Water baptism, can you agree with this statement?

[mizpeh]

Originally Posted by Daniel Alicea

Since when is dying before someone takes one of the 'essential steps of salvation" foolish , unlearned or ... not possible?

It is the "WHAT IF" part of the question that I find foolish.

We know God is just. We know God is good. We know it is God's will that all men should be saved and come to the knowledge of the truth. We know that our times are in His hands. We know that God knows the hearts. Knowing these things about God, we can surmise that if someone is seeking God to be saved then God will make a way for that person to be saved and not allow circumstances to prevent that person from being saved.

[bishoph]

OK, Brethren I have watched this very weak attempt by some to explain away the necessity of water baptism, or at the very least to remove it from the plan of salvation long enough. I will start here to add my twenty dollars worth.

Lets start with a simple question. You have raised the John 3:5 issue (and=Kai which under certain conditions could be even, however, according to Granville Sharp's rule (which Bro. Sam referred to on another post) your argument is flawed.

Rule V.
And as also when there is no article (the) before the first noun, the insertion of the copulative kai before the next noun, or name, of the same case, denotes a different person or thing from the first: emphasis and () added

Here it is clearly established that since there is no "the" (article) preceding "water" Kai in this instance cannot mean "even," and in fact John is speaking of a different "person or thing" when he refers to Spirit.

Secondly a simple question if baptism is only symbolic, and is not part of the "salvation" plan, please explain why Peter commands one to be Baptized for the remission/Forgivness of sins?

[joyful]

Originally Posted by tbpew

I do not take [water] baptism "out of the equation" for proper Christian behavior. I do take it "out of the equation" for salvation before God.

I cannot agree with this statement. How can I take something "out of the equation for salvation" that the Bible has not taken out of the equation.

I believe that baptism in Jesus name is a part of our salvation. These scriptures are part of the reason that I do not think we can take baptism "out of the equation" when considering our salvation before God.


Mr 16:16
He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved; but he that believeth not shall be damned.

1 Peter 3:21
The like figure whereunto even baptism doth also now save us * (not the putting away of the filth of the flesh, but the answer of a good conscience toward God,) by the resurrection of Jesus Christ:

I believe that our sins are forgiven at repentance. I received the Holy Ghost before I was baptized in Jesus name. I had only repented. I do not think that that Jesus would have filled me with his Spirit if he had not first remitted my sins.

I believe that baptism is exactly what 1 Peter 3:21 says that it is - not the putting away of the filth of the flesh, but the answer of a good conscience toward God. I believe that our sins are remitted before God when we repent and that they are washed away before our own conscience when we are baptized and identified with Jesus through His Name and the symbol of his burial. We are publically declaring that we are dead to our old nature. As such baptism is vital to our walk with God and is tied into our salvation.

Disclaimer: I make no claims of scholarship. I'm simply sharing my personal views.

[tbpew]

D.A. provided the following in a post direct toward me

Here's my POV ....

You got spanked by Pelathais, Adino and myself in the KH Light Doctrine thead ... because of your lack of exegetical know-how

.... the logical, theological, and verbal acrobatics you demonstrated/exposed in said thread were pathetic and feeble at the very least.

and BTW ....We're still waiting on your exegesis of John 3 ... minus the vivid and colorful typologies we are to assume are in the chapter

Your verbosity as a word smith merely hides a lack of substance ... and your marginalization and appeals to authority in this little 3 step love-fest thread ... may embolden your propensity to lash out here... but when your ready to get schooled again ... visit us on the KH Light Doctrine thread.

Lastly, your lack of understanding of the depth, layers and history of this debate on this forum and for the last century among Oneness Pentecostals was exposed in this last post.

A post such as this screams of a poster who has set out to understand the things of God with the mind of a caged fighter. It can not be done. If there is no shared premise and one would attempt to following his prodding, the minutiae will only sow strife. If we don’t agree at 10,000 feet, the microscope will be a supreme waste of effort that will tear open space where contention can flourish.

I have copied your entire post to give others another opportunity to review your words for style and content. I discuss things from the ‘premise’ level, you demand prooftexting. When you get it (from others), you return with snipes formed to divide man from man.

