If your interpretation of certain scriptures leads you conclude something that does not follow common sense then you should rethink your interpretation. You still haven't answered the theological problem I raised. With all due respect, I had expected more.

The scriptures you list do not present a theological problem for my position at all.

Acts 2:38 can be dealt with in a couple of ways depending how one ultimately decides to interpret the word "eis" in the phrase "for (eis) the remission of sins." If the word is seen as non-purposive then it could easily be understood that baptism is to be performed "with a view toward" the remission of sins which takes place in repentance. If the word is seen as purposive, then one can realize baptism was the outward expression of "repentance for the remission of sins" (Luke 3:3; Mark 1:4). Thus, one was to repent and let his baptism (of repentance for the remission of sins - Lk3:3; Mk1:4) be in the name of Jesus Christ to declare that the repentant heart had trusted in Jesus Christ for deliverance from sin.

Bottom line, there are other plausible interpretations of this passage which should be considered.

Mark 16:16 presents no problem again for several possible reasons:

1) A person could simply take the position that the end of chapter 16 was not in the original manuscripts as is contended by many. I personally do not lean toward this view but it is certainly one.

2) One could realize that Christ does not say the one who is not baptized will be damned. If this was his intented meaning then there were certainly other ways he could have clearly made this point, but he does not.

3) Just because baptism is mentioned with believing in Christ's statement does not automatically mean baptism is necessary for salvation. You cannot make this assumption. Consider the following like statement: "He that goes through the proper process of legal marriage and wears a wedding ring shall be married, but he that does not go through the proper process of legal marriage shall be considered unwed." It would be wrong to suggest that in order to be wed one MUST wear a wedding ring. While it stands as an outward expression and token of love, the wearing of the wedding ring has no bearing on the marriage status of our hypothetical person.

Similarly, while the believer who is baptized shall be saved, it would be mistaken to jump to the conclusion that the believer who is not baptized would be damned. Christ did not say this at all. He says the one who does not believe is damned..... period. With a proper cultural understanding of baptism as the outward expression of repentance and faith it can be rightfully concluded that the act has nothing to do with salvation before God. While it does stand as a visual token of salvation to the church, it has no bearing on effecting salvation of the soul.

Bottom line, there are other plausible interpretations of this passage which should be considered.

Matthew 28:18-19 teaches only that baptism is part of the discipling process. But this does not mean baptism remits sin or is part of the new birth. That would be an incorrect assumption from this passage.

Bottom line, there is another plausible interpretation of this passage which should be considered.

John 3:5 has a variety of interpretations as well. The issue usually surrounds the meaning of the phrase "born of water." It has been defined as amniotic fluid, seminal fluid, physical water, water baptism, and even more.

As I've written in another thread on this forum:

I understand the underlying Greek structure of John 3:5 speaks of a single birth and not two. This single birth is one "of the Spirit." I believe the word "water" in the phrase "born of water" is a spiritual metaphor. By using this metaphor Christ places emphasis on the single new birth "of the Spirit." The author uses this same water/spirit metaphor in chapters 4 (v10-16) and 7 (v37-39). It makes sense we recognize the metaphorical use here.

If we also recognize the word "KAI" has more than one meaning, such as is shown in 1Corinthians 15:24 which states, "Then cometh the end, when he shall have delivered up the kingdom to God, KAI (even) the Father," we can see that John 3:5 is not offering two separate and distinct elements of a single birth but simply an emphasis on the single birth.

John 3:5 can be understood this way, "Jesus answered, Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except a man be born of water KAI (even) of the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God."

"Born of water even of the Spirit" brings to mind a later usage of this same metaphor in John 7:37-39 where it is, in fact, parenthetically explained that the metaphor "water" is a reference to the Spirit (vs39 But this spake he of the Spirit...).

That the remainder John chapter 3 jumps directly to further discussion on being born of the Spirit gives added strength to the metaphorical position.

Bottom line, there are other plausible interpretations of this passage which should be considered.

Could you please directly answer my concerns listed in my previous post?

I fear you are teaching a form of Christianity without the cross.

I believe you are mistaken to think the believer must first confess and repent in order to get a sin "washed away" after salvation. The believer has imputed righteousness. The believer rests in the righteousness of Christ. When you begin to trust in your own righteous works for your status before God you transfer your faith from Christ to yourself. Dangerous move.

