Axe and two 38's

[Jaime]

There are many believe and be saved verses or many repent and be saved verses and believe and be baptized to be saved verses. It’s an all of the above proposition to me. I see no reason to not take ALL of the Bible’s salvation verses cummulatively. Is there a reason to focus on a single verse? I say of course not. If one indicates belief is required, I say AMEN! If one says repentence is needed, I say AMEN! If it says baptism is needed, I say AMEN! If it says we are saved by grace through faith, I say AMEN! Salvation IS a free gift. We must accept it or reject it. We accept it by what the Bible says is needed in all such verses in the New Testament collectively and I don’t see a reason to search for an alpha stand alone salvation scripture. Why would I assume that only Acts 2:38 applies and confessing Christ with our lips is not required, when nit does mot mention confessing Cnrist with our lips there but it does other places. Even if one is baptized for remission of sin and the gift of the Holy Spirit, isn’t he/she very much and thoroughly saved by grace through faith? Individual verses are NOT exclusive of one another.

I don’t think anyone is lost for delaying baptism, I just don’t understand the delay. When baptism is mentioned in scripture it is always immediate. Thenfirst century people would notnhave contemplated anything else. Hence Ananis’ admonition to Paul in Acts 22 , “ “why do you tarry, arises and be baptized…… I do believe that the on purpose marginalizing of the importance of baptism is the reason for some to delay. It wasn’t so for the first century folks. My tribe historically probably overemphasized baptism. That can be harmful as well. To me belief, faith and our faith response of repentence, confession and baotism probably should be one single smooth motion as evidenced in the NewTestament examples. I wouldn’t even contemplate demaying baptism. Who doesn’t want to rise up out of baptism to walk in newness of life once you come to faith?

Romans 6:4 We were buried therefore with him by baptism into death, in order that, just as Christ was raised from the dead by the glory of the Father, we too might walk in newness of life.

 

[Jaime]

Dwight you asked :
Where does the Bible say that Jesus' blood cleanses us from sin, but only when we get baptized? My Bible says His blood cleanses us from sin when we repent and believe in Jesus?

I would say if baptism is where sin is forgiven as I have shown, we must contact the blood of Christ IN baptism. Why would that be impossible or unlikely?

Baptism contacts the blood of Christ by symbolically and spiritually uniting the believer with Jesus’ death, burial, resurrection, AND cleansing blood SO THAT we could walk in newness of life. We must have our sins washed away, and have the gift of the Holy Spirit to be IN Christ and saved right? We contact that cleansing blood of Christ in baptism, and from there we walk in newness of life, a new creature.

(Romans 6:3-4):

3 Do you not know that all of us who have been baptized into Christ Jesus were baptized into his death?

4 We were buried therefore with him by baptism into death, in order that, just as Christ was raised from the dead by the glory of the Father, we too might walk in newness of life

 

[dwight92070]

Dwight you asked :
Where does the Bible say that Jesus' blood cleanses us from sin, but only when we get baptized? My Bible says His blood cleanses us from sin when we repent and believe in Jesus?

I would say if baptism is where sin is forgiven as I have shown, we must contact the blood of Christ IN baptism. Why would that be impossible or unlikely?

Baptism contacts the blood of Christ by symbolically and spiritually uniting the believer with Jesus’ death, burial, resurrection, AND cleansing blood SO THAT we could walk in newness of life. We must have our sins washed away, and have the gift of the Holy Spirit to be IN Christ and saved right? We contact that cleansing blood of Christ in baptism, and from there we walk in newness of life, a new creature.

(Romans 6:3-4):

3 Do you not know that all of us who have been baptized into Christ Jesus were baptized into his death?

4 We were buried therefore with him by baptism into death, in order that, just as Christ was raised from the dead by the glory of the Father, we too might walk in newness of life

You have voiced your opinion that baptism is where sin is forgiven but I believe that is misinterpreting those verses. Salvation or being born again, before baptism, is where sin is forgiven, and the Holy Spirit is given. Baptism and communion are both symbolic ceremonies that symbolize the Lord's death - and His resurrection in baptism.
Jesus said the work of God is to believe in Him who He sent - there's no other "work" that saves us or is necessary to be saved - not baptism or communion or any other work. If your position was the truth, then Jesus should've said, "This is the work of God, that you get baptized and receive forgiveness of sins and the Holy Spirit."

