I hope to be able to properly address the question about: "What is a condition of grace?"
God pours out his grace freely to those willing to accept Jesus as the "way and the truth and the life". (John 14:6) However, believing is not enough. The condition is baptism. Much like if you were given a very large check, but you had to go to the bank to receive it; action is required. Belief alone does not get you all the way there. As Jesus' brother James says; 'I will show you my faith by what I do' (James 2:18) and, 'faith without deeds is dead'. (James 2:26) Simply believing is not enough, your actions should confirm your belief.
While there are a great many scriptures which speak to our salvation being by grace, there are also a number which say that our sins are washed away at baptism. How do we reconcile this? Well, both are true! It is only because of God's grace that we can be saved! We deserve death as a punishment for our sins. However, through Jesus, we can be reconciled to and enter into a relationship with God. If we have faith that Jesus is the Messiah who died for our sins, and then are baptized, our sins will be washed away. Many people will call this a 'work', but I'd have to disagree.
As Gordon Ferguson states in his book Romans: The Heart Set Free (pg 86) the basis of forgiveness is the blood of Jesus, and the condition is baptism. We are saved by grace through the blood of Jesus; this is the basis. The condition to accepting God's grace is baptism. If someone writes you a check and tells you to pick it up at the bank, is it really 'work' to go to the bank and pick it up? Or as Ferguson points out, would you brag to people about 'how hard you worked'? Or would you say, 'I received this check by grace, all I had to do was drive to the bank and pick it up!" I think it's clear that the check is received by grace and not works. But it does take faith and action to go to receive that check just as it takes faith and action to be baptized; "in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins." (Acts 2:38)
I believe the entire (or at least most of the ) problem with the watering down (no pun intended, well initially at least) of baptism is that interpreters of the scriptures have forgotten, disregarded or not paid attention to the original context of the scriptures. It has been said, though I'm not sure by whom, "Scripture can never mean what it never meant." The point is, it can't mean something to us that it didn't mean to the original hearers. God knew that we would be reading Paul's letters to Corinth, Rome, Ephesus, etc. but it DID have meaning to them as well. It wasn't written solely for us. What good would that be to those Christians, and how would that encourage them? Along those lines, if Paul is writing to Christians who have already been baptized, would he really need to go into the details of baptism? It is highly doubtful.
Much like Jesus' rebuke of the CHURCH in Laodicea (Revelation 3:14-22) was written to Christians and not non-believers, Paul's letters to Rome, Corinth, Thessalonica, etc. were written to Christians. They may have been children who still needed spiritual milk, but they had already been born again. (John 3:3, 5-7) There was no need for Paul to discuss how one became a Christian, but discussion was necessary as to how one STAYED a Christian. (Paul did bring up baptism throughout some of his letters, but it wasn't a focal point) Paul emphasized grace because the Judaizers were emphasizing observance of the Mosaic Law as necessary for salvation. He was reminding them that death came by the law, and salvation came by God's grace, and observing the Jewish Law would not, and could not save them, but would instead condemn them. He did not need to focus on baptism, because it was moot, as his audience had already been baptized.
Here are a few scriptures which address baptism as a CONDITION of salvation:
"And now what are you waiting for? Get up, be baptized and wash your sins away, calling on his name" (Acts 22:16)
Paul is recounting his conversion experience. Paul's sins were washed away at baptism.
"You are all sons of God through faith in Christ Jesus, for all of you who were baptized into Christ have clothed yourselves with Christ." (Galatians 3:26-27)
Paul reminding the Galatian churches that they were clothed with Christ (saved) at baptism.
"In him you were also circumcised, in the putting off of the sinful nature, not with a circumcision done by the hands of men but with the circumcision done by Christ, having been buried with him in baptism and raised with him through your faith in the power of God, who raised him from the dead." (Colossians 2:11-12)
Paul telling the church in Colossae that they died to their former life and were raised to a new life during baptism.
"But when the kindness and love of God our Savior appeared, he saved us, not because of righteous things we had done, but because of his mercy. He saved us through the washing of rebirth and renewal by the Holy Spirit, whom he poured out on us generously through Jesus Christ our Savior, so that, having been justified by his grace, we might become heirs having the hope of eternal life." (Titus 3:4-7)
Paul tells Titus that we are saved; "through the washing of rebirth" (baptism)
"For Christ died for sins once for all, the righteous for the unrighteous, to bring you to God. He was put to death in the body but made alive by the Spirit, through whom also he went and preached to the spirits in prison who disobeyed long ago when God waited patiently in the days of Noah while the ark was being built. In it only a few people, eight in all, were saved through water, and this water symbolizes baptism that now saves you also—not the removal of dirt from the body but the pledge of a good conscience toward God. It saves you by the resurrection of Jesus Christ, who has gone into heaven and is at God's right hand—with angels, authorities and powers in submission to him." (1 Peter 3:18-22)
Here Peter says that the flood of Noah's day symbolized the water of baptism. As the Great Flood purged the world of sin, so does baptism (through faith in Jesus, by the power of God and by His grace) cleanse the individual of sin.
Thanks for help on this post go to Gordon Ferguson (who I've yet to meet, but will certainly someday) and his book; Romans: The Heart Set Free and convesations with my friend Andy Confer as well as his book; Three Woes For Babylon: Revelation; the Same Yesterday, Today and Forever of which I have an advance copy.
129 comments:
Valid points. When I have more time I'll comment some more, tho briefly. I respect, but disagree, w/ your beliefs on salvation bein a requirement for salvation.
On a lighter note. S and I fixin to brave the weather and are goin to get a Chicago style pizza. Florio'a next time (simply too far today). We watched a Food Channel program about deep dish pizza last nite and must now have some.
OK, I'm a BIG fan of Chicago style pizza now. I'll w/hold judgment as to whether or not it's better than NY style; but so far, best I've ever had.
We went to Gino's Pizza in Chicago once. Well known apparently, with graffiti all over the walls. Good za.
(And yes, there's more than one Gino in my family.)
I would simply ask..what about the thief on the cross next to Christ? Was he not saved?
I know we've talked about this before and you've said that he was subject to the Old Covenant. I would propose that the OC and NC avenues for salvation are the same...faith.
I would add that Believers still commit sins. Does this mean we must be continually baptized?
Suppose that a person confesses his sinfulness, cries out in repentance to the Lord, and receives Jesus as Savior and then walks across the street to get baptized at a local church. In the middle of the road he gets hit by a bus and is killed. Does he go to Heaven or hell? If he goes to Heaven then baptism isn't necessary for salvation. If he goes to hell, then trusting in Jesus, by faith, isn't enough for salvation. Doesn't that go against Scriptures that say that salvation is a free gift received by faith (Eph. 2:8-9)?
Ha, so much for a brief comment:)
The sad thing is that if I'M right, (which I think I am), you'll never know the answers to these questions.
You know, Nest and I have provided some info as to why we believe. Now, you can disagree w/ it, but we have put some forward.
Your case for non-belief (correct me if I'm wrong) is you don't buy it. But usually in a debate each side makes an argument. You've made none, other than you don't accept ours. In fairness you should present a case for the non-existence of God.
You sound annoyed.
I wasn't debating, merely putting in my 2 cents. You two claim to know..I don't. There could very well be a God, I'm just not sure which belief system currently available, if any, is the right one.
