Posted on 09/25/2009 6:53:41 PM PDT by Colofornian
Well, at least we agree on one thing: We both like coffee
As for your lousy analogy, it doesn't work. I mean, for it to work, you'd have to have one boy hit someone, and then 175-180 years later the brother "struck back" as some sort of "vengeance."
Well, let's go back to Jewish theological thought from a long time ago:
Surely I was sinful at birth, sinful from the time my mother conceived me. (Psalm 51:5)
Even from birth the wicked go astray; from the womb they are wayward... (Psalm 58:3)
What people mix up is that they think the Garden happens all over again at some point in their life: something environmental tempts them & then they sin "for the first time." Until then, they think they're innocent. Unlike Adam & Eve, people do not simply sin & then become sinful; they sin because they are sinful by nature.
People's spiritual nature is dead (Eph. 2:1), which the NT describes as being in bondage to sin (Romans 6).
Now, let's go back to children. I already posted in this thread Acts 2:38-39 -- which declares that the promise of baptism includes children...AND that the POWER of baptism results in the "remission of sin". (If children are sinful, they don't need their sins to undergo a remission...even Mormons recognize children at age 8 need it...I'd hope that Lds aren't more savvy than Christians on that count).
Finally, Xone posted something several weeks ago worth reposting (BTW -- note that the "obedience" in baptism is on the part of the those who do the baptizing -- not the people being baptized)
1.)God's command [is] to baptize (Matthew 28:18-20; Mark 16:16; Acts 2:38). There is not a single passage in Scripture which instructs us not to baptize for reasons of age, race, or gender. On the contrary, the divine commands to baptize in Scripture are all universal in nature. On the basis of these commands, the Christian church has baptized infants from the earliest days of its history. Since those baptized are also to be instructed in the Christian faith, (Matt. 28:20), the church baptizes infants only where there is the assurance that parents or spiritual guardians will nurture the faith of the one baptized through continued teaching of God's Word.
2.) Our need for baptism (Psalm 51; 5; John 3:5-7; Acts 2:38; Romans 3:23; Romans 6:3-4). According to the Bible, all people--including infants--are sinful and fall short of the glory of God (Romans 3:23). King David confesses, "I was brought forth in iniquity, and in sin did my mother conceive me" (Ps. 51:5). Like adults, infants die--sure proof that they too are under the curse of sin and death. According to the Bible, baptism (somewhat like Old Testament circumcision, administered to 8-day-old-babies--see Col. 2:11-12) is God's gracious way of washing away our sins--even the sins of infants--without any help or cooperation on our part. It is a wonderful gift of a loving and gracious God.
3.) God's promises and power (Acts 2:38; Mark 16:16; Acts 22:16; 1 Peter 3:21; John 3:5-7; Titus 3:5-6; Galatians 3:26-27; Romans 6:1-4; Colossians 2;11-12; Ephesians 5:25-26; 1 Corinthians 12:13). Those churches which deny baptism to infants usually do so because they have a wrong understanding of baptism. They see baptism as something we do (e.g., a public profession of faith, etc.) rather than seeing it as something that God does for us and in us.
That's why the Vatican used to allow the marrying off of 9-year-olds to "keep the peace." The "age of accountability" and "age of reason" arguments can be quite tricky and entangling.
He also says ‘believe and be baptized.’ I consider that one of His commands, don’t you?
Jesus unable to be an Aaronic priest - he is not of the lineage of Aaron/Levi.
IIANM, only Luke reported that Jesus said he'd be going to paradise, and he never said the thief was unbaptized. Remember that many people had been baptized by that time.
Besides, Jesus spoke to the thieves before His expiration and resurrection, which--again, IIANM--many people believe changed the ground rules of Salvation from Old Testament times. (Though verses like those in Col 2 and Eph 2 imply it was the nailing to the cross and the shedding of blood, not His death, that did it.)
I was just making a comment about age having an impact criminal liability for children under eight years of age; nothing more nor less.
Was that before or after the ACTS passage?
Well THIS will sure upset SOME Mormon holders of the 'title'!
“Jesus unable to be an Aaronic priest - he is not of the lineage of Aaron/Levi. “
Jesus Christ is perfect.
I don’t remember off hand. We all have to read what the Bible has to say about baptism and not just take verses out of context.
Oh yes He is SD, however, you need to read your bible a little more
Heb 7:13* For he (Jesus) of whom these things are spoken pertaineth to another tribe, of which no man gave attendance at the altar.
