Requirements to receiving salvation

[civic]

As for me I don't believe one has to be water baptized to be saved but I will say this if one begins to resist this simple basic request of the Lord then what's that say about one to begin with. New Testament repentance means making an about face in regard to who is your Lord and King. The King (Jesus) has made a decree and what.... someone might want to resist doing it? Repentance again means he's the King. We obey him and it's supposed to be not my will be his will be done.

But to say one HAS to be baptized and if you're not your not saved....well the thief on the cross wasn't and we know Jesus told him he would be with him in paradise. So people need to get the spirit by which these things are said.

So back to water baptism. One should also not consider it something they have to do but something they get to do. Water baptism is very much like a wedding ceremony that you're opening acknowledging your old man is dead and your now arisen a new man in Christ Jesus. The actual being born again in the spirit can happen before and most are saved before water baptism. If you're thinking you need to check that box of baptism, as it comes to water well what if your minister or church just won't baptize you until the weekend? What if you died before you got there?

I will say this though. I think when people get saved and they say OK we're having a water baptism service in a month or two and you might want to consider having that done. NO WAY. I think they really should say today, tomorrow or by the end of the week but this delaying this for convenience I think is wrong. Here's why.

Water baptism help you with your spiritual consciousness if you understand it correctly. It's a symbol yes but so is taking communion. What is communion meant to do. It imparts in you a picture...an image into you mind to mediate upon....that Jesus body on the cross took your sin, guilt and curse and that his precious blood has blotted out your sin, *the wine) and if mediated upon rightly it helps in giving you a righteousness consciousness of being justified, just as if you'd never sinned.

So God instituted these things for OUR benefit for it's meant to help to produce something in you. Same as water baptism. When you're tempted to sin what's supposed to come to our minds is, "Hold it wait a minute! My old man died the death of the cross and I was raised to LIFE" When I went down in the baptism waters it's a type my old man has died and I no longer live but Christ lives in me! So you see why God even made it a part of a requiement....TO HELP US.

Well said brother !

 

[Doug Brents]

Indulge a Baptist observation on Water Baptism: ALREADY AND NOT YET.

We Baptists are persnickety about practicing Believers Baptism by immersion. The reason is some pretty important symbolism in the act that points to a REALITY that is PAST, PRESENT and FUTURE in its scope.

• PAST: When you are baptized by immersion (as a confessing believer), you are proclaiming a link to a very real historic event. We were buried with Christ for the forgiveness of our sins. Our Justification is a "done deal" accomplished by Him, 2000 years ago. So TODAY, we share in that event symbolically by being buried under the water ... with Him ... and rising from the grave, with Him and with His promise of eternal life. What we WERE is dead, what we ARE has just begun.

The price for sin was paid 2000 years ago, but the credit was not applied to your personal account at that time. We are not justified until we are washed in His blood, today. That is one reason most of the salvation stories in Acts include reference to making haste to be baptized so that the person's sin could be removed as soon as possible.

• PRESENT: Ephesians 2 talks about being dead and being made alive. John 3 talks about the rebirth of the Holy Spirit. Our sins were redeemed 2000 years ago in His death, but something just as wonderful has happened TODAY. We have been reborn as new creations. Just as we DIED when we plunged under the water, we ARE REBORN when we emerge from the water. No, the water does not SAVE us ... The HOLY SPIRIT (which is represented by the water) cleanses and renews and saves us ... TODAY. ... And Every Day that is still TODAY. Baptism is an "Ebeneezer" (stone of remembrance) that we are a new creation walking in a new life, TODAY.

This is the key. We are still the old, dead, sinful person right up until we are plunged beneath the water. It is the old, dead man who goes into the water of baptism, and a new, sinless, unblemished man who comes up out of the water. And you are correct that the water does not save us. It is the Holy Spirit who takes action because of our faith, to remove our sins and unite us with Christ (Rom 6:1-4, Col 2:11-14).

