Water baptism essential to salvation.

I am having an issue with a Christ loving gentleman that believes you aren't saved until you are baptized in water. I won't at this time post all of his arguments. I have debated a good deal with him on the issue. Water baptism is an act of faith and a good witness but you can be saved without it. Such as the man on the cross and such.

I must say he has lots and lots of scriptures upon which he has built his doctrine. So as much as a try to correct him I can't get through. This is a very deep and very scriptural debate.

Any help or advice on scripture would be greatly appreciated. This man has a great heart for God but is not seeing the truth on this point. I would especially desire a spirit led reproof if the Lord speaks to you on this. Please share.

This man understanding this point is very important for this man to be in one accord with the rest of our church.

Thank you God bless.

This is a round-about, lengthy response. The link at the bottom is really good, too.

Romans 4:14 states that Abraham "received the sign of circumcision, a seal of the righteousness of the faith which he had yet being uncircumcised: that he might be the father of all them that believe, though they be not circumcised; that righteousness might be imputed unto them also."

Circumcision was given as an outward sign of an inward, sovereign act of God; the cutting-off the old man and the giving of faith. Inward circumcision was and is only possible through election and regeneration. Though circumcision of the body did not guarantee circumcision of the heart, God never-the-less commanded Abraham to circumcise all who were in his household, including infants and children too young to understand what was being done to them. Consider it again: Children that had made no commitment to Abraham's God were given the external "seal of righteousness of faith" while they were "yet uncircumcised" in heart and without faith.

Unavoidably, some of those who were circumcised in the flesh by Abraham and his descendants were reprobates. For some reason, God commanded the elect and non-elect together to be circumcised into a community who had that sign in common. Why? This sign of circumcision, to my estimation, functioned in several ways to help the society of Israel. First, the sign of circumcision established a certain visible "boundary" of Israel, within which the true and invisible Israel was generally contained. This allowed the institution of laws necessitating faith to be more freely given to all people in that group. I can explain that more fully, but will move on.

More importantly, through circumcision a man received a promise from his youngest years that God imputes righteousness to all who believe, as Abraham did. Though he was born estranged from God by sin, in another sense he had upon him a promise - that Abraham, his father by blood, might also be his father in faith if God should grant him grace to believe and be "cut off" in the heart. In this way God's visible covenant people had a gracious sign commending God's favor upon them as a group. Circumcision was a testimony to the young men that "though they be not circumcised [in heart]... righteousness might be imputed unto them also [if God should grant them repentance and faith]." As the men matured they could read the scriptures and identify whether or not they had been born again.

In what way does this differ from the practice of infant baptism, which is also given to both the elect and non-elect in order to establish the boundary of the visible church, within which is generally the invisible? I find the arguments used against infant baptism come directly against God's command of infant circumcision for the Jews. Peter writes that the baptism which saves is not the external washing of the flesh, but the inward cleansing. Therefore the command to be baptized extends primarily to regeneration, which is to be buried and raised with Christ. In this way even the thief on the cross was baptized!

This same Peter writes regarding baptism, "Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins, and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost. For the promise is unto you, and to your children, and to all that are afar off, even as many as the LORD our God shall call." Therefore I am considering that perhaps the commandment of baptism may be fully a New Testament version of Old Testament circumcision - infants may receive the external sign as a testimony of grace extended to a family, just as the "households" of Abraham, Cornelius, and the Philippian jailer were grouped together under family headship - so long as they are taught that the baptism which saves is internal and sovereignly dispensed. This enables children to grow up with an understanding that God's covenant of grace often continues from parents to children, though sometimes skipping to those "afar off", and that God's free offer of grace is made to them especially.

Dennis Johnson of Westminster Seminary described the differences between "infant dedication" and "infant baptism" in terms of what a child is told by his or her parents about the experience:

"As "infant baptist" parents look back on the day of their child's baptism, they say to her, "On that day long ago, the Lord Jesus promised to you that if you trust him he will wash away your sins and give you a heart to love and serve him by the power of his Spirit. Just as the water 'cleansed' your baby skin, so the Holy Spirit will make your heart clean if you trust in Jesus, because Jesus died for the sins of everybody who trusts in him." You can see the difference. Both sets of parents are calling their kids to respond in faith and both sets do so by teaching the Gospel about what Jesus did for us in his sacrifice on the cross, but children baptized as infants have received a sign/symbol that points directly to that gift of God's grace."

Anyways, I'm not close to decided on this point, but interested in your perceptions and insight. Did our Puritan grandfathers understand something lost by our Baptist uncles?
- Mike:.

Here's the article that prompted this... a bit lengthy, but useful if you're interested in some of the arguments and verses used by this camp, coming from someone who was on both sides.

http://www.wscal.edu/clark/dejbaptism.php

My two bits -

Just do it.

