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:

RT, you picked up on my phrase 'believing into the spirit of John's baptism'. I used this because of being practical with the information available.

Quote:
Acts 19:1b Paul having passed through the upper coasts came to Ephesus: and finding certain disciples, 2 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. 3 And he said unto them, Unto what then were ye baptized? And they said, Unto John's baptism. 4 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. 5 When they heard [this], they were baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus. 6 And when Paul had laid [his] hands upon them, the Holy Ghost came on them; and they spake with tongues, and prophesied.



The writer of the article we read before answering this thread, assumed that the men at Ephesus were all Jews who had been to Jordan for baptism. Please could anyone confirm this as fact, from any other scripture or study you have done?

That's why I used the phrase 'believing into the spirit of John's baptism'. We know that John had disciples, because Andrew and John left following him to follow Jesus in John 1. We know that John the Baptist was baptising in Jordan. Do we know where Jesus disciples were baptising? (John 4:1) Presumably they were also baptising for the remission of sins, as a sign of repentance.

Therefore, my premise is that either all the men now at Ephesus had been to Jordan, or, they had been baptised nearer Ephesus by one of John's disciples. Do we know? [b]For sure, they had not been baptised unto Jesus's Name, as those in John 4:1 were being before the crucifixion[/b].

The clear meaning of John's baptism was 'the remission of sins'. Peter uses this phrase too. He is speaking to a Jewish gathering who were familiar with the concept.

roadsign noted
Quote:
Here is a quote from the Revell Bible Dictionary:
"Like many ancient peoples, Jewish people practiced ceremonial washings. Non-Jews who were converted to Judaism would immerse themselves in water (a once-for-all ceremonial washing), probably under the supervision of a religious expert. …Repenting or turning from a wrong way of living to a right way of living …when a non-Jew decided to obey the teachings of Israel's God.


interpreting it
Quote:
In those days, the only ones who were required to be baptized where the pagans who converted to Judaism. When John the Baptist told the Jews that they needed to repent and be baptized, he was essentially treating them as pagans. He was challenging their entire view of salvation. That would have been very offensive to them.


I would suggest instead, that John the Baptist was refining the Jewish understanding of God's heart. Sin was no longer something that need wait a year to be ceremonially cleansed; here was a way it could simply and individually be washed away. Incidentally, they would know that priests had to be washed before performing their offices to God. This also informs them about an aspect of their relationship with God which may be changing.

John the Baptist was being recognised as a prophet with a new word from God by the people of his generation. It had been a LONG time since the prophet before him. People were responsive. Also, they recognised and understood the picture language of 'washing'. They were being encouraged to take action to rid themselves of their own sin, without the help of a priest. This was new. No wonder the religious leaders were unhappy, even though their role was not being directly challenged.

Worse, John the Baptist was spreading word about One [i]mightier[/i] than him who would follow. WOW! I'd be interested!

So, when Peter said the famous words
Quote:
Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins, and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost.


in true Peter fashion, he was offering the linear route with which he had been acquainted, which only an hour or two before, had been crowned with the Baptism of the Holy Spirit.

He was still struggling with this new thing that had happened to him when he had the vision at Joppa in Acts 10, and then the Holy Spirit fell on the entire household of Cornelius, giving him yet more food for thought. As Cornelius was a Gentile, in the light of the extract from Revell's dictionary, it would not have crossed Peter's mind [i]not[/i] to baptise them. He was still very Jewish in outlook.

God was not rushing him. Slowly, he was receiving a greater and greater revelation of God's heart. It was not until the discussion about circumcision, that the line was drawn at what a Gentile needed to accommodate of Jewish pre-Pentecostal behaviour, to be deemed to have complied adequately with the requirements of salvation.

It took Paul's gifts and knowledge of scripture, to link up the concepts with the practice but at no time does there appear any good reason to stop baptising in water, the people who have believed unto salvation and received the Holy Spirit. Jesus commanded baptism for believers too (Mark 16:16).

Lastly, as Lahry mentioned
Quote:
Too many people read the new testament, in my humble opinion, and everywhere it mentions "baptize" or "baptism", they think in their minds "immersed in water".


I'd like to add that the 'water of purification' in Numbers 19 was sprinkled on the person with a branch hyssop, (even though they had also had to wash themselves in water. Surely, this gives us liberty to [i]sprinkle[/i] the water of baptism on [b]believers[/b], where water is scarce, as its ceremonial significance is what counts?

