Let's say Danny interjects a "virus" into this Forum so that whoever reads a thread contacts a deadly disease (entering their cognitive nervous system through their eyeballs), which will kill them within 24 hours.

I develop an antidote. It is a special thread that you must read in it's entirety. It is encoded with special html language that, once you eyes have crossed over its contents, Danny's virus is immediately destroyed.

Being the kind fellow that I am, I post this "antidote" thread and announce in the title my wonderful news: "Whoevers trusts me and reads this thread will LIVE! Whoever does not trust me will DIE."

This leaves only two kinds of people. Those who trust me (and LIVE) and those who don't (and DIE).

The question "What about those who TRUST you, but do not read the thread?" is an impossible one, because by definition there cannot be such a person.

Has everybody caught the analogy? Whoever believes Jesus (and therefore obeys his command to be dipped) will LIVE. Whoever does not believe Him will die.

There is no such thing as a person who believes but is not dipped, cuz if ya don't get dipped, YOU DON'T "REALLY" BELIEVE.

And as for those who want to question Mark 16:16, rather, the authenticity and reliability of the New Testament documents, well yes, I would first have to do foundation work. But I would assume anyone at a PK rally already believes the Bible.

-- Anonymous, October 18, 2000

Answers

Jon.....

First....let say....I know Duane....Duane is a friend of mine....and you're no....(oops...my bad...wrong speech).

Anyway....I know Duane well enough to know that his theology is by far not based on one verse. Mark 16 was only discussed as that was brought up in a discussion elsewhere.

I'm sure you do not need me to point out the plethora of verses on the place of baptism in salvation.

Historically.....the RM has been quite content with being markedly different from the denominational world. In fact, we grew rampantly when we accentuated those differences. In the last 10 years...our movement has stalled.....mostly due to what you pointed out....the fear that because they were out of step....they were wrong. Therefore, there has been a concerted effort in recent years to show...."Hey....we are just like you." Most of that results from ignorance both of their own movement....and the true theological basis of many denominations.

Being lonely is not a fear of mine. It obviously wasn't of Jesus either when He pointed out...."The road that leads to eternal life is narrow....and few find it." (Matthew 7:13-14).

-- Anonymous, October 18, 2000

Obviously any analogy can be "stretched" too far, so let me say that it breaks down here:

The person who doesn't really trust my "antidote post" to work, but just "scans" it without really "reading" it (just going through the motions) will also die. This obviously breaks down, because regardless of my programming skills, I am not God and cannot discern the hearts of my readers...

Just thought I'd add that before someone else did.

-- Anonymous, October 18, 2000

You should be careful here Duane. If we accept your proposition (not baptised = damned, based on verse 16) and we accept that this ending to Mark is not spurious or false, then you create a potential problem with your logic. If verse 16 is true, and then logically the following verses are true. So you have just proved that if you do not produce miraculous signs (casting out devils, healing the sick, and yes even the dread speaking in tongues) then you are not saved. That is what it says! "And these signs shall follow them that believe" So, according to this logic, if you don't produce miraclulous signs, you are not a believer. Or, if do claim to be a believer, welcome to the Pentecostal camp.

I'm being facitious, of course. But it does prove MY point: you cannot prove a doctrine based on a single verse. The crux of it goes around and around on this. Immediately posts will appear claiming volumnuous scriptural support for your position. Volumnuous scriptural support can be had for the other side, too. It will never end. Which is sad.

The contradiction here is the conclusions. I defer normally to not make judgments on what is said here because it is you all's board, and I am a guest. Its bad manners (IMO) to insult your host. But by claiming that this one verse equals the only way to salvation, and to teach anything else makes a person a false teacher, you in one sweeping judgment call the entire of Christendom in history unsaved, false and damned. I have a problem with that. If anyone else were to make this type of sweeping generalization, you would immediately (and rightly) say it was an error.

I can't make any changes in Restoration theology, or even you as individuals. But I would encourage you to look for inconsistencies in your arguments. If what you say here is your actual position, then you have effectively isolated yourself from all of established Christendom. That's a lonely mountain to be on.

-- Anonymous, October 18, 2000

"Immediately posts will appear claiming volumnuous scriptural support for your position. Volumnuous scriptural support can be had for the other side, too. It will never end. Which is sad."

Jon, could you please explain in more detail for me what you meant by the above?

-- Anonymous, October 18, 2000

Take the case of a person who is on their death bed and they repent and also as in Romans 10:9 'confess with their mouth the Lord Jesus and believe in their heart that God has raised Him from the dead' and that they have no chance or time to baptised. Now are you telling us that person is dammed? As was pointed out to you support can be made for both points of view.

It is no wonder that non Christian folk look upon us with utter contempt sometimes when they see this squabbling amongst us.

-- Anonymous, October 28, 2000

Yes, Mr. Veld.

And it's so elementary. We should have gotten beyond baptisms by now but some love milk.

-- Anonymous, October 29, 2000

Danny Gabbard and D. Lee Muse,

Dr. Dewey is right. Your interpretation would not only damn many good Christians all over the world, but many who have died for the faith throughout the ages. That conclusion would be contrary to what we know of the nature of God, so your premis must be in error. I believe in the FINISHED work of Jesus Christ. God not only provides the means of salvation, but through the work of the Spirit brings them to a saving faith. You want to add a condition, a work of men, that could thwart the will of God if not done in accord with your interpretation of scripture would result in good Christians being damned.

The bottom line is that the baptism that counts is the baptism of the Spirit, and not whether the symbolic water is sprinkled or dipped or poured.

-- Anonymous, October 29, 2000

Dwight -

(I'm glad to see you using your name. The initials alone were hard to remember and hard to pronounce!)

Your latest submission, taken together with other earlier explanations of your point of view, illustrates one of the flaws of the ultra-Calvinist position you espouse.

Whether or not one believes that immersion in water is an actual requirement for salvation, it is pretty clear that in the first century it was considered to be a necessary -- a "taken-for-granted" -- demonstration of the faith that saves.

In every (or certainly almost every) case of conversion documented in the book of Acts, we also read about the baptism of the person or group following almost immediately after their faith and repentance. (The only "gap" was in the case of Saul, whose immersion was delayed for a few days, but who also was told, when the time came for his immersion, that it would "wash away" his sins.) There was never any waiting (except for Saul), never any hesitation over whether or not it was really necessary -- it was just done. And this was water baptism. This seems pretty clear from the context, and I have never seen or heard any reputable scholar (or anyone at all, in fact, though I wonder if you will be the first) argue that the baptism administered in these cases was water baptism. There were two cases where we are told that the people were baptised in the Holy Spirit, but this is clearly differentiated from the water baptism. Cornelius and his household are described as having experienced both.

Baptism in water immediately following upon faith and repentance and as a part of the "conversion experience" is so taken for granted that both Peter and Paul use baptism to illustrate how we are saved and what salvation means -- e.g. I Peter 3:21 and Romans 6.

According to what you have said (here and elsewhere), even the fact that we have faith is something which is done by God. We would not believe if God did not "give" us this faith; if God does not insert it into us, it is not possible for us to have saving faith. Now it is not faith alone that is given to us, nor even all the benefits of having faith (both salvation and a new relationship with God), but also the Holy Spirit to "indwell" us. In that case, why does this faith -- which causes us to "call on the name of the Lord" -- not also cause us to do as the first century Christians did and immediately be baptised?

One could ask similar questions about other aspects of the Christian life, e.g. if "faith" comes only from God, without my choice, why do I not immediately become free from sin? why do I not automatically exhibit all the fruit of the Spirit? etc. The answer to that is not too hard. Besides having faith and receiving salvation, we must also "learn" to live the Christian life, we must also "grow", spiritually, etc.

But immersion in water is different. In the first century, as shown in both the New Testament and other Christian writings, immersion in water was considered to be an integral part of the conversion experience. The church fathers argued about the timing of baptism, the method of baptism, what kind of water it should be in, who were the proper candidates for baptism, what should be done about those who denied their baptism through certain acts, etc., but seldom, if ever, over whether or not it was necessary. It was taken for granted.

Why not today? That fact is easy to explain if you believe that people have free will and can decide for ourselves not only how we live as Christians, but also whether or not we believe, and what we will do about that faith. It is not so easy to explain if you hold the position that "saving faith" itself is something we have no choice over -- either God gives it to us or He doesn't. If He gives it to us, why does He not also cause it to produce, in the 20th and 21st Centuries, what it did in every case in the 1st?

-- Anonymous, October 30, 2000

Dwight,

I'm writing this separately because it involves a different aspect of your message. If you respond to either or both, you can do it together or separately, as you wish.

You said, "Danny Gabbard and D. Lee Muse, Dr. Dewey is right. Your interpretation would not only damn many good Christians all over the world, but many who have died for the faith throughout the ages. That conclusion would be contrary to what we know of the nature of God, so your premis [sic] must be in error."

What EXACTLY that "we know of the nature of God" would this be contrary to?

