RE: Are you saved but not baptized?

RE: Are you saved but not baptized? (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Theology] >> Salvation Issues

Message

greatdivide46 -> RE: Are you saved but not baptized? (6/20/2008 5:12:51 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: PromiseLander So God makes acceptions to how He chooses to save us? If God indeed does make acceptions to His rules, then how can one ever truely KNOW if they are saved? By doing what the Bible says to do. We should not depend on the exceptions which are not Biblical anyway. If we concentrate on what the Bible says and do that, then we can truly know that we are saved. When I witness to someone I tell them what the Bible says. I don't bring up all the exceptions that you noted, because there is none of that in the Bible. I have no doubt that I'm saved and if I ever did have doubts I can look back and my baptism and know for certain that God saved me. It gives me a great deal of assurance of my salvation.

loveineffable -> RE: Are you saved but not baptized? (6/20/2008 9:32:10 PM)
Thank you for your response, in it you said you do not believe one has to be water baptised to be saved then the next Qoute you say they do need water babtism to be saved even though they received the Ghost prior to water baptism. So if by tradition of that day, if they had not gotten water baptised, would they still have received the Ghost, or lost the ghost. In other words if anyone of them refused the disciples water baptism, they would have been rejected. Now when and where did God reject them? in giving them the Holy Ghost ( his Spirit). Were the disciples still human? did Peter still make mistakes? was Peter one that wanted acceptance? Did not Paul rebuke Peter for acting like the Gentile when he was with them. then acting like the jews when they were around? This was after he receive the ghost. Still a wanna be, yet god still suffered for him and with him, as well for us and with us. You say others who have not received water baptism , and believed in Christ are saved. So which is it? Oh by who's exception? God's, yeah he is the final judge of all. I have pointed out to you that God can do anything he pleases, for he is the creator, we are the clay. I do not think he really even needs our input of one upmanship. When one believes, they receive and are led internally by God (the Holy Spirit) to do whatever needs to be done for the sake of the brethren. If that be water baptism, so be it. It is still after the fact that when they believed they received salvation prior to water baptism. Romans 14 can really apply here, if one does not read it limited to the food problem that it was originally written about. Take a look at it in a broad perspective. I know and am convinced that all things are clean of itself! So to me this would mean since all things are clean of itself, (and God told Peter kill and eat for all things are clean now) It must be what I do with it, how i use it, for edification, or destruction. So the thing itself is clean, yet I by my use of it can destroy it or edify it. Water baptism to me is a good concience towards God. To do it for membership, or any other reason is not a good concience towards God. For we all will be judged by our hearts. ineffable love quote: ORIGINAL: greatdivide46 quote: ORIGINAL: loveineffable You know, and John 16 talks about the Holy Spirit's job, here being the comfortor. I do not see anything about water babtism, there in John 16. I see it being about belief or not. I agree that water baptism is not mentioned in John 16. Maybe it wasn't something that John felt constrained to mention because there was no question about it in his day. All believers were baptized. quote: So let us say I get babtized (water) . I hear you great divide saying then and only then I will be saved. No, I'm not saying that. I'm simply repeating what the Bible says about baptism. If you think that's what the Bible says, then your argument is not with me. quote: Well look at acts when the gentiles were saved prior to water baptism, they received the holy ghost and with fire, through belief, as John said he must decrease and Christ must increase. So were the Gentiles saved before water baptism or not ? I think it clear they received the baptism of the holy ghost prior to water baptism, even though they got water baptised after receiving the Holy Ghost. I believe it's entirely possible to receive a gift of the Holy Spirit without being saved. But even if they were saved prior to baptism, they were still baptized. There is no such thing in the New Testament as an unbaptized believer. quote: Now is not there only one baptism. So which is it Water or the Spirit? I don't believe they are different baptisms, so I agree there is only one baptism. It's physical aspect is water -- it's spiritual aspect is the Holy Spirit. One baptism with physical and spiritual properties.