I believe a good study on imputed righteousness will do you well.

Btw, glancing at your last post to Dan I had to notice you tried to connect the "washing of regeneration" to baptism. When Titus 3:5 speaks of the "washing of regeneration" and the "renewing of the Holy Ghost" it refers to regeneration as the washing. Regeneration washes and the Holy Ghost renews. I do not see a reference to water baptism here at all.

God bless

Nice to talk with you Adino. I'm afraid I am going to bow out... too many pots on the burner elsewhere for me to effectively keep the conversation going.

God bless!

I've enjoyed our discussion. Thank you for your time. God bless, friend. :wave

Here's an interesting article on Jewish baptisms "Mikveh".

http://www.innernet.org.il/article.php?aid=363

This post is bumpalicious, indeed! Sound thoughts here...great work, bro! I knew you would kung-fu them nicely... :killinme

Good article, mizpeh.

Excerpted from the article:
Since you hold that proper baptism is necessary for salvation and Jewish baptisms were recognized only if performed in proper ritual mikvahs or running natural waters are you willing to remain consistent and recognize that all baptisms performed outside of these necessary standards are invalid, thus ineffective for salvation?

Oh consistency, thou art a jewel! (G.T. Haywood)

bump

Adino,

I'm will be coming back to this thread but in answer to this post. NT water baptism is done where there is water "Look here is water, what doth hinder me to be baptized" Enough water to be immersed. I was baptized in a bathtub and came out feeling clean on the inside.

The Mikvah is an interesting ritual but not scriptural. I've never read about it in the Bible. So it must be a tradition of man and not a law of God. Therefore all the requirements of the Mikvah aren't necessary.

Sorry, mizpeh, I must have misunderstood your previous post. You were making points concerning water baptism and then posted an article on the Jewish mikvahs which most scholars will agree were most likely used to baptize those on the day of Pentecost. I thought you were using the article to support your views on water baptism.

I agree that the requirements of Mikvah are not necessary for salvation, in fact, I would take it further and say NONE of the requirements of the Mikvah are required.... because baptism itself is not required.

Remember that baptisms in the NT were baptisms unto repentance for the remission of sins. It can be strongly argued that Peter's baptism in Acts 2:38 was the same, it was a baptism of "repentance for the remission of sins." The ritual of baptism outwardly declared a remission of sins which came in repentance.

As I said before concerning Acts 2:38
Sorry for the misunderstanding

Since the core passages used to determine the water/spirit position on the new birth each have very plausible, if not more probable, alternative interpretations.....

Since it is historically supported that the water/spirit position was developed by those in early 20th century American Oneness Pentecostalism who readily admitted they were teaching something newly revealed from heaven......

Since there is absolutely no historical evidence that the position existed prior to these men......

..... how can we, in all good conscience and integrity of heart, hold to the doctrine?

The WS doctrine is poor understanding and harmonizing of scripture. I'm befuddled when theologians and saints of God see as much as a puddle in Scripture and they believe it must mean water baptism.

I am also troubled with a prevailing movement that believes that a series of works activate the grace of God and the inward work of His Spirit

Dan, I haven't forgotten about this thread but I wanted to finish my inductive study of Romans before coming back to this thread. I'm not close to finishing. I'm stuck on chap 6.

1)The one doing the work of remitting sin in water baptism is the Holy Spirit. It is not a work of righteousness which we have done. That is made clear in Titus.

2) If our sins were cleansed at faith and repentance so we could receive the Holy Spirit, what happens when we sin after we are saved? Does the Spirit leave and then come back again after we confess our sin and repent? And how does this Spirit infilling upon faith and repentance harmonize with the Spirit baptisms experienced in Acts 8 and Acts 19? Do you believe in a second work of grace?

Re: Sinful union?
 

Diggity! Have you not read anything I've posted to this point? How can these two questions be asked when they have been so clearly answered? I directly addressed Titus and the believer who stumbles into sin. Hmmm.....

Re: Sinful union?
 

I never finished reading this thread. I can't even remember where I left off. Forgive me. I'll give this thread a fresh look. I'm working a couple of night shifts and hope to have some time to respond to your thoughts.

As for a believer sinning after receiving the Holy Spirit, I read what you wrote and disagreed with it in my mind. You cannot have it one way and not the other. Why would a holy God fill someone with His Spirit before their sins are remitted in water baptism even though they have repented and yet the same holy God will remain in a vessel who stumbles into sin? Sin is sin and God is always holy. :)

Re: Sinful union?
 