So, in Peter's lifetime, there had been baptism to John, he himself had (probably) baptised disciples to Jesus, now that the Holy Spirit had come to empower the lives of those who had [i]already[/i] repented, there was and is no reason [i]not[/i] baptise those who have cut straight to the quick of baptism in the Holy Spirit, who have, while hearing the word preached, become [i]suddenly[/i] repentant and believing.

 2005/5/4 11:39
ReceivedText
Member



Joined: 2005/4/22
Posts: 257
Seattle, Washington, USA

 Re: dorcas

dorcas,

As to Acts 19, it is clear that John's baptism was to prepare the way of the Lord, but it wasn't the full way of the Lord. When Jesus came, he baptized through his disciples (Jn. 4). This was baptism of repentance and faith in Himself. But apparently these men weren't baptized into Christ Himself as the apostles were. They were still looking for the one coming after John, whomever he may be.

As to your question of whether these men were Jews, I think at best we can only speculate. You may want to e-mail Tim Warner and ask him why he said that.

Quote:
He was still struggling with this new thing that had happened to him when he had the vision at Joppa in Acts 10, and then the Holy Spirit fell on the entire household of Cornelius, giving him yet more food for thought. As Cornelius was a Gentile, in the light of the extract from Revell's dictionary, it would not have crossed Peter's mind not to baptise them. He was still very Jewish in outlook.

God was not rushing him. Slowly, he was receiving a greater and greater revelation of God's heart.



This is very dangerous thinking. It is a very great assumption to say that Jesus did not effectively communicate the way of salvation to His apostles during the forty days after His crucifixion and before His ascension into Heaven. This assumption flies in the face of clear Scriptural teaching of the apostles, and apostolic early church (the churches the apostles planted). There is no progressive revelation. We are told to earnestly contend for the faith that was once and for all delivered to the saints by Christ and the twelve apostles (Paul included).

Peter said that baptism saved us (1 Pet. 3:21). Paul said it was our circumcision made without hands (Col. 2:11,12). He further said that it was how we were dead, buried, and raised with Christ. (Rom 6)

Col. 2:11,12 "In whom also ye are circumcised with the circumcision made without hands, in putting off the body of the sins of the flesh by the circumcision of Christ: Buried with him in baptism, wherein also ye are risen with him through the faith of the operation of God, who hath raised him from the dead."

Baptism is the circumcision of Christ, our sign of receiving the covenant. The Bible says that during baptism in water "the operation of God" takes effect when we trust it to happen.

Something has been bothering me lately. I don't think there are any Gnostics here. But it seems that an element of Gnostic belief has crept into the church. I'm talking about a belief that the physical is inherently evil or unnecessary and only the spiritual is needed. The more I study this, I realize that the idea of salvation without baptism in water is a NEW doctrine. And since the apostles had a COMPLETE gospel that was to be preserved NOT added to, whatever is new is not true. And whatever is not true is new. This logic was used against the early heretics of the church. It was obvious that if something was not taught by the apostles who had been personally taught by the Lord in the flesh, then it could not have any bearing on the church of Christ.

The Bible says "repent and be baptized...for the remission of your sins." Baptism is not something anyone can go do. It is the work of God. So there is no way to obey this command if it means only spirit. But if it means water (which the context demands that it is), then a person can "do" it. They can have a part in obeying it tangibly. They could "obey" this command. When they acted on their faith, the Lord worked a miracle "in" the water because of obedience, not because the water was magic. This is what the early church taught and believed. The more I hear the arguments here against this, the more I see that the "baptism in water as unnecessary" position is indefensible. (So far)

I think we should take the Bible at face value and believe it and read it like a child would. If a child reads "repent and be baptized...for the remission of your sins", they are going to ask you to baptize them for the remission of their sins as an act declaring their repentance toward God and faith toward our Lord Jesus Christ.

To say otherwise is to espouse a "progressive revelation" view of scripture instead of a "complete revelation" view, and that is unacceptable. (for me)

This is a new position for me. Still ironing out kinks and such. But I am always willing to bow to the truth.

OK, your turn.

