He that believes and is not water baptised is saved

[Olde Tymer]

.
● 1Pet 3:15b . . Be ready always to give an answer to every man that asks you a
reason of the hope that is in you.

The only requirement there is to always be ready; we are not required to always
give an answer. In point of fact the Lord restricts our responses to sincere folks
rather than any John Que and/or Jane Doe pumpkin that happens along.

"Do not give dogs what is sacred; do not throw your pearls to pigs. If you do, they
may trample them under their feet, and then turn and tear you to pieces." (Matt
7:6)

Anyway: the Greek word for "hope" in that passage basically pertains to
expectation, viz: it isn't wishful thinking, nor crossing your fingers; no, this kind of
hope is a confident looking forward to taking possession of something that's already
in the bag, viz: it's an anticipating hope, i.e. it doesn't pray for the best, while in
the back of its mind dreading the worst.

When people are uncertain what the future has in store for them-- if there is even
the slightest anxiety or unease --then of course they can't possibly comply with
Peter's instructions for the simple reason that the hope that is in them, if any, is the
wrong kind of hope.

● Rom 12:12 . . Rejoicing in hope.

People have absolutely no cause for rejoicing when they're unsure of their afterlife
destination, no, but they do have plenty of cause to fear the unknown.
_

 

[dwight92070]

Well let me put it another way...

Yes.. he that believes and is baptized is saved. And there are many verses that have salvation without baptism.

Is that a contradiction?

No, because the opposite of Mark 16:16 is not true.

I counted 213 verses from Acts through Jude, that mention salvation, but don't mention water baptism.
How many verses mention salvation and baptism - only 10, all in Acts.
And NONE of those 10 verses tell us that baptism is required to be saved.
And without exception, in all 10 of those verses, believing preceded water baptism, NOT the other way around.

 

[dwight92070]

Tom, you’re like a broken record. Read the rest of Acts 10. Read all the way to the last verse. Then tell me they were not baptized in the name of the Lord for the remission of sins. You just think by the blink of an eye you can get remission of sins without doing a thing. Come on Tom.

That's like saying, "You think you can get saved without doing a thing?" Of course, that's what the Bible teaches - at least not any outward physical thing. Salvation is repenting and believing in Jesus in your heart - it is an inward spiritual thing.
Titus 3:5 "He saved us, not on the basis of deeds which we have done in righteousness, but according to His mercy, by the washing of regeneration and renewing by the Holy Spirit."
And no, washing of regeneration does not refer to water baptism. If it did, then that would contradict the first part of the same verse, which says, "He saved us, not on the basis of deeds (baptism) which we have done in righteousness, but according to His mercy, ..." "washing of regeneration" refers to our sins being washed away by the blood of Jesus.
Have you heard the song, "What can wash away my sin, nothing but the blood of Jesus."?
Hebrews 9:14 "how much more will the blood of Jesus Christ, cleanse your conscience from dead works to serve the living God?"
Heb. 9:22 "and without shedding of blood there is no forgiveness."
1 John 1:7 " ... and the blood of Jesus cleanses us from all sin."
Reve. 1:5 " ... to Him who loves us and released us from our sins by His blood."
Rom. 5:9 " ... having now been justified by His blood."
Eph. 1:7 "In Him we have redemption through His blood, the forgiveness of our trespasses, according to the riches of His grace ... "
Col. 1:14 " ... in whom we have redemption, the forgiveness of sins."
1 Cor. 6:11 "Such were some of you; but you were washed, but you were sanctified, but you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and in the Spirit of our God."

 

[dwight92070]

1 Peter 2:9 is a little deeper than that.

In contrast with those who reject Christ and are predestined to "stumble," Peter now describes the chosen people of God. You know the ones, The Elect.

Peter uses language that had been used to describe God's special relationship with Israel. As Israel was, we—Calvinists—are also a chosen race.

We are a spiritual race, in the sense that, in Christ, we share a single spiritual Father. In that same meaning, we are a "holy nation," a specific group of people called out and set apart from all others.

You are obsessed with Calvinism - just like a cultist. We are supposed to be obsessed with Jesus.

 

[dwight92070]

I counted 213 verses from Acts through Jude, that mention salvation, but don't mention water baptism.
How many verses mention salvation and baptism - only 10, all in Acts.
And NONE of those 10 verses tell us that baptism is required to be saved.
And without exception, in all 10 of those verses, believing preceded water baptism, NOT the other way around.

If anyone wants those verses, I would be glad to post them. In fact, the 10 verses do not contradict the 213 verses. They simply add the act of being baptized, which Jesus commanded all who have already been saved. Matthew 28:19
Because Jesus commanded that all believers should be baptized, we can safely assume that where salvation occurs in those other 213 verses, baptism follows afterward, even though it is not mentioned. John 4:1

If baptism was a requirement for salvation, then how many of those 213 verses would have mentioned it.? 100%

 

[360watt]

I counted 213 verses from Acts through Jude, that mention salvation, but don't mention water baptism.
How many verses mention salvation and baptism - only 10, all in Acts.
And NONE of those 10 verses tell us that baptism is required to be saved.
And without exception, in all 10 of those verses, believing preceded water baptism, NOT the other way around.