This day and many of it's constituents can reason and\\or argue themselves to death over or out of such straightforward matters.

Besides, it is one of the most powerful and beautiful things there is in this world.

Matt,

I've run into the same people... but here's where their perfectly formed arguements from scripture break down: the criminal on the cross.

As a Baptist myself, I must of course urge you that if you believe that Jesus Christ is Lord, you should follow in Baptism by immersion, that is scriptural and has been part of the Christian tradition since John the Baptist (ie. before the Cruxifiction).

Now this may be cliche... but what would Jesus do? (I can't believe I just said that). Jesus was baptised in the Jordan, if it's good enough for Him, it's good enough for me.

That being said, you won't go to hell for not being baptised, but there are certain benefits spiritually to having the expierience to draw upon in times of doubt and frustration. It is a personal and public declaration of your commitment to Jesus Christ.

Jesus Christ said:

Mark 16:16 He that believeth *AND is baptized shall be saved; but he that believeth not shall be damned.

"AND" is a conjunction, he is joining believe and baptism-which he says that if one continues to believe and is bapzted they shall be saved.

John 3:3-5 Jesus answered and said unto him, Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except a man be born again, F7 he cannot see the kingdom of God. 4 Nicodemus saith unto him, How can a man be born when he is old? can he enter the second time into his mother's womb, and be born? 5 Jesus answered, Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except a man be born of WATER and of the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God.

Jesus makes it plain that one cannot be born again unless they are WATER AND Spirit baptized.

Regarding the thief on the cross, we must remember and acknowledge that Christ had not yet given the commandment for us to be batized until AFTER he rose from the dead, in which, the thief died before this. We must also remember that before Christ ascended into Heaven, he descended into the heart of the earth (hell)FIRST.

Quote:
"Read Acts chapter 10, I didn't know God was in the business of regenerating men through the indwelling Holy Spirit when they are not as you put it "born again". The Holy Spirit came upon the believers and they praised God before they were water baptized

Acts 10 is one of my favorite verses. I guess you didn't read verse 47 & 48:
Acts 10:47Can any man forbid water, that these should not be baptized, which have received the Holy Ghost as well as we? 48 And he COMMANDED them to be baptized in the name of the Lord.

The Bible did not say that they were regenerate upon receiving the Holy Ghost, that is simply just one part of being born-again.

Jesus Christ himself was water baptized BEFORE the Spirit descended upon him like a dove lightening upon him. One can either be water baptized first, then Spirit, or Spirit first, then water baptized.

Born-again is the very words of Jesus Christ- not " ..as I put it"

John 3:33 Jesus answered and said unto him, Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except a man be BORN AGAIN, he cannot see the kingdom of God. 4 Nicodemus saith unto him, How can a man be born when he is old? can he enter the second time into his mother's womb, and be born? 5 Jesus answered, Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except a man be born of water and of the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God. 6 That which is born of the flesh is flesh; and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit.

For the record being born again means being regenerated!

And I'm sorry, but whosever and whatever theologian said that water in this verse means when the water in a mother's womb breaks is unscriptual and not true.

Here is the greek word for "water" in the verse:
Hudor
water
of water in rivers, in fountains, in pools of the water of the deluge of water in any of the earth's repositories of water as the primary element, out of and through which the world that was before the deluge, arose and was compacted of the waves of the sea.

In other words, simply water, H20! Jesus is talking about being born-AGAIN, not simply being born. "AGAIN"-just like in REgenerate-which means to do " AGAIN"

Also, the Bible NEVER says that water baptism is only for outward show or appearance-why would you need to do it for that reason if you have already PUBLICLY CONFESSED Christ before men-the Bible says water baptism in the name of Jesus Christ is " FOR THE REMISSION OF SINS"!

Acts 2:38 Then Peter said unto them, Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ FOR THE REMISSION OF SINS, and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost.

The Bible says we have connection to his death BY BAPTISM:
Rom 6:3 Know ye not, that so many of us as were BAPTIZED into Jesus Christ were BAPTIZED into his death? 4 Therefore we are BURIED WITH HIM BY BAPTISM into death: that like as Christ was RAISED UP from the dead by the glory of the Father, even so we also should walk in newness of life. 5 For if we have been planted together in the likeness of his death, we shall be also in the likeness of his resurrection.

The words of Christ:
Mark 16:16 He that believeth AND is baptized SHALL BE SAVED; but he that believeth not shall be damned.

"And" is a cunjunction-you cannot have one without the other-just like in John 3:5 Except a man BE born of WATER AND of THE SPIRIT HE CANNOT ENTER INTO THE KINGDOM OF GOD.

blazedbyGod, It really does look like Jesus is talking about natural birth.To make it say water baptism disrupts the flow of the context. I think if you reread vs4-8 and keep in mind Jesus is answering nicodemas you will have a different view.
I tried to insert baptism into the sentence and it didnt fit. especially vs 6.
.....David

Jesus said: Except a MAN (not child, not infant, not baby) be born again.