• FUTURE: Baptism is a reminder that we are not home, yet. This mortal body that we now inhabit will one day be buried beneath the dirt just as surely as we were buried under that water. However, just as surely as Jesus rose from the grave in the PAST and we rose from the water in the PRESENT, we WILL rise from that dirt tomb in the FUTURE! We are not home yet! ... but we WILL GET THERE!!!! We will rise GLORIFIED and be with Jesus forever.

So the "symbolic" act of Baptism by Immersion carries within it a spiritual link to not one, but THREE metaphysical realities: Our Past Justification, our Present Sanctification, our Future Glorification. That is why Baptists make such a big enough deal about it that we were historically willing to DIE for the issue of Credobaptism by Immersion.

The symbolism in baptism is the same as the symbolism of a father giving his son his new car and handing over the keys. The car belonged to the son as soon as the father paid for it, but the son could not use it (did not have possession of it) until the keys were handed over. Similarly, we own salvation (it is a gift that has been paid for by Jesus), but we do not have possession of it (we cannot receive the benefits of it) until we are baptized into Christ.

 

[Doug Brents]

As for me I don't believe one has to be water baptized to be saved but I will say this if one begins to resist this simple basic request of the Lord then what's that say about one to begin with. New Testament repentance means making an about face in regard to who is your Lord and King. The King (Jesus) has made a decree and what.... someone might want to resist doing it? Repentance again means he's the King. We obey him and it's supposed to be not my will be his will be done.

But to say one HAS to be baptized and if you're not your not saved....well the thief on the cross wasn't and we know Jesus told him he would be with him in paradise. So people need to get the spirit by which these things are said.

The problem with this is that the thief was promised salvation before Jesus died. That being the case, Jesus could change His "last will and testament" any way He chose before He died. But after He died, His will was set and could not be changed again, just as it is with the wills of people who die today (Heb 9:16).

So back to water baptism. One should also not consider it something they have to do but something they get to do. Water baptism is very much like a wedding ceremony that you're opening acknowledging your old man is dead and your now arisen a new man in Christ Jesus.

Just as with the wedding ceremony, the couple is not "married" until the minister says they are during the ceremony. They are not married before the ceremony. If they slept together the night before the ceremony, they would be in sin. Yet after the ceremony they are sinless when they come together. Similarly, we are not "in Christ" until we pass through the "ceremony" of baptism.

The actual being born again in the spirit can happen before and most are saved before water baptism. If you're thinking you need to check that box of baptism, as it comes to water well what if your minister or church just won't baptize you until the weekend? What if you died before you got there?

If the minister won't baptize you, then find someone who will. There should never be a reluctance on anyone's part to baptize immediately. Again, most of the cases depicted in Acts show great haste on the part of the minister to bring the new disciple to baptism as soon as possible.

 

[Soyeong]

I would appreciate feedback on the letter below that I am writing to a minister (who calls himself "paster") of a Church I have been attending for some time. I met with this man, along with a couple of the Elders of the congregation, to discuss this error in their teaching, but they refused to listen, or even to open their Bibles to explore God's Word more thoroughly. I was quite exasperated with them, but I hold out hope that they will come to an understanding of the truth.


Below is the bulk of the letter:
I am very confused by something that I have heard you preaching on recently. You have said, and others preaching at Bethlehem have also preached, that faith is an action term, and I agree wholeheartedly. It is not a passive, mental only, concept. But it requires action to be made real and complete as James 2:26 states clearly. You have even cited Eph 2:8-9 where we are told that salvation is a grace (gift) of God that is received through faith. This, I hope you would agree, means that faith must be demonstrated BEFORE the grace of salvation is received, and if there is no demonstration of faith then salvation is not received.

There are three things that Scripture says are required for an individual to receive salvation: Repentance (Acts 3:19), Confession of Jesus' name (Rom 10:9-10), and Baptism (Acts 2:38, Mark 16:16). For Scripture to be infallible, ALL parts of Scripture must be true at the same time. This means that the doctrine based on John 3:16 is not complete without including Acts 3:19 in the conversation, and they are not complete without Rom 10:9-10, and they are not complete without Acts 2:38 (and if there were any other passages that gave another condition for the reception of salvation, those would have to be included also).