I don't usually comment when Nestor writes about this because I really don't have much to contribute. But I also don't want him to think I'm not interested in what he has to say, so I commented.
No, my skins fairly thick.
I'm just curious as to why you don't believe, that's all. I know some a the reasons I used to not; but I don't know why you don't. I'm honestly curious.
Well I was being sincere about that. I do think it's sad that a lot of our questions we (I) won't get answers to.
I may be able to think of more later, but for now...
Part of it is that there are a multitude of religions and they're all convinced that theirs is the right one and everyone else in the world has it wrong. That troubles me..and makes it easier for me to see it as more than likely, none of the above.
Part of it is that I see the Bible more as something to lead the way to good moral choices and less as a God-breathed document.
Part of it is that I find faith in God/Gods as something humans created as a coping mechanism and to give our lives purpose.
Part of it is I don't think that a creator of the universe and man would set it up so that most of us would end up in hell.
Part of it is that the arguement for it, has yet to convince me.
Part of it is I can't feel it.
hittin it early..gn
Linda,
I suppose you make a valid point from a human perspective. If there are so many religions who disagree there can't be a God. But how about this, maybe the existence of so many religions PROVES that there is a God. The different experiences, cultures, etc. shaped the religions differently, but there is something built into every human which calls us to something greater. It is God, and people around the world may try to explain it in different ways, but they are trying to describe God.
Once someone says; "You know what, there is a God!" They may say, "But which one?" Well with research you can determine that the right God is the God of the Bible. Now, to someone who is a non-Christian that probably sounds arrogant, but it is what it is. I think the first step is believing. Look around. See nature in all of it's beauty. Look at science. The laws of physics, mathematics, etc. The perfection of the system that was created by God is tremendous and is proof of God's existance. Scientists who don't want to believe (and those who are taught nonsense but do not investigate) have to come up with new ways to deny God. The precision of the force of the Big Bang (along with all of the natural laws) proves God's existence beyond a reasonable doubt, so to avoid having to acknowledge God, some scientists come up with preposterous assumptions like, 'there are an infinite number of universes, and we are in the one that everything worked out'. They have to do this because they know that there is no chance that if this is the only universe that it could have produced intelligent life.
My suggestion:
The next time you go up north or even close to your home, take some time to look into nature. Maybe close your eyes, listen and try to appreciate the beauty of nature. Really try to reflect on it, soak it in and maybe even try to ask God to open your eyes.
"I may be able to think of more later, but for now..."
There's more? Geez :)
All valid "arguments".
First of all, there's no argument or point that either Nest or I can make to convince you or anyone; we can point the way toward the truth tho. It boils down to faith. Not the infantile arguments (against faith) of the Stan's of the world (ie. so, you believe in Santa Clause, "etc"). We have faith in many unseen things. The question is, is faith in God a valid belief?
There are answers to all of the objections you listed. I'll tackle the first one and if you want to discuss the others, I will. It's up to you.
"... there are a multitude of religions and they're all convinced that theirs is the right one and everyone else in the world has it wrong. That troubles me..and makes it easier for me to see it as... none of the above."
Two points...
(1)All major religions have one thing in common, they believe it is w/in man's ability to earn/gain salvation/afterlife (through their actions). All save one..Christianity. Christianity says there is nothing you can do; only accept the free gift of salvation through the sacrifice that GOD made.
(2)Just because there are many false answers to a question, that doesn't negate the correct answer.
Please don't feel any obligation to continue on this topic. I know you well enough to know that you would, as not to hurt mine (or Nest's) feelings.
See next comment....
But if you do..then it's quid pro quo (ha, no sp-ck there).
For every question/objection I address about Christianity, I have a question/objection to agnosticism. Are you up to the challenge? :)
Reck,
To address your questions:
Of course the thief was saved. Jesus said so Himself.
We know that the punishment for sin is death. Sin demands blood for payment. In the Old Covenant, animals had to be sacrificed to atone for sin. But the blood of animals could never fully atone for sin. Only the blood of the perfect Lamb, Jesus, could do that. However, the faith of those who were under the Old Covenant was what saved them. There was no baptism for the forgiveness of sins while men like David, Abraham, Moses etc. lived. But surely if there was, those men would have done it. They were willing to do ANYTHING God commanded them to do. Abraham was willing to kill his son, the son of promise, in order to obey God's commands. (There is an amazing foreshadowing of Jesus in that as well)
I'm not sure if I've gone into the issue before of how the promised Kingdom comes at Pentecost. But really, Jesus' death was the payment for sins, and since Jesus wasn't dead when he forgave the thief, the thief very likely died without sin. But, if he did sin after he was forgiven and before he died, he still died well before the outpouring of the Holy Spirit on the Jews at Pentecost.
As far as believers commiting sins, of course we do. But Jesus died once, for all sins, for all eternity. I can't find the scripture that speaks directly to this, but I'll get it soon. It will eat me up until I do. It has been eating me up for a while now. But this theme is in Hebrews chapters 7-10. Jesus was the only sacrifice that would truly take away sins, and He only needed to die once for sins for all eternity, the sins of the past and the sins of the future.
Now, about someone coming to the conviction that they need to be baptized and are on their way to some body of water, bathtub, or whatever. If they truly believe that they will be saved when they are baptized, but they die on their way to being baptized, I believe they will be saved. If they read the scriptures which say you are saved at baptism, were convicted by it and ready to do it, and they had the faith necessary, I believe they would go to heaven. However, this sounds surprisingly like a liberal question, by the hypothetic nature of it. I seriously doubt God is going to let someone die, who is convinced they need to be baptized, on the way to their baptism. But, if God sees me fit to be the judge of that person, I would say yes, Heaven. (at least at this moment, unless something else is unveiled to me at a later date)
About faith:
Two of the scriptures I used in the main body of the post talk specifically about faith at baptism;
"having been buried with him in baptism and raised with him through your faith in the power of God" (Colossians 2:12)
and
"You are all sons of God through faith in Christ Jesus, for all of you who were baptized into Christ have clothed yourselves with Christ." (Galatians 3:26-27)
Clearly here, you are saved by you faith in the power of God...at baptism. Baptism is participating in the death, burial and resurrection of Jesus. If one doesn't die to the old life and is not buried in the water, one is not cleansed of sin. The other 3 scriptures from the main body of the post also talk about salvation coming at baptism as do: John 3:3,5-7 and Mark 16:16 which states; "Whoever believes and is baptized will be saved, but whoever does not believe will be condemned." These last two were spoken by Jesus Himself.
I hope I'm not coming off as argumentative, but it is important to me to get the truth out. I appreciate your friendship, and I appreciate these conversations as they make me dig deeper into scriptures, challenge my convictions and strengthen my faith. And, I have to live up to my new motto: "Always be prepared to give an answer to everyone who asks you to give the reason for the hope that you have." (1 Peter 3:15b)
Good Saturday morning!
N> "I suppose you make a valid point from a human perspective. If there are so many religions who disagree there can't be a God."
Actaully that's not really what I'm saying. I think there could be a God. I'm perfectly willing to go there. But so many people have different views on what that God is, that I feel there's no way to choose or know. So rejection of it all makes the best sense.
