Featured Baptismal regeneration

Ezek. 36:25-27 - the Lord promises He will sprinkle us with water to cleanse us from sin and give us a new heart and spirit. Paul refers to this verse in Heb. 10:22. The teaching of Ezekiel foreshadows the salvific nature of Christian baptism instituted by Jesus and taught in John 3:5, Titus 3:5, 1 Peter 3:21 and Acts 22:16.

 

Howdy lakeside, there nowhere in scripture that teaches Christian water baptism as salvific.

 

Ezekiel is symbolic of the out pouring of God's spirit. As "water and Spirit" were used else where in OT. See post #120

 

That was sprinkling and the Old is obsolete.

 

Yes...it is. Point is it was just symbolic then and it symbolic when Christ used the terms.

 

There is no more sprinkling of blood!

The Old is obsolete, you can't drag it into the new. There is no more Temple and there are no more Priests.

Heb 8:13 In speaking of a new covenant, he makes the first one obsolete. And what is becoming obsolete and growing old is ready to vanish away.

McCree, I'll be back in about an hour.

 

Jesus quoted the "water and the Spirit" one must go back to OT to see it origin.
I am aware that the "old is becoming obsolete". But when it is referenced in the NT by Jesus or Apostles, no fault can be found in searching to for its origin and seeing it's fulfillment in the new.

The verses from post #120, refer to water, not blood. No one is talking about blood.

*when Jesus quoted for Ezekiel, what do you believe he was referring too?

*I will give you what I think. He is addressing Nicodemus. When he says "born of water and Spirit", linguist's say that is on birth. This is also the view of at least some of the ESV, HCSB, NIV translators. The birth Christ is referring to is a spiritual one. On of cleansing and transformation of the spirit. Christ quoted OT for Nicodemus so he could understand. Of course Nicodemus, gave a cheeky reply, which Christ debuted. Nicodemus should have known the "water and Spirit" refer to spiritual rebirth. "Water and Spirit" was used to refer to the out pouring of God's Spirit in the OT. That is why I believe Christ quoted OT.

I'm not even sure why you are challenging Christ's usage of OT

 

Sorry I think I haven mistaken you for lakefield, so far it appears we are on the same page.

 

No problem

 

Robert William, you stated that " nowhere in the Bible does it say that Christian water baptism as salvific.

Matt. 28:19-20 - Jesus commands the apostles to baptize all people "in the name of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit." Many Protestant churches are now teaching that baptism is only a symbolic ritual, and not what actually cleanses us from original sin. This belief contradicts Scripture and the 2,000 year-old teaching of the Church.

Acts 2:38 - Peter commands them to repent and be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ in order to be actually forgiven of sin, not just to partake of a symbolic ritual.

Matt. 28:19-20; Acts 2:38 - there is nothing in these passages or elsewhere in the Bible about baptism being symbolic. There is also nothing about just accepting Jesus as personal Lord and Savior in order to be saved.

Mark 16:16 - Jesus said "He who believes AND is baptized will be saved." Jesus says believing is not enough. Baptism is also required. This is because baptism is salvific, not just symbolic. The Greek text also does not mandate any specific order for belief and baptism, so the verse proves nothing about a “believer’s baptism.”

 

Exactly...because baptism does not impart any saving grace on anyone. If it did, then you are establishing a works based salvation wherein a person must undertake a specific task of physical action to be saved. The only thing we are told to do is have faith (believe) and we'll be saved. The Bible is clear that faith is not a work.

The command to baptize does not carry the connotation that baptism is what saves. It is not. Romans 10 Paul lays out quite clearly what must be done for salvation in your life and that is believe on God after hearing the preached word, then call upon His name. Paul never mentions baptism as a requirement of salvation.

Baptism is an added blessing to us, a symbolic gesture. Personally, I was saved long before I was baptized. I did not complete my salvation upon my baptism. I had everything I needed, salvifically speaking, when God saved me.