Yet you then skip over faith in your invitation call, going directly to receiving salvation without any demonstration of faith exhibited. I find this discrepancy confusing. If the faith that Scripture says is required to receive the gift of salvation is not exhibited, then salvation is not received. These are the minimum requirements of faith that Scripture (not Jon) says are required to receive the gift of salvation.

I understand your reluctance to accept these facts. Many people believe that if there is any action required of man to receive salvation that would constitute earning salvation and negate grace. But when we consider the examples in the Old Testament, like the Israelite's taking possession of the Promised Land, we can see how God has worked in the past. God frequently freely gives a gift, but He puts conditions upon the reception of that gift.
Did God give Israel the Land? Yes.
Did they deserve the Land? No.
Did they possess the Land when He gave it to them? No.
Did they have to take any action to receive the Land? Yes.
Was the Land theirs regardless of what they did? Yes.
Would they have been able to use and take advantage of owning the Land if they had not done what was commanded? No, (see the taking of AI).
Was their obedience a condition of taking possession of the Land? Yes.
Did their obedience "earn" the possession of the land? No.

Also consider the taking of Jericho, and the widow who poured out the oil to fill all the jars she could gather, and the many other examples: the gift is freely given, but there is almost always a condition placed upon the reception of the benefit of the gift.

When we determine our doctrine we must always consider ALL of Scripture that pertains to the doctrine under consideration. It doesn't matter at all what logical sounding idea we come up with, if the idea does not match with all of Scripture then the idea is wrong.

Let me give an example: what did the accusation against Jesus that was nailed to the cross above His head say?
Mark 15:26 says simply "THE KING OF THE JEWS". Yet John 19:19 says, "JESUS THE NAZARENE, THE KING OF THE JEWS" and verse 20 says it was written in Hebrew, Latin, and Greek (while Mark says nothing about languages). Does that mean that Mark is wrong? Or is John adding unnecessary (or false) information because Mark didn't mention it? No. The fact that Mark did not mention multiple languages, or Jesus' name, or the fact that He was from Nazareth is completely immaterial. These facts must not have been relevant to Mark's initial audience (or else the author, the Holy Spirit, would have instructed Mark to include those facts). ALL Scripture that refers to what the accusation said must be consulted before we determine what we believe about what the accusation said. So we cannot just take Mark's account as explaining everything that was said in the accusation.

Similarly, we cannot just take John 3:16 (or any other passage that only says "believe" as a prerequisite to receiving salvation) as explaining everything that is required to receive salvation. John 3:16 mentions only belief (translated from pistis, which is faith, not a passive mental assent), but it does not tell us what form that faith must take. Acts 2:38 tells us that the faith required to receive salvation must include repentance and baptism. Mark 16:16 says that belief and baptism are required. Rom 10:9-10 says that belief and confession of Jesus' name are required. No single verse spells out everything that is required to receive salvation, but Acts 2:38 comes the closest, because it says the people had already believed (they were pricked in the heart (verse 37)), and then were commanded to repent and be baptized in Jesus' name. 1 Pet 3:21 tells us that it is through water baptism that we receive salvation. Just as Noah had to pass through the Flood to be saved from his wicked generation, so too we must pass through the water of baptism to be saved from our sins.

There can be many verses that like Romans 4:1-5 that speak against earning our justification/righteousness/salvation/eternal life as a wage and there are many verses like Romans 2:13 that say that only doers of the law will be justified, so there must be reasons why our justification/righteousness/salvation/eternal life requires us to choose to be doers of the law other than in order to earn it as a wage, such as faith insofar as the faith by which we are justified does not abolish our need to be a doer of the law, but rather our faith upholds it (Romans 3:28-31).

The content of a gift can itself be the experience of doing something, such as giving someone the opportunity to drive a Ferrari for an hour, where the gift requires them to do the work of driving it in order to have that experience, but where doing that work has nothing to do with trying to earn the opportunity to drive it as a wage. Similarly, the content of God's gift of eternal life is the experience of knowing Him and Jesus (John 17:3) and the gift of God's law is His instructions for how to have that experience (Exodus 33:13, Matthew 7:23).

