Water Baptism

Andrew

Matt 18:15
Joined
Aug 25, 2017
Messages
6,645
Age
40
Gender
Male
Religious Affiliation
Christian
Political Affiliation
Conservative
Marital Status
Single
Acceptance of the Trinity & Nicene Creed
Yes
And now you also are saved, in a similar manner, by baptism, not by the testimony of sordid flesh, but by the examination of a good conscience in God, through the resurrection of Jesus Christ. (I Peter 3:21)

The flood saved Noah and his family so too baptism saves the baptised. That is the point made by saint Peter in the passage. Thus "baptism now saves you" just a the flood saved Noah and his family. The contrast between "washing away the dirt of the body" and "the answer of a good conscience before God" is between the normal washing that water achieves and the washing of regeneration that is baptism. Saint Peter is not contrasting water in baptism with something spiritual and separated from baptism or something attached to the physical but not part of it.

Matthew Henry comments on this verse with these words:
Noah's salvation in the ark upon the water prefigured the salvation of all good Christians in the church by baptism; that temporal salvation by the ark was a type, the antitype whereunto is the eternal salvation of believers by baptism, to prevent mistakes about which the apostle,

I. Declares what he means by saving baptism; not the outward ceremony of washing with water, which, in itself, does no more than put away the filth of the flesh, but it is that baptism wherein there is a faithful answer or restipulation of a resolved good conscience, engaging to believe in, and be entirely devoted to, God, the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost, renouncing at the same time the flesh, the world, and the devil. The baptismal covenant, made and kept, will certainly save us. Washing is the visible sign; this is the thing signified.

II. The apostle shows that the efficacy of baptism to salvation depends not upon the work done, but upon the resurrection of Christ, which supposes his death, and is the foundation of our faith and hope, to which we are rendered conformable by dying to sin, and rising again to holiness and newness of life. Learn, 1. The sacrament of baptism, rightly received, is a means and a pledge of salvation. Baptism now saveth us. God is pleased to convey his blessings to us in and by his ordinances, Acts ii. 38; xxii. 16. 2. The external participation of baptism will save no man without an answerable good conscience and conversation. There must be the answer of a good conscience towards God.--Obj. Infants cannot make such an answer, and therefore ought not to be baptized.--Answer, the true circumcision was that of the heart and of the spirit (Rom. ii. 29), which children were no more capable of then than our infants are capable of making this answer now; yet they were allowed circumcision at eight days old. The infants of the Christian church therefore may be admitted to the ordinance with as much reason as the infants of the Jewish, unless they are barred from it by some express prohibition of Christ.

III. The apostle, having mentioned the death and resurrection of Christ, proceeds to speak of his ascension, and sitting at the right hand of the Father, as a subject fit to be considered by these believers for their comfort in their suffering condition, 22. If the advancement of Christ was so glorious after his deep humiliation, let not his followers despair, but expect that after these short distresses they shall be advanced to transcendent joy and glory. Learn, 1. Jesus Christ, after he had finished his labours and his sufferings upon earth, ascended triumphantly into heaven, of which see Acts i. 9-11; Mark xvi. 19. He went to heaven to receive his own acquired crown and glory (John xvii. 5), to finish that part of his mediatorial work which could not be done on earth, and make intercession for his people, to demonstrate the fullness of his satisfaction, to take possession of heaven for his people, to prepare mansions for them, and to send down the Comforter, which was to be the first-fruits of his intercession, John xvi. 7. 2. Upon his ascension into heaven, Christ is enthroned at the right hand of the Father. His being said to sit there imports absolute rest and cessation from all further troubles and sufferings, and an advancement to the highest personal dignity and sovereign power. 3. Angels, authorities, and powers, are all made subject to Christ Jesus: all power in heaven and earth, to command, to give law, issue orders, and pronounce a final sentence, is committed to Jesus, God-man, which his enemies will find to their everlasting sorrow and confusion, but his servants to their eternal joy and satisfaction.

Matthew Henry was an English Protestant so I do not endorse all of his comments but it is significant that he along with many of his contemporaries and many Protestants today agree with Catholic teaching insofar as their views relate to baptism being the saving laver of regeneration as the scriptures say and as the Baptised person's death and resurrection with Christ.
Another example of a figure of baptism in the OT is the Israelites passing through the Red sea and coming out saved on the other side while the Egyptians were swallowed whole by the waters.
 