kelman -> RE: Are you saved but not baptized? (6/23/2008 4:05:16 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: greatdivide46 Yes, Christ does wash is from sin in his own blood and this happens when we are baptized (Romans 6:3-4) First, these verses make no reference to water. Second, they're speaking of the washing away of our sins that occurs when we become saved. Burial does not identify with immersion. Burial identifies with death. It is the evidence that death has occurred. Water has absolutely nothing to do with Christ paying for our sins or death. We were washed of our sins because Christ in His death took our sins upon Himself - He paid the penalty. That penalty was not immersion. It was the second death, eternal damnation. Therefore, it was as if those He came to save were actually experiencing the second death. So, the phrase "buried with him by baptism into death" teaches that we are washed of our sins because we were completely and perfectly identified with Jesus as He suffered the second death, eternal damnation, on our behalf . Again, water is irrelevant to all of the above. quote: quote: Peter tells us in Acts 11:13-15 that Cornelius was not saved(did not have his sins washed away) until the Holy Ghost fell upon him. I see that those verses say the Holy Spirit fell on him, but I don't see anything in those three verses that indicate that his sins were washed away by that occurence. The entire account of Cornelius from Acts 10 through Acts 11 is insistent that he became saved after Peter spoke the words of the Gospel to him and when the Holy Spirit fell upon him. And, to become saved means your sins have been forgiven. Frankly, I fail to see how God could have written Acts 10 and 11 more clearly with regard to Cornelius.

kelman -> RE: Are you saved but not baptized? (6/23/2008 4:06:51 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: hellohellohi I am lazy and haven't read this whole thread, but what about Luke 3:16: 16John answered them all, "I baptize you with water. But one more powerful than I will come, the thongs of whose sandals I am not worthy to untie. He will baptize you with the Holy Spirit and with fire. ? Perhaps some are baptized with water and some with fire? You are exactly correct. The only baptism that saves is the one performed by the Holy Spirit. The fire refers to the burnt offering that Jesus was to become as He endured the wrath of God on our behalf which provided the cleansing from our sins. Water can provide nothing.

greatdivide46 -> RE: Are you saved but not baptized? (6/23/2008 11:47:21 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: kelman First, these verses make no reference to water. Second, they're speaking of the washing away of our sins that occurs when we become saved. Burial does not identify with immersion. Burial identifies with death. It is the evidence that death has occurred. Water has absolutely nothing to do with Christ paying for our sins or death. Certainly Romans 6:3-4 refers to baptism, therefore it refers to water. They are indeed speaking of the washing away of our sins that occurs when we become saved. And, of course, burial does indeed identify with immersion as well as it identifies with death. Burial is indeed evidence that death has occurred. Of course, water doesn't have anything to do with Christ paying for our sins, but it does have to do with the death of our sinful nature, but only insofar as that death occurs when we are buried in the water of baptism.

kelman -> RE: Are you saved but not baptized? (6/26/2008 4:30:35 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: greatdivide46 quote: ORIGINAL: kelman First, these verses make no reference to water. Second, they're speaking of the washing away of our sins that occurs when we become saved. Burial does not identify with immersion. Burial identifies with death. It is the evidence that death has occurred. Water has absolutely nothing to do with Christ paying for our sins or death. Certainly Romans 6:3-4 refers to baptism, therefore it refers to water. There is no mention of water. You are simply making a presuppositon. quote: They are indeed speaking of the washing away of our sins that occurs when we become saved. Yes, and we see the washing away of our sins(becoming saved) has nothing to do with water. It is simply not mentioned in the text nor is it even implied. quote: And, of course, burial does indeed identify with immersion as well as it identifies with death. Burial refers to death - not immersion. If you believe Scripture teaches burial=immersion, please present some evidence for that. quote: Burial is indeed evidence that death has occurred. Of course, water doesn't have anything to do with Christ paying for our sins, but it does have to do with the death of our sinful nature, but only insofar as that death occurs when we are buried in the water of baptism. The only time the death of our sinful nature occurs is when our spirit is "quickened" and that has nothing to do with water. Being "buried with with Christ" is to forgiven of our sins because He paid the penalty; but, it is as if WE paid the penalty(substitution) and were "buried with him". The idea of going down into the water with our sins and coming up out of the water without our sins is foreign to the Bible.