Yes, a salvaged life after eternal salvation includes water baptism.

But this is 'saved' as in delivered from troubles rather than eternally saved.

 

[dwight92070]

Has anyone noticed that according to Doug and the Church of Christ, it takes two people for one person to get saved? One to be saved - and another to baptize him.
Woe unto those who do not have someone to baptize them - they may be eternally lost, according to Doug and the Church of Christ.

 

[FreeInChrist]

Has anyone noticed that according to Doug and the Church of Christ, it takes two people for one person to get saved? One to be saved - and another to baptize him.
Woe unto those who do not have someone to baptize them - they may be eternally lost, according to Doug and the Church of Christ.

Boy, you said a mouthful.

And woe unto them that are denied a baptism with just two people. The baptizee and the baptizor. The c o C has a small delegation in attendence. If the are even willing.

And dont let them know your baptism status or they will start you on the road to hell.

I will say no more.

 

[Doug Brents]

Has anyone noticed that according to Doug and the Church of Christ, it takes two people for one person to get saved? One to be saved - and another to baptize him.
Woe unto those who do not have someone to baptize them - they may be eternally lost, according to Doug and the Church of Christ.

"How then are they to call on Him in whom they have not believed? How are they to believe in Him whom they have not heard? And how are they to hear without a preacher? 15 But how are they to preach unless they are sent? Just as it is written: “How beautiful are the feet of those who bring good news of good things!”" (Rom 10:14-15)
It appears that even God thinks that there must be two, the student and the preacher, hmmm.

 

[dwight92070]

"How then are they to call on Him in whom they have not believed? How are they to believe in Him whom they have not heard? And how are they to hear without a preacher? 15 But how are they to preach unless they are sent? Just as it is written: “How beautiful are the feet of those who bring good news of good things!”" (Rom 10:14-15)
It appears that even God thinks that there must be two, the student and the preacher, hmmm.

Really? Who preached to Saul?
What about me? I was saved without a preacher. Yes, I heard the gospel as a kid, but never responded to it, nor even understood it. Later, at 21, God led me to read about the life and teaching of Jesus in the Bible, but I didn't even know where to find that in the Bible. I asked a chaplain. He told me to read Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John. So I did and Jesus saved me. I was powerfully moved by the words of Jesus.
So I guess you could say Jesus Himself preached to me. I'm sure that this happens to many people.

So I stand corrected. Doug and the Church of Christ believe it takes three people to get saved. The preacher, the believer, and the baptizer.

The rest of us understand the Bible to say that it takes two. A preacher (which could be the Bible itself or a vision as Saul had) and the believer.

Jesus Himself preached to Saul on the road to Damascus. Acts 26:9-18

So He was saved and commissioned on the same day. Then, three days later, he was baptized.

 

[Doug Brents]

Really? Who preached to Saul?
What about me? I was saved without a preacher. Yes, I heard the gospel as a kid, but never responded to it, nor even understood it. Later, at 21, God led me to read about the life and teaching of Jesus in the Bible, but I didn't even know where to find that in the Bible. I asked a chaplain. He told me to read Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John. So I did and Jesus saved me. I was powerfully moved by the words of Jesus.
So I guess you could say Jesus Himself preached to me. I'm sure that this happens to many people.

What a wonderful story. So let me see if I have this right. You (that's one) heard the Gospel preached as a kid (that's two (or more)), then you asked a chaplain (that's three at least), then you read the Scriptures, then you were baptized into Christ (at some point, which is when you were actually saved)(that's four at least).

So I stand corrected. Doug and the Church of Christ

As I have told you before, I do not advocate for the Church of Christ, nor am I a member of the Church of Christ. Nor am I baptist, catholic, or any other religious subdivision. I am a Christ follower.

believe it takes three people to get saved. The preacher, the believer, and the baptizer.

The preacher is frequently the baptizer, as it was in the case of the Ethiopian Eunuch, and Cornelius, and many others. But it is frequently someone else as it had to have been on Pentecost when over 3000 were baptized into Christ in one day.

The rest of us understand the Bible to say that it takes two. A preacher (which could be the Bible itself or a vision as Saul had) and the believer.

Jesus Himself preached to Saul on the road to Damascus. Acts 26:9-18

So He was saved and commissioned on the same day. Then, three days later, he was baptized.

We have been through this many times and you still don't get it. Saul was not saved on the Road, unless you believe one can be saved yet still be in sin. Saul was still in sin three days later when Ananias showed up. Saul was saved when his sins were washed away in water baptism, just as 1 Pet 3:21, Acts 2:38, John 3:5, Rom 6:1-7, Col 2:11-14 and many other passages state.

