Salvation - Part 2

[Albion]

No, water is not implied. The word, baptizo, is a common Greek word, meaning...to immerse.

We have already covered this.

It means literally to immerse or wash or dip. It does not mean to be "involved with" or to "get with the program", etc. Besides that, we have the New Testament references to real water used in connection with Baptism...which you want merely to ignore.

 

[Josiah]

I asked a simple question. Does water baptism save you?

Read post 35. You have been answered on this dozens and dozens of times, over and over..... and yet....

 

[MennoSota]

We have already covered this.

It means literally to immerse or wash or dip. It does not mean to be "involved with" or to "get with the program", etc. Besides that, we have the New Testament references to real water used in connection with Baptism...which you want merely to ignore.

Right. So when the Bible tells us we are baptized into Christ, it means immersed into Christ, not immersed into water.
We have been washed by the blood of the Lamb, not by water.
What I am pointing out is the automatic insertion of water, everytime we read the word baptism. That auto-reflex is not contextually accurate. When water is used, the context and events prove it to be so. When water is not used, we cannot "imply" water into the context without being in danger of creating a false narrative.

 

[MennoSota]

Read post 35. You have been answered on this dozens and dozens of times, over and over..... and yet....

No, you have not answered the simple question. You have dodged the question and deflected the question. You are doing it once again in the response I now quote.
Why is it so hard for you to answer a simple question, straight up?
Perhaps it's because you know baptism does not save, yet in answering such, you must disagree with your churches official dogma. I can see the conflict in your deflections.

 

[Josiah]

Right. So when the Bible tells us we are baptized into Christ, it means immersed into Christ, not immersed into water.
We have been washed by the blood of the Lamb, not by water.
What I am pointing out is the automatic insertion of water, everytime we read the word baptism. That auto-reflex is not contextually accurate. When water is used, the context and events prove it to be so. When water is not used, we cannot "imply" water into the context without being in danger of creating a false narrative.

IF you actually held to your position, then you would be opposed to all water baptism.... yet you aren't. IF you actually believed that Baptism is ONLY spiritual and does not involve water, then you forbid ALL water baptisms, even deny such a thing even exits or ever existed in Christian times, you'd not use the word "baptism" for anything involving water or anything physical - but you don't. I suspect here too you don't believe your own position. I suspect your church has a BAPTISM tank and performs BAPTISMS involving water.

The Bible says there is ONE baptism. ONE. Not none or two or three or four. And it uses the term to refer to WATER. So, unless the Bible is wrong about there being ONE baptism or wrong when it refers to water, then baptism refers to water..... and ALSO Christ and the Holy Spirit.

 

[Josiah]

Why is it so hard for you to answer a simple question, straight up?

I have. Over and over and over and over. Read post 35 (only the last time I answered your question). You seem to think if you endlessly parrot the same absurd question (answered MANY, MANY, MANY times) therefore you make some mysterious point. You don't. You just reveal you don't read where your silly question is answered.


Here's what I've posted to you over and over and over and over ... since you came to this site..... and as others have answered you, too. "AGAIN, yet again, trying still one more time..... There is ONE (and only one) Savior, and He is Jesus. Jesus is THE (one and only and all-sufficient) Savior. But I reject your premise that if any means is involved, God is rendered impotent to save... indeed, I think that typically God works via means (in fact, I can't think of one clear case in the Bible or in 2000 years of history where that's not the case). Just because some means is involved doesn't mean Jesus didn't do it. When my son was born, I gave God 100% of the glory and credit - GOD GAVE this child to us (but I know enough biology that He employed some act on our part). "Tools in the hands of the carpenter." So, the Bible is not wrong when it says "Baptism now saves you" or "salvation comes by hearing the word" - for God uses means, but yes, indeed, absolutely, as so many of us have posted to you over and over and over: there is ONE Savior, He is Jesus, Jesus does ALL the Saving, there is salvation in no other. We just disagree with you than unless this is by PURE FIAT (no human said or did or shared ANYTHING) - purely out of thin air - then Jesus can't save, Jesus is rendered impotent. I guess maybe we just have a bigger God than you? Or maybe this concept of Means of Grace (also taught in Calvinism) is just not understood by you. "

you must disagree with your churches official dogma.

No. Nor do I disagree with the Scripture, "Baptism now saves you" and "faith comes by hearing." The Scriptures there do NOT deny that Jesus is the Savior, any more than Lutherans do. I simply agree that God conveys the gift of faith typically via MEANS, that God may use some tool doesn't negate that it's God doing it. Your premise is silly (and unbiblical).




.