greatdivide46 -> RE: Are you saved but not baptized? (6/26/2008 9:38:39 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: kelman quote: ORIGINAL: greatdivide46 quote: ORIGINAL: kelman First, these verses make no reference to water. Second, they're speaking of the washing away of our sins that occurs when we become saved. Burial does not identify with immersion. Burial identifies with death. It is the evidence that death has occurred. Water has absolutely nothing to do with Christ paying for our sins or death. Certainly Romans 6:3-4 refers to baptism, therefore it refers to water. There is no mention of water. You are simply making a presuppositon. Actually, I discovered that I was making a presupposition. I was coming to Romans 6:3-4 supposing that baptism didn't have anything to do with water. But as I studied I discovered that the word "baptizo" is used absolutely, to administer the right of ablution, to baptize. Therefore, with my presupposition blasted out of the water (no pun intended), I came to believe that baptism always refers to water baptism unless there's some reason in the context that would prevent that understanding. In this text (Romand 6:3-4) the presupposition is that baptism doesn't mean baptism in water.

greatdivide46 -> RE: Are you saved but not baptized? (6/26/2008 9:48:03 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: kelman Burial refers to death - not immersion. If you believe Scripture teaches burial=immersion, please present some evidence for that. I don't know. It just seems like common sense to me. If someone dies and they are buried that are completely covered up in the dirt. The reference to baptism as a burial with Christ would seem to underscore that fact. The burial is not the important aspect of baptism, though. In fact, the dying and rising with Christ are the main elements of baptism; burial is in a sense only incidental to these. In other words, the main point is the full and unbroken sequence of death, burial, and resurrection, all of which are represented by the single act of baptism. I don't know how people can argue against immersion as the only form of baptism that pictures this whole sequence. It seems to me that no other form even comes close. Thus, this connection must be intentional. God appointed immersion for this purpose because of its unique ability visually to represent death, burial and resurrection -- both Christ's and our own.

greatdivide46 -> RE: Are you saved but not baptized? (6/26/2008 9:55:16 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: kelman The idea of going down into the water with our sins and coming up out of the water without our sins is foreign to the Bible. I really used to believe that. But as I read and studied the word of God I found that, while our sins are washed away in baptism, it's not actually the act or the water itself that's washing away our sins. God washes our sins away when we follow his instructions and are baptized. But the baptism itself is only incidental to God's washing away our sins.

Linkoln -> RE: Are you saved but not baptized? (6/28/2008 10:01:10 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: greatdivide46 quote: ORIGINAL: kelman quote: ORIGINAL: greatdivide46 quote: ORIGINAL: kelman First, these verses make no reference to water. Second, they're speaking of the washing away of our sins that occurs when we become saved. Burial does not identify with immersion. Burial identifies with death. It is the evidence that death has occurred. Water has absolutely nothing to do with Christ paying for our sins or death. Certainly Romans 6:3-4 refers to baptism, therefore it refers to water. There is no mention of water. You are simply making a presuppositon. Actually, I discovered that I was making a presupposition. I was coming to Romans 6:3-4 supposing that baptism didn't have anything to do with water. But as I studied I discovered that the word "baptizo" is used absolutely, to administer the right of ablution, to baptize. Therefore, with my presupposition blasted out of the water (no pun intended), I came to believe that baptism always refers to water baptism unless there's some reason in the context that would prevent that understanding. In this text (Romand 6:3-4) the presupposition is that baptism doesn't mean baptism in water. The definition you gave for baptism is not how it is actually rendered in the Greek. I would suggest you or someone familiar with Greek parse out the first 5 verses of Romans 6. You also state that you believe that many references to baptism have to do with water. I would suggest to you that the downfall of the Restoration Movement and its neo semi-pelagian theology is its constant focus upon water baptism more than it focuses on the finished work of Christ and salvation that is by grace through faith.