And if it would be "contrary" to "the nature of God" for people to be condemned who have "died for the faith throughout the ages" but not submitted to immersion in water, what about the millions who have died for their "faith" in God, as they understood Him, as good Buddhists, Moslems, etc. (What about the many thousands of Moslems who believe in the same God we do, though understanding Him differently, who have died in "jihad" through the ages?) Your argument is long on emotion but short on substance.

Also, why would you find it to be "contrary to the nature of God" for Him to condemn people who believe but do not obey, and yet believe in a God who runs some kind of divine lottery whereby He arbitrarily chooses some to have saving faith inserted into them and chooses others to be denied this faith and therefore to be eternally condemned? At least we believe that God gives *ALL* men the freedom to choose, first, whether or not they will believe, and second, what they will do with that faith.

-- Anonymous, October 30, 2000

OOPS! I just re-read my two submissions above, and I see that despite proof-reading them a couple of times before submitting them, I seem to have left out one crucial word.

In the first of them (the second one back from here), the sentence in the fourth paragraph (the first long paragraph) should read as follows: "I have never seen or heard any reputable scholar (or anyone at all, in fact, though I wonder if you will be the first) argue that the baptism administered in these cases was *NOT* water baptism."

-- Anonymous, October 31, 2000

Hello, Beloved Benjamin,

I wonder if you'd also like to change this one:

Baptism in water immediately following upon faith and repentance and as a part of the "conversion experience" is so taken for granted that both Peter and Paul use baptism to illustrate how we are saved and what salvation means -- e.g. I Peter 3:21 and Romans 6.

immediately following

IMMEDIATELY FOLLOWING UPON FAITH

If it can be IMMEDIATELTY FOLLOWING, why can't it be three years later?

If it's IMMEDIATELY FOLLOWING that means IT WASN'T REGENERATING, it was demonstrative.

We may be getting closer on what we believe!

Love in Christ,

Connie

Missed your posts.

-- Anonymous, October 31, 2000

Benjamin,

I have no doubt that 1st century baptism was a water baptism, symbolic of the washing away of sin through the work of Jesus Christ, that occured when they came to a saving faith through the work of the Holy Spirit. That indwelling of the Holy Spirit is the "baptism" that I mentioned, that is necessary and essential because without it we have no faith and no salvation. Water baptism is certinly a command, and required for believers in obedience in the same way the 10 commandments are required in obedience. I am not advocating or defending disobedience, but obedience with a recognition that as a symbolic act it can be accomplished in more than one mode.

Your mention of other faiths misses my point entirely. I was not talking about non-Christians, but rather "good Christians" who may have even died for the faith but had a different interpretation of the requirements of baptism based on a careful reading of scripture. My definition of a "good Christian" is someone who trusts entirely upon the finished work of Jesus Christ, and his sacrifice for our sin, as their only hope of salvation. That only exists in those God calls through the work of the Holy Spirit, and those the Spirit has brought to faith can not be taken out of the hand of God. Some who, "as good Buddhists, Moslems, etc." talk about Jesus as a great man, do not fit the definition. Much more can be said about what constitutes a good Christian, but the essential point is that it is not wide open to anyone who knows the name. The demons know the name.

As for what we know of the nature of God, which I would understand to be in conflict with the legalistic and very specific test of obedience you consider a requirement for remission of sin - start with justice, love, omnipotence, etc. etc. When Jesus said the sabbath was made for man, and not man for the sabbath; and when much of the new testiment deals with the freedom we have in Christ from the legalistic (and biblical) old testiment laws; and when good Christians (by my definition) through the ages have lived their lives and died as baptised and forgiven sinners (though not by immersion) - I believe it would be in conflict with the nature of our God, who puts the inner mind and purpose ahead of the outer actions, to count a different understanding of the mode of obedience in baptism as unforgivable. By your interpretation, misunderstanding (if it is a misunderstanding) of the prefered mode of baptism would be worse than murder - even mass murder. Murder can be forgiven. I believe abortion is murder, but that those who do it can be forgiven every sin if they trust in Jesus Christ and ask, even if they do not recognize every sin and ask specificly for forgiveness for each one. You seem to believe that if you make a mistake (if it is a mistake) about the mode of baptism, you are damned no matter how good a Christian you are in terms of trusting in Jesus Christ and asking for forgiveness for your sins.

Christians are not perfect though they should try to be; and the essence of Christianity is that we are not expected to be perfect in this life, just forgiven through the work of Christ who will make us perfect for the next life. God loves us while we are yet sinners, and died for us to wash us from sin and make us acceptable in His Heaven. It is the death of Christ and its application to us through the Spirit that is essential, and not the act of baptism which is used to symbolize it (in whatever mode).

-- Anonymous, October 31, 2000

Connie,

If, as I and MOST of the participants in this forum believe we ARE saved by FAITH, but that faith is defined, Scripturally, as not mere mental assent ("even the demons believe" -- same word in Greek!) nor mere emotion, but the kind of faith that produces submission and obedience to Christ, and if baptism is clearly specified, Scripturally (as it is, repeatedly), as a NECESSARY demonstration of that faith which is REQUIRED, Scripturally, before the mental assent and emotional response become real "SAVING faith", then when else in the sequence could immersion occur?

Previous to faith? The Roman Catholics and some Protestants practice this, teaching either that "baptism" (usually sprinkling) is necessary for the forgiveness of "original sin", or that the "baptism" of infants, when done because of the faith of the parents, will also produce faith, later in life, in the one so baptised. We don't accept these ideas!

Simultaneous with belief? I suppose one could argue that this IS what happens, since it is at the point of immersion that "mental assent" and a "decision" to "accept" Christ actually becomes "SAVING faith", but that is stretching things a little. I see a change in the results of faith at this point, but no real change in the beliefs of the subject.

I think it makes more sense to consider salvation as a process that begins with HEARING the Word (or actually, with someone "preaching" the Word -- Romans 10), proceeds on through REPENTANCE and FAITH, and culminates in immersion, at which point we are "born of water and the Spirit", i.e. saved.

Even though Saul's immersion was delayed for a few days, he himself testifies that though he apparently came to some kind of faith while on the road, Ananias still told him to "Rise and be baptised and wash away your sins, callin on his name" (Acts 22:16). To me that says that even though Saul probably believed from the moment he had his vision on the road, HE WAS NOT ACTUALLY SAVED UNTIL HE HAD BEEN IMMERSED!

Or do you contend that it is possible for someone to be "saved" while not yet having his sins forgiven? I'd certainly like to see what rationale anyone could offer for that point of view.

P.S., Connie, thanks for your kind words. I've missed the forum, but have been too busy to monitor it or write for it recently. I have some papers I'd like to send you, but they got mislaid in our recent remodeling. I'll send them when I find them again.

-- Anonymous, October 31, 2000

Matt,

I am telling you that God said in John NO ONE can enter the kingdom of God unless he is born of water and the Spirit. I have no right at all to condemn anyone.

You say; BAs was pointed out to you support can be made for both points of view.B There is only one point of view that mattersBGodBs! If he says it MattBwonBt you believe it? I believe ALL the verses concerning faith and confession; do you believe ALL the verses concerning baptism?

You say; BIt is no wonder that non Christian folk look upon us with utter contempt sometimes when they see this squabbling amongst us.B I do agree with you here, but only to a point. Should we be arguing about matters of opinion? Absolutely not! But in matters of doctrine we are to make a defense.

1 Cor 11:18-19 In the first place, I hear that when you come together as a church, there are divisions among you, and to some extent I believe it. No doubt there have to be differences among you to show which of you have God's approval.

I urge all of you to check out the Word. Make a listBlist all the scriptural reasons for baptismBsee if they are the same reasons given by the faith only teaching.

-- Anonymous, October 31, 2000

Dwight/dbvz,

Back to just initials again? Too bad. The name seems more "friendly."

I suppose that some here might brand me a "heretic" for this (though I suspect not many) -- but I do not personally think that *ALL* those who were great "heroes of the faith", but were not immersed -- many who died for their faith, and many who were great teachers of Christian doctrine -- will be condemned eternally just because they happened to misunderstand teachings about baptism. (I certainly hope not. I have been helped tremendously in my own faith by the writings of C.S. Lewis [C of E] and Francis Shaeffer [Presbyterian, I think], among others, and would like to think I will see them in heaven.) God knows the "thoughts and intentions of the heart" (or, as you put it, "the inner mind and purpose"). He knows how "real" a person's faith is, and is able to judge whether or not a person would have been immersed if he/she had understood Bible teachings on the matter.

What I do contend, however, is that this decision is not up to us but up to God. (As a Calvinist, you, of all people, should be able to understand and accept this point.) We are sinners and completely unworthy of God's notice, much less fellowship with Him. But He offers us a "covenant" or "peace treaty" to allow us to be reconciled with Him. We are in no position to dicker with God about the terms of that peace treaty. We simply take it or leave it. Fortunately, the terms are easy. The primary requirement is faith. "We are saved by grace through faith." But because there are many kinds of "faith", including even "mental assent", God himself defines the most basic requirements of what that faith will produce in our lives. First, it will produce repentance -- a change in mind, heart and action. Secondly, it will be demonstrated through the highly symbolic act of being immersed in water, which serves as a "rite of initiation" or perhaps, continuing the analogy of a peace treaty, as our "signature" on the treaty.