Nicodemus said how can a man do that WHEN I AM OLD? can I enter the SECOND TIME into my mothers womb and be born?

Jesus responded: Except a MAN be born of WATER (doesn't mention a mother NO WHERE!!!) AND the Spirit; he cannot enter into the Kingdom of God.

Jesus said "Except"- there is not a person on earth, who before they were born their mother's water didn't break-everyone's mother's water breaks when she is about to give NATURAL birth-..but Jesus says "EXCEPT"...even Jesus, when he was born Mary's water broke, .....but 30 years later in Matt 3:13-17 you see John the Baptist WATER baptizing Jesus and the HEAVENS OPENING UP UNTO JESUS AND THE SPIRIT DESCENDS ON JESUS.

The Spirit descended on Jesus AFTER water baptism-not when he was born from his mothers womb!

Matt 3:13-17 13 Then cometh Jesus from Galilee to Jordan unto John, to be baptized of him. 14 But John forbad him, saying, I have need to be baptized of thee, and comest thou to me? 15 And Jesus answering said unto him, Suffer it to be so now: for thus it becometh US to fulfil ALL righteousness. Then he suffered him. 16 And Jesus, when he was baptized, went up straightway out of the WATER: and, lo, the HEAVENS WERE OPENED UNTO HIM, and he saw the Spirit of God descending like a dove, and lighting upon him: 17 And lo a voice from heaven, saying, This is my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased.

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."

The thief on the cross was baptized... with the baptism that saves!

I understand the fears because I harbored them myself, but the water-baptism-to-save system is sacramental and Roman.

We get water baptized as an obedience to testify to ourselves and the witnesses of our death with Christ, which presupposes that we have already died with Him.

Blazed, you're reading something that just isn't there. And there are exceptions even in scripture.

John the Baptist was annointed with the Spirit even within his mother's womb. In the context of the verse you are referencing the correct understanding of the verse is that 'be born of water' is a reference to natural birth... the focuse of the verse is on the Spirit, the Spirit is the imporant requisite to entrance into the Kingdom of Heaven.

How one recieves the Baptism of the Holy Spirit is greatly disputed, and throughout Christian history and across denominational lines there are many different answers... but instead of looking for a formula, look for the results.

1 Sam 16:13 Then Samuel took the horn of oil, and anointed him in the midst of his brethren: [b]and the Spirit of the LORD came upon David from that day forward[/b]. So Samuel rose up, and went to Ramah.

David recieved the Baptism of the Spirit without a water baptism. There are so many other examples which break down any formulas people put forward for Salvation. God's eyes are on the heart of the man.

Remember, Jesus was concerned with circumsized hearts, not a physical one. The same can be applied to a baptism... someone can be a follower of Jesus in their heart, and not be baptised, and they will not be denied a place in the Kingdom of God for the lack of any observance.

BlazedbyGod, carefully consider what is being compared here."that which is born of the flesh is flesh and that which is born of the spirit is spirit".....is being compared to......."Except a man be born of water and of the spirit......"
I dont know about you but I cant make that say water baptism.
Remember the subject mater is "birth"
So i cant imagine Jesus is NOT comparing the 2[natural and spiritual birth]
Make sense?
....David

BlazedbyGod, Do you believe Jesus baptism was differrent than our baptism?
thanks, David

psalm1 wrote:
BlazedbyGod, carefully consider what is being compared here."that which is born of the flesh is flesh and that which is born of the spirit is spirit".....is being compared to......."Except a man be born of water and of the spirit......"
I dont know about you but I cant make that say water baptism.
Remember the subject mater is "birth"
So i cant imagine Jesus is NOT comparing the 2[natural and spiritual birth]
Make sense?
....David

Hey David, Peace be upon you.

The subject matter is not birth-rather, it is, to be BORN-AGAIN.

If Jesus is referring to natural birth, then none of us are born-AGAIN-because as Nic said, we would have to enter into THE SECOND TIME our mother's womb?

This is the direct statement that Nic asks. THen he even speaks naturally, he says "..how can a MAN be born (natural birth) when HE IS OLD? can he enter the second time enter his mother's womb and be born? (This is verse 4)

If Jesus was speaking of NATURAL birth,then why does he make the statement. " Except a man be born AGAIN"

If Jesus was speaking of NATURAL birth, then we ALL must get back in our mothers womb for the second time and be born again-because Christ is talking about being born-AGAIN, not being born the first time.

Has anyone of you thought about why God actually ordained such a seemingly plain and simple ritual or sacrament as water baptism? Why did not repentance, faith and filling with the Spirit suffice for salvation?