Arsenios

Well-known member
Joined
Apr 19, 2018
Messages
3,577
Location
Pacific North West
Gender
Male
Religious Affiliation
Eastern Orthodox
Political Affiliation
Conservative
Marital Status
Single
I'm sorry you are over thinking the conversation Jesus had with Nicodemus

I am sorry you are sorry... :):):)

Sometimes things are just sad...

Sniff...

Sniff...

Once we have had a good, long cry we will feel much better...


Arsenios
 

Arsenios

Well-known member
Joined
Apr 19, 2018
Messages
3,577
Location
Pacific North West
Gender
Male
Religious Affiliation
Eastern Orthodox
Political Affiliation
Conservative
Marital Status
Single
Another example of a figure of baptism in the OT is the Israelites passing through the Red sea and coming out saved on the other side while the Egyptians were swallowed whole by the waters.

Indeed, another example taken from the "Doctrine of Baptisms" Paul refers to in Hebrews...

The original was Noah and the flood...

Destroying all mankind save 8...

From which God repented...

And we have the Sign of the Rainbow confirming His repentance...

Then we have the Typos of Moses in the Red Sea...

And the Typos of Pharaoh and his hoards pursuing the Israelites...

And Moses parting the sea and closing it over them...

Egypt was a Typos the land of enslavement to passions...

And Her pursuit of the Israelites the demonic hordes seeking their lives...

And their death the destruction in the waters of these demonic powers...

Followed by wandering in the wilderness 40 years...

Fulfilled in the antitypos of Christ being Baptized by John...

In the waters of the boundary of the Promised Land, the River Jordan...

The Typos of the Kingdom of Heaven...

Fulfilled in the Antitypos of Christ on earth...

Who entered the wilderness in prayer and fasting 40 days upon Baptism...

And we follow Him...

And we are Baptized into Him...

Because He sanctified the waters...

By being Baptized by John...

"That ALL Righteousness be fulfilled..." Matthew 3:15


Arsenios
 

MoreCoffee

Well-known member
Valued Contributor
Joined
Jul 13, 2015
Messages
19,207
Location
Western Australia
Gender
Male
Religious Affiliation
Catholic
Political Affiliation
Moderate
Marital Status
Single
Acceptance of the Trinity & Nicene Creed
Yes
Indeed, another example taken from the "Doctrine of Baptisms" Paul refers to in Hebrews...

The original was Noah and the flood...

Destroying all mankind save 8...

From which God repented...

And we have the Sign of the Rainbow confirming His repentance...

Then we have the Typos of Moses in the Red Sea...

And the Typos of Pharaoh and his hoards pursuing the Israelites...

And Moses parting the sea and closing it over them...

Egypt was a Typos the land of enslavement to passions...

And Her pursuit of the Israelites the demonic hordes seeking their lives...

And their death the destruction in the waters of these demonic powers...

Followed by wandering in the wilderness 40 years...

Fulfilled in the antitypos of Christ being Baptized by John...

In the waters of the boundary of the Promised Land, the River Jordan...

The Typos of the Kingdom of Heaven...

Fulfilled in the Antitypos of Christ on earth...

Who entered the wilderness in prayer and fasting 40 days upon Baptism...

And we follow Him...

And we are Baptized into Him...

Because He sanctified the waters...

By being Baptized by John...

"That ALL Righteousness be fulfilled..." Matthew 3:15


Arsenios

Let's not dwell on destruction because destruction is not what saint Peter dwells upon in 1 Peter 3:21-22.
And now you also are saved, in a similar manner, by baptism, not by the testimony of sordid flesh, but by the examination of a good conscience in God, through the resurrection of Jesus Christ. He is at the right hand of God, devouring death, so that we may be made heirs to eternal life. And since he has journeyed to heaven, the Angels and powers and virtues are subject to him.​
What the saint dwells upon is the saving of Noah and his family which prefigures Christian baptism just as a type prefigures its antitype. The reality here in saint Peter's letter is Jesus Christ and Baptism is the means by which the faithful are incorporated into Christ thus becoming his body as the scriptures say - For just as the body is one, and yet has many parts, so all the parts of the body, though they are many, are only one body. So also is Christ. And indeed, in one Spirit, we were all baptized into one body, whether Jews or Gentiles, whether servant or free. And we all drank in the one Spirit. (I Corinthians 12:12-13)
 

