Featured An Ongoing Study/Debate of the New Testament

See the bolded part: You have that right. If a person really believes that throwing water on an baby, or dunking a baby, will save it from hell, that person had better set out to apply that water to every baby he sees!

 

Let an English linguist assist you:

The way the sentence is constructed, the forgiveness of sins is brought about by repentance, not by baptism; therefore, baptism is a sign-symbol and public testimony of that fact.

Clear now?

 

I kind of disagree with you. The sentence construction shows John was providing the baptism of repentance for the forgiveness of sins. Clearly Baptism is in conjuction with repentance. Ie one is not baptized saved they repented but repentance and baptism are placed as a singular object for the specific purpose of having ones sins forgiven.

 

Matthew 3:8-11 make it very clear that "baptism of repentance" cannot have any other meaning then immersion is due to repentance as John demanded the "fruits of repentance" PRIOR TO administering baptism.

Hence, baptism is for the repentant only. That "fruit" of repentance was manifested in their confession of sins - confession of sins is fruit of a repentant heart.

Again, the logical order is that John first preached the gospel to the crowd - the gospel he himself defines in John 3:36. The crowd that received his gospel responded by lining up to be baptized by him. As they came to him they made this public confession of their previous response to the gospel and based upon that manifest fruit - he administered baptism. This is the very same practice as Baptists do to this very day.

Hence, we know that "for" repentance cannot have any other meaning in regard to the baptism of John than because of as repentance ALWAYS precedes baptism whenever it is joined with baptism in every other place in scripture the order is repent/beleive and be baptized. This fact cannot be disputed if the evidence is objectively weighed and accepted.

Now we come to the words "for the remission of sins" and the issue is whether God remits sins due to repentance or due to the administration of an external ordinance or due to the combination.

I believe the overall Biblical context is that literal remission of sins ALWAYS occurs at the point of repentant faith in the gospel (Acts 10:43) but ordinances provide an external sign of what the candidate already "had" literally received previous to the submission to the ordinance (Rom. 4:6-11). Paul makes this clear that this is the UNIVERSAL truth for all who are of faith.

Thus baptism does remit sins, saves, regenerates symbolically (as did circumcision in the example of Abraham) but it is at the point of regenerative/repentant/faith in the gospel that literally remission of sins occurs. I believe that Paul's theological exposition on this very point in Romans 4:5-11 cannot be successfully overturned and that it is expressly applied UNIVERSALLY to Old and New Testament saints or ALL WHO ARE OF FAITH.

 

He is talking to JEWS and their JEWISH children because the sign gifts (tongues; etc.) of the Spirit were made available through the new house of God which repentant believers are "added to" (Acts 2:40) through water baptism and then received through the laying on of apostolic hands.

 

And what does the last part of that verse say? I wonder why paedobaptists always leave that off? Hmmm....

 

Well, we will have to agree to disagree. But it is good to be able to do so without a mutual questioning of each other's salvation.

 

For a moment I thought you might be sincere in what you said about seeking the truth but it is now clear that was merely pretense and your ridicule reveals your true character. I never ridiculed you or your statements but gave matter of fact answers. Fool me once, ok, fool me twice, I have learned but you won't fool me again. So, from this point forward, the gloves are off and I will treat you exactly as you are - a wolf in sheeps clothing. Forget about back peddling.

 

Absolutely! I try to never judge whether another person is saved or not. The fact is that belongs in the provence of the Almighty. I can only look outwardly at people God looks at the heart of the person. And certainly there is biblical support for many people being suprised at the Judgement about who is admitted and who is not. However, I believe that God reveals himself in scripture and the Christian faith and salvation is also revealed and accessed by those sources. Those who are Christian I will view as being in the ark of salvation and treat them as family. Whether they will be admitted into eternity with him is up to God to decide but I know and trust him enough to know it will be a just and loving decision.

 

Amen to that!

And I look forward to meeting you in heaven one day, if not here.

 

It is against the rules of this forum to judge the personal salvation of another person. If that has been done it can be documented by their post - please report it to the moderator.

However, what you and Michael are doing is called "slander" by inferring that someone has done this when in fact it has not been done.

The truth is that the Scriptures clearly speaks of "another Jesus" and "another gospel" and such cannot save anyone. Both sides should obviously accept that any profession that was based upon what the scriptures call "another gospel" or "another Jesus" cannot possibly save anyone as it is not a matter of different langauge as both claim it is the "gospel" and both claim salvation in "Christ" but the meaning and application of such common language. The Mormon uses the same langauge in their profession of faith "I have trusted in Christ as my Savior" but obviously defines the terms that promote different concepts.

Another obvious is that we both believe that we do not teach the same doctrine of salvation and one of us must be wrong as our views are contradictiory and yet we use the same terms. There are not TWO ways of savlation, TWO gospels and thus at least one of us is wrong and IF our profession of faith was based upon the definitive gospel we are now both presenting then someone is lost regardless of profession.

OR

As I have stated about both you and Michael that you may both be saved but led astray. However, will you both concede that MAY be my condition as well in spite of repudiating the gospel I not only base my salvation upon but am defending???

HOWEVER

I do base my whole salvation and eternal future on the gospel I am defending. So how can you possibly accept that I am saved if no other doctrine of salvation has been embraced but the one I am defending?

CONCLUSIVELY

My position toward you is far more generous than the position you must embrace toward me since my defense does indeed match my profession of salvation.

 

Not true I haven't inferred that some one has done this. I just stated my position on not doing so. Not just in this forum but in my life in general. I take this approach to all I meet. Thus I don't go around condemning Protestants to hell fire because they disagree with me about doctrine but I see them as family members with whom I disagree about some issues. But I fully expect to see them in heaven but once again I leave that decision up to God. That all I said. And as far as the other post where I said something to the effect you may see me as not saved because... I wasn't suggesting You thought I wasn't saved but to point out a specific point on the doctrine we were discussing. Thus a man may say I'm saved if I believe in Jesus but even believing in Jesus "you" or that hypothetical man don't really believe that is sufficient enough for me to be saved but I must have specifically the belief perameters you or they impose.

So I believe you are a bit off base with your post.

 

If you don't believe in universal salvation then not all men are saved. If you accept the fact the scriptures teach there some preach "another gospel" and "another Jesus" then you must accept the fact there are converts to that gospel and Jesus who THINK they are saved but in fact are placing their trust, no matter how sincerely, in something that cannot save.

For example, I have met some extremely nice and sincere Mormons and JW's who confess "I believe in Christ as my Savior" but when they explain their Christ, he in no way remembles the Christ of Scripture. When they explain their "salvation", their "gospel" their "saved" their "grace" it does not resemblance anything in scripture although the same terms are used to express both their profession and my profession.

The SAME is true in regard to Roman Catholicism and the Baptist profession - same terms but entirely different meanings. Their "gospel" is not my "gospel" and their "Jesus" is not my Jesus and their "salvation" and "saved" is not my "salvation" and "Saved."

If you accept the fact of "tares" in the kingdom (Mt. 13) then you must accept the fact of false professors.