John 3:5 speaks of a new/second birth that is established by the same two immutable witnesses that every seed demonstrates;
1.burial of the former/old state is required
2.newness will emerge with a transformation from the old

Your words teach others to discount, or even discard, the way of deliverance from our former captivity, made available through the waters of baptism. Your teaching is inviting people to accept the Lord Jesus as their personal saviour, while doing nothing to follow the exodus path that same Lord and saviour provided.

You are opposing yourself, forsaking the counsels of the Spirit and trusting instead cisterns that you have hewn out of rhetoric to supply your thirst. I believe you have great thirst.

Let those who read this and all posts here at AFF, judge for themselves concerning the spirit is which they are submitted.

[tbpew]

D.A. or any one else who teaches that water baptism is a vain atttempt by men to teach re-enactment of Calvary....

Is the receipt of the Holy Ghost another effort on the part of people to re-enact the resurrection that our Lord and Saviour provided at Calvary?

If water baptism is a re-enactment effort, and thus worthy of being discarded, what else can be discarded?

[chseeads]

I'm not sure that I could classify the initial repentance of an unbeliever who for the first time is coming to Christ as a time when God forgives you.

Repentance is actually an act on our own part to make the decision to turn away from our sins and turn toward God.

The next step that should readily follow hand in hand with that is submission to baptism in Jesus' name at which point your sins are remitted, washed away. Jesus said that repentance and remission of sin should be preached in His name. Repentance takes place, remission is to immediately follow.

For future times of repentance when the believer that's already been baptized needs to confess his errors to God, he's staking his faith in the washing away of sin that he's already submitted himself to, and if we confess, He forgives.

[bishoph]

Originally Posted by bishoph

OK, Brethren I have watched this very weak attempt by some to explain away the necessity of water baptism, or at the very least to remove it from the plan of salvation long enough. I will start here to add my twenty dollars worth.

Lets start with a simple question. You have raised the John 3:5 issue (and=Kai which under certain conditions could be even, however, according to Granville Sharp's rule (which Bro. Sam referred to on another post) your argument is flawed.

Rule V.
And as also when there is no article (the) before the first noun, the insertion of the copulative kai before the next noun, or name, of the same case, denotes a different person or thing from the first: emphasis and () added

Here it is clearly established that since there is no "the" (article) preceding "water" Kai in this instance cannot mean "even," and in fact John is speaking of a different "person or thing" when he refers to Spirit.

Secondly a simple question if baptism is only symbolic, and is not part of the "salvation" plan, please explain why Peter commands one to be Baptized for the remission/Forgivness of sins?

[Darcie]

Originally Posted by Pastor Poster

Honestly, we're all sick of trying to debate something that we know to be true. Especially when the vitriol is running so deep on this thread. The truth is you blasphemers and purveyors of "anything goes" theology have ears that are plugged to sound doctrine.

Look, I have watched this thread and noticed how casually you have spoken about the blood of Christ. As if it were something to be bargained over? You should be ashamed of yourselves for profaning holy things.

And you wonder why no one wants to dialogue with you?

Hello?

Are you really that stupid?

Was that really necessary PP?

[Nahum]

Originally Posted by Darcie

Was that really necessary PP?

It absolutely was.

The "how many coats" of blood does it take was way out of line, and in my estimation - quite profane.

[Nahum]

Originally Posted by tbpew

D.A. provided the following in a post direct toward me


A post such as this screams of a poster who has set out to understand the things of God with the mind of a caged fighter. It can not be done. If there is no shared premise and one would attempt to following his prodding, the minutiae will only sow strife. If we don’t agree at 10,000 feet, the microscope will be a supreme waste of effort that will tear open space where contention can flourish.

I have copied your entire post to give others another opportunity to review your words for style and content. I discuss things from the ‘premise’ level, you demand prooftexting. When you get it (from others), you return with snipes formed to divide man from man.

John 3:5 speaks of a new/second birth that is established by the same two immutable witnesses that every seed demonstrates;
1.burial of the former/old state is required
2.newness will emerge with a transformation from the old

Your words teach others to discount, or even discard, the way of deliverance from our former captivity, made available through the waters of baptism. Your teaching is inviting people to accept the Lord Jesus as their personal saviour, while doing nothing to follow the exodus path that same Lord and saviour provided.

You are opposing yourself, forsaking the counsels of the Spirit and trusting instead cisterns that you have hewn out of rhetoric to supply your thirst. I believe you have great thirst.

Let those who read this and all posts here at AFF, judge for themselves concerning the spirit is which they are submitted.

bump