14 For it is evident that our Lord sprang out of Juda; of which tribe Moses spake nothing concerning priesthood.
Only descendants of Aaron/Levi are allowed to be priests of that category SD. Amazing what you can learn by reading the bible.
Doubt a 12 yr old is cognitive of the erroneous belief/lie.
> According to the bible baptism is a profession of faith. It doesn’t make you a Christian. [driftdriver]
> 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 3:5-7)
> Driftdriver & ActrFshr, What's the "washing" referencing here?
> Why is "washing" directly linked to something "salvific?"
> And if it's not baptism what makes you say it's not (such as looking > Titus 3 in context)?
The phrase "the washing of rebirth" is only used in only one English Bible translation, almost all translations say "the washing of regeneration." That being said, please note the word 'baptism' is not used. Your assumption that the phrase is equivalent to 'water baptism' is purely subjective without evidence from the text. By reading the surrounding verses of this chapter, it is clear this is NOT a personal salvation verse. Note *Tit 3:1 It is a command to submit to divinely delegated authority and verses *Tit 3:3-8 explains our motivation for submission beginning with the explanatory connective "for." Notice the main verb of this motivation for submission is vs. *Tit 3:5, "He saved us." Then Paul states further that people are "NOT SAVED on the basis of deeds we have done in righteousness." Yet your main and erroneous assumption of your post is that immediately after this Paul would now instruct someone to use a "deeds done in human righteousness" to be saved, that is "water baptism" to be saved. Paul must be two minded. How sad.
The Bible is clear beyond question that no one can be saved by works, i.e. human activities. The only exception to works is faith, a non-works mechanism (Rom 3:27–28), whereby we rest on His completed work on the Cross where He paid the full and complete penalty for our sin. His righteous provides our salvation. He is our Rock! The spiritual benefits of His work when we believe are new spiritual birth, and new spiritual life transformation. These are the results of His action, not our human works or rituals. *Tit 3:6,7 Verse *Tit 3:8 reinforces the command to submit in *Tit 3:1, and that type of life activity is good because it proceeds from Christ, the spiritual root of one's new birth and life.
> 1 Peter 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. It saves you by the resurrection of Jesus Christ...
> If baptism has no "salvific" reference point, why does Peter come right and disagree with you? (actually you are disagreeing w/Peter -- something about him having spoken out first on this matter). How do you explain this passage away?
I notice that you cherry pick which version of the Bible to quote from to buttress your arguments. In the Titus passage you used KJVS and now in 1Peter you are using NIV. I conclude that this is because the word "water" DOES NOT occur in this passage, in other English translations nor the original Greek text.
If one reads the surrounding context of 1Pet 3:21, one easily notes that 21 is a comparison with 20. In fact, vs 21 is the antitype of vs 20. As I read your posting it sounds as though YOU believe this passage teaches that the death and resurrection of Christ impart mystical powers to a water baptism ritual to save you. How unbiblical is that! In vs 20 the water immersed individuals were lost and the dry individuals were saved. Note that the word "baptism" can be dry or wet. It is neutral in meaning. "Baptism" is almost exactly the original Greek word letter for letter. It is untranslated as to its meaning. It comes from a root 'to dip, to color, to identify'.
> Jesus answered, "I tell you the truth, no one can enter the kingdom of God unless he is born of water and the Spirit. (John 3:5)
He is talking about salvation yet he does not say "water baptism". He says "water". This passage has nothing to do with water baptism. You attempt to read into the text your assumptions. The word baptism does not occur! Or do you insist every place in the Bible where the word water occurs is an example of "water baptism" ? The passage should be understood the way Jesus spoke and how Nicodemus understood it. Notice the following verses.
"Jesus answered and said to him, “Truly, truly, I say to you, unless one is born again he cannot see the kingdom of God.” Nicodemus *said to Him, “How can a man be born when he is old? He cannot enter a second time into his mother’s womb and be born, can he?” Jesus answered, “Truly, truly, I say to you, unless one is born of water and the Spirit he cannot enter into the kingdom of God. “That which is born of the flesh is flesh, and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit. “Do not be amazed that I said to you, ‘You must be born again.’ “The wind blows where it wishes and you hear the sound of it, but do not know where it comes from and where it is going; so is everyone who is born of the Spirit.”" John 3:3–8 NAS95
Notice in Jo 3:3 someone must be born again to see the kingdom of God - ritual water baptism is absent.