 

[dwight92070]

In your first answer, it's interesting that you didn't count reading the scripture as proclaiming the gospel. Peter even said that we were born again "through the living and enduring word of God". Also you're not focusing on the topic, which was the number of people required for salvation to happen. Yes, I heard the gospel as a kid, but I was not saved, so you can't count that. Yes, I asked a chaplain where I could find the story of Jesus in the Bible and he told me, but he never preached the gospel to me. So that doesn't count.

Then I read the word of God, which, as Peter said DID save me, but you don't even count that. It your estimation, that's a zero towards getting saved. Finally about 2 weeks later, I was baptized, which you falsely claim was when I was saved.
I'm surprised that you would even admit that I "actually was saved."

I did not say you advocated for the Church of Christ. Where did I say that? But obviously you agree with much of their false doctrine.

Sins don't get "washed away in water baptism". They never did and never will. Those five go-to verses/passages state no such thing. That teaching despises and dishonors what Jesus, shedding His blood on the cross, did to cleanse us from sin.

 

[Doug Brents]

In your first answer, it's interesting that you didn't count reading the scripture as proclaiming the gospel. Peter even said that we were born again "through the living and enduring word of God". Also you're not focusing on the topic, which was the number of people required for salvation to happen. Yes, I heard the gospel as a kid, but I was not saved, so you can't count that. Yes, I asked a chaplain where I could find the story of Jesus in the Bible and he told me, but he never preached the gospel to me. So that doesn't count.

Those all count, because you did not live in an bubble. The cumulative experience of your life all impacts your decisions. Yes, the Word of God does contain what is needed to be born again, but as is evident in many of the people on this forum, it requires a teacher to guide the new learner through it. Otherwise, they come to some completely wrong conclusions, as you have.

Then I read the word of God, which, as Peter said DID save me, but you don't even count that. It your estimation, that's a zero towards getting saved. Finally about 2 weeks later, I was baptized, which you falsely claim was when I was saved.
I'm surprised that you would even admit that I "actually was saved."

So you would say that Naaman was cleansed of leprosy when he decided to go to Jordan. He was already healed when he entered the water.
You would say that the walls of Jericho had already fallen when Israel decided to march around the city as God told them to do. They didn't really need to march around it at all. They had decided to march, so the walls fell and they took the city.
You would say that the widow didn't really need to give her last cake of bread to the prophet. She just needed to decide to, and then her flour and oil would sustain her until the end of the famine.

I got it. You just need to rewrite all of Scripture to fit with your doctrine.

I did not say you advocated for the Church of Christ. Where did I say that? But obviously you agree with much of their false doctrine.

No, I disagree 100% with their false doctrines. But I agree 100% with the doctrines they have correct, just as I agree with the doctrines the catholics get right (which are few and far between). It is not the doctrine of the group I agree with, it is the doctrines that come from Scripture that I agree with. If a group gets something right, I am glad for them. But when they get it wrong, I morn for them.

Sins don't get "washed away in water baptism".

According to Scripture they do.

They never did and never will. Those five go-to verses/passages state no such thing. That teaching despises and dishonors what Jesus, shedding His blood on the cross, did to cleanse us from sin.

No, it does not. Jesus' death and shedding of blood made it possible to have sins removed in the first place. But even He said that sin is not removed without both the Spirit and water. And then His Apostles taught and practiced salvation being received at the point of water baptism.

 

[dwight92070]

I estimate that I have sat under the teaching of over 100 "men (and even some women) of God" since I was saved in 1970 - 55 years ago. One thing I have learned is very clear. I can't believe everything that every one of those "teachers" taught about the Bible and Christianity in general. Some were very good teachers, but even they were wrong on some key points. How do I know they were wrong? Because their teaching or their conclusions contradict the Bible. Sometimes it was their lack of good character that invalidated their "teaching". Others were out and out false teachers teaching anti-Biblical false teachings. Still others were well meaning and had good character, but nonetheless teachings that showed that they didn't understand certain doctrines and principles found in the word.

So, yes, we need people in the body of Christ to teach us. Those people are called "teachers". It is a gift of the Holy Spirit to be able to teach the body of Christ. No one should take on the task of teaching the body of Christ, unless they have been called to do that, and gifted by God to teach. I've heard many "teachers" who have the gift of putting people to sleep, but certainly not teaching. Others stumble through their "message" and leave people more confused than when they started. Some Christians work as teachers in their secular jobs, so they assume that they should also be teachers in the body of Christ. WRONG! Other teachers "teach" as though their OPINIONS about the Bible are just as correct and authoritative as the Bible itself. In their arrogance, they cannot tolerate anyone who dares to disagree with them.

For example, I heard a well-known radio Bible teacher recently say that there are hundreds of Bible prophecies that speak of Christ's 2nd Coming. When I called their program and asked for a list of those verses, they gave me the run-around and ended up totally rejecting my request and ignoring my further inquiries. The truth is that the prophets that prophesied of Christ's coming were almost always prophesying of Christ's 1st coming - not His 2nd coming.