FolkSingerBlues -> RE: Are you saved but not baptized? (6/28/2008 11:02:02 AM)
quote: I would suggest to you that the downfall of the Restoration Movement and its neo semi-pelagian theology is its constant focus upon water baptism more than it focuses on the finished work of Christ and salvation that is by grace through faith. I could some what agree with this statement. Because the RM doctrine was not based on water immersion, although they did and have continued to teach water immersion. The downfall of the RM is that it has lost it's identity. Meaning that the reason water immersion was/is taught is because that is a clear example that we have. The example being that those who believed shortly followed with water baptism. The argument that "baptism" doesn't always mean water immersion is an argument of opinion and we clearly see that those opinions run amuck and continue to cause division. Alexander Campbell, Raccoon John Smith, Barton Stone and the early RM leaders came to accept water immersion as baptism and the nest step in a believers confession and walk with Christ. When they were asked "why, what does it do?" they would offer insight as to what God used water baptism to do or to accomplish. They readily accepted that not everyone would see it that way and continued to accept those who felt otherwise into communion with them. They only asked that people who preached stuck to the factual evidence that the model offered in the NT was believers followed with baptism. When one reduces baptism to "an outward sign of an inward change" that is not something that is taught clearly in Scripture, nor is the sinners prayer. The answer to what Baptism does is found or it's purpose, according to the RM principles in Acts 2:38; Acts 22:16, Mark 16:16; 1 Peter 3:21; Romans 6:3; Galations 3:27 and 1 Corinthians 12:13. Whether one agrees fully or not with that stance it is evident that there is strong support among those Scripture for the purpose of Baptism according to the RM WITHOUT DOING SPIRITUAL GYMNASTICS with the verse. So the failure of the RM has been the laziness of it's followers in recent years to understand the principles of the Restoration Movement. I also subscribe that God uses Baptism to wash away sins and Baptism is an agent that God chose, not man. So basically the answer to "why, what does it do?" is there. That may be debated (as it clearly is debated) but the teaching of it as following a believers confession/acceptance of Christ can't be debated objectively. That eliminates the need for explaining whether Cornelius was saved before he was baptized etc. Of course that leads us to the whole debate over whether baptism is a process of immersion or sprinkling etc. The RM principles have not failed, but those of us as a whole who are members of the RM thinking have not applied ourselves to the understanding of the principles. Opinions are not the focus of the RM (although it seems they have become to be such) it's trying to follow the early churches methods as opposed to explaining them away.

loveineffable -> RE: Are you saved but not baptized? (6/28/2008 11:46:19 AM)
I thought that water baptism's purpose, when it started with John, baptizing with water. Was for John to announce the messiah when he showed and baptised him. He told the israelites their Messiah has arrived. They did not believe him. From then on John's bsptism was decreasing, and Christ was increasing. John even said these things, he was there to baptise the messiah and tell the others that there messiah has come. His Job finished when after Christ was baptised. Now again all john even said that he baptised with water, but the messiah baptises with the Holy Ghost and with fire, not water. Just food for thought here ineffable love

FolkSingerBlues -> RE: Are you saved but not baptized? (6/28/2008 2:00:04 PM)
You are right, that is food for thought. We do see evidence that the disciples continued to baptize others while Christ was accompanying them. Isn't the fact that they continued baptizing on the Day of Pentecost important? They didn't cease baptizing, they continued to baptize.

greatdivide46 -> RE: Are you saved but not baptized? (6/29/2008 12:19:15 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Linkoln The definition you gave for baptism is not how it is actually rendered in the Greek. I would suggest you or someone familiar with Greek parse out the first 5 verses of Romans 6. You also state that you believe that many references to baptism have to do with water. I would suggest to you that the downfall of the Restoration Movement and its neo semi-pelagian theology is its constant focus upon water baptism more than it focuses on the finished work of Christ and salvation that is by grace through faith. Actually, the definition I gave for baptism was straight out of a Greek-English lexicon and not my own definition at all. And believe it or not I have parsed out the first 5 verses of Romans 6 and I found that my presupposition that there was no water there was in error. Yes, I do believe that many references to baptism have to do with water, but not all references to baptism. Actually, I don't see a downfall in the Restoration Movement at all. The Restoration Movement actually has more churches of over 1,000 in attendance than many other church movements. Not that membership in and of itself makes the Restoration Movement right, but they must be doing something right to have so many large churches. And frankly, I've been in Restoration Movement churches for over 40 years and I have yet to be a member of one that emphasized water baptism more than the finished work of Christ and that salvation is by grace through faith. Not that I doubt that there are some that do that, but I've never seen one.

greatdivide46 -> RE: Are you saved but not baptized? (6/29/2008 12:24:16 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: loveineffable Now again all john even said that he baptised with water, but the messiah baptises with the Holy Ghost and with fire, not water. While I agree that John said that he indeed baptized with water, but the Messiah would baptize with the Holy Ghost and with fire, I don't see the phrase "not water" anywhere in that particular passage.

