Re: Baptism -- Qohelet Web Ministry

[ Show ]

Support VoyForums

[ Shrink ]

VoyForums Announcement: Programming and providing support for this service has been a labor of love since 1997. We are one of the few services online who values our users' privacy, and have never sold your information. We have even fought hard to defend your privacy in legal cases; however, we've done it with almost no financial support -- paying out of pocket to continue providing the service. Due to the issues imposed on us by advertisers, we also stopped hosting most ads on the forums many years ago. We hope you appreciate our efforts.

Show your support by donating any amount. (Note: We are still technically a for-profit company, so your contribution is not tax-deductible.) PayPal Acct: Feedback:

Donate to VoyForums (PayPal):

[ Login ] [ Contact Forum Admin ] [ Main index ] [ Post a new message ] [ Search | Check update time ]

[ Next Thread | Previous Thread | Next Message | Previous Message ]

Date Posted: 00:45:47 04/07/02 Sun
Author: Jay Dee
Subject: Re: Baptism
In reply to: Richard 's message, "Re: Baptism" on 23:20:10 04/06/02 Sat

In the Actual application of Acts 2:36-40--Baptism is the vechicle given to man by God for man to have the forgiveness of one's sins.. Thus it is the outcome of faith--which it should be

On this we are in agreement. It is the demonstration of our faith intially.

My response--but should we not keep firmly in mind--that God did not leave it up to us as men as to how we decide to demostrate our faith.

I agree once again. Perhaps I did not communicate this very well.

My response--perhaps for you and I this is not an issue but for Rick--it sure enough is an issue and there may be others--There are in scriptures under the new covenant--and if I am wrong here, please feel free to point it out to me--where any person at any time was saved without baptism. And that includes Cornelius and his household.

I didn't say that a person under the New Covenant was saved "without" baptism. I did speak of Cornelius and an apparent salvation "before" baptism.

He obviously had received the Holy Spirit. He obviously believed. The "normal" pattern was a reception of the Holy Spirit "after" baptism. But Cornelius was a special case. This marked the beginning of the gentile mission in the book of Acts. However, it wasn't until the ministry of Paul that a concerted effort was made to bring the Gospel to the gentiles. It took that long for the disciples to fulfill the great commission to make disciples of all the "nations." It took that long for them to become witnesses for Jesus past Judea and Samaria to the ends of the earth. It wasn't happening, so guess what? God had to do something unusual. He had to have a messenger tell Peter to go to a gentile, and had to pour out his spirit on him before it finally got in Peter's thick head and the thick heads of the rest that the kingdom was for the gentiles too.

My response--Let's just think about this a tad--Whether one views baptism in any way--did not the folks on the day of Pentecost viewed baptism as the "mechanism" for being justified. At least 3,000 or so did because that is what they did.

Okay, I expressed this very poorly. Let me restate it. We should not take a mechanical view of salvation. God is not a "salvation machine" who dispenses salvation when we put in the coin (ie: baptism). He is a gracious and merciful being who sent Jesus to the cross for us. The object of our faith is Christ and the way we demonstrate our faith is faithful obedience to God. This "initially" includes an immersion in water which signifies our own "death" and the "washing away" of our sins.
I wasn't trying to say that baptism does not save, rather I was trying to say that the object of our faith is Jesus as crucified and risen Lord.

My response--Why is it then as it is in scripture as you state{and, it is] that men are not doing such in order to be saved? While I am not in strong favor of the five acts of conversion--ONe must start somewhere--granted it may not be with faith in each case or with confession--but it will always end with baptism. And since the one being taught may never know of the five acts to be converted--You and I and other Christians know that--but most of the world does not even care.

Again, I may have stated it poorly. I stated that there was not a "formula" for conversion. What I meant by that was that the New Testament is not consistent in mentioning EACH AND EVERY part of our faith response in connection to our conversion. About the only thing that is consistently mentioned is faith. Sometimes baptism is mentioned. Other times repentance, or confession, or both. The bible emphasizes faith. The other things such as baptism and repentance are assumed. This statement goes along with my statement about a "mechanistic view" of salvation.

My response--there is a much better solution to the thief on the cross that you over time give consideration to..

In the earthly minstry of Jesus --on several occassions He forgave men\women their sins without benefit of John's baptism--right?

I know this aboout the thief on the cross--he knew a whole lot about Jesus Christ--Whether or not the thief was ever baptized with the baptism of John we will never ever know and it doen'st matter--since while on earth--Jesus has demostrated an ability and willingness to forgive sins without baptism in certain cases..

I also know that the thief died on that cross like fifty day prior to the giving of Acts 2 so there was no way in this world that the thief could of ever ever been under the new covenant..

On the other hand, no one living today lived under that old covenenat--so all men Jews AND Gentiles are to be added to the body of Christ in the same way from Pentecost forward.

Read Mark 2:1-12. Jesus has the authority to forgive sins. If Jesus looked into that man's heart, knew he had genuine faith, does he not have the right to forgive him right then and there? Or would he say, "Sorry, you were never baptized, you never showed fruits of repentance." That theif did not have the ability to come down off the cross and demonstrate his faith. He certainly would have if he could have, otherwise Jesus would not have forgiven him.

My response--under the new covenant--If God made just one--just one exception--then that opens the door for every other condemned human being to plead their case. What God did many times in the Old Testament under the Old Covenant is past--Can you find one exception to a person being saved without water immersion from Acts 2 forward. Even Paul the apostle had to be immersed in order to do the Lord's Work.

You and I know that God does not change. We have the same God before and the same God now. He made exceptions in the Old Testament, and I see two in the New. The theif and Cornelius. They were both unusual cases. God has always justified through faith, both in the old and in the new. The only difference is both the object of that faith, and how God has told us to excercise that faith.

I didn't say that Cornelius was saved "without" immersion, just that it appears that he was saved before it. God blessed him with the Spirit. He normally did not do that.

I'm not worried about "opening the door" for someone to plead their case. The door is not mine to open or close. It is God's. All I can do is preach and teach what is in his word. If a person want's to plead his case before God, that is between him and God. God will judge. In the meantime, I teach that God commands people to repent. God commands faith and baptism. God commands conversion to him. It is not for me to deviate from that. If God wants to be more merciful and do otherwise, that is his perogative. Like I said, we don't live by exceptions. I doubt a person really has faith if he "refuses" to be immersed. God will deal with him.

[ Next Thread | Previous Thread | Next Message | Previous Message ]

Replies:

Re: Baptism -- Richard, 16:23:04 04/07/02 Sun
- Re: Baptism -- Jay Dee, 14:03:11 04/10/02 Wed
  - Re: Baptism -- Richard, 15:49:26 04/11/02 Thu
    - Re: Baptism -- Jay Dee, 00:45:33 04/12/02 Fri