In Jo 3:4 Nicodemus understands Jesus to be talking about a second physical birth (water) But in 3:5 Jesus repeats with the added second spirit birth requirement A better English translation of 'and' should be 'even' the adverbial sense of the Greek word 'kai'. Jo 3:6 where he states water relates to physical fleshly birth and spirit relates to the second spiritual birth. Isn't this the conclusion of 3:7 He is explaining the new spiritual birth aspect. Unless you think Jesus is promoting a second physical birth?
There is NO WATER BAPTISM at all associated to this context.
> Acts 2:38 -- which also links baptism to receiving the Holy Ghost -- and Acts 2:39 -- which stresses that baptism is a promise for children: Then Peter said unto them, Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins, and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost. For the promise is unto you, and to your children, and to all that are afar off, even as many as the LORD our God shall call.
In Acts 2 Peter is preaching to Jews. He states who will be saved in Acts 2:21 without mentioning ritual water baptism requirement. Those who believe that Jesus saves will call upon his name. This passage Acts 2:37-28 is a clear presentation that a mental attitude of changing their minds about what was the basis of their salvation precedes the outward expression of that attitude. Consequent to their changed mental attitude was a public declaration in union with that Savior and His Work. (Baptism = Identification) It is not their own work of ritual baptism that they promoted. It is a faith-rest on the work of the Cross of Jesus Christ, His righteous, not theirs. Jews were already doing ritual water baptism. It is no new nor special thing.
> Also, whole households were baptized simultaneously (Acts 16:14-15;: Acts 16:33; Acts 11:14-17).
Acts 11:15-17 No water baptism at all. This is not applicable.
"“And as I began to speak, the Holy Spirit fell upon them just as He did upon us at the beginning. “And I remembered the word of the Lord, how He used to say, ‘John baptized with water, but you will be baptized with the Holy Spirit.’ “Therefore if God gave to them the same gift as He gave to us also after believing in the Lord Jesus Christ, who was I that I could stand in God’s way?” When they heard this, they quieted down and glorified God, saying, “Well then, God has granted to the Gentiles also the repentance that leads to life.”" Acts 11:15–18 NAS95
Acts 16:11-15 An OT believer hears and believes Paul's message in her heart (faith response) AND THEN publicly proclaims that belief by water baptism(identification with that truth). The water baptism is subsequent to salvation and in no way a means of individual salvation.
"So putting out to sea from Troas, we ran a straight course to Samothrace, and on the day following to Neapolis; and from there to Philippi, which is a leading city of the district of Macedonia, a Roman colony; and we were staying in this city for some days. And on the Sabbath day we went outside the gate to a riverside, where we were supposing that there would be a place of prayer; and we sat down and began speaking to the women who had assembled. A woman named Lydia, from the city of Thyatira, a seller of purple fabrics, a worshiper of God, was listening; and the Lord opened her heart to respond to the things spoken by Paul. And when she and her household had been baptized, she urged us, saying, “If you have judged me to be faithful to the Lord, come into my house and stay.” And she prevailed upon us." Acts 16:11–15 NAS95
Acts 16:30-33 Since you carefully chose to delete preceding information, I will include the quotation. It is the only place in the Bible where someone asks Paul "What must I do to be Saved". Paul answers "Believe". He says nothing about water baptism about being any requirement. After they have listened to Paul and believed the gospel, ie Jesus Christ died for their sins. They later publicly identify with Jesus and his Cross work by water baptism (identification).
"and after he brought them out, he said, “Sirs, what must I do to be saved?” They said, “Believe in the Lord Jesus, and you will be saved, you and your household.” And they spoke the word of the Lord to him together with all who were in his house. And he took them that very hour of the night and washed their wounds, and immediately he was baptized, he and all his household." Acts 16:30–33 NAS95
In summary, you have selectively quoted different translation, cut sentences in half, quoted partial contexts, and read in your ideas to support a works salvation of water baptism. It is easily clear that the Bible teaches only a faith salvation from beginning to end in the Bible. There are no verses which teach a works salvation only a works judgement at the future Great White Throne.
"I thank God that I baptized none of you except Crispus and Gaius, so that no one would say you were baptized in my name. Now I did baptize also the household of Stephanas; beyond that, I do not know whether I baptized any other. For Christ did not send me to baptize, but to preach the gospel, not in cleverness of speech, so that the cross of Christ would not be made void." 1 Cor 1:14–17 NAS95
“Jesus Christ is perfect.”