MrFribbles -> RE: Are you saved but not baptized? (6/29/2008 1:29:44 AM)
quote: While I agree that John said that he indeed baptized with water, but the Messiah would baptize with the Holy Ghost and with fire, I don't see the phrase "not water" anywhere in that particular passage. If I were to say to you, "Fred will come by plane, but George will come by train and automobile," would you assume that George was also going to be taking a plane? I would imagine not. Similarly, this particular passage nowhere says "not chocolate syrup," "not molten iron," or "not Cherry Coke," so can we then assume that Christ baptizes with these, too? The Greek word for "but" shows a strong contrast, and leaves little room for one subject (in this case, water) moving over into the other phrase. When it says fire and Spirit, it means just fire and Spirit. While this verse certainly doesn't discredit the practice of Christian water baptism, it does, I feel, give strong credit to the notion that, when a passage seems to indicate baptism for salvation, it is referring to this baptism of Christ - that is, a Spiritual baptism. note: Sorry for jumping in in the middle of a discussion like this. greatdivide, I'm not sure what point you're trying to make with what I quoted there, so if my response makes no sense, I apologize, and would enjoy a clarification on where you stand and what you are trying to argue for

kelman -> RE: Are you saved but not baptized? (6/29/2008 2:30:27 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: greatdivide46 quote: ORIGINAL: kelman quote: ORIGINAL: greatdivide46 quote: ORIGINAL: kelman First, these verses make no reference to water. Second, they're speaking of the washing away of our sins that occurs when we become saved. Burial does not identify with immersion. Burial identifies with death. It is the evidence that death has occurred. Water has absolutely nothing to do with Christ paying for our sins or death. Certainly Romans 6:3-4 refers to baptism, therefore it refers to water. There is no mention of water. You are simply making a presuppositon. Actually, I discovered that I was making a presupposition. I was coming to Romans 6:3-4 supposing that baptism didn't have anything to do with water. Those suppositions can get us into trouble, can't they? Of course, water is connected with baptism - sometimes. quote: But as I studied I discovered that the word "baptizo" is used absolutely, to administer the right of ablution, to baptize. Another problem when we employ presuppositions is that we don't always complete our study. To take but one example from among many, the following shows that baptizo and baptisma are frequently unrelated to water and immersion. I am come to send fire on the earth; and what will I, if it be already kindled? 50 But I have a baptism to be baptized with; and how am I straitened till it be accomplished! -Luke 12:49-50 And obviously, Christ spoke these word well after He was baptized (baptizo) with water in Luke 3. quote: In this text (Romand 6:3-4) the presupposition is that baptism doesn't mean baptism in water. Actually, that would be a presupposition until further study was done to determine precisely what these verses mean. And when we do, we find the phrase "buried with him by baptism into death" teaches that we are washed of our sins because we were completely and perfectly identified with Jesus as He suffered the second death, eternal damnation, on our behalf. All of which has nothing to do with water or immersion; but everything to do with the Atonement.

kelman -> RE: Are you saved but not baptized? (6/29/2008 2:32:39 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: greatdivide46 quote: ORIGINAL: kelman Burial refers to death - not immersion. If you believe Scripture teaches burial=immersion, please present some evidence for that. I don't know. It just seems like common sense to me. If someone dies and they are buried that are completely covered up in the dirt. The reference to baptism as a burial with Christ would seem to underscore that fact. It underscores the fact that we are buried with him because we are baptized into His death, iow, completely identified with Him as He died for our sins. But this "baptized" doesn't refer to water, it refers to having our sins "washed away" which IS another way baptisma is translated. quote: The burial is not the important aspect of baptism, though. In fact, the dying and rising with Christ are the main elements of baptism; burial is in a sense only incidental to these. In other words, the main point is the full and unbroken sequence of death, burial, and resurrection, all of which are represented by the single act of baptism. I don't know how people can argue against immersion as the only form of baptism that pictures this whole sequence. You said it yourself it is a "representation" which makes it not the substance. There are many reasons why immersion can be argued against. One reason is because water baptism is only the representation, shadow or picture of the true substance when our sins are washed away by the Holy Spirit. Water need play no part in this. Another reason is because Scripture never in any shape, way or form demands immersion. One more is because the word baptizo means to wash or cleanse - as in wash the dirt off the table(Mark 7:4). quote: It seems to me that no other form even comes close. Thus, this connection must be intentional. God appointed immersion for this purpose because of its unique ability visually to represent death, burial and resurrection -- both Christ's and our own. But, God has not "appointed immersion". To say that He has "appointed immersion" is, in fact, a presuppostion because there is no scriptural support for it.