 

[MoreCoffee]

Since the Lord, Jesus Christ, died for the sins of the whole world as the holy scriptures say:

1 John 2:1-6 My little children, I am writing this to you so that you may not sin; but if any one does sin, we have an advocate with the Father, Jesus Christ the righteous; 2 and he is the expiation for our sins, and not for ours only but also for the sins of the whole world. 3 And by this we may be sure that we know him, if we keep his commandments. 4 He who says "I know him" but disobeys his commandments is a liar, and the truth is not in him; 5 but whoever keeps his word, in him truly love for God is perfected. By this we may be sure that we are in him: 6 he who says he abides in him ought to walk in the same way in which he walked.​

And since God wants all men to be saved as the holy scriptures say:

I Timothy 2:1-15 1 And so I beg you, first of all, to make supplications, prayers, petitions, and thanksgivings for all men, 2 for kings, and for all who are in high places, so that we may lead a quiet and tranquil life in all piety and chastity. 3 For this is good and acceptable in the sight of God our Saviour, 4 who wants all men to be saved and to arrive at an acknowledgement of the truth. 5 For there is one God, and one mediator of God and of men, the man Christ Jesus, 6 who gave himself as a redemption for all, as a testimony in its proper time. 7 Of this testimony, I have been appointed a preacher and an Apostle, (I speak the truth, I do not lie) as a teacher of the Gentiles, in faith and in truth. 8 Therefore, I want men to pray in every place, lifting up pure hands, without anger or dissension. 9 Similarly also, women should be dressed fittingly, adorning themselves with compunction and restraint, and not with plaited hair, nor gold, nor pearls, nor costly attire, 10 but in a manner proper for women who are professing piety by means of good works. 11 Let a woman learn in silence with all subjection. 12 For I do not permit a woman to teach, nor to be in authority over a man, but to be in silence. 13 For Adam was formed first, then Eve. 14 And Adam was not seduced, but the woman, having been seduced, was in transgression. 15 Yet she will be saved by bearing children, if she has continued in faith and love, and in sanctification accompanied by self-restraint.​

One wonders how the limited atonement theory can survive.

 

[MennoSota]

IF you actually held to your position, then you would be opposed to all water baptism.... yet you aren't. IF you actually believed that Baptism is ONLY spiritual and does not involve water, then you forbid ALL water baptisms, even deny such a thing even exits or ever existed in Christian times, you'd not use the word "baptism" for anything involving water or anything physical - but you don't. I suspect here too you don't believe your own position. I suspect your church has a BAPTISM tank and performs BAPTISMS involving water.

The Bible says there is ONE baptism. ONE. Not none or two or three or four. And it uses the term to refer to WATER. So, unless the Bible is wrong about there being ONE baptism or wrong when it refers to water, then baptism refers to water..... and ALSO Christ and the Holy Spirit.

Not at all. Water baptism is symbolic of what God already did. It is a witness to fellow saints and to sinners that God has immersed us into Christ.
What I am opposed to is teaching that water baptism magically saves a person as a ceremony before God and man. That teaching is dangerous in that men may trust in their baptism for salvation rather than in Christ the Savior. Dead men may imagine they are alive and thus be shocked when God condemns them in their sins.
It is no different than the horrible teaching that if one says the sinners prayer, they are saved. Both are hokum.

 

[Josiah]

Not at all. Water baptism is symbolic of what God already did. It is a witness to fellow saints and to sinners that God has immersed us into Christ.

A theory invented out-of-the-blue in the 16th Century by some wackadoodle German radical synergists.... with NOTHING in Scripture to REMOTELY support it (which is why you can't find any Scripture) - because the universal view for 1500+ years didn't fit with their radical synergism ("How can a baby do their part in the salvation of themselves?"). You are just echoing - endlessly - the new theory of the Anabaptist denomination with NOTHING to support it. Parroting the anti-Paedobaptism and credobapstism invented dogmas of those wackedoodle Germans (but rejecting the REASON they gave) with the silly premise that if something is not exampled in the Bible it can't be done (you say that by posting on the internet, go figure!).

 

[MennoSota]

A theory invented out-of-the-blue in the 16th Century by some wackadoodle German radical synergists.... with NOTHING in Scripture to REMOTELY support it (which is why you can't find any Scripture) - because the universal view for 1500+ years didn't fit with their radical synergism ("How can a baby do their part in the salvation of themselves?"). You are just echoing - endlessly - the new theory of the Anabaptist denomination with NOTHING to support it. Parroting the anti-Paedobaptism and credobapstism invented dogmas of those wackedoodle Germans (but rejecting the REASON they gave) with the silly premise that if something is not exampled in the Bible it can't be done (you say that by posting on the internet, go figure!).