That sound you just heard was an AMEN!
These are the results of His action, not our human works or rituals...As I read your posting it sounds as though YOU believe this passage teaches that the death and resurrection of Christ impart mystical powers to a water baptism ritual to save you. How unbiblical is that!...Notice in Jo 3:3 someone must be born again to see the kingdom of God - ritual water baptism is absent. ..He states who will be saved in Acts 2:21 without mentioning ritual water baptism requirement... Baptism = Identification) It is not their own work of ritual baptism that they promoted. It is a faith-rest on the work of the Cross of Jesus Christ, His righteous, not theirs. Jews were already doing ritual water baptism. It is no new nor special thing.
To hear you tell, it Jesus' Great Commission (Matthew 28:18-19) would read: "Go & make disciples of all nations, performing 'a mere human ritual' in the name of the your 'deeds done in your own righteousness.'"
'Tis also clear you have a low view of the power of God's Word operative within and thru baptism -- equating it only to human activity:
You: The Bible is clear beyond question that no one can be saved by works, i.e. human activities. ...people are "NOT SAVED on the basis of deeds we have done in righteousness." Yet your main and erroneous assumption of your post is that immediately after this Paul would now instruct someone to use a "deeds done in human righteousness" to be saved, that is "water baptism" to be saved. Paul must be two minded. How sad. The Bible is clear beyond question that no one can be saved by works, i.e. human activities. The only exception to works is faith, a non-works mechanism (Rom 3:27–28), whereby we rest on His completed work on the Cross where He paid the full and complete penalty for our sin. His righteous provides our salvation. He is our Rock! The spiritual benefits of His work when we believe are new spiritual birth, and new spiritual life transformation. These are the results of His action, not our human works or rituals...It is not their own work of ritual baptism that they promoted.
'Tis so sad you now equate baptism to a "good deed" -- whereas the Bible nowhere includes baptism among an extracted list of "good deeds."
You Make Baptism an Active Deed vs. a Passive Receptive Gift from God
Here, let me cite somebody who might agree with you on some aspects of baptism, J.D. Watson: ...the word 'baptized' is aorist indicative passive in the Greek of 1 Corinthians 12:13, which clearly shows that we have been acted upon in the past by God (literally, 'were baptized'). He places us into Christ's body; we do nothing to seek such 'baptism' because there's nothing to seek; it's already been done." (J.D. Watson, Word for the Day, p. 177)
What does Watson mean "it's already been done?" Col. 2:11-12 & Rom. 6:3-4 both make it clear baptism is directly linked to the death and resurrection of Christ. In addition, we're not simply baptized into a human church body; we're baptized into Christ Jesus himself (Rom. 6:3-4; Gal. 3:27). Hence, that is NOT something that you or I have the power to carry out!!!
I encourage you to re-read the passages on baptism -- and then to ask yourself: When baptism is described, are we more listed as active or passive?
Romans 6:4 is another verse that highlights this well: We were therefore buried with him through baptism into death...
Tell us something, a66rve, when you die are you going to be a pallbearer @ your own funeral? Will you lower your casket into the grave as some kind of "outward sign" that you're dead?
Romans 6:4 & Col. 2:12 makes it clear that baptism is like being buried in the grave. It's a passive thing that happens to you -- and you can no more contribute to what occurs in being buried in Christ than you will @ your own funeral, a66rve! Likewise, see John 3:5-7 -- a passage that shows us undergoing a new birth in which we "cooperate" just as little as we did in our first birth. (BTW -- why did you ignore the context that John 3 is set in the full context of water baptism? See John 3:22-26 as well)
Here's a clear Biblical interpretation of John 3:5: ...the Greek says literally "given birth by water and spirit." The passive verb is followed by one preposition ("by") indicating the means by which the passive verbal action is accomplished. This construction with the two nouns ("water and spirit") would normally be understood as one birth brought about by two agents. If the writer had wanted to clearly indicate two births, either the verb would have been repeated a second time or the preposition "by" would have been repeated a second time. (Source: (wels.net) http://stmarkpartners.org/content/view/70/53/ )
Being "born of the water and the Spirit" is a clear rebirth analogy. Tell us, A66rve, did you conceive yourself? Did you work your way up of your own accord to the top of the birth canal, and then did you push off like a sled down the hill as some "outward sign" that yes, a baby really existed inside?