Why was John the Baptist called the Baptist and not just the repentance preacher? Baptism finalized the initial act of repentance in a public declaration before God and man: I am dead to sin and alive to Christ! If you do not want to get baptized, you most likely haven't finished repenting or you do not quite belive in Jesus.

I believe it is an outward sign of an inner reality of a believer. It is a devine reality check. If you meet a Christian who struggles to obey the simple command of water baptism, he usually struggles to let go of his past life. He is not yet willing to die to self. He still loves his old life more than the Kingdom of God or he is not taught propperly.

Jesus is very black and white, he is either or , yes yes or no no.

We sometimes hear of Christians converts from Moslem of Jewish background that once they decided to get baptised in water, hell breaks loose against them.

Well, there may be dear brothers who are in denominations that do not practise water baptism.
But why then do they compromise on this command for the sake of keeping company with those who compromise scripture. Compromising scripture always come at a cost for your spiritual life.

I agreed with BlazedbyGod on John 3:5
Jesus answered, "I tell you the truth, no one can enter the kingdom of God unless he is born of water and the Spirit.

Take this verse in its plainest in simplest meaning.

Modern days evangelism promotes the sinners prayer as an entry into the kingdom of God. This is one of the reasons why our churches are full of unbelievers who think they are saved.

Jesus said in Matthew 23:15
"Woe to you, teachers of the law and Pharisees, you hypocrites! You travel over land and sea to win a single convert, and when he becomes one, you make him twice as much a son of hell as you are.

If this is true of modern day evangelism then our churches are full of people who are to become twice the sons of hell. A very sobering thought.

I do not see that scripture allows any ommittance of water baptism in the process of the conversion of a sinner.

Matthew 5:19
Anyone who breaks one of the least of these commandments and teaches others to do the same will be called least in the kingdom of heaven, but whoever practices and teaches these commands will be called great in the kingdom of heaven.

If this is said about the smallest commandment, what will happend to those who mess with the essentials of the great commission?

Philip

The conversation between Nic and Jesus is a very interesting one. You have to understand the Jewish mindset to understand why Nic talks the way that he does.

He answers Jesus "{sarcasm}How can a man be born when he is old?... Surely he cannot enter a second time into his mother's womb to be born!{/sarcasm}"

You want to know why we know that Nicodemus was being facetious, because the term 'born again.' was very common among the Jews at that time... for proselyte to Judaism. A gentile who wanted to become a Jew had to go through a series of rituals and cleansings in order to become a member of the Jewish community: this was refered to as being 'born again.'

Well here was a young radical rabbi (Jesus) telling one of the leaders of Israel, a highly educated Pharisee, a member of the Jewish Ruling Council, that he, the highest in the Jewish establishment had to humble himself and become a Jew all over again (of course we know that he wasn't suggesting this, but something more).

So of course we can understand Nic's answer, he's taken back, his answer could have been a playful sarcasm, or taking great insult at Jesus' words. But because the conversation continues we can tell that what was said struck a chord with him.

Jesus even says afterwards, "You are Israel's teacher... and do you not understand these things?" Because Jesus wasn't speaking about some new ideas, but about a very commonly known teaching (note: playful sarcasm).

But the focus of v.5-8 shows the most important difference between the teaching for Proselyte Jews and for the early Christian church... not that being born again is a set or rituals that gains you admittance into a club... but that you are actually made a new creation Spiritually by the Blood of Christ.

And here is the verse that puts a nail in the coffin of all of your formulas for salvation: John 3:8 "The wind blows wherever it pleases. You hear its sound, but you cannot tell where it comes from or where it is going. So it is with everyone born of the Spirit."

We cannot give any specific formula as to how someone recieves Spiritual birth in Christ, but we can know it by the evidence of it's presence. Just like with the fruit and the vine illustration, we can tell the presence of the Spirit by it's fruits, or in this verse, by the sound of the wind.

If someone is filled with the Spirit, it doesn't matter as much how it got there, but that it is there!

I was Baptised 3 times. Firstly as an infant in the Catholic Church. Sencondly as a teenager in my high school youth group, and third as a young man in my college ministry. I chose to be baptised to show my commitment to the Lord, that I was being identified with his death and resurrection. However, I wouldn't make my salvation dependent on any single observance as I have already stated. Just because someone is baptised does not mean they are saved, and just because someone isn't baptised doesn't mean they aren't.

Calvin's Commentary on John 3:5. [i]Unless a man be born of water[/i].

This passage has been explained in various ways. Some have thought that the two parts of regeneration are distinctly pointed out, and that by the word Water is denoted the renunciation of the old man, while by the Spirit they have understood the new life. Others think that there is an implied contrast, as if Christ intended to contrast Water and Spirit, which are pure and liquid elements, with the earthly and gross nature of man. Thus they view the language as allegorical, and suppose Christ to have taught that we ought to lay aside the heavy and ponderous mass of the flesh, and to become like water and air, that we may move upwards, or, at least, may not be so much weighed down to the earth. But both opinions appear to me to be at variance with the meaning of Christ.