Can people be saved if they are "baptised" by some other "method"? Can people be saved if they are not baptised at all? (These are not just hypothetical questions to me but quite personal. My grandparents and great-grandparents on my father's side were devout and dedicated members of the Salvation Army -- which does not baptise by any method, so they probably were not baptised either. I also have many friends who are active members of various other denominations.) Given what we know about the love and mercy of God, and that he "does not look on outward appearance but on the heart", my personal opinion/hope is that probably many who are in these situations will be saved. But does that give me the right to teach that it doesn't matter whether or not you are baptised or how you are baptised? Absolutely NOT! Because that decision is not up to me but up to the sovereignty of God!!! All I can do is to pass on the clear teaching of Scripture -- that "whoever believes AND IS IMMERSED will be saved, but whoever does not believe will be condemned" (Mark 16:16), that believers must "repent AND BE IMMERSED ... for the forgiveness of [their] sins" (Acts 2:38), and that "IMMERSION ... NOW SAVES YOU also -- not the removal of dirt from the body but the pledge of a good conscience toward God" (I Peter 3:21) -- to quote only a few of the verses I could use.

P.S. Could Abraham, whose "faith was credited to him as righteousness" have still been acceptable to God if he had said, in effect, "I really believe in you, God, but I choose not to leave Ur, not to sacrifice Isaac, etc."?

-- Anonymous, October 31, 2000

Dwight,

You say; BYour interpretation would not only damn many good Christians all over the world, but many who have died for the faith throughout the ages.B

It is Jesus Himself that said in JohnB Jesus answered, "I tell you the truth, no one can enter the kingdom of God unless he is born of water and the Spirit.

There are many other verses stating the God given reasons to be baptizedBActs 2:38, I Peter 3:21, Rom. 6, Gal. 2:27, Acts 22:17.

Your words; BYou want to add a condition, a work of men, that could thwart the will of God if not done in accord with your interpretation of scripture would result in good Christians being damned.B

Give me one verse that says baptism is a work of men.

Read Col. 2:12 that states that what is done in baptism is done by the power of God. Bhaving been buried with him in baptism and raised with him through your faith in the power of God, who raised him from the dead.B

-- Anonymous, October 31, 2000

It is nice to see you back Benjamin.

I believe I have mentioned this before, but canBt remember what kind of response IBve gotten.

If one is ignorant of a doctrine of salvation is there hope that they will be saved?

Acts 3:17-19 "Now, brothers, I know that you acted in ignorance, as did your leaders. But this is how God fulfilled what he had foretold through all the prophets, saying that his Christ would suffer. Repent, then, and turn to God, so that your sins may be wiped out, that times of refreshing may come from the Lord,B

If these men had remained ignorantly in their unrepentant state, would there be hope for their salvation?

Acts 17:30 In the past God overlooked such ignorance, but now he commands all people everywhere to repent.

The answer is NO.

So we can not be ignorant of repentance and still be saved because our hearts our sincere. And believe me, there are people out here who profess Jesus but do not believe you have to repent to be saved.

Can we be sincerely ignorant that Jesus is the only wayByet still be saved?

Can we be ignorant about confessionBnever having confessed in our lives and still be saved?

No, no, and no.

Luke 12:47-48 "That servant who knows his master's will and does not get ready or does not do what his master wants will be beaten with many blows. But the one who does not know and does things deserving punishment will be beaten with few blows.B Here the one who is ignorant is still punished.

If there were any hope at all in ignorance, why would anyone in their right mind tell others baptism was a part of salvation? Especially when so many today reject this teaching?

-- Anonymous, November 01, 2000

Dwight,

You have said, "You want to add a condition, a work of men, that could thwart the will of God if not done in accord with your interpretation of scripture would result in good Christians being damned."

Let me ask, do you believe that one must "repent" to be saved?... isn't this a work (turning from sin to God)? Do you believe that one must "confess" Jesus as Lord or pray to be saved?... isn't this a work or something that must be done to be saved?

Also keep in mind that according to Colossians 2:12, "having been buried with Him in baptism, in which you were also raised up with Him through faith in the working of God, who raised Him from the dead"... baptism is Gods' WORK... not ours!

Baptism is not something that we do to earn our salvation... rather it is the time and event that God chose for us to receive His free gift... it is the "time" the blood is applied.

Next you said, "The bottom line is that the baptism that counts is the baptism of the Spirit, and not whether the symbolic water is sprinkled or dipped or poured."

Doesn't Ephesians 4 say that there is "one" baptism... which is it? If it is spirit baptism as you say, why so much talk about water baptism? Acts 2:38 is clear that when one repents AND is baptized they will receive two things... 1. forgiveness of sins... 2. the gift of the Holy Spirit.

P.S. I realize that much of this has already been said by D.Lee and Benjamin and I appriciate their comments... I had this wrote yesterday and had problems posting.

-- Anonymous, November 01, 2000

Benjamin Rees,

I think you and I are closer in our positions than I am to D. Lee Muse or Marc Grindle. dbvz is just easier for me, and was a slip last time. I agree with you that we are in no position to judge what may be the minimum acceptable to God, and that from our understanding of what God requires we owe Him our full obedience. The title of this discussion is "Be dipped or damned?", and it is that position that would put most who post here out of any kind of acceptance and fellowship with much of the rest of Christianity. Your position, and mine, indicates some degree of humility about the rightness of our position, and allows room for some degree of fellowship regarding what we believe.

I heard a Baptist speaker once comment to a mixed group of Baptist and Presbyterian listeners that they had much in common, and if the Presbyterians wanted to "take the chance" that immersion was not required he would not judge them to be right or wrong - but he was not willing to take that "chance". He delivered the message, but did not judge for God. I agree you should not compromise your convictions, and that is why so many denominations exist. When Muse and Grindle speak with such certainty that their interpretation is the only possible interpretation, and then indicate that those who don't agree are damned, it leaves very little room. In effect, Presbyterians are seen as no closer than a Hindu or Muslim.

The Bible states that there is enough in nature that no man has an excuse. So, how close to salvation can one get based only on nature? All the way to salvation, or only to a belief that God exists? The Bible states that Jesus has other sheep that are not of this fold? What exacly does the Bible imply, but not explain? I am not sure, and that gives me good cause to accept my limited understanding of the mind of God. As the saying goes, we have a lot to be humble about.

-- Anonymous, November 01, 2000

Dwight,

I've always understood the saying about "sheep not of this fold" to refer to Jews ("of this fold") and Gentiles ("not of this fold"), and to show that both have the opportunity to believe in Him and therefore to be saved -- not that either one would be saved without doing that. Whether or not this can also be applied to different denominations or even to other denominations is a matter of conjecture. I suspect that the former application is probably legitimate -- but it isn't clear enough to build a doctrine on -- and that the latter (other religions) is probably not, since Jesus said that he is the only Way.

-- Anonymous, November 01, 2000

A couple of "P.S."s to my last posting:

P.S.#1: Even if the analogy of "sheep not of this fold" applied to "sheep" from various different denominations, it wouldn't necessarily indicate that ALL the sheep from "other folds" belong to Him. It would only be those whose faith conforms to whatever He has decided, by His sovereign Will, to be the minimum requirements.

P.S.#2: For some reason I keep thinking "dvbz" (maybe because I see and hear so much these days about "DVD"s), and I have to either consciously think about it or look up a posting from you before I'm sure that it is not that way but "dbvz". "Dwight" is much easier for most of us to remember. Thank you for being flexible.

-- Anonymous, November 01, 2000

D. Lee Muse wrote, "Give me one verse that says baptism is a work of men."

Well, lets look at that issue. Obviously what God is doing though baptism is a soverign work of God. However, in EVERY verse that talks about baptism the physical actions we call baptism are done by human beings. My point in bringing this up is that YOUR position is that men can get it wrong and perform what they understand to be baptism in a mode that does not fit your interpretation. To the extent that men can "get it wrong", to that extent it is a work of men. To the extent that men can, under YOUR interpretation, fail to baptize properly and as a result cause those baptized to be damned - to that extent it is a work of men. YOUR position is that men can get between God and His elect by a faulty process. It is because you consider this human action as determinative of the eternal condition, that it fits within the "works" based salvation that much of the new testiment clearly teaches is wrong. I don't believe works, even works as important as baptism or obedience to the Law, determine the eternal condition of men. Our eternal condition is determined by grace, and faith, and the forgiveness we have through the finished work of Jesus Christ applied to us through the work of the Holy Spirit; and by nothing I do to qualify or merit that forgiveness - including getting baptism 'right'.

A water baptism does not wash away sins, but it is symbolic of what does - the work of Jesus Christ applied to us through the work of the Holy Spirit. So what is essential? Would baptism be of any effect if Jesus had not died and the Holy Spirit did not bring you to faith? No. So when the Bible talks about baptism, is it talking about the power of the water, or about the power of the sacrifice of Christ? I believe the water is symbolic of Christ in baptism, just like the bread and wine are symbolic of Christ in the Lord's Supper. Only Christ saves.