Likewise, our salvation is from sin (Matthew 1:21) and sin is the transgression of God's law (1 John 3:4), so while we do not earn our salvation as a wage, the experience of living in obedience to it through faith in Jesus is the the content of God's gift of saving us from having the experience of not living in obedience to it. In Titus 2:11-14, our salvation is described as being trained by grace to do what is godly, righteous, and good, and to renounce going what is ungodly, so we do not receive our salvation as the result of having done those works and we do not need to do those works as the result of having been saved, but rather God graciously teaching us to experience doing those works is itself the content of His gift of saving us from not having that experience.

In Psalms 119:29-30, he wanted to put false ways far from him, for God to be gracious to him by teaching him to obey His law, and he chose the way of faithfulness by setting God's law before him, so this has always been the one and only way of salvation by grace through faith. The reason why there is so much confusion in regard the requirement for receiving the gift salvation is that so many people are stuck on seeing obedience to God's law as being about trying to earn salvation as a wage rather than seeing the experience of obeying it as being a gift.

 

[synergy]

The problem with this is that the thief was promised salvation before Jesus died. That being the case, Jesus could change His "last will and testament" any way He chose before He died. But after He died, His will was set and could not be changed again, just as it is with the wills of people who die today (Heb 9:16).

Just as with the wedding ceremony, the couple is not "married" until the minister says they are during the ceremony. They are not married before the ceremony. If they slept together the night before the ceremony, they would be in sin. Yet after the ceremony they are sinless when they come together. Similarly, we are not "in Christ" until we pass through the "ceremony" of baptism.

If the minister won't baptize you, then find someone who will. There should never be a reluctance on anyone's part to baptize immediately. Again, most of the cases depicted in Acts show great haste on the part of the minister to bring the new disciple to baptism as soon as possible.

Everyone here is making very good points about baptism. I think we should also approach it from a Pneumatological, Ontological, and of course a Biblical point of view.

Overriding principle is that the Holy Spirit works according to Trinitarian Sovereignty (John 3:8). In other words, the Holy Spirit cannot be pigeon holed when it concerns our regeneration. Christ, in His Baptism, showed us the par excellent way to receive the Holy Spirit which is through baptism. But we must consider Matt 20:22-23 where Christ tells us of a baptism that is one of the Cross that Christ will undergo, or martyrdom which the Apostles will undergo. This is the type of baptism that the thief on the cross underwent when he professed his belief in Christ.

CC: @civic @Rockson

 

[civic]

Everyone here is making very good points about baptism. I think we should also approach it from a Pneumatological, Ontological, and of course a Biblical point of view.

Overriding principle is that the Holy Spirit works according to Trinitarian Sovereignty (John 3:8). In other words, the Holy Spirit cannot be pigeon holed when it concerns our regeneration. Christ, in His Baptism, showed us the par excellent way to receive the Holy Spirit which is through baptism. But we must consider Matt 20:22-23 where Christ tells us of a baptism that is one of the Cross that Christ will undergo, or martyrdom which the Apostles will undergo. This is the type of baptism that the thief on the cross underwent when he professed his belief in Christ.

CC: @civic @Rockson

Its interesting we have no record of the disciples/apostles being baptized and Paul said that Jesus did not send him to BAPTIZE but to preach the GOSPEL- its the gospel message which saves a person when they believe.

Now why would the Apostle sent to the gentiles be told by Christ not to baptize anyone if it was essential to salvation ? @Doug Brents

And on a side note Jesus did not need saving so His baptism had nothing to do with salvation.

 

[synergy]

Its interesting we have no record of the disciples/apostles being baptized

Ananias laid hands on Paul to be filled with the Holy Spirit with immediate baptism thereafter (Acts 9:17-18).

and Paul said that Jesus did not send him to BAPTIZE but to preach the GOSPEL- its the gospel message which saves a person when they believe.