So, just as no baby can take even a "smidgling" of credit for their own creation, we likewise ask: Who does the "re-creation" in this spiritual work of rebirth -- is it man's decision or the Holy Spirit's work? (1 Cor. 12:3)
I challenge you to directly answer the question: Is baptism primarily an act of God through man; or is it mere human religious ceremonialism where the significance is all on men's part?
Perhaps you should take a closer look @ Col. 2:11-12: 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.
The irony in all of this is that you accuse me of embracing works-righteousness? Yet, despite the fact that you can't contribute anything in a state of either the womb (John 3:5; Titus 3:5) or in death (Rom. 6:3-4; Col. 2:11-12), you deem baptism a mere mortal activity. If it's only human ritualism and ceremonialism, how is it that baptism wields the power to..
...to be baptized into a Person? (Rom. 6:3-4; Gal. 3:27) [what you think you have the decisive power to be baptized into a person?]
...saved? (1 Pet. 3:21)
...bring remission of sins? (Acts 2:38; 22:16) [Oh, we can't even announce, "My cancer's in remission" -- let alone our sinfulness]
...rebirth-renewal washing? (Acts 3:5)
...washed via the Word? (Eph. 5:25-26)
...birthed by water and spirit? (John 3:5)
...buried with Jesus? (Rom. 6:3-4; Col. 2:11-12)
...New life? (Rom. 6:4; Col. 2:11-12; John 3:5-7)
...clothed into Jesus? (Gal. 3:26-27)
You cited: "I thank God that I baptized none of you except Crispus and Gaius, so that no one would say you were baptized in my name. Now I did baptize also the household of Stephanas; beyond that, I do not know whether I baptized any other. For Christ did not send me to baptize, but to preach the gospel, not in cleverness of speech, so that the cross of Christ would not be made void." 1 Cor 1:14–17 NAS95
And added, Acts 11:15-17 No water baptism at all. This is not applicable.
Ok. Well, just substitute 1 Cor. 1:16 to go along with two accounts in Acts 16 for household-wide baptisms going on simultaneously.
(Thanks for citing 1 Cor. 1:16...forgot about that one...But, tell us, why did you cite this passage? I don't think you were trying to highlight v.16, which mentions that Paul baptized the entire household of Stephanas -- and that Stephanas perhaps had infants in that entire household).
It seems to me you may have been trying to downplay baptism --something you've did throughout this post.
An OT believer hears and believes Paul's message in her heart (faith response) AND THEN publicly proclaims that belief by water baptism(identification with that truth). The water baptism is subsequent to salvation and in no way a means of individual salvation. "...and the Lord opened her heart to respond to the things spoken by Paul. And when she and her household had been baptized" [your emphasis on Acts 16:14-15]
OK, do I need to spell out what's obvious in this passage? I'm not sure why you think I need a lecture re: v. 14. (I don't take issue with v. 14). The real matter here is what do you think of v. 15? You noticed, didn't you, that v. 14 DOESN'T say, "and the Lord opened THEIR heartS? (I mean, you DID notice the v. 15 "math" of only one person having her heart opened; yet, a plurality of people were baptized!)
The Baptizers
#1 John the Baptist:
I tell you the truth: Among those born of women there has not risen anyone greater than John the Baptist; yet he who is least in the kingdom of heaven is greater than he. (Matthew 11:11)
[It seems to me that God ensured He picked the best as the original baptist]
Your citation of 1 Cor 1 -- the part about Christ did not send me to baptize... --
So what? The Father didn't send Jesus to baptize, either.
I mean, tell us: How many people did Jesus baptize, anyway?
(Answer: As far as we know, only His closest disciples -- John 3:22...yet even you wouldn't cite Jesus as an example to try to downplay baptism?)
I'd hope that people reading your post's closing wouldn't be prompted to approach pastors & say, "See. Paul didn't baptize the masses; Jesus didn't, either. Why are you?"
Jesus was the Trainer of baptizers
In fact, John 4:2 emphasizes Jesus' disciples performed baptisms. As for Jesus Himself, His major "baptism push" came post-resurrection (Mt. 28:19-20) -- in a message to His disciples.
The Washing of Rebirth
The phrase "the washing of rebirth" is only used in only one English Bible translation, almost all translations say "the washing of regeneration."
So what? This is called “making a point” to not make a point. Since when doesn’t either rebirth or regeneration BOTH equal the words, “new life?” The fact is, the underlying Greek word & phrasing here = 'birth again'.