Benjamin,

I agree "sheep not of this fold" is most likely about non-Jewish Christians, but I am not entirely sure. Not one of the old testament children of the covenant knew the name of Jesus or could be called "Christian", yet they are saved through that same sacrifice on the cross that saves us because they believed the promises and trusted God. They claimed salvation earned by the work of Christ, without knowing any of the details of how or when or why it had to occur as it did. When considered in connection with "enough in nature", "not of this fold" could mean that salvation may be much more about recognizing God exists, our sin before the omnipotent Creator, and relying on the unmerited forgiveness of God (the work of Christ and not necessarily the knowledge of who Jesus is), than is generally believed. I don't think a remote tribesman can be saved with such a limited basis for faith; but since it is God that saves through the work of the Holy Spirit, I don't KNOW that it isn't possible. In fact, I am quite sure it is possible for God, if that is His will and the tribesman is one of His elect. I just don't know the will of God with sufficient certainty to be sure.

I go back to my understanding of who is a good Christian, and the conviction that with greater knowledge comes greater responsibility. With that Baptist speaker I mentioned, I would not want to "take the chance" that such a limited basis for faith is enough; but God could surprise me. He does frequently.

-- Anonymous, November 01, 2000

I don't see how anyone who really thinks about the verse carefully Mark 16:16 a strong argument for 'be dipped or damned.'

He that believes and is baptized will be saved, but he that does not believe will be condemned.' Let us think about it. Let us compare it to another scenario.

Suppose an honest teacher, who never lies, writes a note on the board to his students on a day that he is absent.

"He that finishes and turns in the homework assignment the substitute gives and cleans up his desk before he leaves, will get an A for today's work. He that does not do the homework and turn it in will get an F."

If a student finishes the homework and leaves his desk messy, does that mean the teacher will give him an F? No, we don't know. But this is the same situation with getting the idea of 'be dipped or be damned' from Mark 16:16

If the student has another letter from the teacher, promising an A only for completing and turning in the homework, he could show that to the teacher to support his position that he need only do his homework to get the A.

Sorry for the analogy, but I hope it explains the point I am trying to make.

An issue that concerns me even more than this is that some people in the RM believe that you not only need to have faith in Christ, be baptized, and walk in the Lord's grace, but they also believe that you have to believe that baptism is necessary for salvation in order for your baptism to be effective. So this basically limits salvation to RM people and a few other groups. In the pre-Reformation era, that would make for very few Christians- maybe Greek orthodox Christians who were baptized as adults.

The many believers in Christ who believe and are baptized, and have faith in Jesus Christ, are considered not to be Christians, not because they lack faith in Jesus Christ, but because of their doctrinal stance on baptism. Isn't baptism effective because of our faith in Christ, rather than our faith in a particular doctrinal stance on baptism?

Is it more common for 'Christian Churches' inthe US to be open to the idea that baptisms among those who believe in 'faith only' can be valid, than it is for those who go by the term 'Church of Christ?'

-- Anonymous, November 02, 2000

I don't think there is a middle ground mentioned here (they that believe but are not baptized ...) because in the first century there was no such thing. If you believed, you were baptized. End of subject. There were no people who believed but did not think baptism was essential. There was no argument about whether it was necessary or not. Jesus said it, they obeyed it. It was simple as that. The concept of whether baptism was essential or optional is a purely modern (and unscriptural) fabrication.

-- Anonymous, November 02, 2000

John... AMEN!

Dwight... you never answered my questions, "Let me ask, do you believe that one must "repent" to be saved?... isn't this a work (turning from sin to God)? Do you believe that one must "confess" Jesus as Lord or pray to be saved?... isn't this a work or something that must be done to be saved?"

I totaly agree that it is not baptism that saves but Christ and His shed blood... my question is, "When is that blood applied?"... when we believe? or when we are baptized?

Neither one is more of a work than the other!

-- Anonymous, November 02, 2000

Marc,

The issue for me is not what we do, or when we do it; but what God does and that when He does it our salvation is assured. I believe that in order to repent and believe and assent to baptism, the Holy Spirit has already been at work to cause those things to happen. We are incapable of turning to God on our own. So when are we saved? When God decided before the beginning of time, that we were to be one of His elect. When does that happen in our human experience of time? I believe it happens when the Holy Spirit moves within us, transforming our relationship to God and causing us to have faith. Does that mean we are not required to be baptized and be obedient? No. It means that obedience is the grateful response of the saved Christian, not a condition whereby we qualify for or earn salvation.

-- Anonymous, November 02, 2000

A 'work' is something physical according to every dictionary definition I have seen.

In Romans 6, the only 'work' is faith. But it is the 'work' of God.

I think this supports Dwight's contention that God is the one who chooses, draws, convicts, and saves.

Repentance and faith are not works, except of God. Baptism is a physical work. One which we should by all means obey. As soon as we know it is a requirement. Even if that is three years after believing and being borne from above.

Something Marc (I think it was) said is valid. When we give up completely ~ absolutely ~ every influence of Evangelicals or Calvinists or Pentecostals, (or in my case if I quit accessing RM/CC/CoC sites), or whoever, then perhaps other aspects of those beliefs can also be excised (which will be a loss to each of us, believe me) in good faith.

If the Lord Jesus Christ cannot bring us together in a spirit of love and oneness, and put in the trash heap all of these senseless divisions, we are of all people most miserable.

Look at J. Paul Dubo's list. What on that list affects our salvation? NOTHING! Why do people fight about things which DO NOT matter?

Now I know that many feel the baptism issue is primary. I do, also. The baptism of the Holy Spirit. The one baptism. For if we don't receive the baptism from above, we have no salvation. If we don't have the water-immersion baptism, many Christ-believing, Bible- honoring people do not believe they are not saved.

There is ONE FAITH, ONE LORD, ONE BAPTISM. Since there is only ONE, WHICH ONE IS IT?

Your own denomination ~ er ~ group, has leaders which are softening their positions. Some of you here deplore it and think they are 'repenting and becoming Baptist'. Is it possible that it has come to them that the one baptism is the one from above?

My love and sincere caring in Christ,

-- Anonymous, November 02, 2000

Connie,

You have said, "In Romans 6, the only 'work' is faith. But it is the 'work' of God."

First, are you sure you meant Romans 6?... I don't find anything here about work and faith (unless I misunderstand your point).

Second, I pointed out elsewhere (could be another thread) Colossians 2:12 which shows that baptism is God's work.

You also stated, "A 'work' is something physical according to every dictionary definition I have seen."

When I was baptized I did no work other than walking into the baptistry... someone else did the work. Is this any different than what others teach that you must "walk" down the isle or "pray" a certain prayer, or even to "repent" may easily require a pysical work depending upon the sin.

Dwight,

As for your last post... I see a lot of "I believe's" and no, "Thus says the Lord" or scripture... please show me some scripture to back up what you believe.

-- Anonymous, November 02, 2000

Marc,

I know you don't like creeds etc., but the short answer is that the scriptural references for each point are in the Heidelberg Catechism, the Canons of Dort, and the Belgic Confession. You could also read a very comprehensive book titled Systematic Theology, which goes through a very detailed review of the scriptural basis for each point of reformed doctrine and shows how they all hold together in a unified and systematic understanding of the Bible. What point(s) do you dispute? I will get you the several scriptural references that support them.

-- Anonymous, November 02, 2000

You are correct, Marc, it is John 6, not Romaqns 6.

I'll type out:

NASB

John 6:28-29:

28: They said therefore to Him, "What shall we do that we may work the works of God"?

29: Jesus answered and said to them, "This is the work of God, that you believe in Him whom He has sent".

Connie

-- Anonymous, November 03, 2000

Dwight,

I wrote B give me one verse that says baptism is a work of men.

You wrote - Obviously what God is doing though baptism is a soverign work of God. However, in EVERY verse that talks about baptism the physical actions we call baptism are done by human beings. My point in bringing this up is that YOUR position is that men can get it wrong and perform what they understand to be baptism in a mode that does not fit your interpretation. To the extent that men can "get it wrong", to that extent it is a work of men. To the extent that men can, under YOUR interpretation, fail to baptize properly and as a result cause those baptized to be damned - to that extent it is a work of men. YOUR position is that men can get between God and His elect by a faulty process. It is because you consider this human action as determinative of the eternal condition, that it fits within the "works" based salvation that much of the new testiment clearly teaches is wrong. I don't believe works, even works as important as baptism or obedience to the Law, determine the eternal condition of men. Our eternal condition is determined by grace, and faith, and the forgiveness we have through the finished work of Jesus Christ applied to us through the work of the Holy Spirit; and by nothing I do to qualify or merit that forgiveness - including getting baptism 'right'.

NO verse that calls baptism a work of men.

You said - A water baptism does not wash away sins, but it is symbolic of what does - the work of Jesus Christ applied to us through the work of the Holy Spirit. So what is essential? Would baptism be of any effect if Jesus had not died and the Holy Spirit did not bring you to faith? No. So when the Bible talks about baptism, is it talking about the power of the water, or about the power of the sacrifice of Christ? I believe the water is symbolic of Christ in baptism, just like the bread and wine are symbolic of Christ in the Lord's Supper. Only Christ saves.