Now why would the Apostle sent to the gentiles be told by Christ not to baptize anyone if it was essential to salvation ? @Doug Brents

And on a side note Jesus did not need saving so His baptism had nothing to do with salvation.

I asked myself a very similar question. Why were believers and Jesus Himself baptized with water if water is just a symbol, when the Son of God was in their midst? Or in other words, what need was there for a symbol when the Truth Himself was present to whom they should "confess to want to know and follow"?

This is what I personally came up with going through the Bible:

1. Rom 6:4: “Therefore we were buried with Him by baptism into death, so that as Christ was raised up from the dead by the glory of the Father; even so we also should walk in newness of life.”
2. Act 2:38: “Then Peter said to them, Repent and be baptized, every one of you, in the name of Jesus Christ to remission of sins, and you shall receive the gift of the Holy Spirit”. If there’s any doubt that it is water baptism that is being referred to when the term “baptism” has no qualifiers, it is dispelled here. Paul didn't say that they should be baptized in the Holy Spirit. He said "...be baptized.... and you shall receive the gift of the Holy Spirit". He mentioned both water baptism and Holy Spirit baptism in one sentence.
3. Our nature is redeemed to the extent that we become a new creature. Being born of water is to have our human nature partake of divine nature and to be transformed into a new creature according to 2 Cor 5:17 "So that if any one is in Christ, that one is a new creature; old things have passed away; behold, all things have become new." Christ is baptized not to be made holy by the water, but to make the water holy, and by his cleansing to purify the waters which he made contact with the Holy Spirit. In other words, Jesus was baptized to fulfill all righteousness (Matthew 3:15) which was to make water “right, i.e.: consecrated” for Baptisms and by extension make the world “right”, and man “right” through the in-tearing of the Holy Spirit, in an eschatological fashion.

 

[synergy]

....Paul said that Jesus did not send him to BAPTIZE but to preach the GOSPEL- its the gospel message which saves a person when they believe.

Now why would the Apostle sent to the gentiles be told by Christ not to baptize anyone if it was essential to salvation ? @Doug Brents

Paul was warning the Corinthians that their unity would be shattered if they continued with their sinful sectarianism. That's why he was glad that he did not baptize anyone (except for 2 people) so that he could not be accused of contributing to Corinthian sectarianism ("lest anyone should say that I had baptized in my own name").

10 Now I plead with you, brethren, by the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that you all speak the same thing, and that there be no divisions among you, but that you be perfectly joined together in the same mind and in the same judgment. 11 For it has been declared to me concerning you, my brethren, by those of Chloe’s household, that there are contentions among you. 12 Now I say this, that each of you says, “I am of Paul,” or “I am of Apollos,” or “I am of Cephas,” or “I am of Christ.” 13 Is Christ divided? Was Paul crucified for you? Or were you baptized in the name of Paul?

14 I thank God that I baptized none of you except Crispus and Gaius, 15 lest anyone should say that I had baptized in my own name. 16 Yes, I also baptized the household of Stephanas. Besides, I do not know whether I baptized any other. 17 For Christ did not send me to baptize, but to preach the gospel, not with wisdom of words, lest the cross of Christ should be made of no effect.

 

[Doug Brents]

Its interesting we have no record of the disciples/apostles being baptized and Paul said that Jesus did not send him to BAPTIZE but to preach the GOSPEL- its the gospel message which saves a person when they believe.

Now why would the Apostle sent to the gentiles be told by Christ not to baptize anyone if it was essential to salvation ? @Doug Brents

1 Cor 1:14-17 - "I thank God that I baptized none of you except Crispus and Gaius, so that no one would say you were baptized in my name. Now I did baptize also the household of Stephanas; beyond that, I do not know whether I baptized any other. For Christ did not send me to baptize, but to preach the gospel, not in cleverness of speech, so that the cross of Christ would not be made void."

He did baptize a few, but he was lead by the Spirit (Who knew that this situation was going to arise) to only baptize those few so that Paul's name could not be used as a fuel for the fires of division that were raging in that congregation of the Church.