Josiah

simul justus et peccator
Valued Contributor
Joined
Jun 12, 2015
Messages
13,927
Gender
Male
Religious Affiliation
Lutheran
Political Affiliation
Conservative
Marital Status
Married
Acceptance of the Trinity & Nicene Creed
Yes
atpollard said:
demands that I present texts that prove what YOU CLAIM I believe


YOU demanded that the discussion be limited to "ONE topic."
YOU demanded that that topic be Credobaptism.
YOU defined the dogma.

I agreed to all your demands.
I agreed to the definition YOU gave (verbatim)


YOU demanded I take the "first step" in the discussion (of the topic you've been promoting since you came here), I MUST "take the first step" by presented why I don't accept this invention (even though you don't believe it's MY role to show it wrong). And I did. It's post 452

You ignored it.
You always have.
You always will.




atpollard said:
I will NEVER discuss post 452


.... of THAT we are all certain.


We can draw our own conclusions as to why.




atpollard said:
I requested that you present scripture rather than just offering opinions



Tell you what, I'll quote the Scripture that says, "One need NOT previously in chronological time state that they hath chosen Jesus as their personal Savior before the prohibition to baptize is lifted" when you quote the verse, "Mary was NOT assumed into heaven" or "Mary had lots of great sex after Jesus was born" or "the Pope is not infallible." Deal?


THIS is why I made the comment about the dogma of the Assumption of Mary in post 452. It's about your absurd rubric, one you yourself don't accept. You reject the Assumption of Mary without one verse that states she was NOT assumed into heaven (in fact here you prove you have NOTHING in the Bible that even remotely implies it's not true). The universal rubric in epistemology is that the one with the position has the role of showing it to be true, it is not the role of others to show it is wrong. YOU KNOW THIS. You are playing a silly game and you got called on it. If Bob posted, "There are little purple people eaters living on Mars" that is NOT a dogmatic fact unless someone can prove it wrong, nor is it ANYONE'S role to prove it wrong, it's Bob's responsibility to prove it true. You know this. You operate in this way. But you have a dogma - yes invented in the late 16th Century by the Anabaptists, not by you in the 21st Century. But you are parroting it, you are claiming it's true, the burden is yours. And no, CLAIMING is not substantiating, not for Baptists or Catholics or Lutherans.


See post 452




atpollard said:
We believe in a "believers baptism", which means that we believe that those who are baptized should already believe the Gospel. If you demanded that we produce verses that say that, we would.


Many of us have done that MANY times.

See post 452

You refuse.


And yes, I r3ealize that NOW you want to distance yourself and not address all the other unique new Baptism dogmas you have been promoting and that Baptists teach. You've decided it best to distance yourself from all but one. You stand alone in this, but I agreed to this.

See post 452





atpollard said:
Stop using the word Anabaptist. (This is a simple matter of the fact that I am not a 16th Century Anabaptists and will not defend their beliefs ... talk to me about MY 21st Century Credobaptist beliefs)


It IS an Anabaptist invention. Sorry, it's just history. I don't know why you want to re-write history. You can't change history. You didn't invent this dogma in the 21st Century, that's just silly. And just a diversion.





atpollard said:
Discuss ONE point at a time. Choose one topic to discuss.)


YOU demanded that I forget all the other baptism dogmas of the Baptists (you don't want to "go there" anymore) - and I respected that (I quite understand why you don't want to discuss if those are true), you demanded I can only address Credobaptism and ONLY as YOU define it. And I agree. You claimed THEN you would present the Scriptures that prove it true. But

See post 452





atpollard said:
I insisted that you stop telling me that I am an Anabaptist


More diversion. As everyone knows, I NEVER called you an Anabaptist. Which is why you could not quote me saying it. "Attack the person if you cannot address the point."