Here's an example (albeit a silly one)...it's like if I've 20 people in front of me, all holding their favorite cookie. The rule is I can choose only one cookie to eat. Keep in mind, I've never tried a cookie before. These 20 people each are given time to convince me their cookie is the best tasting. After hearing the arguements I think, "ya know what? I've gone this long w/out cookies, I don't need the darn cookie that bad. I'm not choosing any of em".
I'm sure they all have valid arguments for why their cookie is the best, and I'm sure they're all lovely...but they can't all be right, and there's no real way to tell.
R,
A challenge, ehhhhh? I feel like I just got slapped in the face by a leather glove. Ok, what the heck. I know you like to use me as your guinnea pig, to ready yourself for bigger fish. No, it's ok. I know my role, I'll play along. It may get ugly..I can Stan-out, too. (Sorry Stan, you're now a verb.) But a little serious conversation sounds good right now. (Plus D's leavin me for a week, so it'll be good to have somethin goin.)
And don't think I don't know you can refute any point I make. They write books on how to do that, and you've probably read em. I, however, am not skilled in this area, but I'll do my best.
Bring it baby!
The difference between religion and your cookie argument is that you don't have to try each cookie to find out which one is right, though people do do that. But if you read the recipe for each cookie, you will see that only one has the proper recipe. All of the other religions have some (or many)errors in their 'holy' books. Not transcription errors, major errors.
Errors like saying that the earth is on the back of 4 elephants, standing on the back of a turtle swimming in a bowl of milk. The bible says that the earth is suspended on nothing. (Job 26:7) The events in the book of Job are estimated to have taken place around 4000 years ago, long before the first telescope.
When you look at the Mosaic law (specifically in Exodus, Leviticus and Deuteronomy) there are a number of medical regulations, which were 3500 years ahead of their time. Rules like washing after childbirth and after handling dead bodies. It wasn't until the mid-1800's when Dr. Ignaz Semmelweis decided to try making the doctors at his women's hospital wash their hands.
The usual process of their workload was that they would go to the morgue, do an autopsy and then go to the 'labor and delivery' area and examine the patients there...without washing their hands. The death rate was 16%, which is why people hated going to the hospital to deliver a baby back then. (there are other reasons to hate it now) When he instituted handwashing between seeing 'patients' in the morgue and patients in the women's hospital, the death rate dropped under 2%. Then he instituted hand washing between ALL patients and the death rate dropped under 1%. He was then fired and went mad and the death rate went back up to around 15%. He was persecuted only to be exonerated later. I wonder who will be the Ignaz Semmelweis of the Intelligent Design debate, or if the attack squads will be so stuck in the Global 'Warming' hysteria that they will let up on their attacks on Design.
Now the law of Moses doesn't say why to wash, it just says to do it. Because of many of the medical rules, the Isralites survived at much higher rates than their neighbors. I could go on and on, but it could take forever
to explain all of reasons which prove the bible is true. But in the end, Reck and I can only point you in the right direction and give you ideas and encouragement.
You have to do the research yourself.
Suffice it to say that there are scientific inaccuracies in all of the other 'holy' books, but none in the bible. If you do your research, you can choose the right cookie. Maybe that could be a title for a book for me one day. "Which cookie is the right one?" I could have a Rabbi, a Priest and an Imam on the cover holding up cookies.
If you do, I want a mention. :)
I'm sure people who believe their holy books have answers for their "inaccuracies". There's always a way to back up one's beliefs...i.e. 'that quote is taken out of context', 'that's not really what that word means', ("hate", for example), 'that's a metaphor to mean this', etc.
Because you guys are convinced the Bible is correct, true, and error free is compelling, but I can't ignore the millions of other people who are convinced it isn't. Not to mention "interpretation" of it, which makes everything stickier. I just don't think there's any way to know that it all happened the way it says it did.
And I hope this doesn't end up being strictly a Bible discussion, cuz again, you'll have all the answers and I'm not well versed.
Yall had to go the cookie route, eh? Shoulda read these before I went to HEB, now I gotta go back, buy the cookie dough, etc...
Actually, Little S and I made a cake last nite (we were playin Ace Of Cakes, from the Food Network). She's very proud a this cake, told me to post a pic.
Gonna make her some lunch (S outta town since yesterday gettin big kids) and then jump back in this debate.
Just wanna say that yall are not gonna offend me, so don't worry about that. Now I on the other hand...
Where to begin...
L,
You'll hafta name a contradiction w/in the Bible (generalities won't do). Sayn you're not "versed" (nice play on words there btw) means what? Do you really believe there are contradictions w/in the Book, or is this what others have told you?
N,
"If they truly believe that they will be saved when they are baptized, but they die on their way to being baptized, I believe they will be saved."
This seems to refute your (well thought out) points about baptism bein a condition of grace. Or does it not apply to everyone?
Oh, I'm bringin it!
Ok, a Rabbi, a Priest and a Imam walk into a bakery...
Reck, your question is so hypothetical that it's tough to answer. I truly don't believe that what you're talking about would happen. God knows what is in our heart, and he just wouldn't let that happen. But, if he did...what is it that saves us? Grace through faith. We both agree here, however, participation in the death, burial and resurrection is where salvation is completed. The 7 scriptures I've used, as well as Romans 6 speak to this. There could be others, but with 8 scriptures that say you need to be baptized to to be saved, cleansed, etc. (and other words which mean the same thing) If the hypothetical situation which you said happened, and the person who was killed on the way to be baptized, and this person believed with all of their heart that sins were forgiven at baptism, and it was in their heart to be baptized as soon as possible (remember God reads our hearts) do you think God would deny salvation here? But if someone believed baptism was NOT necessary and God took them, then I think they would not be saved. It's harsh, but that's what I believe based on the many scriptures that say baptism is necessary. I'll reiterate this scripture: "Whoever believes and is baptized will be saved, but whoever does not believe will be condemned." (Mark 16:16)
C/o Gal 3:26-27...
In 1 Cor 10:2 Paul states.."They (speakin of the Jews) were all baptized into Moses in the cloud and in the sea." Baptism here refers to an identification w/ or a statement of loyalty to.
Sorry, that shoulda been Mark 16:16
Can an unsaved person receive the Holy Spirit?
In Acts chpt 10.. "While Peter was still speaking these words, the Holy Spirit came on all who heard the message..Can anyone keep these people from being baptized with water? They have received the Holy Spirit just as we have. So he ordered that they be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ.."
They received the Holy Spirit prior to baptism.
The unregenerate cannot receive the Holy Spirit.
Matt 3:11 "I baptize you with water for repentance. But after me one will come..He will baptize yoo with the Holy Spirit and with fire." Also see Luke 3:16
Must we be therefore baptized w/ fire?
Mark 1:8 "I baptize you with water, but He will baptize you with the Holy Spirit."
Also Paul speaks of the Gospel which saves (can't locate the exact Scripture here).
To add baptism as a requirement for salvation is to add a work as a necessity for salvation.
Eph 2: 8-9 "For it is by grace you have been saved, through faith-and this is not of yourselves, it is a gift from God-not by works, so that no one can boast."
I guess my concern is that by addin a work to salvation takes away from the sacrifice our Savior made. Is baptism important, absolutely. It is an outward expression of our faith.
One last thing. We are cleansed from sin by the blood of Christ, not by water.