1 Cor 3:6 - "I planted, Apollos watered, but God was causing the growth."

Also, Paul went there to plant, not to harvest. Now, there happened to be two or three "seeds" that bore immediate fruit, but he was not there looking for a harvest, but for fertile soil into which to plant the seed so that another minister of the Word could reap the harvest at a later date.

 

[synergy]

1 Cor 1:14-17 - "I thank God that I baptized none of you except Crispus and Gaius, so that no one would say you were baptized in my name. Now I did baptize also the household of Stephanas; beyond that, I do not know whether I baptized any other. For Christ did not send me to baptize, but to preach the gospel, not in cleverness of speech, so that the cross of Christ would not be made void."

He did baptize a few, but he was lead by the Spirit (Who knew that this situation was going to arise) to only baptize those few so that Paul's name could not be used as a fuel for the fires of division that were raging in that congregation of the Church.

1 Cor 3:6 - "I planted, Apollos watered, but God was causing the growth."

Also, Paul went there to plant, not to harvest. Now, there happened to be two or three "seeds" that bore immediate fruit, but he was not there looking for a harvest, but for fertile soil into which to plant the seed so that another minister of the Word could reap the harvest at a later date.

I agree with what you wrote but one must acknowledge that the Holy Spirit works according to Trinitarian Sovereignty (John 3:8). In other words, the Holy Spirit cannot be pigeon holed when it concerns our regeneration. You and I can agree that Christ, in His Baptism, showed us the par excellent way to receive the Holy Spirit which is through baptism but we must consider Matt 20:22-23 where Christ tells us of a baptism that is one of the Cross that Christ will undergo, or martyrdom which the Apostles will undergo. This is the type of baptism that the thief on the cross underwent when he professed his belief in Christ.

 

[Doug Brents]

I agree with what you wrote but one must acknowledge that the Holy Spirit works according to Trinitarian Sovereignty (John 3:8). In other words, the Holy Spirit cannot be pigeon holed when it concerns our regeneration. You and I can agree that Christ, in His Baptism, showed us the par excellent way to receive the Holy Spirit which is through baptism but we must consider Matt 20:22-23 where Christ tells us of a baptism that is one of the Cross that Christ will undergo, or martyrdom which the Apostles will undergo. This is the type of baptism that the thief on the cross underwent when he professed his belief in Christ.

The thief on the cross does not enter into the New Testament salvation discussion, because his salvation was decreed before the NT started (before the death of Christ).

I agree that the Holy Spirit is co-sovereign with the Father, and will act as He sees fit. But there are some circumstances where we are told exactly how, when, and where the Holy Spirit will act, and we are told in Col 2:11-12 that the Holy Spirit acts during baptism to cut our sins from us and to unite us with Christ in His resurrection.

As for the "baptism" of martyrdom, John, one of the 12, was not martyred even though he was there when Jesus said this. It is not a baptism into which every believer will, or must, be baptized. There is only one baptism that is important to the NT Church (Eph 4:5-6), and that, according to 1 Pet 3:21, must include water.

 

[Diserner]

As for the "baptism" of martyrdom, John, one of the 12, was not martyred even though he was there when Jesus said this. It is not a baptism into which every believer will, or must, be baptized. There is only one baptism that is important to the NT Church (Eph 4:5-6), and that, according to 1 Pet 3:21, must include water.

I think his idea was "it's just as good" or something along those lines.

The dear CoC fellow I talked with insisted the thief could have been baptized at a prior time.

 

[Doug Brents]

I think his idea was "it's just as good" or something along those lines.

That would be God's call to make, not mine, but I do not find any reference to leads me to believe in that connection in Scripture.

The dear CoC fellow I talked with insisted the thief could have been baptized at a prior time.

That is entirely possible, but it is an irrelevant and un-provable argument for him to have made.

 

[synergy]

The thief on the cross does not enter into the New Testament salvation discussion, because his salvation was decreed before the NT started (before the death of Christ).

Who died first, Jesus or the thief? What if Jesus died before the thief died then, according to your logic, all hope is lost for the thief because he was not baptized. See the conundrums that can happen when you attempt to pigeon hole the Holy Spirit?