kelman -> RE: Are you saved but not baptized? (6/29/2008 2:40:26 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: greatdivide46 quote: ORIGINAL: kelman The idea of going down into the water with our sins and coming up out of the water without our sins is foreign to the Bible. I really used to believe that. For good reason, because it is, in fact, foreign to the Bible. quote: But as I read and studied the word of God I found that, while our sins are washed away in baptism, it's not actually the act or the water itself that's washing away our sins. But, we do not find in the Bible that our sins are washed away in water baptism. quote: God washes our sins away when we follow his instructions and are baptized. But the baptism itself is only incidental to God's washing away our sins. Basically, you follow the same path as the "faith" people do, those whom you correctly see as being wrong in their theology. Their sins are washed away when they believe, your's are washed away when you get immersed - no difference between the two groups. You both have God's regeneration dependent upon the acts you perform.

greatdivide46 -> RE: Are you saved but not baptized? (6/29/2008 8:18:39 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Mr. Fribbles If I were to say to you, "Fred will come by plane, but George will come by train and automobile," would you assume that George was also going to be taking a plane? I would imagine not. Similarly, this particular passage nowhere says "not chocolate syrup," "not molten iron," or "not Cherry Coke," so can we then assume that Christ baptizes with these, too? You're right. I wouldn't assume that George was also going to be taking a plane -- unless I had a letter from George or someone else that said he was taking a plane. In that case just because you didn't mention that George was also taking plane, I wouldn't discount the other information I had and assume that George was not taking a plane. In the same way, just because water is not mentioned in this passage, doesn't mean that I can discount other passages that do mention water. As far as "chocolate syrup," "molten iron," and "cherry Coke" I would agree, since I don't see those mentioned elsewhere in scripture. (Although, I have to admit, I wouldn't mind if chocolate syrup and cherry Coke were. You can keep the molten iron, though.) [:)] I appreciate your comments. My only point in mentioning the "not water" phrase not being there is that saying it in that context is adding to scripture. It may be that the author of that phrase added it to make a point, but the fact is, it's not there.

loveineffable -> RE: Are you saved but not baptized? (6/29/2008 10:24:43 AM)
Did not Saul who became Paul, follow tradition and learned to count it all rubbish, traditions that is? Does not Collossions speak on no longer under traditons of man? Did Peter liked to be liked, did he do things for attention, was he he human? Yes they continued in things they thought were right, at the time. Does that make it true, when Acts is a history of the things that happened in that day We as people make doctrine out of it. So let us say that the gentiles were saved through the radio preaching. Does that mean that is how one must be saved only through radio preaching? I think not God is not in a box, or hidden inside a church buildng, waiting for man to do his traditions, as if we are in control. The only control we have is free choice. Believe or do not. The reactions are our results from what we believe. The Lady knew all she had to do was touch his garment and she would be healed. And she was, because she believed. and Jesus confirmed it was her faith (belief) in him. But we have traditions and we are free from traditions of man. So let us all continue to walk in love God's that is not our own. ineffable love quote: ORIGINAL: FolkSingerBlues You are right, that is food for thought. We do see evidence that the disciples continued to baptize others while Christ was accompanying them. Isn't the fact that they continued baptizing on the Day of Pentecost important? They didn't cease baptizing, they continued to baptize.