Ro 5:9 "Since we have now been justified by His blood..."
Eph 1:7 "In Him we have redemption through His blood, for forgiveness of sins..."
Ok, I need a break now. I'll ponder and pray about the verses you listed.
Peace.
Btw, I think we mighta scared L away.
R:> "Sayn you're not "versed" (nice play on words there btw) means what?"
It means I've not read it cover to cover, nor have I memorized passages in it to know personally about contradictions. Yes, I've read other people's arguements claiming contradictions, and if I post the examples/quotes you'll say they're not in context, etc. so I don't see the point. I know you know how to do it. I don't think it's an arguement that can be won by either of us.
For example..my simulation...
L: Well the Bible says this and then later, here it says that. That doesn't make sense.
R: Sure it does. What you don't understand is that is says this because of that. You have to take that into consideration and know what frigglesnitz is. If you don't it does sound like a contradiction, but it isn't.
L: Oh kayyyy....
But, I'll throw ya a bone if you want. :)
You didn't scare me away (yet). I was getting de-oompa loompaed.
:)
Context is everything.
If I say, "we can't win the war in Iraq, unless we insert enough troops." Then someone quotes me as sayn, "we can't win the war in Iraq" that's outta context. I realize that's a simplistic example, but I WAS supposed to be takin a break.
If you take context outta the equation, then yes, this discussion is pointless.
"I feel like I just got slapped in the face by a leather glove." Outta context this would seem rather brusk.
Ok, now to something you do know...agnosticism.
How was the universe created?
K, I gotta go. I'm off for the day..check in late if I can. Have a good day!
I'll think about that universe thing. ;)
You too!
Mornin everyone.
Good morning! Got a post brewing, gonna work on it while y'all are in church.
Ok, universe....since a creator is OUT of the question ;), I'm going with big explosion. Course it's possible that aliens did it. (I may just have to include aliens in every one of my answers...just to see if I can work em in.)
Linda,
"I'm going with big explosion."
I agree. My question is, what caused the explosion? Or maybe you were just being tongue-in-cheek.
Reck,
I gotta work today, (I had to work yesterday too) I'll try to address your question(s) tonight, but I may not get to it until tomorrow.
I have no idea what caused it, and I'm in good company. I do believe that there are some things we just can't explain, but just cuz we can't explain them, it doesn't mean there's not an explanation. And I don't believe you can surmise an explanation (that God created the universe),just because we don't have a better one.
I think that made sense.
No prob Nest.
L,
Please name for me one thing that wasn't created.
Take your time...
create: "to cause to come into being, as something unique that would not naturally evolve or that is not made by ordinary processes."
Man.
:)
My first thought was love, but I thought you wanted something a little more tangible.
Ah shoot! I forgot to work aliens into my last answer.
And aliens.
I knew aliens would come up eventually.
Ok, I ask two questions (universe creation and namin something that doesn't need a creator).
Your answers for each of these was.....well, you had no answer, because if you remove a creator from the equation, these questions are unanswerable. In fact, the ONLY plausible answer is that a creation needs a creator.
So, have we atleast established that for there to be life, a creator (whatever that is) is necessary?
What do you mean I had no answers? I gave em. 1)Big explosion and 2)man. I did say I don't know what caused the explosion. I don't see how that leads me to 'for there to be a life, there needs to be a creator'.
Really?
I thought the man answer was a joke, because a the smiley face.
Ok, so if there was a big explosion, where did the stuff involved in this big explosion come from. I cannot logically accept that they just mysteriously appeared outta thin air. This is a belief I've held most of my life.
Also, please list an example where man appeared w/out the aid of a creator or creators.
Not really a joke, just knew it would come off smartassy.
I'm probably gonna hand you a classic response that you've heard before.
R> I cannot logically accept that they just mysteriously appeared outta thin air.
Well, I can't logically accept that God mysteriously appeared outta thin air, either. Either way, there's no creator of God, right? So why can't I claim no creator of a big explosion in space? Maybe whatever caused it has just 'always been'.
You're asking me for examples you know I can't give. I can't disprove a creator anymore than you can prove one.
There is really no explainable answer for an original creator of the Creator. One of those unexplainable things you mentioned. But God doesn't claim He was created, He simply says He always was. But since we're throwin each others logic back at one another, I'll say that just because we can't explain it, doesn't mean there's not an answer. So ha!
But I'm talkin about things we do know. We know that a human being requires birth from a mother (who was inseminated by a man); we do know that a painting needs a painter; a table needs a builder, "etc".
So, knowing that everything needs a creator, it's only logical that a universe (or universes) would too.
I have actually proved the existence of the need for a creator for a creation. The only "thing" that I can't explain is a creator of the Creator. Now, where He comes from, that's debatable.
Your "man" example lacks validity. Again, if you believe that man needs no creator, explain how.
R> "I have actually proved the existence of the need for a creator for a creation. The only "thing" that I can't explain is a creator of the Creator."
Well then the only "thing" I can't explain is a creator for a big explosion in space.
And really, I think "proved" is a stretch. You've given examples of things that were created/designed. That doesn't mean you can apply those standards to something our pee brains can't understand, like the beginning of the universe.
You really think the evolution of man lacks validity? I'd say not any more than the creation theory.
whoops... I meant pea brains.
Exactly! I've given examples of things that were created or designed.
I've proved creation is real (albeit not of the universe, but I have proved that creation exists).
Prove that evolution is real. Site one example of one thing evolving into another.
There is no evolution. Not at least the way it is taught. Animals have adapted. An example would be fish in a lake that somehow gets split into two lakes. Over time they 'evolve' because they are eating different food, the slight variations in genetics, water temperature, plant life etc. However, they don't turn into a rabbit. They are still a fish. There is no evidence for evolution with the exceptions of scenarios like my fish example. Darwin's Finches are another type of this example.
However, there is massive scientific and archaeological evidence which supports the bible. The odds that the universe happened by accident would make the odds of winning the lottery equal to the odds of getting bit by a mosquito in the rainforest in July.
Those are good points.
Knowing that creation exists would atleast lend one to entertain the possibility of a created universe.
Nest,
I'm still lookin into this whole baptism thing. I'm keepin an open mind here. We obviously have conflictin views on this sub. BUT, the important thing is we've accapted Him and been baptized. So, either way we're covered :)
Sack time.
gna.
gn
Concerning the baptisms.
I think I may have mistakenly said in the past that there are two. However in the NT there are three mentioned.
There is John's baptism, the baptism of repentance. This was relegated to almost nothing after Jesus' baptism.
There was the baptism of the Holy Spirit, which was not a command, but a promise. "Do not leave Jerusalem, but wait for the gift my Father promised, which you have heard me speak about. For John baptized with water, but in a few days you will be baptized with the Holy Spirit." (Acts 1:4-5)
Baptism with the Holy Spirit was promised and then poured out; once for the Jews, at Pentecost, and once for the Gentiles on the household of Cornelius. This type of outpouring of the Spirit never happens again in the bible.
Later, Paul wrote: "There is one body and one Spirit—just as you were called to one hope when you were called— one Lord, one faith, one baptism; one God and Father of all, who is over all and through all and in all." (Ephesians 4:4-6) When Peter says; "baptism that now saves you also" (1 Peter 3:21) he is writing that around the same time Paul wrote "one baptism", roughly 62 AD.