It is no theory that was invented. That is your pad answer excuse to not engage scripture on the issue of baptism. It is your crutch, Josiah, to avoid studying baptism in the scripture and observe without bias.
If the text does not bring up water, read the text without adding water to the word, baptizo. Wrestle with the text, Josiah. This is your responsibility.

 

[Josiah]

It is no theory that was invented.

'

Two of them were invented (out of the blue) by those wackedoodle German extreme synergists- the Anabaptists. Anti-paedobaptism and credobaptism. They had NOTHING in the Bible to substantiated their two new inventions but then these new views didn't flow from any Scripture but from their radical synergism. These two dogmas NEVER existed before (and still are small minority views)

excuse to not engage scripture on the issue of baptism

You keep insisting we ignore everything but the words of Scripture. Okay. Just quote the Scripture for this new Anabaptist dogma of anti-paedobaptism ("Thou canst NOT baptize anyone unless and until they hath celebrated their Xth birthday." and the one for this new Anabaptist dogma of credobaptism ("Thou canst NOT baptize any unless and until they hath first chanted the Sinner's Prayer"). As soon as you do, we can discuss the verses for the new denominational inventions. But all you offer is the same synergistic ones of the Anabaptists ("how can a baby first ____________" "God can save no one unless and until the receiver can do x,y,x") and the same silly, absurd rubric you yourself reject ("It's not allowed to do anything that is not expressly illustrated as being done in the Bible") . And now your new one (not supported by the Anabaptists ("Thou canst NOT use water in Baptism"). You say we must go by the words of Scripture.... when you quote the Scriptues that support the two new dogmas of the Anabaptists (anti-paedobaptism and credo-baptism) and this new invention by you (no water allowed in baptism) - we can do that. But....

 

[MennoSota]

'

Two of them were invented (out of the blue) by those wackedoodle German extreme synergists- the Anabaptists. Anti-paedobaptism and credobaptism. They had NOTHING in the Bible to substantiated their two new inventions but then these new views didn't flow from any Scripture but from their radical synergism. These two dogmas NEVER existed before (and still are small minority views)






You keep insisting we ignore everything but the words of Scripture. Okay. Just quote the Scripture for this new Anabaptist dogma of anti-paedobaptism ("Thou canst NOT baptize anyone unless and until they hath celebrated their Xth birthday." and the one for this new Anabaptist dogma of credobaptism ("Thou canst NOT baptize any unless and until they hath first chanted the Sinner's Prayer"). As soon as you do, we can discuss the verses for the new denominational inventions. But all you offer is the same synergistic ones of the Anabaptists ("how can a baby first ____________" "God can save no one unless and until the receiver can do x,y,x") and the same silly, absurd rubric you yourself reject ("It's not allowed to do anything that is not expressly illustrated as being done in the Bible") . And now your new one (not supported by the Anabaptists ("Thou canst NOT use water in Baptism"). You say we must go by the words of Scripture.... when you quote the Scriptues that support the two new dogmas of the Anabaptists (anti-paedobaptism and credo-baptism) and this new invention by you (no water allowed in baptism) - we can do that. But....

Deflection
Let's observe baptism in the Bible. Just observe the content and context. No interpretation by adding an opinion. In each instance, do we see water included or not.

 

[Josiah]

Let's observe baptism in the Bible.

Your SILLY rubric that YOU yourself reject....

Let's observe the internet in the Bible. Quote the Scripture where you observe anyone posting on the internet. Or any Gentile administering Baptism. Or Communion being celebrated with Weber's White Bread and Welches' Grape Juice in little plastic cups. Or youth group and youth pastors. Or church websites. Or women receiving communion. I'd find it likely at 90%+ of what your church does on a Sunday morning is never observed in the Bible.... and I find it likely you can't find even ONE example of anyone posting on the internet in the Bible, but here you are..... Funny, you keep falling back on a silly premise you and Anabaptists reject.

Yeah, you CLAIM that every example of baptism that happens to be illustrated in the Bible is of those over the age of X and also those having already chanted the Sinner's Prayer, but that's not true, we have those ".... and their household" baptisms and NO ONE KNOWS the identity, age, gender, or whether they had chanted the Sinner's Prayer or not, we know NOTHING about them except that they were baptized. You may rebuke someone ASSUMING they included babies noting we don't know that, but then you'd be mandated to rebuke someone ASSUMING all persons in the household had celebrated their Xth birthday and responded to a Billy Graham altar call. Truth is: even if you accepted this silly rubric (and you don't, as you prove every time you post on the internet!) you have NOTHING since you can't support the anti-paedobaptism or credobaptism inventions of those radical synergists in the 16th Century (and certainly not your new dogma of baptism must not involve water).