I was looking at this old thread and thought I'd give it a bump.

"Why would a holy God fill someone with His Spirit before their sins are remitted in water baptism even though they have repented and yet the same holy God will remain in a vessel who stumbles into sin?"

Because the "believing" vessel who stumbles into sin has already accepted that the sin he stumbled into was forgiven on the cross. Because the believer realizes his right standing before God is not based on what he does or does not do, but on what Christ already DID. Until we fully realize that we CANNOT fall out of his hands through an act of stupidity, we will never have entered into His rest. As long as we rely on our faithful conduct to perpetuate our right standing before God we simply do not fully rely on Christ.

The believer finds himself forgiven and alive in Christ. It's who he is... he is the forgiven, he is the just, he is the temple of the living God. The unbeliever who has not yet accepted the forgiveness of the cross has not passed from death unto life because he is not yet considered right standing in God's eyes until he believes the record God gave of his Son (1John 5:11). The unbeliever remains in his sins, unjust, and spiritually dead because his soul has not been quickened to life..... because he has not believed.

The heart which passes into belief is the heart which passes into life. We are quickened by His life having been forgiven by His act of Grace on the Cross. We as enemies, were reconciled/forgiven by His act of Grace and being reconciled (being forgiven) we are saved by his Spirit of life (Romans 5:10).

I have written the following phrase and posted the following verses for many years now without a single response. He that believeth is passed from death unto life (John 3:15-16, 36; 5:24; 6:40,47; 11:25,26). The man who has faith in the forgiveness of the Cross is spiritually alive. Can you not see?

Lord, open the heart of Mizpeh to understand this simple truth. Let her truly find rest in your finished work.

Re: Sinful union?
 

To make this simple.We are spirit soul and flesh,our spirit come from God.When we die and are saved our spirit soul goes to God and waites the resurrection,if we are not saved our spirit soul goes to an other place to wait.Bodies of both are in the grave.At the resurrection our spirits of both are judged.If saved we are given a new body,if not saved,the spirit is put in the lake of fire that is the second death for the unsaved.Their spirit dies in the lake of fire.

Re: Sinful union?
 

A spirit separated from God is a dead spirit. This thread deals with the reuniting of the spirit of man with the Spirit of God prior to physical death.

Joelel, when do you believe man's spiritually dead soul is quickened to spiritual life? When is the dead spirit of man born into new life by the Spirit of God?

Re: Sinful union?
 

In reading through these posts I have to ask where is the scriptural proof that King David had the Holy Ghost?

Re: Sinful union?
 

When your born again of water and Spirit.

Eph.2
[1] And you hath he quickened, who were dead in trespasses and sins;
[5] Even when we were dead in sins, hath quickened us together with Christ, (by grace ye are saved;)

Col.2
[13] And you, being dead in your sins and the uncircumcision of your flesh, hath he quickened together with him, having forgiven you all trespasses;

1Pet.3
[18] For Christ also hath once suffered for sins, the just for the unjust, that he might bring us to God, being put to death in the flesh, but quickened by the Spirit:

Re: Sinful union?
 

Joelel,

So the man born of the Spirit but not yet born of the water is still spiritually dead although he possesses the Spirit of Life?

The spirit of man remains dead even though it possesses Life?

Explain how this can happen theologically ....

I see this as a theological inconsistency in your position.

Re: Sinful union?
 

Life is in obeying the word as knowledge of truth is given.

1 Tim.004:016Take heed unto thyself, and unto the doctrine; (teachings,word,Truth) continue in them: for in doing this thou shalt both save thyself, and them that hear thee.

Acts 5:32: And we are his witnesses of these things; and so is also the Holy Ghost, whom God hath given to them that obey him

The blood is in obeying the word.

Re: Sinful union?
 

Joelel, you're missing the point. We are examining whether your version of the Truth is theologically consistent. Any doctrine we hold cannot be theologically contradictive.

Does your position suggest that it is possible a man can possess the Spirit of Life and yet still be spiritually dead?

Re: Sinful union?
 

What is consistent is, it don't make any differance what you do first,get born of the water first or the Spirit first as long as you obey and do it.Yes if you get born of the Spirit and then refuse to get born of the water you will be spiritually dead.The same as if you don't obey all truth as it comes to you you will spiritually die.