Since you teach false doctrine, you should not be teaching anyone in the Body of Christ.

Obviously, Naaman had faith to be healed by the God of Israel when he first heard from the little Israelite girl that the prophet in Samaria, Elisha, would cure him of his leprosy 2 Kings 5:1-2 long before he washed in Jerusalem - or he would not have acted on what she said.

God told Joshua his plans to bring down Jericho, not all of Israel. Then by faith, Joshua commanded Israel to do according to the plans God gave him. Joshua FIRST believed God, even though God's plan must have seemed silly for your average army commander, and SECOND, he obeyed God. Joshua was not your average military commander. He had faith in God, then he acted in faith and did what God told him to do.

The widow woman had faith in God and reverently feared Him long before we first read about her in 2 Kings 4:1. She said just that in that verse. So she cried out to Elisha, knowing he was a true prophet of God and whatever Elisha told her to do, she was ready to do.

All three of these stories show us the same thing: that first we put our trust in God and anyone who He sends, then second, we obey God and do what He or His servant tells us to do.

The same is true in salvation: First, we believe and are saved. Second we, by faith, do what He says.

It's not mourning we hear from you when others disagree with you. It's condemning them to hell.

What a blatant lie, that according to Scripture, our sins get washed away in water baptism.

"Without the shedding of blood, there is no forgiveness." Heb. 9:22 And that blood had to be the blood of Jesus, the sinless Son of God. Water baptism washes away NOTHING, except maybe some dirt on your skin. But it can't wash away ANYTHING in your heart.

"how much more will the blood of Christ, ... cleanse your conscience from dead works to serve the living God?" Heb. 9:14

What a perversion of what Jesus said in John 3. Baptism is not even mentioned in His verbal conversation with Nicodemus. Jesus initiated the subject of childbirth with His statement, "Truly, truly I say to you, unless one is BORN AGAIN he cannot see the kingdom of God."
He was saying that their was some similarity between childbirth, being born of water or born of the flesh, and being born of the Spirit. In BOTH a NEW CREATION is brought forth, created by God. And that being born of the Spirit is necessary to see and enter into the kingdom of God.

There's no other place in Scripture where baptism is called "being born of water", nor is that it's meaning here.

 

[360watt]

I estimate that I have sat under the teaching of over 100 "men (and even some women) of God" since I was saved in 1970 - 55 years ago. One thing I have learned is very clear. I can't believe everything that every one of those "teachers" taught about the Bible and Christianity in general. Some were very good teachers, but even they were wrong on some key points. How do I know they were wrong? Because their teaching or their conclusions contradict the Bible. Sometimes it was their lack of good character that invalidated their "teaching". Others were out and out false teachers teaching anti-Biblical false teachings. Still others were well meaning and had good character, but nonetheless teachings that showed that they didn't understand certain doctrines and principles found in the word.

So, yes, we need people in the body of Christ to teach us. Those people are called "teachers". It is a gift of the Holy Spirit to be able to teach the body of Christ. No one should take on the task of teaching the body of Christ, unless they have been called to do that, and gifted by God to teach. I've heard many "teachers" who have the gift of putting people to sleep, but certainly not teaching. Others stumble through their "message" and leave people more confused than when they started. Some Christians work as teachers in their secular jobs, so they assume that they should also be teachers in the body of Christ. WRONG! Other teachers "teach" as though their OPINIONS about the Bible are just as correct and authoritative as the Bible itself. In their arrogance, they cannot tolerate anyone who dares to disagree with them.

For example, I heard a well-known radio Bible teacher recently say that there are hundreds of Bible prophecies that speak of Christ's 2nd Coming. When I called their program and asked for a list of those verses, they gave me the run-around and ended up totally rejecting my request and ignoring my further inquiries. The truth is that the prophets that prophesied of Christ's coming were almost always prophesying of Christ's 1st coming - not His 2nd coming.

Since you teach false doctrine, you should not be teaching anyone in the Body of Christ.

Obviously, Naaman had faith to be healed by the God of Israel when he first heard from the little Israelite girl that the prophet in Samaria, Elisha, would cure him of his leprosy 2 Kings 5:1-2 long before he washed in Jerusalem - or he would not have acted on what she said.

God told Joshua his plans to bring down Jericho, not all of Israel. Then by faith, Joshua commanded Israel to do according to the plans God gave him. Joshua FIRST believed God, even though God's plan must have seemed silly for your average army commander, and SECOND, he obeyed God. Joshua was not your average military commander. He had faith in God, then he acted in faith and did what God told him to do.

The widow woman had faith in God and reverently feared Him long before we first read about her in 2 Kings 4:1. She said just that in that verse. So she cried out to Elisha, knowing he was a true prophet of God and whatever Elisha told her to do, she was ready to do.

All three of these stories show us the same thing: that first we put our trust in God and anyone who He sends, then second, we obey God and do what He or His servant tells us to do.