RT

 2005/5/4 20:00Profile
CJaKfOrEsT
Member



Joined: 2004/3/31
Posts: 901
Melbourne, Australia

 Re: Manner vs Meaning

A great failing in the Body of Christ has been to discern the meaning of Water Baptism. So far it seems that we have discussed what it isn't, more than what it is. Baptism is the funeral of the old man. Whether by burial (immersion), or cremation (sprinkling), the baptism is the sign post that we look toward, to remember that we're dead. Not just that, but the point at which we "raised into newness of life". There is symbolism, and reality all rolled into one.

For some interesting thoughts on Baptism, check out[url="http://www.sermonindex.net/modules/mydownloads/visit.php?lid=4775"]Christliche Busse um Israel (I think it's translated "True and False German Repentance Toward the Jews")[/url] by Art Katz.


_________________
Aaron Ireland

 2005/5/4 20:26Profile
CJaKfOrEsT
Member



Joined: 2004/3/31
Posts: 901
Melbourne, Australia

 Re:

Quote:

ReceivedText wrote:
dorcas,

As to Acts 19, it is clear that John's baptism was to prepare the way of the Lord, but it wasn't the full way of the Lord. When Jesus came, he baptized through his disciples (Jn. 4). This was baptism of repentance and faith in Himself. But apparently these men weren't baptized into Christ Himself as the apostles were. They were still looking for the one coming after John, whomever he may be.



This reminds me of something the J Edwin Orr said, "Repent and Believe somes like two commands. It's kind of like saying 'I'm going to leave New York, on an aeroplane, and go to London.' That may sound like two things, but let me assure you that you can't go to London, without leaving New York first." (paraphrase) Same would be true to say, that it is possible to leave New York, but not go to London. Obviously, these men didn't place their trust in Jesus for their righteousness (Baptised into the Lord Jesus Christ) after repenting (realising and turning from) of their sin (Baptism of John).

(I know it's the same thing. Just in laymans terms.) :-)


_________________
Aaron Ireland

 2005/5/4 20:33Profile
lyndon
Member



Joined: 2003/12/8
Posts: 65
Manitoba, Canada

 Re:

RT

This may not be speaking of water baptism but it may shine a different light on our understanding of the word baptism.

Quote:
But Jesus answered and said, Ye know not what ye ask. Are ye able to drink of the cup that I shall drink of, and to be baptized with the baptism that I am baptized with? They say unto him, We are able. matt 20:21



What baptism is Jesus talking about?

Quote:
But I have a baptism to be baptized with; and how am I straitened till it be accomplished!

Luke 12:50

What baptism? He's been baptized in water, he's been baptised with the holy ghost, what is he talking about?

To my understanding, baptism is a immersion into something, like a cucumber into brine changes the cucumber into a pickle; so is baptism into christ. However, by this do we mean to say that by the pouring of water, or by the immersing into water that we become like christ, that the nature and life of christ becomes a part of us.

Who among us has had this experience? That when we were baptized, whatever the mode, the nature of christ became a part of us?

Lyndon

 2005/5/4 23:11Profile









 Re: RT (Re dorcas)

Hi RT,

I sensed your alarm at the phraseology I used to describe what Peter was going though after he had received the Holy Spirit at Pentecost.

What I was trying to draw to your attention about Peter's experience at Joppa and in Cornelius's house, was the fact of a timeline. When Jesus was preaching repentance and that the kingdom was near, He had to be persuaded by the Syro-Phoenecian woman, to heal someone who was not Jewish. Jesus said many times that He had been sent to Israel only.

Yes, He had explained the scriptures to the disciples before Pentecost and they had a much better idea of what they had lived through, but until they had received the Holy Spirit, we know from our own experience they could not have 'seen' as they would, [i]after[/i] Pentecost.

If Peter was clear about the inclusion of the Gentiles into the Shepherd's one fold, why would God have given him the vision at Joppa [i]three times[/i]? This is reminiscent of his denial and Jesus asking him if he loved Him. Peter was set in his ways and the Lord knew how to communicate with him and sometimes we are just as slow!

Isn't this also why Jesus said [b]John 16:12[/b]
I have yet many things to say unto you, but ye cannot bear them now. 13 Howbeit when he, the Spirit of truth, is come, he will guide you into all truth: for he shall not speak of himself; but whatsoever he shall hear, [that] shall he speak: and he will shew you things to come. 14 He shall glorify me: for he shall receive of mine, and shall shew [it] unto you.