I'm going to use the NASB translation, which is closer to the Greek, of 1 Peter 3:21.
"Corresponding to that, baptism now saves you--not the removal of dirt from the flesh, but an appeal to God for a good conscience--through the resurrection of Jesus Christ," Again these are written at almost the same time. Paul says there is only one baptism, and Peter says that it is baptism that saves us. Obviously it is truly our faith in the power of God. But it comes at baptism. It is our faith in the power of God to wash away our sins in the waters of baptism as we participate in the death, burial and resurrection of Jesus Christ. Jesus paid the price, and by participating in His death, we are cleansed of our sins.
Did I not properly address your concerns about baptism being a 'work'? Do you understand my argument that it is not a work? It is not work. If being baptized is work, then so was healing on the sabbath. Perhaps I just didn't communicate it properly, but I don't want to have massive comments like Mrs. J. I think once the comments get to a certain length people stop reading them. Or maybe that's just me. Anyway, my comments can sometimes push my limits, (and I'm sure other people's)so I try to keep them as short as possible while still getting as much information in as possible. I may be even be rambling now, but the point is, let me know if I need to clarify what I said.
As far as taking away Jesus' sacrifice, well, baptism as our way to salvation doesn't take that away. If it wasn't for Jesus' sacrifice, baptism would mean you got your clothes all wet in front of a bunch of people for no reason. But WITH Jesus' sacrifice, you are putting to death your old way of life, you are buried and raised to a new life, a life for Christ. You are participating in Jesus' death, burial and resurrection. Your sins are washed away and you recieve the indwelling of the Holy Spirit, and you have a direct connection to God. It is very clear that if it was not for Christ's sacrifice we would not be allowed to enter into a true relationship with Him, but his chosen path to that relationship is through immersion. I didn't choose it.
In some ways it doesn't make sense, but in other ways it does. Truly though, I think it comes down to this: "Are you willing to do whatever you are commanded no matter how silly it sounds?" I would call marching around Jericho for 7 days blowing trumpets and yelling a pretty silly way to knock down a wall, but that was God's plan. When the Israelites followed God's plan, no matter how ridiculous it seemed from a human perspective, He always gave them success. The life of a Disciple is no different. A Disciple has to go anywhere, do anything, and give up everything if that is what his/her Lord asks. I think baptism may fit into this category. It is a 'stumbling block' for many people in this world who are really trying to be right with God. But I think there is enough evidence which points to it being necessary. (John 3:3, 5-7, Mark 16:16, 1 Peter 3:21, Romans 6:3-6, Acts 22:16, Galatians 3:26-27, Colossians 2:11-12, Titus 3:4-7, Acts 2:38)
I understand the importance of baptism. It's interestin that some of your Scriptural examples for the case for baptism as a requirement for salvation are Scriptures that I would use to make the opposite case.
Yes I agree w/ your statement,
"..you are putting to death your old way of life, you are buried and raised to a new life, a life for Christ. You are participating in Jesus' death, burial and resurrection."
Here's the thing. I was baptized at 18. I felt a real something, almost like a switch bein turned on inside (stirring of the Holy Spirit?), it lasted seconds. 24 yrs (of a sin filled life go by) and at age 42 I became truly saved(that night in my kitchen). At that moment I felt/knew that the Holy Spirit indwelled in me. No doubts whatsoever.
So, was my baptism decades before (when I wasn't sincere in my belief) required for me to receive the Holy Spirit when I was legitimately saved? I honestly don't know. When I was baptized last yr (after my true conversion) I honestly felt nothin.
It was through prayer last night that I recalled my experience in HS.
More to ponder.
There's a lot of good evidence supporting speciation. It's hard for us to get an eye-witness account of a natural speciation event since most of them happened so long ago.
So we agree that evolution does happen on some level. Well then I can as easily say that because things HAVE evolved, making the leap to man is the same as making the leap from a designer of a table to the designer of the universe. No way to know...but it makes sense.
In other words,
R> "Knowing that creation exists would atleast lend one to entertain the possibility of a created universe."
L> Knowing that some sort of evolution exists would at least lend one to entertain the possibility of an evolved universe.
Sorry, but there is NO evidence that one thing can evolve into another. Zip. Zilch. Nada.
There is positive proof that creators create..ie. people were created by parents. BTW, I had an eye witness account of this when S and I created Lil S..if ya know what I mean.
Now, if you're talkin adaption (could be referred to as micro-evolution), ok. But this is change w/in a species, not into another species.
Again, there is no proof that one species can become another species. To make an argument based on an unproven hypothesis such as evolution is speculative reasoning, not speciation reasoning :)
Linda,
If there IS evolution, where all life came from the first life form, where did the first life form come from? Dr. John Oakes used this example; (though I think it was someone else's example) If you are walking on the beach and you see a watch, do you think to yourself, "Hmm. How did that watch get there? I think some rocks mixed around in the ocean and...Poof! A watch!" Now as silly as that sounds, it is more likely than life coming from nothing. The genetic code in the simplest life forms is far more complicated than a watch.
I like Dawkins response in Expelled:The Movie when cornered on the beginnin of life on planet earth. He said, perhaps an alien race seeded the earth.
Lovely. Take a totally unproven thing (the existence of aliens) and use it to explain another unproven thing, evolution.
And they say we take things on faith.
Off o work. I lok forward to cont this convo.
'ave a good day all.
Did Stein ask Dawkins, "So who created the aliens?"
I believe your arguement is based on an unproven hypothesis, as well.
Identifying creation exists on earth, has little or nothing to do with the origins of the universe, in my opinion.
R> "Take a totally unproven thing (the existence of aliens) and use it to explain another unproven thing, evolution."
The same has been said for Christianity. Take a totally unproven thing (the Bible as the word of God), and use it to explain another unproven thing, creationism.
Btw, I'm in no way supporting the idea that aliens seeded the earth.
But now that I think about it...maybe WE'RE "aliens"! Maybe a distant life form sent 2 of their brightest and best to earth to check out the uninhabited planet and they stayed and, well, you know the rest. Hey, at least I'M considering options...
No, what I was attempting to do was come to an agreement that creation exists.
Then (at your behest) I was comparing this (creation) as a possibility for the origins of the universe to ( evolution and/or aliens) as a possibility for the creation of the universe.
Granted I did a poor job of it.
You go ahead and consider all the options you'd like to.
BTW, I never brought the Bible or Christianity into the discussion. I also didn't (w/ the one exception of makin the point that you were) simply take your arguments and reverse them to make a point.
Oooh, I knew you gonna nail me for that! It just presents itself and I can't help it. I'll stop. Hey I never claimed to be good at this debate thing. I'm tryin to keep my head afloat w/ 2 studied people against little ol me.
No, I know you didn't bring that up, it's just that I feel like I have to stay a step ahead of you, cuz I feel where you're going, and I don't wanna get caught in a corner.
Posted too fast...
So, I'll try to stay on the subject at hand. My paranoia makes me anticipate what you'll say next, so I'll try harder to control that.
Behest? Had to look that up!
Actually, I thought you did well. That was fun. I like bein challenged.
We'll call it a draw.
Hey, maybe next time we'll debate the pros ad cons of prepositions :)
Hey, I just won a gm of scrabble..
..against my 9 yr old daughter.