That being said, please note the word 'baptism' is not used. Your assumption that the phrase is equivalent to 'water baptism' is purely subjective without evidence from the text...He is talking about salvation yet he does not say "water baptism". He says "water". This passage has nothing to do with water baptism. You attempt to read into the text your assumptions. The word baptism does not occur! Or do you insist every place in the Bible where the word water occurs is an example of "water baptism" ?
Not assuming at all when you factor in New Testament patterns. "Washing" is a typical metaphor for our sins being washed away/undergoing remission via baptism. Don't take my word for it; read yourself:
The apostle Paul: And that is what some of you were. But you were washed, you were sanctified, you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and by the Spirit of our God. (1 Cor. 6:11)
...just as Christ loved the church and gave himself up for her to make her holy, cleansing her by the washing with water through the word (Eph. 5:25-26)
'Tis quite interesting that you authoritatively tell us that "washing" doesn't = baptism -- but then, quite strangely, you never really tell us what Paul meant here...other than you vaguely cited some overall several-passage reference to "submission." You don't think "washing" meant "submission" in Titus 3, do you? (or same thing for 1 Cor 6:11 or Eph. 5:25-26, do you?)
Here's more of that conservative Lutheran's note on Titus 3:5: In Titus 3:5, a very literal rendering of the Greek would be: "by the Holy Spirit-rebirth and renewal-washing." In Greek the words "Holy Spirit" are in the genitive case indicating that these words modify the two preceding words "rebirth and renewal." The words "rebirth and renewal" are also in the genitive indicating that they modify the preceding word "washing." In other words, the words "rebirth and renewal" answer the question "What kind of washing are we talking about?" The answer: this is a washing which consists of rebirth and renewal. Then the words "Holy Spirit" answer the question: "What kind of rebirth and renewal are we talking about?" The answer: A rebirth and renewal brought about by the Holy Spirit. (Source: Wels.net as referenced by http://stmarkpartners.org/content/view/70/53/)
It's pretty clear to me from Eph. 5:25-26 that the power operative in baptism is God's Word operating through a common element. [not all that different from Jesus healing a man in John 9 via spittle/mud & telling him to wash in the springs...the power wasn't in some magical ritualisic water...the power was in Jesus the Living Word operating through the common elements of mud & springs].
Citing the same pastor as above -- here's his note on Eph. 5:26: In Ephesians 5:26, a literal rendering of the Greek would be: "in order to purify her by cleansing her by using water in connection with the spoken word." The words by cleansing are a participle indicating the means by which the purifying is done. The words "by using water" are a dative indicating the means by which the cleansing is done. The Greek term used for the "word" here is a word which indicates a spoken word. It is used with a preposition that indicates that this spoken word is used in connection with the water used in this cleansing that makes the church pure.
Now why is this such a tough concept for you? You immerse yourselves in baths/showers, eh? It cleanses you externally. So why wouldn't God create yet another cleansing effect of water -- this one acted upon supernaturally like the parting of the Red Sea and the Flood -- both of which were effected by His Word? Only this time the effect is inward -- not just outward.
To tie all these "washing" passages together -- and to conclusively prove baptism was meant -- it seems you've neglected a key verse in your studies: Acts 22:16. Now what's very interesting about Acts 22:16 is that it was written by Luke; however, Luke is simply repeating an account by the apostle Paul, who in turn is simply repeating the direct words of the Resurrected Jesus Christ. So what did Christ say to Paul?
And now what are you waiting for? Get up, be baptized and wash your sins away, calling on his name.'
Now why does what Jesus say here unravel your entire theology of baptism? Because throughout your post, you assume that...
(a) ..."washing" isn't equivalent to baptism [yet Jesus says it is]
(b) ...the "remission of sins" in Acts 2:38 is only due to a "mental attitude" change (repentance) [yet Jesus ties it directly to baptism...and what's weird about this is here you accuse me of linking only something God can do to man -- yet instead of seeing God's Word operative in baptism bringing sin-remission you see it only triggered by man-based repentance]
(c) ...baptism is an act of man (not God acting through man)
(d) ...faith always precedes baptism, yet the baptism of Acts 22:16 either precedes "calling on his name" or is to happen simultaneously.
[Acts 16] It is the only place in the Bible where someone asks Paul "What must I do to be Saved". Paul answers "Believe". He says nothing about water baptism about being any requirement.