This, I believe, is what had been happening to Peter. I believe it also happens to us. I've always thought of it as 'progressive revelation' but, maybe that term means something different in theological jargon. Could you please explain whether it is the same as you meant when you said,

Quote:
There is no progressive revelation.


if you mean something different by this? Thanks.

On the timing of a baptism, perhaps the systematisation of believers into groups who have to go through classes and wait in line to be baptised, is supremely unscriptural. :-(

I had never thought before about this but now, I realise that the disciples had been baptised [i]before[/i] they had received the Holy Spirit. This suggests the act of going through John's (or Jesus's) baptism for the remission of sins, did put down a marker in the spiritual life of the believer (to that baptism) which did not require to be repeated in God's sight, because a change of attitude had occurred, despite their being without the Holy Spirit.

Yet, Lyndon's verses are very relevant. Do they add to the meaning, timing and purpose of water baptism, in the church today, I wonder?

 2005/5/5 9:59
Josiah
Member



Joined: 2005/5/6
Posts: 1


 Re: What place does baptism have in Biblical salvation?

well... my opinion on this subject is that "water" baptism is NOT esential. i mean look at the theif that hung next to Christ. Jesus said to him you will be with me in heaven. now... unless your a mormon and believe in baptism of the dead, which is rediculous then... there you go... just my thoughts

 2005/5/6 16:27Profile
ReceivedText
Member



Joined: 2005/4/22
Posts: 257
Seattle, Washington, USA

 Re:

Quote:
Isn't this also why Jesus said John 16:12
I have yet many things to say unto you, but ye cannot bear them now. 13 Howbeit when he, the Spirit of truth, is come, he will guide you into all truth: for he shall not speak of himself; but whatsoever he shall hear, [that] shall he speak: and he will shew you things to come. 14 He shall glorify me: for he shall receive of mine, and shall shew [it] unto you.

This, I believe, is what had been happening to Peter. I believe it also happens to us. I've always thought of it as 'progressive revelation' but, maybe that term means something different in theological jargon. Could you please explain whether it is the same as you meant when you said,

"There is no progressive revelation."



OK, let me re-word this to be extremely clear. There is no progressive revelation TODAY. God has communicated to us using an undeniable progression through different periods of time, based on His covenant with us. Each new covenant brings not only new laws, but a new understanding of God that builds on the last.

Here's the difficulty of using John 16:12 to annul Peter's sermon at Pentecost and his command for all to "repent and be baptized...for the remission of sins." Peter preached under the power of the Holy Ghost. If there was ever a sermon that was preached under the power of God's precious Spirit, that was it! If that message was not accurate, then we cannot trust ANY message to be accurate.

To say that Peter's personal hypocrisy in Gal. 2 or his vision of the sheets prior to preaching to Cornelius was NEW revelation is not an honest assessment to even a child reading the Scriptures.

We know that Jesus told His disciples in Mark 16:15 to go into "all the world" and to preach the gospel to "every creature." This necessarily included Gentiles. Just because the Spirit was being kind to Peter by re-affirming this command so he wouldn't mess up (He is able to keep us from falling), doesn't mean it was NEW to Peter.

To say that the first New Testament sermon preached by an apostle is not accurate, not for today, not necessary is a very serious charge that needs to be re-considered.

I have been indoctrinated myself in what "baptism is not." So I know where everyone is coming from. But please follow me here:

We have scriptures that say that faith is necessary for salvation, but say nothing about REPENTANCE being necessary for salvation (i.e. Jn. 3:16, 5:24 etc.). Yet we know that repentance is necessary for salvation because Jesus said it was (Luke 13:3,5 etc.). The truth is that there is an implied understanding of the proper response of OBEDIENCE to the gospel message. I have seen recently that we cannot continue discounting clear Scriptures (Acts 2:38; Rom. 6; Col. 2; 1 Pet. 3; etc.) that say that baptism is the proper response of the penitent sinner whereby he puts on Christ spiritually (see Rom 6:1ff).

Saying that just because this is not included in other scriptures opens the door for those who say repentance is not necessary to put their foot in the door. You can't have it both ways.

The theif on the Cross won't work. During Jesus' life the command was to believe on Him as the messiah. The Holy Ghost was not yet given to all flesh. And we know that NOW if any man has not the Spirit of Christ, he is none of His. So we really need to start our NT soteriology (doctrine of salvation) at Pentecost to get the full picture. Yes, what Jesus said is essential. But it was completed, paid for, and availible at Pentecost. From THAT time, the promise of eternal salvation was made availible for all people everywhere:

Acts 2:39 "For the promise is unto you, and to your children, and to all that are afar off, even as many as the LORD our God shall call."

