Fun with baptism

Always did say there were 2. One to the inward man which is the Holy Ghost baptism and one to the outward man which is the water and not for putting away the filth of the flesh but to answer a good conscious towards God. At one time you praised me for that but I guess you have changed your mind again. peace

 

We should get baptized out of obedience, but it's after we are saved.

bmerr is Church of Christ. He believes that we must be baptized to be saved. Not only that, you must be baptized in the Church of Christ and according to their formula.

This is a false teaching and I'm not going to go along with it in any way.

 

May I ask a question? I assume you will say yes so I am going ahead :smilewinkgrin:

What difference does all this debate make, not that I do not like debate - I am a Baptist and I enjoy them, at times :tongue3:

It is a command that all believers be baptized, so whether you believe that baptism saves you or whether you are saved and then baptized - the command is that all believers be baptized.

“And Jesus came and spoke to them, saying, ‘All authority has been given to Me in heaven and on earth. Go therefore and make disciples of all the nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, teaching them to observe all things that I have commanded you; and lo, I am with you always, even to the end of the age. Amen” (Matthew 28: 18 – 20, NKJV)

And for the record I agree with the previous post

Debate on, please :flower:

 

If we all agree --- as we should --- then debate is impossible. Therefore, (you fill in the blank).

Enough scriptures have been tortured to make them say baptism is essential for salvation, while those that clearly say the opposite are ignored. I long for debate to end, joyous discussion to begin.

 

It makes a big difference, because it must be made clear how we are exactly saved. This is the very Gospel that is at stake! If we allow their salvation by baptism, then you must realize that it doesn't stop there, but that you must do everything else they say; some things true, and some made up by them like not using instruments; joining the Church of Christ sect, etc. in order to be saved.
This is one way false gospel slips in. You take a legitimate issue of obedience, and then make it save. But now, the true Gospel is totally denied, and by the time you've added all the points of "obedience", we're outright saved by deeds, even if they try to disguise this as "faith".

 

OK - I know that We should get baptized out of obedience, but it's after we are saved.

My point in saying what is the difference is that if one says they know the truth and they do not get baptized, for whatever reason, I have issue with that. They go hand in hand.

If one is truly saved then again I ask why would they not want to be baptized. My sinful judgemental mind questions if they are truly saved. One must be baptized since it was a command given by Christ.

 

This is not about whether one should get baptized after being saved -- we agree on that. The issue is whether one needs to be baptized in order to be saved, or whether water baptism saves.

There is a huge difference between being baptized after salvation as a matter of obedience, and telling someone they must be baptized or they are not saved.

 

I think it's because they have a patend on the water purifier they use. :saint:

 

I think we agree on this, correct me if I am wrong.

I agree that one should not tell another that they are not saved if they have not been baptized, only God knows what is in our hearts.

I feel, watch the comments come for this thought, that people want to see others public confession of Christ and if they do not they feel they are not truly saved.

Me, I would question why someone would not be baptized if they are saved since it is a command but for me to say they are not saved would be wrong since I do not know what is in there hearts.

Does this make sense?

 

Yes, I agree. But the point of my first post to bmerr and why I did not want to participate in his "fun" is that he believes you must be baptized in order to be saved, and he wanted us to phrase things to say this. I am not going to make up phrases that teach false doctrine. This is what the thread is about.

 

OK - this is just a game, I can take the standpoint that if we were guiding the people who wrote the bible that would make us God and well that is not the case, or I could take the standpoint that if we guided the pen then it would not be God's word. Thirdly I could argue about the verses that say not to mess with the written word and to do so is against God's command. All of these are true.

In it's defence, what can we do to grab people's attention to God and to get them to know the truth.

A very fine line that is crossed many of time.

I could be wrong, would not be the first time

After all of this, I agree with what I said first, but sometimes, possible alterior motives aside, a duck is a duck

The Bible was written the way it was for a reason and it should not be messed with and yes, everyone takes only passages and does not look at the whole picture and words get twisted, hence many denominations

So who won:

or

I only picked the short ones, why, better chance for me :smilewinkgrin:

 

Well, my point was actually AGAINST most Churches of Christ.

