers to the baptism of His death. Is there not a connection between one's desire to receive the baptism in the Holy Spirit, and one's [i][b]readiness[/b][/i] to take up the cross and follow Him? We may not process it in those terms, but, at a spiritual level, this is what is going on. When one [i][b]seeks[/b][/i] to be purer, more 'use-able', more trusted by God in His ministry, one is also, by default giving Him permission to challenge the life of the (our) flesh right down to the last.

If one is saying the baptism in the Spirit is necessary for the exercise of the gifts of the Spirit, whereas new birth brings the life of God within, in the sense of enabling us to become partakers of the Divine Nature (2 Peter 1:4) and giving victory over sin, then the concept of 'the anointing' - the giving of authority, not just power - is also associated with accepting the [i]meaning[/i] of Christ's death into one's own life; not just for the purpose of me knowing I am saved through faith, but for the purpose of [i]His knowing[/i] I am laying down my life to follow Him.

Unless we are identified with His sacrifice, can we be identified with His priesthood?

 2005/6/18 14:41
RobertW
Member



Joined: 2004/2/12
Posts: 4636
Independence, Missouri

 Re:

Hi RT,

Quote:
The Bible is the anvil that has worn out many a hammer, NOT SECEOND CENTURY WRITINGS!



So you're familiar with that quote. I know the original, but in this case I believe that we do well to use caution when it come to fundamental truths even if the terms are not in scripture 'per-se'. This is true with many concepts and doctrines. Although I will say, that I also wish we could utilize biblical terms. It is defining those terms that creates so much controversy.

God BLess,

-Robert


_________________
Robert Wurtz II

 2005/6/18 17:07Profile
RobertW
Member



Joined: 2004/2/12
Posts: 4636
Independence, Missouri

 Re:

Quote:
I have done NOTHING to deny the deity of Christ here. I confess the Jesus is God most readily. Go back and read my post. I am contending for Biblical terminology and doctrine. The mystery is the incarnation, not a concept of trinity. You cannot start with something the Scripture never directs us to. The new revelation of the NT is Christ. It is Jesus who declares the Father. (Jn. 1:18 KJV)

"But to us there is but one God, the Father, of whom are all things, and we in him; and one Lord Jesus Christ, by whom are all things, and we by him." [1 Corinthians 8:6]

Start in a place like this, not with Tertullian. Just a helpful suggestion.



I agree with you and I have done this. That is why I spent those years studying Jewish Roots with the Messianics. The thing that we neglect in my estimation is Christ as [i]Messiah[/i]. We use the name 'Christ' and often forget the full force of what is being said in that name.

How about here:

[i]One God and Father of all, who is above all, and through all, and in you all. [/i] (Ephesians 4:6)

I understand full well where you are coming from and what you are saying. But I can say with great certainty that the whole of Scripture utterly teaches the Trinity as a fact of scripture whether the term is used or not. I have an apologetic on this that is quite formidable and will share it in its fulness if it comes down to it. I just don't have it in a file that I can cut and paste and I don't type that well :-(

Quote:
I have done NOTHING to deny the deity of Christ here. I confess the Jesus is God most readily.



I was pretty sure you did believe in the deity of Christ. When I read the post it appeared that you were prepared to discuss even who Christ is and how we should relate to Him. He is Emmanuel. He is God with us. Before Abraham was I AM. His name shall be called MIGHTY GOD, etc.

God Bless,

-Robert


_________________
Robert Wurtz II

 2005/6/18 17:22Profile
RobertW
Member



Joined: 2004/2/12
Posts: 4636
Independence, Missouri

 Re:

Quote:
Only because it was outside of your religious box. I was on firm Scriptural ground. Do you believe your creeds and church doctrinal statement above Scripture? No word "trinity" or attempt to teach "trinity" in Scripture. No apple illustrations in the Bible



I wish you would clarify this for me. The last time I read a post a face value I misread it. It appears that you said that the Bible does not teach the Trinity? I will not jump to conclusions here, but would enjoy a fuller understanding of just what you are saying.

[i]Only because it was outside of your religious box. I was on firm Scriptural ground. Do you believe your creeds and church doctrinal statement above Scripture?[/i]

I have met some hard core [i]iconoclasts[/i] this year. Wrecking ball to the church buildings, wrecking ball to the institutions, and now it appears I am standing betwixt another wrecking ball and the basic fundamentals of the Christian Faith. Not that I would much slow the speed of such a blast. I just have to wonder why the very foundations of everything we have come to know and believe is under the gun?