What I said is that the list of baptism dogmas you echo are inventions of the Anabaptists. It is a historical fact. My point is the lack of history and ecumenism; these dogmas are very late denominational tradition (what MennoSota DEMANDS be entirely ignored). A point you have not challenged, only that you personally don't belong to a denomination with "Baptist" in it's moniker. Okay. I believe you. I never said otherwise. You just want to divert the discussion away from proving these dogmas correct (most of which you now wish to be "off table" since you are only willing to discuss Credobaptism in the narrow sense you permit and with the definition you give, which I agreed to.




.
 

MennoSota

Well-known member
Joined
Sep 24, 2017
Messages
7,102
Age
54
Gender
Male
Religious Affiliation
Christian
Political Affiliation
Moderate
Marital Status
Married
Let's not dwell on destruction because destruction is not what saint Peter dwells upon in 1 Peter 3:21-22.
And now you also are saved, in a similar manner, by baptism, not by the testimony of sordid flesh, but by the examination of a good conscience in God, through the resurrection of Jesus Christ. He is at the right hand of God, devouring death, so that we may be made heirs to eternal life. And since he has journeyed to heaven, the Angels and powers and virtues are subject to him.​
What the saint dwells upon is the saving of Noah and his family which prefigures Christian baptism just as a type prefigures its antitype. The reality here in saint Peter's letter is Jesus Christ and Baptism is the means by which the faithful are incorporated into Christ thus becoming his body as the scriptures say - For just as the body is one, and yet has many parts, so all the parts of the body, though they are many, are only one body. So also is Christ. And indeed, in one Spirit, we were all baptized into one body, whether Jews or Gentiles, whether servant or free. And we all drank in the one Spirit. (I Corinthians 12:12-13)
Peter dwells upon the judgment of God, which falls on unregenerate mankind. He is not saying that water baptism saves. In fact, he is going out of his way to try clear up that misconception because he knows some people will miss his point.
MC, if water baptism saves, then why do you claim that no one can know if they are truly saved until the moment they stand before God after they die? You often remind us that works prove faith and that no works equals no faith and no salvation. But here you insist that Peter is saying that baptism saves.
Question: Does baptism truly save, or is it the works of your life...activated by faith that will save you in the end?
From my perspective you are caught in a conundrum and pretzel. Please untangle this for me.
 

MoreCoffee

Well-known member
Valued Contributor
Joined
Jul 13, 2015
Messages
19,207
Location
Western Australia
Gender
Male
Religious Affiliation
Catholic
Political Affiliation
Moderate
Marital Status
Single
Acceptance of the Trinity & Nicene Creed
Yes
Peter dwells upon the judgment of God, which falls on unregenerate mankind. He is not saying that water baptism saves. In fact, he is going out of his way to try clear up that misconception because he knows some people will miss his point.
..
MC, if water baptism saves, then why do you claim that no one can know if they are truly saved until the moment they stand before God after they die?
Of course baptism saves, that is exactly what saint Peter says and what the Lord Jesus Christ said. The issue is not if Baptism saves, which it obviously does according to the holy scriptures. The issue is what is salvation and is a slogan like "once saved always saved" even remotely like what the holy scriptures teach about salvation. To that question I say no, OSAS is not a teaching of Christ nor of the holy scriptures nor of holy tradition nor of the Catholic Church's magisterium.

You often remind us that works prove faith and that no works equals no faith and no salvation. But here you insist that Peter is saying that baptism saves.
Question: Does baptism truly save, or is it the works of your life...activated by faith that will save you in the end?
From my perspective you are caught in a conundrum and pretzel. Please untangle this for me.
 

MennoSota

Well-known member
Joined
Sep 24, 2017
Messages
7,102
Age
54
Gender
Male
Religious Affiliation
Christian
Political Affiliation
Moderate
Marital Status
Married
YOU demanded that the discussion be limited to "ONE topic."
YOU demanded that that topic be Credobaptism.
YOU defined the dogma.

I agreed to all your demands.
I agreed to the definition YOU gave (verbatim)


YOU demanded I take the "first step" in the discussion (of the topic you've been promoting since you came here), I MUST "take the first step" by presented why I don't accept this invention (even though you don't believe it's MY role to show it wrong). And I did. It's post 452

You ignored it.
You always have.
You always will.







.... of THAT we are all certain.


We can draw our own conclusions as to why.