 

[Jaime]

I am not saying you are lost, i AM saying what God’s prescribed method was and that includes baptism as one of the prescribed faith responses. i choose to believe all of the Bible should be taken as a whole collectively and cummulativey. The Bible does not regurgitate every facet of salvation in every salvation verse. Some say repent and be baptized, some say confess with your lips, another says a other says by faith we are saved. They Are NOT contradictory of each other. They must be taken cummulatively. It’s not a graduated step process, it involves all of the above. If not, which one is the real single true faith response?

As to the blood where else would we encounter the blood other in the act where we join in his death, burial and resurrection by dying to ourselves and being raised out of the water to live in newness of life. I don’t understand you having to find the exact words. We are baptised INTO Christ and his death and his resurrection.

I don’t condemn you for delaying in baptism, but I don’t understand why, unless someone or somebodies erroneously minimized baptism in your teaching. To my knowledge no one ever delayed their baptism in the New Testament, it was always immediate or the same day from the 3000 at Pentecost to the Phillipian Jailer and the Ethiopian Eunoch etc. A two week delay or so in the first century was never remotely mentioned or contemplated. It was always immediate and urgent. Why would you wait to put on Christ in Baptism sharing in his death, burial and resurrection? I saw no reason or excuse in my case to do anything but rush in excitement to my baptism, puttimg on Christ sharing in my life his death, burial and resurrection and excited to tell others sooner than later. I believe God does something powerful in baptism, it is not simply a visible symbol of an invisible truth. For me it was the precise moment I dropped my climched fists of resistance and submitted to God and to Jesus as my savior and Lord. At that point I felt his work in my spirit. I believe that is the exact example we are shown in the Bible. God speeks to us by example as well as direct command. Some people call that CENI, Command, Example and Necessary Inference. I am absolutely sure of the Command and example part, but not at all on board with necessary inference - necessarily! Again I am comvinced we should meld or combine or take cummulatively ALL salvational verses. And they all add up to we are saved by grace through faith, and the gift of salvation is free BY the awesome grace of God and we can’t meritnit or earn it. That truth excited me and exorted my spirit to put on or cloth myself with Christ in baptism. Very soon after my belief was clear to me. Would I go to hell if I died in a car crash on the way to the baptisty, No I don’t think so, but I was so excited just like the Ethiopian Eunoch and all the others in scripture there was nochance I was going to delay.

 

[Red Baker]

@Jaime

I don’t condemn you for delaying in baptism, but I don’t understand why, unless someone or somebodies erroneously minimized baptism in your teaching. To my knowledge no one ever delayed their baptism in the New Testament, it was always immediate or the same day from the 3000 at Pentecost to the Phillipian Jailer and the Ethiopian Eunoch etc. A two week delay or so in the first century was never remotely mentioned or contemplated. It was always immediate and urgent. Why would you wait to put on Christ in Baptism sharing in his death, burial and resurrection? I saw no reason or excuse in my case to do anything but rush in excitement to my baptism, puttimg on Christ sharing in my life his death, burial and resurrection and excited to tell others sooner than later. I believe God does something powerful in baptism, it is not simply a visible symbol of an invisible truth. For me it was the precise moment I dropped my climched fists of resistance and submitted to God and to Jesus as my savior and Lord. At that point I felt his work in my spirit. I believe that is the exact example we are shown in the Bible. God speeks to us by example as well as direct command. Some people call that CENI, Command, Example and Necessary Inference. I am absolutely sure of the Command and example part, but not at all on board with necessary inference - necessarily! Again I am comvinced we should meld or combine or take cummulatively ALL salvational verses. And they all add up to we are saved by grace through faith, and the gift of salvation is free BY the awesome grace of God and we can’t meritnit or earn it. That truth excited me and exorted my spirit to put on or cloth myself with Christ in baptism. Very soon after my belief was clear to me. Would I go to hell if I died in a car crash on the way to the baptisty, No I don’t think so, but I was so excited just like the Ethiopian Eunoch and all the others in scripture there was nochance I was going to delay.

Brother, you made some very good points, with a godly spirit in doing so ~ I want to come back to this as soon as I address some posts in this thread above. I'm not going to spend a lot of time this week on the forum, due to other obligations, but will be thorough as I need to be today, to present the truth as I understand it. Great to speak to an old friend, whom we have shared some battle wounds with, and always came away as friends, knowing that we all need to continue working to perfect our understanding of God's precious word.