Quote:
Amen. It's called the Bible. And it is definitely NOT up for grabs.



A wise man once asked me "who I thought I was" to be able to take on certain men and their teachings? Many of those men I took on had forgotten more about the Bible than I knew. Since that time I have learned not to shoot first and ask questions later.


Quote:
As to the JW's. You might want to stick with the Bible and not try your "trinity" terms if you want to win them. They'll point out that the Bible never contends for a "trinity" and they'll be right. Sinner lost.



True. Yet, I'm sure you would agree, that the fact that the term is not there does not negate the reality of the triunity of God.

God Bless,

-Robert


_________________
Robert Wurtz II

 2005/6/18 17:36Profile
RobertW
Member



Joined: 2004/2/12
Posts: 4636
Independence, Missouri

 Re:

RT,

Quote:
This would be easy if we all stuck to confessing Scripture as you have gone on to do. We'd all have a consensus.

This would be easy if we all stuck to confessing Scripture as you have gone on to do. We'd all have a consensus.

I have a problem with us trying to go way beyond Scripture and get all tangled up trying to explain some things for which the Bible gives limited explanation for. We must be silent where Scripture is silent. We must be content with the revelation we now possess, longing for the day in which we will no longer know in part.



I agree whole heartedly with you here. In a perfect world where everyone will play by this rule we would be OK. But we do not live in a perfect world and people are always coming up with something that requires a biblical rebuttal and possibly a 'term' to define the specific biblical counsel with which to identify the truth. We may have to use a 'term' that is not found in the Bible.

Consider this short list:

1) Infallibility
2) Omnipresent
3) Omniscience
4) Omnipotence



Quote:
Yes interpretation is important, but it would sure be a WHOLE LOT EASIER if we wouldn't try to add new concepts and new terms. This only brings division, as men are bound do disagree with one another about so-called "essentials" that have their origin in the mind of man.



I do not agree that the essentials have their origin in the minds of men. RT, you valiantly defend the infallibility of scripture, right? What if an atheist asked you to show him where the Bible teaches that itself is infallible or uses that term? We believe that scripture is infallible in its original tongues; yet does that belief have its origin in the minds of men? Of course not. Man may have named the truth with his own term, but that is no different than if I were the person that named the Mountains in the Western United States "The Rockies". Did the Rocky mountains originate in the 'namers' mind or did they merely [i]discover[/i] the mountains and their 'rockiness' and call them as they saw it? Man saw the Trinity in scripture and called it Trinity- not because it originated in their mind- but because they described what they were seeing.

Quote:
How much more authority is there when we can boldly teach and interpret the very words of God??

Please don't go and say that I am saying that our interpretation of the Bible isn't important. It is essential. But adding non-Biblical terms and ascribing to them Biblical authority is not wise and WILL bring confusion.



If any other names had been ascribed to the truths we are discussing we had held to them instead. It has nothing to do with the 'term' but what the term means and represents. Names are very important. We gather a lot from a name and we gather a lot from 'terms'. It is how we communicate. For 1850 years these terms have been forged and used. Who would we think we were to think that 1850 years of God's ministers had it wrong? That list is so long I would weary to begin to start. It is to assume that our interpretation of scripture might just reveal something different than it has for 1850 years. I am sorry, I simply do not have the fortitude to challenge a Truth that has been so thoroughly established within the Body of Christ. Study it? Yes. Verify it? Yes. Undermine it? Never.