Tell you what, I'll quote the Scripture that says, "One need NOT previously in chronological time state that they hath chosen Jesus as their personal Savior before the prohibition to baptize is lifted" when you quote the verse, "Mary was NOT assumed into heaven" or "Mary had lots of great sex after Jesus was born" or "the Pope is not infallible." Deal?


THIS is why I made the comment about the dogma of the Assumption of Mary in post 452. It's about your absurd rubric, one you yourself don't accept. You reject the Assumption of Mary without one verse that states she was NOT assumed into heaven (in fact here you prove you have NOTHING in the Bible that even remotely implies it's not true). The universal rubric in epistemology is that the one with the position has the role of showing it to be true, it is not the role of others to show it is wrong. YOU KNOW THIS. You are playing a silly game and you got called on it. If Bob posted, "There are little purple people eaters living on Mars" that is NOT a dogmatic fact unless someone can prove it wrong, nor is it ANYONE'S role to prove it wrong, it's Bob's responsibility to prove it true. You know this. You operate in this way. But you have a dogma - yes invented in the late 16th Century by the Anabaptists, not by you in the 21st Century. But you are parroting it, you are claiming it's true, the burden is yours. And no, CLAIMING is not substantiating, not for Baptists or Catholics or Lutherans.


See post 452







Many of us have done that MANY times.

See post 452

You refuse.


And yes, I r3ealize that NOW you want to distance yourself and not address all the other unique new Baptism dogmas you have been promoting and that Baptists teach. You've decided it best to distance yourself from all but one. You stand alone in this, but I agreed to this.

See post 452








It IS an Anabaptist invention. Sorry, it's just history. I don't know why you want to re-write history. You can't change history. You didn't invent this dogma in the 21st Century, that's just silly. And just a diversion.








YOU demanded that I forget all the other baptism dogmas of the Baptists (you don't want to "go there" anymore) - and I respected that (I quite understand why you don't want to discuss if those are true), you demanded I can only address Credobaptism and ONLY as YOU define it. And I agree. You claimed THEN you would present the Scriptures that prove it true. But

See post 452








More diversion. As everyone knows, I NEVER called you an Anabaptist. Which is why you could not quote me saying it. "Attack the person if you cannot address the point."

What I said is that the list of baptism dogmas you echo are inventions of the Anabaptists. It is a historical fact. My point is the lack of history and ecumenism; these dogmas are very late denominational tradition (what MennoSota DEMANDS be entirely ignored). A point you have not challenged, only that you personally don't belong to a denomination with "Baptist" in it's moniker. Okay. I believe you. I never said otherwise. You just want to divert the discussion away from proving these dogmas correct (most of which you now wish to be "off table" since you are only willing to discuss Credobaptism in the narrow sense you permit and with the definition you give, which I agreed to.




.
We get it. You feel free to baptize the unregenerate soul, believing that your own faith covers them. You feel free to do this, not because there is any historical evidence in scripture, but purely because God never told you that you could not do so.
To me, that is a very slippery slope for a large number of heresies to enter the body of Christ.
Peter warns us...
2 Peter 2:1-3 But false prophets also arose among the people, just as there will be false teachers among you, who will secretly bring in destructive heresies, even denying the Master who bought them, bringing upon themselves swift destruction. And many will follow their sensuality, and because of them the way of truth will be blasphemed. And in their greed they will exploit you with false words. Their condemnation from long ago is not idle, and their destruction is not asleep.
 

Josiah

simul justus et peccator
Valued Contributor
Joined
Jun 12, 2015
Messages
13,927
Gender
Male
Religious Affiliation
Lutheran
Political Affiliation
Conservative
Marital Status
Married
Acceptance of the Trinity & Nicene Creed
Yes
you are caught in a conundrum and pretzel.



[MENTION=394]MennoSota[/MENTION]


I sense a huge overdoes of hypocrisy.


You out-of-hand reject any and all Catholic Tradition, when MC shares the understanding of Catholicism. Okay.
But then all you do is perfectly echo Baptist Tradition on this point.

You out-of-hand call out MC for not having Scripture that states what he does (even when it PERFECTLY, VERBATIM states EXACTLY what he does). Okay.
But then you can't find a single verse that actually states what you do about Baptism.


HUM. Matthew 7:3 sure springs to mind.


Perhaps you'll STOP and consider this. Or not.