She did pretty well. Tho we're still not sure if "pip" isa word.
Reck,
The problem with baptism after the fact is that those who have that kind of baptism are doing it as a tradition. Something that is important, has some meaning but isn't really necessary, like the ceremonial handwashing of the Pharisees.
I'm saying it is necessary. (of course you already know this) Your (any person) faith has to be in the power of God to wash away your sins, through the blood of Christ in the waters of baptism. God's chosen path to salvation was sacrificing His Son who did not deserve to die, (as Abraham sacrificed Isaac) placing all of the sins of the entire world onto His shoulders and raising Him from the dead. In order to enter into a true relationship with Him, we have to put to death our old way of life, (repent) be buried in water, (immersed) and then we are raised to a new life in fellowship with Him, receiving the gift of the Holy Spirit.
I know you've said you'd use some of the same scriptures I used to support baptism as unnecessary. Can you please show me how? No matter how many times I look at them, I see baptism as commanded, or baptism as being shown as the point where sins are washed away. Granted, we have to have faith in God, but the faith is that God has the power, and wants to wash away our sins in baptism, even though we don't deserve it.
Aboard, about, above, across, after, against, along, amid, among, around, at, before, behind, beneath...
I think that's right. If you can believe it, in jr. high we had to memorize all the prepositions. Just don't end a sentence in one.
So are we done w/ our quid pro quo, or just on the creation subject?
N,
The only way I can adequately address this is w/ an entire post. I'll do it at TH, will need a day or two for this one tho.
L,
Thought I'd pushed far enough c/o what creation is. Did I get my point across? I thought maybe you were just playin along. Sounds like you're aboard. So, I guess this is where I'll pick it up at.
We do know that a creation (notice in my comments I said a creation, not THE creation) needs a creator.
This means that for there to be life (take a universe for example) there has to be a startin point. So what is this thing before the first thing? Where did it come from?
HA! Wow, that was some paragraph! Almost got by me w/out noticing! Very good.
Well, we touched on this a little before, I think.. the thing before the first thing. I know there are some theories out there like the "multiple cosmoi" hypothesis, and "tracker fields" as to what are possible explanations for the Big Bang explosion. But really, it's anyone's guess.
I guess the point I'm tryn to make is, since we know that a creation needs a creator..
..the more plausible answer to the creation of the universe is a Creator. Is this irrefutable evidence?(unless you're a Believer I can see why this, on it's own, wouldn't be proof enough). But, compared to other "hypothesis'" it does bare some truth, or is atleast closer to the truth.
See, I guess I can't see it as "closer" to the truth. It's one theory among others. Sure it deserves consideration, like the other theories do.
Too, even if I were to lean toward the creator side of things, the (huge in my mind) question still remains about the "traditional" God of Christianity.
Did I just do it again...jumping ahead to something you haven't brought up? I find it so hard not to do that. For proper debate purposes, you may just have to tell me to back up.
Also, by using the term "creation" to describe the universe, you're already assuming a creator. We've not established the the universe is a creation in the first place. A creation by its defintion is the act of making, inventing or producing.
Yeah, I'm thinkin that last bit didn't make sense. Scratch it.
This is gettin us nowhere but I'll just say it once more.
The act of creation exists.
Aliens do not exist.
Evolution does not exist.
I've listed several examples of a creation. You listed no examples of the existense of aliens or that MACROevolution exists.
You say each "theory" is equally plausible.
I bang my head against the wall.
Ok, fine. The act of creation exists. I won't jump ahead. Go.
You know that the examples you're asking from me are far more difficult to prove, than examples of creation for things as we know it. (ie. tables, etc.)
You're banging YOUR head? 'I've proven that things are created here on Earth. Prove to me aliens exist and give me examples of macroevolution.'
Well it could be that those examples your strugglin w/ are difficult because they don't exist.
Or they're just more difficult to prove. Because proving that things are created isn't exactly rocket science. :)
So I talked to my brother tnite who left for the west coast over 20 years ago, and he said that every time he talks to me I sound more and more Canadian. Ha. So there you go, Nestor. I guess it is there.
You won't give an inch, eh?
That's ok. Gn L
gn doll
Something's wrong w/ my computer. Keeps shutting down for no reason. Reads No Input Signal and something like Going to Power Save and then a blank screen and I havta re-boot. Any suggs?
Beats me. We've been havin trouble w/ our modem (keep losin internet connection).
Hey, gonna be taking this in to the Geek Squad tomorrow. Computer is seriously messed up. Got it to work to post this, tho! Have a good night! Gotta run before it freezes on me!
I jiggled some wires trying to move the thing out and now it's working fine. I hate that. Now I don't know whether or not to bother taking it in.
Couldn't hurt. Ours is workin fine, but I'm keepin my appt w/ cable co to come out; just in case.
It could hurt ME. Not sure how to get the thing out of the computer desk. Not enough slack in the cords to pull it out and then unplug. Then there's plugging it all back in correctly. (Remember, I'm on my own this week.)
I'm pooped, gn. #2 son has dibs on sleepin w/ mom tnite. He snores, but it's a cute little 6 yr. old snore. :)
Haven't forgotten about the "baptism" challenge, just a tough work week this week; too tired right now to get theological. I'll let you know when I post it.
couldn't get to sleep so I picked up w/ H post about baptism and came to the conclusion that I was writin a sm novel. So, I'll try to respond to the verses you listed here.
Gonna hit a couple and see where it leads.
John 3:3, 5-7
Probably your focal point here is verse 5 "..I tell you the truth, no one can be enter the kingdom of God unless he is born of water and the Spirit."
I remember in our Bible study awhile back this verse was widely debated. The consensus was that it (born of water) meant actual birth (from the womb). Verse 6 seems to allude to this "Flesh gives birth to flesh.."
Anyhow, that's what Nicodemus musta thought cause he replied in verse 4 "..Surley he (a man) cannot enter a second time into his mother's womb?"
The best translation of born again from the Greek is "born from above" btw
Regardless, Christian baptism had not been instituted yet, so "born of water" cannot mean baptism.
I warned you that these might be lengthy, that's why I'm postn em individually.
Mark 16:16
"Whoever believes and is baptized will be saved, but whoever does not believe will be condemned."
The key here is it says "believes (first) and is baptized". It also says nothin about no baptism+ condemnation, it says "whoever does not believe".
1Pet 3:21
"and this water symbolizes baptism that now saves you also-not the removal of dirt from the body but the pledge of a good conscience toward God."
Obviously there's more here in 1 Peter 3, he even talks about Noah (which I believe you mentioned). I would say that it was Noah's faith (he listened to God) and the ark that saved Noah and his family, not the flood. The flood did however wash away the evil of the world.
In 1 Cor 10:1-2 Paul says "..our forefathers were all under the cloud and that they all passed through the sea (water). They were baptized into Moses in the cloud and in the sea."
Baptism here means pledged to.
Paul and Peter each mention baptism in these verses. But, it wasn't the water that saved in these instances, it was the spiritual act associated w/ it.
In Mark 16:16 post should read.."no baptism =condemnation", not "+"
Ro 6:3-6
3rd verse "Or don't you know that all of us who were baptized into Christ Jesus were baptized into His death?"
An interestin choice a words here..."into His death".