MrFribbles -> RE: Are you saved but not baptized? (6/29/2008 10:59:22 PM)
quote: (Although, I have to admit, I wouldn't mind if chocolate syrup and cherry Coke were. You can keep the molten iron, though.) Mmm... Well, to the chocolate syrup. I'm pretty sure Cherry Coke would get sticky, and the iron just wouldn't be too good. ; ) quote: My only point in mentioning the "not water" phrase not being there is that saying it in that context is adding to scripture. It may be that the author of that phrase added it to make a point, but the fact is, it's not there. Gotcha. That makes sense. Thanks!

Wskybtl -> RE: Are you saved but not baptized? (7/3/2008 7:26:02 PM)
Not being baptized in water, don�t stop one from having the spirit. In John 6:63 we are told that the words Jesus spoke to us are spirit. When Jesus stood upon the mount and spoke The Sermon on the Mount, just as His Father had stood upon the mount when Israel was given the Ten Commandments Just as the Ten Commandments is the spirit (breath) of God. The Sermon on the Mount is Jesus� Commandments (spirit) that we are told to keep. He tells us that the flesh profits nothing. No there isn�t no cozy feeling by doing so. We do it just because He tells us to if we love Him. So I see anyone can have the spirit by excepting the engrafted word. Taking The Sermon on the Mount and �keeping� it as in retain possession of it. If we keep them as Jesus kept His Father�s, then we would wear them upon our forehead and hand. If Jesus is our true example, then yes, we should be water baptized, simply because He did. Is our salvation dependant upon it? I don�t think so But rather we consider Him our Lord by doing as He either told us to do, or by example. If we �keep� His Commandments, we show we love Him. By us being water baptized, we are saying by actions, that Jesus is our example. So to be baptized, and then let the spirit of Jesus rest upon you, would be, what I think, a public testimony that you see Jesus as Lord and Saviour. That�s the way I see it anyway. It seems one can walk in spirit (saved?) without baptism.

bob97 -> RE: Are you saved but not baptized? (7/4/2008 11:47:43 AM)
Amen Wskybtl... Bob

Dagwat -> RE: Are you saved but not baptized? (7/6/2008 10:06:09 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: GraceBro I am one who never got baptized after being saved. I left the church I attended at the time I was saved prior to being baptized. As I grew in my faith I realized that is a symbolic gesture not required for salvation or afterwards as an "act of obedience." The restoration of the spirit of life occurs the moment one accepts Christ by faith. Water baptism was carried over into the Church by the early Christians who were Jews. In Judaism, in order for a Gentile to become a Jew, they had to be baptized because they were thought to be "unclean." Naturally, this practice continued in the early Church. However, in Acts 10 and 11 you see Peter finally realize, after his vision, that Gentiles could receive the Holy Spirit apart from being baptised. As was mentioned before, there is only "one baptism." You have the baptism of the Holy Spirit and water baptism. Only one saves. We have to ask ourselves some questions. Who died on the cross for our sins? Jesus. Who rose from the dead to offer us His life? Jesus. Who baptizes us with the Holy Spirit into the Body of Christ? Jesus. Who water baptizes us? Our pastor. I think you get my point. Grace and Peace AND.... JESUS WAS BAPTIZED IN WATER. JESUS taught all through His earthly ministry to be BAPTIZED IN WATER. JESUS commanded His disciples to be BAPTIZED IN WATER and to baptize other believers as well. It is apparent that the simple act of baptism does not save one's soul, but it does show obedience to God and the scripture. The thief on the cross was not baptized, but went to heaven. He was also not given the opportunity to be baptized. If you ARE given that opportunity, I suggest you be obedient and DO IT. Regardless your opinion on this subject I can tell you one thing: To speak against the need of water baptism is DISOBEDIENCE and it is also false doctrine. I would advise being very careful on sharing a "non-necessary" view on water baptism or anything else the scriptures ordains, as not to lead others astray on biblical commands of obedience. Bottom line: The Bible says to do it. Whether or not it is required to get into heaven, why not just do it and make sure you've got it taken care of? God's word tells us that "Obedience in greater than sacrifice". Obedience just covers all the bases and it also shows the world in whom we believe. I for one am a firm believer that when someone accepts Christ as their personal savior, they will WANT to follow through with all the things Christ taught, which includes being baptized in water, whether or they fully understand why He taught such.

Page: << < prev 31 32 [33] 34 35 next > >>

Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.5 ANSI