.
 
Last edited:

MennoSota

Well-known member
Joined
Sep 24, 2017
Messages
7,102
Age
54
Gender
Male
Religious Affiliation
Christian
Political Affiliation
Moderate
Marital Status
Married
..Of course baptism saves, that is exactly what saint Peter says and what the Lord Jesus Christ said. The issue is not if Baptism saves, which it obviously does according to the holy scriptures. The issue is what is salvation and is a slogan like "once saved always saved" even remotely like what the holy scriptures teach about salvation. To that question I say no, OSAS is not a teaching of Christ nor of the holy scriptures nor of holy tradition nor of the Catholic Church's magisterium.

You have not cleared up the conundrum.
You unequivocally state that baptism saves.
Since that is the case, then...end of story. Correct?
Since baptism saves, what does it actually save? If it does save eternally, what does it actually save? Is it just a temporary saving? Momentarily, but then it loses its power because man's sin is greater in power than the baptism, which revokes the saving power of baptism and makes it void?
Is there a caveat to salvation so that it is only a potential salvation, not a total salvation?
It seems that either baptism saves or it doesn't. But you seem to imply that there is a caveat and a peeling off the onion that means baptism saves, but it doesn't save because...church magisterium.
I feel like I have fallen into a slew. Please help straighten out this pretzel you have given.
 

MoreCoffee

Well-known member
Valued Contributor
Joined
Jul 13, 2015
Messages
19,207
Location
Western Australia
Gender
Male
Religious Affiliation
Catholic
Political Affiliation
Moderate
Marital Status
Single
Acceptance of the Trinity & Nicene Creed
Yes
You have not cleared up the conundrum.
You unequivocally state that baptism saves.
Since that is the case, then...end of story. Correct?
No, it is not the end of any story. Being saved is not a done deal all sign sealed and delivered this side of the last Judgement. Salvation is threefold in its application. First it is (for the faithful living today) a past event having been completed by the Lord on the Cross and at the resurrection. Second it is present for the faithful every day as they walk with God in Christ according to his gracious gift and in faith and obedience to his commandments. Third it is future for the faithful and will only be brought to completion at the first resurrection when resurrection body and soul are united in communion with Christ as joint heirs with Christ of the kingdom of God and possessors of immortality because the faithful are in Christ sharing his eternal life and immortality.

I have no idea what you conceive salvation to be but your line of argument appears to discount the three senses of salvation that I outlined for you here.


Since baptism saves, what does it actually save? If it does save eternally, what does it actually save? Is it just a temporary saving? Momentarily, but then it loses its power because man's sin is greater in power than the baptism, which revokes the saving power of baptism and makes it void?
Is there a caveat to salvation so that it is only a potential salvation, not a total salvation?
It seems that either baptism saves or it doesn't. But you seem to imply that there is a caveat and a peeling off the onion that means baptism saves, but it doesn't save because...church magisterium.
I feel like I have fallen into a slew. Please help straighten out this pretzel you have given.
 

Arsenios

Well-known member
Joined
Apr 19, 2018
Messages
3,577
Location
Pacific North West
Gender
Male
Religious Affiliation
Eastern Orthodox
Political Affiliation
Conservative
Marital Status
Single
Let's not dwell on destruction because destruction is not what saint Peter dwells upon in 1 Peter 3:21-22.
And now you also are saved, in a similar manner, by baptism, not by the testimony of sordid flesh, but by the examination of a good conscience in God, through the resurrection of Jesus Christ. He is at the right hand of God, devouring death, so that we may be made heirs to eternal life. And since he has journeyed to heaven, the Angels and powers and virtues are subject to him.​
What the saint dwells upon is the saving of Noah and his family which prefigures Christian baptism just as a type prefigures its antitype. The reality here in saint Peter's letter is Jesus Christ and Baptism is the means by which the faithful are incorporated into Christ thus becoming his body as the scriptures say - For just as the body is one, and yet has many parts, so all the parts of the body, though they are many, are only one body. So also is Christ. And indeed, in one Spirit, we were all baptized into one body, whether Jews or Gentiles, whether servant or free. And we all drank in the one Spirit. (I Corinthians 12:12-13)

Pharoah's Army, the Typos of demons, was destroyed...