Re: Sinful union?
 

After a person believes and repents and is born of water and Spirit, they must also eat the word of truth (Jesus) to have life.You must continue in his word or you will die Spiritually.

John 6:47. Verily, verily, I say unto you, He that believeth on me hath everlasting life.
48. I am that bread of life.
49. Your fathers did eat manna in the wilderness, and are dead.
50. This is the bread which cometh down from heaven, that a man may eat thereof, and not die.
51. I am the living bread which came down from heaven: if any man eat of this bread, he shall live for ever: and the bread that I will give is my flesh, which I will give for the life of the world.
52. The Jews therefore strove among themselves, saying, How can this man give us his flesh to eat?
53. Then Jesus said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Except ye eat the flesh (Word) of the Son of man, and drink his blood,(Drink his Spirit) ye have no life in you.
54. Whoso eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, hath eternal life; and I will raise him up at the last day.
55. For my flesh is meat indeed, and my blood is drink indeed.
56. He that eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, dwelleth in me, and I in him.
57. As the living Father hath sent me, and I live by the Father: so he that eateth me, even he shall live by me.

Re: Sinful union?
 

This is like trying to nail jello to a wall.

Joelel, is the man who is born of the Spirit before baptism spiritually dead until he gets baptized?

This is a yes or no question.

Re: Sinful union?
 

Re: Sinful union?
 

Until you come to terms with the contradictions I have no use for your interpretation of baptismal passages. Do you not know the answer to my question? Don't you see that any critical thinking person who sees this theological impossibility in your doctrine would want an answer to the inconsistency? I'm giving you the opportunity to clear up an apparent contradiction.

Joelel, is the man who is born of the Spirit before baptism spiritually dead until he gets baptized? Yes or No? :winkgrin

Re: Sinful union?
 

I've had that question for years........Let the dancing begin.

Re: Sinful union?
 

I answered you in post 69,You know what is so hard about getting baptized in water right after you get the Holy Ghost ? Water baptism is a part of salvation.I wouldn't say he was spiritually dead but he will die spiritually if he refuses to get baptized.He will not have life.

Re: Sinful union?
 

:rockband

Re: Sinful union?
 

Joelel said:Do you believe the cause of spiritual separation from God had to be removed in order for such a man to become spiritually alive, i.e., united with the Spirit of Life?

If the cause of separation did not need be removed for man's spirit to be reunited with God.... pray tell, what need of the Cross?

Christianity without the Cross? Where have I heard that before?

On the other hand, if the cause of separation needs be removed for man's soul to be reunited with the life giving God.... does this not prove baptismal sin remission is nonsense?

Re: Sinful union?
 

This is the only way of Salvation.On the day of pentecost the church was started.

I'm sure they had all been baptized,even Jesus was baptized.They were filled with the Holy Ghost and I'm sure they repented.Act 2:14-36 Peter preached the cross.Then 37 they ask what shall they do,Peter told them in 38-41.


1: And when the day of Pentecost was fully come, they were all with one accord in one place.
2: And suddenly there came a sound from heaven as of a rushing mighty wind, and it filled all the house where they were sitting.
3: And there appeared unto them cloven tongues like as of fire, and it sat upon each of them.
4: And they were all filled with the Holy Ghost, and began to speak with other tongues, as the Spirit gave them utterance.
5: And there were dwelling at Jerusalem Jews, devout men, out of every nation under heaven.
6: Now when this was noised abroad, the multitude came together, and were confounded, because that every man heard them speak in his own language.
7: And they were all amazed and marvelled, saying one to another, Behold, are not all these which speak Galilaeans?
8: And how hear we every man in our own tongue, wherein we were born?
9: Parthians, and Medes, and Elamites, and the dwellers in Mesopotamia, and in Judaea, and Cappadocia, in Pontus, and Asia,
10: Phrygia, and Pamphylia, in Egypt, and in the parts of Libya about Cyrene, and strangers of Rome, Jews and proselytes,
11: Cretes and Arabians, we do hear them speak in our tongues the wonderful works of God.
12: And they were all amazed, and were in doubt, saying one to another, What meaneth this?
13: Others mocking said, These men are full of new wine.

Here peter preached the cross first.