I agree with you that ChristBs blood washes away our sins B His blood cleanses us WHEN OR AT THE TIME WE ARE BAPTIZED. See Acts 22:16.

Can you please quote me scriptures giving the reasons for baptism?

-- Anonymous, November 03, 2000

Link,

You said - The many believers in Christ who believe and are baptized, and have faith in Jesus Christ, are considered not to be Christians, not because they lack faith in Jesus Christ, but because of their doctrinal stance on baptism. Isn't baptism effective because of our faith in Christ, rather than our faith in a particular doctrinal stance on baptism?

Isnt doctrine teaching? What is Gods teaching on baptism? We must have faith. If we do not have faith in what God says about baptism, why be baptized. It means nothing.

If I say to you - I will repent but I do not believe that repentance saves me - will it save me?

If I say to you - I believe in Jesus but do not believe that faith saves me - will it save me?

-- Anonymous, November 03, 2000

Connie;

Your own scriptures condemn your position. You quote "... one baptism," and then say there are two baptisms, being baptized spiritually into Christ's body and being physically immersed, as if that somehow refutes our position. But that is your position, not ours! To us, there is only one baptism, for both these things are the same thing. (At least you're not a Pentecostal ... they have THREE baptisms, adding the so-called baptism of the Holy Spirit.) So you set up a straw man for us, as we do not have any problem with "One Lord, One Faith, and One Baptism" ... you do!

Then you say, "Baptism is a physical work." But is it? Show us one verse that says it is a work and not an act of faith. The truth is, it is only physical work to the person doing the baptizing. To the one being immersed, their part is simple submission, trust, faith. They do absolutely nothing else; the one doing the baptizing does the work. (And their salvation is not at issue.)

The fact is, Jesus said to make disciples, (how?) baptizing them. And then teaching them to obey all of his commandments. He didn't say make disciples, teach them to obey everything, and the first thing they should obey is baptism. Peter did not say "Repent, every one of you for the remission of sins, and you shall receive the gift of the Holy Spirit. Then go and be baptized when you get a chance, but that part is optional." No, he said "Repent and be baptized. Then you will receive the promise." It doesn't sound like an option to me.

-- Anonymous, November 03, 2000

D. Lee Muse,

You wrote, "NO verse that calls baptism a work of men."

But EVERY verse that deals with baptism describes the physical actions as being done by men. Do you need to be told that men are working, in addition to having the work they are doing described to you? Why don't you address the issue I raised? If the humans involved can get it wrong, and cause those baptized to be damned by their error as you believe, to that very important extent baptism is an act of the men and women involved. I don't disagree with you that God is in action in baptism, and God is in action through us as we submit to Him. My objection to your position on this, is that you seem to want it both ways. You don't want to admit that the act itself is performed by men, to avoid having to admit your position would make it a works based condition for salvation. At the same time you are inflexible in your position that if the act is performed incorrectly by those men and women involved, those baptized are damned. These are inconsistent positions. The only way men would be able to "get it wrong" and cause those baptized to be damned (according to your doctrine on baptism), is if it were an act of men in some important ways.

My position is just turned around from yours. I recognize that the choice of the mode of baptism is an action of the men and women involved permitted by God, and because those mere humans could "get it wrong" (if one mode is more right than another) it is impossible that an error in that choice could be determinative of the eternal destiny of the sincere believers being baptized. Nothing and no one can take a believer out of the hand of God, much less such an error. Your position makes baptism a works based condition of salvation, contrary to scripture. Your position would require that a human error must prevent the salvation of those who have faith in Jesus Christ and trust in His finished work for the forgiveness of their sins.

As I have said several times, I don't disagree that baptism is commanded and obedience is due. The issue is whether the obedience (in baptism as in the rest of the Christian life) is a condition of salvation, and thus a "work"; or whether that obedience is as a result of salvation, performed in gratitude and service to God. I believe the Bible is clear on this, and that obedience follows salvation.

Consider that new Christians learn from those that teach, and are baptized by those same teachers; so one can assume that if they are baptized they are baptized in the mode they have been taught. If they are baptized by pouring or sprinkling or immersion, they don't do it out of disobedience. When they are brought to faith by the Holy Spirit, they eagerly ask for baptism when they learn it is commanded. They do it out of obedience and faith, as children of God. I don't doubt that the mode of baptism common in the first century was immersion; but the point of any mode of baptism is not the mode, but rather the indwelling of the Holy Spirit, the obedience, the demonstration of faith, the symbolic washing away of sin, and the trust in the finished work of Jesus Christ. We can't add one bit to our merit for salvation, by getting the mode of baptism right or by any other thing we do or have done for us.

-- Anonymous, November 03, 2000

John Wilson,

I see you want to get out of the problem by assertng that that baptism is not a work for the one being baptized, since they do absolutely nothing. No sale. A "work" can include much that does not involve the exercise of muscles. Most work today is substantially mental. Those being immersed consent to the procedure, get prepaired for the event, get themselves to the location, take in the breath that allows them to go under, wipe their eyes when they are lifted out, and in other ways participate in the process by their actions and mentally. If they didn't participate, the baptism would not occur. If your position is that participation is a condition of salvation, it is a "work". No evasion of the issue will fix that.

-- Anonymous, November 03, 2000

Dwight,

You have said, "As I have said several times, I don't disagree that baptism is commanded and obedience is due."

If a person will not obey a command of God, can they be right with God and be saved? Jesus commanded His disciples to "love one another"... if we do not love one another can we be right with God and be saved?

If, as you say, baptism is a command and requires obedience, it seems to me it is esential.

Later you said, "A "work" can include much that does not involve the exercise of muscles. Most work today is substantially mental."

This was exactely my point on another post in saying that belief, repentance, confession, or prayer are as much of a work as baptism!

-- Anonymous, November 04, 2000

Can you please quote me scriptures giving the reasons for baptism?

-- D. Lee Muse (dleemuse@yahoo.com), November 03, 2000.

1 Peter 3,20b - 22: "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 resurection of Jesus Christ, who has gone into heaven and is at God's right hand - with the angels, authorities and powers in submission to Him."

Romans 6:3-4: "Or don't you know that all of us who have been baptized into Christ Jesus were baptized into his death? We were therefore buried with him through baptism into death in order that, just as Christ was raised from the dead through the glory of the Father, we too may live a new life."

1 Peter tells us the water is a symbol of the work of Jesus Christ, and the water does not itself do anything. It is a pledge, or symbol, for the work of Jesus Christ finished on the cross with the resurection as the proof. Romans tells us that baptism is evidence of our submission to God, so that "we too may live a new life."

Where we seem to part, is that the strict RM position is that the water baptism "saves you", and does not acknowledge the context and recognize that it is stated as the symbol and substitute for what really saves you - the work of Jesus Christ. Once it is acknowledged as symbolic, the mode becomes secondary and may be determined by custom or convention.

As I said earlier, it seems reasonable that the common mode of baptism in the 1st century may have been immersion; but that is even subject to speculation. Several of the descriptions indicate they went into the river or lake, but once in up to their waist it is not clear if they were immersed or had water poured over them or what. In most of the descriptions it just does not say how it was done, but the Bible does say what was being symbolized.

This seems to be the defining doctrine of the RM. It identifies those who are in or out of orthodoxy. You don't like the word "creed", but creed means simply an "I believe" statement. So the creed of the RM seems to be, "I believe a water baptism by immersion is what saves sinners." That belief is what causes those in the RM to regard all other Christians who ever lived, who were not immersed, to be damned. That belief is what causes those of us who place our faith in the finished work of Jesus Christ for our salvation, to be concerned that the RM is presenting "another gospel", and that it requires a "work" of obedience to qualify for salvation.

Denominations or associations or conferences of churches do not define which individual members are members of the true church. I am sure many members of the RM are members of the true church, as are many Baptists and Presbyterians and others. The qualification is not your affiliations, but your faith and the calling of God. I don't believe you would want the creed of the RM to cause some to trust in water baptism, rather than to trust in the finished work of Christ.

-- Anonymous, November 04, 2000

Marc,

I understand obedience is required, but the question is whether it is a condition prior to salvation. If we are required to be obedient, but fail every day as fallen sinners, we must trust in a risen savior for forgiveness.

My position is that those Christians who have not been immersed are not being disobedient. They simply obey the command as they understand it.

In any event, if obedience is required it must be after salvation, because as fallen sinners we are incapable of doing anything good such that it would be acceptable before a perfect God. Our obedience is only acceptable through the filter of the blood of Jesus Christ. If it is only acceptable because of Christ, it can not be a condition of salvation or no one could be saved.

You stated that "This was exactely my point on another post in saying that belief, repentance, confession, or prayer are as much of a work as baptism!" Where we disagree is in who is causing the belief, and faith; so that we are able to repent, confess and pray. The Holy Spirit makes the first move, and for those elect or predestined unto salvation the Holy Spirit causes them to respond to the gospel in faith by grace. "By grace" simply means we have done nothing at all to merit the free gift of God. Once we have faith, by the grace of God, we are able to repent and confess and pray. But that is a consequence of the faith in Jesus Chrsit that saves us, and not a work that earns or qualifies us for salvation. Once the Holy Spirit is at work within us, we are His; and we have done nothing at all to merit it.