What is the difference between "accepting Jesus as personal Lord and Savior" and "whosoever shall call upon the name of the Lord shall be saved?" Note that baptism in the Bible always happens after the person confesses Christ and it only happens to persons capable of confessing Christ. Why? Because it is "believers baptism." Infant baptism accomplishes nothing. Baptizing someone against their will does nothing.

So the thief on the cross was not saved, eh? I mean, he was never baptized. David was never baptized. Nor was Abraham, Moses, Isaac, Jacob, Joseph, Samuel, Solomon, Isaiah, Ezekiel, Daniel, etc... At least, I don't recall reading about any of them being baptized.

 

After a person is regenerated and repents of their sins they receive the ETERNAL free gift into the paradise in the next life and the indwelling Holy Spirit.

ONLY the perfect sacrifice and shed blood of the Lamb appeases the wrath of God, nothing else does, to add to that is another gospel.

 

Robert William, how many Holy Spirits are there ? If only 'one' why so many different conflicting Gospels ? Who do you think is confused, the Holy Spirit or the members of the myriad of conflicting churches ?

 

Those who believe that baptism is required for salvation.

 

I will add this Tony.


Lakeside,
Great care needs to be given to Mark 16:16. Mark 16 9-20 is missing from most early manuscripts. It needs to be compared to Matthew's version of the great commission......and the rest of the bible of course. Scholars have debated the inclusion of these verses for years. In addition to the absence of these verses in early manuscripts, there is a stylistic change as well. Indicating perhaps someone else wrote them. Many later manuscripts contain 2 versions of the great commission in Mark. I have no objection to them being included in the Bible. At the same time when need to consider them in light of all the facts. Mainly, that it may or may not have Apostolic authority behind it.

 

But not for salvation.

No, actually, he doesn't.

If I say, "We're having a party for my wife's birthday", does that mean that we have to have a party in order for her to have a birthday? Of course not! It means we're having a party in commemoration of her birthday. Otherwise, all we would have to do is to not have a birthday party and she would never age.

In the case of Acts 2:38, eis has several meanings, just as our word, "for" has.

In can mean "in order to obtain" (e.g. "I'll give you two hundred dollars for that bureau"). It can also mean to commemorate, such as in the example I just showed you.

Based on the harmony of scripture, we see people being saved without being baptized. Abraham, the thief on the cross, Cornelius (Cornelius was later baptized, but received the Holy Spirit before he was baptized) so we know it cannot be the former. Because we see that no unsaved person was baptized in scripture, we have to assume that it's the latter.

Nor is there anything that says it's salvific.

Straw man.

I don't blame you for not posting the whole verse.

Look at the corollary: Whoever believes and is baptized will be saved, but whoever does not believe will be condemned.
If baptism is what saves, then why doesn't the verse say that whoever is not baptized will be condemned?

For instance, if not being baptized condemns, then why is Abraham not condemned? He wasn't baptized. Why isn't the thief on the cross condemned? He wasn't baptized. How did Cornelius receive the Holy Spirit when he was still condemned?

No, the verse doesn't say those who aren't baptized are condemned. You're assuming that because that's what your religion teaches but, in so doing, you commit the fallacy of negative inference.

Jesus connects baptism with belief, which we know from other places in scripture, is what actually saves us, but doesn't connect the lack of baptism to condemnation. Why?

Mark 16:16 does not say one must be baptized to be saved. It states that baptized believers will be saved, but says nothing about believers who have not been baptized. So are believers who have not been baptized saved?

Jesus mentions a condition related to salvation (baptism) but a related condition should not be confused with a requirement. For instance, having a fever is related to being ill, but a fever is not required for one to be ill. Nowhere in the Bible do we find a statement such as “whoever is not baptized will be condemned.” Therefore, you cannot reasonably find salvation by baptism in that passage.