Chrysostom, with whom the greater part of expounders agree, makes the word Water refer to baptism. The meaning would then be, that by baptism we enter into the kingdom of God, because in baptism we are regenerated by the Spirit of God. Hence arose the belief of the absolute necessity of baptism, in order to the hope of eternal life. But though we were to admit that Christ here speaks of baptism, [b]yet we ought not to press his words so closely as to imagine that he confines salvation to the outward sign[/b]; but, on the contrary, he connects the Water with the Spirit, because under that visible symbol he attests and seals that newness of life which God alone produces in us by his Spirit. It is true that, by neglecting baptism, we are excluded from salvation; and in this sense I acknowledge that it is necessary; [b]but it is absurd to speak of the hope of salvation as confined to the sign. So far as relates to this passage, I cannot bring myself to believe that Christ speaks of baptism; for it would have been inappropriate[/b].*

*bolded for emphasis.

blazedbyGod,technically you are right. I should have said bornagain
However it is still birth and birth is the subject matter.
Born=birth
....David

iansmith,my viewpoint on born again is different.
although i will give what you said much thought. I havent looked at that particular teaching about the Jewish practice=bornagain.. This is a new one on me.
To me I dont extract any of that from what i read of that chapter.
To me it is clear that Jesus is introducing a new concept.
Where did you get this info?
thanks,David

IanSmith, let me ask you 2 questions from a comment that David Pawson made about Jean Calvin's position on water baptism.
Jean Calvin came to the right conclusion that water baptism was neccessary. Why did he then not teach his followers to practise it? David Pawson believes it was because he founded a state church that had to welcome everyone of its subjects through infant baptism through, mostly sprinkling. State church and water baptism does not go together well. What is your position on this?

My second question is regarding born of water.
I agree with you that the mere act of being dunked in water does not save you if the other aspects of repentance, new life and faith in Christ are not present. If you say you cannot see that Jesus speaks of water baptism, what else do you think he refers to then?

Philip

Praise Jesus!!!

Mt 3:15 But Jesus answered and said to him, "Permit it to be so now, for thus it is fitting for us to fulfill all righteousness." Then he allowed Him.

If it was necessary for Jesus why would it not be so for us?

Granted baptism without the quickening (life) of the spirit is nothing. If we take an unrepentant, faithless dry devil and dunk him, all that we have done is make him a wet devil.

However in the very words of Jesus if we have been born of spirit, we should be baptized to fulfill all righteousness.

Ac 2:38 Then Peter said to them, "Repent, and let every one of you be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins; and you shall receive the gift of the Holy Spirit.

We see here Peter who has just brought 3000 to conviction (faith) telling them what to do. This includes baptism.

i agree that if you are hanging on a cross or killed on the way to your baptism you will still see Paradise if you have been convicted of who Jesus is.

However that is not most peoples story. So i am convinced that we should be as the eunuch and Philip. Baptized (immersed) straight away.

Hisservant rich

Matthew 4:17

hisremnant wrote:
Granted baptism without the quickening (life) of the spirit is nothing. If we take an unrepentant, faithless dry devil and dunk him, all that we have done is make him a wet devil.
Hisservant rich

Matthew 4:17

The Bible teaches that water baptism is for those how have repented upon believing. This is why Christ says:

Mark 16:16 He that BELIEVETH AND IS BAPTIZED shall be saved; he that believeth not shall be damned.
In scripture there is NO such thing as believing WITHOUT HAVING REPENTED!!!

Scripture have never taught that baptism was to be done on people who have not Repented.

Again, on the day of Pentecost, Peter brings this out: Act 2:38 Then Peter said unto them, Repent, AND BE BAPTIZED EVERYONE OF YOU...." (not some of you)

Notice Peter did not say believe or have faith in Jesus Christ first( he already preached to them, he told them they Crucified Him, and he preached him as both Lord & Christ, however, whent they asked him what should they do-He said REPENT, Peter did not say Receive the baptism of the Holy Ghost first, he said REPENT. Then he goes on to speak of water baptism BEFORE being Spirit baptized:

This is plain and simple, the words of Christ:

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

There is no way around that. And let me also say this, simply having the Spirit is NOT enough either. The word of God says:

1 John 5: 5 Who is he that overcometh the world, but he that believeth that Jesus is the Son of God? 6 This is he that came BY WATER AND BLOOD, even Jesus Christ; not by water only, but by water AND blood. And it is the Spirit that beareth witness, because the Spirit is truth. 7 For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one. 8 And there are three that bear witness IN THE EARTH, the Spirit, and the water, and the blood: AND THESE THREE AGREE IN ONE.