Baptism begins with the Prayers of Exorcism...

Destruction means banishment from one's presence...

You see, Salvation is FROM mortal dangers...

These dangers are the rulership of Death in this fallen creation...

Death is administered by demonic powers and principalities...

These powers and principalities we are to overcome...

ONLY IN CHRIST are we ABLE to do so...

BECAUSE... (as your passage explains)

Christ, at the Right Hand of the Most High, is devouring Death for us IN Him...

We have but to maintain a pure conscience IN Him...

By living a lifelong life of repentance from sin...

Holding fast the purity we received in Baptism into Christ...

Persevering to the end in our struggle against sin...

As the Apostle Paul instructs us to do...


Arsenios
 

MoreCoffee

Well-known member
Valued Contributor
Joined
Jul 13, 2015
Messages
19,207
Location
Western Australia
Gender
Male
Religious Affiliation
Catholic
Political Affiliation
Moderate
Marital Status
Single
Acceptance of the Trinity & Nicene Creed
Yes
Pharoah's Army, the Typos of demons, was destroyed...

Baptism begins with the Prayers of Exorcism...

Destruction means banishment from one's presence...

You see, Salvation is FROM mortal dangers...

These dangers are the rulership of Death in this fallen creation...

Death is administered by demonic powers and principalities...

These powers and principalities we are to overcome...

ONLY IN CHRIST are we ABLE to do so...

BECAUSE... (as your passage explains)

Christ, at the Right Hand of the Most High, is devouring Death for us IN Him...

We have but to maintain a pure conscience IN Him...

By living a lifelong life of repentance from sin...

Holding fast the purity we received in Baptism into Christ...

Persevering to the end in our struggle against sin...

As the Apostle Paul instructs us to do...


Arsenios

You're on the wrong road. It is not about destruction. It is about salvation. Everyone knows that people need to be saved from something and that the something from which they need to be saved is dangerous and deadly but that is not the thing that baptism is about because baptism is about being saved. So I will not wander the wilderness of destruction with you if that is where you intend to go.
 

Arsenios

Well-known member
Joined
Apr 19, 2018
Messages
3,577
Location
Pacific North West
Gender
Male
Religious Affiliation
Eastern Orthodox
Political Affiliation
Conservative
Marital Status
Single
Since baptism saves, WHAT does it actually save?

God Saves YOU by Baptizing you INTO Christ Who IS our Salvation...

It seems that either baptism saves or it doesn't.

God Saves you by Baptizing you into Christ...

That Salvation is eternal...

It CAN be turned away from in this temporal life...

Which is why Scripture records Christ saying:

Mat 10:22
And ye shall be hated of all men for My Name's sake:
but the one persevering to the end
this one shall be saved.


It is hard, you see, to read this
without concluding that
the one NOT persevering to the end
in the face of the hatred of all men,
Shall NOT be Saved by God...


"I feel like I have fallen into a slew."

You said it...


Arsenios
 

Arsenios

Well-known member
Joined
Apr 19, 2018
Messages
3,577
Location
Pacific North West
Gender
Male
Religious Affiliation
Eastern Orthodox
Political Affiliation
Conservative
Marital Status
Single
You're on the wrong road. It is not about destruction. It is about salvation. Everyone knows that people need to be saved from something and that the something from which they need to be saved is dangerous and deadly but that is not the thing that baptism is about because baptism is about being saved. So I will not wander the wilderness of destruction with you if that is where you intend to go.

You are saved from destruction by Christ destroying those intent on your destruction...

He does this by making you a member of His Holy Body, the Church...

Had Adam not sinned, Man's elevation into the Body of Christ would NOT have been through the Cross...


Arsenios
 

MennoSota

Well-known member
Joined
Sep 24, 2017
Messages
7,102
Age
54
Gender
Male
Religious Affiliation
Christian
Political Affiliation
Moderate
Marital Status
Married
No, it is not the end of any story. Being saved is not a done deal all sign sealed and delivered this side of the last Judgement. Salvation is threefold in its application. First it is (for the faithful living today) a past event having been completed by the Lord on the Cross and at the resurrection. Second it is present for the faithful every day as they walk with God in Christ according to his gracious gift and in faith and obedience to his commandments. Third it is future for the faithful and will only be brought to completion at the first resurrection when resurrection body and soul are united in communion with Christ as joint heirs with Christ of the kingdom of God and possessors of immortality because the faithful are in Christ sharing his eternal life and immortality.