I agree that the Holy Spirit is co-sovereign with the Father, and will act as He sees fit. But there are some circumstances where we are told exactly how, when, and where the Holy Spirit will act, and we are told in Col 2:11-12 that the Holy Spirit acts during baptism to cut our sins from us and to unite us with Christ in His resurrection.

I agree but Jesus does acknowledge another form of baptism that is no less a baptism. You can get into severe conundrums with your form of logic. For example, what happens to the person who comes to faith but dies on his way to church to be baptized? What happens then? Is he sealed with the Holy Spirit or not? I bank on the co-sovereignty of the Holy Spirit as per John 3:8.

As for the "baptism" of martyrdom, John, one of the 12, was not martyred even though he was there when Jesus said this. It is not a baptism into which every believer will, or must, be baptized. There is only one baptism that is important to the NT Church (Eph 4:5-6), and that, according to 1 Pet 3:21, must include water.

I agree that John was not martyred. I never said that it is a baptism into which every believer will, or must, be baptized. Far from it. I tend to believe that John was water baptized which I'm perfectly ok with, seeing that I said that's the par excellent way to be baptized. After all, he's the one who penned John 3:5 "Unless a man is born of water and the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God."

 

[synergy]

That would be God's call to make, not mine, but I do not find any reference to leads me to believe in that connection in Scripture.

That is entirely possible, but it is an irrelevant and un-provable argument for him to have made.

Jesus does acknowledge another form of baptism that is no less a baptism in Matt 20:22-23.

What happens to aborded babies? They're persons too. Are they all lost because they were not baptized through no fault of their own? How does the CoC rationalize that? That's where atheists laugh at us when our "christian logic" fails even secular logic.

 

[Doug Brents]

Who died first, Jesus or the thief? What if Jesus died before the thief died then, according to your logic, all hope is lost for the thief because he was not baptized. See the conundrums that can happen when you attempt to pigeon hole the Holy Spirit?

The timing of their deaths is irrelevant. Indeed, the thief did live past the death of Jesus. But the promise to him was made before Jesus' death, and since any change to a persons will is valid before his death, so too Jesus' command that the thief would see paradise with Him was valid and binding regardless of which of them died first.

I agree but Jesus does acknowledge another form of baptism that is no less a baptism. You can get into severe conundrums with your form of logic. For example, what happens to the person who comes to faith but dies on his way to church to be baptized? What happens then? Is he sealed with the Holy Spirit or not? I bank on the co-sovereignty of the Holy Spirit as per John 3:8.

Again, that is a choice God will make, seeing that He is the One upon whom the decision lies. However, I would not stake my soul on the off chance that God will make such a compromise. I have, however, staked my soul on the mercy and grace of Jesus, and His direct commands in Scripture. I try to steer away from arguments about the rare to nonexistent chances that you bring up here. I find it fruitless to speculate about them, and instead focus on what the Word of God says.

I agree that John was not martyred. I never said that it is a baptism into which every believer will, or must, be baptized. Far from it. I tend to believe that John was water baptized which I'm perfectly ok with, seeing that I said that's the par excellent way to be baptized. After all, he's the one who penned John 3:5 "Unless a man is born of water and the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God."

Understood, and agreed.

 

[Doug Brents]

Jesus does acknowledge another form of baptism that is no less a baptism in Matt 20:22-23.

What happens to aborded babies? They're persons too. Are they all lost because they were not baptized through no fault of their own? How does the CoC rationalize that? That's where atheists laugh at us when our "christian logic" fails even secular logic.

I don't really know about the CoC stance on that, seeing as I have not been a member of the CoC for many years.

However, I personally believe that there are three spiritual states in which a person may find himself.
Safe: From conception to the "age of accountability" a person is safe in the hands of God and will go to Heaven upon death. The age at which one becomes accountable is up for debate, and personally I believe it is different for each person. I believe that some will never reach it: those who are mentally impaired from birth (downs syndrome, etc.).