It is the Spirit, the water, and the blood that agree in ONE that make salvation. You cannot say, only Spirit baptism matters, you cannot say only water baptism matters, you cannot even say only the Blood of Jesus matters-you MUST have all three that AGREE IN ONE!! Who is that "ONE"-Jesus Christ!

View the baptism of Jesus Christ:
Matt 3:13 Then cometh Jesus from Galilee to Jordan unto John, to be baptized of him. 14 But John forbad him, saying, I have need to be baptized of thee, and comest thou to me? 15 And Jesus answering said unto him, Suffer it to be so now: for thus it becometh us to fulfil all righteousness. Then he suffered him. 16 And Jesus, WHEN HE WAS BAPTIZED, went up straightway OUT OF THE WATER: and, lo, THE HEAVENS WERE OPENED UNTO HIM, and he saw the Spirit of God descending like a dove, and lighting upon him: 17 And lo a voice from heaven, saying, This is my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased.

When did the "heavens" open up unto Jesus? The answer is AFTER he was WATER baptized, NOT SPIRIT BAPTIZED. He was water baptized FIRST-then the Heavens opened unto him and the Spirit descended upon him.

It is not Spirit baptism that opens up the heavens to us-that is plainly seen and clear in Matt 3:16.

I am having an issue with a Christ loving gentleman that believes you aren't saved until you are baptized in water.

This man understanding this point is very important for this man to be in one accord with the rest of our church.

MC, I wonder why this is so important to YOU, why you need him to change his views before you can enjoy fellowship with him. It looks like he hasn't asked you for insight, and doesn't want it. Maybe you need to let the Spirit do the work, and accept him where he is at right now. Your efforts to change him may merely build walls and create division.

Let's admit, many in our churches are trusting in something they did, be it baptism, or whatever. However, they may not even be aware of it at all - until the Spirit enlightens them.

Even if you manage to convince your friend, you still can't change his heart. Only God can. Why not leave him with God, and allow God to teach you through this man. Perhaps he can see some of your blind spots. Maybe down the road, after you've built a relationship of mutual trust, you can talk about baptism - when you are both free from the need to prove yourself right.

Diane

Blazed, the penticostals believe and are dogmatic about Jesus only baptism. Church of christ belives witout baptism you arent born again. I have discussed this with both groups.
.....and got nowhere.
Even if you preface the discussion with "I dont want this to divide us" they will still make it a "doctrinee of division"
That is how dogmatic these 2 groups are.
.....David

psalm1 wrote:
Blazed, the penticostals believe and are dogmatic about Jesus only baptism. Church of christ belives witout baptism you arent born again. I have discussed this with both groups.
.....and got nowhere.
Even if you preface the discussion with "I dont want this to divide us" they will still make it a "doctrinee of division"
That is how dogmatic these 2 groups are.
.....David

David, if you do not mind, I am going to send you a private message on here-where we can discuss this a little more in detail if you like.

I wouldn't mind having the discussion with you, and I believe that if we continue honestly and sincerely that the Lord will give us a direct answer from scripture. Is this ok with you?

hisremnant, To me,Jesus baptism was way different than ours.
Jesus was never born again
Jessus did not need to repent
Jesus had no sin to confess
As far as I can see Jesus baptism marked the end of something and the beginning of something.
Possibly the end of the levitical priesthood[John the baptist]
And the beginning of the Davidic [melchesidic] priesthood.
I believe Jesus baptism was a priesthood baptism.
John is representative of the old [done away with pristhood]
Jesus is the new high priest.
His baptism by John is fitting and that is why Jeesus said"permit it"
....David

blazed, I would rather do the forum thing.For 2 reasons 1] I type extremely slow 2] I am a business owner and mightt not answer right away.
But if you want i can do the PM thing.
....David

BlazedbyGod wrote:

psalm1 wrote:
Blazed, the penticostals believe and are dogmatic about Jesus only baptism.
.....David

Regarding that, for now, I will just say:

Col 3:17 And whatsoever ye do in WORD OR DEED, do ALL IN THE NAME OF THE LORD JESUS, giving thanks to God and the Father BY HIM.

Word: refers to preaching, talking, praying or prophesying, exhorting

Deed:refers to praying, preaching, baptizing, laying on of hands, witnessing, loving,rebuking,

ALL: this is plain, simply saying whatever you, do ALL in the name of the Lord Jesus

The last part of the verse is very strong- "... giving thanks to God AND the Father BY HIM (Jesus, or the name of Jesus)

Phil 2:9 Wherefore God also hath highly exalted him, and given him a name which is above EVERY NAME: 10 That at the name of Jesus every knee should bow, OF THINGS IN HEAVEN, and things in earth, and things under the earth; 11 And that every tongue should confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father

There is no name in existance that the name of Jesus Christ our Lord is not greater than-neither will there ever be according to:

Eph 1: 20 Which he wrought in Christ, when he raised him from the dead, and set him at his own right hand in the heavenly places, 21 Far above all principality, and power, and might, and dominion, AND EVERY NAME THAT IS NAMED, NOT ONLY IN THIS WORLD, BUT ALSO IN THAT WHICH IS TO COME:

I am not being dogmatic, but whenever you lift up the NAME of JESUS CHRIST, you are doing exactly what Christ said to do: " That If I BE LIFTED UP, even as Moses lifted up the serpent in the wilderness, will draw ALL MEN UNTO ME"

To preach the name, to lift up the name-is to promote the Man himself. And of course, we all know, one of my personal favorites:

Acts 4:12 Neither is there salvation in any other: FOR THERE IS NONE OTHER NAME under heaven given among men, WHEREBY WE MUST BE SAVED.

Notice it starts out talking about him, the person, the man "..in any other", but ends by saying we MUST be saved BY THE NAME.

psalm1 wrote:
hisremnant, To me,Jesus baptism was way different than ours.
Jesus was never born again
Jessus did not need to repent
Jesus had no sin to confess
As far as I can see Jesus baptism marked the end of something and the beginning of something.
Possibly the end of the levitical priesthood[John the baptist]
And the beginning of the Davidic [melchesidic] priesthood.
I believe Jesus baptism was a priesthood baptism.
John is representative of the old [done away with pristhood]
Jesus is the new high priest.
His baptism by John is fitting and that is why Jeesus said"permit it"
....David

There is only one thing about that: At Jesus's baptism he says this:

Matt 3:13 Then cometh Jesus from Galilee to Jordan unto John, to be baptized of him. 14 But John forbad him, saying, I have need to be baptized of thee, and comest thou to me? 15 And Jesus answering said unto him, Suffer it to be so now: for thus it becometh US (not just me) TO FULFIL ALL RIGHTEOUSNESS. Then he suffered him. 16 And Jesus, when he was baptized, went up straightway out of the water: and, lo, the heavens were opened unto him, and he saw the Spirit of God descending like a dove, and lighting upon him: 17 And lo a voice from heaven, saying, This is my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased.

Jesus once said: John 5:30 I CAN OF MY OWN SELF DO NOTHING: AS I HEAR, I judge: and my judgment is just; because I SEEK NOT MINE OWN WILL, but the will of the Father which hath sent me

And John 14:24 He that loveth me not keepeth not my sayings: and the word which ye hear IS NOT MINE, BUT THE FATHER'S WHICH SENT ME.

In other words, it was the Father that told Jesus to be baptized by John-this is why he says " SUFFER IT TO BE SO NOW ( DO IT RIGHT NOW)-because Jesus always obeyed the Father-thus, if Christ
would not have been water baptized, he would have been DISOBEYING the Father, and so would have
John-and that would have been sin!

Aside from that, CHrist said:
John 14:21 He that hath my commandments, AND KEEPETH THEM, he it is that loveth me: and he that loveth me shall be loved of my Father, and I will love him, and will manifest myself to him.

Well Christ Commanded his disciples to baptize-but it was not his commandment, it was the Father's Commandment-because Christ only said and did as he heard from the Father.

Matt 28:20 20 Teaching them to observe ALL THINGS whatsoever I have commanded you:

Sidebar:
I would also like to say, that we, the Church are a priesthood too-so to say that Jesus baptism was unto priesthood, would still only mean and prove that so are we-the Church supposed to get baptized in order to be in full obedience to the Father.
1 Peter 2:9 But ye are a chosen generation, A ROYAL PRIESTHOOD, an holy nation, a peculiar people; that ye should shew forth the praises of him who hath called you out of darkness into his marvellous light:

Do not the priesthood follow the priest? Do not the sheep follow the Sheperd?

Praise Jesus!!!

Dear Blazedby God: you take exception to my statement but i am only saying the same thing you are. Without faith then repentance there is no salvation. These things precede baptism. Without faith-repentance, baptism is a meaningless ritual. This is the thought i was conveying.

Jesus as we know was without sin. HE was baptized to fulfill all righteousness. i believe this means HIS Father called upon HIM to do so, thus giving the weight of HIS testimony that we should as disciples do the same.

Hisservant rich

Matthew 4:17

blazed,matt28;19........baptising them in the name of the Father,the Son and the Holy Spirit. These are the words of Jesus. Why would you omit this?
Its like you are getting at something but I dont know what it is.
Do you think I am against invoking the name of Jesus?
I do think we do agree 99%
..............David

Matt 28:19. I do not omit this, I wouldn't omit an scripture in the Holy Word of God.

Matt 28:19 Go ye therefore, teach all nations baptising them in THE NAME (singular) of THE Father, AND of the Son, AND of the Holy Ghost"

"The NAME" is singular, yet he names 3, but we know the three ARE 1 (not three IN 1)

So let me ask, what is the NAME of the Son?
(Truthfully speaking, Christ is saying that there is one name for ALL three-because the three are one!