 

Water Baptism does save us, read{1 Peter 3: 20-21 - Peter expressly writes that “baptism, corresponding to Noah's ark, now saves you; not as a removal of dirt from the body, but for a clear conscience. “ Hence, the verse demonstrates that baptism is salvific (it saves us), and deals with the interior life of the person (purifying the conscience, like {Heb. 10:22}, and not the external life (removing dirt from the body). Many scholars believe the phrase "not as a removal of dirt from the body" is in reference to the Jewish ceremony of circumcision (but, at a minimum, shows that baptism is not about the exterior, but interior life). Baptism is now the “circumcision” of the new Covenant {Col. 2:11-12}, but it, unlike the old circumcision, actually saves us, as Noah and his family were saved by water.

Again, notice the parallel between Heb. 10:22 and 1 Peter 3:21: (1) Heb. 10:22 – draw near to the sanctuary (heaven) / 1 Peter 3:21 – now saves us. (2) Heb. 10:22 – sprinkled clean, washed with pure water / 1 Peter 3:20-21 – saved through water, baptism. (3) Heb. 10:22 – from an evil conscience (interior) / 1 Peter 3:21 – for a clear conscience (interior). Titus 3:6 and 1 Peter 3:21 also specifically say the grace and power of baptism comes “through Jesus Christ” (who transforms our inner nature).

 

Paul states quite clearly that the circumcision that matters is "of the heart. That's what makes us Jews (chosen of God). Not something done upon the flesh; but something done inwardly, a work of the Spirit.

Noah and his family were saved by the Ark which floated upon the water. Dig in and study the Ark and check the parallels between the Ark and Jesus Christ Himself. We know we are saved because we are found in Jesus Christ. Noah knew he was safe because he was found in the Ark. If Baptism itself imparts any saving grace on us, then we have occasion to boast, claiming ourselves better than someone else because we were baptized and they not. It is a works-based salvation, lakeside, whether you like it or not.

That said, I believe every believer ought to be baptized. But I also believe that when I enter into God's Glory I'll meet a lot of believers who never were baptized.

Titus 3 doesn't mention physical water baptism, unless you choose to read it into the scripture. Titus 3:5-7 says "Not by works of righteousness which we have done, but according to his mercy he saved us, by the washing of regeneration, and renewing of the Holy Ghost; Which he shed on us abundantly through Jesus Christ our Saviour; That being justified by his grace, we should be made heirs according to the hope of eternal life." It says the washing of regeneration and renewing of the Holy Ghost. John the Baptist said of Jesus that He would "baptize with the Holy Ghost and with fire." Not water baptism.

 

Preach Tony, you wrote: "That said, I believe every believer ought to be baptized. But I also believe that when I enter into God's Glory I'll meet a lot of believers who never were baptized."

You will only meet those people that lived during the period of the Old Testament not Baptized but "saved". All want-to-be- Christians living after Christ's New Testament must be Baptized with only the following formula- " I baptize you in the name of the Father, and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit".


...... 'After this Jesus and His disciples went into the land of Judea; there he remained with them and baptized "

 

Nope.

Out of curiosity, did you notice in the portion of that passage which you did bother to post, the phrase “not the removal of dirt from the flesh, but an appeal to God for a good conscience.”? "NOT the removal of dirt from the flesh..."? All baptism does is make you wet.

No, the part of that passage that is referring to our salvation is the "appeal to God for a good conscience through the resurrection of Jesus Christ".

In other words, Peter is simply connecting baptism with belief. It is not the getting-wet part that saves but is the “appeal to God for a clean conscience” which is symbolized by baptism, that saves us. First belief and repentance, by which we are saved, then we are baptized to publicly testify of our having been crucified with Christ and raised to new life in Him.

The baptism that Peter says saves us is the "washing" that is preceded by faith in the propitiatory sacrifice of Christ that justifies the unrighteous sinner (Romans 3:25-26; 4:5). Baptism is the outward testimony of what God has done “by the washing of regeneration and renewing by the Holy Spirit” (Titus 3:5).