-- Anonymous, November 04, 2000

To be absolutely clear, when I wrote "the faith in Jesus Chrsit that saves us", it is not the faith that saves us, but "Jesus Christ that saves us" - His work and His sacrifice on the cross, which is applied to us through faith, the free gift - grace - of God.

-- Anonymous, November 04, 2000

Dear John,

I re-post from above:

From me, Connie:

There is ONE FAITH, ONE LORD, ONE BAPTISM. Since there is only ONE, WHICH ONE IS IT?

From John:

Connie; Your own scriptures condemn your position. You quote "... one baptism," and then say there are two baptisms, being baptized spiritually into Christ's body and being physically immersed, as if that somehow refutes our position. But that is your position, not ours! To us, there is only one baptism, for both these things are the same thing. (At least you're not a Pentecostal ... they have THREE baptisms, adding the so-called baptism of the Holy Spirit.) So you set up a straw man for us, as we do not have any problem with "One Lord, One Faith, and One Baptism" ... you do!

<><....<><....<><....<><....<><

There are different baptisms mentioned in Scripture, John.

My question asks: Which ONE is salvationary ~ the one from above? ~ or the one in water?

Now we know THERE IS ONE. Which ONE is it?

My love in Christ,

(for 42 years ~ 3 years before my water immersion as a believer, but 16 years AFTER my first immersion, before I understood baptism or the Gospel.) I know when I was indwelt by the Spirit, John. It was when I repented and believed. He has never left me nor forsaken me. praise His Holy Name!

-- Anonymous, November 04, 2000

Wouldn't it be a terrible injustice on God's part to enter a person's life through the power of the Holy Spirit, through faith in the Son, and not reveal to him IMMEDIATELY that immersion is a requirement to be saved?

I believe that is why He didn't require ANY WORKS (SOMETHING OR SOMEONE ACTING ON SOMETHING OR SOMEONE) to determine such an important reality. People have a propensity for dropping the ball.

There are multitudinous verses to support that position, so don't tell me it's not from Scripture.

There are only a couple which are seemingly inconsistent with the whole, and I attribute that lack of clarity to the copyists of history (some with an agenda).

One of the first questions after the Marriage Feast of the Lamb from me will be on this very issue (unless I come to understand it a little earlier ~ when 'to teleion' comes, face-to-face.

Love in Jesus to all on this forum, because I know we are all seeking God's mind on this.

No one is seeking to discredit Christ or God or the Holy Spirit.

The truth is our goal. The Truth which set us free. When he died and rose from the dead.

Connie

-- Anonymous, November 04, 2000

Connie,

I just recently found that this forum was reopened. It is good to see that you are still fighting the good fight for the truth of the gospel of Jesus Christ. You have a more gentle touch than I do, that I appreciate. May God continue to bless you. Keep the faith!

-- Anonymous, November 04, 2000

Hello, Dwight,

I have developed a more gentle touch out of a belief that Christians have different understandings on different matters, but can speak the truth in love, and should.

In the past, I failed in that regard. I have repented.

Anger and cruel words just alienate others and make them feel bad. I have no desire to do that. (Not that I won't fail in the future, but I hope not).

I have a real love and affection for the people on this forum, even the ones with whom I disagree. I believe we all sincerely want to know the mind of God.

May He teach us that.

-- Anonymous, November 04, 2000

Dwight,

You said, "1 Peter tells us the water is a symbol of the work of Jesus Christ, and the water does not itself do anything. It is a pledge, or symbol, for the work of Jesus Christ finished on the cross with the resurection as the proof. Romans tells us that baptism is evidence of our submission to God, so that 'we too may live a new life.'"

That's not what I Peter says!

First, although I would agree that in a sense "the water does not itself do anything", that isn't actually what it SAYS. What it actually says is that THE REASON BAPTISM SAVES is not because it washes dirt away from the body -- and that's ALL it says about what baptism doesn't do.

Second, from all the study I've done about exactly what this verse does mean, I don't believe it is either linguistically or logically possible, from this verse, to interpret "pledge" as "symbol". There are a couple of different ways this word can be translated, and which you choose affects the interpretation of the whole verse, but "symbol" is NOT one of them.

Third, no matter how much you argue about the details of what the rest of the verse means, you cannot get away from the fact that the plain meaning of the main clause of the sentence is BAPTISM NOW SAVES YOU. How or why it can be said to do so is explained in the rest of the verse, but it says, BAPTISM NOW SAVES YOU. Not "baptism symbolises the salvation you already have", but BAPTISM NOW SAVES YOU.

I do agree that it's not the water that does it. But the analogy is from Noah, the ark, and the waters of the flood, which he says symbolises BAPTISM WHICH NOW SAVES YOU. Noah had to get into the ark in order for the waters, which lifted up the ark, to save him. If he hadn't done that, the waters would have drowned him like they did the rest of mankind. BAPTISM SAVES US, not because of anything the water itself does (not because it washes dirt from the body), but because it is our "pledge of allegiance" or "oath of allegiance" to Jesus Christ, demonstrating to Him, to the world, and to ourselves that our "faith" is NOT mere "mental assent", but that we have actually taken him as LORD to OBEY.

You also said, "In any event, if obedience is required it must be after salvation, because as fallen sinners we are incapable of doing anything good such that it would be acceptable before a perfect God. Our obedience is only acceptable through the filter of the blood of Jesus Christ. If it is only acceptable because of Christ, it can not be a condition of salvation or no one could be saved."

Most of that comes out of your Calvinistic presuppositions, which I do not accept. Yes, we are incapable of saving ourselves. Yes, we can only be saved through the blood of Jesus Christ. But HE gives us the choice of whether or not we will accept the testimony about Him. "Faith comes from hearing" -- and obviously not from hearing alone, or EVERYONE who has ever heard the message would be saved, but rather by the choices we make about what we have heard. And HE gives us the choice of whether or not that "mental assent" that we begin with will become real "saving faith" through accepting Him as LORD and taking the initial "pledge of allegiance" to him through submitting to immersion.

As I've said before, my HOPE is that God will still save those people who did/do have a sincere and obvious faith in Christ but were not immersed or who were "baptised" through some other method. And I think it is reasonable to hope this, since the Bible makes clear that FAITH is PRIMARY. But the fact is that there is no PROMISE of this, since the Bible makes equally clear that it is baptism (immersion, in the language used at the time) that SAVES US, puts us INTO CHRIST, CLOTHES US WITH CHRIST, buries the old man and RAISES US UP IN NEW LIFE, etc. It is baptism (immersion) that moves us from the faith the demons have to the faith that actually saves.

-- Anonymous, November 05, 2000

I re-post from above:

BAPTISM SAVES US, not because of anything the water itself does (not because it washes dirt from the body), but because it is our "pledge of allegiance" or "oath of allegiance" to Jesus Christ, demonstrating to Him, to the world, and to ourselves that our "faith" is NOT mere "mental assent", but that we have actually taken him as LORD to OBEY.

<><....<><....<><....<><

I agree with this. It DEMONSTRATES to Him, to the world and to ourselves that our faith is not mere mental assent.

-- Anonymous, November 06, 2000

Connie,

If you can accept my HUMAN interpretation of what happens when we do this, is it such a terribly big step to accept the plain words of SCRIPTURE on which it is based? "BAPTISM NOW SAVES US .... (through/by) the pledge of a good conscience toward God. *IT* (i.e. baptism) SAVES YOU by the resurrection of Jesus Christ ...." Without the resurrection of Jesus Christ, there would be no salvation, but plainly, from these verses, baptism is in some way the mechanism by which that salvation which Christ has provided becomes effective for us.

Keep on studying!

-- Anonymous, November 06, 2000

Dear Benjamin,

I guess the interpretation I accept first is my own, based on my own expeience.

I know I could be wrong, but the Lord has never changed my understanding of this. I test the spirits, whether they be of God.

I guess where we disagree is whether I could have been saved when I believed and whether my baptism, three years later, was more than my DEMONSTRATION of belief in the resurrection which [THEN] saved me.

We agree there is ONE BAPTISM. We agree that it is the death, burial and resurrection of Jesus Christ which saves us.

I ask you the same question I asked John and D.Lee on the other thread:

WHICH BAPTISM IS THE ONE WHICH REGENERATES? In other words, if there is ONLY ONE, is it the baptism by the Spirit, referred to many times as superior to John's baptism?, or is it the baptism in water which DEMONSTRATES the re-birth by the Holy Spirit? The one which is a 'figure' of the real thing?

I continue to study and determine God's meaning.

Love in Christ,

Connie

-- Anonymous, November 06, 2000

Also, Benjamin,

I keep going back to John 3:3-8.