 

[Red Baker]

@Jaiame

It seems to me Acts is just as relevant as any New Testament Book, maybe more so. I would like to hear more of your thoughts on this. Thanks!

All of the word of God is important, to come to the knowledge of the truth, especially so is the NT, which is a commentary more of less concerning the OT.

James, at the Jerusalem council meeting, gave direct commands to the Gentiles in Acts 15: 19-20. Should I, as a Gentile today, obey those? I think I should. In my thinking, James just made those commands part of the New Covenant.

@dwight92070 , we agree.

Paul tells us that it is the word of the cross, the gospel message, that saves, not getting baptized. 1 Cor. 1:17-18

To be more scripturally, we would say, the gospel and water baptism are both means used by God to save those that believe, in a practical sense; legally salvation from sin and condemnation, is by Christ's obedience alone, that reconciles us to God.

He tells us that Christ did not send him to baptize, but to preach the gospel. This makes it abundantly clear that baptizing is not preaching the gospel. Baptism follows the acceptance of the gospel.

This is very true ~ For therein, that is, in gospel message, the righteousness of God is revealed from faith to faith concerning how God sent his Son into the world to secured the free gift of eternal life for his elect "by his faith and obedience", since no man was able to deliver himself by his obedience. Baptism does indeed follow faith in the gospel, but regeneration precedes both proven by so many scriptures, that we may consider later, not now.

If baptism was required for salvation, he would be thrilled to baptize all of them.

If water baptism was required for our legal salvation from sin and condemnation, then we agree Paul would not have said what he did clearly stated.

1st Corinthians 1:17 (read vss 14-16)​

“For Christ sent me not to baptize, but to preach the gospel: not with wisdom of words, lest the cross of Christ should be made of none effect.”

Which proves that water baptism is not the message of the gospel that saves us from our sins and condemnation. If this is not clear, then the means of communicating to others our true intent of our words to get our point across is lost, words cease to have any meaning.

No, Paul tells us there why he was glad he didn’t baptize but two of them- “so that no one would say you were baptized in my name”. His job was to preach, anyone could do the baptizing.

Well, that's true, yet, the main point is this: water baptism is not the gospel that God ordained to be preached that reveals how sinners are made the righteousness of God, the gospel of Christ reveals this wonderful message of grace, water baptism is our answer from a good conscience made so by the Holy Spirit that we believe.

I'll come back and pick up at post #9

 

[dwight92070]

Jesus told the immoral woman who stood behind Him weeping and wetting His feet with her tears, then wiping His feet with her hair - "Your sins have been forgiven." and "Your faith has saved you; go in peace." Luke 7:48-50

Did you catch that? "Your faith has saved you." She didn't get a physical healing, so she wasn't saved from a physical disease, like so many healed by Jesus were. Rather "Your sins have been forgiven." and "Your faith has saved you." She was saved from her sins, the greatest of all miracles. But wait, did she get baptized? Not yet. We know that all new disciples of Jesus were baptized from John 4:1-2 So here she is getting saved without being baptized.

I know, many will argue - well this was before the cross. So what? Even before the cross, all the way back to the beginning of Jesus' ministry, new disciples of Jesus were baptized. Did that baptism guarantee their salvation? Of course not. What guaranteed their salvation was their repentance, as this immoral woman displayed - and their faith in Jesus!

But many on this forum would have us believe that after the crucifixion of Jesus and after His resurrection, the means of salvation changed. No longer were repentance and faith sufficient to be saved and forgiven of our sins, Now God adds the requirement of baptism in order to be forgiven of our sins, to be born again, and to receive the Holy Spirit. Nonsense!

Yes, baptism is commanded and required of those who have been forgiven of their sins - i.e. those who have already been saved, like the immoral woman was - even before she was baptized.

Can you imagine Jesus saying to the immoral woman: "Well, I would like to forgive your sins, I would like to save you, but we have one technicality here, before I can do that. Follow My disciples to some water, where they will baptize you, then come back here and then I can forgive your sins and then I can save you - but not now." This would be cruel legalism, or out and out error, which is truly what those who believe such foolishness are guilty of. We would expect that from the Pharisees, but not from Jesus. Unfortunately, Phariseeism is alive and well today too.