.

 

[MennoSota]

Your SILLY rubric that YOU yourself reject....

Let's observe the internet in the Bible. Quote the Scripture where you observe anyone posting on the internet. Or any Gentile administering Baptism. Or Communion being celebrated with Weber's White Bread and Welches' Grape Juice in little plastic cups. Or youth group and youth pastors. Or church websites. Or women receiving communion. I'd find it likely at 90%+ of what your church does on a Sunday morning is never observed in the Bible.... and I find it likely you can't find even ONE example of anyone posting on the internet in the Bible, but here you are..... Funny, you keep falling back on a silly premise you and Anabaptists reject.

Yeah, you CLAIM that every example of baptism that happens to be illustrated in the Bible is of those over the age of X and also those having already chanted the Sinner's Prayer, but that's not true, we have those ".... and their household" baptisms and NO ONE KNOWS the identity, age, gender, or whether they had chanted the Sinner's Prayer or not, we know NOTHING about them except that they were baptized. You may rebuke someone ASSUMING they included babies noting we don't know that, but then you'd be mandated to rebuke someone ASSUMING all persons in the household had celebrated their Xth birthday and responded to a Billy Graham altar call. Truth is: even if you accepted this silly rubric (and you don't, as you prove every time you post on the internet!) you have NOTHING since you can't support the anti-paedobaptism or credobaptism inventions of those radical synergists in the 16th Century (and certainly not your new dogma of baptism must not involve water).





.

Deflection.
What does 1 Corinthians 12:12-13 say?
12*The human body has many parts, but the many parts make up one whole body. So it is with the body of Christ.*13*Some of us are Jews, some are Gentiles,some are slaves, and some are free. But we have all been baptized into one body by one Spirit, and we all share the same Spirit.

What do you observe in this passage regarding baptizo? Just tell me what you observe.

 

[Josiah]

What does 1 Corinthians 12:12-13 say?

NOTHING...

about the Anabaptist's new invented dogma of anti-paedobaptism.... it doesen't say "But thou canst NOT baptize any unless and until they hath celebrated their Xth birthday!"

about the Anabaptist's new invented dogma of credobaptism.... it doesn't say, "But thou canst NOT baptize any unless and until they hath chanted the Sinner's Prayer."

about your invented new dogma that water is not allowed connection to Baptism... it doesn't say, "But thou canst NOT use water for any baptism."

about how we today can do nothing unless an example of it happens to be recorded in the NT (making it forbidden to post on the internet)... it doesn't say, "Thou canst NOT do anything unless it is clearly recorded in the New Testament has having been done."



.... and it sounds like Baptism does something, accomplishes something.






.

 

[MennoSota]

NOTHING...

about the Anabaptist's new invented dogma of anti-paedobaptism.... it doesen't say "But thou canst NOT baptize any unless and until they hath celebrated their Xth birthday!"

about the Anabaptist's new invented dogma of credobaptism.... it doesn't say, "But thou canst NOT baptize any unless and until they hath chanted the Sinner's Prayer."

about your invented new dogma that water is not allowed connection to Baptism... it doesn't say, "But thou canst NOT use water for any baptism."

about how we today can do nothing unless an example of it happens to be recorded in the NT (making it forbidden to post on the internet)... it doesn't say, "Thou canst NOT do anything unless it is clearly recorded in the New Testament has having been done."



.... and it sounds like Baptism does something, accomplishes something.






.

Deflection
What do you observe in 1 Corinthians 12:12-13 about the word baptizo?
12*The human body has many parts, but the many parts make up one whole body. So it is with the body of Christ.*13*Some of us are Jews, some are Gentiles,some are slaves, and some are free. But we have all been baptized into one body by one Spirit, and we all share the same Spirit.

Everyone can see you are avoiding Sola Scriptura, Josiah.
I know why you are doing this as do others who uphold the scriptures over church dogma.