In Heb chptr 9 the ceremony of sprinkling blood (by the High Priest) to cleanse the Temple is discussed. This is what I think Ro 6:3 is referrin to. This is what Jesus (our High Priest) does for us (through His blood shed on the cross). He cleans the Temple of the Holy Spirit(us).
Whew! Told you it was alot, and that was only half the verses you listed. Anyhow, I'm gonna stop here (for now). But (as I said to L once) quid pro quo...
If baptism is a condition of grace, how do you explain these verses (I know I've mention this in the past, just can't remember if or how you responded)..
Acts 10:44-47
"While Peter was still speaking these words, the Holy Spirit came on all who heard the message. The circumcised Believers who had come with Peter were astonished that the gift of the Holy Spirit had been poured out even on the Gentiles. For they heard them speaking in tongues (in Acts 2:4 the Apostles spoke in tongues "as the Spirit enabled them") and praising God (only Believers praise God). Then Peter said, can anyone keep these people from being baptized with water? They have recieved the Holy Spirit just as we have."
I guess what it gets down to is..I don't believe that repentance brings salvation; I believe salvation brings repentance.
One last (I promise) thing.
I do agree that we are commanded to be baptized, just not for the reason you do. Beside it bein an outward statement of our faith, He did tell us it was necessary for discipleship.
Matt 28:18-20
"Jesus came to them and said, All authority in Heaven and on earth has been given to Me. Therefore go and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit. And teaching them to obey everything I have commanded you. And surely I will be with you always, to the very end of the age."
Wow! I have one word for you...
Ambien.
Ha! I have used it before. Problem last night was I laid down around 10 and then woke up around 10:30 because of the KIDS! Darn kids. Naps are deadly for me (as far as goin to sleep later at nite). Especially naps at 10 o'clock at nite.
More on Baptism...
Acts 22:16
"And now what are you waiting for? Get up and be baptized and wash your sins away, calling on His name."
This, on the surface, is a toughy. But when you read the whole verse you see that it says "calling on His name". However, more than any of the Scripture you listed, the baptism here refers to washing away of sins (symbolically).
Uno mas.
Gal 3:26-27
"You are all sons of God through faith in Christ Jesus, for all of you who were baptized into Christ have clothed yourselves with Christ."
There's no mention of water here. Remember 1 Cor chptr 10 where Paul speaks of the Jews bein baptized into Moses; this verse in Acts refers to being pledged to.
Back at it...
Col 2:11-12
These verses talk the "circumcision done by Christ" and being "buried with Him in baptism".
There's alot here. This gets to the subject of covenant signs (which is lengthy). Obviously it doesn't mean we are to be physically circumcised "not with a circumcision done by the hands of men" or the we are to be literally "buried with Him".
OT circumcision was a covenant requirement, so is NT baptism.
Titus 3:4-7
"But when the kindness and love of God our Savior appeared, He saved us, not because of righteous things we had done, but because of His mercy. He saved us through the washing of rebirth and renewal of the Holy Spirit, whom He poured out on us generously through Jesus Christ our Savior, so that, having been justified by His grace, we might become heirs having the hope of eternal life."
Again, there is nothin about baptism with water in these verses. The baptism spoken of is by the washing by the Holy Spirit. There is probably no greater Scriptural argument that water baptism isn't necessary for salvation than this one (excludin Eph).."not because of righteous things we had done"..."washing of rebirth".."renewal of the Holy Spirit".."justified by grace".."whom He poured out on us".
And last but not least..
Acts 2:38
"Peter replies, Repent and be baptized every one of you, in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins. And you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit."
"Repent and be baptized" how?...
"in the name of Jesus Christ".
Notice also that it says "repent" then "be baptized".
Only God can bring about our repentance.."..in the hope that God will grant them repentance leading them to a knowledge of the truth." 2 Tim 2:25
How can a non-Believer repent? Before I was saved I tried, but alone I couldn't. If I could have (w/out God's help) then God wouldn't be necessary for salvation. After I was saved I was then baptized. Baptism is an outward expression that I have been regenerated. It shows that God has, in effect, circumcised my heart through Jesus Christ our Lord.
1 Cor 1:17
"For Christ did not send me to baptize, but to preach the gospel-not with words of human wisdom, lest the cross of Christ be emptied of it's power."
Eph 2:8-9
"For it is by grace you have been saved, through faith-and this not from yourselves, it is a gift from God-not by works, so that no one can boast."
Eph 2:5
"...it is by grace you have been saved."
Peace.
Reck,
I'll counter your points here pretty soon. It's going to take a little while. Plus I'll have to decide whether to take them head on or point by point.
Cool.
For fun, next time we have a doctrinal disagreement, we should take the other persons view and try to argue for it.
Btw, per our Bible study this mornin, I'm rethinkin that baptism is a NT Covenant requirement. I'll have to study alot more about this.
Reck,
I know it's been a while, but here goes.
To address the post July 31st at 1158 PM:
I'm not sure of your point here. Nicodemus is confused. He is asking Jesus if Jesus means to be literally 'born' again. Jesus replied that you must be born of water and spirit, a pretty clear, if not totally specific, reference to baptism. (immersion)
The spiritual significance of baptism (immersion) is to die to one's former way of life, be buried in the water, and be raised again to a new life. If this is not what Jesus means, (in John 3:3,5-7) what does he mean?
This is short so I'll just copy your whole post.
"Mark 16:16
"Whoever believes and is baptized will be saved, but whoever does not believe will be condemned."
The key here is it says "believes (first) and is baptized". It also says nothin about no baptism+ condemnation, it says "whoever does not believe".
August 1, 2008 12:17 AM"
True, I agree that it doesn't say what happens to those who believe but are not baptized (immersed), but it Does say that him/her who; 'believes AND is baptized will be saved' (emphasis mine)
Does this mean that those who believe, but are not baptized go to Purgatory? Jesus is specific that if you believe and are baptized, you will be saved. If you don't believe you WILL be condemned. If you believe but are not baptized, he doesn't say. We could guess all day long as to what happens to those who believe but are not baptized but I'm not willing to risk it.
I think it may be that Jesus left it out there so that in the event of the hypothetical question that you posed earlier, those who believe and are ready to be baptized and somehow don't make it to their baptism, have an 'out'. But that is my guess, and like I said, I'm not going to 'risk it.'
Your post on August 1, 2008 12:38 AM
In reference to 1 Peter 3, specifically speaking about the flood: Noah's faith in God saved him. Noah lived before the FIRST covenant, so obviously baptism would have had no significance as it didn't exist at the time. (to my knowledge at least) However, the flood is a symbol of baptism. Baptism isn't the symbol, baptism (immersion) is the FULFILLMENT of the symbol or the sign, the flood.
Peter is pretty specific and in the NASB it is even more clear than the NIV.
"Corresponding to that,(the flood, and Noah's family being saved by faith in God through the waters of the flood) baptism now saves you--not the removal of dirt from the flesh, but an appeal to God for a good conscience--through the resurrection of Jesus Christ," (1 Peter 3:21 comments in parenthesis mine)
We are saved by faith in God through the waters of baptism. Peter says; "baptism now saves you". He doesn't say that grace alone saves us or faith alone saves us, he says baptism saves us.