This was the beginning of a new covenant (sealed by the Spirit). Col. 2:11,12:

"In whom also ye are circumcised with the circumcision made without hands, in putting off the body of the sins of the flesh by the circumcision of Christ: Buried with him in baptism, wherein also ye are risen with him through the faith of the operation of God, who hath raised him from the dead."

So the circumcision of Christ takes place when we are buried with Him in baptism. Just as circumcision was the seal of the first covenant, so baptism is the seal of the second covenant. This is what the early apostolic church taught. Anything else is a new doctrine. Again, there are no new doctrines today (progressive revelation).

Will we find out more revelation after Christ comes? Of course. But the apostolic doctrine of Christ and how to receive Him does not change for us here and now. After the judgement all who will have received Christ will have done so and we will enter a new world and time shall be no more. (Looking forward to it)


Blessings,

RT

 2005/5/6 18:59Profile









 Re: Place of baptism in Biblical salvation dorcas re RT

CJaKfOrEsT made three good points. Amen.

Quote:
OK, let me re-word this to be extremely clear. There is no progressive revelation TODAY. God has communicated to us using an undeniable progression through different periods of time, based on His covenant with us. Each new covenant brings not only new laws, but a new understanding of God that builds on the last.

Here's the difficulty of using John 16:12 to annul Peter's sermon at Pentecost and his command for all to "repent and be baptized...for the remission of sins." Peter preached under the power of the Holy Ghost. If there was ever a sermon that was preached under the power of God's precious Spirit, that was it! If that message was not accurate, then we cannot trust ANY message to be accurate.

To say that Peter's personal hypocrisy in Gal. 2 or his vision of the sheets prior to preaching to Cornelius was NEW revelation is not an honest assessment to even a child reading the Scriptures.



Hello again RT :)
I'd like to begin in your second paragraph which I've quoted above, because I can see we are not on the same page and I'm still trying to work out why, since you acknowledge Pentecost - the moment at which the Holy Spirit was given to the first believers. If you don't accept that the Holy Spirit is given to believers today, please could you make this clear for me?

I agree with you that Jesus had mentioned the 'other sheep' while He was alive, but I still think that if Peter had [i][b]understood[/b][/i] what that meant in real life, he would not have been sent the vision of the unclean things in the sheet. Remember, the disciples were always asking Jesus to explain the parables to them? Now, God was able to speak (through the Holy Spirit) to Peter in parables and be sure that Peter would understand. Also, there is no doubt it was the Lord who was speaking to Peter through the vision. The way Peter responds, Jesus could have been standing right beside him, the experience is so 'real'.

In no way was I suggesting that the promise of the Holy Spirit made by JESUS, 'annulled' Peter's sermon in Acts 2. Rather, the Holy Spirit brought to him the gifts of tongues, understanding, preaching and evangelism; later, a word of knowledge (Ananias and Sapphira), visions (Joppa), exhortation, prophecy and probably more.

If you [i][b]do[/b][/i] accept that each believer has to have a personal pentecost, then the operation of the Holy Spirit as described in John 16:12-15 is [b][i]normal[/i][/b] for believers, beginning with the 120 in the upper room, right down till today. As then, it does not affect the steps necessary for a person to be saved. All I mean by 'progressive revelation' is that God, through the Holy Spirit, continues to reveal Himself to me and in me; [i][b]I[/b][/i] ( - not wishing to start a discussion about 'I' right now! -) know more and more [i][b]Him[/b][/i] as I [i][b]work out my salvation with fear and trembling[/b][/i]. I am not suggesting that anything has been added (or taken away from) what it is necessary to believe into, [i]for salvation[/i].

In the light of the experience of John the Baptist and Jesus disciples baptising for the remission of sins at repentance, (in typical Old Covenant picture language - all spread out nice and slow) water baptism has a meaning which is to do with the transaction between God and man, whereby a repentant person receives remission of sins from God. This used to happen [i]before[/i] Jesus had died, risen and sent the Holy Spirit.