Lost: At some point people become responsible for the sins they commit. I believe Scripture point to this being at the point when a person knows the right and chooses the wrong. This could be at 3 years old, or it could be at 13, I don't know. But everyone of "sound mind" will at some point choose themselves over God. And this is the reason we are condemned before God.

Saved: When one becomes convinced of his lostness, hears the Gospel of the salvation to be found in Jesus, and submits to the Lordship of Jesus in his life (through repentance, public confession of Jesus as his Lord, and baptism (in water) into Christ) he joins the Body of Christ and is saved. From this point on, so long as he continues to seek Christ and makes Jesus his Lord, he remains saved even though he may sin once in a while. Now I do believe we can fall from grace and lose our salvation, but that would be a discussion for another thread.

So to answer your question, aborted babies are safe.

 

[synergy]

I don't really know about the CoC stance on that, seeing as I have not been a member of the CoC for many years.

However, I personally believe that there are three spiritual states in which a person may find himself.
Safe: From conception to the "age of accountability" a person is safe in the hands of God and will go to Heaven upon death. The age at which one becomes accountable is up for debate, and personally I believe it is different for each person. I believe that some will never reach it: those who are mentally impaired from birth (downs syndrome, etc.).

Lost: At some point people become responsible for the sins they commit. I believe Scripture point to this being at the point when a person knows the right and chooses the wrong. This could be at 3 years old, or it could be at 13, I don't know. But everyone of "sound mind" will at some point choose themselves over God. And this is the reason we are condemned before God.

Saved: When one becomes convinced of his lostness, hears the Gospel of the salvation to be found in Jesus, and submits to the Lordship of Jesus in his life (through repentance, public confession of Jesus as his Lord, and baptism (in water) into Christ) he joins the Body of Christ and is saved. From this point on, so long as he continues to seek Christ and makes Jesus his Lord, he remains saved even though he may sin once in a while. Now I do believe we can fall from grace and lose our salvation, but that would be a discussion for another thread.

So to answer your question, aborted babies are safe.

I'm not sure about your three spiritual stages but they do open up the fact that God the Holy Spirit is co-sovereign in His Ministry and cannot be pigeon-holed into water baptism, even if water baptism is the par excellent way to be regenerated. Don't get me wrong, your 3 stages sound very logical but I'm a person who likes things verified in Scripture before I whole-heartedly embrace that thing.

 

[Doug Brents]

I'm not sure about your three spiritual stages but they do open up the fact that God the Holy Spirit is co-sovereign in His Ministry and cannot be pigeon-holed into water baptism, even if water baptism is the par excellent way to be regenerated. Don't get me wrong, your 3 stages sound very logical but I'm a person who likes things verified in Scripture before I whole-heartedly embrace that thing.

There are many passages that lead me to believe in the age of accountability, but there are none that pin it down to a specific age.
Isa 7:15-16
2 Sam 12:21-23
Rom 7:9
James 4:17
Eze 18:20

But my comments in no way pigeon-hole the Lord in any way. These are the things He Himself has stated. If He says only those who are baptized will be saved, then that is His word limiting Himself on who He will save. It is not me limiting Him. He said if you march around the city one time each day for six days, and on the seventh day walk seven times and the walls will fall. That is in no way the Israelites limiting Him, but He himself limiting when He will do what.

 

[synergy]

There are many passages that lead me to believe in the age of accountability, but there are none that pin it down to a specific age.
Isa 7:15-16
2 Sam 12:21-23
Rom 7:9
James 4:17
Eze 18:20

Thank you very much for those verses. 2 Sam 12:21-23 and Eze 18:20 are favorite verses of mine.

But my comments in no way pigeon-hole the Lord in any way. These are the things He Himself has stated. If He says only those who are baptized will be saved, then that is His word limiting Himself on who He will save. It is not me limiting Him. He said if you march around the city one time each day for six days, and on the seventh day walk seven times and the walls will fall. That is in no way the Israelites limiting Him, but He himself limiting when He will do what.

Please forward all verses that state that "only those who are (water) baptized will be saved". Thanking you in advance.