God Bless,

-Robert



_________________
Robert Wurtz II

 2005/6/18 17:52Profile
Servus
Member



Joined: 2005/6/18
Posts: 17


 concerning baptism

Okay we were challanged to get into our Bibles and do some research on the subject. I am not a Bible scholar or anything like that, but I do love to study the word of the Lord so please bear with me. I have found some verses that I feel deserve mentioning in regards to this subject. The first one I want to point out would be Ephesians 4:5 which says that there is "One Lord, one faith, one baptism" So there cannot be two baptisms that we are baptized into. It is only one baptism that brings about salvation. So if our salvation is based upon the water baptism, then it seems to me that would mean we don't get baptized by the Holy Spirit and vice-versa. "One baptism" not two. Matthew 3:11, Mark 1:8, Luke 3:16, and John 1:33 all say essentially the same thing, but in order to keep this from being too long, I will quote from Mark 1:8 which says "I indeed have baptized you with water: but he shall baptize you with the Holy Ghost." This is clearly shows two different baptisms, that of water, and that of the Holy Spirit. Only one of these baptisms are important to our salvation or the verse would have read "One God, one faith, two baptisms". Again, Jesus Christ Himself also made the distinction in Acts 1:5 where he said "For John truly baptized with water; but ye shall be baptized with the Holy Ghost not many days hence." The next passage I wish to share with you is 1Peter 3:20,21 "Which sometime were disobedient, when once the longsuffering of God waited in the days of Noah, while the ark was a preparing, wherein few, that is, eight souls were saved by water.
21 The like figure whereunto even baptism doth also now save us (not the putting away of the filth of the flesh, but the answer of a good conscience toward God,) by the resurrection of Jesus Christ" This verse says that it is not our washing of the flesh that saves us, but our conscience toward God. The washing of the flesh is merely superficial. What God wants is the cleansing of the inside, otherwise we become nothing more than a "whited sepulchre" beautiful on the outside, and full of uncleanness on the inside.


With all that being said, I do believe that water baptism does have it's place. Water baptism is a public confirmation of our faith. It is a way of getting out and publically declaring "Jesus Christ is my Lord and Saviour" like it says in Matthew 10:32 "Whosoever therefore shall confess me before men, him will I confess also before my Father which is in heaven." Which shows that the "confess with thy mouth the Lord Jesus" which we find in Romans 10:9 is more than just a private "Jesus be my Lord" deal, but an open public confessing of Jesus Christ as your Lord and Saviour. Acts chapter 10 is an important chapter to read concerning this subject, for the people had already received the Holy Spirit before they were baptized with water. Verse 47 says "Can any man forbid water, that these should not be baptized, which have received the Holy Ghost as well as we?" It seems at this point that the baptism would be nothing more than a confirmation of their faith, seeing as they had already been "sealed with that Holy Spirit of promise". I believe that we should all be water baptized if for no other reason than that. Unless a person is allergic to water there is no good reason not to.
Resisting being baptized, to me seems like resisting God. If a person's reason for not getting baptized is merely because "I don't have to be baptized in water in order to be saved" then that is nothing more than rebellion and that person should really examine themselves and see if what they're doing is of God. It's rejecting an opportunity to get out and make known your faith in Jesus Christ who has bought and redeemed you with His precious blood, just because one may wish to make a statement to those who believe that you must be water baptized.



I admit that I do not know a lot about the Bible, and if I have made any mistakes I am always open to correction because I don't really care if I'm right or wrong. What matters is knowing the truth of God's word, and I am willing to accept correction if I am shown to be wrong. Your comments are very much welcomed. Thank you for your time.


_________________
Shaun

 2005/6/18 20:19Profile
marc
Member



Joined: 2005/2/26
Posts: 4
Nashville And Buffalo

 Re:

i only have a second.... but.... if we believe baptism is where our salvation is, then we must not believe Jesus when He said to the man next to Him on the cross "today you will be with me in paradise" (i dont have my bible in front of me... not exact quote)
what do you think ?


_________________
Marc

 2005/6/18 20:39Profile
InTheLight
Member



Joined: 2003/7/31
Posts: 2722
Phoenix, Arizona USA

 Re:

I think most here would agree that water baptism as an ceremony effects nothing. But baptism is something that declares a fact which already exists. What's interesting is that every sinner in the world has been baptized, not in water, but in the death of Jesus Christ, where the whole world was given a chance at right relationship with God. The whole world was redeemed by Christ, but each one must accept their redemption or they haven't taken the position that Jesus won for them. Therefore, our baptism is the testimony that we have moved to that position of a new relationship in Christ, that we are new creations, that we are "accpeted in the beloved", praise God!

I know I really need to remember this meaning of our baptism on a daily basis. It is much more than just a declaration of faith, it is a testimony that we are dead to ourselves and alive unto God!

In Christ,

Ron


_________________
Ron Halverson

 2005/6/18 21:20Profile





©2002-2019 SermonIndex.net
Promoting Genuine Biblical Revival.
Privacy Policy