The same is true in salvation: First, we believe and are saved. Second we, by faith, do what He says.

It's not mourning we hear from you when others disagree with you. It's condemning them to hell.

What a blatant lie, that according to Scripture, our sins get washed away in water baptism.

"Without the shedding of blood, there is no forgiveness." Heb. 9:22 And that blood had to be the blood of Jesus, the sinless Son of God. Water baptism washes away NOTHING, except maybe some dirt on your skin. But it can't wash away ANYTHING in your heart.

"how much more will the blood of Christ, ... cleanse your conscience from dead works to serve the living God?" Heb. 9:14

What a perversion of what Jesus said in John 3. Baptism is not even mentioned in His verbal conversation with Nicodemus. Jesus initiated the subject of childbirth with His statement, "Truly, truly I say to you, unless one is BORN AGAIN he cannot see the kingdom of God."
He was saying that their was some similarity between childbirth, being born of water or born of the flesh, and being born of the Spirit. In BOTH a NEW CREATION is brought forth, created by God. And that being born of the Spirit is necessary to see and enter into the kingdom of God.

There's no other place in Scripture where baptism is called "being born of water", nor is that it's meaning here.

Yes, John 3.. the water Nicodemus is talking about is of the womb. 'How can a person enter a second time into his mother's womb '

Jesus then talks about a second birth by the Spirit.

And it is compared with being born of the flesh..which matches the physical birth. After this born of the Spirit.

The kind of washing it matches, is washing of the spirit. .by the Holy Spirit..but not the washing of water baptism..which is symbolic.

 

[Doug Brents]

I estimate that I have sat under the teaching of over 100 "men (and even some women) of God" since I was saved in 1970 - 55 years ago. One thing I have learned is very clear. I can't believe everything that every one of those "teachers" taught about the Bible and Christianity in general. Some were very good teachers, but even they were wrong on some key points. How do I know they were wrong? Because their teaching or their conclusions contradict the Bible. Sometimes it was their lack of good character that invalidated their "teaching". Others were out and out false teachers teaching anti-Biblical false teachings. Still others were well meaning and had good character, but nonetheless teachings that showed that they didn't understand certain doctrines and principles found in the word.

I have had the same experience.

So, yes, we need people in the body of Christ to teach us. Those people are called "teachers". It is a gift of the Holy Spirit to be able to teach the body of Christ. No one should take on the task of teaching the body of Christ, unless they have been called to do that, and gifted by God to teach. I've heard many "teachers" who have the gift of putting people to sleep, but certainly not teaching. Others stumble through their "message" and leave people more confused than when they started. Some Christians work as teachers in their secular jobs, so they assume that they should also be teachers in the body of Christ. WRONG! Other teachers "teach" as though their OPINIONS about the Bible are just as correct and authoritative as the Bible itself. In their arrogance, they cannot tolerate anyone who dares to disagree with them.

For example, I heard a well-known radio Bible teacher recently say that there are hundreds of Bible prophecies that speak of Christ's 2nd Coming. When I called their program and asked for a list of those verses, they gave me the run-around and ended up totally rejecting my request and ignoring my further inquiries. The truth is that the prophets that prophesied of Christ's coming were almost always prophesying of Christ's 1st coming - not His 2nd coming.

There are quite a few prophecies of His second coming in the NT and some in the OT, but you are correct that most of the prophecies in the OT were about His first coming.

Since you teach false doctrine, you should not be teaching anyone in the Body of Christ.

I appreciate your opinion. But since I do not teach any false doctrines (if I find that there is any falsehood in my teaching, I change it to fit Scripture), I will ignore your opinion.

Obviously, Naaman had faith to be healed by the God of Israel when he first heard from the little Israelite girl that the prophet in Samaria, Elisha, would cure him of his leprosy 2 Kings 5:1-2 long before he washed in Jerusalem - or he would not have acted on what she said.

Then if his faith was all that was required to heal him he would have been healed before he journeyed to Samaria. No, the specific acts of faith required by God for him to be healed were spelled out by Elisha, and he was not healed until he had fulfilled the requirement Elisha gave him (from God).

God told Joshua his plans to bring down Jericho, not all of Israel. Then by faith, Joshua commanded Israel to do according to the plans God gave him. Joshua FIRST believed God, even though God's plan must have seemed silly for your average army commander, and SECOND, he obeyed God. Joshua was not your average military commander. He had faith in God, then he acted in faith and did what God told him to do.

And the walls fell when he had completed EVERYTHING that God told him to do. The walls did not fall when he "believed" in God's command.

The widow woman had faith in God and reverently feared Him long before we first read about her in 2 Kings 4:1. She said just that in that verse. So she cried out to Elisha, knowing he was a true prophet of God and whatever Elisha told her to do, she was ready to do.

And the blessing of God was delivered to her when she completed all of His commands through Elisha.

All three of these stories show us the same thing: that first we put our trust in God and anyone who He sends, then second, we obey God and do what He or His servant tells us to do.