 

[Doug Brents]

You have voiced your opinion that baptism is where sin is forgiven

No, dwight, he voiced the Biblical Truth that it is in baptism that sins are forgiven (Acts 22:16, Acts 2:38, 1 Pet 3:21).

but I believe that is misinterpreting those verses. Salvation or being born again, before baptism, is where sin is forgiven, and the Holy Spirit is given. Baptism and communion are both symbolic ceremonies that symbolize the Lord's death - and His resurrection in baptism.
Jesus said the work of God is to believe in Him who He sent

What does it mean to "believe"? It means to have faith. And faith is not simply having a thought in your heart. Consider the men among the rulers of the Jews who had the mental thought of belief in Jesus, but were afraid to publicly confess Him because of their fear of being put out of the synagogues. The Bible shows that they were not right with God, because they feared man's disapproval more than they feared God.

 

[Red Baker]

@dwight92070

In the 10 places in Acts where baptism(s) occur, all of them are preceded by repentance or belief, and forgiveness of sins. In Acts 2:38, it appears that Peter is suggesting that baptism is necessary for the forgiveness of sins, but that can't be true. That would mean that people are saved by doing the work of baptism, but no one is saved by works.

Yet, if one who has a biblically understanding of the difference between works and grace, it is clearly seen that you also teach a system of work to do, before one has their sins forgiving.

Acts 2:38 is not teaching that water baptism is essential before one sins are legally forgiven. Acts 2:38 is not that hard to understand when one follows the flow of the context and also has a true biblical understanding of both grace and the purpose of water baptism. We agree with you that water baptism follows both faith and repentance, which are all three works whereby man has an active part in, thereby, is not the means of one being born of God, since the new birth is neither by the will of the flesh, nor the will of another man, which it takes to get one baptized properly.

I agree with Jaime when he said:

I choose to believe all of the Bible should be taken as a whole collectively and cumulatively . The Bible does not regurgitate every facet of salvation in every salvation verse. Some say repent and be baptized, some say confess with your lips, another says by faith we are saved. They Are NOT contradictory of each other. They must be taken cumulatively.

(bold lettering are mine for discussions~RB) We totally agree with this statement by Jaime, as I would think every student of the scriptures would also agree. The scriptures are one cohesive whole teaching the same truth on any particular subject and we gather them together to see the truth concerning the subject we are considering/seeking to know God's truth on that particular doctrine, so that, as much as possible, we are not guilty of corrupting the word of God.

So, let us start with Acts 2:38, knowing that context is king, and it always will drive the interpretation for us, it never fails to do so.

Acts 2:38​

“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.”

"Then Peter said"~ Why is the word then there for? Because of verse 37 which reads:

Acts 2:37​

“Now when they heard this, they were pricked in their heart, and said unto Peter and to the rest of the apostles, Men and brethren, what shall we do?”

Peter, a man of God full of the Holy Ghost, one that had been with Christ for three years learning at his Master's feet, and what he learned was this~he knew the signs of a person whom God has quickened to life... they were pricked in their heart and desired to do whatever they needed to do to please God, and Peter (as any man of God would know, that this is an evidence of one born of God's Spirit, said what he said in verse 38!

“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" meaning because of, not in order to obtain!

If we compare scriptures with scriptures as Jaime said then we have even more proof that this is the true biblical meaning of Acts 2:38.

Acts 7:54​

“When they heard these things, they were cut to the heart, and they gnashed on him with their teeth.”

Here are men when they heard the powerful sermon by Stephen, they were cut to their cut and end up killing Stephen, a huge difference from Acts 2:37. One group gave evidence that they were born of God and desired to do whatever they needed to do to please God, there other group heard and the word of God cut to their heart and they killed the messenger!

To add more proof consider how the word of God uses the word for in other places.

Mark 1:44​

“And saith unto him, See thou say nothing to any man: but go thy way, shew thyself to the priest, and offer for thy cleansing those things which Moses commanded, for a testimony unto them.”

The same sense Peter used it in Acts 2:38. Neither faith, repentance, nor water baptism was the means of having their sin forgiven legally, for only the faith and obedience of Christ can do that for God's elect. Any other teaching as to how our sins are forgiven is false and a corruption of the truth.