Somehow, the death of the Lamb slain before the foundation of the world (Rev 13:8) was effective in that transaction (the remission of sins) - presumably through the operation of the Holy Spirit (for that sole purpose alone), [i][b]prior[/b][/i] to Pentecost. Or, it was a meaningless activity - to both God and man. The other pictures of baptism in water in the Old Testament - the crossing of the Red Sea, the crossing of Jordan, the ceremonial washing of priests and others, to separate from death or sin - also have symbolic meaning for the believer, which could be imputed to water baptism.

Then, Lyndon quoted Jesus speaking of the baptism of His death, into which we must also enter if we are to be born again (by the Holy Spirit) truly speaking of our resurrection from death (of the old nature) to life (spiritually), which is only possible through the baptism of the Holy Spirit (personal pentecost). Now, this is when I believe a person 'puts on Christ' spiritually and continuing revelation kicks in - [u]not to tell us how to get saved, but to tell us how to live in the Spirit[/u] - what to say, what to do and so on, as Jesus had to wait for word from His Father.
Quote:
I have seen recently that we cannot continue discounting clear Scriptures (Acts 2:38; Rom. 6; Col. 2; 1 Pet. 3; etc.) that say that baptism is the proper response of the penitent sinner whereby he puts on Christ spiritually (see Rom 6:1ff).


Nowadays we have people believing and receiving the Holy Spirit before they have been baptised in water. I believe water baptism [i]does[/i] mean something to God and that means we should do it, even if we don't understand its spiritual significance for each believer. It is very difficult, though, to find a scriptural reason, since baptism in the Holy Spirit, to justfiy any suggestion that a person is not 'saved' if they have not been baptised in water.

However, being baptised in water, (as [i]before[/i] Pentecost), puts down a spiritual marker in a person's life. I suspect it would be expressed differently by different believers - willingness to take up their cross, to die daily, to be identified with His Name publicly? As Jordan (Death river) closed behind the Hebrews as they marched into the Promised Land, it helps us sense being on the other side of a great divide, established by this simple act of faith. And, just as the children of Israel had to possess the Promised Land, so do we, through the Spirit, have to live in a new place to 'be' saved.

 2005/5/7 19:18
ReceivedText
Member



Joined: 2005/4/22
Posts: 257
Seattle, Washington, USA

 Re: Salvation and Baptism

OK, as far as needing to receive the Holy Spirit for salvation, I believe this scripture:

"Now if any man have not the Spirit of Christ, he is none of his." - Rom. 8:9b

So the case is closed there. As far as baptism and salvation, from John the Baptist to the Resurrection of Christ was a transition period between covenants. Pentecost was the fullness of the new covenant. Acts 2:38 teaches that BOTH repentance and baptism are FOR the remission of sins. I have argued with that for too long. Just want to stop arguing with Scripture (personally). Rom. 6:1ff teaches that we are dead and buried with Christ in and through baptism. I want to stop arguing with that too (personally). There is nothing to suggest that baptism is only spiritual and needs nothing physical. Scripture, history, and apostolic tradition deny it. For me to say that I know more than the apostles and the churches they planted is pride on my part and I repent of it.

Anyway, our bodies have not yet been resurrected as our spirit was in the circumcision of the New Covenant: Baptism. (See Col. 2,3)

This is more than a "spiritual marker." It is where the "operation of God" takes place. (see Col. 2:12)

You wrote:

Quote:
It is very difficult, though, to find a scriptural reason, since baptism in the Holy Spirit, to justfiy any suggestion that a person is not 'saved' if they have not been baptised in water.



Wow! You sound like I used to. But personally I decided to stop arguing with Scripture:

"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:" - (1Pet. 3:21)

The Bible says that baptism saves us. Not the washing of the water itself, but "answer of a good conscience" whereby a person says, What doth hinder me to be baptized? It is a spiritual act that happens "in" the water, not "by" the water.

BTW, this seems to be where OUR spirit is born again. This could differ from when we receive the indwelling of the Holy Spirit. Still working on that one. But we can't wait to baptize folks.

Every scriptural example was done right away. Why? because it was necessary. Now, maybe I don't like that in my flesh and my understanding. But I am just going to have to deal with it, because I want the Truth more than my own tradition or ideas.

A child reading the scriptures can't get anything else, but "repent and be baptized...for the remission of sins."

This won't be fun telling all my friends and loved ones in the flesh, but a joy in the Spirit because I am NOT ashamed of Jesus or His words. (see Mk. 8:38 & Lk. 9:26)

Blessings,

RT

 2005/5/13 23:22Profile





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