And then the blessing comes. The blessing does not come before we have done what He commanded us to do (either directly our through His messenger).

The same is true in salvation: First, we believe and are saved. Second we, by faith, do what He says.

Wrong. First we believe, then in faith we do what He says, and then we are saved. Just as these three examples demonstrate, the blessing is NEVER received until the actions of faith that are required by God are completed, including the blessing of salvation.

It's not mourning we hear from you when others disagree with you. It's condemning them to hell.

Everyone is already condemned, until they receive salvation through faith in the Gospel of Jesus.

What a blatant lie, that according to Scripture, our sins get washed away in water baptism.

"Without the shedding of blood, there is no forgiveness." Heb. 9:22 And that blood had to be the blood of Jesus, the sinless Son of God. Water baptism washes away NOTHING, except maybe some dirt on your skin. But it can't wash away ANYTHING in your heart.

That is exactly in contradiction of 1 Pet 3:21, where Peter tells us that baptism is NOT about washing dirt from the body, but about receiving salvation and a clean conscience from God.

"how much more will the blood of Christ, ... cleanse your conscience from dead works to serve the living God?" Heb. 9:14

What a perversion of what Jesus said in John 3. Baptism is not even mentioned in His verbal conversation with Nicodemus. Jesus initiated the subject of childbirth with His statement, "Truly, truly I say to you, unless one is BORN AGAIN he cannot see the kingdom of God."

This statement had NOTHING to do with natural child birth, as is demonstrated in Jesus' reply to Nicodemus.

He was saying that their was some similarity between childbirth, being born of water or born of the flesh, and being born of the Spirit. In BOTH a NEW CREATION is brought forth, created by God. And that being born of the Spirit is necessary to see and enter into the kingdom of God.

There's no other place in Scripture where baptism is called "being born of water", nor is that it's meaning here.

Read John 3:3 and John 3:5. They are almost identical, but in verse 5, Jesus gives more details about what is required to be reborn (having NOTHING to do with natural child birth). One cannot be REBORN if they were never BORN in the first place. And Jesus' discussion is about REBIRTH, not natural birth.

And the rebirth we experience in Christ Jesus requires both water and the Spirit. This is reiterated in 1 Pet 3:21, Rom 6:1-7, Col 2:11-14, Gal 3:26-27, Eph 5:26-27, Acts 8:36, & Acts 22:16, among other passages).

 

[dwight92070]

360watt, I agree with your conclusion that water baptism is symbolic. But there is no mention of washing anything in John 3. Just because water is mentioned, that does not mean He is referring to washing. The amniotic fluid is mostly water but also contains nutrients, vitamins, etc. It provides a cushion for the baby during pregnancy, and so much more. It is truly an awesome creation of God in itself, not to mention the growing baby inside miraculously being nourished and kept alive.
In keeping with the context of childbirth, being "born of water" has to be referring to childbirth.

Jesus is comparing the physical birth of all men to the spiritual birth of only those men who put their faith in Jesus. We don't get a choice as to whether we want to be born physically or not. We do, however, get a choice as to whether we want that spiritual birth or not. In fact, if we don't choose the 2nd birth, we cannot see or enter into the kingdom of God.

There is another place where Jesus compares physical birth with spiritual birth:

Luke 7:28 "I say to you, among those born of women (physical birth) there is no one greater than John; yet he who is least in the kingdom of God (spiritual birth) is greater than he."

 

[dwight92070]

I never said that faith was all that was necessary for Naaman to be healed. If God leads us to do certain things in order to be healed, obviously we should do them - in faith. I DID say, however, that faith is all that is required to be saved. Being healed and being saved are two different things. Nor have I said that faith is all that is required in living the Christian life - we, as Christians, are commanded to "be zealous for good deeds" "so that we will not be unfruitful". As a new Christian, one of the first deeds we should do, is to submit to water baptism - not because we won't be saved if we don't, but because we must obey Jesus. If we don't, how can we expect to be pleasing to Him?

Remember, Jesus told some people that He healed, "your faith has saved you". So apparently, Jesus knew that not only were they physically healed, but also spiritually healed - or saved.

Again, being saved and taking certain actions to cause walls to fall down are two different things. Salvation requires ONLY "actions" of the heart. If God wants to do miracles in our life, by requiring certain actions on our part - Great! but compared to salvation, that's apples and oranges.

The widow woman is the same as above. Her salvation was already secure when God, through Elisha, told her to take certain actions before God would miraculously sustain her and her son. Faith for her salvation required only repentance and faith in her heart. Miracles for the sustenance of her and her son required obedience to what Elisha told her to do.

Naaman, Joshua, and the widow woman were all saved by faith BEFORE they were commanded to take certain actions to receive or witness miracles in their lives. This totally lines up with the faith we see in the New Testament. None of the three were saved because they obeyed God and His prophet, Elisha. It's just the opposite. They obeyed God and His prophet, BECAUSE THEY WERE SAVED.