Later...RB

 

[dwight92070]

There are many believe and be saved verses or many repent and be saved verses and believe and be baptized to be saved verses. It’s an all of the above proposition to me. I see no reason to not take ALL of the Bible’s salvation verses cummulatively. Is there a reason to focus on a single verse? I say of course not. If one indicates belief is required, I say AMEN! If one says repentence is needed, I say AMEN! If it says baptism is needed, I say AMEN! If it says we are saved by grace through faith, I say AMEN! Salvation IS a free gift. We must accept it or reject it. We accept it by what the Bible says is needed in all such verses in the New Testament collectively and I don’t see a reason to search for an alpha stand alone salvation scripture. Why would I assume that only Acts 2:38 applies and confessing Christ with our lips is not required, when nit does mot mention confessing Cnrist with our lips there but it does other places. Even if one is baptized for remission of sin and the gift of the Holy Spirit, isn’t he/she very much and thoroughly saved by grace through faith? Individual verses are NOT exclusive of one another.

I don’t think anyone is lost for delaying baptism, I just don’t understand the delay. When baptism is mentioned in scripture it is always immediate. Thenfirst century people would notnhave contemplated anything else. Hence Ananis’ admonition to Paul in Acts 22 , “ “why do you tarry, arises and be baptized…… I do believe that the on purpose marginalizing of the importance of baptism is the reason for some to delay. It wasn’t so for the first century folks. My tribe historically probably overemphasized baptism. That can be harmful as well. To me belief, faith and our faith response of repentence, confession and baotism probably should be one single smooth motion as evidenced in the NewTestament examples. I wouldn’t even contemplate demaying baptism. Who doesn’t want to rise up out of baptism to walk in newness of life once you come to faith?

Romans 6:4 We were buried therefore with him by baptism into death, in order that, just as Christ was raised from the dead by the glory of the Father, we too might walk in newness of life.

There are many repent and be saved verses and many believe and be saved verses, (which are the same thing), (I counted 213 of them from Acts to Jude) but there are zero believe and be baptized to be saved verses. Only two, possibly three verses appear to say that, but don't. Let's see, evidence for what I believe - 213 verses. Evidence for what you believe - only 3 verses that don't even 100% confirm what you believe. Hmmm. 213 to 3 which evidence should I go by?

 

[Doug Brents]

@dwight92070

Yet, if one who has a biblically understanding of the difference between works and grace, it is clearly seen that you also teach a system of work to do, before one has their sins forgiving.

Acts 2:38 is not teaching that water baptism is essential before one sins are legally forgiven. Acts 2:38 is not that hard to understand when one follows the flow of the context and also has a true biblical understanding of both grace and the purpose of water baptism. We agree with you that water baptism follows both faith and repentance, which are all three works whereby man has an active part in, thereby, is not the means of one being born of God, since the new birth is neither by the will of the flesh, nor the will of another man, which it takes to get one baptized properly.

I agree with Jaime when he said:

(bold lettering are mine for discussions~RB) We totally agree with this statement by Jaime, as I would think every student of the scriptures would also agree. The scriptures are one cohesive whole teaching the same truth on any particular subject and we gather them together to see the truth concerning the subject we are considering/seeking to know God's truth on that particular doctrine, so that, as much as possible, we are not guilty of corrupting the word of God.

So, let us start with Acts 2:38, knowing that context is king, and it always will drive the interpretation for us, it never fails to do so.

Acts 2:38​

“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.”

"Then Peter said"~ Why is the word then there for? Because of verse 37 which reads:

Acts 2:37​

“Now when they heard this, they were pricked in their heart, and said unto Peter and to the rest of the apostles, Men and brethren, what shall we do?”

Peter, a man of God full of the Holy Ghost, one that had been with Christ for three years learning at his Master's feet, and what he learned was this~he knew the signs of a person whom God has quickened to life... they were pricked in their heart and desired to do whatever they needed to do to please God, and Peter (as any man of God would know, that this is an evidence of one born of God's Spirit, said what he said in verse 38!

Red, you are missing a huge point here. These men were asking the age old question, "What do we need to do (in order to be saved from the sin you are saying we committed)?" If you were correct, then Peter's response would have been the old baptist preacher's answer, "There is nothing you need to do. Jesus already did it all on the Cross." No, what did Peter say to them?