Violations:
1) They typically do NOT want to discuss the Greek of their favorite passages -- at least, not honestly. They assume the accuracy of the English translations there and do not want anyone to consider the text of the New Testament church. A few years ago it was suggested by one preacher that I leave his congregation just because I used Portuguese translations. Sometimes the Greek can be considered if the Greek of a small portion of text is translated into English with enough accuracy or precision and supports Church of Christ doctrine -- but not otherwise. In the Churches of Christ, it is typically English, English only, no real consideration of the accuracy of English translations in relation to the New Testament churches' text at every detail. Those who do so are accused of `explaining away' or `twisting.'

2) They do NOT want to consider the allusions to culture and ancient life these passages often make. They do not want to consider that when an author referred to a certain ancient activity, that it might not mean an American thing at all. The Churches of Christ typically do not want to consider what the ancient New Testament church would have understood from a given passage.

3) They list verses that seem to contradict the verses fueling the beliefs of other evangelicals. Church of Christ members typically make no effort to reconcile these apparent variations: the verses cited are supposed to trump the other verses. What must be done instead of making some parts of the Bible more important than others is the following: an attempt to create a comprehensive picture of what the whole of the New Testament teaches trying to treat all the passages equally and see how they work WITH each other.

When all of these things I listed are done correctly, the Churches of Christ have valuable contributions to a good understanding of salvation from the Bible, but the picture is predominantly what other evangelicals have been teaching for centuries.

 

okay lets look at the verse13 for whosoever shall call upon the name of the lord shall be saved. so what is calling on the name of the lord we lets look at another scripture where it is used.

(Acts 22:16)

16: And now why tarriest thou? arise, and be baptized, and wash away thy sins, calling on the name of the Lord.

so we see by being baptized our sins are washed away and we are calling on the name of the lord.

(Rom. 1:16)

16: For I am not ashamed of the gospel of Christ: for it is the power of Godunto salvation to every one that believeth; to the Jew first, and also to the Greek

lets look at the words we notice that it says unto salvation. now when we go unto say a store does that mean we go into the store, not it doesn't, it means were right out side of it. the gospel(good news) tells us what we need to do to be saved so it brings us right up to salvation, but its our job to accept it and obey God's commands. and isn't it also interesting that most of the time when baptism is mention, it is somthing that puts us into Christ(the church)

In Christian Love,

Dustin

 

In Greek the word is "eis." Eis means "into" a significant amount of the time. I would suggest refraining from making such an argument.

It isn't an into/unto issue. That's a matter of making it sound good in English. Eis can be translated as into or unto (as well as some other words) depending on the sound of the translation.

 

Is baptism necessary for eternal salvation?

And, in his sermon at Pentecost, Peter told the folks there to be baptized "to wash away their sins."

What are we to make of this?

1 Corinthians 1:17, 15:1-4, Acts 8:36-39, Matthew 28:19, Romans 6:4, John 3:16-18, Romans 1:16, John 11:25-26, Acts 4:12, Acts 16:30-31, taken in context, carefully read, indicate that it is upon believing the Good News that one is to be baptized - having already believed. We do not become saved by believing in Jesus Christ plus something else! Look at what Paul says in Acts 15:24, Galatians 1:8-9, 1 Corinthians 1:14-16. It was through his preaching, not water baptism, that they were saved. "He that believes .... and is baptized .... shall be saved." Which came first? Belief! Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ and you shall be saved!

1 Corinthians 1:21, John 3:15-18, John 3:36, John 3:40, John 5:24, John 6:47, John 11:25-26, John 20:30-31; Acts 10:43, Acts 13:38, Acts 16:31; Romans 1:16, Romans 3:38, Romans 4:24, Romans 5:1, Romans 10:8-13; 1 Corinthians 15:1-4.