 

[MoreCoffee]

Hebrews 6:1-12 Let us leave behind us then all the elementary teaching about Christ and go on to its completion, without going over the fundamental doctrines again: the turning away from dead actions, faith in God, 2 the teaching about baptisms and the laying -- on of hands, about the resurrection of the dead and eternal judgement. 3 This, God willing, is what we propose to do. 4 As for those people who were once brought into the light, and tasted the gift from heaven, and received a share of the Holy Spirit, 5 and tasted the goodness of God's message and the powers of the world to come 6 and yet in spite of this have fallen away -- it is impossible for them to be brought to the freshness of repentance a second time, since they are crucifying the Son of God again for themselves, and making a public exhibition of him. 7 A field that drinks up the rain that has fallen frequently on it, and yields the crops that are wanted by the owners who grew them, receives God's blessing; 8 but one that grows brambles and thistles is worthless, and near to being cursed. It will end by being burnt. 9 But you, my dear friends -- in spite of what we have just said, we are sure you are in a better state and on the way to salvation. 10 God would not be so unjust as to forget all you have done, the love that you have for his name or the services you have done, and are still doing, for the holy people of God. 11 Our desire is that every one of you should go on showing the same enthusiasm till the ultimate fulfilment of your hope, 12 never growing careless, but taking as your model those who by their faith and perseverance are heirs of the promises.

It is very difficult to see how the doctrine called "the perseverance of the saints" can survive what is written holy scripture about the possibility of falling away from the faith.

Matthew 24:10-14 And then many will fall away; people will betray one another and hate one another. 11 Many false prophets will arise; they will deceive many, 12 and with the increase of lawlessness, love in most people will grow cold; 13 but anyone who stands firm to the end will be saved. 14 'This good news of the kingdom will be proclaimed to the whole world as evidence to the nations. And then the end will come.

 

[Josiah]

What do you observe in 1 Corinthians 12:12-13

NOTHING...

about the Anabaptist's new invented dogma of anti-paedobaptism.... it doesen't say "But thou canst NOT baptize any unless and until they hath celebrated their Xth birthday!"

about the Anabaptist's new invented dogma of credobaptism.... it doesn't say, "But thou canst NOT baptize any unless and until they hath chanted the Sinner's Prayer."

about your invented new dogma that water is not permitted in Baptism, Anti-Aquabpatism ... it doesn't say, "But thou canst NOT use water for any baptism."

about how we today can do nothing unless an example of it happens to be recorded in the NT... it doesn't say, "Thou canst NOT do anything unless it is clearly recorded in the New Testament has having been done."



.... and it sounds like Baptism does something, accomplishes something.

Everyone can see you are avoiding Sola Scriptura, Josiah.

It is obviously the opposite.


You insist we cannot hold a position unless the words of the Bible state such. Okay. So, for how long have we been waiting? How long must we wait for you to present the Scriptures to support these new dogmas invented out of thin air by those wackedoodle, radical synergistic, German Anabaptists in the 16th Century?


Where is the verse, "But thou canst NOT baptize any unless and until they hath celebrated their Xth birthday!" (establishing the anti-paedobaptism dogma)

Where is the verse, "But thou canst NOT baptize any unless and until they hath chanted the Sinner's Prayer." (establishing the credobaptism dogma)

Where is the verse, "But thou canst NOT use water for any baptism." (establishing the anti-aquabaptism thing you just invented)

Where is the verse, "Thou canst NOT do anything unless it is clearly recorded in the New Testament has having been done."

Where is the verse, "Baptism doth nothing."





.

 

[Albion]

It is no theory that was invented. That is your pad answer excuse to not engage scripture on the issue of baptism. It is your crutch, Josiah, to avoid studying baptism in the scripture and observe without bias.
If the text does not bring up water, read the text without adding water to the word, baptizo. Wrestle with the text, Josiah. This is your responsibility.

But if some texts do mention water (as they do) it is not necessary for all references to the sacrament to do so or to make mention of every other aspect of that ceremony. Those that do so have established the point.

Your approach--cherry-picking Scripture--is invalid on its face.

 

[Arsenios]

Php 1:29
οτι υμιν εχαρισθη

That unto you has been graced

το υπερ χριστου

That which [is] for the sake of Christ

ου μονον το εις αυτον πιστευειν

not alone that which is to be believing into Him

αλλα και το υπερ αυτου πασχειν

but also that which is to be suffering for His sake

Cleaned up for English we might write:

Because to you has been this Grace for the sake of Christ:
Not only to be believing into Him
But to be suffering for His sake also.

The word for "given" is charisma, hence the extended translation "has been given this Grace"...

So is Paul just writing to these particular and peculiarPhilippians?

Or are his words applicable to all Christians?

AND... (if the latter)

Is suffering "for the sake of Christ" [hyper Christou] a Grace?
Is this thereby a Grace unto Salvation?
Or an enhancement of one's Salvation?
Is the presence of Grace Salvation itself?
Or is Grace the means of Christ's Ekonomia of Salvation...

And if suffering for the sake of Christ is a Grace not granted to all...
Is this Grace of Suffering some kind of Higher Grace?

Is there a connection between Suffering, Grace, and Salvat?
And if yes, then what?
Is suffering for Christ the Grace unto Glorification by God?

Arsenios