“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.”

There is something you still need to do after you have accepted that you have sinned and are dead to God. You must repent of that sin (you cannot be saved while still living a life of perpetual sin), and be baptized to have that sin washed away.

"For" meaning because of, not in order to obtain!

If we compare scriptures with scriptures as Jaime said then we have even more proof that this is the true biblical meaning of Acts 2:38.

This is again incorrect. There is no grammatical separation between baptism and repentance in this verse (and if there were, the phrase "for the forgiveness of sins" would go with baptism, not repentance). And when we look over to Acts 3:19, we see that repentance must be done "in order to receive" forgiveness. This means that in Acts 2:38, both repentance and baptism must be done "in order to receive" forgiveness. It is NOT "because you have already received".

Acts 7:54​

“When they heard these things, they were cut to the heart, and they gnashed on him with their teeth.”

Here are men when they heard the powerful sermon by Stephen, they were cut to their cut and end up killing Stephen, a huge difference from Acts 2:37. One group gave evidence that they were born of God and desired to do whatever they needed to do to please God, there other group heard and the word of God cut to their heart and they killed the messenger!

This passage is evidence that being "cut to the heart" does NOT equate to salvation. It is the response AFTER being cut to the heart that matters.

To add more proof consider how the word of God uses the word for in other places.

Mark 1:44​

“And saith unto him, See thou say nothing to any man: but go thy way, shew thyself to the priest, and offer for thy cleansing those things which Moses commanded, for a testimony unto them.”

The same sense Peter used it in Acts 2:38. Neither faith, repentance, nor water baptism was the means of having their sin forgiven legally, for only the faith and obedience of Christ can do that for God's elect. Any other teaching as to how our sins are forgiven is false and a corruption of the truth.

Later...RB

The Greek word "eis" (which translates to "for" in English) can indeed mean "because of" or "in order to", and it is the context that determines which is meant. As noted above, Acts 3:19 is a much better reference for the meaning of this word in this context (since they refer to the same thing (repentance) in relation to the same result (salvation)), than the usage you find in Mark 1:44.

 

[Doug Brents]

There are many repent and be saved verses and many believe and be saved verses, (which are the same thing), (I counted 213 of them from Acts to Jude) but there are zero believe and be baptized to be saved verses. Only two, possibly three verses appear to say that, but don't. Let's see, evidence for what I believe - 213 verses. Evidence for what you believe - only 3 verses that don't even 100% confirm what you believe. Hmmm. 213 to 3 which evidence should I go by?

As has been pointed out to you many times, dwight, ALL Scripture is one narrative, and ALL of it must be in agreement at the same time. Those three passages (actually 9 (see below)) cannot be swept under the rug (as you seem to want to do) and ignored. They are still Scripture, and have a profound effect on how our doctrine must be structured.
Mark 16:16
John 3:3, 5
Acts 2:38
Acts 22:16
Rom 6:1-7
Col 2:11-14
Eph 5:26-27
Gal 3:26-27
1 Pet 3:21

 

[Jaime]

Jesus told the immoral woman who stood behind Him weeping and wetting His feet with her tears, then wiping His feet with her hair - "Your sins have been forgiven." and "Your faith has saved you; go in peace." Luke 7:48-50

Did you catch that? "Your faith has saved you." She didn't get a physical healing, so she wasn't saved from a physical disease, like so many healed by Jesus were. Rather "Your sins have been forgiven." and "Your faith has saved you." She was saved from her sins, the greatest of all miracles. But wait, did she get baptized? Not yet. We know that all new disciples of Jesus were baptized from John 4:1-2 So here she is getting saved without being baptized.

I know, many will argue - well this was before the cross. So what? Even before the cross, all the way back to the beginning of Jesus' ministry, new disciples of Jesus were baptized. Did that baptism guarantee their salvation? Of course not. What guaranteed their salvation was their repentance, as this immoral woman displayed - and their faith in Jesus!

But many on this forum would have us believe that after the crucifixion of Jesus and after His resurrection, the means of salvation changed. No longer were repentance and faith sufficient to be saved and forgiven of our sins, Now God adds the requirement of baptism in order to be forgiven of our sins, to be born again, and to receive the Holy Spirit. Nonsense!

Yes, baptism is commanded and required of those who have been forgiven of their sins - i.e. those who have already been saved, like the immoral woman was - even before she was baptized.