I have no idea what you conceive salvation to be but your line of argument appears to discount the three senses of salvation that I outlined for you here.
So saved doesn't really mean that Jesus actually saved you and will never leave you nor forsake you as he promised?
Saved means only partially or momentarily until you move on to another stage...in which case you'll need a different part of salvation.
Failure to secure all THREE salvations means that you fall short.
Am I seeing that correctly as you have stated it? I confess your presentation is as foreign to me as a Buddhist teaching on reincarnation. I need clarification because I have never heard of a three part salvation theory before.
 

MennoSota

Well-known member
Joined
Sep 24, 2017
Messages
7,102
Age
54
Gender
Male
Religious Affiliation
Christian
Political Affiliation
Moderate
Marital Status
Married
God Saves YOU by Baptizing you INTO Christ Who IS our Salvation...



God Saves you by Baptizing you into Christ...

That Salvation is eternal...

It CAN be turned away from in this temporal life...

Which is why Scripture records Christ saying:

Mat 10:22
And ye shall be hated of all men for My Name's sake:
but the one persevering to the end
this one shall be saved.


It is hard, you see, to read this
without concluding that
the one NOT persevering to the end
in the face of the hatred of all men,
Shall NOT be Saved by God...




You said it...


Arsenios
So you are different than MC in that saved means eternally saved. Get baptized and your eternal destination in heaven is secured. Is that correct?
 

MoreCoffee

Well-known member
Valued Contributor
Joined
Jul 13, 2015
Messages
19,207
Location
Western Australia
Gender
Male
Religious Affiliation
Catholic
Political Affiliation
Moderate
Marital Status
Single
Acceptance of the Trinity & Nicene Creed
Yes
So saved doesn't really mean that Jesus actually saved you and will never leave you nor forsake you as he promised?
Saved means only partially or momentarily until you move on to another stage...in which case you'll need a different part of salvation.
Failure to secure all THREE salvations means that you fall short.
Am I seeing that correctly as you have stated it? I confess your presentation is as foreign to me as a Buddhist teaching on reincarnation. I need clarification because I have never heard of a three part salvation theory before.

You are welcome to maintain your theological myths if you want to. I am not entertaining them.
 

MennoSota

Well-known member
Joined
Sep 24, 2017
Messages
7,102
Age
54
Gender
Male
Religious Affiliation
Christian
Political Affiliation
Moderate
Marital Status
Married
You are welcome to maintain your theological myths if you want to. I am not entertaining them.
So you refuse to explain the multiplicity of salvation? Okay.
I have never read of a tripartite salvation in the Bible so I wonder who is holding the myth.
 

Arsenios

Well-known member
Joined
Apr 19, 2018
Messages
3,577
Location
Pacific North West
Gender
Male
Religious Affiliation
Eastern Orthodox
Political Affiliation
Conservative
Marital Status
Single
So you are different than MC in that saved means eternally saved.
Get baptized and your eternal destination in heaven is secured. Is that correct?

No, not correct...

You are INITIATED BY GOD INTO CHRIST...

You are ENTERED INTO Salvation...

In THIS life, you can STILL turn from what you have received...

Eternal Life in Christ CAN be forsaken BY YOU but ONLY in THIS fallen life...

Baptism is ENTRY into Salvation...

It is NOT completion of Salvation...

Menno, in the olden days of yore, many Christians would defer their Baptism until the end of their lives so that they might obtain a better Salvation by having less time and opportunity to sin... To die immediately after Baptism was considered a guarantee of selection at the Second Coming of Christ... It is not a received teaching of the Church, but it was a belief that was held by many... Worthy of dismissal, yet the thing to be gleaned is their understanding of the power of Salvation in Baptism... The faithful have always understood Baptism to mean Salvation in Christ - It's BEGINNING...

Your Salvation begins when Christ Baptizes YOU INTO HIMSELF...
Through the hands of His Servant's hands in His Body, the Church...
At that time, Salvation is yours...

To abide within...
Or to depart from...


Arsenios
 
Top Bottom