He says: "...THE NAME of the Father AND OF the Son..."
In pure/true english, he is saying, the name of Father AND OF the Son-is the same.

I ask you, what is THE NAME of the Son? Whatever the name of the Son is, is the same name OF the Father...also noting that God hath revealed himself to us THROUGH HIS SON.

1 john 5:7For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and THESE THREE ARE ONE.

God made man in HIS image, body, spirit & soul-yet I am only one man, with one name-I am not 3 men with 3 different names.

What I was getting at, was yes, Scripturally for the New Testament, saints are to baptized in the name of Jesus Christ.

In other words, Jesus gives the command in Matt 28:19, the first time they obeyed this command or preached it, was on the day of Pentecost in Acts 2:38

Peter was standing there beside Jesus when Christ says : "....baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost".

Yet on the Day of Pentecost, Peter is fresh in the Spirit, just received the baptism of the Holy Ghost and when the men asked him what to do: He says
".....and be baptized everyone of you in THE NAME of JESUS CHRIST for the remission of sins,..."

Peter did not disobey the Lord, he obeyed him-and the Spirit even lead him to say that-because Christ said the Comforter, which is the Spirit of TRUTH will lead you into ALL Truth and bring to your remembreance WHATSOEVER THINGS I HAVE SAID UNTO YOU.

Do you think the Holy Ghost got it wrong when speaking through Peter on the day of Pentecost? Even though Peter stood right there beside Jesus during Matt 28:19

Simply put, "THE NAME" of the Father, AND OF the Son, AND OF the Holy Ghost is JESUS

Thank you so much to everybody that responded with their thoughts. I have found 2 or 3 scriptures that I think make a strong point.

Romans 4:14 goes along with something I had already told this man. They are not jews that are one outwardly in the circumcision of the flesh, but he is a jew that is one inwardly, in the circumcision of the heart. Romans 4:14 greatly testifies together with this scripture about the real "baptism" of the heart and where a man is born again. Thanks theopenlife.

Dorcas, in the first link you gave me I found 1 Cor. 1:17. This scripture is very helpful also thank you.

Whether this man agrees with me or not, we have a great love for each other. And we both have a love for God.

I am a pentecostal, and he has church of christ roots. I am glad at these roots of his because he has an unbelievable emphasis on scripture importance. Not that i don't, but this man is a workman that needeth not to be ashamed.

I want to point out one thing that I think is very important to my heart. ROADSIGN, with all love, diane, and with all mercy and humility. Your post greatly angered me. I rarely post my opinions on this sight because it seems as though the most important thing some people can do is come and criticize me and put me down. How do you know anything of this situation and how I am "led by the spirit."

Just a little background. We are starting a church in a small town where I live. We started with a crusade and now we hold a bible study in our home each week and have for about 2 months. This beloved gentleman attended the crusade and then our bible studies. He came to me and wanted to discuss some of our differences because he has a strong belief that the church should be of one mind and one accord.

ROADSIGN, you are accusing me of things you know nothing about. And i must say, this happens almost everytime I post an opinion, somebody feels its important to come and "humble" me by rebuking me when they know nothing about the truth and spirit of this situation. Now i am very sorry to speak this openly and not in a personal message. I am sorry to single you out. You are definitely not the only person that does this. But it is so frequent it keeps me off the posts. I try to speak my heart to edify and help others. And in doing so I am often falsely accused and "stoned" for my efforts.

MC, I wonder why this is so important to YOU, why you need him to change his views before you can enjoy fellowship with him. It looks like he hasn't asked you for insight, and doesn't want it. Maybe you need to let the Spirit do the work, and accept him where he is at right now. Your efforts to change him may merely build walls and create division.

Diane, I love fellowship with this man. He came to me. He wants to discuss these differences. I am letting the Spirit do the work. He asked me to study this topic and seek truth together with him. I am not trying to change him but edify him in a point that the Holy Spirit convicts me that I am correct about. And if the Holy Spirit convicts me of it. I know the answer is also in the written Spirit. So I made this post to tap into the wisdom and counsel of many. I am openly rebuking you because I want to see criticisms of THIS nature stop. You are looking for the bad in my post and not the good. I hope anybody that reads this will listen and understand the fault in this type of manner as well. With all love ROADSIGN, I don't consider myself to be unoffesive in the wrong ways as well. Because I KNOW I AM. Just listen to my gentle rebuke please. If I am out of line in doing this openly, please forgive me.

Here's something that may be of help, it was written by Wachman Nee...

[url=http://www.whitestoneonline.org/Distinctives/distinctives_study1.htm]Baptism - by Watchman Nee[/url]

In Christ,

Ron