All of those references are to physical birth (root word, phonetic Greek, gennoah) and birth from above by the Spirit (pneuma). No 'baptizo'. Even the NIV translates that as "born from above' not 'born again'. But even if it IS 'born again', it is still referring to being physically born and then spiritually born, not immersed by water. What we must do is be 'born from above', not immersed in water.

-- Anonymous, November 06, 2000

Connie,

From a human standpoint, there are many "baptisms" and many "washings", and Scripture even mentions several of these. So why does Ephesians say there is only ONE. Because from God's standpoint, there is only one that makes a difference in our relationship with Him. There is ONE baptism that takes us from being outside of Christ to being IN HIM and being saved.

Which is it? Baptism (immersion) in water or baptism in the Spirit? Answer: BOTH!

(In a sense -- there are only two events that are CLEARLY designated in Scripture as "BAPTISM IN the Holy Spirit": what happened to the Apostles on the day of Pentecost, and the identical occurence with the household of Cornelius some months or years later. But the Holy Spirit is promised to all Christians, so some believe that this also can be called "baptism in [or of] the Spirit".)

Acts 2:38 promises that whoever will "repent AND BE BAPTISED" (obviously, from the context, in water) will receive remission of sins and "the GIFT OF THE HOLY SPIRIT". The passage you refer to, in John 3, also brings water and spirit together -- we must be born "of water and the spirit". When Paul met a band of about 12 "believers" in Ephesus that he had not known of previously, his first question to them was, "Did you receive the Holy Spirit when you believed?" When they profess ignorance of the Holy Spirit, his next question is, "Then into what were you baptised?" They answer, "John's baptism." Paul explains the difference between the two, they are baptised (obviously in water), he lays his hands on them, and they receive not only the Holy Spirit but some of the miraculous gifts of the spirit (probably as a sign that they did the right thing).

The New Testament is full of verses where the Holy Spirit and "baptism" (and/or "water") are mentioned together. (I could give more references, but am pressed for time. Anyway, you will probably believe it more easily if you search it out for yourself.) If you can accept -- as I believe is true -- that the Holy Spirit is given at the moment of baptism, then the question "which is it? Baptism in water or in the Spirit?" becomes redundant, since there are NOT two separate events under consideration, but only ONE EVENT. When we are baptised in water into Jesus Christ, we receive the Holy Spirit.

The interpretation of John 3 and many of these other passages, where baptism/water and Spirit come together can become quite convoluted if you try to make a separation between the two events -- water baptism and receiving the Holy Spirit. They all become very simple and straightforward if you accept the simple premise that in the ONE BAPTISM (the ONE and ONLY baptism that makes the difference in our relationship to Christ) the two, water baptism and Spirit, come together.

I think one of the biggest barriers to you accepting this is your own experience, since you believe that you had the Holy Spirit in your life for a considerable time (3 years, if I'm remembering correctly) between coming to real faith and having your (2nd) baptism. I'm not denying that the Holy Spirit seems to have been working in your life in some sense, but I'd like to remind you of two things.

(1) The Holy Spirit can and does sometimes work in the lives of even unbelievers and people who are disobedient to God. (In the Old Testament, the Holy Spirit is said to have fallen on King Saul and caused him to prophesy even after God had rejected him as king.) If that is true, then how much more might He "work in the lives" of those who are sincerely seeking to do God's will, even if they haven't yet fulfilled the requirement of receiving the "one baptism."

(2) You have said previously that if you ever found your experience to be contradicted by clear Biblical teaching, you would accept the Bible as true over and above your experience. Yet you still, over and over again, bring up your personal experience as a reason why you "know" that water baptism cannot mean what the Bible clearly says that it does! Is there any way you can "lay aside" the *blinders* of your personal experience and look at the Scriptural evidence from a totally unbiassed perspective and examine WHAT DOES THE NEW TESTAMENT ACTUALLY *SAY* ABOUT BAPTISM?

-- Anonymous, November 06, 2000

Benjamine Rees wrote, "That's not what I Peter says! First, although I would agree that in a sense "the water does not itself do anything", that isn't actually what it SAYS. What it actually says is that THE REASON BAPTISM SAVES is not because it washes dirt away from the body -- and that's ALL it says about what baptism doesn't do."

Well, we agree on something about this passage.

You also wrote, "I do agree that it's not the water that does it. But the analogy is from Noah, the ark, and the waters of the flood, which he says symbolises BAPTISM WHICH NOW SAVES YOU. Noah had to get into the ark in order for the waters, which lifted up the ark, to save him. If he hadn't done that, the waters would have drowned him like they did the rest of mankind. BAPTISM SAVES US, not because of anything the water itself does (not because it washes dirt from the body), but because it is our "pledge of allegiance" or "oath of allegiance" to Jesus Christ, demonstrating to Him, to the world, and to ourselves that our "faith" is NOT mere "mental assent", but that we have actually taken him as LORD to OBEY."

I understand your position very well, and it is why I am concerned that you are presenting "another gospel", as I commented on above.

I rely on the explanation that follows - "It saves you by the resurection of Jesus Christ, who has gone into heaven and is at God's right hand - with the angels, authorities and powers in submission to Him." And I rely on the fact that one verse of scripture must be understood in the light of the entire Word of God. You admit the water does not save, and you interpret the meaning of the phrase "BAPTISM WHICH NOW SAVES YOU" to fit your doctrine on baptism.

If baptism does not save you, literally, the explanation of what it means and how the phrase should be understood is subject to some interpretation - and I grant you yours is one possible interpretation. There are others, and at least one of the others fits better with the rest of the revelation of how God works and what really saves.

You say baptism is our "pledge of allegiance" or "oath of allegiance" and "that we have actually taken him as LORD to OBEY." Who will make such a pledge or oath, AND MEAN IT, that is not already UNDER THE LORDSHIP OF CHRIST AND GUIDED BY THE SPIRIT? I don't disagree that it IS evidence that an individual has been won to at least an outward obedience that may indicate an inner conversion of the mind and spirit. But is the outward obedience always matched with an inner conversion?

Do you know of any who have been immersed who later departed, or admitted they submitted to fit in with the expected behavior of the church body? Did the immersion, without the spiritual transformation, "save" him? So what is the true measure of what saves? Immersion without true faith does not save. True faith without immersion? By your doctrine it seems you believe that can't happen. You seem to believe that true faith will always result in immersion baptism, but are you sure? And if some have true faith in Jesus Christ, but through error or misunderstanding or mistaken teachers (by your standards) are not immersed; will Jesus Christ not save them?

When you commented on my point about our obedience being unacceptable as sinners you wrote, "Most of that comes out of your Calvinistic presuppositions, which I do not accept." But you did not refute it. Look at Gen. 6:5, 8:21; Job 14:4; Isa. 53:6; John 3:3-5. Without the salvation we have through the blood of Christ, even our best efforts are tainted with evil and wickedness in some respects, and unacceptable to God. How would the baptism of someone not yet saved become acceptable as an act of obedience?

You ask for obedience in baptism prior to salvation, which is illogical to start with. If baptism were to occur prior to salvation, it would be that sham obedience of one who wants to conform to the expectations of the group he is associated with that I mentioned earlier - and unacceptable obedience that is corrupted by evil and wickedness. IF IT WERE TRUE OBEDIENCE THE SPIRIT MUST ALREADY HAVE CHANGED THE HEART AND SAVED THE SOUL, OR IT WOULD NOT BE TRUE OBEDIENCE!

So what does it mean that "this water symbolizes baptism that now saves you also" in 1 Peter 3:21? From that one verse you concluded that obedience in baptism is what saves. From the whole Word of God I conclude that the symblism is at least two layers deep - the water of the flood symbolizes baptism which symbolizes the work of Jesus Christ which really saves you. All my references are clear on this point. "The symbol and the reality are so closely related that the symbol is sometimes used to refer to the reality. See Rom. 6:3-4 ...In the final analysis people are saved not by any ritual, but by the supernatural power of the resurection." I am sure your references all agree with your doctrinal position, so we are left with a difference of opinion on the interpretation of scripture.

A very big difference of opinion. If you are right, and a water immersion is required for salvation, I and most of the Christians I know are damned. If I am right, and you are improperly putting a ritual "work or obedience" in place of the finished work of Christ, all those who rely on immersion to save them are damned. Reliance on a salvation based on a work of obedience, is not "true faith" in the finished work of Christ. I have a lot of scripture on my side of the issue; not just a verse or two, that can be interpreted different ways.

-- Anonymous, November 07, 2000

Dear Benjamin,

I re-post from above:

When Paul met a band of about 12 "believers" in Ephesus that he had not known of previously, his first question to them was, "Did you receive the Holy Spirit when you believed?" When they profess ignorance of the Holy Spirit, his next question is, "Then into what were you baptised?" They answer, "John's baptism." Paul explains the difference between the two, they are baptised (obviously in water), he lays his hands on them, and they receive not only the Holy Spirit but some of the miraculous gifts of the spirit (probably as a sign that they did the right thing).

<><....<><....<><.....<><

This is one place where it is obvious that salvation can come before baptism. And their baptism didn't give them salvation (they already had it), it gave them the Holy Spirit.

Affectionately in Him,

Connie

John 3:3-8 refers to spiritual birth, not water immersion. Water immersion is not referred to there AT ALL.