You as always are wrong. NO PHYSICAL ACTION is required to be saved. ONLY THE SPIRITUAL ACTION IN OUR HEARTS. ALL PHYSICAL ACTIONS FOLLOW THAT, INCLUDING BAPTISM, NOT TO SECURE OUR SALVATION, BUT TO OBEY THE LORD'S COMMANDS.

Again, 1 Peter 3:21 is speaking of "dirt" symbolically. Some versions, like the KJV accurately translate that as "the filth of the flesh", which refers to our sins. Peter must think his readers are really stupid, if he was saying that they thought that being immersed in water to remove dirt from their bodies - was what cleansed them. The truth is what really saves us is the removal or the washing away of our sins.
Peter clearly says that baptism does NOT wash away our sins. It is a symbol of what Christ did through His blood. He washed away our sins. It is a symbol of our salvation, not our salvation itself. It is a symbol of our sins being washed away, not the actual washing away of sin itself.

Heb.9:14 "how much more will the blood of Jesus Christ, cleanse your conscience from dead works (the filth of the flesh) to serve the living God."
Heb.9:22 "and without the shedding of blood there is no forgiveness."
1 John 1:7 "... and the blood of Jesus cleanses us from all sin."
Rev.1:5 " ... to Him who loves us and released us from our sins by His blood."
Rom.5:9 "... having now been justified by His blood."
Eph.1:7 "In Him we have redemption through His blood, the forgiveness of our trespasses, according to the riches of His grace ..."
Col.1:14 "... in whom we have redemption, the forgiveness of sins."
1 Cor.6:11 "Such were some of you; but you were washed, but you were sanctified, but you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and in the Spirit of our God."

John 3 has EVERYTHING TO DO with natural childbirth vs spiritual childbirth.

Jesus made the SAME COMPARISON in Luke 7:28:
" I say to you, among those born of women (natural childbirth) there is no one greater than John (the Baptist)" yet he who is least in the kingdom of God (spiritual childbirth - the kingdom of God is righteousness, joy and peace in the Holy Spirit) is greater than he."

Baptism is never referred to in Scripture as being "born of water", except in your imagination - to make it "fit" your false doctrine.

 

[Doug Brents]

I never said that faith was all that was necessary for Naaman to be healed. If God leads us to do certain things in order to be healed, obviously we should do them - in faith. I DID say, however, that faith is all that is required to be saved. Being healed and being saved are two different things.

No, they are not. They are both blessings from God, miraculous events that cannot be done by man. And yes, faith is all that is required for either one of them. Faith, the SUBSTANCE of what is hoped for, the EVIDENCE of the unseen, having the soul of action that gives it life. If there is no action, then there is no faith; it doesn't really exist.

Nor have I said that faith is all that is required in living the Christian life - we, as Christians, are commanded to "be zealous for good deeds" "so that we will not be unfruitful".

We are not talking about life after salvation. We are talking about what it takes to receive salvation in the first place.

As a new Christian, one of the first deeds we should do, is to submit to water baptism - not because we won't be saved if we don't, but because we must obey Jesus. If we don't, how can we expect to be pleasing to Him?

Nope. We are not a new Christ follower unless we have submitted to water baptism; we have not been buried with Him, we have not had our sins washed away, we have not been clothed with Christ, we have not been adopted into the family of God. All of that happens during water baptism, according to Scripture.

Remember, Jesus told some people that He healed, "your faith has saved you". So apparently, Jesus knew that not only were they physically healed, but also spiritually healed - or saved.

Are you sure that He was talking about spiritual healing when He said "your faith has saved you"? Or could He have been talking about them being saved from the physical problems? The only example we have of someone absolutely being spiritually saved as well as being physically healed is the man whom Jesus forgave his sins before healing him as an "in your face" to the Pharisees on the sabbath (Matt 9:2-7).

Again, being saved and taking certain actions to cause walls to fall down are two different things.

So their actions caused the walls to fall down? I don't think so! Marching around the walls of a city have absolutely 0.0000% chance of knocking down the walls of ANY city, ever. It was God's power that knocked the walls down, not the marching. And He knocked the walls down because of their faith which included their marching.

Salvation requires ONLY "actions" of the heart.

Not according to Scripture:
Acts 2:38
Rom 10:9-10
1 Pet 3:21

If God wants to do miracles in our life, by requiring certain actions on our part - Great! but compared to salvation, that's apples and oranges.

Nope, salvation is not any different than any other miracle God has done in this world.

The widow woman is the same as above. Her salvation was already secure when God, through Elisha, told her to take certain actions before God would miraculously sustain her and her son. Faith for her salvation required only repentance and faith in her heart. Miracles for the sustenance of her and her son required obedience to what Elisha told her to do.

Again, there is no difference between salvation and the miracle of sustaining the widow. Both require(d) an active faith, not just mental "actions".

Naaman, Joshua, and the widow woman were all saved by faith BEFORE they were commanded to take certain actions to receive or witness miracles in their lives.