Can you imagine Jesus saying to the immoral woman: "Well, I would like to forgive your sins, I would like to save you, but we have one technicality here, before I can do that. Follow My disciples to some water, where they will baptize you, then come back here and then I can forgive your sins and then I can save you - but not now." This would be cruel legalism, or out and out error, which is truly what those who believe such foolishness are guilty of. We would expect that from the Pharisees, but not from Jesus. Unfortunately, Phariseeism is alive and well today too.

Dwight, faith or belief is the genesis of everyone’s salvation. Thst doesn’t mean that confessing His name with our lips has no bearing, it doesn’t mean our baptism has no bearing. It is all of the above collectively. There is no reason to reiterate every aspect of salvation at every mention OF salvation in the scrioture, AND there is no reason to assume only faith is involved, or only belief, or only baptism. I would bever ever make the statement that baptism is all that’s required. Yes the woman you memtioned her faith was involved but also her action and words demonstrating her faith, but that went without saying, but nevertheless true. No reason to assume otherwise.

The only phrase in the Bible where “faith alone” is used is James 2:24

24 You see that a person is justified by works and not by faith alone.

It is is always a demonstrated faith. Faith without works (demonstration of that faith) is dead. Every instance of saving faith in the Bible is a demonstrated faith. Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, the woman at the well, the woman who touched Jesus garment, the Phillipian jailer, the Ethiopian Eunoch etc.

 

[dwight92070]

Dwight, faith is the genesisj of everyone’s faith. Thst doesn’t mean that confessing His name with our lips has no bearing, it doesn’t mean our baptism has no beading. Itnis all of the above collectively. There is no reason to reiterate ever aspect at every mention of salvation, AND there is mo reason to assume only faith is involved, or only belief, or only baptism. I soild never ever make thbstatement that baptism is all that’s required. Yes the woman you memtioned her faith was involved but also her action and words demonstrating her faith, bjt that went sithout saying, but nevertheless true.

Jaime said, "There is no reason to reiterate every aspect at every mention of salvation." Are you serious? If baptism is required to be saved from an eternity in hell - which is what many if not all on your side believe, and yet 213 verses regarding salvation don't even mention that, then God made a colossal omission, sending millions into the flames of hell.

Jesus did not say to the woman, "Your faith and your actions saved you." Obviously He saw her actions, but it was her faith that saved her. She did not confess anything with her mouth and she was not baptized - no only her faith in Jesus saved her, which always include repentance, but neither faith or repentance are works.

 

[Doug Brents]

Jaime said, "There is no reason to reiterate every aspect at every mention of salvation." Are you serious? If baptism is required to be saved from an eternity in hell - which is what many if not all on your side believe, and yet 213 verses regarding salvation don't even mention that, then God made a colossal omission, sending millions into the flames of hell.

Jesus did not say to the woman, "Your faith and your actions saved you." Obviously He saw her actions, but it was her faith that saved her. She did not confess anything with her mouth and she was not baptized - no only her faith in Jesus saved her, which always include repentance, but neither faith or repentance are works.

Dwight, we have been through this: faith requires action (works) or it is not really faith. Repentance is not just an internal, mental thing, but requires action/cessation of action for it to be real.

 

[dwight92070]

As has been pointed out to you many times, dwight, ALL Scripture is one narrative, and ALL of it must be in agreement at the same time. Those three passages (actually 9 (see below)) cannot be swept under the rug (as you seem to want to do) and ignored. They are still Scripture, and have a profound effect on how our doctrine must be structured.
Mark 16:16
John 3:3, 5
Acts 2:38
Acts 22:16
Rom 6:1-7
Col 2:11-14
Eph 5:26-27
Gal 3:26-27
1 Pet 3:21

As you know, I have discussed ALL of these verses with you in the past, so I am not ignoring them. What I am ignoring is your false interpretation of each of them, which does NOT agree with ALL scripture.