-- Anonymous, November 07, 2000

Connie,

Where do you find ANY evidence at all that the 12 men at Ephesus were already saved? You are just making an assumption as many people (including you, at least in the past) do about the conversion of Saul/Paul -- that he was "saved" on the Damascus road. But his own testimony says that he had to be baptised to "wash away" his sins, and if he was still in his sins, he was not yet saved -- until he was baptised. The same with these men. Salvation and the gift of the Holy Spirit normally come simultaneously -- at the time of water baptism.

Someone awhile back (I can't remember who) was criticising "us" (CC/CoC) for assuming that EVERY reference to baptism was to baptism in water, while this writer assumed that if water was not clearly indicated by words or the context, it was "spirit baptism". You want to have it the other way around -- if the word baptise/baptism is not used, a reference to water must NOT be baptism! If "water" in John 3:3-8 refers to baptism in water, the passage agrees with the rest of New Testament teaching about baptism. If it doesn't, then what the passage says is ridiculous and self-contradictory, as others have pointed out in the past.

Dwight,

My views on baptism are NOT just based on a few "proof texts" (although that's the way I feel about your views).

I agree you that we must use scripture to interpret scripture, and must look at the totality of God's revelation rather than at selected passages that support our own views. Which is why I believe that my view is correct, because I think it fits best with the totality of what the Bible says.

Have you heard of "Ockham's razor"? Basically, it is a principle that says that "the simplest explanation the better." Along with this, one of the generally accepted principles of hermeneutics is that you should take what the Bible says at face value unless there are good reasons (e.g. in what the rest of the Bible says) for not taking it that way.

There are passages that talk about baptism being necessary for salvation -- not just I Peter 3:21 and Acts 2:38, but many others that support these. Those just happen to be the plainest. There are also passages that say plainly that we are saved by faith and not by works.

How does one reconcile the two?

You can "explain away" the baptism side of it -- as you try to do. But your views require some real mental gymnastics to "explain away" some VERY PLAIN Bible verses about baptism.

Some try to "explain away" the faith side of it, and you may have met SOME people who try to do that. I think the Seventh Day Adventist position, at least in the past, tended in this direction. My position is NOT the same as theirs.

Or you can say, "all right, the Bible says both, so both must be true," and then ask "how?" That's what I have done. The way I view does not require me to "explain away" either side, nor does it involve any convoluted and complicated way of trying to show that some passage doesn't really mean what it seems to mean. (A part of what is necessary is to ask the question, what the Bible means when it talks of "works".)

I could explain it all again, but I'm running out of time. If you couldn't grasp it in the past, I don't think you will now. Your Calvinistic presuppositions get in the way -- they are very obvious yet again in your latest posting. And again, Calvinism has been quite thoroughly discussed in the past. If you didn't "get it" then, you are not likely to now, which is why I simply mentioned that these presuppositions prejudice your position without bothering to address it in detail here.

Where it impinges on this discussion is that if individuals have free will, then it makes sense to require a demonstration that faith is really "saving faith" and not merely "mental assent." If we don't, then such a demonstration is irrelevant because we could not have faith without God giving it to us directly, and if he has given it to us, why should he require that we demonstrate it?

I asked the question previously, would Abraham's faith have been "counted as righteousness" if he had said, "Yes, Yahweh, I believe -- but I choose not to leave Ur nor to sacrifice Isaac"? Your position, followed out logically, would say that it was impossible for him NOT to leave Ur and sacrifice Isaac. So why did God ask him to do it? And why are these acts pointed to as acts of faith? They would not have been acts of "faith" as most people understand faith, but acts of a puppet.

Baptism as a requirement for salvation makes good sense if we have free will. It is pointless if we don't. If you don't believe that we have the freedom to choose to have faith or to choose not to have faith, then it is pointless to waste much more time continuing to argue with you about it.

-- Anonymous, November 07, 2000

Dear Benjamin, I re-post from above:

When Paul met a band of about 12 "believers" in Ephesus that he had not known of previously, his first question to them was, "Did you receive the Holy Spirit when you believed?" When they profess ignorance of the Holy Spirit, his next question is, "Then into what were you baptised?" They answer, "John's baptism." Paul explains the difference between the two, they are baptised (obviously in water), he lays his hands on them, and they receive not only the Holy Spirit but some of the miraculous gifts of the spirit (probably as a sign that they did the right thing).

<><....<><....<><.....<><

-- Anonymous, November 07, 2000

Connie, Where do you find ANY evidence at all that the 12 men at Ephesus were already saved? You are just making an assumption as many people (including you, at least in the past) do about the conversion of Saul/Paul -- that he was "saved" on the Damascus road. But his own testimony says that he had to be baptised to "wash away" his sins, and if he was still in his sins, he was not yet saved -- until he was baptised. The same with these men. Salvation and the gift of the Holy Spirit normally come simultaneously -- at the time of water baptism.

<><....<><....<><....<><

It seems as though there is some dichotomy here.

I don't want to put words in your mouth, but I find these two statements to be paradoxical.

Dear Benjamin, can you clarify?

-- Anonymous, November 07, 2000

Yes, Benjamin,

I DO believe that Paul was converted aince that is when he started obeying (as you acknowledge, several days before he was immersed), and the question concerning whether they RECEIVED THE HOLY SPIRIT WHEN THEY BELIEVED. They alrady believed and it was not salvation being discussed here, it was the gift of the Holy Spirit.

Not all gifts were given at the same time. But salvation was given only once ~ when they were 'born from above'.

Respectfully submitted,

-- Anonymous, November 07, 2000

Whenever the incident of the blinding of Paul is mentioned, it is referred to as 'the conversion of Paul on the Road to Damascus'.

Don't you see how the Scriptures are being squeezed to fit a philosophy, instead of just accepting what the Scriptures say?:

"Not by works of righteousness which we have done, but according to His mercy, he saved us".

"For by grace you are saved through faith, and that not of yourselves, it is the GIFT OF GOD, NOT OF WORKS, LEST ANYONE SHOULD BOAST".

"He who has the Son has life; he who has not the Son of God HAS NOT LIFE".

Praise God, I have the Son and I have life!

-- Anonymous, November 07, 2000

Benjamin Rees wrote, "Baptism as a requirement for salvation makes good sense if we have free will. It is pointless if we don't. If you don't believe that we have the freedom to choose to have faith or to choose not to have faith, then it is pointless to waste much more time continuing to argue with you about it."

I agree it is pointless to waste more time on the argurment. Even without free will baptism is still a command to be obeyed, just not viewed as the means of salvation. Those who believe God is soverign even in the salvation of the elect, do not conclude we are mere puppets; but only that from the point of view of God, the outcome was never in doubt.

-- Anonymous, November 07, 2000

Connie,

See how complicated and confusing it all becomes when you try to separate faith and baptism and say that a person is saved by faith alone -- and then try to squeeze Scripture into that interpretation, trying to make the Bible passages "fit" that way of looking at things, when many don't.

There is no "dichotomy" at all in what I said. It fits perfectly with what Scripture as a whole says about what is accomplished by baptism -- not by the water itself, but by our yielding ourselves to Christ in this act. Acts 2:38 (and what it says is confirmed by other passages) gives two conditions, (1) repent and (2) be baptised, for the purpose of receiving two results, (1) forgiveness of sins and (2) the gift of the Holy Spirit (i.e. the indwelling presence of the Holy Spirit). Faith is not omitted -- it is just taken for granted, since the crowd would not have asked the question they did if they hadn't already believed the truth of what Peter said. This passage just shows what is necessary to move from mere "mental assent" to true "saving faith."

Saul/Paul and the 12 men of Ephesus all believed, they had probably all repented, but they had not yet fulfilled the second requirement given in Acts 2:38. Therefore they had not yet received the promises.

In the case of Saul, he says clearly that 3 days later he still needed to be immersed in order to have his sins actually forgiven, i.e. to be saved. In the case of the 12 men of Ephesus, we see clearly that they had not yet received the Holy Spirit until they were baptised (indeed, baptised a second time, since their first baptism, the baptism of John the Baptist, was not "in the name of the Lord Jesus").

Did Saul have the Holy Spirit but not salvation, and the 12 men salvation but not the Holy Spirit? On the basis of Acts 2:38 (with its basic truths confirmed by many other Scriptures), I conclude that NONE of them had EITHER salvation or the indwelling of the Holy Spirit until they had all fulfilled ALL of the conditions given. These conditions being (1) faith, (2) repentance (a change of mind, will and direction of life), and (3) baptism in water.

By the way, it is not essential to my arguments to interpret being "born of water" in John 3 to mean baptism. I think the passage (esp. the whole passage, in context) makes most sense if it is interpreted this way, and it fits with what I believe the rest of the New Testament teaches about baptism. But my case doesn't rest on that interpretation. If that is what the passage means, it gives additional confirmation for my position, but if it isn't, the case is not weakened in the least.

-- Anonymous, November 07, 2000

Dear Benjamin,

I respect you immensely, but I disagree.

-- Anonymous, November 08, 2000