So you are saying that Naaman was healed before he ever reached Elisha? That is not what Scripture says, but you are welcome to believe whatever you like.

This totally lines up with the faith we see in the New Testament. None of the three were saved because they obeyed God and His prophet, Elisha. It's just the opposite. They obeyed God and His prophet, BECAUSE THEY WERE SAVED.

Nowhere does it say that Naaman's sins were forgiven.
But if he was forgiven, it was not until he was back in front of Elisha where he forsook his gods, and pledged his life to the God of Heaven.
And none of these stories is about the salvation of these people. Each centers around the blessing of God that each individually needed.

You as always are wrong. NO PHYSICAL ACTION is required to be saved. ONLY THE SPIRITUAL ACTION IN OUR HEARTS. ALL PHYSICAL ACTIONS FOLLOW THAT, INCLUDING BAPTISM, NOT TO SECURE OUR SALVATION, BUT TO OBEY THE LORD'S COMMANDS.

LOL, it amazes me how poorly you have read Scripture.

Again, 1 Peter 3:21 is speaking of "dirt" symbolically. Some versions, like the KJV accurately translate that as "the filth of the flesh", which refers to our sins.

That translation poorly represents the true meaning of that Scripture. It is not symbolic, but referring to baptism not removing dirt from the body (which it is not meant to do). Water baptism is about cleansing the heart from sin (Acts 22:16), giving us a clean conscience, and uniting us with Jesus death and resurrection (Rom 6:1-7, Col 2:11-14).

Peter must think his readers are really stupid, if he was saying that they thought that being immersed in water to remove dirt from their bodies - was what cleansed them.

No, his primary audience was Jewish people scattered through the world. They knew the traditions of cleansing dishes, hands, etc. through ceremonial dipping (baptizing). And Peter is stressing that the cleansing is not of physical dirt, but of spiritual sin stains.

The truth is what really saves us is the removal or the washing away of our sins.
Peter clearly says that baptism does NOT wash away our sins. It is a symbol of what Christ did through His blood. He washed away our sins. It is a symbol of our salvation, not our salvation itself. It is a symbol of our sins being washed away, not the actual washing away of sin itself.

John 3 has EVERYTHING TO DO with natural childbirth vs spiritual childbirth.

Jesus made the SAME COMPARISON in Luke 7:28:
" I say to you, among those born of women (natural childbirth) there is no one greater than John (the Baptist)" yet he who is least in the kingdom of God (spiritual childbirth - the kingdom of God is righteousness, joy and peace in the Holy Spirit) is greater than he."

Baptism is never referred to in Scripture as being "born of water", except in your imagination - to make it "fit" your false doctrine.

Nope, John 3 has NOTHING do do with natural childbirth. That excuse is just a convenient way for you to hide from the truth within your heart. It makes you feel safe that you can exclude that reference from what God commands of you to receive salvation from Him. But it doesn't matter what you think of His Word. What matters is what He commanded and intended.

 

[dwight92070]

Nor does it say that the sins of the thief on the cross were forgiven. But we know they were, don't we?

Read 2 Kings 5:17-18 and then tell me that Namaan's heart was not changed, that is forgiven.

You're the one making this about the salvation of the three persons in the Old Testament, not me. You continue to imply that just as it was with them, so it is with our salvation today, that we're NOT SAVED until we do a particular thing. You are wrong.
YOU ARE talking about life after salvation, which according to you BEGINS AFTER BAPTISM. The scripture says that life after salvation begins after repentance and faith and BEFORE BAPTISM.
None of that happens during baptism, except in your imagination.
Doug said: "Nope, salvation is not any different than any other miracle God has done in this world."
Wow! What a demeaning thing to say about salvation, the ONLY miracle of God that allows us to be with Him for all eternity.
You dishonor Jesus and His shed blood by requiring baptism to avail ourselves of God's salvation.
No ceremony, no soap, no water, and no cleansing agent can wash away our sins. You make a mockery of the blood of Jesus!

John 3:3 Jesus mentions being born again. If Nicodemus or anyone heard Him say that, the only possible understanding they could have is that He's talking about being physically born - childbirth. Which is exactly the way Nicodemus understood it. vs 4

Do you really expect me to believe that if Jesus said that to you, that you WOULD NOT think about physical birth? Of course you would. That's the ONLY REFERENCE POINT ANY HUMAN WOULD HAVE TO UNDERSTAND HIS WORDS. Except you, of course, you would immediately know that He was talking about water baptism - Poppycock!

And yet you foolishly declare that it has NOTHING to do with childbirth. What drivel!

The same is true in verse 5 and verse 6 and verse 7.

You are so obsessed with the lie that water baptism MUST HAPPEN TO BE SAVED, that whenever water is mentioned in Scripture, you immediately think it's referring to water baptism. Baptism is NEVER CALLED BEING BORN OF WATER IN SCRIPTURE. THAT'S YOUR PRECONCEIVED FALSE ASSUMPTION.