Once in my car I turn the key to ignite the fuel. I don't have to press on the accelerator. It always starts just fine without doing that. Turn the key, car starts. Believe, saved. What about those who do have to press on the accelerator? It's a mechanical problem, not the fault of the original design. To achieve the original design, correct the problem. Don't decide that all cars have to be started that way. Go to the manual.

In 1 Peter 3:21 he says the like figure whereunto even baptism doth also now save us. Figuratively speaking, not literally, symbolically buried with Christ in baptism. John 3:5 speaks to the water of natural birth, followed by being born again at some point by the power of the Holy Spirit. Jesus uses Nicodemus' question in John 3:4, focuses it in 3:5, and nails it in 3:6. One who is born of woman must be born again in order to inherit God's promises.

Conclusion: Genesis 1:1 thru Revelation 22:21 is a context. The scriptures on salvation by grace alone through faith alone in Christ alone are all integral to that context. The Germans call it a "Gestalt," a unified, irreducible whole that is greater in quality, holistically, than its parts. The Bible cannot be viewed other than holistically. One cannot select its parts to come up with a verifiable conclusion. The parts are utterly interdependent.

Without this understanding one spends one's life chasing rabbits and ghosts, in the process formulating doctrine / dogma that was never intended and simply isn't there.

:flower:

 

Not at all. I regularly read the Bible in English, and often in Spanish, and Portuguese. There are usually no earth-shattering differences. I would assume that these translations usually reflect the Greek quite well.

However, sometimes it is necessary to consult the New Testament church's text, especially on matters of fine detail. Unwillingness to do so is a departure from New Testament church practice.

Not at all. There were also competent translators of Greek translating into Spanish and Portuguese centuries ago -- and I consider their work also.

At Acts 2:38, their work has some things to say to us. The use of different verb tenses to reflect the Greek underlying KJV "Repent" and "be baptized" suggest something different from baptismal regeneration. I gave this information on the thread: "Is Baptism Required For Salvation" -- on which you have been active.

This reinforces my point: if the translation does not have a pattern of matching the 1769 edition of the KJV at favorite passages, Church of Christ leaderships reject them. It does not matter if they are accurate to the underlying Greek.

I have alluded to the first on the thread: "Is Baptism Required For Salvation." You have been active on this thread.

Two examples: at John 3:3-6 Jesus refers to two births described:
"of water" and "of the Spirit" reworded
"of flesh" and "of the Spirit" in the next verse.
Ancient Hebrew terminology linked natural birth to terms such as "water" and "drop" (Hayford, Spirit-Filled Life Bible. Page 1577.) Churches of Christ, disregarding this, insist on seeing "of baptism" where Scripture has "of water." Further, anyone who considers what this passage would have been understood to mean by its readers is shunned as `explaining away.'

At Galatians 3:27, "put on Christ" is understood as making someone dressed in Christ. However, in Galatians 3:24, the Mosaic Law is pictured as a children's tutor. In Galatians 3:27, Paul is alluding to a cultural event in Roman society where a child put on adult clothes to become an adult (Life Application Bible, study annotation). Hence, being baptized in the name of Jesus Christ is the equivalent of moving on to spiritual maturity in Christ. Anyone who dares to consider how this passage would have been understood to its readers when written is shunned as `explaining away.'

Yes, Ephesians 2:8-10 indicates that salvation is by our faith and is not based upon something that we do -- works follow from that salvation.

Romans 4:5 is even more clear.

In Scripture, we are shown baptizing and being baptized. To most of us, baptism is seen as a work. When contradictory passages, such as the KJV of Acts 2:38, are thrown at us, there seems to be only a contradiction. Typically, no attempt is made to explain how they work WITH, not against each other.

Again: your words

As you indicated, typically Church of Christ people point out how the verses used by some Church of Christ people work AGAINST the passages that most Christians use to teach their doctrines. What I am suggesting is that Christians should be after how the passages work WITH each other to get a comprehensive understanding.

When this is done, as I said