So if the bible doesn't contradict itself, as we both know it doesn't, and there are scriptures that say we are saved by grace, saved by faith and saved by baptism, how do we reconcile the differences? All three have to be true!
It is only God's grace that allows us to be saved, because we are not worthy of our own merit. Faith in the power of God, and Jesus' sacrifice is the means, but only by participating in the death, burial and resurrection of Jesus through immersion in water is salvation complete. All three have to be present. If you don't believe that baptism (immersion) is necessary for salvation, you have to rip this scripture out of the bible.
Reck,
BTW, I am highlighting immersion not for your benefit or to belittle you, but for anyone out there in cyberspace who might be reading this.
I'll break this part up a little more than I did before. I tried to keep the context and still keep it short. I don't think I'm losing the context though by leaving a few verses out, I'm merely trying to highlight the point I'm trying to make.
"Or don't you know that all of us who were baptized into Christ Jesus were baptized into his death?" (Romans 6:3)
Baptism (immersion) is participating in Jesus' death.
"If we have been united with him like this in his death, we will certainly also be united with him in his resurrection" (Romans 6:5)
Being united in Jesus' death, means we will be united with Him in the next life.
"because anyone who has died has been freed from sin. Now if we died with Christ, we believe that we will also live with him" (Romans 6:7-8)
When you die, AT BAPTISM, you are freed from sin. This passage is clear that you are freed from sin at baptism, not before. If you have not been freed from sin, you are condemned. Freedom from sin comes at baptism as Paul clearly states here.
Regarding the outpouring of the Holy Spirit on the household of Cornelius: I think I've touched on how this happened at Pentecost (once for the Jews) and on Cornelius' house. (once for the Gentiles) This type of outpouring of the Holy Spirit NEVER happens again before an individual is baptized in the NT. I can go here again in more detail but I think I've covered it, let me know if you want me to clarify this point.
Acts 22:16
I don't see Paul's baptism as symbolic at all. It is very necessary for Paul's sins to be cleansed, probably more than most people who've ever walked the Earth. When I was baptized, I professed my faith in the power of God, and I professed my faith that Jesus was Lord of my life.
Just because Paul, called Jesus' name when he was baptized doesn't mean that his baptism wasn't 'for the forgiveness of sins'. He was baptized as it says in Acts 2:38; "in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your (Paul's, Nestor's, your name here) sins"
Notice, 'be baptized and wash you sins away'. I think it's pretty likely that Paul repented pretty quickly after becoming blind. I think he accepted that Jesus was Lord at that point, but his sins were not washed away until he was baptized and he called on Jesus' name.
Another short one, so I'll copy the whole thing.
"Gal 3:26-27
"You are all sons of God through faith in Christ Jesus, for all of you who were baptized into Christ have clothed yourselves with Christ."
There's no mention of water here. Remember 1 Cor chptr 10 where Paul speaks of the Jews bein baptized into Moses; this verse in Acts refers to being pledged to."
August 1, 2008 6:37 PM
The Old Testament has many foreshadowings of New Testament events. See Abraham's sacrifice of Isaac for a very powerful one. Crossing through the Red Sea is a powerful one, one that I've mentioned before. It symbolized ACTUAL baptism, much like the Great Flood symbolizes baptism.
However in the Galatians scripture Paul is not speaking figuratively, or symbolically, he is speaking plainly, and when speaking plainly the word used here, baptizo, always means to put some object or another into a liquid. If this is Paul speaking plainly and not symbolically (and I don't see much in this portion of scripture that is symbolic) he must be referring to baptism in water. He doesn't have to specify it, it is obvious.
About 4 more points to comment on, but I've got to get to bed.
Back to Colossians:
"In him you were also circumcised, in the putting off of the sinful nature, not with a circumcision done by the hands of men but with the circumcision done by Christ, having been buried with him in baptism and raised with him through your faith in the power of God, who raised him from the dead." (Colossians 2:11-12)
You said that we are not be be actually circumcised, and NO we are not actually circumcised, but we are 'cut to the heart' (like in Acts 2:37) and we are joined in Jesus' death in baptism. We don't actually drown, just as we are not actually circumcised, but our old way of life dies and is buried, and we are raised to a new life. When we die to our old life in the waters of baptism, we are freed from our sins. Notice Paul says; "buried with him in baptism and raised with him through your faith in the power of God, who raised him from the dead." We are raised to a new life through faith AT BAPTISM.
Titus 3:4-7
"But when the kindness and love of God our Savior appeared, He saved us, not because of righteous things we had done, but because of His mercy. He saved us through the washing of rebirth and renewal of the Holy Spirit, whom He poured out on us generously through Jesus Christ our Savior, so that, having been justified by His grace, we might become heirs having the hope of eternal life."
Reck,
Washing of rebirth is baptism. Paul says; "He saved us through the washing of rebirth", meaning we are saved by baptism. Surely without God's grace, mercy and forgiveness we could not be saved. We also couldn't be saved without faith in God's power. But it is at baptism that our sins are washed away, and at baptism that we die to our life of sin. I'll reiterate; "He saved us through the washing of rebirth"
The words here are; 'loutron' which means bath, and 'paliggensia'; which means rebirth. He doesn't a form of baptizo here, but the message is the same, we are saved by baptism.
Reck,
First, your quote from 2 Timothy is out of context. Paul is not referring to non-believers, or at least the context appears to be referring to Christians.
Second, belief alone doesn't guarantee salvation. "You believe that there is one God. Good! Even the demons believe that—and shudder." (James 2:19) Demons certainly are not saved even though they believe that Jesus is the Son of God.
We have to first repent of our sins, change our lives and begin living for Christ. This is what mainstream 'Christianity' believes is 'being saved'. You see the need for God in your life, you see that only with Jesus can you be saved so you change your life, 'metanoeo'. This word means to change your mind in a way that means to change for the better without looking back.
Once a person has repented, they are living their lives as a disciple of Jesus. They are then baptized for the forgiveness of sins. After they are baptized for the forgiveness of sins, they receive the gift of the Holy Spirit.
First comes repentance, then comes baptism (and salvation) then you receive the gift of the Holy Spirit.
To address your comment on 1Corinthians, consider that Paul, first and foremost was addressing divisions amongst the Corinthian church. Some were following Peter, some were following Apollos and some were following Paul. They were all be wrong. No one who claims to be a Christian should be a disciple of Paul, Peter or even Nestor. A Christian is a disciple of Jesus Christ!
Second, consider that Paul's job was not to baptize. He didn't diminish baptism or its importance, he just said that wasn't his mission.
Paul says in Ephesians 4:11-12:
"It was he who gave some to be apostles, some to be prophets, some to be evangelists, and some to be pastors and teachers, to prepare God's people for works of service, so that the body of Christ may be built up"
Everyone has different talents, and Paul's talents meant that baptizing wasn't a focus of his ministry. That doesn't mean baptism isn't necessary or that Paul didn't baptize, it just means Paul had different talents. It was the mission of someone else to baptize, Paul's mission was that of an apostle, to evangelize, and to teach. (among other things surely)
Eph 2:5
"...it is by grace you have been saved."
"baptism now saves you" (1 Peter 3:21)
Both of these scriptures are true.
Peace
Well, I think we both have made pretty strong cases for our belief c/o baptism.
Is baptism important, absolutely.
I'm sure we'll debate this more..
Post a Comment