Well, what did Jesus say?
Whoever believes and is baptized will be saved... (Mark 16:16)
(Before you cherry pick and highlight only the second part of that verse, deal with the phrase, "and is baptized will be saved" in light of your claim that the NT is silent on "water baptism being required")
I notice that you cherry pick which version of the Bible to quote from to buttress your arguments.
Sorry. I didn't. I consistently used the NIV. But oh, well. Falsely accuse my intent -- doesn't bode well for you when you make judgments about that.
...you have selectively quoted different translation, cut sentences in half, quoted partial contexts, and read in your ideas to support a works salvation of water baptism.
Again, no I didn't (quote different translations). As for cutting sentences in half, people do it all the time -- to stress a given portion of it. The key is to not wrestle it OUT of context. Beyond that, listen, I'll even make a few of your arguments for you to show how thoroughly I've looked over what the New Testament has had to say re: baptism.
Yes, the NT says that...
...at least twice in the New Testament, faith/belief preceded baptism (Gal. 3:26-27; Acts 18:8);
...at least twice, the message was received first, and baptism ensued (Acts 2:41; 8:37)
...and 3-4 times people received the Holy Spirit, and THEN were baptized (Acts 10:47; 11:16-17; 9:5-6, 17-18;)
...yet, the NT & early church history doesn't stop there; it adds...
...Jesus told Saul to be baptized and THEN call on His Name (Acts 22:16);
...and 3-4 times whole households were baptized simultaneously even when perhaps ONLY the parents expressed faith -- as these baptisms likely included children and perhaps infants (1 Cor. 1:16; Acts 16:14-15, 33)...making this family dynamic less individualistically 'decisions for Christ' than you'd like to present it;
...And finally, answer this Q: Why were those who either baptized infants -- or early church fathers (like Tertullian) who commented positively on the practice -- opposed by the early church as either misguided or as heretics? If what was done was misguided -- because you claim it always needed repentance & faith to trigger it, surely the early church fathers would have corrected it. [They didn't...so you're a bit johnny-come-lately to now come on to the scene 2000 years later & claim that God can't give the gift of sin-remission -- a promise geared for children (Acts 2:38-39) -- to young children.]
> ‘Tis so sad you now equate baptism to a “good deed” — whereas
> the Bible nowhere includes baptism among an extracted list
> of “good deeds.”
I apologize Colofornian. I originally thought you misunderstood a few passages on baptism. I now see, by your own words, that you are boasting in your ritual of water baptism.
Notice that God DOES HAVE A LIST of excluded good deeds which includes ritual water baptism. And to aid your limpidity, I will quote only full verses.
“Where then is boasting? It is excluded. By what kind of law? Of works? No, but by a law of faith. For we maintain that a man is justified by faith apart from works of the law.” Rom 3:27–28 NAS95
#1 —— FAITH IS **ONLY** ITEM NOT ON WORKS LIST —-
“For this reason it is by faith, in order that it may be in accordance with grace, so that the promise will be guaranteed to all the descendants, not only to those who are of the Law, but also to those who are of the faith of Abraham, who is the father of us all,” Rom 4:16 NAS95
#2 —— FAITH ALONE, NOT FAITH AND WATER BAPTISM —-
“For the promise to Abraham or to his descendants that he would be heir of the world was not through the Law, but through the righteousness of faith.” Rom 4:13 NAS95
#3 —— ALL BELIEVERS ARE CHILDREN OF ABRAHAM’S FAITH —-
“For by grace you have been saved through faith; and that not of yourselves, it is the gift of God; not as a result of works, so that no one may boast.” Eph 2:8–9 NAS95
#4 —— SALVATION IS BY FAITH ALONE, CHRIST ALONE —-
“Now I make known to you, brethren, the gospel which I preached to you, which also you received, in which also you stand, by which also you are saved, if you hold fast the word which I preached to you, unless you believed in vain. For I delivered to you as of first importance what I also received, that Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures, and that He was buried, and that He was raised on the third day according to the Scriptures,” 1 Cor 15:1–4 NAS95
#5 —— THE GOOD NEWS IS GOD’S CROSS WORK WHICH WE BELIEVE —-
You know, 'twas Jesus Himself who pushed for worldwide baptism in His Great Commission (Matt. 28:18-20). There's no way that Jesus would have pitted something so comprehensively engaged in by the worldwide church if it was operating against faith.