Mark 16:16 Does not say that lack of baptism brings condemnation, like you teach.
John 3:3,5 No mention of baptism. To read that into theses verses is dishonest.
Acts 2:38 Peter says repentance brings forgiveness and the gift of the Holy Spirit just like he did in Acts 3:19 and Paul did in 1 Cor.12:13, which agrees with all Scripture. To say that he is requiring baptism for those gifts contradicts the rest of scripture.
Acts 22:16 Nowhere in Scripture do we read that baptism washes away sin. So Ananias' is mistaken and/or confused about baptism and also about Saul's conversion, since she calls him "brother Saul", yet still feels he needs forgiveness.
Romans 6:1-7 Nothing here requires baptism to be saved.
Col.2: 11-14 Speaks of salvation and subsequent baptism - does not require the latter to obtain the former.
Eph.5:26-27 Once again, you read baptism into these verses, when it's not even there.
Gal.3:26-27 Actually refutes your belief. This says that it is faith alone that makes us sons of God. This is not water baptism, but is the same baptism as 1 Cor.12:13, which is our salvation, entering into the body of Christ.
1 Pet.3:21 Extremely misunderstood verse. It cannot mean that baptism literally saves us, which contradicts all of Scripture. Baptism symbolizes our previous salvation.

 

[Jaime]

Jaime said, "There is no reason to reiterate every aspect at every mention of salvation." Are you serious? If baptism is required to be saved from an eternity in hell - which is what many if not all on your side believe, and yet 213 verses regarding salvation don't even mention that, then God made a colossal omission, sending millions into the flames of hell.

Jesus did not say to the woman, "Your faith and your actions saved you." Obviously He saw her actions, but it was her faith that saved her. She did not confess anything with her mouth and she was not baptized - no only her faith in Jesus saved her, which always include repentance, but neither faith or repentance are works.

No I am serious! The entire Bible is our instruction book to be read and understood cummulatively. Belief is required, faith (demostrated faith is required, repentance is required, and yes baptism in Christ’s name is clothing ourselves with him. All of the above or an awful lot ofverses are meaningless in the Bible. If someone faith saves them, I say yes, but not faith alone as James 2 states, if someone says baptism is required to be saved, I say of course , but without faith, repentance and confessing His name with your lips, I say you are just getting ceremonially wet bjt definitely not saved. If every example and occurence in the Bible is not to be taken cummilatively and not isolated into ranked importance, we are very much in trouble. All salvation scriptures apply equally. If one verse says confess with your lips and be saved and one says believe and be baptized to be saved, we have NO choice but to take BOTH cummulativly and equal in importance. If not please provide a certified ranked list of salvation verses here at your earliest and most urgent opportunity.

 

[Jaime]

Mark 16:16 Does not say that lack of baptism brings condemnation, like you teach

but it DOES say an unbeliever is condemned. Why would an unbeliever ever be baptized in Jesus’ name, or confess Jesus with his lips, or ever repent. If they ever did would any of it be legitimate without belief? NO of course not.They are condemned BY their unbelief, not a potential ceremonial wetting to no avail. Why would a believer ever NOT repent, or NOT confess Jesus with his lips, or NOT get baptized if they are at all familiar with scripture?

In Mark 16:16, it says that those who believe AND are baptized will be saved. So are you saying confessing Christ with your lips, or repentance is NOT required for salvation? If so why?

 

[dwight92070]

I go by what Jesus said to the immoral woman who repented of her sins and put her faith in Jesus - "Your faith has saved you." and "Your sins are forgiven." He didn't tell her that she needed to confess His name. He didn't tell her that she needed to be baptized. He simply proclaimed her saved. New believers in Christ were baptized even at the start of His ministry. But you who are into legalism and false teaching would have required more from her than even Christ did. Christ is our example, not you guys with your twisted theology and misinterpreted verses.

 

[dwight92070]

Dwight, we have been through this: faith requires action (works) or it is not really faith. Repentance is not just an internal, mental thing, but requires action/cessation of action for it to be real.

As always I go by the Scripture, not your twisted interpretation of Scripture. Paul said NO work was required to be saved. He cited Abraham and David as examples:
"But to the one who does NOT WORK, BUT BELIEVES IN HIM who justifies the ungodly, his faith is credited him as righteousness, just as David also speaks of the blessing on the man to whom God credits righteousness APART FROM WORKS: ..." Romans 4:5-6

So you obviously contradict Scripture. So "real faith", as you put it, requires NO ACTION OR WORKS, just believing in Jesus. No baptism is necessary to be saved. No confession with your mouth is necessary to be saved. These are works. You are greatly mistaken because you misinterpret Scripture to make it say what your want it to say.