14: But Peter, standing up with the eleven, lifted up his voice, and said unto them, Ye men of Judaea, and all ye that dwell at Jerusalem, be this known unto you, and hearken to my words:
15: For these are not drunken, as ye suppose, seeing it is but the third hour of the day.
16: But this is that which was spoken by the prophet Joel;
17: And it shall come to pass in the last days, saith God, I will pour out of my Spirit upon all flesh: and your sons and your daughters shall prophesy, and your young men shall see visions, and your old men shall dream dreams:
18: And on my servants and on my handmaidens I will pour out in those days of my Spirit; and they shall prophesy:
19: And I will shew wonders in heaven above, and signs in the earth beneath; blood, and fire, and vapour of smoke:
20: The sun shall be turned into darkness, and the moon into blood, before that great and notable day of the Lord come:
21: And it shall come to pass, that whosoever shall call on the name of the Lord shall be saved.
22: Ye men of Israel, hear these words; Jesus of Nazareth, a man approved of God among you by miracles and wonders and signs, which God did by him in the midst of you, as ye yourselves also know:
23: Him, being delivered by the determinate counsel and foreknowledge of God, ye have taken, and by wicked hands have crucified and slain:
24: Whom God hath raised up, having loosed the pains of death: because it was not possible that he should be holden of it.
25: For David speaketh concerning him, I foresaw the Lord always before my face, for he is on my right hand, that I should not be moved:
26: Therefore did my heart rejoice, and my tongue was glad; moreover also my flesh shall rest in hope:
27: Because thou wilt not leave my soul in hell, neither wilt thou suffer thine Holy One to see corruption.
28: Thou hast made known to me the ways of life; thou shalt make me full of joy with thy countenance.
29: Men and brethren, let me freely speak unto you of the patriarch David, that he is both dead and buried, and his sepulchre is with us unto this day.
30: Therefore being a prophet, and knowing that God had sworn with an oath to him, that of the fruit of his loins, according to the flesh, he would raise up Christ to sit on his throne;
31: He seeing this before spake of the resurrection of Christ, that his soul was not left in hell, neither his flesh did see corruption.
32: This Jesus hath God raised up, whereof we all are witnesses.
33: Therefore being by the right hand of God exalted, and having received of the Father the promise of the Holy Ghost, he hath shed forth this, which ye now see and hear.
34: For David is not ascended into the heavens: but he saith himself, The LORD said unto my Lord, Sit thou on my right hand,
35: Until I make thy foes thy footstool.
36: Therefore let all the house of Israel know assuredly, that God hath made that same Jesus, whom ye have crucified, both Lord and Christ.




37: Now when they heard this, they were pricked in their heart, and said unto Peter and to the rest of the apostles, Men and brethren, what shall we do?
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.
39: 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.
40: And with many other words did he testify and exhort, saying, Save yourselves from this untoward generation.
41: Then they that gladly received his word were baptized: and the same day there were added unto them about three thousand souls.
42: And they continued stedfastly in the apostles' doctrine and fellowship, and in breaking of bread, and in prayers.
43: And fear came upon every soul: and many wonders and signs were done by the apostles.
44: And all that believed were together, and had all things common;
45: And sold their possessions and goods, and parted them to all men, as every man had need.
46: And they, continuing daily with one accord in the temple, and breaking bread from house to house, did eat their meat with gladness and singleness of heart,
47: Praising God, and having favour with all the people. And the Lord added to the church daily such as should be saved

Re: Sinful union?
 

Joelel, I taught the water/spirit position for over 25 years..... I know it. Can you answer my last questions for us? Thanks.

Do you believe the cause of spiritual separation from God had to be removed in order for such a man to become spiritually alive, i.e., united with the Spirit of Life?

Again a yes or no will suffice.

Re: Sinful union?
 

Re: Sinful union?
 

In answer to the question: Do you believe the cause of spiritual separation from God had to be removed in order for such a man to become spiritually alive, i.e., united with the Spirit of Life?

Joelel replied in part:
Joelel, if sin must be remitted in order for a man to be spiritually alive and, as you admitted before, a man is spiritually alive prior to baptism, doesn't it logically follow that a man's sins are remitted prior to baptism?

Do you not see your theological dilemma?

Oh, consistency, thou art a jewel!

Re: Sinful union?
 

Re: Sinful union?
 

I'm back to nailing jello to a wall. Thank you, Joelel, for showcasing the incoherence of your position. I'll let you have the last word.