“For the promise to Abraham or to his descendants that he would be heir of the world was not through the Law, but through the righteousness of faith.” Rom 4:13 NAS95
Yes, and do you know how the descendents of Abraham included 8-day-old infants as part of their covenant people -- infants that you'd probably regard as "outside" the faith 'cause their infants? Circumcision. Many Biblical theologians & commentators, taking passages like Col. 2:11-12, see circumcision as one of the forerunners to New Testament 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.
Don't you see? Faith is involved (see Col. 2:12). Baptism is like a 1-2 punch of God:
(1) He buries us into Christ (Rom. 6:3-4), almost like being drowned via immersion (1 Pet. 3:21),
...bringing remission of sin (Acts 2:38; 22:16) -- as Paul says in Col. 2:11 "putting off the sinful nature" via the new circumcision (baptism)
(2) ...and then we're raised with Christ (Rom. 6:3-4; Col. 2:12) through our faith in the power of God. God's seed of faith grows and we increase our trust in Him.
“For by grace you have been saved through faith; and that not of yourselves, it is the gift of God; not as a result of works, so that no one may boast.” Eph 2:8–9 NAS95
Well, I guess this answers the Q I asked you -- as to whether you saw baptism as an act of only man or God acting through man.
Apparently, you're inconsistent then. Why do I say that? Well, since you think only man's activity is evident in baptism, then you must think man is capable of:
...being baptized into a Person? (Rom. 6:3-4; Gal. 3:27) [how can you possibly think people can exercise self decisive power to be baptized into a person?]
...saved? (1 Pet. 3:21)
...bringing about remission of sins? (Acts 2:38; 22:16) [Oh, so even though we can't even announce, "My cancer's in remission" -- you think mere mortal activity results in a declaration of, "Hey, my sin's in remission?"]
...rebirth-renewal washing? (Titus 3:5)
...washed via the Word? (Eph. 5:25-26)
...birthed by water and spirit? (John 3:5)
...buried with Jesus? (Rom. 6:3-4; Col. 2:11-12)
...New life? (Rom. 6:4; John 3:5-7)
...clothed into Jesus? (Gal. 3:26-27)
How ironic. Here, you're so concerned got giving men end-runs around faith thru what you deem as mere rituals, all the while not recognizing that if you don't see God's gracious Hand operative in baptism, you accord mere men the above realities as power that resides in themselves!
You keep wanting to pit baptism against grace & faith as if Paul did. He didn't. He put it all together: he saved us, [we didn't save ourselves]
not because of righteous things we had done, [baptism isn't a self-righteous act -- you can't find a single verse in the NT identifying it as such]
but because of his mercy. He saved us through the washing of rebirth and renewal by the Holy Spirit, [bapism is rooted in God's mercy operating out of the realm of the Holy Spirit, as John 3:5-7 also highlights]
whom he poured out on us generously through Jesus Christ our Savior, [the Holy Spirit POURS Himself out on us]
so that, having been justified by his grace, [see the grace in this process?]
we might become heirs having the hope of eternal life. [to inherit something is to receive a gift from the one who dies -- in this case, Jesus Christ]
(Above italics are from Titus 3:5-7)
#5 —— THE GOOD NEWS IS GOD’S CROSS WORK WHICH WE BELIEVE —-
Let me ask you something: Did the man in the following account "believe" in Christ? Did he trust Christ and follow His lead?
Having said this, he spit on the ground, made some mud with the saliva, and put it on the man's eyes. "Go," he told him, "wash in the Pool of Siloam" (this word means Sent). So the man went and washed, and came home seeing..."How then were your eyes opened?" they demanded. He replied, "The man they call Jesus made some mud and put it on my eyes. He told me to go to Siloam and wash. So I went and washed, and then I could see." (John 9:6-7, 10-11)
Tell you what, A66rve, when you get to heaven be sure to lecture Jesus on this miracle. Tell Him "Boy, what nerve of you to use a common earthly element like mud and common earthly element like water from the pool of Siloam to heal this man's vision. Don't you know that you should have only based that healing upon your grace and mercy and the man's faith? How dare you introduce these common elements into the picture. I mean, who knows, you could have started some kind of works-righteousness kick where people would assign magical ritualistic powers to the pool of Siloam!"
Tell us all, we want to know if you think this healed blind man was engaged in self-righteous deeds by washing himself in the pool of Siloam. How consistent are you?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.